BuzzerBeater Forums

The term 'misposition' would be pointing towards one dimensional players not being played to their strength. With more rounded players (Some top teams have them, players who are multiskilled enough to play multiple positions), you see beyond the tactics listed on the page. I could use the same tactic but alter my lineup to achieve a different effect, based on my perception of an opponent's possible lineup. For me, the main strength of the position swap and retaining the proper players on defence would be the exploitation of individual weaknesses inherent in almost all teams.

hmm... I think thats true to an extent... that's why I bought big men although not amazing with RB but have nice secondaries in PS & JS.... and if I really want... I could play him as a PG also.. the Luca Guida dude I got recently...

but from my understanding la... just from my 1 season... so pls do correct me if tak betul...

Having well rounded overall players can be quite exp and also quite ma fan to train... unless u're super lucky with the starting skill set...

But this mispositioning works this way... and is a lot cheaper and faster to do.

you set PG as C on your preference in the tactics:

Run & Gun with:

Your PG as CENTER with HIGH HD + JS + JR
Their CENTER with POOR OD

This results in more tendency for Their Center to foul plus play outside defence that is not as good.

Then u set your PG to play defence as a PG... so on offence he's a C but on def he's a PG.... so his strong OD will still be of use vs other OUTSIDE OFFENCE players...

Where as if u compare this:

Run & Gun with:

Your CENTER who can play PG with DECENT HD + JS + JR (and so overall other primary INSIDE skills are also jus DECENT, otherwise the salary will kill you or is prob too high for your division)

Their CENTER with POOR OD

Your CENTER might score on their CENTER... but the opposite is also true when their CENTERis on offence because his INSIDE skills will prob be stronger...

edit: dunno if I am making sense... haha



Last edited by Simply Vince at 7/14/2010 9:51:57 AM

I find that the PG and C position are the most rigid, I get better results interchanging SG, SF and PF.

Personally, I wouldn't play a C at PG or vice versa. PGs tend to make more outside shots regardless of whatever tactic you use, the increase of inside shots you get on a PG with a Look Inside is not that substantial. Your PG will not suddenly be driving to the basket every time he gets the ball. And being a natural C, he will not be very good in taking shots under pressure by the opposing PG. Not to mention the Offensive Flow drop unless you have a C with insanely high HD and PS. It could work in extreme cases, but I find better statistics in the other 3 positions maybe because they aren't defined as rigidly as Inside/Outside positions.

But the best way for me to get the message across would be to try it out in your PLs, you might end up surprising yourself. There is more information on this on a private board somewhere I think, but that's closely guarded knowledge. ;)

cool cool...

will do some tests =P

ehhe... and see how things turn up...

I think u guys are not getting the correct picture.

The match of Shqipëria vs. Bulgaria although from the match rating looked like quite even, but if you went on to check the roster, Bulgaria is clearly dominant team. The match was interesting not because Bulgaria won but more because the match rating showed that Bulgaria was weaker when in actual fact it was otherwise.
That is why they could afford to try out fancy tactics and not be penalised for it. Plus, I am sure Bulgaria let the coach decide and the players were constantly shuffled around by the coach, but the match rating was most likely calculated based on the assigned positions, hence the lower match rating.
What needs to be concluded from this match is that we should not just purely size a team's strength and weakness purely based on match rating as it can be misleading at times.

Although the concept of assigning PG to C sounds good at first, but if you look at the real result, Bulgaria didn't actually score much points from the C position. In fact, both C contributed the least points.

Having players go off-position is not entirely bad (In fact I occosionally assign inside players to SF) but going as extreme as assigning a PG to C or C to PG is a recipe for disaster. If the match was replayed with the conventional setup, I am sure the score will be an even bigger gap.

Just my 2 cents

It's not the result that was surprising, but gulf between actual strength and match ratings when a team employs off-position tactics. There really isn't an effective way to gauge off-position strength, apart from watching the game and seeing how well each player does against his opposing counterpart. It just triggered a discussion on the merits of off-position tactics on offense, while retaining on-position for defence.

It's not the result that was surprising, but gulf between actual strength and match ratings when a team employs off-position tactics. There really isn't an effective way to gauge off-position strength, apart from watching the game and seeing how well each player does against his opposing counterpart. It just triggered a discussion on the merits of off-position tactics on offense, while retaining on-position for defence.

in the PL I am currently playing, we did some trials about mispositioning (C switched with PG in starting position, with defensive switchover): results will require some more analysis and trials, probably me too I will try something about.

depending on offense and defense, switches create opportunities. However, they are not so many, and, apart of what was called "insane" skill mix, your offensive bonus (depending on evaluation) will be impacted directly by misposition. If your C has 15 in IS and your PG an even good 7, your offensive evaluation and consequent bonus will be far lower. On the other side, you will have more mismatches. I noticed it too when last week my coach replaced my broken PG with a PF (with decent secondaries, luckily): he took many good shots!

although I use changes, forcing positions (in SA U21 too) to stress an offensive side of the attack, this is a bit too extreme to me. first, if you build a team with some rationale, it is hard to avoid bonus penalties when switching players so hard. second, if you have not a good offensive flow, your shots will be probably forced and you will probably increase lost balls. at least, that was what I noticed.

in some cases, I think you can try even to have 4 Guards and 1 Center in your starter list and attack with hard R&G. It is similar, although not as much effective in defense (but better offensively).

As per few observations, the advantage you can get out of change is not enough to compensate disadvantages. At the end, our feeling was that you didn't impact much on final result. But more trials will come, let's see.