BuzzerBeater Forums

I have had scorers on my team but not jump shooters. This offense gives you many open looks jumper wise. This offense makes my shooters look decent. They are normally suspect.

I watched the Princeton from courtside for 10 years. In real life, you'd want 5 guys with decent outside and/or jump shooting and passing. Any player could also get looks at a backdoor layup, though I'd be curious to know if BB considers that a drive or an IS. In reality it works best against a man-to-man, since it relies on screens and mismatches. 3-2 is probably the best D against it, and that seems true in this game, too.

thanks for posting that.

Yes that pretty much answers my question that i had about, how the game engine would simulate things such as off the ball screening.

If I put my programmer's hat on, the way I would program this, is take selective elements of another offense that are already programmed, and add in a multiplier to 'exemplify' these elements.

eg: It takes the elements of open JS from Patient, and the 'passing' element of Motion and adds in an 'isolation' element* and then adds in a multiplier such that these are performed slightly more efficiently in Princeton.

....or something like that.

* I asterixed this bit, beceause im geussing that BB-Forrest posted that post, BEFORE the Isolation offenses were developed? So perhaps the 'isolation' element of princeton was taken out and put into these specific isolation offenses?

eg: It takes the elements of open JS from Patient, and the 'passing' element of Motion and adds in an 'isolation' element* and then adds in a multiplier such that these are performed slightly more efficiently in Princeton.

Agree. I would go even further and say that Princeton needs more passing than Motion.
In the end you have a player who is somehow odd. JS, JR, PA, IS, DR... theoretically that's an exellent offensive player. But I don't know if such a player can use this skillset effetive in such a slow tactic. But I will find this out because from the beginning, my plan was to build a Princeton team in Utopia.

eg: It takes the elements of open JS from Patient, and the 'passing' element of Motion and adds in an 'isolation' element* and then adds in a multiplier such that these are performed slightly more efficiently in Princeton.

Agree. I would go even further and say that Princeton needs more passing than Motion.
In the end you have a player who is somehow odd. JS, JR, PA, IS, DR... theoretically that's an exellent offensive player. But I don't know if such a player can use this skillset effetive in such a slow tactic. But I will find this out because from the beginning, my plan was to build a Princeton team in Utopia.

And more than that, everyone needs those skills. I'd say DR is much higher a priority than IS, though I noticed that the type of "inside" shots my big men took in the Princeton varied greatly depending on their skills - my guys with DR but low IS took almost exclusively driving attempts, while the guy I had with very low DR but high IS took a lot of non-driving inside shots.

ahhhhhhh but is it a chicken and egg scenario?

ie: Are they driving because they have high driving?

Or are they driving because the game engine is telling them to do so? Maybe if they had low driving, the game engine would attempt to find them for the open jumper?

My guys suck at driving and they seem to do more of it in the Princeton, so I think the engine makes them. I don't like that because the philosophy of the Princeton is avoiding bad ISO matchups with passing, cutting and screening. But as the programmer said (thanks for that!), think of this as a new strategy similar to Princeton, but not Princeton.

ahhhhhhh but is it a chicken and egg scenario?

ie: Are they driving because they have high driving?

Or are they driving because the game engine is telling them to do so? Maybe if they had low driving, the game engine would attempt to find them for the open jumper?

Clearly, I can not drink the wine in front of me.

Several seasons ago I analysed Motion, LI, Princeton, RnG, both Isos and LP.

Princeton (only bigs and mid-range jumpers vs. driving vs. inside shots):
The breaking point was the PF. He's the key in Princeton in BB. He combined the inside shots (dunk, tip in and tough inside shots) from the C with the mid-range jumpers (baseline, foul line, top of the key and the wing) from the guards and SF.
From all five players, the PF took most of the inside shots and was only a little bit behind the PG, SG and SF (jumpers). But this is only the average. I played Princeton with a JS 12, JR 7, DR 8 and IS 15 PF for three seasons. And he took more jumpers than inside shots. He wasn't a big fan of driving either.

As an average the PF takes:
0.75 driving layups/game
6.5 mid range jumper/game
2.1 dunks/game
1.5 tip in/game
1.6 tough inside shot/game
1.8 3pts/game

But again, this is only an average of all kind of PFs. An the problem here is that there is no real "Princeton material" out there.

I talked with a veteran manager from Germany and he said one sentence which I found very interessting: "The Engine will force your players to take shots which are benefited by the chosen tactic. If your players have the needed skills, they will play more effective, if there skillsets are garbage you will fight against the Engine." I think same goes here for the bigs in Princeton. But because the PF takes all kind of shots, he won't fight against the Engine, he will just rely more on one kind of a shot. So short, in Princeton there is no "wrong" shot for the PF.

As for the C: The Center took only 12% of all shots. Their main actions were dunks, tip ins and tough inside shots. Most of these actions are a result of offensive rebounds or passes. A tip in is always after an offensive rebound, dunks and tough inside shots have a assist-needed rate of 70%+. I think the C will benefit more from Princeton if the others have high passing. But as long as the passing is low, he will rely on his reboung skill.

Clearly, I can not drink the wine in front of me.

This week I'm training my wingmen in resistance to iocane powder.

As for the C: The Center took only 12% of all shots. Their main actions were dunks, tip ins and tough inside shots. Most of these actions are a result of offensive rebounds or passes. A tip in is always after an offensive rebound, dunks and tough inside shots have a assist-needed rate of 70%+. I think the C will benefit more from Princeton if the others have high passing. But as long as the passing is low, he will rely on his reboung skill.

What were your C's shooting and passing skills in comparison to your PF? Did he have JS 12 and JR 7 as well?