BuzzerBeater Forums

Thank you sir! Obviously, I think you're right too :)

Hey Nightmare, always enjoy reading your posts :)

I'm interested in your opinion on REB for big men. Although Wolph's ramblings were unreadable and tiresome, I bought into his REB philosophy. He often claimed that rebounding is the most important skill for a C/PF, and I later started noticing that my tranee with somewhat lower rebounding did slightly worse in matches.

Basically:
1. Ratings win matches
2. REB may have the biggest influence on C ratings(possibly less for PF).
Conclusion: Cs need Reb.

I will try serching the TL to see about high REB centers ratings, compared to low REB centers ratings.

A C is not a PF.
For Center, I have two skillsets:
1) IS+IS+RB
2) ID+RB+SB

Let's take a closer look at the second option. You have a real beast under the basket. He protects your rim, defends everyone who tries to finish with a close range attack and he will get most of the rebounds. So, why do you need the same player on PF? Why not taking someone with high ID and high SB (for defense) and average RB (around 9-11) and let the Center do the rebound work? With this you will still have enough space for IS and your PF will stay under 150k. If your opponnent misses a shot and gets the rebound, he has to play again against these two defense specialist.
If you have an IS-ID-SB PF you can give him JS, JR and DR and he will be on both ends of the floor a force.
I'm not saying RB isn't important, it is. But you can maximise it's value with the right players and the right tactic.

So, now you have a game against someone else. You take a look at his roster and stats and you see that his PF is the better rebounder. So what do you do? You just switch the defense. Your PF defends the C and your C the opponents PF. With this you can prevent a rebound missmatch. Both, your PF and C will perfom very well as rebounders. And because both of your bigs are exellent defenders you don't have to think about a missmatch.
An old BB post on this matter:

Look at two things, both the team overall rebounding rating, its not useless... but second order I would look at the opponents starting players and see who gets more rebounds, and assume that they are the stronger rebounders, and think about setting your lineup in a way to minimize that difference.

In the end you have to decide what do you need at which position. You have only a certain cap space and you can't have 10 players with 20 in every skill.

One little thing: RB is an individual skill. That means if you play m2m your PG will compete against the opponents PG. Your PG has RB 5, your opponents RB 2. So who will perform better? ;) Same goes for all the other positions, even in a zone.

Last edited by Nachtmahr at 8/1/2014 12:28:29 PM

i also think that if you have higher SB on your players, you can player 2-3 zone more and thus off-set the lower individual rebounding.

So your defensive set becomes a factor as well.

if you play 2-3 the amount of assisted and not defended field goals will be higher and you have less occasions where you can challenge a shot.

isn't that going to be more a result of the offense that the opposition picks?

No. not on BB.. 2-3 is useless on BB for some teams. IN my opinion 2-3 takes luck tp use.. Its really a wrong scripted made defense. For starters if it was a zone then where are the steals? Its seem more like 2-3 man to man than 2-3 zone.

2-3 man to man you'll get eaten alive by pocket mid range shooters in the open ranges all night, on BB that is was happen.. IN 2-3 zone that does not happen , because the defense shifts cover all spots,HI Od is working so is the ID of the Bigs. On BB I have never seen mass steals in 2-3 zone, . The defense in 2-3zone on BB to me is slim to none or the players are making the best effort of their lives on the court not to play defense for some teams.. Maybe with Gdp it can work.


That just me, I cant speak for anyone else. That's for them to come out and say and show. I think is sure a lost defense to play.

Last edited by Mr. Glass at 8/2/2014 10:36:21 PM

the GDP isnt going to change the fundamental of it.

BB have always come and said "2-3 zone works if your team has good shot blockers"

they even went out of their way to reduce the cost of shotblocking on salary.

Yet the majority of people don't have SB still.

So i think its a bit hard to say that 2-3 is lost, when people haven't implemented it correctly according to BB's.

Some months ago I wrote a post about the 2-3 zone, but Wolph had one of his explosions and I had no further interest in this discussion.
In my opinion, we, the managers are guilty that the 2-3 zone doesn't work. The 2-3 should stop inside tactics. So it was programmed to increase ID, RB and SB. The cost for this is a crippeld OD. But that's okay, because in a 2-3 you don't fear the passes to the inside. In a Inside offense you would play with two PGs. Both of them with high OD, HA and PA. They are only the supporting cast for your SF, PF and C. So these two guards don't have any JS or DR (because you don't want them to take shots which are for the other three). And here the 2-3 zone would work. But noone plays in BB with such guards. They have JS, high DR and some of them even double digit IS. All these factors overcharge the 2-3 zone. The decreased OD would be enough for JS 5 JR 5 guards, but it's useless against JS 15 JR 10 or even better ones.
In season 19 a german team was the runner up in BBB. I was his analyst. He played several KO games with a 2-3 zone and won them. Because he knew from my data that the opposing Guards had low JS and JR. Unfortunately his SB low so he had no real chance in the final.

To sum it up: SB to low, Guards overpowered with JS, DR and IS

Last edited by Nachtmahr at 8/3/2014 5:43:09 AM

but wouldn't the increased OD allow more passes? and because of this also more assisted FGs inside the paint? my understanding was, that assisted fieldgoals are often uncontested. this means that high SB wouldn't help preventing the FGA. maybe the increased ID and some OD could help...

i will have a look at this B3 team ..

but wouldn't the decreased OD allow more passes?

yes

and because of this also more assisted FGs inside the paint?

no. your ID and SB are stonger because of the zone. with higher ID you defend more shot attempts and with SB you stop most of them. you don't want to prevent the guards from passing inside the paint, you want to stop everything after this pass.

this means that high SB wouldn't help preventing the FGA

SB doesn't help to prevent the attempt, ID does it. SB is to alter/block the shot.