BuzzerBeater Forums

>>It shows some vague team generalities, <<

They are only 'vague' to you. Read up on the definition of those team indices and perhaps you will get it.

You won 't learn how the game works unless you put in a little effort.

I don't have any problem understanding the report of your game. You shot poorly, and had starters come in with a 3.5 and the rest 5's. Shooting poorly is extrao rdinary bad luck, but it happens. Your players received poor grades for the game.

Yo u had better rebounding and that happened. His guys got good grades, so they pla yed better.

If my game report had read like yours does, I would be happy with t he game report in that it reflected the outcome of my game. I see nothing the matt er with your report.



Edited by Your_Imaginary_Friend (11/15/2007 2:55:56 PM CET)

Last edited by Your_Imaginary_Friend at 11/15/2007 2:55:56 PM

Thanks for the answers. I don't think that's what I'm looking for, however.

1) My opponents always have more assists. In this game, my opponent had 23 assits to my 14, a typical day.

2) I have terrible ball handling skills. This is a new team, so I have a weird mix of skills.

3) We didn't avoid turnovers. We had 24, they had 4.

Villa plays the point because he has the highest combination of Handling and Passing. We are more likely to be incredibly poor at handling the ball than passing it because, overall, the team is better at passing than handling.

Again, I'm not concerned about the loss or being unlucky. I'm concerned that the feedback I received from the game in the form of the player grades and team ratings do not reflect this fact.

I don't believe splitting the offensive flow is the issue. The issue is that I had SIX TIMES the turnovers and far fewer assists, yet got rated awful(high) to his awful(medium) for the game. That should never happen. That it is what needs fixing!

Can't be.

hehe..it really wasnt that big of an upset actually, looking back

Yes, I see it all now...by insulting me you have proven yourself the better man.

Try again though....of course I have read the definitions, but they are still a generalization, not an indicator of specific players skill levels, no matter how many times I read it.

An indicator of the performance of a combination of players against the defense of another combination of players will not tell you the specific skill ratings of specific players.

Hence my use of the term vague...get it?

...or should I just read it again to see if my dull unedumacated mind can grasp the concepts yet?

Let's keep it civil, please.

Well, if you had some spare time you could watch the game, so you could see, play by play, what your team was doing wrong. If you have a lot of turnovers, get better passing and handling. Out matched on the boards? Get some rebounding. I have found that the box score never lies, but ratings sometimes do. "Mediocre" is a vague term, but 3-17 from 3pt is pretty clear cut.