BuzzerBeater Forums

I've been thinking about this and I think what struck me about your post was the question about SB and zones. Yes indeed it is the case that people are finding 3-2 with high SB on bigs a very effective defense.

Traditionally in tactical thinking in BB, m2m has been the default defense and players have been modeled around high OD and ID with SB being a secondary concern seen to increase salaries rather than being a useful skill. I remember when 'everybody knew' that SB was a useless skill and the advice we were given, if we were training players, was to avoid it and never train it. It is only in recent seasons that SB is increasingly being seen for the value it has in defending, especially against the dominant offensive tactic LI. I too have watched with interest of the rise of 3-2 around high SB bigs.

I think the main tactical difference between NT and regular teams is that NT's do not have to think about salaries, they only have to think about tactics. As a consequence, you look for as much tactical variety as you can get where you only focus on players reaching their maximum potential (in a variety of ways) rather than raising concerns over salaries etc. Nobody holding a C with 350k salaries is thinking sensibly about their team, heck even 200k+ is tough to keep. That is where in all honesty you are right. A team that chooses to have SB built bigs is locking themselves into a particular type of defensive strategy. Variety of training rather than centralization and prescriptive training may well end up being counter productive because it restricts experimentation.

I'll give you a personal example. Innes should score way more than he does. When Gully and I sit down and compare my two bigs, we scratch our heads wondering why one seems to score more than the other. 'By the book' or 'by the ideal' I have trained Innes along the lines you have read from Lemon, myself and the others here, Mac picked up training almost second fiddle to Innes. However chunk for chunk, Mac always surprises and Innes rarely seems to have a game you expect him to. One I have done by the book and the other I have not. Why is this? Are there hidden skills training in the background we do not know of? Is it ratio's between skills rather than merely maxing out tsp? Is it possible to have too many secondaries? All of these questions contain maybe's and more questions.

Which is why I was so struck by your post. I don't know if you meant to, but you questioned the question. We are talking about designing players, and you ask is that realistic? I think the answer to that is, yes it is and no it isn't. But in endeavoring to cookie cutter players, maybe we are actually not doing ourselves any favours because we are removing the very essence of a persons personal creativity and feel for the game.

Traditionally in tactical thinking in BB, m2m has been the default defense and players have been modeled around high OD and ID with SB being a secondary concern seen to increase salaries rather than being a useful skill. I remember when 'everybody knew' that SB was a useless skill and the advice we were given, if we were training players, was to avoid it and never train it. It is only in recent seasons that SB is increasingly being seen for the value it has in defending, especially against the dominant offensive tactic LI. I too have watched with interest of the rise of 3-2 around high SB bigs.

I hate to cherry pick part of an excellent post and then appear to take issue with one piece. However, I'm not really taking issue with what you've put here, which is fairly accurate.

What I would like to point out is that I know at least one person told you SB wasn't useless. Even when everyone said it was. Everyone who ever posted about it, even though some of those people now want to say they never said it at all. I trained Paulk initially intending to have high SB, and much lower IS, which is now what the "modern" trend is for SB bigs. Paulk has passed 30 now. That he was unfinished is one of my main regrets in the game. But he still has his uses, in both 3-2 AND man to man.

And this is a modern fallacy to compare to the old SB is useless mantra. SB doesn't only work in 3-2 zones. Nor does 3-2 work only if you have SB bigs. I believe 3-2 works because OD is far too powerful, and the bonus for playing 3-2 over man to man is too much. I also believe you can play 3-2 with high OD guards and have surprisingly low ID and still win. I regularly played 3-2 last season with only one starting big. Fallon, listed as a PG played at C. I think I should have promoted using that defence but made an offensive blunder in a playoff game and had to stay in D2.

People don't really understand how skills work in the game and become very blinkered about what does what. I've always bought Cs with more SB than most people. I've also always had one of the best defences in my division, even when I was struggling for wins. I don't think those two things are a coincidence. And yes, SB is even useful on guards.

I don't particularly force these views on people because I don't believe that's my job. Certainly if I was asked for advice on a big, I'd point out I'd like more SB, but I feel its not my job to tell people how to train their players. Its more of a negotiation so we can both be happy.

I'm also mindful, and I'm sure I've pointed this out before, each NT manager/coach is temporary. Players lost longer in most cases. So no NT coach should demand anything without thinking of those who follow. Even when they think they're right.

Last edited by Gully Foyle at 12/13/2014 9:16:37 AM

You're not the only one, I've always insisted some SB is useful, including on guards.

Anyway.

Back to the main issue - I think we need a third NT guy to continue the player development work the U21s do.

Our NT manager has done a great job with the players he has, but I think it's a big ask for him to get the 22-25 year olds with the best owners for their continued development.

Last edited by Elmacca at 12/13/2014 9:22:48 AM

You're not the only one, I've always insisted some SB is useful, including on guards.

Even as I was writing I was pretty sure I'd seen you say something about SB in the past.

I think I was intending to refer to the consensus on the bb forums rather than specific individuals, although I am sure you knew that too.

Sorry, I edited my post above to re-open tbe debate - you were too quick for me!

that's why I let it go. There has always been a minority view 9n this though.

Only way to do that is probably to have candidates put themselves forward and do a forum vote.

I'd rather Gully just picked someone he was happy to work with, unless we actually get an U25 competition like I asked for on the suggestions forum


Last edited by Elmacca at 12/13/2014 9:30:52 AM

You're not the only one, I've always insisted some SB is useful, including on guards.

Yet, quoting the game manual,

Shot Blocking: Will help to block shots. Not very useful for perimeter players

.
I agree it does work when used on that mutual team support, everyone or nobody on sb hype it should be.

But training sb for nt is not taking it to 17, unless effectively you just want to give up on IS, salary wise.
You could take it to 12 maybe, but then you are making a player like this
13 9
11 13
13 9
16 16
16 12

That is, exchanging 1-2 levels in IS and ID for the similar salary. And asking this to a committed manager is not the nicest.

I'd rather Gully just picked someone he was happy to work with, unless we actually get an U25 competition like I asked for on the suggestions forum

Both great suggestions, U25 would certainly provide a huge bonus to that critical gap in the attention of NT managers