BuzzerBeater Forums

ok, if i go on, i'll probably get banned....guess i'll have to live with the silly rule, like everyone else, and accept it. "It's just because", your starters get benched when you are 20+ up at the start of the fourth quarter, just because. ;-)

Last edited by ignots at 2/6/2009 9:13:00 PM

starters and substitutes (both backups and reserves) are just words. It is up to you what will you do. Also follow depth chart until 4th quarter could help sometimes. But it is pretty easy to get a decent backup at your level. After all this is only a small part in succesful long term road...

I just want to clarify that I dont disagree with you, I would prefer this rule to be changed as well. I have seen in many similar threads this very same discussion, and I feel many people would agree with you. I have seen people respond and generally believe that the BB's are trying to avoid having brand new players get blown out by 40 points thier first few games and quit. At least this may be one of the reasons this rule is in place. I wouldnt be surprised if there was some sort of altering of this effect in the future possibly. I will be right behind you saying I am happy for it. I just dont think we can expect this to change right away. I offered some solutions to help alleviate this problem for you because it is that way now, silly or not.

I also dont think it is all that unrealistic to have a B/U be a strong player and good scorer. Look at guys like Rip Hamilton or Lamar Odom, who both come in off the bench and have been known to take over games throughout thier carreers. For me, I couldnt really afford a bunch of equally good B/U's to my starters, so I tried to get cheaper guys who played great defense, in lieu of a more balanced and more expensive guy. This way he can at least limit thier players from scoring alot, even if he doesnt score much. Just my choice, but an example.

Not trying to be adversarial at all. Perhaps having seen this discussion on previous threads I skipped over (carelessly) the part about 'yeah, I wish that was different too' and jumped ahead to the 'but heres some things you can do to help'.

Points differential has its limitation as a valid parameter.
Just today in my league, two teams were playing for first place in the other conference. Their points differential is not exactly similar, but close enough. The problem was that current leader played against a bot (winning 25-0) and the other played against a very weak team.
It was very prausiible that the other team will win with over 25 points difference and take the lead, and the leader could do nothing about it.
Just a simple example.

Still, as I said in a former message, since this parameter requires simpler algorithm, it makes sense to use it even if it is not the best one, since it is not that important.

Just don't try to convince me that the best parameters are used, especially since in a case of a tie in points differences - you prefer the team with more points.

If one team plays against a bot more times during the season and score 25 points per game, according to this parameter, this team is weaker. Is it really?
And if one plays "run and gun" and the other "push forwards", does it make the first one better just because the general score is higher?

This second parameter is completely worthless.

So if the problem is simplicity, stick with the current system, but if you find a way to treat the 'head to head' parameter and still, keep it simple, please go for it, cause by all means - it is a better parameter.

Points differential has its limitation as a valid parameter.
Just today in my league, two teams were playing for first place in the other conference. Their points differential is not exactly similar, but close enough. The problem was that current leader played against a bot (winning 25-0) and the other played against a very weak team.
It was very prausiible that the other team will win with over 25 points difference and take the lead, and the leader could do nothing about it.
Just a simple example.

maybe not in that moment, but when he play against the weak opponent the opponent for place one plays he could win higher to be more points ahead. And the second placed team who advancced during this situation, has a 25-0 win against those team too only a bit earlier.
So what happens when the one team has the 25-0 Wo in the week they against each other, and the other team has a second important match that week so he had to play some backups, that would be unfair or not ;) When we construct examples i would say, this one is better.

Just don't try to convince me that the best parameters are used, especially since in a case of a tie in points differences - you prefer the team with more points.

I would say the ebst ones are used, because you could handle point differential consistence, even in the PO finals where a direkt matchup was silly because of the home court advantage ... And both systems, refelct the teams strength, the one more in 2 single games, the other one refelct the game during the whole season.

If one team plays against a bot more times during the season and score 25 points per game, according to this parameter, this team is weaker. Is it really?

25-0 iain't a bad win, i have pretty less games with such a high differental.

But this is the problem, that the league is changing due to activity this made in unfair anyway.

Just don't try to convince me that the best parameters are used, especially since in a case of a tie in points differences - you prefer the team with more points.

This sounds like a one-way conversation. I wont try and convince you of anything myself, as you are stating you wont listen to anything but what you allready believe. Not the best tact for open debate, imo. Many sports use highest total points as one of thier tiebreakers, including the NFL. It isnt that far fetched. For those who may listen, you do have all season to put yourselves in proper position, but it seems this argument perks up when it is to late to change anything.

Most importantly you don't understand what the bot means.

in the PO finals where a direkt matchup was silly because of the home court advantage ...

This is not the first time this argument is brought up and I don't understand. Without trying to be too cynical - when do we need a tie-breaker in the PO? We have 3 matches and the winners play each other, so a tie-breaker in the PO is not really an option, or am I losing something?

25-0 iain't a bad win, i have pretty less games with such a high differental

My biggest argument is against the second parameter - highest amount of points. I hope you score more than 25 points in a regular match, or else you are in trouble...

2nd parameter isn't point total, it's point differential.

Highest points is the third parameter, after points differential. This makes a 25-0 game not so bad if forced upon you, +25 is nice considering the blowout rule. As a Defensive minded team I realize at the outset that if I ever get into a tie-break situation that goes to the third parameter, I am probably on the losing end. Its a risk I take all season long, but only becomes pertinent right at the end of the season. I would imagine this discussion appears near the end of each season.

Were I a betting man, I would bet that the BB's want to keep the code as simple as possible in certain areas, and PO tiebreakers that need to evaluate schedules and/or other factors besides points would be considerably more code intensive. My skills in this area are amateur at best, lets call it an educated guess (and wait for the avalanche, lol).

Last edited by Heathcoat at 2/8/2009 2:29:26 AM