BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

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

How's that worked for you so far?

>>>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.<<

Again, folks, I"m not complaining about losing. I'm pointing out the feedback from the game is painting a very poor picture of what happened.

Hm, I'm not going to comment on specific cases, but it is highly unlikely that BB is a game of pure Math. A random element must exist.

Upsets happen. You may have statistically played them off of the park, but I would assume that on odd occasions you will still lose. In these cases it will cause confusion (or as you put it "paints a very poor picture of what happened").

The picture painted may be poor, but more often than not if you win in the match ratings you will win the game. Please note, "more often than not", rather than "always" is a phrase I have chosen for a reason.