Thanks for your comments.You are right, 2-3 would have been a much better choice. I didn't expect inside attack but outside attack, that's why.What I am still uncomfortable about is that all given explanations do not consider the superiority of my ratings. Taking the answers given I would have lost as well with an inside attack of 13 instead of 8. That cannot be it.
BB would benefit if some of the "hidden" aspects would become more clear to more managers.
BB would benefit if some of the "hidden" aspects would become more clear to more managers. There's nothing hidden in this aspect: scoring opportunities are decided by individual match-ups. In other words, imagine that each shot at the basket is a miniature one-on-one game between player X and the player guarding him. How this "game" works out is calculated by a comparison of some sort of a combination of player skills and the relevant team ratings.Moreover, I have no idea whether all your turnovers were caused by low offensive flow, since I have no clue what the skills of your players are. Mathematically speaking, however, the extra turnovers did cost you 12 points, which was the difference in the game. Finding what the problem is and how to fix it -- that's already your job as a manager of your own team :P
And now to something completely different! I am glad to understand that "nothing hidden in this aspect" goes so well together with "How this "game" works out is calculated by a comparison of some sort of a combination of player skills and the relevant team ratings."*lol* (no harm meant)
In rules it is written that if you use slow tactics, your score is better, but in the end you score less. That's what happened here in the 4th quarter. The new engine changes are just like curse to me - if I use fast pace tactics I lose because I make a lot of mistakes and if I use slow tactics I lose in the last quarter like in your example.