BuzzerBeater Forums

I dont think this is the best example. Ratings wise there is no much difference. The attack/defense matchups are actually equal. We got a guy who fields inside man as SF and a guy who fields an outside man. That creates mismatch that works in both ways in theory. However it seems to have worked in djembe's favor as his SF had a huge game while Agacio did not contribute as much. I'd imagine the reason for that is the choice of defense. In man to man when Wierzchowicz attacks he is (presumably) guarded by Agacio where he has a significant advantage and makes the best of it. On the other hand we have Agacio who faces a zone defense and is unable to abuse Wierzchowicz's (presumable) lower ID. I think we sometimes forget that man to man is not simply the good all-around defense tactic. The way it (should)work is that each man guards another man he is assigned to. While it has some big advantagesin theory it seems to be abit more vulnerable to individual mismatches while in the zone defense those are also affected by the other guys who defend the specific zone.

Another probable advantage for djembe might be the better minute management. When a player plays the full 48mins his performance drops no?

Anyways I am sure there are people who understand this better then me and if you guys think I am wrong please do correct me. In my opinion outside outside offense is superior at the moment since its much easier to pull off especially for a poor team like mine. However I believe that inside tactics are not dead. There are many examples where inside tactics work just fine as long as you have the right ingredients.
Personally I like the way it works now much better. Before we could see leagues(usually not top leagues) dominated by pure inside teams some of which had close to none outside talent. Thats not right imho.

I find nothing abnormal about this game. You shouldn't either, if you look into it carefully.

If an elite team cant built an inside tactic who can? You said about minutes management but how many big men can you afford with 100k+ salary?

He had offensive flow that they usually saying as the holly grave of the inside tactics. Didnt work isnt?

I would not say that he can not build an inside tactic. On the contrary I think he is doing that better then most people. But then again djembe is having quite the team as well. With all that said and given the HCA/tactics/matchups/random factor I actually think the outcome of the game is quite logical. Of course it could have gone the other way as well but considering all the little things I'd say djembe's victory was not a fluck.

About the minute management. I know some teams get by quite well by having their starters playing 40+ minutes and its a very viable option. But on the other hand having an adequate reserve that can provide a much needed relief for a starter even if its just for few minutes. Personally I think my players perform worse when I play them 48mins per game but then again that is what you get with average stamina levels.

In any case, as small as it might be the effect of the minute management also works in djembe's favor. But the biggest reason for the outcome seem to be that SF matchup and the huge game by Pashollari.

203 is no big man. I trained a 208cm, which is still not that tall, in both OD and JR (when there was no defensive switch) and I can tell you it's a pain. For a 22-23 yo, it took me 5 weeks to pop in OD and 4 weeks JR + 3 weeks JS for a pop in JR.

added: 2 position training


Hm, ok. The difference in height is not great between 203 and 208, agreed. For a 2 position training in OD, the 'training-effect sheet' predicts 3-4 weeks to get a pop in this skill. For a 22-year-old five weeks of training seem not to be off that far. The JR training looks rather long, three weeks of JS training are there though (which does not deliver much JR).
I myself always take the second estimate of the training-effect sheet into consideration, so when 3-4 weeks are estimated I expect a pop in 4 weeks. Don't take this as an offense, but maybe your expectations are just a little bit unrealistic. Here a smilie to take the tension away ;)

Cheers, Exos


edit: The training-effect sheet is taken from the 'Training Speed Analysis'-Thread


Last edited by Exos at 1/20/2010 7:23:39 PM

First of all,his 12 in IS vs a 13 in ID..Yeah,losing a game like this i absolutely obsurd..

3 of the 5 PP100 matchups were in djembe's favour and the respective player ratings in each position seem to be better for djembe too..A close game sure,but calling that an extreme result is a mistake I think..

I am not calling it as an extreme result. I just show that building inside attack is hard, and it doesnt pay off.

Neither playing run n gun would pay of if Avengers chose to play a zone..Not the GE's fault..

Neither playing run n gun would pay of if Avengers chose to play a zone..

Just a side-track... I don't think a zone is always the answer. You need to have a SF who can defend the outside about as well as your PG and SG or it could be even worse than man. Plus, I do not always like to give up the rebounding.

So you think that a top20 team would have an SF that doesn't have at least 12-13 in OD??I know that zones are not the answer but saying that LI is dead because it lost to a 2-3 zone is a strech,isn't it??I mean,that's what zones are for.To defend spesific offensive systems,while having their drawbacks of course.

In this particular case the Avengers had to choose between having a significant defensive disadvantage at the SF position or a lower disadvantage in the entire outside zone. I do not know which would be the better choice. I guess the question we need to ask is: "Is the individual mismatch significant enough that we have to use zone to diminish its effect"