BuzzerBeater Forums

How many times did you se Jordon or Kobe struggle to get the ball with 20 secs remaining. Maybe if there was 2 secs remaining but not 20. My point is that he there was enough time to set up a play in the tieout or call a second timeout if i cant inbound the ball.

I understand this is a computer game but ithe idea is to make it as real as possible and not having a go to guy during final stretches is slightly ridicoulus.

Look at last nights Sacremento/GS game. Triple overtime and both teams got the player they wanted to shoot the ball and each moment without any player taking shots that are not in their capabilities.

How many times did you se Jordon or Kobe struggle to get the ball with 20 secs remaining.

Check out the last possession of yesterday's Lakers game. I am quite sure Trevor Ariza is not the designated Lakers go-to guy.

But he is a 3pt specialist.

It would not have gone to Bynum at the 3pt line.

But he is a 3pt specialist.

And that's why he was driving to the basket. Makes perfect sense.

(By the way, Kobe is probably a better three-point shooter than Ariza anyhow)

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 1/15/2009 4:35:44 PM

A career .271 3-point shooter is considered a specialist?

On the topic of the distribution of shots, check out BC Törööö's current cup game, (/BBWeb/reportmatch.aspx?MatchID=10336764).

Four elite in-position players and a lucky fan. One shot attempt so far for the lucky fan... wonder how near it was to being the best opportunity on the floor.

I'd hazard a guess that it was a 24th-second shot.

Could be, I wasn't watching.

In any case, this game could be rich raw material for those who are trying to figure out the game engine.

What about the Spurs Lakers game? Is Roger Mason the Spurs go to guy? Or is he 4th (at least ) behind Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili. This quote is from CBSSportsline:

"Bryant was double-teamed on the Lakers' last play, so he swung the ball to Ariza. But Ariza was called for traveling."

Trevor Ariza had the ball at the end of the game for LA, sooooo... ther's one out of the last one where Kobe couldn't or didn't get the shot off. It happens. I think that for every game where the go-to guy gets the ball, there is a game where he doesn't.

My point was that you aren't the coach, you are the owner / general manager / director of basketball operations.

Yes Trevor Ariza took the last shot because Kobe gave him the ball. How many times does that happen? Les change everything about the game based on the times somebody goes against the grain. Besides that you saw Ariza who can make a play go to the basket instead of Bynum shooting a 3 which is not in his arsenal.

The Roger Mason JR shot is a good example as the Lakers played stellar defense on the inbound and he was the one who got open and got the ball. I'm sure that was not the designed play and will guarantee that id they ran it again he would still not be the number 1 option.

Just because you have a go to guy in a game does not mean he should shoot all the time or more often. It just means that the team looks for him or he is the player who goes to the hoop and makes the dish or something along those lines.

The same ideas as if you’re up 2 with 15 secs left and have the ball and you’re inbounding after a basket or timeout. You look to get the ball to a better free throw shooter. I', m not talking about after rebounds when you can’t always find him but it is not always the best position players getting in the right position at the right time the way the GE is set up. And if adding some tactical depth would help managers get there team in better position to win games.

I don’t see why that is so hard to understand.

Yes Trevor Ariza took the last shot because Kobe gave him the ball. How many times does that happen? Les change everything about the game based on the times somebody goes against the grain. Besides that you saw Ariza who can make a play go to the basket instead of Bynum shooting a 3 which is not in his arsenal.

Trevor Ariza traveled.

The Roger Mason JR shot is a good example as the Lakers played stellar defense on the inbound and he was the one who got open and got the ball. I'm sure that was not the designed play and will guarantee that id they ran it again he would still not be the number 1 option.

My point exactly- the no. 1 option doesn't always get the ball. That's my point, not yours!?!

Just because you have a go to guy in a game does not mean he should shoot all the time or more often. It just means that the team looks for him or he is the player who goes to the hoop and makes the dish or something along those lines.

Unless he's covered, which might have been the case with your go-to guy.

The same ideas as if you’re up 2 with 15 secs left and have the ball and you’re inbounding after a basket or timeout. You look to get the ball to a better free throw shooter. I', m not talking about after rebounds when you can’t always find him but it is not always the best position players getting in the right position at the right time the way the GE is set up.

When does this happen in reality? The best player doesn't always get the ball- i.e. Roger Mason or Trevor Ariza. Sometimes he does- Kevin Martin end of overtime 2 . And sometimes that guy misses but he has shot with enough time left on the clock to get an offensive board and win the game i.e. John Salmons in the GS Sac game.

And if adding some tactical depth would help managers get there team in better position to win games.

I don’t see why that is so hard to understand.

Like I said, you want the game to be more of a coaching simulator, which it's not. There is another game out there where you set lineups and tactics by quarter and have more options in if your players shoot more, pass more, focus on d, etc. It was lame. I played it for about two weeks and quit. Maybe it would be more appealing to you. I think it's called chazaray or something like that.



Last edited by somdetsfinest at 1/16/2009 4:45:58 AM