BuzzerBeater Forums

I can't agree. It's the failure of managers that played an inside tactic to adjust to the new changes. Thus indeed the offensive flow.

People just need to have a better look at their games to really know what's happening on the court, since just having a quick glance at the team ratings, as in the above two matches, isn't gonna get you at the top of BB.

In the 1st example, the team that dominated 3 out of 5 positions won the game. Sounds reasonable. Also the other team dominated at the Center position, but he failed to deliver the ball. The center only took 14 out of 88 shots.

Same story for the 2nd game, as you see the guards taak a huge percentage of the shots, thus making the inside offense ineffective.

Both managers of both teams failed in adapting to the announced changes a few seasons ago. They still field a team that was effective in season 3, but currently completely lost its value, making them lose games.

You can't be serious. The first game could be debated, but the 2nd one:

average (low) Outside Scoring respectable (high)
prominent (medium) Inside Scoring average (high)
strong (low) Perimeter Defense strong (low)
proficient (medium) Inside Defense strong (medium)
respectable (low) Rebounding respectable (low)
inept (high) Offensive Flow mediocre (high)

The major difference in this match is the two extra levels of inside scoring and the one level less of offensive flow. Are you telling me one level of offensive flow is enough for him to take the game?

I may be missing something, but my opinion is that flow is not the answer. Or at least it is not the only answer. It is the answer that gets thrown out every time the debate comes up, but until there is something more logical, this question is going to keep coming.

I like this example... I found it in the help forum discussion: (17853603).

Flow about the same, strength of the inside attack is better than the strength of the outside attack, yet the inside offense gets shut down.

Please read the 2nd alinea again of my post, and then look at the PL match (Edit: And the game you just quoted)

I'm looking forward to read your new insights.

Last edited by BB-Patrick at 12/30/2009 1:47:07 PM

yeah its really bad, C/PF are expensive and almost useless after changes...

Please read the 2nd alinea again of my post, and then look at the PL match (Edit: And the game you just quoted)

I'm looking forward to read your new insights.

I don't have the answer at the moment, just pointing out that it does not all come down to flow. I understand that it is usually because the shot distribution is getting messed up in the inside offense. However, this happens whether you have an inept or a respectable flow (see the match that I linked).

For example, one person in the help forum said that flow matters more for an inside offense and less for an outside offense. Don't you find that absurd? But maybe that's the case in the new engine.

It means if you go up against a proficient outside d and can't generate a proficient+ flow, just forget about an inside offense. It won't work.

Last edited by HeadPaperPusher at 12/30/2009 1:56:09 PM

The game you quoted;

Points per 100 shots --> The winning team dominated all 5 positions, the losing team should be glad the difference was only 13 points. Could have been 25 if he picked a fast paced offense instead of a slow paced offense.

For example, one person in the help forum said that flow matters more for an inside offense and less for an outside offense. Don't you find that absurd? But maybe that's the case in the new engine.

I'm not saying it's all about offensive flow in the new engine, but it's certain offensive flow could just be ignored in the old engine, which was way more absurd then it is now. But even if your statement is true, why would be it be that absurd? Many oldschool players, I call them one-to-one guards, aren't teamplayers. DR/JS and some HD, you can find dozens of such players.

Lets say they get the ball in an inside offense and a low offensive flow. Playing an inside focus, leads to worse outside looks and better inside looks. This one-to-one player can't deliver the ball to his teammates, so takes the shot.

Now take the 2nd scenario, an outside focused offense and a low offensive flow. The same one-to-one player now becomes way more effective, since in an outside focus now the inside looks are worse and the outside looks are better. So again, he can't pass the ball, but suddenly the chance of hitting the shot increased a lot due to the different focus.

The game you quoted;

Points per 100 shots --> The winning team dominated all 5 positions, the losing team should be glad the difference was only 13 points. Could have been 25 if he picked a fast paced offense instead of a slow paced offense.

Yes, I saw that. So now you are saying don't look at the flow rating... In fact, basically you are saying to no longer look at match ratings and only look at pts per 100?

What I am getting at is: how do the match ratings explain the complete shut down of the inside offense (whether in the actual game OR in the pts per 100), while the outside offense did better?

But even if your statement is true, why would be it be that absurd? Many oldschool players, I call them one-to-one guards, aren't teamplayers. DR/JS and some HD, you can find dozens of such players.

It is absurd, because once you get to a certain level of outside d in this game you can shut down any offense (whether it is outside or inside). That renders high level inside players almost useless and outside d is now king in BB, even though great inside players have much higher salaries.

It also makes no sense from a reality point of view, in spite of your explanation. If you can't pass the ball effectively, you are no longer a triple threat and teams can defend accordingly. That's true whether you run an inside or an outside offense.




Last edited by HeadPaperPusher at 12/30/2009 2:22:50 PM

Yes, it common knowledge that the Team Ratings are inaccurate and useless, and the Matchup Ratings are way better to look at.

A few months ago I made this thread exactly about this problem, I changed my mind now. Maybe you can have a read there, there are some great responses of BBs in there (112356.1).

Last edited by BB-Patrick at 12/30/2009 2:28:47 PM

Yes, it common knowledge that the Team Ratings are inaccurate and useless, and the Matchup Ratings are way better to look at.

The match-up ratings are not so useful, either. You can see if you were jobbed in the game, but that's about it. It gives you no idea why (except: my SG took all the shots, but he was a crap option). I do not subscribe to the belief that the team ratings are useless, but it is an easy way out if you do not want to discuss the issue. There is no other way to analyze matches unless you know the skills of all the players.

A few months ago I made this thread exactly about this problem, I changed my mind now. Maybe you can have a read there, there are some great responses of BBs in there (112356.1).

You will see that I replied quite frequently there, trying to get a better understanding of the situation. I would be interested to know what changed your mind, since there is no possible way to discuss the results from matches.