BuzzerBeater Forums

Honestly I think so, princeton should be the best one to use a little bit more the PF; just an info about motion vs r&g: do you think that playing motion the PF takes more shots that playing r&g? There is an interesting theory in Italy, the PF takes more shots if has a good lvl of skills in js/jr compared to the skills of the P-PG-SF. This is really interesting cause if you train very well all the team you can have a monster PF cause he will play often "outside" again an usual PF

From what I gather Princeton utilizes more PF jump shot and jump range (and also SF jump shot and jump range). I think all 5 positions get a bit of a bonus to their jump shot and jump range, or maybe just their jump range ratings. The center also has more weight given to passing and/or handling. Inside shooting is less important.

I think R&G uses handling for PG/SG. I remember rebounding being a little decreased.

There was a thread that I've seen that explained each offence. I need to find that thread.

do you think that playing motion the PF takes more shots that playing r&g? There is an interesting theory in Italy, the PF takes more shots if has a good lvl of skills in js/jr compared to the skills of the P-PG-SF. This is really interesting cause if you train very well all the team you can have a monster PF cause he will play often "outside" again an usual PF

I would say that the motion is much more balanced than run and gun when it comes to the distribution of shots to the PG-SG-SF-PF. However, like I said before, if your SG is your best shooting option he will still take the majority of the shots. But if you have a really great outside shooting match-up at PF you will get a good number of shots to him on most nights with this offense. Run and gun really favours the PG and SG and to a lesser extent the SF, even if you have a fantastic match-up at PF.

I would also say that another area where the motion helps is if your guys are more loaded at JS than JR.

I'll try motion, I've used it in the past but I didn't see the difference, I'll try once again soon, thanks.
The distribution of the numbers of shots, the rebounds and the assists is not clear to me; for example in the yesterday's match (20453182) I coudn't imagine that the SF could make 15 assists and the playmaker takes 15 rebounds... It's a lot of time that I play BB but this game is still an enigma

In that match, Princeton seemed to work really well at getting the ball to your PF. ;-) Sometimes the distribution of things is just random. On the other hand, maybe your SF just had a really good match-up where his opposing player had poor outside d and he had just the right amount of flow skills to distribute the ball.

As for not seeing as much of a difference with motion, as I said it all depends on match-ups. I looked at a small sample of your games and your SG seems to be your best shooter by far and your PG is still pretty solid. So playing motion is probably not the best option for you in most of your games. And even if you do play motion, you are not likely to see much of a difference in your shot distribution.

it was only an example, yesterday I didn't play with my best formation, this one is more or less the usual formation: (20453174)

Just thinking out loud:

I've been wondering about Princeton as an offense run with, say, 4 SGs and a C.

I realize matchups rule, but I wonder if the advantages (outside shooting, 3s, good shots assuming the players can pass well and are patient, even possibly some steals) could cover the obvious disadvantages (rebounding, inside shot). To complete the skill set hypothetical, the SGs would be able to drive and therefore draw fouls. (I recall the Princeton being described as forsaking medium JS for 3s and layups.)

And I don't mean Rashard Lewis 7-ft. but with a superior JR, but I mean 4 players 6'4" or less with a capable C.

I guess I am wondering about two different things:

1) Could this approach work with Princeton?

2) Can one build a team based on any single tactic and advance into the upper reaches of this game? I had always assumed that one should have a team that was tactically flexible, but now I wonder if instead of monoskilled players, one should or could have "monoskilled" teams.

A reply I can think of before I even submit this, is the question of defense. Does having a team of 4 SGs imply a certain defense, say FCP? or could these SGs have reasonable IDs and that be sufficient to slow down the other team?

I think if you want to make it into the top leagues you have to be able to run multiple formations. Defense is why too, so at the same time, I'll answer your second question.

Elite teams can have one elite defender, but over the past few seasons, especially since the engine changes back in maybe season 8? Defense has been more important and elite teams that play 2-3 zone, really do take away all your inside shots and really do dominate the boards. Teams that play 3-2 can hold your best player to 1-12 shooting from outside. Having a balanced lineup offensively and decent passing ratings can help get your other players shots as your team adjusts.

ex: I played LI for 14 league games last season, my PG or SG were my leading scorer 6 times, and my SF twice. So less than half of my games where I played an inside tactic did my PF or C lead my team in scoring.

What does this mean? You can run an inside or outside based offense all you like, but you need to have a balanced team to take advantage of what the defense shows you. If you have a balanced team then you can bait your opponent into playing a 2-3 zone then attack with princeton or RnG or motion. and vice versa.

Bah, there are very few occasions when I would play a 2-3 zone with the current engine. The truth is that it does a poor job of defending any type of attack. In fact, on some occasions I would be willing to use a 3-2 zone to defend an inside offense.

Pusher express my thoughts exactly. Ive seen 3-2 zones to dominate the inside tactics. Actually i used to play a lot inside tactics on the past. Now NEVER on important games.

You are young team, so you should experiment a lot as we did all of us.