BuzzerBeater Forums

I checked your game. What exactly are you pissed with? That you did not manage to get 48 minutes for your sub C? To me subbing the SF in for your C spot made sence. I watched your game ending and pbp. At 1:22 left you were leading with 7 points and 1 FT to shoot. With 1:22 left and leading with 7 you are by no means won yet. What usually happens in those situations? The opponent is starting to rack up those 3-s to cut the lead. What you need in those cases? Better outside defence. What else could brought up the substitution (and remember I do not know your player skills)?, stamina for starting C, better FT, ball handling, passing, od than your sub C. So the coach tryes to win the game and makes the best decisions for your team at that specific time. At 00:39 the walkover rule kicks in as you have gotten the lead to 11 points. So he uses your sub pattern to protect the starters. Easy.
I hope this will never change, as the coaches job is to win games, not manage minutes and lose the game.

Last edited by Kukoc at 11/20/2010 7:18:21 AM

First of all, I'm not pissed; I'm merely reporting what I believe should be recognized as an problem, but I must say that I'm growing more and more annoyed with the way my complain is being treated here.
I thank you for taking your time to actually review the game, but similarly like GM-kozlodoev, you generalize things and you neglect all of my arguments.
You said it yourself that you don't know my player skills yet you're so easy at making conclusion that I'm complaining without a reason and that substitution over which I complain, in fact, makes sense. I think that is the major fallacy right there. I don't feel obligated to reveal his skills, but I'll say that, ironically enough, he is rather poor at every single skill you mentioned, and if you could actually see them, you would see how weak your argument was, but of course, that is the problem with generalizing things.
In regards to your other arguments, that substitution made NO IMPACT on the game other than messing my minutes and creating this whole controversy. The outcome of the game would be just as same if the engine have obeyed my orders, so your argument that "coach's job is to win games, not manage minutes" is completely out of place.
And please, let's stop justifying things like this as if the game were perfect and let's try to improve it instead. Luckily, no major damage was done today, but who knows what might happen tomorrow if we continue to ignore the problem.

So you are saying that (6916789) has crappier OD,PA,HN,FT than (13516686). Why is he listed as SF then?
I could even throw in GS and Exp stats, but why bother. From the team stats I can see that the forementioned player is shooting FT's at 90,9% (92,9% in league games), while the sub C is sitting at 40% (0% in league games). Seems like an easy choise there.

NO, I'm NOT saying that Iliev has "crappier" outside skills than Ninkovic; I'm saying that Iliev outside skills DO NOT speak in favor of your argument, so please stop misinterpreting my words just so you can prove your point.

And in response to your question "why is he listed as SF then?", what does that have to do with anything? He is listed as SF because of his jump shot. Again, you're trying to prove point where is no point.

If he has better outside skills then everything I wrote in (26712.324) stands. + he seems to be a good FT shooter. What else do you need. Iliev was the best option to that C spot at that moment in game. It actually does not matter what the coach subbed him in for. Was it the good FT % or better (yes better than the sub C's, not some skill level you would prefer) outside defence, passing or handling.
There is absolutely nothing illogical in that sub pattern. Especially this part explains the behaviour

At 1:22 left you were leading with 7 points and 1 FT to shoot. With 1:22 left and leading with 7 you are by no means won yet. What usually happens in those situations? The opponent is starting to rack up those 3-s to cut the lead and will put you on the line.

The best option to that C spot at the moment in game? I'm sorry, but you apparently don't know what you're talking about; you're just blindly trying to defend your points which is, I must say, rather sad. Iliev was most definitely NOT "the best option to that C spot at the moment in game" and I'll tell you why.
Assuming that that substitution was indeed a necessity, which I disagree and I'll explain one more time why is that later on, then why use my substitute SG and not my substitute SF in that game, Preseren (9683094), who is BY FAR more complete player than Iliev? In fact, even my substitute PF in that game, Vujicic (12098175), has better OD,PA,and HN than Iliev. Why don't use him? Wouldn't that substitution make more sense? Or why don't use my third SF/PF option in that same game, Ðurovski (10919257)? He also has better outside skills than Iliev, not counting jump shot and jump range. Either one of those substitutions would make more sense than the one with Iliev, but no, although you have no real insight into skills of my players, you're absolutely positive that "Iliev was the best option to that C spot at the moment in game" and that there was nothing irrational with game engine's decision. I mean, seriously, man, let's talk some sense here.

Now, if we can agree that Iliev was not the best possible solution at C's position at that particular moment in the game, which he was most definitely not, and I sincerely hope that you realize that now, then the next logical step would be, of course, to assume that the substitution itself was unnecessary and therefore just as irrational.
I mean, even if we assume that neither my starting center, Grahovac (8186240), nor his assigned substitution, Ninkovic (13516686), were not competent to close the game, which is not true, I still had AT LEAST 3 other players with better outside skills than Iliev sitting on the bench. And may I also remind you one more time that Iliev playing that 1 minute at C position made NO IMPACT whatsoever on the game and its outcome? Proof of that is not only his statistic, which you love so much, for that 1 minute of his playing time, but also the fact that roughly ONLY 30 seconds after that substitution, the game rolled into "walkover mode." I mean, do you seriously believe that in time frame of 30 seconds game can go from extreme of alert mode to extreme of walkover? I think NOT, but yea, thank you for being logical and in no way biased on this matter.

And just so you and the rest of BB-staff know, I didn't came here to whine. This is not the first time things like this happen; it's just that this time I decided to take an action hoping that it will somehow contribute to further development of the game, but apparently it was too naive of me to believe that someone here would actually care.

Your bug report is certainly appreciated, and I'm sure the BB's will take a look into this. They will judge themselves whether there is a potential bug and how to proceed with fixing it. The rest of us, well, we just try to understand the situation and help you understand it.

Based on what you have told, there is no clear proof or indication of a bug. Ranting and questioning the motives of other posters will not really change anyone's perception. The way I see is that you feel robbed when you lost some training minutes due to a substitution you felt was first of all unnecessary and secondly not perhaps the best option. Whether it was or not, we don't know. You played Depth chart until the 4th, so you intentionally gave some extra freedom to your coach. Therefore I don't see discussion on the first point being really warranted. Regardless, the coaching AI, including the end-game logic, is an area where there is probably endless room for improvement. Not necessarily giant leaps but room for improvement nevertheless. This however is not the place and way to discuss that really. If you have clear improvements in mind, please use the Suggestions forum.

Do you watch real basketball? There are a lot of situational substitutions in end game situations. There is no need to argue about this any more. We can only speculate which skill (or skill combinations) the coach prefers to protect the lead (or trying to close the cap).
I can not see your player skills, so I can only speculate. Although you are doing a good job of avoiding the FT%. Perhaps the coach even thought that putting Iliev at C would help him get a better shot at the end of offence (when opponents do not foul etc) we do not know. There are a lot of possibilitys.

I mean, do you seriously believe that in time frame of 30 seconds game can go from extreme of alert mode to extreme of walkover?

Really? That's exactly what happens during end games. It seems to me you have never seen a 10 point lead vanish in 1 min. 7 point lead with 1:22 is not a won game. Takeing and hitting a quick 3 will make it a 4 point game with 1:12 left. If your team would miss and they score again it suddenly is a one posession lead with about 30 seconds to play. They failed to score and with 39 seconds left and 4 posession lead and walkover mode kicks in.
Could you atleast reveal what's Ilievs FT skill level?

First of all, I want to thank you for being objective in your evaluation of my complain. If other posters were treating the issue in the same manner, I assure you that this discussion would NEVER go as far as it did.

You nicely pointed out that you don't really know what is the true reason behind the problematic substitution other than the fact that I played Depth chart until the 4th, which by the way, if you noticed, I acknowledged myself as a potential explanation in my opening post (26712.319). As in the reality none of us know for sure what happened, I think that was more than fair starting estimate on your behalf. Then, as any rational person would, you acknowledged that the game is not perfect and that it has a plenty of space for improvement. Again, very fair and very objective. I have no problem with anything you said, and why? Because you, as I said, look at the things in fair and objective way, and you don't make any biased assumptions, but try to reason with facts which are known to you as well as to the rest of us. I can't say the same for LA-Kukoc.
Unlike you, he started with an assumption and then, what's even worse, kept defending it as if that assumption were the FACT and ONE and ONLY explanation to the issue. I believe that I offered him a PLENTY of reasons to reconsider his theory (1: Iliev was assigned as my substitute SG; my C's position was well covered. 2: Although the game was very close for the first 3 quarters, I ended up controlling 4th quarter and therefore, there was NO REAL reason for such an unorthodox substitution. 3: Assuming that that substitution was indeed a necessity, I had AT LEAST 3 better solutions than Iliev sitting on my bench. 4: Considering the fact 3, the fact that Iliev was NOT the best possible solution to replace my C's at that moment in the game, and therefore, that there was NO LOGICAL reason to make him play out of his position while my more competent players are sitting on the bench, once again proves that that substitution was unnecessary. 5: In that 1 minute of playing time at C's position, Iliev made NO IMPACT on the game or its outcome, and in matter of seconds game rolled into "walkover mode"), but he ignore all of it and just kept arguing how there is NOTHING illogical with what happened and how - and I find this to be the most ignorant claim out of all of his claims - how my assigned SG was the BEST OPTION to replace my C's at that moment in the game. And I know for FACT that that is not true. I mean, I'm the one who know the skills of my players and in that sense, if anyone is to make any kind of educated assumption, it would be me, NOT him. I think that is crystal clear, but no, he is LA-Kukoc, for God's sake, he can't be wrong. Although he has no real insight into skills of my players other than deceiving stats, he knows better than me whether Iliev substituting for my C's make sense or not.
I mean, just try to reason with someone like that, with someone who ignores all of your arguments and picks only the parts of your post for which he believes can help him to discredit you, and you will quickly find the true source of my frustration.
The latest example of that is his last post in which he accuses me how I'm avoiding the subject of FT's which is just ridiculous, and may I say, very disrespectful, too, since he is the one who continuously ignores all of my true arguments. The only reason why I overlooked his FT's argument is that his theory was so full of holes that I simply didn't have time to address it yet.

In regards to your suggestion to go and discuss this at Suggestions Forum, I don't know how to make an improvement. Unfortunately, I don't, but I never claim so, either. As I said in one of my previous posts, I came here ONLY to report what I believe should be recognized as a problem, and was hoping that BB-staff would take it from there. And by "take it from there" I mean in a constructive way, of course, not in a way it was handled so far.

Last edited by Kumboky at 11/22/2010 8:30:03 PM

I really didn't want to continue this conversation with you, but I figured that, in a way, I do own you that FT info, so there you go.

Iliev FT shooting is at level 9 which is undoubtedly better than my starting C Grahovac's level 2 and my substitute C Ninkovic's level 3. His FT shooting is ALSO better than my substitute PF Vujicic's, BUT it is at SAME level as FT shooting of my other two substitutes in that game, Preseren and Ðurovski, who, as I mentioned earlier, BOTH have BETTER overall inside and outside skills than Iliev, so your FT theory STILL doesn't stand. And please don't start with their stamina inquiry now, because there is virtually no difference there.

In response to your question "Do you watch real basketball?" the answer is YES, I DO. As a matter of fact, that is the main reason why I'm complaining. And NO, I have NEVER seen such a "situational substitution."
In lack of better example, what you're arguing here is virtually same as if you argued that, in the last minute of close game, it would make more sense to bench Dwight Howard and his substitution Gortat, and have someone like Quentin Richardson to close the game in their place on account that he is a better FT shooter.

Well it seems there is no need to continue this conversation. I'm convinced that the game engine just does not trow players randomly on the court. I'm trying to figure out aswell why your substitution happened, but it seems to me, it was for protecting your lead. Obviously it's for BB's to decide, but I am pretty sure this was not a bug.

And NO, I have NEVER seen such a "situational substitution."

BB's game engine switches players for rebounding, 3p shooting and FT shooting, depending on the need (in end game situations). I watch about 1-3 basketball games a day. I have NBA league pass and there are a lot of situational substitutions in the NBA. We have a channel in baltics that shows baltic league and euroleague + I can watch eurocup on Eurosport 2. European games are not close that often, so end game situational substitutions do not happen that often. I could give you a lot of examples, but do you really care? Probably no.
Perhaps one of the end game flaws in this game is the fact that your players keep fouling. Even if there is 5 point difference and 2 seconds to play. They foul at 0:) If I would have Dwight as a starter and Shaq as a sub at C I would prolly put in Stojakovic to play that C spot in end game situation. But hey that's just me.