BuzzerBeater Forums

I like your example. However, it is not exactly how I see pace. I always thought that with a slower pace, the offense would increase their pickiness on shots. So for example:

-with a slow pace, they would wait for an opportunity that would give them, on average, 1 pt per shot attempt
-with a fast pace, the offense would wait for an opportunity that would give them, on average, 0.9 pts per shot attempt

The issue with the slow pace is you hit the end of the shot clock more often and when you do that, the offense will take shots that have a low chance of success.

I think that the pace of the game is a combination of the offensive and defensive choices - when combined they give an overall "pace" to the game.

-with a slow pace, they would wait for an opportunity that would give them, on average, 1 pt per shot attempt
-with a fast pace, the offense would wait for an opportunity that would give them, on average, 0.9 pts per shot attempt

This is the same as:

- probability of conversion of .500 on 2-pt shots (or .333 on 3-point shots)
- probability of conversion of .450 on 2-pt shots (or .300 on 3-point shots)

So this way of looking at things doesn't change the example substantially.

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 10/6/2009 11:28:23 AM

So this way of looking at things doesn't change the example substantially.

I was replying to your post about the different defenses. It explicitly states in the rules that a 3-2 zone or 2-3 zone decreases the pace, for example. Your post implied that there was no change to the pace, that it just takes longer to find a shot because of the defensive match-ups.

In both of your examples you said: "the opposition still needs a .350 chance in order to shoot".


Last edited by HeadPaperPusher at 10/6/2009 11:58:51 AM

While I will agree that there are two parties to a shot let me ask you this: We know that pace is one of the variables wich decides wich is the shot quality our team will look for in the offense, now, how does that story fit with the role of pace on defensive tactics?

This is not necessarily true: if all your shots are very high quality, then your offensive pace is barely relevant, to give one example. Individual player skill is what determines shot quality

If your offense is way better than his defense, this means almost all of your shots are high quality ones, then regardeless your offensive tactic pace it will be easier for you to find a HQ shot. But, this has nothing to do with wich is quality your players are looking for. Example, your low paced offensive tactic tells your team to find a shot opportunity of .350, but since your players are mucho more better than their matchups, they always see shots of .400 on average; so they take thos shots, but the same match you could use a fast paced offensive tactic so they woul search for shots of .300 but since the average is .400 the result is the same.
But, the shot quality they were looking for was still different even if the result was the same. And since having HQ shots all time is not what usually happens it is important to understand that yes, pace always affects the shot quality your team will look for.

Anyway, how does the pace of the defensive tactic fits in this explanation? lets review your next post.

Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 10/6/2009 5:46:27 PM

The relevance of defense to pace should be pretty straightforward: a defense that is listed as "slower pace" is likely one that will make you work longer in the clock to find a quality shot.

If that is true, then slower paces will be very dominating because you are saying they are better defenses (thinking against a rival who can go outside, inside and neutral with equal probability in a hypotethic situation) than higher paced ones

.

Not necessarily. My statement implies nothing about the overall quality of shots taken, just about the time you need in order to find a good one, on average.

I'll give you a very simple example:

Imagine that a Man to Man defense gives the opposition a .400 chance to score a basket on both inside and outside shots, on average. Imagine that their offensive tactics require them to find a .350 or better shot before they take one. In these circumstances, the opposition will likely take the first shot they see.

Now imagine I switch from M2M to 2-3, where the chance of inside shots is lowered to .250, but the chance of outside shots rises to .450. The opposition still needs a .350 chance in order to shoot. Now, since the offense is a series of shot opportunities, they might see some bad inside opportunities before they shoot, but will only take an outside shot. This will make them work the clock a little bit until they get an outside opportunity, however the overall quality of shots will potentially be higher.

This is obviously very simplified, but that's how I think it works.

That is so not true for two things at least:

First, you are saying that pace works not as a parameter to select the shot quality the team will look for, instead, it determines how long it might take them to find the required shot quality (perhaps based on matchups, tactics, etc.) they need to look for. This directly contradicts the rules: "A faster pace means that the team will lower its standards for which shot to take and take less time to get it up the court…resulting in more possessions in the game. Slower pace means just the opposite." GE section from Game Manual. I really think you are confusing the causality here: since shot quality standard is increased by a slow paced offensive, then it takes them more time to find a shot able to be qualified enough to be taken (except in the unusuall situation already commented in the previous post)

Second, assuming you are right, your example can not work if my offensive was outside focused because when you make the switch to 2-3 it will be easier for me to find the HQ outside shot. Thus, making the 2-3 a tactic with a higher pace(compared to M2M) in the example you showed. This is something really dramatic, because it will imply that the pace of tactics are determined by the offensive choices of your opponents, making possible for the 2-3 of the example to have either fast(if opponent goes outside) or slow(if opponent goes inside) pace. This also contradicts the rules and starts to make that understanding of pace to crumble.

Either that view of pace has to deal with a lot of really weird consecuences or you need to provide a credible argument for it.

Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 10/6/2009 5:49:47 PM

it is important to understand that yes, pace always affects the shot quality your team will look for.

I have never seen an allegation that this is _always_ the case. BB-Charles has used this example to explain how the various offensive tactics differ from each other, but I've never seen him say that pace always affects the quality of shots taken. As a matter of fact, he has never explained how defensive tactics affect pace.

To support this, here are the two sentences which immediately precede your quote from the GE section of the rules:

The offensive schemes that we give you can be broken down into combinations of two aspects, pace and focus. Pace is either faster, slower or normal, and focus is either inside, outside or normal.

Second, assuming you are right, your example can not work if my offensive was outside focused because when you make the switch to 2-3 it will be easier for me to find the HQ outside shot.

Maybe you have to re-read my example to really understand it, since it works just fine. In it, the attacking team will probably take the first possible shot if there is no zone (since both inside and outside shots are equally attractive, and both are "good" shots), and might have to spend a bit of time looking for the good shot in a 2-3 tactic (based on the fact that outside shots are "good", and inside shots have become "bad"). It's easier to hit the outside shot, not easier to find it -- these are two different things.

I will give you an example: again, imagine for a second that shots opportunities in a possession alternate like this: inside, outside, inside, outside, inside. If there is no zone, the first shot is good, and is taken. If there _is_ a zone, the first shot is bad, and is passed. The second shot is good, and is taken. When is the shot quality better? In the second case. When did the team take more time to shoot? Again, in the second case.

This is consistent with the interpretation that higher pace should, in general, result in more possessions in a game, which is about the only aspect of the definition of pace which is universally applicable to both offense and defense.

it is important to understand that yes, pace always affects the shot quality your team will look for.

I have never seen an allegation that this is _always_ the case. BB-Charles has used this example to explain how the various offensive tactics differ from each other, but I've never seen him say that pace always affects the quality of shots taken. As a matter of fact, he has never explained how defensive tactics affect pace.

To support this, here are the two sentences which immediately precede your quote from the GE section of the rules:

The offensive schemes that we give you can be broken down into combinations of two aspects, pace and focus. Pace is either faster, slower or normal, and focus is either inside, outside or normal.

I have said that pace affects the shot quality that your team will look for. This might have or not an effect of the actual quality of a shot depending on various things. And yes, they have not explained the role of pace in defensive that is why we are having this conversation. There is something needed to be remembered, while it is true than BB-Charles have talked about the effect of pace in the shot quality a team will look for(just as I have been) he has not said that pace does not affect performance through a modulation related to stamina.

Second, assuming you are right, your example can not work if my offensive was outside focused because when you make the switch to 2-3 it will be easier for me to find the HQ outside shot.

Maybe you have to re-read my example to really understand it, since it works just fine. In it, the attacking team will probably take the first possible shot if there is no zone (since both inside and outside shots are equally attractive, and both are "good" shots), and might have to spend a bit of time looking for the good shot in a 2-3 tactic (based on the fact that outside shots are "good", and inside shots have become "bad"). It's easier to hit the outside shot, not easier to find it -- these are two different things.

This is only true if I play a neutral offense. ¿How could that work when I play an outsided offesnse? (Keeping the same porcentages you already give us) The outside focus will skew the distribution of shots towards outside shots, so yes, it will be easier to find it. See? That is why I tell you that this interpretation of defensive pace will make the value of pace dependent on the offensive tactic your opponent plays.

This is consistent with the interpretation that higher pace should, in general, result in more possessions in a game, which is about the only aspect of the definition of pace which is universally applicable to both offense and defense.

While I agree about that statement regard to offensive pace I'm not sure of it for defensive pace, that like you said, BB-Charles has not talked about.

Perhaps a BB could help to clarify this dark topic and also tell us abput the unknown pace of the 1-3-1 tactic that is not listed in the english rules.



Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 10/6/2009 7:42:35 PM

This is only true if I play a neutral offense. ¿How could that work when I play an outsided offesnse? (Keeping the same porcentages you already give us) The outside focus will skew the distribution of shots towards outside shots, so yes, it will be easier to find it. See? That is why I tell you that this interpretation of defensive pace will make the value of pace dependent on the offensive tactic your opponent plays.

Well, in my particular example this doesn't matter (which is one of the reasons why I picked it). Admittedly, there are other variations in which the offensive focus might matter, but whether it does depends largely on calibration.

Which brings me to another interesting point...

There are two ways to determine the effect of a change in the parameter of a system:

Derivation: mathematically derive the change in outcome from the change in the parameter. Adjust accordingly.

Calibration: Change the parameter, run a million or so simulations, and record how the outcome changes. Adjust the parameter, rinse, and repeat until you get the desired outcome.

While derivation is typically the better method it is often too complicated to be feasible. This is especially true in systems with multiple stochastic (random) outcomes -- which makes the BB Game Engine a perfect candidate.

Which might simply mean that the slower pace is an ex-post calibration result, which in turns means it depends a lot on precisely how it was calibrated.

Of course, I am sure there are more theoretically-oriented guys around here (programmers, mathematicians, or statisticians, to name a few possibilities) who might be able to explain this better.

This is only true if I play a neutral offense. ¿How could that work when I play an outsided offesnse? (Keeping the same porcentages you already give us) The outside focus will skew the distribution of shots towards outside shots, so yes, it will be easier to find it. See? That is why I tell you that this interpretation of defensive pace will make the value of pace dependent on the offensive tactic your opponent plays.

Well, in my particular example this doesn't matter (which is one of the reasons why I picked it). Admittedly, there are other variations in which the offensive focus might matter, but whether it does depends largely on calibration.
.

Believe me, in the example the change of the offensive tactic will matter. Even if we use the values you give us (wich have a simetric change that is not real I think, when you switch to a zone you lose more that what you win). I think you are just not taking the correct effect of the altered distribution of shots when changing offensive tactics.

But there is no need to extend in that argument.

About the effect of the change in pace. I'm not really follow it... you mean the change on the probability of a shot to go in when only pace changes?

I still think defensive pace is something that has not been properly explained in the GE section(nor the forums as far as I know) and the pace of the 1-3-1 is missing in the rules.

Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 10/6/2009 9:35:50 PM

Believe me, in the example the change of the offensive tactic will matter. Even if we use the values you give us (wich have a simetric change that is not real I think, when you switch to a zone you lose more that what you win). I think you are just not taking the correct effect of the altered distribution of shots when changing offensive tactics.

*sigh*

No, it won't matter. With the values I gave you, with no zones every shot is a good shot, so the first shot will be taken. When zone is applied, some shot become bad shots. No matter how little "some" is, it's still greater than zero.

When zone is applied, some shot become bad shots.

I still don't get your example, because some shots are bad shots no matter what defense is used. If you accept the principle that the zone doesn't affect the "average quality" of the shot - so that, on average, they are still getting the same quality of looks (ie: my defense is better against inside looks, but that is a trade-off for the outside looks), then your point still does not make sense. The variance in the amount of time it takes to find their best shot may be higher but the average time to find the best shot will be the same.

Maybe your point makes sense for a look inside vs a 2-3 zone, as my "average" shot will probably be of lower quality. I'm not sure about that, though.

In fact, because of the way that zones work, I may even be getting a higher quality shot on average against a 2-3 zone. If my opponent uses a SF with no inside d, for example.