BuzzerBeater Forums

From my point of view, you are arguing to take away a viable strategy for teams with three good big men. I completely disagree that always playing three big men is advantageous. If you have three great guards and play FCP, you will get 20-30 steals. Should that be disallowed, especially if the opposing SF is a big man with poor handling skills?

It’s not necessary to play FCP to have advantage about 3 big men. In old GE I played many times on SF player with ID 8 and high outside skills, especially JS, against big man on SF. I played Push the Ball and Man to Man (yes, it wasn’t necessary to play 2-3 zone) and SF was key factor for my win.

I agree completely.

I am new to the site and just briefly reading over your post and a few others, I have learned some meaningful information about this site and the way that it runs and is continuing to upgrade. So I thank you for the information and help you have provided.

I agree with both points. Playing three Centers was too powerful and quite popular, and having a perimeter oriented SF with great JS and decent ID and REB can mitigate such a strange lineup. Big men are easier to train too, which only fed the beast of LI even more.

IMO, LI is best suited to handle FCP if you factor in the other offensive sets. Perhaps not for turnovers, but shots, percentage etc. I think it plays well.

As regards the zone defense vs. an outside tactics - so as not to be angry, you should keep in mind how it is in the real basketball.

Zone defense in basketball is not particularly played against teams with good shooting skills as zones (all of them) are easy to beat from the outside. Zone defense was "designed" in order to force the other team to shoot, because when there are 5 players standing right "under" the basket, there is not much space for guards to drive or to big guys to post up as they can be double/triple-teamed easily without much chance to pass the ball. Instead, when attacking against the zone, players should be cutting without the ball and passing it as fast as possible in order to create an open shot - against 3-2 zone it is usually in the corner, against 2-3 it could be in the middle or from deep wing, if you know what I mean.

Of course, I dont know if the new GE is designed this way (and I dont say it is) but it could be; and even if it is not, this could be a hint when you are making a decision whether to play 3-2 (1-3-1) zone or MtM against outside focused team.

http://www.buzzerbeater.com/BBWeb/boxscore.aspx?MatchID=6763

First game with te new GE in national teams and Spain for first time in this season did 0 BLOCKS. Is thereany bug or im missing something? Because in theory with the new GE blocking had to be more important no?

I think you should look over a larger sample of games before you conclude there is a bug... I did extensive testing on the new GE directly comparing the same games on both the old and new GE, on average there are definitely more blocks, though there is always noise...

note your analysis is looking at a new game and comparing it to other games... I can't say for sure that blocks would have been >0 in the old GE EVERY TIME. But I'm not going to be convinced there is a bug unless I see a convincing pattern over multiple games.


Last edited by BB-Forrest at 7/28/2009 9:46:35 AM

I was posting it because somehow it was shocking for me to see 0 blocks with the new GE,where it was supposed that shotblocking will be more important. Anyway i have checked some games and more or less the effect of shotblocking it seems to be the same.

PD: kozlodoev: yes some of our centers are good on blocking