BuzzerBeater Forums

Help - English > Hybrid players (guard offense, big defense)

Hybrid players (guard offense, big defense)

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
235389.36 in reply to 235389.35
Date: 2/6/2013 7:49:22 AM
Woodbridge Wreckers
DBA Pro A
Overall Posts Rated:
13921392
Yeah I heard about it, maybe I can come up with a new idea around that dynamic. In any case, thank you for your input.

If others are in a favorable situation and want to try this idea, feel free to do so and let me know how it works out

This Post:
00
235389.37 in reply to 235389.36
Date: 2/6/2013 10:29:31 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
Yeah I heard about it, maybe I can come up with a new idea around that dynamic. In any case, thank you for your input.

If others are in a favorable situation and want to try this idea, feel free to do so and let me know how it works out


The other thing I'd point out is that the patient with a G at C can be effective with a team that primarily plays LI, but if you do it regularly competent managers will adjust their defensive tactics to shut it down - and it's one of those tactics that if it's anticipated it's simply not going to beat an opponent who is even close to your level.

This Post:
00
235389.38 in reply to 235389.37
Date: 2/6/2013 1:28:46 PM
Woodbridge Wreckers
DBA Pro A
Overall Posts Rated:
13921392
The other thing I'd point out is that the patient with a G at C can be effective with a team that primarily plays LI, but if you do it regularly competent managers will adjust their defensive tactics to shut it down - and it's one of those tactics that if it's anticipated it's simply not going to beat an opponent who is even close to your level.


I understand... so we're back to just running LI?

This Post:
00
235389.39 in reply to 235389.38
Date: 2/6/2013 1:35:47 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
The other thing I'd point out is that the patient with a G at C can be effective with a team that primarily plays LI, but if you do it regularly competent managers will adjust their defensive tactics to shut it down - and it's one of those tactics that if it's anticipated it's simply not going to beat an opponent who is even close to your level.


I understand... so we're back to just running LI?


I think the point is more that patient isn't an offense you can build a team around.

From: GM-hrudey

This Post:
00
235389.41 in reply to 235389.40
Date: 2/6/2013 3:25:55 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
Moutlinho and his team (70514) has been running Patient for a very long time and has been doing so very well.
I think that as long as you build your team for just that offense and can move your scorer from different positions every game i think you can get a real good performance out of your team.


And he's faced 3 3-2s in the last season and a half in league play (plus the odd 1-3-1). Of course, he's got three guards over 65k in salary, while only two other teams have two above 50k, so it's quite possible that a 3-2 would be a miserable decision against him - and it's also quite possible that there would be as much if not more success with motion. I still think that just having a single scoring threat is going to get shut down as long as the opposition is active and has close to the same level of players.

From: GM-hrudey

This Post:
00
235389.43 in reply to 235389.42
Date: 2/6/2013 3:52:03 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
Im not that sure about that. I would love to see a team that has players with great PA and HA but pretty low shotting on every player except your designated scorer. With enough JS/JR/DR and at least some IS to go with it i think you can do real well. I know Moutlinhos scorer only had 7 IS so its not that you actually need a lot of it to work well. And he actually been up in the Turkish D.1. You cant say that is not worth anything in a big country as Turkey.


It'd be an interesting experiment. I still think it'd be extremely vulnerable to the 3-2 if they have enough OD players to put solid defenders at all three outside defender spots, though, since it's hard to imagine that there's going to be enough passing to overcome all the OD thrown at it in that scenario - but of course one could say the same thing about Princeton and I know some idiot is building a team that way. ;)

I suppose I'll need to try to find some time to look back at his team's past to see what I can pick up. I'm more than willing to concede a team with more outside threats than the opponent can defend can be extremely successful in a patient - at least this season his patient is a "here's my lineup, see if you can stop it" rather than trying to put a guard out of position and relying on subterfuge.

From: tykit

This Post:
00
235389.45 in reply to 235389.43
Date: 2/7/2013 5:00:30 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
106106
The crucial idea here (if i didn't misunderstand the whole thread) is to develop the cheapest team based on switching positions with inverted defense/offense players' skills.
The extreme switching/inverting skills will be hard to develop (if i believe what everyone said up here). But a quite balanced roster with some switched skills is possible to develop, isn't it ?
This balanced roster will provide more than 1 or 2 best shooters, and balanced HA&PA. There will (should ?) always be a mismatch somewhere with a balanced roster where defending PG and SG can play SF/PF/C, defending PF and C on PG/SG.
A 3-2 zone with high OD on 5 players involves an outside oriented roster, or an expensive one. And here is the point : having a competitive roster (heading PO at least) with the lowest salaries compared to rival teams.

This Post:
00
235389.46 in reply to 235389.10
Date: 2/7/2013 6:09:43 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
706706
found out that you can get immensely high OD for free on bigs, so that's when I started thinking about this idea.

Yep, it's free if you limit yourself on viewing only OD for bigs. BUT... when you factor in training out of position and losing games because of it, it's not so free anymore. Not to mention that you won't be able to sell your high OD big guy for much money.

Advertisement