BuzzerBeater Forums

The question would be: Do you want him to take more shots?

The GE rankes every palyer as a possible offensive option. The first three options will take most of the shots. Option four and five will take less. Let's say you have s really strong SF (option 1), an offensive PF (option 2) and a strong SG (option 3). The PG is only a little bit weaker than the SG and ranks as a fourth option. He would support your team if one of the first three struggle to score. Your C is only the fifth option. Why should I pay a lot of money for his IS? Wouldn't it be better to have a weak offense, but a top defense? He will support the other four with his ID, RB and SB. But still stay really cheap.
I have such a team. Yesterday my option 1 and 3 got injured. The whole thing was recalculated and some of my weak offensive players had to score. But because I have an overpowered defense, my opponent couldn't gain any advantage of this. It's a trade off. Some managers want all five players as potential scoring options and the pay a lot of salary or play with an average defense. I'm one off the managers who wants offensive players and defensive players. The players have a low salary (despite almost all of them have skills with 17 and 18) and they perform exellent. And again back to Princeton: this tactic gives you the opportunity to chose which three guys can outperfom your opponent. Today it's the SG-SF-PF combo, tomorrow it could be a PG-SG-C combination. Just by switching positions, you can create huge mismatches...

And again, a longer post than I intended..

And again, a longer post than I intended..

story of my life.

I think this is fairly logical with look inside offence. People will skimp on the guards, particularly SG and jump range, simply because of the number of 3's that these guys taken when using LI.

So the same logic applies with other offenses. I think this is where Driving is most critical offensive tool no matter the offense. Driving really supplements a forwards IS and a forward with high driving but 'average' IS by comparison will still score quite reasonably.
With specific regard to Princeton? Yer id probably sacrifice IS on a C. I think a high passing C would help the offensive flow.

I ran Princeton extensively back in season 17-19 (I forget which season I heavily relied on it, but there was one). I had a team with guards with very high hnd/drv and good JR (one of whom I played at SF), and a very balanced power forward who was pretty much between 10-13 at every skill. Most importantly, I had a center with prolific passing.

Watching the sim, my guards had a lot of layup attempts and got fouled often. My center barely shot, but when he did it was long 2s and 3s. He also averaged about 5apg and had a lot of key passes. My PF took a lot of outside shots.

I find it a really good offense to run if you're building a team on the cheap and, in lieu of high weekly salaries, want to focus on cheap skills (hnd/drv for guards, outsides and passing for bigs). Even when overmatched, your team will keep the pace of the game down and maximize possessions. I had one of the league's lowest salaries and still made the playoffs that season in my USA II league.

good info, thanks for that.

the assist number on your C is interesting. do you remember what passing skill he was at?

Yes agreed

even with Lookinside, or low post, i remember i used to ahve a C, who had Respectable Passing, and he used to average 3 assists a game when i owned him.

This might not seem like a lot, but in the scheme of things, when your PG is probably only getting 4-5 assists, and your SG is only getting 3, then 3 on your big man is pretty good.

11 - Prolific.

I agree that he probably would've averaged the same assists no matter what. What stood out to me was the number of key passes he made (which you can see in the play by play). The ball was clearly going through him in the high post, and being passed to cutting teammates for layups or fouls. Maybe in another tactic, his passes would've gone out of the low post and led to open jumpers.

I needed a slow tactic to limit possessions and maximize the skills of my low salary team against NBBA caliber opponents, and I also wanted to get the opponents (built around high salary big men and LI tactics) into foul trouble. Princeton gave me what I wanted. I'll definitely use it again in the future

Last edited by 五毛党 at 8/14/2014 6:07:24 AM

i use the princeton almost every game, love it! i guess this thread is more about the bigs in the offence,from my games i can see my big fellas pass a ton. i think one game my center had like 7 or 8 assists with only respectable passing! my bigs rarely shoot if at all. my offence tends to revolve around 3 pointers. in real life my cavaliers new coach dave blatt says hes gonna run a variation of it. also in real life the Princeton is more of a uptempo offence than what it is in bb as a super slowmo offence.

also in real life the Princeton is more of a uptempo offence than what it is in bb as a super slowmo offence.

IN BB its definitely a slow offense, id call it a half-court slow offense in real life as well. Plays are drawn up with 1st option, 2nd option, 3rd option, which all take time to deploy. Guys move around a lot, which I think gives off the impression that its fast moving.

thats just my opinion really.

I have been very inspired by this thread. I have been playing for quite some time now, most taggling along, without the great enthusiasm, I must admit, and was getting a little tired of the game.

But, this thread has caught my attention. I would like to compose a Princeton team, but haven't got any idea or knowledge about, which skills the different players should have. I'm training SF/PF right now, so I am going to train most skills anyway.

Is there someone who can help/guide me to put a decent team together? Or is too far fetched?

Thanks in advance :-)