BuzzerBeater Forums

I really cannot see how can someone shoot with 50% when 2 levels behind before adding in the mots bonus.
If mots gives just a 10% bonus, that's almost one full level added.

I would like to point you to the following line from the match report:

Both teams played at the same effort level.

So MOTS (by which you probably mean Crunch Time anyhow) bears absolutely no relevance to the game at hand.

It does.
In a previous thread a GM pointed out that Crunch Time effect kicks in for defences only* so no effect is related to the attacks.

That means about 3 full levels more for Pericle's team (assuming a 10% bonus) while he is still superior or on par with his opponent defence. Please note that CT effect is even lower for a lower rating defense, as it's likely a percentage bonus (giving you more benefits with high ratings)

*and rebounds, by the way.

Can you link some teams with good offensive flow playing slow tactics?

No, I can't (mostly because with the current game engine people play slow tactics fairly rarely -- and there is a reason for that).

I can, however, use my head, and put together the following two concepts:

* Offensive flow determines the rate at which the offense generates assists and avoids turnovers.

* Slow-down tactics usually involve more "looks at the basket" per possession, or in other words make more passes before they take a shot.

I'd like to toss in another concept which comes from the match observation in the Italian community:
*slow-paced tactics are useless despite your offensive flow---->offensive flow is useless.

I don't really think it's really useless, though, but I guess you're looking at the wrong rating.
Look at the shots. 3 pts shots are 36 vs 31. Those shots have been taken with present offensive flow.

Why then such a lower percentage with much favorable ratings? ( ~50% for visiting team three pointers, ~33% for the home team)

Edit: and before you say "matchup ratings" the home team Guard is the one who took most shots. Now, if you look the MR it says 116.8.
He shoot 50 times, and I'd expect 58.4 points. He scored 36 (without taking free throws into account) or 22.4 less (about 30% less).
A "normal" percentage would have gained Pericle a win.

Last edited by baldovius at 11/10/2008 3:16:14 PM

you are climbing on the mirrors
strong against average in the confront between the perimetrale offense-defense,with these results,don't have explanations,except for random

Last edited by Steve Karenn at 11/10/2008 3:28:37 PM

Because playing a slow-down tactic will sometimes result in your team having to heave a bad shot with the shot clock winding down? If I had to guess, I'd say that poor offensive flow exacerbates this problem.

Not sure if it's been said, but one of the things faster paced offenses do is reduce turnovers. Maybe a R&G by the home team and its a different result.

Faster paced offenses are more effective for all teams, and that will be adjusted next season in the GE.

I still can't believe why there is such a huge thread about a 50-50 game, in wich 1 team just choose the wrong tactic (Slow offense, and barely subs) and logicly lost the game. Choosing a wrong tactic in a 50-50 game is just killing, just as you saw in the endscore.

This rather belong to the 'OMG HOW DID I LOSE THIS' thread than a different topic on global, since this is just another standard, nothing special, loss.

Last edited by BB-Patrick at 11/10/2008 8:24:22 PM

Well said.

C'mon, you've got to be kidding me man.
Are you saying that Costantinopolis deserved their loss for choosing a wrong tactic?
And what do you say about Boston Celtics so?
He decided to defend 2-3, completely wrong, against a Motion (or R&G).

C'mon, you've got to be kidding me man.
Are you saying that Costantinopolis deserved their loss for choosing a wrong tactic?
And what do you say about Boston Celtics so?
He decided to defend 2-3, completely wrong, against a Motion (or R&G).

I'm not kidding at all, I'm just getting a little tired about a not-so-very-special game, although some others might think different.

Boston choose a wrong defensive tactic indeed but a nice offensive one, but Constant choose a mediocre defense tactic and a wrong offensive tactic. I think we can expect top class top division teams know that slow paced tactics are generally worse than fast paced offenses, especially since the BB just announced that and since the topic starter said these words:

This thread is funny, I can understand the level of other leagues in the world.....

So why would one chose the slow pace offense again then?

And it almost seems like 'pericle's fans' (pls dont take that too serious) don't even look at offensive flow. Everyone is just looking at offense vs defense, why is that? The importance of the OF is underestimated.
You can have a legendary offense vs an atrocious defense, but if you have nobody who can bring the ball to the other basket by passing or handling the ball well, you won't optimally use your legendary offense.

Ok 13 points might be a little too much for a 50-50 game but hey it isn't that special as it seems.

Last edited by BB-Patrick at 11/11/2008 7:59:21 AM