BuzzerBeater Forums

It`s not my match. I admit I didn`t noticed the FT statistic, but still I can`t understand how a team that dominates in all Team and Matchup ratings but two (Rebounding by just a little and outside attack which is normal for the look inside tactic), has a huge tactical advantage and above all has a home team advantage, can lose the game. Can you or anybody else explain to me? I can`t understand how the game works anymore.

Is not only the 3% (which is not a huge difference, but also isnt as little as you say, a 3% difference in 100 shots is at least significative, 6-9 points of distance. He probably deserved a little bit more than 42%, but received 5 blocks (while he only gave 3), also lost 11 balls (while his rival only lost 7) and also had less ofensive rebounds. Those little things dont appear in the match ups but help the vistors. Add the 3-14 FT shooting and you have the final result.

Imagine it in this way:

Attending to the matchups Kaksi Tornia deserves 47% (47 scores per each 100 shots), but had 5 blocks against. He finally did 42%
Attending to the matcups Trondheim 76'ers deserves a 42%, but had 3 blocks against. He finally did 39%.

5% of difference is huge. You need to be overblocked, over-rebounded, lost more balls and make a pitiful 3-14 in FT to only loss by 3.

Also there is no outside offense in this match. Is a Push the ball VS Look Inside.

If you think that playing outside is better, just play outside. Dont cry then if this happens (15328404)

You still couldn`t convince me how the stronger team with tactical and home advantage can lose this match because of a couple of blocks more and some missed FT. I`m not saying that it`s because he is playing Look Inside, I just can`t see the logical explanation.

I am one of those who thinks that blocked shots most of the times are shots that go in.

Anyway, 5 blocked shots always will have a higher effect in the % than 3.

There is a fact here, the best outside attack of the entire BB, the Spanish run&gun, was destroyed by a look inside / man to man (8339). And - Im not sure of that but Jan Itor said it and I trust him - Spain did a mutual TIE in semis, which means 3 more of enthusiasm, and it wasnt enough : )

In the previous match that both NTs played between them Italy won easily (by far) (7992). Again inside/man to man.

And again the same in European semis (7144). (in this one Spain had a low enthusiasm, I accept it, but the corrective was severe).

I am truely confused...

This is a basketball sim and a big portion of the enjoyment is the competitive nature of it. I agree some of these results appear to be unexpected, but that is simple based on the ratings. Anyone that has been around sports understands that competition is a beautiful thing, and parody is part of that. The fact that anyone can win at anytime is very important.

If the game was based solely on ratings and player skills, there would be no reason to play the games. As the better team should always win, right??

I am really pleased with the new sim and like the 'X' factor. It is far more realistic imo. People are complaining because they are losing games they think they should win. Face it the Lakers lose to the Wizards every now and then, it is part of the game.

Thanks BB. I am pleased with a sim that allows teams that are slightly out classed to play over there heads on occasion. Otherwise as I mention the games are not worth playing.

Last edited by Mod-beanerz at 1/29/2010 8:21:06 PM

Is not only the 3% (which is not a huge difference, but also isnt as little as you say, a 3% difference in 100 shots is at least significative, 6-9 points of distance. He probably deserved a little bit more than 42%, but received 5 blocks (while he only gave 3), also lost 11 balls (while his rival only lost 7) and also had less ofensive rebounds. Those little things dont appear in the match ups but help the vistors. Add the 3-14 FT shooting and you have the final result.

my analyse is not about the final result, it's all about the shot percentages and the match-up ratings..

I don't agree with your analysis. You decided to weight the matchup ratings based on... ¿the performed shoting distribution?
That will have serious issues. First, and most importantly, that is NOT(likely) the shoting distribution of the tactic. The "theoric" distribution is not known... so you can't draw any conclusion out of 1 simple game. I really think there are some issues with the way you try to analyze matchups. In fact, there are many issues when traying to understand games based only on matchups. Even when only looking at the game resume. Many key aspects are not captured on it and can only be seen live.

I don't spend a bunch of time on the ratings as I agree they have flaws. I prefer to look at trends of players and the individual match ups.

As a manager who has won and lost his fair share of questionable games I can honestly say, shrug it of and move on. Would you prefer that the best team always wins? I doubt it. The games are played on the floor, not on paper. So there is always going to be a few upsets, just like real life.

I also feel that not much credit is given to 'quality' built players. Have a look at many teams including mine and you will see results that don't jive. Thru many conversations with some of the top managers in Naismith I have become a firm believer in proper building of players, not just going with great primary skills. Too many people build 'cookie cutter' players and expect great results, everyone needs to think outside the box a bit and consider building players that are more versatile and effective.