BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

Can you or anybody else explain to me?

I didn't analyze this game at all, only checked the team and matchup ratings. Overall, it looks like a random loss that may be somewhat more probable than what the ratings suggest due to things like FT skills. The losing team typically goes about 0.6 (0.2 in this game) from the bonus line while my team shoots about 0.7 (and my team's FT skills could definitely be much better). Play this game ten more times without changing anything, and Kaksi Tornia would IMO win most of the games.

The random factor is there. Some people think it's too big when they look at individual games. I don't know about that. But it seems to me that's really what many highlight moments in the history of sports are made of. A shot that just happened to go in and ended a close game, perhaps for a clear underdog even. Call it skill, will to win, determination, stepping up, or whatever. It's still a question of probability.

I think that the difference between the strength of the two teams is way bigger for the random factor to decide the match, besides the tactical and home advantage. Maybe it should really be lowered.

You are saying that 100 out of 100 games the same team should win with these ratings, if you are saying the random factor can/must not be big enough to decide who wins. Just scoring the free throws at their usual rate would have won the game for the home team, so it was a close game. I'm not arguing that it should be that close every time with these ratings, but I think there's really nothing terrible about the fact that it happens sometimes.

Generally speaking I don't like these after-game discussions if the point is to argue that something shouldn't happen based on a few samples. It would be more meaningful to select a large number of games before they are played and then analyze them all. That's essentially how the BB's tune the GE, although the process is certainly somewhat different and most things are probably done automatically.

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.

can you make a deeper explanation please..?
maybe you can give an example..
i don't understand for what reason would you look at those match-up ratings if you don't make an analyze like mine..
if you can get a result different from mine by adding some other things or watching the game please explain how do you do that..

I don't weight matchups like you do, because I know I would be doing something wrong and I would generate poor information to take deiciosions. That is why I don't make that analysis like you do.

I prefer to assume that I don't know the shot distribution and work from there.

So, I watch live games in order to understand what is happening in the court to later constrast it with the information provided by the game resume.

One of the main issues of the game resume is that it doesn't provide any meaningfull information about time. What I'm really intrested are the "real" matchups that ocurr during the development of the game. Because, that is what is going to determine what happens or not in a game. Not the game resume.

Then, like in the rules is suggested... there is information that can only be obtained by watching the game live and that is not contained in the resume.

Think about a basketball game. Would the resume tell you the story of the court? Will the statistics of a player tell you how the player is? Both will give insight (something useful by the way), but I prefer to understand that are just insights and not the only answer.