BuzzerBeater Forums

1 and 0. Although I didn't find the "1" and I am guessing I could search around and find cousins to this. It is super unusual...and I get that...but 200,000 games? I thought we were talking about the relatively few games in comparison with the new engine?

You GM's can explain and defend it however you want, but

GMJuicePats says he sees "88-44"
GM K says look at it as 50-1 on one side of the floor, and 38-43 on the other
Some say look at it 38-1 to offensive rebound margin.

How can ANY of those be defended? We are just saying "hey..check out this weird game. Do you think it is the new additions to the system?" I understand you are going to defend it and you should. It will work out. You know more about it than we do. ..but to blow "look at it this way" smoke with THAT game? No sir. Nope. THAT game is F'd up ...and maybe a "that IS weird," as opposed to "you are looking at the numbers wrong" would do sometimes. I am guessing that would cut down on threads by appeasing us little people.


Last edited by Burger Chef at 7/29/2009 12:58:11 PM

for example in rebounding they make the skill mroe worthfull in high regions, in going to absolute difference and not taking relativ one anym more which amke the different lower.

And also SB, nearly have a effect on game only on salary, and for example in the newby help sticky it is one of the important skills for the centers. In the past there are many misleading pos, because of altered shots who was think to be a part of the game also becuase of the pst of charles about the ID rating.

In the other skills i see improvement when i training then, even if it in high categories expensive but in my eyes it sis tstill worth. And for SB i know people who thing also high starint values for trainees are bad, and they have succes with it.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 7/29/2009 10:06:37 AM

can i ask what margin you think would be appropriate for a 3.5 level difference?

Someone seemed to suggest that 30-9 was more appropriate (the difference between 3 pointers).

(now first off I don't accept that 3 pointers are the same as rebounds in terms of how they distribute based upon ratings differences... but even if i do)

than you are talking about the difference between 38-1 vs 38-9.... and i would hold that probably 38-1 was really fluxish, and if you ran the game again you would probably have more... maybe the average is 5 boards... now you are really complaining about a difference of 4.... and then really what are you arguing about?

of course when you are so dominated on the offensive boards, the noise involved in small numbers can make the proportional numbers seem huge.. but just cause you got 1 this game doesn't mean that happens all the time.

If newby help sticky is wrong you have to change it,not the game.And Yeah,maybe the coefficients for high levels could be lowered,but this is not related to SB

I don't know what would be appropriate. That is up to you dudes putting it together. I am merely saying "crazy game here." I know it doesn't happen all the time, but I dislike it being defended by telling me I am looking at numbers wrong. If we can't know all the metrics involved, then don't tell us in such ways.

I see what I see. 38-1 in Offensive Rebounding margin is just that. 50-1 on one side of the floor? Come on guys. It shouldn't happen once. But since it did = "crazy game" not "you are looking at this wrong."

38-9, to me would be the bottom end of "fluxish" ..not 38-1.

(not suggesting this, just examples) It is a HUGE difference between 38-25, 38-20, 38-15. ....but 39-5? 39-1?
38-25 on the O-boards should win you a majority of your games. The funny thing is...the guy who got out rebounded on the offensive boards 38-1 .....WON!

I accept 38-1 OR for 1 game, maybe my players were lazy ok.

But, the point I wanted to reach with my first message was if my rival would get same amount of OR playing "individual defense" or "3-2". And no one answered to this.

I´m aware of 3.5 levels are too much, but this is a consecuence of his "2-3 Zone" that made him really strong on his zone but I also think in mine <--- That´s the problem.

38-1, 38-8, 38-20, I don´t care about this if you assure me that playing another kind of defensive strategy would make him get all those offensive rebounds.

Bye

Last edited by Mr.Mac at 7/29/2009 10:59:28 AM

I disagree. When a player is in the corner, he is being defended on two sides already. This allows the wing who covers the corner to overplay any return pass plus it limits the options for the offense. As well, with a third man free throw line extended instead of down low, the skip pass is more easily defended. In a 3-2 zone, the top three players move as a unit, with a slightly wider spacing. Any penetration between must be pinched by the defenders on either side of the attacker.
As for your point about 2-3 defending better in the corner, my problem with that has always been that on one side of the floor it will be a big man who has to close out an outside player. I assume you have played and you know that moving from the block out to the corner while playing a 2-3 zone is not an easy skill. When the match-up is the other team's best driver against a lumbering big man, the results are not great. On the other side of the court, with the small forward down low things are better. But I prefer to have my three best and quickest players defending on the perimeter.

I do agree with your first statement about the origins of playing zone. If a team couldn't its outside shots, pack all five guys in the key and get some rebounds. I think that zones have developed into more complete defenses. The 3-2 is an adaptation to keep rebounders down low but extend the range of the zone, and 1-3-1 goes even further, often including aggressive trapping in the corners and when a perimeter player loses his dribble.

If newby help sticky is wrong you have to change it,not the game.And Yeah,maybe the coefficients for high levels could be lowered,but this is not related to SB

but many made this decision on such given information, and what sense makes a training which makes players weaker?

Even GS training has it points where it makes sense, and you didn't expect that it helps you for the future.

I am not totaly sure of this, but I think it would be weird if his number of OR's would change if he changed his D. If anything, I think a man to man or a 3-2 zone by your opponent would have lead to more OR's for your side... On the other hand, I am pretty sure he wouldn't have pulled down 38 if he had played anything else than look inside...

1 and 0. Although I didn't find the "1" and I am guessing I could search around and find cousins to this. It is super unusual...and I get that...but 200,000 games? I thought we were talking about the relatively few games in comparison with the new engine?

You GM's can explain and defend it however you want, but

GMJuicePats says he sees "88-44"
GM K says look at it as 50-1 on one side of the floor, and 38-43 on the other
Some say look at it 38-1 to offensive rebound margin.

How can ANY of those be defended? We are just saying "hey..check out this weird game. Do you think it is the new additions to the system?" I understand you are going to defend it and you should. It will work out. You know more about it than we do. ..but to blow "look at it this way" smoke with THAT game? No sir. Nope. THAT game is F'd up ...and maybe a "that IS weird," as opposed to "you are looking at the numbers wrong" would do sometimes. I am guessing that would cut down on threads by appeasing us little people.

Almost 200,000 games were played in the last week so if you know exactly how many of them were weird like the one you are talking about, then you could talk about new GE being bad.

Here is one example of a real match - european championship Div. C: (http://www.fibaeurope-u18men.com/enDivC/default.asp?cid={...) The rebounds are 69:27 totally and this was only 4x10 minutes! 88-44 impossible? Hell, no!

I am not defending the new GE in terms of being LA, I am defending it because your assumptions are based of only 1 match! If in the future you see games like this happening every other week, then maybe there is something wrong. But now? No, sorry.

Well, you maybe right, but trust me - I have played pretty good youth competition where (unfortunately) many teams played zone. Thus I know maybe more about attacking against it then defending. We've spent much of your practice playing and improving our counter-zone attack and I know where are the weakest areas of zones. By all means, it depends on how good your attack and good the defense is, but for instance our 4-1 zone offense could beat every 3-2 zone.

The problem with 3-2 defending the corner is actually not when the player has the ball and thinks what to do next (you are right that if it is played slowly he has only a limited number of possibilites to do) - but there are very easy ways to get him open there and then he has nice immediate open shot because his wing defender is on defending the wing on his side and the big man is far away from him. Trust me, shooting from outside is the easiest way how to beat zone defense (not the best!).

2-3 zone in the corner - you maybe right again, but that's what the coach is for and when he knows that his big man is not fast enough to be there on time, he must choose other defense or other defender. But even if there is the best driver against him, there is not much he could do, because he is right in the corner (usually being double-teamed immediatelly) so his options are to shoot or to pass. It is very hard to penetrate on the baseline because there is usually even a bigger man waiting inside the key.

Yeah, zone is now a more complete & complex defense but only when it is being played well. But as my former coach says "zone is a shame of basketball" and I am with him. :-D