BuzzerBeater Forums

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

69 is 19 less than 88. That is a 23% difference.
Did you see offensive rebounding? 30-7. a 38% difference from 38-1
(and yes..% difference still has a huge gap when figuring the NBA's extra 8 minutes which you alluded to)

I am NOT saying this is the norm ..as I have stated over and over. What I am saying is it capable of happening again? If so, that is not good. It happened in a short amount of time. What about the next 200,000 games? 400,000? Even a perfect storm of stuff shouldn't create this.

Last edited by Burger Chef at 7/29/2009 2:29:30 PM

Having it been played (I am not sure if this is the right way how to say it - and even if it is, it is very weird :-D) 48 minutes, the rebounds would be like 83:32 and then the difference is still bigger than 88:44.

Off. rebounds - 36:8,4 (It is less but not that much and you can see that there definitely were some games in real like the one you are talking about - actually finding this game took me about 3 minutes so I am sure I could find more of them and some of them would be even better to example.)

Of course, it is capable of happening again! In that much games per week I bet it is! But what's wrong with that?

Last edited by PunkFloid at 7/29/2009 2:36:48 PM

i think some games like that are exceptable, because we are running a game based on randomess.

I am pretty sure, that there was in past even games where people get outrebounded pretty hard. If they come pretty less, it is ok in ym eyes especially when there are often games with very different level of competition which you don't see in reality(and when you see it, you sitting in a globetrotter show or the best team put him very less effort after a while).

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.

The solution is to change the newby help sticky,in some countries are different the suggestions for the noobs ;D

but this still doesn't changed it that this skill makes Big men weaker instead of stronger which wasn't in the concept of a game.

Maybe i take a example of a overtrained player in Blocking with old data from Motte, who was overtrained in Blocking. If i reduce it to 1, he will get 90k less salary, and the only effect on the game was 1,4 blocks - which are with a 50% shooting opponent 14ppg and in this take i don't take off reb after blocks into calculation.

This is my main Point, that there is something wrong in it.

Edit: if i reduce Rebounding on a similiar amount for example he will have rebounding 7 and loose around 10 Rebs. Which means you loose ten possesion and your opponent gets ten, so he scores 10 extra points and you loose this.
Skill shouldn't make players bad, and also in RL player are paid for their effectiness on the Court(ok maybe not in NewYork). So you have to tax around it, and rebounds get more value through this change in the high areas ... Blocking still seems to be very useless, even when his blocking numbers raise to 2,5 after the change.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 7/29/2009 3:14:04 PM