BuzzerBeater Forums

If I wont to block shoot, I will buy players with high SB, but if I want to defend and stop my opponents I have high ID, but the 2-3 is still bad, as you can see on the statistic of the match, but nvm

I just don't like the way 2-3 zone is working, that's all)

When 14 medium ID can't stop an 12 low IS, and i play 2-3 I don't know.
And my IS 14 high can't beat his 11 medium ID when he play m2m...
I had better OF too..

Its just sad for me to see that I in a game like this loose with 19 points

If I wont to block shoot, I will buy players with high SB, but if I want to defend and stop my opponents I have high ID, but the 2-3 is still bad, as you can see on the statistic of the match, but nvm

Your guards shot 11-32, while his shot 21-38. The 10 baskets are a 20 point difference. How many of his baskets were driving shots, where the shotblocking of the player actually matters? (I can not access the pbp and am not about to watch the game replay at the present time).

I mean, after all the talk where 2-3 fails because of easy inside passes from the guards to the big men, he had no more assists than you, nor were his inside shooters particularly effective (14-31 at PF/C). Perhaps your inside defenders are great when they're playing against other trees, but here comes the little guard scooting in and driving right by them for a score. It's a shame there's not a defensive skill that helps counter driving . . . ;)

True, the answer is No, simple.

Can you answer me why didn't I score more points then he, you see my IS, and his ID, hmm your answer is sure he have high SB? He had 1 block in a game and I 3, are you kidding with that SB skills?

Can you give me a concrete reason for my defeat with 19 points? In witch match statistic is his team better then my?

Thx

@hrudey

Your guards shot 11-32, while his shot 21-38

That's sad, his OS is 6 and they scored so many times, as one mate said, when you play 2-3, all opponents outside players are like Koby Briant, they score every time.. still my OD was 8 with 2-3, but they can't stop the low OS from the opponent..

This argue goes to nothing. We (me with Manon) told you that inside defence as a rating are both inside defence and shotblocking skills. You still didn't consider that. Also I told you that you when you played 2-3 zone you didn't lose matches due to lack of ID or SB on big men, but....on guards. Check ALL your matches when you played 2-3. I have already did that. Buzzer-manager helps really much. The best scorers were guards. So probably your ID and SB skills are too low on guards. As we don't have player with both high skill (ID+SB) in BB, discussion is still open :)

Now I should have high ID and SB on my guard, that would be an interesting team who would have all those skills on each position that you mention

hrudey

Your guards shot 11-32, while his shot 21-38

That's sad, his OS is 6 and they scored so many times, as one mate said, when you play 2-3, all opponents outside players are like Koby Briant, they score every time.. still my OD was 8 with 2-3, but they can't stop the low OS from the opponent..

What hurt somewhat is both of his starting guards were 4-5 on driving shots, and each drew a shooting foul. Likewise, Racman hit all four jump shots he took (three of them were contested). Of course, that may also be related to who ended up contesting them - I do not have the PBP so I can't say who contested all three, but I do see that Bagniewsky gave up 2 baskets on the two drives he faced, four baskets on the four jump shots he faced, and one three pointer on the one three point basket he faced.

The problem with the comparison of sector ratings is that a basket being scored or not scored is not a "my team OD of 8 vs. his team OS of 6" comparison (nor do I believe that you think that way, but I point it out for those who might not be aware). That's why guard at center in a patient can explode for a metric crapload of points in a man to man against a typical big man - if the shot is contested, the comparison looks at the shooter's skills vs. the defender's skills and big men, generally, don't have a lot of OD. And if the two guards on defense are out defending the three pointers mostly, a lot of the intermediate jump shots are left to the forwards, and if they're ill equipped to defend them it's not pretty.

The funny thing about your game is that you didn't really give up a whole lot of easy assisted inside baskets - of his 18 assists, 9 were on inside shots (the same as yours) and the other 9 were on drives and JS in mostly equal numbers for both teams (he was 4 assisted drives, 5 assisted JS, you were 5 and 4). It really does just look like the difference came down to his guards getting to shoot over your forwards, as opposed to the M2M where they'll likely face their opposite number.

Probably I use too much shortcuts when I write to you. I strongly believe that when you use 2-3 zone means that you are afriad more inside attacks than outside. It also means that you can stop them. Even game manual says "2-3 Zone: Increased inside defense and rebounding at the expense of a lot of perimeter defense". I showed you that you had problems in the past with stoping outside attacks while you played 2-3 zone. And I didn't say that you need all skills above 15 for guards. There is no need to have both perfect shooter and great defender in one body. Another can say - there is no salary space to have player both perfect shooter and great defender in one body. You should choose, who scores/who stops. Having guard with high ID is nothing bad. Moreover it doesn't costs more! That's why managers train IS for guards. To make my thougts more clearly to you about 2-3 zone and the role of guards in it, I checked your all matches in last 3 season, when you played 2-3 zone:

(52064789)
(52064635)
(48765315)
(48765483)
(48902823)
(45457759)
(45458142)
(45599356)

Only twice top scorer was PF. C's averaged 14,75 ppg for 48 minutes in that cases. They don't shoot to many balls :) On the other hand check how much outsider defence perimeter you lose comparing to man-to-man.

Hope it is long enough.