BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Outside attack too strong ?

Outside attack too strong ?

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
125704.49 in reply to 125704.48
Date: 12/31/2009 7:47:59 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
I know you'll hate me for that,but a .111 3pt% PG isn't really great,is he?

What' he's still above .100? I am suprised.

I am more concerned with the free throw shooting anyhow. You don't _have_ to shoot three pointers -- but you gotta make free throws.

That comment was tongue-in-cheek anyhow

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This Post:
00
125704.50 in reply to 125704.34
Date: 12/31/2009 9:15:19 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
506506
Oh it's you, I missed that hahaha.

This Post:
00
125704.51 in reply to 125704.40
Date: 12/31/2009 9:17:15 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
506506
Below 10 shots a game is very hard, I agree.

My starting PG however, manages to get <10 this season.

Ain Nurm (7366832)

I'm still not satisfied with my starting SG and backup SG/PG, but I've got to say, they both got 13+ jump shot and driving, which is way to high if you ask me.

Last edited by BB-Patrick at 12/31/2009 9:18:44 AM

This Post:
00
125704.52 in reply to 125704.51
Date: 12/31/2009 1:36:05 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
155155
Another great example here that was brought up in another thread, this time the flow for the LI was better than the flow for the motion: (17803327).

As for the comment that we should have more balanced inside players, I have two comments to that:

1) There is no feedback in the current match ratings that would point to the need for inside players with better secondaries. Most people think that the match ratings mean something and train their players accordingly.

2) There is no possible way to train such inside players. Are you really going to train a guy earning $200,000 in salary at a position where he sucks? I even recently suggested in the Canadian off-site forum that a young player with great outside skills and sub-par inside skills should be trained as a C... Everyone else (besides me) thought that was a complete waste. But I really do not see another way to develop these multi-skilled inside players.

Run of the Mill Canadian Manager
This Post:
00
125704.53 in reply to 125704.43
Date: 12/31/2009 1:59:18 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
2323
Efficient yes.

But even while being maybe the 3rd option in Boston, he's still taking 200-300 more shots than Nash.

In his prime he was taking upwards to 500-800 more shots per season.

In terms of a shooter, I'll take .4 or .6 percent lower for an additional 6,000 points.

That's a career for most guys.

Last edited by Amarestars at 12/31/2009 2:01:41 PM

This Post:
00
125704.54 in reply to 125704.12
Date: 12/31/2009 2:19:22 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
2727
Yes, it common knowledge that the Team Ratings are inaccurate and useless, and the Matchup Ratings are way better to look at .


I could add that when you put good C in SF position and play look inside you can see drastic increase in team ratings, but not neccesaraly increase in team performance and if you put highly skilled PG or SG in SF position overall team doesn't increase so drasticly but team performance is.

This Post:
00
125704.56 in reply to 125704.55
Date: 12/31/2009 10:42:53 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
155155
That's fine and perfectly understandable. I have seen you mention the fact that there are not many inside players a couple of times now. I gave two logical reasons why it is quite possible for this behavior to continue. For example, there continues to be a serious lack of SF talent in the BB universe and the major reason for that is the extreme difficulty in training such a player.

On the other hand, my first point probably gets more to the heart of the matter and I just wanted to point out that most people have no way to see this because of the feedback they are receiving from the match report. I think this is the major reason why we will continue to see most Cs with little to no secondaries, whether or not it is good for your team. People see the boost in game ratings and that's all they care about.

Take another example: most people think that driving does close to nothing in terms of team performance. Only you know 100% whether or not that is true, but for sure the game ratings give credence to that theory.

Run of the Mill Canadian Manager
This Post:
00
125704.57 in reply to 125704.25
Date: 1/1/2010 12:11:35 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
458458
Dwayne Wade.

Once I scored a basket that still makes me laugh.
This Post:
00
125704.58 in reply to 125704.57
Date: 1/1/2010 4:04:12 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
343343
Yea, having Shaq, on his closed to prime form. That season Shaq aved 22.9PPG, 60% 10.4RPG, 2.7APG 2.3BPG, being the most dominant C on that year. Actually Shaq had an other great year on Miami (only 59 games though) b4 he started to fading. Have u seen the assist stats? 2.7. Thats why i am getting mad. We cant train passing as a big men trainers...

This Post:
00
125704.59 in reply to 125704.55
Date: 1/1/2010 4:12:41 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
343343
I really want to give my big men some 2ndaries but how can i train my C some PA or some OD? Looks like that is very important skills for there performance. When u train guards u can chose from 7 different skills. When u train big men 4 with SB being the 1. Put on the account that training big men is expensive sport from salary wise and u can see again that guards are having the advantage 1 more time

Edit: The worse part from that is that when u train OD u r getting some training on ID too. The opposite it doesnt happening...

Last edited by JohnnyB at 1/1/2010 4:21:48 AM

Advertisement