BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

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

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.

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.

Dwayne Wade.

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...

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

Well SB is relative useless, and when u r going against big man with good JS and u r big man has very poor OD then he is helpless. Even JS is harder to train than the G's secondaries couz u must put them out of there position with every risk that is involved on that move for u r team. Not all teams having the luxury to put there players to play out of there position. Something that is not a case for the guards too.

Guards have 4 major skills that every1 is very useful something that u cant said for the big men.

Considering how the passing is now such a big factor for the game is also an other major disadvantage for the big men trainers. Actually u can live with basic big men if u r playing outside tactics but the opposite doesnt apply. To be able to use u r big men properly u need great guards too. So whats the point to have dominant big men? Make them role players. Grab rebounds, play D and thats it