BuzzerBeater Forums

I'll try motion, I've used it in the past but I didn't see the difference, I'll try once again soon, thanks.
The distribution of the numbers of shots, the rebounds and the assists is not clear to me; for example in the yesterday's match (20453182) I coudn't imagine that the SF could make 15 assists and the playmaker takes 15 rebounds... It's a lot of time that I play BB but this game is still an enigma

In that match, Princeton seemed to work really well at getting the ball to your PF. ;-) Sometimes the distribution of things is just random. On the other hand, maybe your SF just had a really good match-up where his opposing player had poor outside d and he had just the right amount of flow skills to distribute the ball.

As for not seeing as much of a difference with motion, as I said it all depends on match-ups. I looked at a small sample of your games and your SG seems to be your best shooter by far and your PG is still pretty solid. So playing motion is probably not the best option for you in most of your games. And even if you do play motion, you are not likely to see much of a difference in your shot distribution.

it was only an example, yesterday I didn't play with my best formation, this one is more or less the usual formation: (20453174)

Just thinking out loud:

I've been wondering about Princeton as an offense run with, say, 4 SGs and a C.

I realize matchups rule, but I wonder if the advantages (outside shooting, 3s, good shots assuming the players can pass well and are patient, even possibly some steals) could cover the obvious disadvantages (rebounding, inside shot). To complete the skill set hypothetical, the SGs would be able to drive and therefore draw fouls. (I recall the Princeton being described as forsaking medium JS for 3s and layups.)

And I don't mean Rashard Lewis 7-ft. but with a superior JR, but I mean 4 players 6'4" or less with a capable C.

I guess I am wondering about two different things:

1) Could this approach work with Princeton?

2) Can one build a team based on any single tactic and advance into the upper reaches of this game? I had always assumed that one should have a team that was tactically flexible, but now I wonder if instead of monoskilled players, one should or could have "monoskilled" teams.

A reply I can think of before I even submit this, is the question of defense. Does having a team of 4 SGs imply a certain defense, say FCP? or could these SGs have reasonable IDs and that be sufficient to slow down the other team?

I think if you want to make it into the top leagues you have to be able to run multiple formations. Defense is why too, so at the same time, I'll answer your second question.

Elite teams can have one elite defender, but over the past few seasons, especially since the engine changes back in maybe season 8? Defense has been more important and elite teams that play 2-3 zone, really do take away all your inside shots and really do dominate the boards. Teams that play 3-2 can hold your best player to 1-12 shooting from outside. Having a balanced lineup offensively and decent passing ratings can help get your other players shots as your team adjusts.

ex: I played LI for 14 league games last season, my PG or SG were my leading scorer 6 times, and my SF twice. So less than half of my games where I played an inside tactic did my PF or C lead my team in scoring.

What does this mean? You can run an inside or outside based offense all you like, but you need to have a balanced team to take advantage of what the defense shows you. If you have a balanced team then you can bait your opponent into playing a 2-3 zone then attack with princeton or RnG or motion. and vice versa.

Bah, there are very few occasions when I would play a 2-3 zone with the current engine. The truth is that it does a poor job of defending any type of attack. In fact, on some occasions I would be willing to use a 3-2 zone to defend an inside offense.

Pusher express my thoughts exactly. Ive seen 3-2 zones to dominate the inside tactics. Actually i used to play a lot inside tactics on the past. Now NEVER on important games.

You are young team, so you should experiment a lot as we did all of us.

Bah, there are very few occasions when I would play a 2-3 zone with the current engine. The truth is that it does a poor job of defending any type of attack. In fact, on some occasions I would be willing to use a 3-2 zone to defend an inside offense.

Full quote

And that's an aspect that BBs should change; I'm a big fan of the importance of the tactics, man can't be the best defense cause is the easier defense you can choice. Using a 1-3-1 against motion or r&g should give a bonus in the defense cause you've a big penalty in rebounds, but see this match: (20453157). You can see the defense of the play (12) but the opponet playmakers scored with 50% and 80%, that's not good at all. So, skills are importants, the core of the GE can be really done but tactics seem to have a marginal impact in the match with the paradox that in some cases using 3-2 zone you've the best defense against an LI attack... At the end, if I defend 2-3 against an inside attack I'd like to have a bonus, if I play 3-2 against an outisde I'd like to have a bouns compare to use man defense, but if I'm wrong with my choice using a 3-2 against an inside tactic I should have a malus. 2-3 zone now is a suicide.

Tactics definitely are important, but skills are obviously more important, and so they should be.

You can't really use a single match as an example and even comparing with other games is difficult because lineups change and the amount of time spent on the court is always different.

From my experience the tactics do play a big role in whether a team wins or loses (when the teams are even matched in skills)
And sometimes even when the teams are not matched if the tactics of the underdog are perfect and the team is capable of an upset.

If you have good outside defenders and average inside defenders then I would suggest playing 2-3 zone unless you are sure your opponent is going to play an outside offence and has a weak inside attack.

If you have good outside defenders and average inside defenders then I would suggest playing 2-3 zone unless you are sure your opponent is going to play an outside offence and has a weak inside attack.

While I do not 100% agree with everything that ned said, I still have to completely disagree with the proponents of a 2-3 zone. You really cannot afford to sacrifice outside d in this game anymore. Just look at the Heathens B3 run this season, he is showing that really high outside d combined with above average ratings everywhere else can really be a lethal combination.

So, when would I play a 2-3 zone? Maybe if I needed to play a guy at SF who was a poor outside defender. Maybe if I really needed to kill the rebounding battle. But it would certainly not be to sacrifice outside d for inside d.