BuzzerBeater Forums

That's all fine, if you get a hole at SG due to injury your ratings shouldn't be far superior to the offensive rating. OD and oustside shooting weigh the SG heavily. Besides look at the PG (H) scoring 10 points on 9 shots and tell me how that makes sense with the 68/100 shooting rating, opposed to 6 points on 17 shots and 99/100 scoring rating for the PG (A).

I believe there are caps on shooting %s, even for inside offenses. caps on % of shot types etc.

This would make sense, but you'd expect it to be reflected in the ratings wouldn't you?

My question is what good are ratings for if they can't be used to draw conclusions on a game? This might not be the best example, as it was a 138-131 bbstats so yes still relatively close even ratings-wise.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 2/27/2015 3:44:07 AM

kidding? )
i played every game with easy ))

I'll turn your question around, and ask what good is a game if the statistically superior side always won??

I mean, the ratings show that he had slightly better defence (over the course of the game as a whole I might add, chances are he had much better D with his good SG healthy, and slightly worse D when he was injured, averaging out to slightly better). He had better scoring, but worse flow. And yeah, as Trainerman pointed out, worse FT shooting.

So why would I bother to play a game if the ratings determine the winner every time and there are no upsets? That's not fun. There's no suspense there, let it just be a mathematical equation. This is a slight upset - and I do stress slight. I've seen much worse. And we should. Lord knows it's realistic! Look at the NBA for example and how many crazy results there are ... yes it doesn't happen all the time, but over the course of an 82 game season (1230 games total?), you're bound to see probably dozens.

If this happens once or twice, that's the way it's supposed to be. If it starts happening multiple times to the same team, then I'd argue there's probably a fundamental flaw with that team (such as very low FT shooting, or poor team passing leading to a poor flow etc) that is holding it back from winning even though the ratings might be mostly better. If it happens repeatedly, again and again, without any team flaw being diagnosable, then maybe we'd have something to talk about.

I'll turn your question around, and ask what good is a game if the statistically superior side always won??

This is 1 part of the reason. Besides that; YOU CANNOT DRAW CONCLUSIONS FROM 1 GAME. That is the law of statistics. You don't have to be a genius to understand that you cannot draw conclusions if your sample size is 1.

People seem to forget this the moment they lose a game in which their team is better. Yes, the ratings tell you your team is better, that is what you think too right? So the ratings are more or less accurate, it would be strange if they showed the other team is better (overall, not just this game) while you know you have the stronger team right? That's why you post here.

Then the question becomes, why does the better team lose a game? That is easy to answer, the GE is made to be partially random, so the better team doesn't always win and your players don't have the same stats every single game. So by having a slightly better team, say you have 60% chance to win the game and the other team has 40% to win. The ratings reflect that. It's still possible the other team wins because that 40% happens too.

Last edited by Jeründerbar at 2/27/2015 4:30:09 AM

Playing easy has its drawback, it's not free gift of enthusiasm.

And that is reflected in the defensive and rebounding ratings.

YOU CANNOT DRAW CONCLUSIONS FROM 1 GAME. That is the law of statistics. You don't have to be a genius to understand that you cannot draw conclusions if your sample size is 1.

Well ok, smartypants, here's a thing for you: PG scoring rating on the away team is 98.6. It means on average his PGs should score 99 points on 100 shots. The PGs in that game combined for...6 points on 17 shots. Now since you are so fond of averages and you don't have to be a stat genius, or any kind of genius to understand this, that rating means that if they play this exact same game again th PG could score 47 points on 17 shots. Simple napkin math is your friend here.

Just for the sake of argument, if the PG scores 47 on 17 shots because, as you say, it's random and you can be above or below the average that's a 41 point swing and the guests win by 40 points. I suppose you're one of those who wouldn't be surprised if the same game with the same ratings ended 136-97? This is the kind of irrational thing about ratings as currently presented to us.

Now tell me you believe it is possible that a guy scores 6 one time and 47 the next with the exact same ratings or even better that you have a logical explanation for it and we can leave it at this. I say the ratings are misleading and somewhere you need something that makes sense and allows you to draw conclusions on a game.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 2/27/2015 5:51:59 AM

what good is a game if the statistically superior side always won??

No

My issue with this is different. I played this game this week (79191134), I deserved to lose and while watching the game I thought my defensive ratings would be horrific. Now look at the ratings and tell me if they represent a situation where the home team nearly blew out the guests despite 2 injuries.

I'll turn your question around, and ask what good are ratings for, if they don't describe remotely logically what has happened on the court??? Why do we even need them if they are not fit for their stated purpose (game manual)?

You have no guarantee of knowing what the ratings are before a game, especially shooting ratings, that's fine. However in the boxscore we need something to give us intelligible information based on the current GE not any old version of it. People shooting the lights out while having shooting ratings in the 50s makes no sense whatsoever. Teams not scoring efficiently despite massive differentials in offense-defense makes no sense. Ratings should just reflect the reality of what happened on the court.

I'm not asking that the better team on paper always wins. I'm asking that the ratings are meaningful and tailored on the current GM so that people can understand what made a difference in the results. This was my point from the first reply to Perpete.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 2/27/2015 5:36:09 AM

PG scoring rating on the away team is 98.6. It means on average his PGs should score 99 points on 100 shots. The PGs in that game combined for...6 points on 17 shots. Now since you are so fond of averages and you don't have to be a stat genius, or any kind of genius to understand this, that rating means that if they play this exact same game again th PG could score 47 points on 17 shots. Simple napkin math is your friend here.

That's not how statistic works, another important fact is that the past does not influence the future. If you flip a coin and it's tails, doesn't mean the next time it has to be heads or even have a higher chance because it needs to average out. You still have 50% chance to get heads, regardsless of what previous results are. So no, the PG's don't have to score 47 on 17 shots for the scoring rating to be true. Besides that, I don't you can adjust PP100 that way because of actual limitations on Points per shot. The ratings just say that if those PG's would play a statistically relevant number of games, say 1000, on average over all those games they'd score 98.6 PP100.

What would you want those ratings to display then? The actual PP100 of that game? What use is that, you can just calculate that yourself and it doesn't give you more information. The information you can gather from this is that on average the PG's should score 98.6 PP100, and because they only scored 6p on 17 you can conclude they had a bad offensive game, an outlying result. Since the PP100 is a decent number, you don't need to change anything. Now if the PP100 was much lower, you can conclude the performance of the PG's is bad because appearantly they are bad offensively, so you could try and change that.

If you don't think it's logical that a player that scores 98.6 PP100 on average has 1 game in which he scores 6p on 17, that's just how it is, good players can have bad games. Lebron James normally has a great PP100 but he has games in which he shoots badly too. Now if that player has 10 games in a row in which he shoots as bad as 6p on 17, then you can ask yourself what's wrong, because that is a much smaller chance than 1 guy having a bad shooting night.

Look I don't want to sound like a smartypants, so sorry for that, I genuinely want to explain basic statistics to you if you like. Just tell me what you don't understand and I'll try to elaborate.



Last edited by Jeründerbar at 2/27/2015 7:35:55 AM