BuzzerBeater Forums

I keep it around mediocre-average. Actually I'm training stamina, since two or three of my start players have down it to inept this season

A) probably this is true but at the moment I think that the market is not so good so at the end the situation seems the same for centers and playmakers
B) also this is the true but simply because OD is probably the slower training to do and if your guards don't have attack with only defense they aren't a problem for your opponents
C) of course if you train "shorters" you must have good PF and centers and viceversa

I'm used to buy good defensive centers and they give me a good help but they don't guarantee to me the possibility to change tactic cause they've a lack in IS, the problem is the same if you train centers and you've to buy shorters but imho the big difference is that PFs and centers raise quickly than shorters so if I want to keep my team competitive, I've to change them often and when you want to improve you must spend money ;)

as teamratings are not the things we principly use when calculating results for things in the GE.

and what about MR?are they also useless in the calculation?

MR are logically the output not the input....

think of the GE as a big black box... and at some point your PG gets an opportunity for a hot... the GE does its magic and spits out some probability that he scores, that is the matchup rating...

so its not so much used in the calculation as it is the output of the calculation.

EDIT: SOME OF THESE STATEMENTS MIGHT BE MISLEADING.. PLEASE READ (66639.86)

Last edited by BB-Forrest at 1/7/2009 9:52:19 PM

MR are logically the output not the input....

think of the GE as a big black box... and at some point your PG gets an opportunity for a hot... the GE does its magic and spits out some probability that he scores, that is the matchup rating...

so its not so much used in the calculation as it is the output of the calculation.

So, if you have to choose between MR and teamratings, you think MR are “closer” to the calculation of GE?

as far as shooting the basketball goes yes..

think of the GE as a big black box... and at some point your PG gets an opportunity for a hot... the GE does its magic and spits out some probability that he scores, that is the matchup rating...

Good to know.
So it's calculated only from the shots actually taken during the game. That's very different from what I have always thought and it's a bit disappointing too.

So, in fact, team ratings and matchup ratings consider in different ways the relative contributions of starters and backups (the first weighted by the minutes played and the MR by the number of shots taken).

A) although it takes longer to train superior outside players, they seem to sell for more enabling the purchase of top inside defenders.

At this point, I dont think there's much of a premium for gaurds, and if there is, it's not worth the additional difficulty.

For example, I just sold a guard who's guard skills totaled 65 for 4.75m. I just bought a center who's inside skills totaled 45 for 3.8m. If you assume that both of those players started at respectable for all their skills, it took the guard 6 more pops to get to where he was. Also, the guard had better inside skills then the center had outside skills.

The chances of finding a center who has mostly 7 inside skills to start is also better then finding a guard who's outside skills are mostly 7 to start. I don't know if that helps, but it made sense to me at least

B) It seems that OD is lacking on a lot of teams, even the ones ( or maybe especially the ones ) that have great outside shooters.

Could be. I spend almost all my time training outside defense though.

C) having quality from behind the arc can be a huge advantage in close games.

I think having quality in the paint is a bigger advantage, as there's a better chance to draw fouls and get opponents in foul trouble.

Last edited by brian at 1/6/2009 10:40:52 AM

i really object to the attitude you are taking here.... understand we are not trying to deceive, lie, confuse users. We are trying to give some kind of feedback which is simple to understand, and so writing a long treatise on the complications between team ratings and the GE is not the most effective way to communicate the rules. Perhaps we need a footnote or something so we can get into a much more complicated discussion.... but I do think the spirit of what is written in the rules is correct. The team ratings are directly a function of what you put on the court, and what you put on the court is what goes into the game engine, "This rating is based on a combination of your player's stats and his overall contribution to the team effort....These team ratings are used in the calculation of what happens each possession" is not incredibly misleading... if you have a simplier way to explain what team ratings are and how they relate to the game engine that will be understable to new users (which the rules are really designed for) i would love to hear it.