BuzzerBeater Forums

hmm...i could have sworn ive read from dozens and dozens of people that a fast pace offense is best suited for FCP..

Reason being:

FCP increases chances of turnover.

The longer the shot clock winds down during your offense, the chance of turning the ball over increases.

Therefore, FCP amplifies the chances of turnover the longer it takes for you to get a shot off and a fast paced offense will net you less turnovers since you are sometimes shooting 10-12 seconds into the shotclock.

but there is also an valid argumentation the different way:

FCP increase change of turnover, but especially in the first seconds of an attack, fast paced tactic have a higher prohability of making an turnover in this "area" because they are more po prone in the same attack time. So playing slowly reduces the chanche of to in the critical phase, and let you turnover the ball less often.

I personally like the fast paced tactics more, but not because of the to. The thing is that you get lot of easy basket at the beginning of the attack(which appears often below the basket even when you play outside focus), and i believe you should use this situations before the defense "switch"(that the defense is switching is just a theory from me, but at least i like to go for the early shots).

PS: But i loved opponents play it, because it only work in very very rare cases ;)

Last edited by CrazyEye at 11/24/2010 3:03:17 PM

Well, as to the rare cases, the one team playing it is the strongest from the opposing conference, so they are quite strong anyway.

So I can really conclude that the best way of playing against FCP is still debatable. Doesn't really help me that much, of course, but at least if I take the wrong decision, it's because noone knows exactly enough.

There is a mistake in your logic. The amount of time you are in defense doesn't depend on the pace of the game but on rebounding and interceptions/turnovers.
If you face a slow attack, you will be defending more time by possesion but during less possessions (say 20 seconds x 60 possessions) and against a fast attack, you will defend less time but during more possessions (say 10 seconds x 120 possessions). There is no difference.

@ mathcorejay :

Tactically wise, I would go fast paced for the same reasons as CrazyEye. Amongst the pros and cons, the strongest is the easy baskets you get in the first seconds of the offense. Go preferably LI for easy inside shots if you have big men with secondaries. There is another FCP's weakness which is the rebounding. Otherwise, R&G would do. You will be amazed by your FG%.
But IMHO, regardless of the tactic, you want all your players with lots of handling and passing to prevent TOs. If your center lacks handling/passing, it's ok, be sure he is your best rebounder. Uptown bears losses were both at home against the two best offensive flow of your league. Driving can help too so that your players can create a shot quickly even if it's a relatively low % shot. You want your players to shoot quickly to take full advantage of the weak defense knowing you can count on a feweasy second chances from offensive rebounds.

Experiment with your first game, it should be easy. The second one will be a challenge though :)

There is a mistake in your logic. The amount of time you are in defense doesn't depend on the pace of the game but on rebounding and interceptions/turnovers.
If you face a slow attack, you will be defending more time by possesion but during less possessions (say 20 seconds x 60 possessions) and against a fast attack, you will defend less time but during more possessions (say 10 seconds x 120 possessions). There is no difference.

No he is right, because you made an mistake in your logic the opponent have an attack betwen those too attacks. So let this take 15s then your example looks like:

Slow attack: 20s* 60 + 15s* 60 = 2100s
Fast Attack: 10s* 120 + 15s * 120 = 3000s

So you need to have nearly 50% more playing time for the same amount of possesion, with relativ short attacks against fcp and long attacks against your defence this will be even worse. BUT i am not sure, if the engine calculates the expense like that, a easier implementation which also makes sense would calculate a stamina loss for every position which would favour the fast attacks.(the halfcourtgame is normaly less exhausting then the transition game or in this case the real pressing game)

fast paced attack is the way to go against fcp. no doubt about it. crazyeye, yuore wrong with the start of attack. why is fast attack more prone to turnover? thats really not true.

here's a game: (26469933) i think fcp worked wonderful here. and look who made the most to. a PG. yes, motion is not slow, still pg will handle the ball more time than he would in rng. the result is a pretty close game until 4th quarter against far more superior team.

Well, you are absolutely right ! No more night posting for me ^^
Pace is a factor amongst others indeed.
I don't believe the GE is that sophisticated in calculating stamina loss either.

But I keep the second part of my message which is based on my game experience and not on my logic ;p

BC Lavonai is a superior team but with an awful OF, that's exactly the kind of team against whom FCP should work to some extent. Isn't it why you gambled on FCP ?
It's difficult to know if he would have made more or less TOs in a fast attack. The main cause of why it worked somewhat is the terrible OF.

thats the point. i think we would all agree that playing slower paced offenses we need better OF than playing fast paced offenses, right? so, it would be stupid to play slower paced offense against FCP if your offensive flow isnt good. and if it is good, you still will benefit more from higher paced offense, because the defense would be more easier to beat for your players cause theyre allready good at pas/handling than playing slower pace.

Yes, easier to beat because the FCP is weak against shots in the first 10 or so seconds. I agree with CE that it seems there is a switch at some point from FCP to M2M.
Not easier to beat because it's fast. Both OF and slow pace give your team better looks for a shot.

In slow offense, players will wait for a very good look to attempt a shot. If your OF isn't good enough, the very good look will never come and players will force a last second poor attempt with low success probability.
You need a better OF in slow pace because you aim for very good looks not specifically because it's harder to beat the opponent. Conversely, in a fast attack, you are not beating your opponent more easily, you attempt shots with lower probability.

IMHO, regardless of tactics, the most important against FCP is handling/passing which translates into OF. With a high enough OF, it's a walk playing against FCP whatever tactical options you choose. In a close game, I believe fast pace is better because first opportunities are extremely good because the FCP doesn't defend against shots better but defends passing lanes, shots are actually easier.

The way you put it, it's always better to play fast against any defense which might be true for teams in development.