BuzzerBeater Forums

Isolation was a late addition to the GE, and maybe it wasn't coded by the good old BBs. They could just delete it for good.

I like this tactic. Because you don't like this tactic, should they delete her? I'm glad it doesn't work like this here :)

I nominated Patient because putting a small forward to center where the outside defense is the lowest and have him drop a 100 makes absolutely no sense. I never really tried either of the isolations, so, I am not sure how it works.

I didn't say that it was a good thing for BB to be this way! JR SHOULD be more effective.
I was just saying that it is important to retain relatively high JR, because your players will still take threes, even if they're terrible JR-wise. I think JR is important, but not effective enough.

I've consistently heard about this unguarded vs. guarded shot situation, and obviously agree that an unguarded shot should be measured against a constant, one where it is comparable to being covered by a 1 or even 0 OD. This would allow for Threes to go in at a higher rate, rather than the garbage situation of allowing good defenders to somehow defend "unguarded" shots.

Good shooters receive open shots with strong offensive flow.
Perhaps the better way to do it, is to allow strong offensive flow to allow for open shots to occur.

No it wouldn't be 'adequate': did you not see the stats of the 2 players I linked? One of those two actually did have 20/20 JS/JR and shot 25% from 3 in the B3. Also OD is definitely not faster than JR or JS.

So that we're all on the same page here:
- open 3s (assisted) in that analysis I did had a 3FG% of 22.3%, guarded 3s (excluding fouls) 19.5%. Open 3s were 24% of the overall amount.
- for layups those numbers were 52%, 43.3% and 49%
- for inside shots 48.9%, 45.6% and 47%

Those numbers vary significantly depending on the tactics used as each tactic applies a penalty or a boost to certain types of shots, which is itself a problem (you'd expect an elite shooter to take fewer 3s and more drives or postups in inside tactics, but you'd NOT expect his 3FG% to plummet by 10%-15%).

What doesn't change and what you can also clearly see from the numbers above is that the difference in open v guarded shots is marginal and it's almost nonexistant, if you factor in the fouls (which can only happen on a guarded shot). Note that 3s also had only 3% chance of resulting in FTs while for layups and inside shots the number was around 14%.


Last edited by Lemonshine at 6/13/2020 1:29:44 PM

So it IS marginal. Also FT% is around 0.75, so you have: 0.223 v 0.195 + (1 - 0.195) * 0.032 * 0.75 = 0.214 when you factor in FTs.

Disregard the FTs and look at the NBA: the drop in shooting efficiency in the NBA between wide open and tightly contested shots is around 12% (but this study is a bit dated and it did NOT focus on 3s). In 2019 the difference in 3FG% for wide open vs tightly contested 3s for Curry was 52% v 36%, for Beal 41% v 21%, for Harden 46% v 32%, Durant 39% v 26%, Lillard 41% v 34%.

Now you can see how that 3% is actually a fraction of what the number is the real world. Not only that, but you have to consider that a 3 pointer in real life is WAY more likely to be wide open than in BB (with the notable exception of Hardenball).

Last edited by Lemonshine at 6/13/2020 3:00:54 PM