BuzzerBeater Forums

having great defense stats
idk, it also depends on the opponents driving handling ans passing skills and his offensive tactics

4th quarter is like...

(19056979)

I think the importance of free throw is overated here. It's quite often that the winning sides are fouled more because the losing sides resort to the fouling strategy in the last minute. It's irrelevant to simply say that team won because it has very good free throw because

1) what matter most is why did the the match engine decide that team is a worse team up to the last minute of the game, rather than why did the fouling strategy failed.
2) if the fouling strategy worked, well, they won't get posted here.

I think what we are most interested is 1) but saying the winning side has good free throw is only answering why didn't the fouling strategy worked, which is pointless.

Last edited by 7ton at 12/28/2009 1:38:30 AM

look at Matchups of both PG, SG and SF (probably the positions with more looks in outside offensive tactics, then the most important ones for most of these games) :

Considering higher enthusiasm and HCA your 3-2 defense was less efective than his M2M when facing the respective offense. Thus, he was the one whit the winning edge. This is also *confirmed* by the fact that even if you win the possesion's battle you were less efective at converting those opportunities into points, you can see this from the matchups optics and also looking at the "real performance" were you convert the same amount of shots but shooting 18 more attemps.

That is why you were losing the game before the foul-end-game-logic beggined.

Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 12/28/2009 8:56:30 AM

Hmm, guess so. I just don't get how pp100 is calculated (makes no sense to me). Using that game as an example, my PF shot only 2-14 & somehow had the highest pp100 of anyone on both teams (over 100). My SF scored more points on fewer shots (5-12) & had a pp100 of 79.2..?

Anyway hope it doesn't seem like i'm whining about that game. Just wanted to see if i overlooked something obvious & learn from it.

Thanks a lot for the analysis.
I guess i expected a result more like this (17709716) or this (15480518) (the last 2 times we played). especially since they just sold their $124k per week center (which is more than my entire roster combined). Flawed thinking on my part...

Oh & real nice point 7ton. (don't want to triple post, lol)

Last edited by shikago at 12/28/2009 8:37:30 AM

Thanks a lot for the analysis.
I guess i expected a result more like this (17709716) or this (15480518) (the last 2 times we played). especially since they just sold their $124k per week center (which is more than my entire roster combined). Flawed thinking on my part...

Oh & real nice point 7ton. (don't want to triple post, lol)

If you are willing to take something like an advice, I would tell you to stop using Team Ratings as the main focus when understanding a game. Personally, matchups ratings are the way to go when used with tactics selection, some knowledge of your players and, partially, team ratings.

I can only give you some hints of your game since I can only see the resume and use the information you provide us (for example, like you are sure that you had more enthusiasm). But you can have all the key pieces to understand it.

I really do not know how matchups are calculated but I understand they are the amount of points your player would have score if has taken 100 shots. So, it is a theoric value. BB-Forrest once said it was an expected value. That being said, and with that info you can know where were your theoric best opportunities but also your theoric weaknesses.

Using the right tactics you can better explote those opportunities(also Offensive flow is key for this) and the right defense will help you cover(sometimes just partially) those weaknesses, and this time not on theoric grounds but in real (performance) grounds. This kind of info is not revealed by Team Ratings.

Hope those thoughts could help a little more to understand your others two games also (wich in fact, were entirely consistent with the previous analysis. Just think that *most* of the action ocurred away from his 100k C).

Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 12/28/2009 3:26:16 PM

Ah, i see now.. thanks! I will take your advice from now on then.

Yes, you are right. i had been focusing mainly on team ratings. Since i didn't really understand the matchup ratings I didn't value it much. Just using the other things (team ratings, tactics, enthusiasm, effort, home or road game, etc.) seemed to explain most games previously. oh, my mistake - i wasn't very clear about the center. yes, i knew it wasn't a big deal. just meant that with all other players the same, it might benefit me... even if only a small amount (like rebounding slightly). Sort of like the cliche - "it can't hurt, and can only help".

anyway, thanks again for explaining.

Last edited by shikago at 12/29/2009 9:09:24 AM

(17981332)
Any reason?