BuzzerBeater Forums

my expectations would be that this skill is rth the money you pay for it - else i wouldn't pay for it and don't train it like most managers do.

I agree, though my impression is that people only look at the number of blocked shots per game, and conclude it's not sufficient to justify training shotblocking. As Charles pointed out, they seem to ignore the fact that great shotblockers, especially at the inside positions, tend to disrupt a significant number of shots by rotating over. Disrupted shots are almost universally a miss (they seem to have a very, very low chance of going in).

And of course, if you don't train SB up, it's not going to work -- this is a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

I've an example of a guy that it was in my first roster, now he has 27yo and he was trained in SB till lvl 12 or 14 I don't remember exactly. Well, if you see the matches the % of shots scored by the opponent was similar to the other centers, ball losts the same, so at the end if you believe that SB is useful you can train all the players in that skills personally when I see a player with SB high on the market I prefer to stay away from him due to the fact that the salary has a penalty training this skill and once again I don't see any advantage in the number of shots blocked neither in the global box score.
Charles coudn't say that SB is an useless skill, don't you think?

If you keep ignoring the facts and interpret them wrong, there's no end to any discussion. If you don't even believe the only few guys that do know how the game engine is coded, and take their time to post some info at the forums, i.e. the BBs, why would you even bother to raise the subject then.

If a high shot blocking skill decreases the chance of driving guards hitting the shot, and the inside men hitting the shot, variance may still influence it, showing not that much difference at the single player you used as an example.

That's the problem with those games posted and many other examples posted in discussions. One single game doesn't prove anything, we still have the random factor as well. If you dominated the game, with all players at 130 points per 100 shots, your final score can vary a lot, since the average team takes just ~80 shots per game. One game you might only get 60 points, while the other game you might hit 200 points.

Even the full career of a single player isn't enough to really prove anything. My three main inside men are putting up insane numbers this season (70.7%, 67.6% and 62.8% %FG), does that mean I'm dominating and my opponents defense suck? No it probably means I'm lucky this season, variance is on my side.

The English version of the text is "XXX rotates over to help defend the play".

ain't they also reflections, against there own man like "normal" blocks? i hope so, because else it si not much..

This might or might not be an unfortunate side effect, though it likely has a rationalization. A respectable SB guard is someone like Dwyane Wade, who will probably swat most Jose Calderon ill-advised layup attempts in the fifth row, but won't be able to block Shaq when he's making a move to the basket.

but normally this would be the work of the center behind him, who don't block:

PS: Please show me a center with close to 5 blocks a game, and don't come with your logic that there are fewer blocks in a game with lot more shot attemps then in the realkity - because normally the number of blocks raise with the anumber of attembed blocks and get not reducing even when forrest takes this logic toargue for his reduction with the last change.

In countrys like germany, guards/SF with 2,5 blocks normally are close to the top 50 of the country with over hundreds leagues.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 1/2/2010 7:43:04 AM

no no Mazzurana had something about lvl 6-7 in SB, I mean Celestino Barbetta

In any case everyone could have reason, we see players with lvl 19-19 js/jr scored with the 20%, this game is so strange and seems so complicated

This what i am talking about the big men vs guards. 4 skills with never ending debate about SB, and actually the ppl that defend SB are the BB's and the GM's. For the guards 7 skills with only debate being driving, but again is so much much cheaper than SB and trains 2-3 other skills...

Last edited by JohnnyB at 1/2/2010 8:00:44 AM

And was the text for alteration?

The English version of the text is "XXX rotates over to help defend the play".

Is this something you believe or something you know?

I always understood that text as a help defense. A player who comes to help not necessarily is altering the shot through SB but rather ID.

That is how I read it.

Perhaps, many of us are confusing some of the "real perforance" of SB with things we "theorically" assume are part of ID. Then, even if Charles tell us the effect is there and that it is important, an amazing part of the community will not think it that way.



Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 1/4/2010 11:49:45 AM

Moreover, imho m2m and 3-2 work too well against look inside (in most cases much better than the 2-3 defense, which was "designed" for that).

On the other hand we can find another point of view - it is not a coinflip as it was for many teams before (will he go inside o outside, which I hsould choose...). 2-3 Zone has significant boost in rebounding that's probably why BBs made it weaker in the new engine.

(not saying things are balance; a bit surprised auch a thread was not created more then a season ago)

2) There is no possible way to train such inside players. Are you really going to train a guy earning $200,000 in salary at a position where he sucks? I even recently suggested in the Canadian off-site forum that a young player with great outside skills and sub-par inside skills should be trained as a C... Everyone else (besides me) thought that was a complete waste. But I really do not see another way to develop these multi-skilled inside players.

Not arguing but there are managers doing that. Not really 200k (salary as an indicaton of quality is overrated) because if oyu have a 200k player you already went the wrong way and created a monster.