BuzzerBeater Forums

This is true that the game engine only looks at height

Just the opposite. The game engine never looks at height. It only uses the ratings to determine the outcome.

the fact that the 7 footers will end up being better rebounders and the 6 footers will be better ball handlers

That is only true if you train that way. If you play a 6'9" player at PG and train passing and handling fro PG only, he will have better handling and passing than shorter players who play SG/SF and don't get that training.

Edited by Your_Imaginary_Friend (1/11/2008 3:22:47 PM CET)

Last edited by Your_Imaginary_Friend at 1/11/2008 3:22:47 PM

In that case I say then that there needs to be some re-balancing of the inside versus outside shooting effectiveness.

Isn't inside shooting -- a layup -- always a higher percentage shot than an outside shot? And don't say some guards have higher shooting percentages from the outside than close up because that is irrelevant. The reason for that is that if they tried to drive for a layup they get the ball crammed down their throats.

Or are you suggesting that the only thing that matters is Inside Shooting relative to Inside Defense?

You are starting to catch on. :)

Player height is almost cosmetic in this game (only the training 'bonus' issue makes it relevant at all).

Perhaps this example might help you understand the issue better:

North Carolina -- far and away the best college team in the nation this year (and I root against them so that fact hurts) played UNC-Ashville this week. UNCA has a 7'9" center who is a poor athlete -- he can't run and takes forever to get up and down the court. He plays 2-3 minutes, then has to rest 2-3 minutes. His skills are not much better then yours or mine.

However, because he is a foot taller than anyone our on the court, he doesn't have to jump to grab rebounds, block shots or score. He can almost dunk standing up. He got a double-double in 20 minutes of action and leads the nation in total blocked shots.

How does a game designer replicate this player in a computer game so that a kid with lousy skills can lead the nation in shot blocking and get a double-double in half the game? All while playing against the best talent at his level of play?

In BB, this player would have ATROCIOUS stamina and 'side' skills combined with, say, PROMINENT rebounding, shot blocking and inside scoring.

Steve, you need to get over your conception that skill levels are about talent. They aren't. They measure the effectiveness of the players on the court as needed by the game engine. Nothing more, nothing less.

In that case I say then that there needs to be some re-balancing of the inside versus outside shooting effectiveness.

Isn't inside shooting -- a layup -- always a higher percentage shot than an outside shot? And don't say some guards have higher shooting percentages from the outside than close up because that is irrelevant. The reason for that is that if they tried to drive for a layup they get the ball crammed down their throats.

A lot depends on the player and perhaps the defense -- but in general, yes an inside shot is better (higher percentage) than an outside shot.

That being said, the shooting percentages needs to be scaled or modeled appropriately. If the shooting percentage for good outside shooters is 35% (2-ptrs) and 55% for good inside shooters -- then the numbers need adjusting [as the game will lack the appropriate balance]. If its 42% to 50% then maybe that's closer to real basketball.

Regarding UNCA big man (Kenny George?) I agree with you perspective on how his skill levels should be rated -- my point was that there are fewer 7'9" guys with those skill sets than 6" 2" that can his the jumper.

BTW, UNC will need to win a few more tournament games than last season to prove to me they're the best team. :-)


Steve
Go Bruins!

In real life, the great athletes who are under 6'0" will play football, baseball and even soccer rather than basketball where even Manute Bol can keep them off the roster.

Muggsy Bogues calling — he wants his career back… ;)

Muggsy, have you considered the lucrative career of being a thoroughbred jockey?

Seriously though, BB-Domenico, do you guys feel that there is the appropriate balance between inside and outside shooting in the game currently?

If not, what's the proposed solution?

Steve
Go Bruins!

I'm not BB-Domenico, nor any other BB, but as far as I can anlalyse my games, I do thing there is some balance, since some games I clearly was able to score good outside (last game I scored about 40%, actually more if you subtract the shots that where forced to be taken and have lower scorechances anyway), while other games I needed the inside shots to be able to score.
Also some games I had hard times to score inside, and others I had very hard times to score outside.

What I mean is: I can't tell that every game my team plays I can predict which kind of scoring will be the most effective, and also I can't always use the same kind of scoring to be as succesfull as possible.

From this I conclude there is some kind of balance. Ofcourse a great deal depends on the players in one's team. I beleive to have a nicely varieted team, with all kinds of strengths and weaknesses (I also have many players available). If a team has mostly inside scorers, and few players with some decent outside scoring, then there will be no balance and that team will mostly need to play inside in order to score consistently.

In the game overall, I saw a good mix of players, so I'm tempted to say there is good balance.

I was just looking at the FG% for the guards on the USA NT and its seems like they're all shooting from 35 to 42% with most closer to the bottom. If the best outside players are hitting in the high 30's percents -- that seems a little low IMHO.

Steve

I was just looking at the FG% for the guards on the USA NT and its seems like they're all shooting from 35 to 42% with most closer to the bottom. If the best outside players are hitting in the high 30's percents -- that seems a little low IMHO.

Steve

You seem to be overlooking the fact that the current talent level of the National Teams in BB is about equal to high DivII, low Div I college ball right now.

Bob Cousy (and other early NBA stars) used to shoot the percentages you refer to, so perhaps it would be easier to think of BB as being in the 1950's instead of trying to equate the game to the modern era. Look at the Olympic teams of the 1950's and I think you'll see around 35% shooting percentages back then, too.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that the current talent level of the National Teams in BB is about equal to high DivII, low Div I college ball right now.

Okay fine...but BB-Forrest in the above post just said that the game engine is all relative...so if we have Div II players shooting against Div II defenders, then the percentage should be the same as if they were NBA players, right?

Bob Cousy (and other early NBA stars) used to shoot the percentages you refer to, so perhaps it would be easier to think of BB as being in the 1950's instead of trying to equate the game to the modern era. Look at the Olympic teams of the 1950's and I think you'll see around 35% shooting percentages back then, too.

That's fine, then the inside players should shoot like George Mikan at the .404 clip and there would be better balance between inside and outside play.


Steve
Go Bruins!

That's fine, then the inside players should shoot like George Mikan at the .404 clip and there would be better balance between inside and outside play.

I'm not sure what you mean about 'balance' ? The more I read your posts, the more unsure I am what you are saying because we don't know how many shots are taken from inside or from outside based on player stats.

Take a look at my player, Lane Brandt (730510) and tell me what his shooting skills are? What conclusions can we draw from his overall shooting percentage of .333?

The percentages pretty much describes my team and my league, that is 35% from guards, 45% from Cs and PFs. I think that is a reasonable split for the lower quality of play going on. High School ball is all about working for inside shots because those are a much higher percentage.

If NT data is your source, then consider the possibility other teams have better outside D than inside D as the reason for the less than ideal split in shooting percentages.

Me? I think it is much too early to draw any conclusions on the game engine, particularly from the small number of NT games played compared to all the league games out there. My opinion is that randomness, that is the 'die rolls' of the game, are currently overwhelming any tactical choices we can make. That is, good luck is currently the most important factor in game outcomes. This is because the ratings are close to the more-or-less randomly generated level that started this simulation. And therefore are 'canceling' out each other most of the time.

We don't know impacts what yet. A SG with Strong Jump Shot and Jump Shot Range may have Pitiful One-on-one skills. He might randomly have that Pitiful skill accessed for a dozen shots in one game and not-at-all in the next. We don't know.

I think the BBs are looking at overall shooting percentages and everything else for reality checks. Presumably, they like what they are seeing. That said, with 20,000+ teams out there, a few will have been far above average lucky, and a few far below average unlucky. We don't know if we are in either camp.