BuzzerBeater Forums

To go back to that inside iso thought though, it could be a very dangerous tactic when you have good SFs, which we will have this season. And bigs do not need high DR or HA either to make it work as long as you have good passing from the guards, which we will have. Many times the guards themselves will iso down low and then kick out or find a guy down low for the easy basket.

I can't imagine any scenario where relying on the guards' passing to make an isolation work will be even remotely as effective as using that passing advantage in a regular LI attack. For the II to work the best inside shooter needs to be able to drive and hit jump shots, because they'll get the ball away from the basket and be expected to create their own offense. If this was going to work at the U21 level I'd imagine it'd have to be a unique build with high IS/DR/HA/PA/JS and probably diminished defense to fit all that in.

Do we have data somewhere about the shot distribution of the isolation offenses? If we don't, I think it'd be worth experimenting and seeing how they end up being distributed. Ideally with the isolation, if the individual matchup is bad then they will not be taking the shots. A specific build for a SG would be interesting though.

It really all depends on what you feel the mismatch as. I know it seems weird but inside iso works best for guards and SFs where as outside iso works best for bigs. That may sound funny but its because of the mismatch. Rarely will you find in BB that a big man has a huge
Advantage down low and same with the guards on the putside. So you run. The isos to take advantage of their secondaries, but working opposite to what you think. Yes DR is important for the bigs, but more so if you run the outside iso because then then they will need to make the dribble move to get the shot. So in today's world of guards being loaded for the inside, it can be to their advantage to get isolated down low against other guards with bad ID. Then if they can't make the play they pass it out or get it to a big man.

I do not believe not participating in scouting last season should be held against me at all. I'd still take my scouting resume over any of the other candidates. I'm an extremely experienced scout, and still check the database weekly, just to see the prospects on the horizon.

I have you last listed as scouting s19, two years ago

I was roundaboutly pointing out that, aside from lobbying for your own players, I don't recall you and Smallfrie being involved in the nuts,bolts, and discussions of U21 in my time. But you are correct that this shouldn't be held too much against you two as you were involved much more in the Rambo / magiker terms.

A couple questions for all:

1. Folks are talking a lot about needing more SGs and PFs. We don't have those for s26 as we've been doubling down on LI players the last few seasons. Yi is brought up as the prototypical ideal SG. Yi played for an outside team, the last that U21 had. Jimmie Brown was a similar SG in a LI team who shot 25% on the season and was benched by Rambo in the finals for chucking too damn much. We've played Irizzazzazzy, the one pure SG available, for two scrim in LI and 25% would be an improvement. So...do SGs have a place in LI? Or by advising managers to create more SGs do you wish to move away from LI altogether?

2. PFs...Hamel (our PF from last season for those candidates who weren't following the team) was about as good as a PF build as I can imagine being made from this level. I played him a bunch..more out of desperation from out lack of bigger bigs. How does you ideal PF combare to him skill and stat-wise?

3. The s27 contest on-site has some prizes geared to LI players...specifically PGs and mono-bigs. How do you see the contest being intigrated to your vision for s27 Worlds players and tactics?

We have it here: http://s3.zetaboards.com/BuzzerBeater_USA_NT/topic/758066... for offsite members.

Without going into detail it has a pretty even distribution of shots. That said there seems to be a large portion of 3's from the 1-3 spots and jumpers from all 5 positions.

Question to all candidates: Does II seem like a feasible alternative in the near future given that information?

I think the key is to have SGs with good passing too. Irizarry has only 7 passing due to the high shooting skills which I think makes it so he is a bit of a ball hog and chucks up shots a lot. With 10 passing I think he would be perfectly fine. I think he and other SGs can still work well in LI, they just need moooooorrreeee passing.

Hamel was pretty much my ideal PF. He gave us everything we needed and was consistently one of our best players. I would want molds just like him for future U21 NT players.

The contest is beneficial in most aspects but it also veers away from building good SFs and players that aren't passing LI PGs and Centers. Ultimately I think getting good SFs, PFs and SGs comes down to the dedicated managers that focus on the USA NTs and don't care too much about the supporter. I think the contest is good to get people who normally don't train young USA players involved though.

I don't think we have used it enough to say one way or another. With that being said, I think it is definitely worth paying more attention to.

1. SGs do have a place in LI, but not in the manor I'm describing them. SGs is the least valuable position in BB. Does it have value? Absolutely. But would I play Yi, or a Yi type SG in a LI tactic? No because his lack of passing will harm the offense more than his great shooting will help it. Now, with that said I'm going to clear up my stance of SGs. Do I want our top guard prospects, ones that have a legitimate chance of the NT, to be built into SGs? No. I'm only going to recommend a manager turn his 18 into a SG if the prospect is around 6/7/7/4/4/4. and skills of the nature. That player is not going to be a U21 candidate if they take the time to train the passing up to a respectable level. And by that time a good season of prime training time has vanished. That player will be on the U21 radar though if they pump JS/JR/OD with some secondary 1v1 weeks. That prospect by age 21 will be 15/14/14/10/10/5, and a damn good player.

As for the 2nd part of your question, I'm not necessarily looking to move away from LI, but at the same time I am not content with telling people to train their players as if we'll be running LI. That eliminates options, and I like choosing from options. It allows me to choose the best team, instead of hoping this LI team that is waiting for me is good enough to win.

Also it is a known BB fact that 3p% is drastically decreased when running a LI offense, so playing a true SG, no matter how good, in LI is a waste of their talents, and harmful to the team. Put Irizarri in a RnG, or Princeton, and he's probably our highest scorer.

I'm great at building teams. I like SGs, and PFs, but if we have none that are talented, I'm not going to be biased and pick them if they don't fit in the team plan.

2. Hamel is my ideal PF. He was 11/6/5/8/8/5 15/14/7. You could nitpick with the 7 rebounding, but you'd be wrong. He was a stud. You take that build and run, no matter your ideal build.

3. At this point, I'm not going to interfere much with the season 27 guys, because the player is 20 y/o now, and following a predetermined training plan, so I'm not going to come in and tell them that what they've been doing is wrong, and to now follow my plan. If they've been told to go with a LI PG, I can really tell them to cancel that and go with scoring PG. If I see a prospect that I feel can go another route, I will contact the manager, find out what they're doing, and if it's different than the view I share, I'll see how they feel about my plan. If they decline, there is not much more that I can do.

Just glancing at the current age 20 crop, I can already see we're going to be an inside oriented team. Devin Farnworth may go down as the best PF the U21 has ever seen, Bob Chavarria is an incredibly advanced PG with great ID, and the next seven highest players, sorted by TSP, are all guards with great inside secondaries. That team has an identity, and it's an inside oriented one. It would be moronic if I tried and changed it now.

And as I woke up this morning I received a pm from a manager who said last season their PG made the U21 after being drafted with 3 passing. I've never heard of such a feat, as you hear about those that don't train passing, more than those that did. I'd just like to amend my answer and say if you have 4 passing and train it up, the elastic effect will be large enough for passing to pop quicker than thought, and that training passing is never a "waste". Last seasons guard crops were incredibly weak so who knows if that player is a candidate in most other years, but I apologize for the certainty in which I posted.

1. I do not intend to move away from the LI rather then gove us multiple options and be diversed. Also, at a club level I can see these pure SGs helping even more than the U21/NT so it'll be a benefit to managers. I've been pushing for diversity for several seasons now and everyone seems to finally be coming on. I feel SGs can have a place in a LI offense too. I know lot is to be said about low shooting percentage, but by training passing when the SG is 21 and getting it up by usin the elastic effect a SG could have 12 passing at the end of the season which would help a lot. It also gives that option for kick outs and when you need those desperation threes which we hate seeing now because nobody can shoot them.

2. Hamels was a great PF that played fairly well. I was not a fan of his rebounding but he benefited the team in other ways. I would definitely mention to those training PFs that any build could make it and be effective but I would advise to get more rebounding. I've posted earlier my ideal PF for the U21 to see what I would like.


3. I won't have much say in this. Once again Oriolekid and I have similar answers, but in all honesty there isn't much that can be done for next season. My goal as manager would be to work on those 18 and 19yos to begin building the diverse player sets that we need.

Inside iso can definitely be an option to test. When I mentioned it early it was to test it and see how the shot distributions are. Some teams are better suited than others but we don't know how the GE will react till we try it. If it does not work how we like then we don't use it. But it could also turn out to be a great option for the future.