BuzzerBeater Forums

are 3fg at a high percentage common at the end of games?

I usually see 3 pointers near the end of a game when a team is behind by a few points, and needs at least 2 possessions to tie the game or take the lead.

I cant explain the SG scoring PP/100 ratings at all - is anyone able to explain this logically to me?

Although your SG only shot 1-6, had 8 assists and 7 rebounds. I'm not sure if FTs have any impact either, but he did go 5-6 from the FT line.

His SG, PF and SF torched your defense, their perimeter defense rating was 3 levels higher than yours, and your PP100 for SG was only 71.1 points.

I usually see 3 pointers near the end of a game when a team is behind by a few points, and needs at least 2 possessions to tie the game or take the lead.

Thanks BD. I was thinking that the late game treys (and playing 48 minutes) could explain why the opposing SG shot better than he did (player becomes tired on defense as the game goes on).

Although your SG only shot 1-6, had 8 assists and 7 rebounds. I'm not sure if FTs have any impact either, but he did go 5-6 from the FT line.

Thanks for helping, however according to the rules assists and rebounds don't count towards the PP/100 rating.

The match-up rating represents the number of points that players at a given position would have scored, on average, if they were to take 100 shots.

So while the stat line (assists & rebounds) shows efficiency by my SG, it doesn't help to explain why he went 33/100 instead of the 88/100.
I don't believe FT should count towards the PP/100 as they are no pressure shots (and there is a separate FT rating for each player, -plus look at the PG who shot crap from the field and the line. However even if FT do count towards the PP/100 the boost to the PP/100 would still be below the box-score ratings.

But looking at the recent cup game (62018260) I don't believe stamina to be a factor for the offensive PP/100 rating. He played 48 minutes and shot a 88/100, which was well above the box score PP/100 rating (43/100). So how could stamina be a factor in his scoring ratings if it doesn't apply to both games?

I'm obviously missing something and realize these are 2 standalone games but the PP/100 is so confusing - have a look at my C rating of 96 going 5-14 which is boosted by the treys he hit.

His perimeter defense was bigger because of me playing LI but u forget to mention that he played LI but his inside offense was 3 levels under my inside defense.

could someone explain this to me? (62079716)

sorry, but i don´t need a tactic anymore if this game is so bugged....

Maybe his team had so much overwhelming OD that it cut off your passing and driving lanes, and forces your team to take low percentage shots. I don't know. I have, however, seen a few results like this where a 3-2 (or even a 1-3-1 defense beats LI). Crazy things happen, I guess.

You both shot dismally from three (you went 0-9 and he went 2-16), you took and made less FTs, had less rebounds, and 3 more turnovers. After this, I can't tell you what went wrong.

Your starting C and PF were +6 and +7. Your backups, both under $4k, were -7 and -8. It's always a shame to pay so much money to starters only to have backups making almost nothing going out and losing the game for you.

No depth on your team. When your backups were in he crushed you. You are probably the better team but he had more depth and your starters couldn't overcome that.

off course it must be the depth on my Team. for sure - thats why one of the best Rebounders in this game can´t dominate the offensive board against an 1-3-1 Zone.

sorry but thats not an Explanation for me. also i´d have a very deep Team if not my backups would have been injured for a combined 8 weeks this season.

The 1-3-1 zone does lower the rebounding and inside D on his team but even with that, his rebounding was only a third of a level lower than your own rebounding and his ID was only one level lower than your IS. That means you were slightly better than him in those spots but his OD was sooooo high that it probably cut off a lot of easy shots for your big guys especially if they don't have very good handling. If you were to have even decent backups who can contribute more than 1 block and 4 rebounds in 30ish minutes, then you would have obviously won... So yes it is because you have no depth at the big man spots.