BuzzerBeater Forums

With that outside shooting and outside defence I guess I deserved to lose.

The problem isn't your lose,it's your adversary shooting over 50% inside the 3-pt arch with you playing virtually the best inside defence available

3)At whatever cost you want to make it. If you are losing to LI teams, then I would argue it actually is quite a gain if you are able to include SB and win. Every big man you have doesnt need to be able to rebound score and defend at 15+, they just dont. Make a sacrifice on one guy to gain SB, and sacrifice SB on another guy to gain something else. If you think SB is not worth it salary wise, then find another way to beat LI.


You also seem to be continually asking for some set salary/performance ratio you need to be able to train a certain skill or something. Stop thinking about this stuff in absolute terms, and start thinking about it in terms relative to your league mates, and it becomes painfully obvious what you need to train to be successful.

I ALWAYS have to think in absolute terms,because to be a smart manager I have to have the players with the lowest possible and the highest performance possible,and I have to obtain players with skills that has a good value when I want to sell these players to make my team younger

I ALWAYS have to think in absolute terms,because to be a smart manager I have to have the players with the lowest possible and the highest performance possible,and I have to obtain players with skills that has a good value when I want to sell these players to make my team younger

More on the 2nd point, 2-3 should 100% NOT be the best defense available to stop a LI. M2M is always and will always be better, same when comparing 3-2 and M2M against outside offenses, M2M is better.

On the 2nd point,2-3 HAD to be the best defense to stop inside tactics,or it just wouldn't have sense to have it as option,because if M2M can stop LI better than 2-3,then I'll never chose 2-3 for any game(as it yet happen in the reality

I also dont know how much SB on guards stops driving shots in a M2M....I just know SB on your SF-C helps stop them in a 2-3.

SB on guards doesn't cost anything in terms of salary,I prefer to have SB on my guards - when SB can have a little effect at 0 cost- rather than on my big mans,where reaises by a HUGE amount of money their salaries

My assumption is that if you are M2M, then whoever is guarding the driving player likely needs to have some SB, but that probably the center still has a larger impact than any other position.

And again, my main point in all of this is that we know how to stop LI, but people continue to refuse to do it because they dont think it is cost effective. That might be true, but stop complaining already when you know how to stop it but CHOOSE not to do it.

Your assumption could be true,but still don't justify training SB in salary/performance ratio
I don't chose to not try to stop LI,I chose to have the best player that I can afford,and to have them, I HAVE to sacrifice SB

Also, I would be curious for you to answer me a question, if you would. Lets assume you can choose any lineup of players, but you want the lineup that is going to produce the best defense against a LI offense using a 2-3 zone on defense. How would you set up the players? Rather than giving skill levels since that wont accomplish much, rank the following skills in order of importance for each position:

OD/ID/SB

Let's ignore rebounding in this scenario since it really only plays in what happens after the shot, and not before. I have a feeling this question is the reason why so many people have such varying answers. Once you have done that, if you want, assign 45 points for big men and say 30 points for guards, and 35 for SF. I would be quite interested to see how you view it.

ID/OD/SB

20 ID/20 OD/5 SB for big mans
16 ID/14 OD/5 SB for SF
10 ID/18 OD/2 SB for guards(only because you give me fewer points,here I would add some points to SB,till 7,and to OD too)

are there any proof that SB really stops LI? or this all is only theoretical?

for example 2 games where 2-3 zone helped win team with 3 big guys and LI..

(39824220)
(39824204)

it seems, that 2-3 worked, but I somehow really doubt any of those 2 winners have C with very high SB (11+).. so it means that with better shot blockers result would be even better?

1) Wozz
2)I really cannot follow what you are trying to say about 'the game of holland manager....'
3)At whatever cost you want to make it. If you are losing to LI teams, then I would argue it actually is quite a gain if you are able to include SB and win. Every big man you have doesnt need to be able to rebound score and defend at 15+, they just dont. Make a sacrifice on one guy to gain SB, and sacrifice SB on another guy to gain something else. If you think SB is not worth it salary wise, then find another way to beat LI.

If Wozz says it I believe it, haha.

I ALWAYS have to think in absolute terms,because to be a smart manager I have to have the players with the lowest possible and the highest performance possible,and I have to obtain players with skills that has a good value when I want to sell these players to make my team younger

More on the 2nd point, 2-3 should 100% NOT be the best defense available to stop a LI. M2M is always and will always be better, same when comparing 3-2 and M2M against outside offenses, M2M is better.

On the 2nd point,2-3 HAD to be the best defense to stop inside tactics,or it just wouldn't have sense to have it as option,because if M2M can stop LI better than 2-3,then I'll never chose 2-3 for any game(as it yet happen in the reality

I dont really think either of these two statements make sense. You don't win your league by having the lowest cost with the highest performance ratio, or by having people that sell later. You win by beating your leaguemates, and once you are in a league where you dont promote or demote, that is all there is.

On the second, just because 2-3 is around does not mean it has to be the best against an inside offense, that is a logical fallacy. 2-3, much like 3-2, is around for certain circumstances. You run a 3-2 only if you dont have the outside defense to run m2m (which works better due to a number of factors). You run a 2-3 if you dont have guys with inside defense, rebounding, and shot block substantial enough to slow the other team down.

The thing about a zone is, there are always weaknesses because you are not defending a player, you are defending an area. So, assuming you have all the needed skills, man to man will always be better. If you are deficient such that you cannot run man to man, you run a zone.

1)Even if you are going to spend more of your adversary to try to win a league,you ALWAYS have to search the players with best salary/performance ratio,because if you just buy 5 400k guy in every role with 20 in all the main skills,your team is going to be in bankrupcy soon.Your statement is just ridicoulous

2)if 2-3 shouldn't be the best defense against a LI,then why it exists?And then why 3-2 should exist?You just play every game M2M and the strongest team wins.2-3 and 3-2 should be made to help you to boost inside/outside defence ->they end to be the best defensive tactic for inside/outside offense.It's just logic.If 2-3 can't be better than M2M to face an inside offense,then just change it.Obviously,if your defense is stronger than adversary offense playing M2M,you don't use zone defense exposing your outside/inside defense if your adversary changes tactics.But if you need a boost for inside defense,you need to have an efficient 2-3 tactic,while actually 2-3 sucks