BuzzerBeater Forums

Ok, so this question I understand will have many answers, a lot of them depending on team and player strengths. However, has any got any data to provide for a general guideline, when using constant variables (i.e. team A plays team B with the same matchup, same ENT, same court, using different offensive tactics)? If you don't want to share data, then by all means share opinions based on data.

I know I have no control over who writes what, but it would be oh so lovely if we could keep it to suggestions/opinions based on empirical evidence.

peace out- Axis

Based on experience (if that counts as evidence):
Assuming both teams are exactly the same in every single way.
Also assuming that both teams have balanced rosters (not purely offence and not purely defence).
Against a 2-3 zone: Run and Gun, Motion, Princeton
Against a 3-2 zone: Look Inside, Low Post
Against Man to Man: Any tactic other than Base Offence, Push the Ball and Patient
Against FCP: Run and Gun
1-3-1 zone: Look Inside, Low Post

Last edited by Naker Virus at 6/9/2010 4:10:30 AM

Thanks for your response Naker. This is my thinking as well.

Problem is, though, is that I know I've been wrong about quite a few things in this game. I went and spent 1.2mil on a player before doing a load of research and now I realise that it wasn't necessarily a good buy. Great player, who I can probably sell when the sale percentage goes back up to 97 but not quite good for what I need right now.

Anyway, yeah, I'd love to see some data to back up this theory.

Against FCP: Run and Gun

in this case i will say nearly every tactic, go for your strength and maybe avoid to play TO prone players.

One thing that people overlook in the help forum is that what players you play at each position matters more than the tactical settings. Make smart personnel decisions and use the tactical settings to tweak around the edges.

Based on experience (if that counts as evidence):
Against Man to Man: Any tactic other than Base Offence, Push the Ball and Patient

Really? This has not been more experience at all. Depending on the strengths and weaknesses of each team any of the non-focused offenses can be a completely and totally viable option on offense. Since there's no penalty for using them I would probably default to them when facing a balanced opponent if my own offense was also balanced and hope to find an advantage elsewhere.

One thing that people overlook in the help forum is that what players you play at each position matters more than the tactical settings. Make smart personnel decisions and use the tactical settings to tweak around the edges.

Based on experience (if that counts as evidence):
Against Man to Man: Any tactic other than Base Offence, Push the Ball and Patient

Really? This has not been more experience at all. Depending on the strengths and weaknesses of each team any of the non-focused offenses can be a completely and totally viable option on offense. Since there's no penalty for using them I would probably default to them when facing a balanced opponent if my own offense was also balanced and hope to find an advantage elsewhere.

Well if both teams are exactly the same, and one team is playing man to man, then if you play any of the neutral offences then you will match up equally. Wouldn't you rather play something like run and gun or look inside where at least you get a bonus in 1 particular area?

For example:
Respectable (High) Outside Shooting and Respectable (High) Inside Shooting vs Respectable (High) Outside Defence and Respectable (High) Inside Defence

Or

Proficient (Low) Outside Shooting and Average (Medium) Inside Scoring vs Respectable (High) Outside Defence and Respectable (High) Inside Defence

Personally, I think the second one would win most games, where as the first example could go either way.
The way I look at it is, if both teams are equal and they play man to man, I will gain no advantage or disadvantage by playing a neutral tactic.

But you always lose more than you gain by playing a focused offense, you also risk having the opposing team guess right. So using your example (and acknowleding that we're playing with made up numbers) you're suggesting that gaining a 4.7% advantage on outside scoring in exchange for losing 23.8% on inside scoring is going to win most games? That makes absolutely no sense. (Keep in mind as well that the ratings are abstractions from the game engine that correlate to game action but are not in a causal relationship with it)

Obviously you'll never face a totally well balanced, totally evenly balanced opponent who will always play man to man offense, but if that were to hypothetically happen why add extra risk? What happens if your SG goes down injured or gets in foul trouble? (or more realistically, what happens if they go 1-3-1 or 3-2 zone...) Why not default to the most flexible offensive option so that the game engine will exploit any opportunities that arise during the game?
Also keep in mind that for most teams their personnel already force their offense to lean one way or another. For most guard heavy teams they're already superior in outside scoring (or vice versa or whatever). There is no need to take that inside scoring penalty if you don't feel you have to.

In terms of the long-game strategy it also makes sense to hide your best tactical options from future opponents by playing neutral tactics (or even playing your less efficient options) when possible.

I am not saying that playing R&G/Motion or LI/LP are bad options against man to man defenses but I think it's an unfounded claim to assert that ANY base offensive tactic is inferior to the focused offenses when facing man to man.

If you're worse than your opponent then gambling on offense makes lots of sense, but there are numerous ways to produce advantages that do not involve sacrificing whatever inside game you might have.

Last edited by chris902 at 6/9/2010 2:58:24 PM

I think you are missing the point that the teams are exactly the same in every way.
Also, you are saying that what happens if they go a 1-3-1 zone or something, but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
He wanted to know the best offence was against each defence.
So I am saying that if both teams are balanced and exactly the same in every way, then if they play man to man and you play push the ball, then won't it simply be an equal matchup and so whoever wins the game will be the home team.
Wouldn't it be better to play Run and Gun to boost your outside scoring and at least give yourself a chance to win.

Basically, we know the teams are exactly the same and we KNOW that the opponent will play Man to Man.

Basically, we know the teams are exactly the same and we KNOW that the opponent will play Man to Man.

Again, using this totally unrealistic situation but I still think you're wrong. You seem to be forgetting or at least ignoring that playing a focused offense causes you to lose more than you gain. In this artificial situation one team gives up a huge amount of inside scoring to gain a small advantage in outside scoring. How is it an overall advantage when you give up more than you gain?

Also keep in mind that there are other ways to swing an advantage: Enthusiasm, homecourt advantage, effort, playing players in different positions, depth chart choices, coaching settings, etc.