BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

"playing a focused offense causes you to lose more than you gain."
Did a BB say this or is this just based on your experience?

"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."
The teams are exactly the same. So lineup is the same, enthusiasm is the same, effort is the same. We are just concentrating on the Man to Man defence with all other variables the same.
If you play Base Offence, then what makes you think you would win given their team matches up to yours exactly?
Why not try focusing your attack in one area and try and win that way?

"How is it an overall advantage when you give up more than you gain?"
Why do you think that you give up more than you gain?

"playing a focused offense causes you to lose more than you gain."
Did a BB say this or is this just based on your experience?

"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."
The teams are exactly the same. So lineup is the same, enthusiasm is the same, effort is the same. We are just concentrating on the Man to Man defence with all other variables the same.
If you play Base Offence, then what makes you think you would win given their team matches up to yours exactly?
Why not try focusing your attack in one area and try and win that way?

"How is it an overall advantage when you give up more than you gain?"
Why do you think that you give up more than you gain?

I don't understand how exactly we're supposed to abstract this discussion so far from the game we're talking about that we're pretending that no other factors matter at all and pretend that the only tactical choice is which of eight offensive tactics you are going to pick. My entire argument is that there are a huge number of tactical variations within PTB/Patience/Base that have as great, if not greater, of an impact on the end result than just the eight tactical settings. You can exploit those factors against man to man defense and gain an advantage without having to dismiss base offenses as an option altogether.

In terms of gaining more than you lose:
a) You fully acknowledge this when you use the game rating example earlier in this thread! (We are at war with Eurasia.) Are you now denying that now that it's inconvenient for your argument? (Are we at war with East Asia!)
b) I do remember BBs (or at least some of the more senior GMs... which I suppose is meaningless) saying this but I could be totally wrong but I am certainly not digging through the forums to go find it.
c) My own experience and my rudimentary understanding of the game engine suggest that it is the case. I need to leave my apartment to go fix my bike so I don't have time to get into why I feel that is the case.

I am not saying that base offense is the best offense to use against man to man. My argument is just that contrary to your latest forum pronouncement it can be a viable option against such a defense and it's misleading to suggest that new players should always default to a focused offense when facing man to man.

re: Sleet's comments

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?

By this philosophy I would expect you to play a neutral tactic all the time, but looking at 2 of your last 4 games I see you played an outside focus vs Man to Man

Why did you decide to "give up more than you gain"? :p

Because I am not playing in the hermetically sealed vacuum that Naker Virus/ShaqPart2 is insisting I limit discussion to. I knew my opponents strengths and the strengths of my players. You'll also notice that in the two games I used outside tactics I didn't see a 1-3-1 (or even a 3-2 zone) once because I don't lean on those tactics all season. If you actually want to turn this into a discussion about the quality of tactical decisions we make with our own teams than you and Naker have already lost.
Furthermore, it's a gross overstatement of my position to say that I think you should play a neutral tactic all the time. My only point is that "anything but base/ptb/patient is best against man to man" is an overly broad, totally useless and fairly boneheaded piece of advice.

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)

in combination, that you take moost shoot outside with this strategy i would say you gain a advantage out of 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?

I know a lot team, where the prohability of a Zone is much lower then man to man, so i would go for the better chanche of the "perfect" tactic and try to adjust to his man to man defence.

But i understand your low risk approach, but i choose them when i got the superior team and don't want to make a big failure.

My earlier rating example doesn't support your notion that you lose more than you gain in a focused offence. I increased the outside shooting rating by the same amount that i decreased the inside shooting by. So you gain as much as you lose.

The original poster asked what tactics were best against particular defences. The only real way to answer that is by comparing 2 teams that are exactly the same in every way. I.e. Control the variables. Which you are arguing is too abstract to consider.

I never said not to play a neutral offence against man to man. I never said that it wouldn't work well. Push the ball can be great against some teams if they play man to man.

But in answering the original posters question, i have to consider that all variables are the same. Hence playing push the ball vs man to man will not help you as you will match up exactly.

I never suggested new players should always play a focused offence against man to man. I said quite clearly in the original post that i was assuming a balanced team that is exactly the same as the opponent.

From the Game Engine section of the Game Manual...

"The offensive schemes that we give you can be broken down into combinations of two aspects, pace and focus. Pace is either faster, slower or normal, and focus is either inside, outside or normal. A faster pace means that the team will lower its standards for which shot to take and take less time to get it up the court…resulting in more possessions in the game. Slower pace means just the opposite. Having an inside focus both increases the overall quality of the looks you get near the basket and decreases the quality of looks you get away from the hoop. It also skews the distribution of looks that you get towards inside looks. Outside focus does exactly the same, but for longer range shots. In general the marginal gain you get is outweighed by the loss, so it only makes sense to focus one way or the other if you really feel you have an advantage in that area."

Thanks for your replies everyone!

Yeah, Naker, I think chris902 is right about the base offences. If you don't know what they're going to play, or you don't know if there is a weakness you can exploit, and you don't have a specific strength, then the base offences are the way to go (due to the lower reward vs higher penalty ratio). This is why it is recommended that new users use those offences until they work out a strategy.

It looks like I won't receive any quantitative data... I wasn't really expecting to, but one can hope, right? ;)

The opinions are well received, though, thank you.

peace out- Axis