BuzzerBeater Forums

If you just use the ratings the way you did here (selectively if anything) then you could assume that the multiplication effects of efforts kill your advantage pretty quickly. Assuming CT is 1.20 and TIE is 0.80 (too lazy to google forums) then
inside scoring = 11 to 9.5
outside scoring = 10.5 to 12
rebounding = 8 to 7
game flow = 8 to 7

Italy by 2 in that case. And that doesn't even include how the actual performance of each individual player is effected by game strategy, position and game shop.

This isn't like the 76ers beating GSW in 7 but more like Twolves beating GSW when Kerr was out with back spasms and Curry was more interested in dancing on the sidelines. Tactic just beat mono-monsters (Come on - Thib can outcoach a Kerr on pain meds any day!)

Last edited by Randy Maus at 2/14/2017 3:21:39 PM

This is fairly simple: the ratings should give an idea about what's reasonable to expect in normal conditions given the match-up, so they should be the expected average of the statistical distribution used for the events they describe.

I mean it's a real upset but as we all know - the ratings weight positions differently thus there's always a potential that position mismatch will lead to differential outcomes. With this effort mismatch - i'd say it's more of a 75/25 advantage Italy here and an OT win makes sense. If we can't assume that human direct input (coaching) will trump basic set probabilities then this game has a glaring issue.

Just watch parts of the 4th quarter and OT and you'll see how the Nederlands used each and every potential mismatch and opportunity they had. The teams are well-balanced outside (as the ratings show) thus playing a 3-2 zone enabled NL to limit quality touches for the inside monsters (advantage Italy as the ratings show). No idea about what the Italian SF looks like but it seems that his outside defense was exploited by NL, thus the rating advantage was limited. Playing two > 40k inside players probably means that they have bad driving and handling so yet again - bad looks created by putting pressure on guards leads to limited upside of high ID and IS.



Last edited by Randy Maus at 2/14/2017 8:46:42 PM

Look, I don't want to be rude. Basketball is a very simple game: there are a finite number of possessions and then there is efficiency in putting the ball in the basket or preventing the opponent from doing so.

Do you want to explain how Italy ended with 10 fewer shots? I know because I have analysed the game, so I know what happened to each of those 123-124 possessions for both teams.

In terms of efficiency Italy was clearly better team, which is what the ratings also suggested of course. So instead of trying to sell something that does not exist (i.e. that Holland played better, taking advantage of mismatches) which is not reflected in the statistics for the game, try explaining why the team who was better statistically lost.

Absolutely quote.
I already said that shit happens and random defeats too in this game. It's not strange, you can be angry, you can be unlucky but one time on earth it happens and you have to deal with it.
But writing as I read from some of you that "You did CT vs TIE, what did you expect?" (quote: In what way? Effort is not shown in the ratings. So that Netherlands used crunch and Italy took it easy doesn't show in those ratings.) is a very pointless way to describe this match and does not help anyone who is interested on understanding more about this game.
We have to analyze every statistic and every aspect of the game, because even with CT vs TIE this game should have been a garbage for Italy.
Then we can keep our respective opinion, but without explaining why the best team lost even with better statistic, better ratings, better matchups, more enthusiasm, more rebounding, more flow, slightly better game shape and so on.... yeah, it's pointless as I wrote.

I absolutely understand your post, more or less I do the same analysis as yours so you're using my words
What I was asking to the others is to motivate their opinion, because saying "well, it was CT vs TIE, why ridiculous" is really a poor contribute to the discussion.
These weird matches can be helpful a lot to understand how (bad, sometimes) the GS runs, so as you did, let's try to figure out what happened instead of simply addressing it superficially as "CT vs TIE". Because we can paste tons of example with CT vs TIE with lower MR and ratings difference with the best team win, so...