BuzzerBeater Forums

Bugs, bugs, bugs > Princeton tactic description is incorrect

Princeton tactic description is incorrect

Set priority
Show messages by
From: BB-Marin

This Post:
11
220216.2 in reply to 220216.1
Date: 6/19/2012 7:05:51 AM
TrenseRI
II.1
Overall Posts Rated:
36183618
Second Team:
ChiLeaders
Good work with the data collecting. Very impressive if accurate. I'll raise the issue up to try and fix the ratios on the next GE update.

This Post:
00
220216.3 in reply to 220216.1
Date: 6/19/2012 9:10:29 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
How does the percentage of driving shots change (or does it) between the two? My completely unsubstantiated supposition is that the driving shots should be a significantly higher percentage than in base.

This Post:
00
220216.5 in reply to 220216.4
Date: 6/19/2012 12:30:06 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
I think it's safe to assume he counted "driving layups" and the likes in the IS (inside shots) category.

Personally, if I were to assume that the GE works as intended, I would propose that many users use this tactic incorrectly.

Just like playing "look inside" with 5 shooting guards isn't going to give you a lot of inside shot attempts, people who lack in passing across the lineup may find it difficult to hit cutters and get to the rim, settling for mid-range jumpers instead.

No idea how the statistics were gathered, but I would discard scrimmages and only study teams who use the princeton offense successfully.

My guess is that you need a good to great level of JR/PA/DR across the team (not just a monster PG) to run it effectively.


Yes, I'm pretty certain those shot types were lumped together - I was just wondering if it were possible to distill out the drives to compare that vs. "regular" inside shots. My thoughts on the tactic itself are probably quite similar to yours - if all the players have good HN/PA/DR, perhaps you'll see more uncontested driving shots and three pointers, and fewer contested midrange jumpers. In any case, I am extremely delighted to see wozz posting this data and to see that it's going to be investigated.

This Post:
00
220216.6 in reply to 220216.4
Date: 6/19/2012 12:31:07 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
926926
Exactly my thoughts, teams commit to LI with their whole team but I don´t think people dothe same with Princeton. LI teams have lots of passing on their guards to get the ball to the scorers where as teams that run princeton rarely have high passing levels on their center or PF.

This Post:
00
220216.7 in reply to 220216.3
Date: 6/19/2012 1:05:56 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
228228
Yeah, I lumped drives + IS together because both showed basically the same thing (base has 11.8% DR, 26.8% IS; princeton has 8.3% DR, 16% IS). (edit: I also lumped them together because the manual's description doesn't distinguish them... i.e., whether one or the other or both should be affected by this tactic).

I also included those little "fade away" and similar shots as IS, not JS, since that's how the match viewer commentary classifies them.

Last edited by wozzvt at 6/19/2012 1:08:03 PM

From: Manouche

This Post:
00
220216.8 in reply to 220216.7
Date: 6/20/2012 5:00:21 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
699699
I would argue that if it is confirmed that a very large number of Princetons are played by underdogs against much stronger teams then the data is flawed as it is not collected under the same conditions than, say, Motion/RnG.

From: wozzvt

This Post:
00
220216.10 in reply to 220216.8
Date: 7/3/2012 9:07:54 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
228228
I would argue that if it is confirmed that a very large number of Princetons are played by underdogs against much stronger teams then the data is flawed as it is not collected under the same conditions than, say, Motion/RnG.

I of course can't completely speak to this point, or to the point that people may be playing the "wrong" players for Princeton. But, in my observations, I would suggest that the effects of a non-ideal lineup (other than playing a player completely out of position, such as a PG at C), and the effect of being a big underdog, don't actually change the shot *distribution* that much (though it certainly changes the frequency at which those shots are made).

This Post:
00
220216.11 in reply to 220216.10
Date: 7/3/2012 9:27:35 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
I would argue that if it is confirmed that a very large number of Princetons are played by underdogs against much stronger teams then the data is flawed as it is not collected under the same conditions than, say, Motion/RnG.

I of course can't completely speak to this point, or to the point that people may be playing the "wrong" players for Princeton. But, in my observations, I would suggest that the effects of a non-ideal lineup (other than playing a player completely out of position, such as a PG at C), and the effect of being a big underdog, don't actually change the shot *distribution* that much (though it certainly changes the frequency at which those shots are made).


Perhaps there's some influence on, for example, low JR on the big men in those lineups, which might lead them to pass up three point shots that more purpose-built Princeton big men might take. But if we were to wait until we had enough matches with players built for Princeton, I'm not sure our granchildren would find this thread. ;)

From: Manouche

This Post:
00
220216.12 in reply to 220216.10
Date: 7/3/2012 4:31:24 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
699699
I am only saying that the data should be collected under normal circumstances to get rid of unwanted effects.
For the sake of science :)

hrudev cites one reason why the data could be damaged.

In a Patient, shot distribution can dramatically change.
Princeton is a slow-paced attack, even slower than Patient and Low Post going by the manuel.
Pace and its consequences are elements difficult to understand for many players.
Your data is quite interesting but we should remain cautious on an interpretation.

Advertisement