I see too many teams in BB trying so hard to have a balanced attack, and I think in this particular game, in some ways those things work against you. I guess in a nutshell, you have to consider the tactics you are playing, and the ratings necessary to be successful at those tacticts, and also which ratings actually work against that tactic. So these "balanced" teams sometimes have players that actually work against the desired goal. So my philosophy is to have 5 guys on the court at all times, working towards the same thing, working together to make the collective 5 much better than they are as individual players.
I think a different way of looking at it is that an inside attack or outside attack of a given level will, as you progress up the ranks, eventually end up being insufficient to break through the defense you'll face at that level. Of course, as you progress you can improve as well, but putting that aside for a moment, because balanced attacks are necessarily less strong than a single focused attack, you reach that point sooner as a balanced club.
I do think what is valuable is more the ability to at least vary your plan of attack somewhat when you're facing a team that is just better than yours. Obviously, if you have the roster to tell your opponents every match that you'll TIE, run an LI/M2M and there's not a thing they can do to stop you, there's no point in doing anything else. But when you reach a point where you're facing a team that can run a better LI/M2M, being able to maybe run a patient with an outside shooter at PF or C and some defensive switches can be useful. (Or, of course a Princeton, but the things that a team focusing on LI would look for are not usually conducive to running an effective Princeton in most cases).
I learned some time ago that the ratings are nice to look at but don't really mean a whole lot. A perfect example of that is a recent game I had
(46058637). My prolific OD looks like it would do a decent job against a proficient outside attack, but because of an early injury I had a center playing the SF spot defensively most of the game, rather than a guard. And using the advanced stats at the offsite, I can see that said center gave up 6/9 from three point range on contested shots, which killed me. But it's just an illustration that the ratings are nice, but the individual matchups matter more, and that some things (like passing on big men) that don't show up in the ratings at all have an effect.
But back to the larger point, I think the advice to find a mentor is good. I think more than anything, it's important to have an idea of what you want your team to do, how you expect to succeed in the long run, and how you plan to build your team to get there.
Last edited by GM-hrudey at 8/2/2012 9:52:28 AM