BuzzerBeater Forums

You were significantly outmatched at PF.

i don't think that is the truth, because the PF is a big part in the ratings and when he is outmatched there he had to be significant stronger at C.

The game looks pretty curious for me, first i though it was because of the "easier" defensiv rebound, and his low offensiv performance but he gets significant lower off. Rebs ... So i think the rebound, was a freaky result of random which you maybe see in 1 of 1000 games, and luckily it shouldn't matter in this match because he would loose it anyway.

i don't think that is the truth, because the PF is a big part in the ratings and when he is outmatched there he had to be significant stronger at C.

I am not sure whether or not the PF and C skills in rebounding contribute as heavily as commonly thought to the match ratings. I have decent rebounding skills mainly at those two positions and some weaker stats on the 2 and 3 position. That often kills my team ratings, but I still manage to remain competitive in rebounding.
What I want to say: weaker team ratings in rebounding do not automatically mean less rebounds in a game.

Does it clear up anything in that discussion? Don´t know...

I think this game comes down to HC adv and some extra random.
If we look at the shooting for example. To me it has always seemed, that it is easier to take the def reb than the off reb, so you basically should have the edge in that category (62 def opps vs 53 def opps, 1 of them was the last second shot prolly, dunno which side loses one opp). So let's look at the C, PF reb spots.
Your team C 10reb, opponent C 23reb. Your team PF spot 17reb (prolly involves a minute at SF and about 8 mins at C?), opponent PF 28reb. If we add those up 27 vs 51. What also looked curious was that his starters C and PF crashed the off board, which suggest they actually had significantly better rebounding than your starters. Although I must admit 3 off boards total on 114 reb opportunitys seems a bit odd. As said before though we can not let the team ratings fool ourselves.

Last edited by Kukoc at 8/17/2010 3:44:01 AM

I think his C and PF greatly outmatch your two big men in rebounding. He also threw a lot more shots than you and had more chances at offensive rebounds.

I have a question though: Does Inside Defense count when a C who is defending is trying to prevent attacking C to make an offensive rebound? Or is it Rebounding only?

Example: My C has Respectable rebounding and Atrocious ID; his C has Respectable rebounding and Respectable ID. Who will make more Rebounds?

Look at it these way, both team play m2m and so the rebound matchup is position to position

U vs Opponent
PG 4 vs 5
SG 9 vs 4
SF 6 vs 8
PF 17 vs 28
C 10 vs 23

assume PG and SF were even, and he win the PF and C battle and loss the SG duel
the catch is that its a m2m def, and his SG shot 10 3pt that means ur advantage of SG rebounding is way on the periminter and his dominating PF and C is in the paint
The randomness kicked in 78reb for PF+C and only 36 reb for the wing players to grab

Delta 9 ---> Outside Scoring - mediocre(high)
SlipNslide --> Perimeter Defence - respectable(medium)

Delta9 ---> Inside Scoring - strong(low)
SlipNslide --> Inside Defence - strong(medium)

Delta9 ---> Offensive Flow - inept(high)


The ratings say that your team's offense wasn't good enough to beat SlipNslide's defence both inside and outside. So, you missed a lot of shots. That's why his players grabbed so many defensive rebounds.
Your inside defence was also too good for his inside offence to beat. He also missed a lot of shots from the paint. However, his C/PF rebounding skill was better than yours, so that's why he grabbed so many offensive rebounds.
From the outside he was very successfull. So, your Guards didn't have chances to grabb a rebound. The most of the shots he missed was from the inside, so the BigMen rebounding was the reason. The ratings give you the total rebounding performance (both C/PF and the Guards) however, the C/PF spots was the key for this game

Hope you understand me...