BuzzerBeater Forums

From the box it seems that I should have outscore him 5/5, the ratings were better for me at least with respect to tactics.
I do not understand what do you mean by "his 2/3".

My enthusiasm was high enough(11). Also my OS was much better than his OD, instead his OS was equal to my OD. Giving the fact that I've chosen an outside tactic i was expecting to perform better.
This game should give better insights through ratings but they are confusing. I remember that I had this problem some time ago, I had better ratings but I was outscored like 4-1 in 100 shoot ratings and I was told that rating isn't everything but also the 100shoot ratings is important.

My enthusiasm was high enough(11). Also my OS was much better than his OD, instead his OS was equal to my OD. Giving the fact that I've chosen an outside tactic i was expecting to perform better.
This game should give better insights through ratings but they are confusing. I remember that I had this problem some time ago, I had better ratings but I was outscored like 4-1 in 100 shoot ratings and I was told that rating isn't everything but also the 100shoot ratings is important.

I'm not sure how the PP100 for his PG was so low or if that's accurate, how he destroyed you from beyond the arc as he did, but given that he looks to have been a deadly sniper both last season and this season and since your defenders against him were a pair of 9k guards, it's not too surprising he went off as he did. I have a feeling that your run and gun hurt somewhat too - I'd guess that a motion would have torn the 2-3 up while the R&G caused too many quick shots when a few more seconds would have found a higher quality outside shot. But even with all that I think you were unlucky to lose, but the effects of CT vs. TIE aren't really reflected in the ratings.

but the effects of CT vs. TIE aren't really reflected in the ratings.

I'm confused about this also: (58774832). I understand the TIE vs Crunch and the away game; I took the gamble. What I'm confused about is that everything else was in favor of my team - the team ratings, the matchup ratings and the player ratings. Admittedly I had a couple of scrubs but they didn't seem to hurt as much as my 200k SG.

He had hca as well.also since he ran patient the mismatches were really good for him and as a result he got a lot of opportunities

He had hca as well.also since he ran patient the mismatches were really good for him and as a result he got a lot of opportunities

Yes but when you say mismatches, his PG went 16/37 but if you look at the matchup ratings you see that my PG had a higher scoring efficiency. This is what I don't understand: how is it that when my matchup ratings were better in 4 out 5 positions, I get outscored. Is it just bad luck and my players underscored and his overscored or is it something I just don't understand about the ratings.

He had hca as well.also since he ran patient the mismatches were really good for him and as a result he got a lot of opportunities

Yes but when you say mismatches, his PG went 16/37 but if you look at the matchup ratings you see that my PG had a higher scoring efficiency. This is what I don't understand: how is it that when my matchup ratings were better in 4 out 5 positions, I get outscored. Is it just bad luck and my players underscored and his overscored or is it something I just don't understand about the ratings.

He CT'd and you TIEd. That doesn't show up in the ratings. I don't think it shows up in the PP100 either, but it definitely does not show up in the ratings.

He did shoot a slightly higher percentage than you, and hit FTs better - even before the late game foul parade. The effort differential can lead to more fouls and those FTs may not be reflected in the PP100 either. Also, you turned the ball over quite a bit more - perhaps more than expected, which again may have been related to effort disparity or bad luck.

I'm not sure if the choice of offense led to lower shooting than normal for you - push the ball is more likely to get a player to shoot it quickly rather than waiting for a better shot to open up later in the possession, and perhaps it also forced more bad passes that became those turnovers.

But the main thing is that you were on the road with -2 effort - it's pretty tough to overcome all of that unless you're just a dominant team and in this case you weren't.

He CT'd and you TIEd. That doesn't show up in the ratings. I don't think it shows up in the PP100 either, but it definitely does not show up in the ratings.

OK, then what do the ratings represent? Is it some sort of general statement of team merit without taking into account the actual game performance? Same thing with my individual player ratings. If the guy gets a 19 rating, is that just based on how well he should have done without taking into consideration whether he actually missed 19/20 shots or made 4/5?

I understand all the effort difference on the road stuff and I'm not complaining about losing. I just don't understand what one is supposed to read into the ratings, if anything. I would have hoped that the ratings would say something like your PG did not play well in that game.