BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > top talent team vs balanced team

top talent team vs balanced team

Set priority
Show messages by
From: SammyO
This Post:
00
253954.1
Date: 1/9/2014 11:46:12 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
1010
For those who may have some insight on this. Here is my question. Which team is more likely to succeed?

Team 1 top talent: Starting 5 lineup consists of highly talented, costly players who earn 90-100k a week. The rest of the roster is pretty poor. The bench players, 6-10...all earn under 20k a week.

Team 2 Balance: starting 5 earn 40-60k per week. Bench players 6-10...earn 25-40k per week.

Over the long term I think team 2 will be more successful as you can plan for game shape and adjust as you go. But- to win a single game. assuming equal game shape, no injuries, etc. Which team is more likely to succeed.
-is team 1 so talented that thy overwhelm team 2. Or will team 2's depth allow them to win- to play at a high level for 48minutes whereas the players on team 1 may get tired.

If they played 100 times, which team would win more often?

This Post:
00
253954.2 in reply to 253954.1
Date: 1/10/2014 8:04:12 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
2525
Depending... you can buy some good playes under 60k.

- i think if you played 2 games per week team 1 would be better.
-But for 3 games per week you need some more good players. Over the long term will be team 2 more successful.

I would make team 3 in your position. You need 1 good PG player and 3 players with lower cost. Then 1 good SF and reserve.
On C position you need just 3 average and 1 good payer more. This team is more useful from others.


From: redcped

This Post:
11
253954.3 in reply to 253954.1
Date: 1/10/2014 4:34:47 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
304304
There's a team in my league with 5 excellent starters and a very soft bench. He pretty much can win every game, except for injuries and times he's resting players for Cup games, etc.

I am more like the balanced team, with a deep bench but not as talented a starting 5. I can't really beat the other team without a break.

So I'd say Team 1 wins 80-85 times. If they never have to worry about a 3-game week, maybe more.

From: SammyO
This Post:
00
253954.4 in reply to 253954.3
Date: 1/11/2014 10:02:40 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
1010
Thanks, I think you are right.
To win one game the top level team would be great. But I think I would be better off developing a team with more depth.

This Post:
11
253954.5 in reply to 253954.4
Date: 1/12/2014 9:22:07 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
219219
All the depth you need is 7 players deep. Starters 1 great sub for bigs and 1 great sub for smalls. I play in this logic. and it really benefits. its no need to have 5 good subs because usually when u play 7 man ur both subs pplay 30mins each, thats enough, they dont get tired and ur starters too.
Also 7 man deep roster is very good when ur player gets trauma, so you can send ur backup to play at start. while 5 man teams cant put 5k scrub on start and win a game eazily, 7man team can:D

Basicly i think the golden middle should be like for example 100k starters 2 50k subs and rest trash like 5-10k

Last edited by Gajus Julijus Cezaris at 1/12/2014 9:23:36 AM

This Post:
00
253954.6 in reply to 253954.5
Date: 1/12/2014 11:56:10 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
621621
I agree with justutkutu utu erm.. butu? :)

You need 7-8 equally salaried players. This is assuming a situation where you don't have tons of money or something. You just grab 8 low cost solid veterans and roll.. Preferably pick up some with non-horrible secondary skills.

You can ditch the cup, or play 3 games per week until you lose. Then you can fix your gameshape and record by the playoff time.

From: E.B.W.

This Post:
11
253954.7 in reply to 253954.1
Date: 1/12/2014 3:58:17 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
26152615
As many other people have said, you only need probably 8 players to dominate a league. Starters, backup guard, backup SF and backup big. More depth is nice too but is not necessarily needed. Team one would win 90+ of the games in my opinion.

Murray/Harris/MPJ/Grant/Jokic - 2020 NBA Champs
From: Rexapex

This Post:
00
253954.8 in reply to 253954.1
Date: 1/13/2014 3:01:12 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
5959
With all players having average stamina Team 2 is the better squad. All players having Proficient stamina Team 1 is the better squad. All players having awful stamina Team 1 doesn't win a single game in 100.

From: Isaiah

This Post:
00
253954.9 in reply to 253954.8
Date: 1/13/2014 6:52:48 PM
Smallfries
III.14
Overall Posts Rated:
419419
Second Team:
Smallfries II
I have always gone 7 or 8 men deep, tops. No need to pay for depth when they don't play much anyways. If anything, have 7 men and then train 3 players so that by the end of the season you can have more depth if needed.

From: SammyO
This Post:
00
253954.11 in reply to 253954.10
Date: 1/14/2014 1:16:22 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
1010
Thank you all. I think mostly the same way leaning toward a 7-8 man team. But a couple things I noticed...

Lumber Jacks said said if all players have awful stamina- team 2 would be the better team. I have never really put much value on stamina. Do you guys agree that stamina can make that large of a difference between the teams?

Another comment by Platano, saying that a 60k pg at 9 game shape would likely outplay a 100k pg with 8 game shape. I knew game shape was important but would it make that much of a swing? Lets say is is a 60k pg 9 GS vs a 100k pg with 7 GS. Who do you guys think would have the advantage?