BuzzerBeater Forums

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?

Do you guys agree that stamina can make that large of a difference between the teams?

I think stamina can make that much of a difference, especially as the game begins to wind down.

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?

It depends on the skills, but it is very possible that a 60k PG at 9 GS outplays a 100k PG with 7 GS.

It depends on the skills, but it is very possible that a 60k PG at 9 GS outplays a 100k PG with 7 GS.

The part that's been left out of the discussion is also that it's very possible for a 60k PG to be a better player than a 100k PG at equal GS.

Considering the game shape for the full season ahead, Team 1 is only beneficial at the later part when there is no tournament game unless you are in a less competitive league like mine. And in today's BB style, high salary also does not guarantee wins. Like what Giannis mentioned, a SF with a full rounder stats capped at mediocre salary is much better than a high salary player who is not in his favored position. I will go with Team 2

As much as I love balanced rosters, I have to admit that team 1 would probably win the game, unless their starters had bad stamina.

With that said, team 2 is by far the team I'd prefer to own. Team 1 costs more money per week to maintain, plus in every single game you're playing a game of virtual Russian Roulette; one injury or even one foul-out and the wheels begin to fall off. Not to mention game shape issues, since your starting 5 constantly have to play 40+ minutes unless there's a blow-out, so even if you tank the cup for the season you're still significantly over the ideal.

Team 2 allows your starters to take more breaks, so even if they start both league games they'll still be at around 70 minutes, which is within the acceptable range. Foul-outs and injuries don't hurt your team nearly as much, and even if you prioritise the league for the season, you can still roll out a decent line-up for the cup games and advance a few rounds until some lowly upstart decides to crunch time you because he's suicidal or something :P.

My team right now is a great example of a 'balanced' team, albeit with lower salaries across the board than those mentioned in the OP. I'd like to point out that I currently have the 4th best overall record in my league, despite having the 2nd cheapest roster in the league and barely being above the salary floor...

but also balanced team costs way more to buy. Because you need fo example 10 instead of 5 players. And the reason why 5 is dominant strategy at the moment is because its the best economicly efficient strategy even considering taking risk losing games cause of 1 starter injury or few bad forms that week.

All very good points you bring up. I think you can win with both but I need to do more research as to which one is easier to maintain and more financially stable.