BuzzerBeater Forums

The new game isn't making the most money and production with training, but fitting the best team in the available salary constraints.

If I truly just built a contender I might just train game shape for the next 6-7 seasons. Then I could really have an interesting challenge of "starting over". None of this 20mil in the bank nonsense.

The new game isn't making the most money and production with training, but fitting the best team in the available salary constraints.

(begin rant...)

The real underlying problem is that the best players in the game should be better. Unfortunately, no one wants players better than the current status quo because the salary-income system is so out of whack (well, really, because the salary non-linearity is too steep at the top-- you go from 200k to 300k too quickly, and 300k to 400k even quicker). I mean, look at Villapadierna. He's good, don't get me wrong, but he's currently #1 in rating in the USA. And that's a guy that's received only occasional, mostly out of position, training since midway through his age 23 season. The top end players should be guys that get solid, dedicated training for 10+ seasons, not 5-6. What's worse, since the salary normalization is always based on *current* market conditions, there's no impetus for the top level to move upwards at more than a glacial pace.

Also, I should say, the problem isn't the difference in income between divs 1, 2, 3, etc. The problem is that the bell curve of player desirability (factoring in skills & salary) doesn't tail off far enough, so there's too much supply. This is a problem for the NTs, too, of course. We're rapidly approaching the point where the top-level players are only marginally different between the top countries and those in the 60-80 range.

The real question is how to fix it?
Could, of course, reduce the slope of top level salaries so that players with elite skills are desirable by good teams (i'm not talking about mono-skilled centers, but players like Joe Bronson and Martin Medrano who are legitimate well-trained beasts).

More drastically, but potentially much more effectively, tie salary to the free market. Make salary dependent on the transfer price (something like 5-10% of sale price).. fixes the salary problems implicitly (players get paid whatever they're worth on the free market), and could be tied into a system that rewards teams for training their own players (based on conservative salary adjustments between seasons).

19m. Your welcome.

Good stuff wozz

I mean, look at Villapadierna. He's good, don't get me wrong, but he's currently #1 in rating in the USA. And that's a guy that's received only occasional, mostly out of position, training since midway through his age 23 season. The top end players should be guys that get solid, dedicated training for 10+ seasons, not 5-6.

The standard response from the powers that be is that the problem here is your training. Managers should scrap all short and mid term on-court results to ensure that center spends half his career playing out of position. There's no good SF's? Not the games fault, its the managers. I mean, c'mon, whats the problem with team training rebounding to get those wingmen some pops?

It's all in the name of sticking to the "many different ways to win at BB" adage.

Last edited by brian at 2/4/2011 5:33:37 PM

Good thing you sold that 19yo for 2.1 million. If only he was much, much better he would have fetched 1.8 million.

[Now stepping out of the joke for a second, he does have pretty solid secondaries (like no skill below mediocre, and proficient IS)... oh but I now see anczarski also has solid secondaries, maybe *he*'ll be my backup SG now]

Ancarski is an interesting guy. On one hand, his salary is a little higher than his guard skills would seem to indicate (because of his inside skills). On the other hand, his on court performance is always WAY over what you would expect. Look at his stats on my team stats page, look at his average ratings. He always seemed to score a lot of points, I guess he was also better than the 2nd unit guy on the opposition.

I hated letting him go, but it was a necessity.

The cause of the deflation is that the ratio of quality players over dollars in the economy has grown too big.

Example : anczarski is no Joe bronson but the deflation affects him too and badly so. Players like Ancz were rare 5 seasons ago. Now There's 10 times as many. And the free agency system keeps them in the game.

If they just solved the salary problem we'd be back at square one in a few seasons.

Yes and no. What I'm suggesting is that the way to fix the "ratio of quality players to dollars" is to make training an elite players really hard. It should take 10-12 seasons, not 5. That way, the effort to create the player would be so great that there would certainly be fewer of them. It's WAY too easy to create a near-NT level player right now. The reason people stop after 5 seasons (like me with Villadpadierna) is that there's too much of a dis-incentive to make them any better. Tying salary to market value would remove that dis-incentive. Of course, then you'd end up with monsters with like 28 ID, so you probably need training to slow down more as you get to elite levels, but that's ok as it contributes to the long-term training requirements for elite players.

Last edited by wozzvt at 2/5/2011 3:52:00 PM