BuzzerBeater Forums

On the TL right now, there are two centers (no links, per forum rules):

Player A: $19.2k, 27yo, 3/1/1/2/5/3 - 9/11/12/7 - ST:9 FT:2 - EXP:5
Starting Price: $192k
TPE = $200k-$300k

Player B:
$15.5k, 32yo 2/7/3/2/7/4 - 9/11/12/7 - ST:6 FT:7 - EXP:10
Starting Price: $150k
TPE = $130k-$170k

In Season 19, they were playing for D4 Eesti and Lietuva teams (comparable) and had comparable stats:

Player A: 30.2 min/G @ C, 11.9 RB, 2.0 AST, 2.2 TO, 0.2 STL, 2.4 BLK, 2.3 PF, 12.5 PTS, 10.7 Rating
Player B: 36.0 min/G @ C, 12.9 RB, 3.4 AST, 1.8 TO, 0.9 STL, 1.5 BLK, 2.2 PF, 10.2 PTS, 10.1 Rating

So they are essentially the same player. Maybe player B has a slight edge with 10 more guard skills and +5 EXP?

Let's say you can sell both of them at 34yo for $80k. What's the average cost per week for the duration of the player's stay on your team?

(I'll assume you can get them for the mean of their two TPE numbers, and that you pay the full 14 weeks of salary each season, 7 of which are left in this season.) That means 91 wks of ownership for Player A and 21 wks for Player B.

aCPW = (price - revenue from sale + [salary * weeks of employment] ) / weeks of employment

Player A's aCPW = ($250k - $80k + [$19.2k/wk * 91 wks] ) / 91 wks = $21.1k/wk
Player B's aCPW = ($150k - $80k + [$15.5k/wk * 21 wks] ) / 21 wks = $18.8k/wk

I see a few things worth noting.
1) The longer you plan to keep a player, the more worthwhile it is to pay a high price on the TL.
2) Salary makes up the bulk of the average cost per week (91% for Player A & 82% for Player. This suggests that the biggest advantage is to be gained in having players who perform well in comparison to others with the same salary.

I don't necessarily come down on one side or the other of this debate. I think owners should diversify: have long-term franchise players and then make constellations around them that achieve the goals they have for each season. That way you can help your team train, promote, build the arena or whatever your goal is while having both longevity (which means merch) and adaptability.

Well I have bought one big. He has 12/13/12 stats. 29 years old for $183,200. He does have a salary of 27k but I think that was a good bargain.

depends mostly on secondaries.

Rhymin Simon, I meant to respond to your post a while ago with this sentiment, but didn't have time to right it out in full so put it off. Sorry for the delay.

First of all I appreciate the care you have taken with attempting to find two players with similar builds. The analysis is sound overall, but I do not draw the same conclusions you draw.

Although the costs per week may be similar, the fact that you have to pay a larger portion of this cost up front is significant because this extra money can be put to better uses. To illustrate this point, let's say that 100k saved on the older player was instead used to buy a better version of the older player with higher secondaries, Player C. Let's say player C also is 32 and depreciates to 53.3% of initial value over 21 weeks (like, from 250k to 136k, and has the same salary as player B. Using your formula:

Player C's aCPW = ($250k - $136k + [$15.5k/wk * 21 wks] ) / 21 wks = $20.9k/wk

Still very slightly less per week than Player A, and paying 67% higher initial price compared to player B will buy a good amount of secondaries, and his performance will be significantly better overall. The team would clearly be better off with this player.

Now you may be thinking that this is only works out like it did because the example players had bad secondaries, but the truth is any team in d4 or d5 needs players with better secondaries. On these example players initial cost wasn't much compared to salary, because their secondaries sucked. But the more secondaries you add, the higher initial cost will become compared to salary.

This quickly becomes the limiting factor for newer teams; because they do not have enough cash to buy high secondary builds at every position, they compromise build efficiency for cost. This is a compromise they make whether they realize it or not. The key issue here is that high secondaries isn't the only thing that drives up initial costs, it is also age. In this way teams that buy younger players are necessarily buying players with worse builds. For the vast majority of the teams in d4 or d5 it is better to spend this initial cost on build efficiency instead of age for every player that they aren't training.

Edit for cliff notes: It's better to compare players with similar cost profiles than similar builds, and when similar cost profiles are used the older player will always have a better build.

Last edited by w_alloy at 10/22/2012 6:45:33 AM

I think our conclusions are more similar than you think.

This suggests that the biggest advantage is to be gained in having players who perform well in comparison to others with the same salary.

Your response went the next step by suggesting that the way to have performance exceed salary was to have older players with better secondaries. And from the standpoint of the TL I think this is true.

The way to make an end run on all this is to train good players yourself. This takes time, but has the added bonuses of merchandise revenue and comparatively low initial cost (unless you're shooting for somebody with superstar+ potential, which is not necessary unless you're shooting to make a NT player).

(BTW, I was interested, in light of this discussion, to find Gatovskis (19633668), a player I'd scouted on the TL, on your team.) And I still think that the merch benefits of having long-term players at least somewhat offsets the disadvantage of higher up front costs on a younger player, provided you plan to keep them for a while and they are a starter.

I don't necessarily come down on one side or the other of this debate. I think owners should diversify...

Your response went the next step by suggesting that the way to have performance exceed salary was to have older players with better secondaries. And from the standpoint of the TL I think this is true.

I am having a hard time squaring these two quotes. If you agree that newer owners should lean towards older players, why did you say that you don't "come down on one side or the other of this debate"?

The way to make an end run on all this is to train good players yourself

I agree that every user should train good players themselves. But that only covers 20% of the minutes your players play every week. As far as training a player up from nothing until you aren't training him any more, that will take like 18+ months IRL, which means they are not newer users and not who I am targeting with this advice.

I was interested, in light of this discussion, to find Gatovskis (19633668), a player I'd scouted on the TL, on your team.e other 80%.

I am training him half time this season and full time next season, so he falls into that 20%. Also I wouldn't have bought him if I didn't think I will stand a good chance at making a profit when I choose to sell him.

I do have a 25yo and a 28yo on my roster this season that I have only given limited training to. Fit and price can override other concerns under the right circumstances. Both these players have excellent secondaries and low salaries, and I plan to sell both for a substantial profit.

Last edited by w_alloy at 10/23/2012 10:53:30 PM

I don't necessarily come down on one side or the other of this debate. I think owners should diversify...

Your response went the next step by suggesting that the way to have performance exceed salary was to have older players with better secondaries. And from the standpoint of the TL I think this is true.

I am having a hard time squaring these two quotes. If you agree that newer owners should lean towards older players, why did you say that you don't "come down on one side or the other of this debate"?

Because he didn't say that newer owners should lean towards older players. He said that the way to having performance exceed salary was to have older players with better secondaries. Basically, suggesting that newer trainees don't have the well rounded build done yet. That isn't the same thing as suggesting newer team owners should completely ignore developing their own talent.

Because he didn't say that newer owners should lean towards older players.

Yes, he did.

He said that the way to having performance exceed salary was to have older players with better secondaries.

If the way to win is having performance exceed salary, and the way to have performance exceed salary is buying older players, then the way to win is buying older players. This isn't too complicated.

Basically, suggesting that newer trainees don't have the well rounded build done yet.

It boggles my mind how you got to here from there. Again, we are only talking about the 80% of the roster that is not being trained; trainees don't enter into it.

That isn't the same thing as suggesting newer team owners should completely ignore developing their own talent.

Again, WTF? No clue where you are getting this from or who is "suggesting newer team owners should completely ignore developing their own talent."

going backwards in terms of your post. I'll just ask you the troll exactly which posts you want from yourself about how often YOU have suggested that new owners ignore developing talent correctly. and by correctly, i mean not like that thread you've tried linking repeatedly with others shooting you down and you just downright going argumentative in an effort to prove that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

onto the 3rd point, i guess you're just not interested in the 24-27 bracket, and would rather focus exclusively on the 28+ crowd. It sounds as if you somehow have decided that talent development must stop at 23, and that 80% of the roster should be 28+ at all times. I dunno how you want me to talk you out of something that you will refuse to listen to anyways, so moving on up.

to the 2nd point, i think this is true to a fault. I'd rather not argue again, because you will again come to a simple conclusion that your logic is faultless and mine is full of holes. Why bother with a troll.

the first point suggests why i think you are a troll. You took a statement and tried to somehow make it something it wasn't. Thats pretty standard.

If your not trolling, then you have a REALLY long way to go in terms of understanding what others are suggesting to you, unlike the current pattern of just dismissing and misreading anything anyones talks about.

Last edited by FuriousSK at 10/24/2012 10:28:55 PM

going backwards in terms of your post. I'll just ask you the troll exactly which posts you want from yourself about how often YOU have suggested that new owners ignore developing talent correctly. and by correctly, i mean not like that thread you've tried linking repeatedly with others shooting you down and you just downright going argumentative in an effort to prove that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

I am trying to debate, not argue. You are the only one making this personal.

Also please point out where I have have "suggested that new owners ignore developing talent correctly". You keep saying this but won't back it up at all. I honestly have no clue what you are referring to.

onto the 3rd point, i guess you're just not interested in the 24-27 bracket, and would rather focus exclusively on the 28+ crowd. It sounds as if you somehow have decided that talent development must stop at 23, and that 80% of the roster should be 28+ at all times. I dunno how you want me to talk you out of something that you will refuse to listen to anyways, so moving on up.

Most users do single position training. Single position training can only be given to 20% of your minutes every week. Training is not relevant to the other 80%, which is the portion I am discussing. When you say stuff like I " somehow have decided that talent development must stop at 23" this is really confusing to me because I have no clue where you are getting this and you refused to explain yourself.

to the 2nd point, i think this is true to a fault. I'd rather not argue again, because you will again come to a simple conclusion that your logic is faultless and mine is full of holes. Why bother with a troll.

I honestly don't get what you are trying to say here (besides more baseless personal attacks).

the first point suggests why i think you are a troll. You took a statement and tried to somehow make it something it wasn't. Thats pretty standard.

I quoted you and said you were wrong, then proceeded to explain why in the next thing I wrote. Ya, that's pretty standard for a debate. Not my problem that you can't handle people explaining why they disagree with you.