BuzzerBeater Forums

We can play this game all day.

Legend A
'PG'

JS 16
JR 12
OD 16
H 19
D 21
PA 13
IS 13
ID 14
R 5
SB 5
ST 6
FT 9
$170k, 132 skills on the Ka-ometer (Parrot scout tool) with a lvl 5 trainer. Training period: 11 seasons

I'd chuck him the ball on an isolation offense.

Training plan for: JS JR OD HA DR PA IS ID RB SB ST FT Age Height
Legend 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 3 3 5 7 18 188

Last edited by Elmacca at 10/22/2010 7:25:42 AM

So why shouldn't we be able to add another 10 pops to that player? He would still be well trained and would be balanced and a great player. But the salary just becomes too high even though he is a better player, but now now team can use the player and not relegate.

The training model won't actually let you.

Here's a possible 130-skilled $354k salary-muncher from the same starting skills/height/also trained for 11 seasons.

So, on the left, a $170k 132-skilled player. On the right, a $354k 130-skilled player.

JS 16 > 20
JR 12 > 14
OD 16 > 18
H 19 < 18
D 21 < 18
PA 13 > 18
IS 13 < 8
ID 14 < 9
R 5 < 4
SB 5 < 4
ST 6 < 5
FT 9 < 9

I fancy the 170k guy's chances one on one.


Last edited by Elmacca at 10/22/2010 8:02:01 AM

Depends on the position. PG or SG the player on the right will destroy the player on the left. The advantage in JS, JR, OD and Passing is too high to overcome. At SF I think it would be a tie. At PF and C the player on the left will dominate.

Maybe Im not saying anything new, but by some points around the forums Im starting to think that the whole point of "best" players is pretty much based on our sense to think about the "right" salary.

The difference between skill lvl 5-10 seems much bigger than the difference on 15-20. However salary is acting the other way, because meanwhile you are reaching smaller power difference on highest levels, the salary impact is pretty intensive.

Therefore the conclusion about "best" player doesnt have to be based on the point who looks like that, but if he could be really so different if you compare him wiith a "weaker" guy. Thats why are other skills so important.

Now, if you got into conclusion and trying to compare two different multiskills, the question isnt how much more that all around lvl 16 player needs more salary than lvl 14, but if these two levels arent basically the same. We are reaching at this point so small differences that theoretically is possible to outsmart stronger team only by tactics (well, if you really have players multiskilled at some level), but Im affraid that the basic point is to leave "best" players as well as best trainers lvl 7 to the dumb ones, because you could pay a huge money for a difference which if fact almost doesnt exist.

Which means that is impossible to think about best players in best teams, because it would doesnt make any sense.

Last edited by aigidios at 10/22/2010 8:32:26 AM

I think the expensive guy only is the better guard for Motion, Princeton & Run n Gun. All other offences he gets taken to the hoop and destroyed by the less expensive guy.

Now let's say the 170k guard has a twin brother and now they play 2 vs 2 vs the 354k guy and a 6k guy.
Which pair wins the 2 vs 2 ?

Of course the twins win. But that's not the point. The point is that the best player in the game should be at the top level teams. But no top level team can have the best players in the game without relegating. This is a problem in my opinion.

Actually, we were discussing smart training vs dumb training.
For 340k in salary, I can put 264 skills on court.
If I train dumb, I get a marginally better outside-focused player with 130 skills and he costs 14k a week more than my smart-trained twins.

As I said many posts ago, your proposals are essentially compensating dumb training - and I'm glad that having to train smart is part of the game.