BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

4. Don't agree, you can train Handling and Driving to 20+ levels without adding greatly to salary costs.

Ehm,no.Handling and Driving has low impact on salary only if the player is not listed as PG.
But with handling and driving at 20 level,the player had to have such other high primary skills to be listed in another role,that his salary had to overcome the previous Pg salary given mostly by handling and driving.

Last edited by Steve Karenn at 10/22/2010 10:03:39 AM

I used to think like that, but from watching NTs I've changed my mind. It seems that an 18-16 matchup is maybe not quite equivalent, but not all that much different from an 8-6 matchup. Whereas what I believe Charles keeps hinting at is that for example a 15-10 matchup is not much different from an 18-10 matchup (all other things being equal, which they usually aren't) - once you dominate, you dominate.

This doesnt make any sense. Why would be anybody so cruel to force you be as good as possible?

Hmm, the question is if this kind of domination isnt against the idea of multiskills itself. I would understand that if there would be any point around lvl 15, where you are starting to pay most (but getting almost nothing), so the further upgrades wouldnt be so relevant, but if it isnt that way, is possible that there doesnt exist any multiskill recipe (well the JS/IS have to be logically smaller) against monstrous lvl 18 guys in defence.

Perhaps these skills like handling, driving, passing, jump range should lead you more often into situations where player dont face full lvl OD of the opponent, if he is slower and sligtly less able to handle things. Therefore OD isnt supported by other skills well (like the real ability to avoid passing would be pretty much based on his ability to pass). If it isnt like that, is kind sufficient enough to have monster OD.

There are several ways to think about this issue.

Last edited by aigidios at 10/22/2010 10:09:43 AM

Again, confusion. I can afford a 300k player, but the tradeoff isn't worth it. I have four starters between 100 and 150k salary, if I have to get rid of one of them, or lose depth, my team gets worse.

I was kind of waiting for that comment. It comes down to salary cap raising petition again. If you could afford 300k player with your other 4 (100-150k) starters. What prevents you from using that additional salary to spread out between positions? Let's say you had 150k starters before, now you have changed to 180k starters. Nothing really changes. The economy is still moving towards equilibrium. If players overall skill will improve then salarys will drop and perhaps in 3-4 seasons those monsters might be an option. Still unevenly trained players will be unwanted. Top teams are looking for players that have the best skill/salary ratio. Those are the teams that could theoretically employ those players, but unless those managers will get significantly dumber, none will go for the one man show. If we lower the salarys considerably for all players right away, we will have a situation where a lot of teams incomes per week are raising to the roof again.

in the past the relativ skill diffference was considered today it is the absolute ;)