BuzzerBeater Forums

My 50c:

I loved the arguments and input provided by Alonso, augus, Banan-mat and surprisingly to me - jesus. A lot of good, valid points.

The problem indeed has two main directions where it can be battled effectively without creating a lazareth - stamina and game shape.

1) Game shape:
Instead of increasing injuries (which is not the way to go imo), we could just introduce an algorithm that has a % chance to decrease GS based on minutes played in B3/BBM games in addition to the regular weekly games (after all psychologist, massage doctors & regular weekly games effects are applied). Again, exponential ofc, starting from like 0% for <40 mins to possibly close to 100% for 48+ mins. Now those occasional overtime games will hit us hard on that regard but well, they do play a part in real life too. If we don't want this to happen the 40-48min penalty range might not be hard-coded but instead be percentages of the total game time (~80-100%).

This will inevitably hurt the game shape of short rosters and respectively their performance and cost-efficiency. Due to the game engine imperfections that were mentioned however <40 mins could be hard to achieve for players with 7+ stamina even if decent substitutes are present in the roster. That leads me to the second part of my proposed solution:

2) Stamina:
augus mentioned that we need an exponential algorithm to decrease player performance late in games. I completely agree ofc but I believe that the current algorithm is already exponential to begin with. The trouble is that it doesn't work hard enough for players with high endurance and even if it did - there's still the issue of 7+ stamina players staying on the floor for the whole game duration despite the coach instructions.

One thing that comes to mind (and it seems like a very easy fix) is to make stamina work "out of 20", instead of "out of 10" but not let us be able to train it past 10 (as it is now). This way we will effectively not be able to have stamina higher than the current levels of 5. That will in turn decrease players' performance late in games further and more importantly let the subs play more minutes without the need of touching the spaghetti code of the engine itself.

It is very important imo that those two measures are taken together in order to achieve the desired effects. The GS part is easy to test offline and the stamina part can be tested in PL games and scrimmages without causing any trouble.

One last thing - I wrote all this off of one foot and haven't really thought it through, so there could be some aspects I'm missing. Please don't crucify me if so!

This is a good point.
NBA salary cap doubles from $63,065,000 in 2014-15 to $112,414,000 in 2021-22 because they signed a big TV contact with ESPN.

However, the team income keeps the same when the average salary of players increases due to GYM and youth trainer.
Maybe an increase in the TV contracts might be helpful to catch the salary inflation of average players during their prime?

Raising TV contracts in each division to combat salary inflation sounds like a feasible option.

Also, in contrast to this, regarding what Check had mentioned: lowering or capping salaries would help the transfer-list value of players that have been negatively affected by salary inflation.

I said this before, but again this is a serious issue so I'll say this once more, a 144 TSP NT player, center, age 33, should not be selling for 300k on the TL. You mean to tell me this player is on the Chinese NT, a top power in terms of national competition; however, he isn't worth more than 300k? Image Ronaldo or Messi going for such a discounted price.

As was the case for Ronaldo at Juventus, despite old age, an elite player like that should raise your merchandise enough to practically pay for his own salary.

If you are curious, just google the profit Juventus made on 'CR7' jersey sales in the first week or so; the value from merchandise sales was worth Ronaldo's ridiculous transfer fee and weekly salary.

The previous NT Buzzerbeater player I had mentioned above had a salary of 230k+, which is why he sold for so low (age obviously played a factor despite the player being in his prime). Only the upper echelon of managers could afford to pay such a monstrous salary on a weekly basis, and even so, this manager very will might be operating at a loss in weekly revenue after making a such an acquisition, which with all things considered seems objectively unfair.

Boosting merchandise bonuses for certain players could be a solution along with other viable options listed by managers mentioned in this post.

The 5-6 player rotation stradegy is primarily an economic issue. Tampering with stamina/injury is not the best solution. Fixing salary inflation, so teams can afford to pay more than 5-6 players, and implementing an 8-man lineup rule are better solutions.

Where its written that a team most play with 5 LeBron?
If you can effort 800/900 k salary you should make managerial choices, as this game Is supposed to make you do, for stay in that sum....

Take this 900 to 1,2 million raising TV contract not change the fact that the game engine Will make the 5 LeBron play 45 minutes....

Problem Is the engine for me, not how much Money you can manage....
About the 8 man lineup i agree but still if the best players play 45 minutes without problem , It Will not solve the problem.... Better for me the 8 man lineup plus take away option let coach decide and work on substititions on the engine, bench most play a certain amount of minutes...

I am not contrary to raise a bit TV contract but have nothing to do with short roster

Technically speaking, a LeBron type of player in this game would be around 155-160+ TSP. I competed in the B3 and D1 and had a respectable run considering I did NOT have 5 LeBrons. My starting five players were all around 140-147 TSP, which is pretty conservative for a B3 team now-a-days (I even trained two of my starters); yet their salaries were still much too inflated.

In fact, I was still operating at a loss with a 6-man rotation of 'not-LeBrons.' I am not suggesting that a team be able to play 5 "LeBrons", but rather, for managers not to lose money with a starting 5 rotation of: 4 'Andrew Wiggins', 1 'Kevin Love' and 1 'Jr Smith.'

I said this before, but again this is a serious issue so I'll say this once more, a 144 TSP NT player, center, age 33, should not be selling for 300k on the TL. You mean to tell me this player is on the Chinese NT, a top power in terms of national competition; however, he isn't worth more than 300k? Image Ronaldo or Messi going for such a discounted price.

There are players in NBA that are dumped in a trade as soon as possible because of the salary. They have a value below zero and they have to be offered in a package with, for example, draft picks to find a team that takes them. From this perspective, BB salaries are quite realistic.

Last edited by jesus.sanchez at 10/12/2021 11:47:41 AM

All these are valid points, but in my opinion, there's an issue above all which I think was mentioned some days ago.

If in an even game, starters with Stamina 8-9 always play 44-45', no matter whether you set up 300k salary backup players, it's absolutely senseless from an economical & performance point of view to have strong backup players. What is the point of going for 7 x 180k players instead of 5 x 250k if in the first case your two backup players will play 8-10' per game? Until this is not fixed, the short roster issue will not change.

Starters must play less than these 44-45' in order to let backup players actually make an impact. And if you don't use backup players, starters must have a significant decrease in performance in the second half, unlike what is happening now.

Looking at the transfer-list, in some cases, 160 TSP players are going for as little as 3m; due to salary inflation, very few D1 managers can afford to pay the weekly salaries of such players which is one reason they are so cheap on the transfer list.

There has been an influx 150TSP+ players. There are far more of these players than there are managers that can afford to pay the weekly salary of these players, which drives down the TL value. That's an advantage for the top B3 managers who will simply eat their inflated salaries . . . something very few managers can do.

And it doesn't just stop at the 'Lebron' type of players. You see 140-130 TSP players with salaries at 230K+ which only D1 managers can afford to play those inflated prices. If more managers are able to afford to pay the weekly salary of any particular player, that will drive up their value on the transfer list, making it harder to buy these players at a discounted price.

It would be much harder to buy a 155-160+ TSP player if they were going for 6m+, as they should.

I was recently in D-1 and if I were not tanking, I could have easily bought a NT center with 144 TSP for around 300K, but why? Because I can easily absorb the player's salary. Imagine being able to buys 5 NT players for under 1m, because no one can afford to pay their weekly salaries. Well, if you are in D-1 or competing in the B3 you can do that at a faction of the cost -- which is a massive and unfair advantage.

I believe if we adjust the cap or fix the inflated salaries it will make for a more competitive and healthy economy, driving up the TL value of players. These inflated salaries will not stop the upper echelon of B3 teams from acquiring 'Thanos' like power, acquiring 160+ TSP players like they are affinity stones at a discounted transfer-list price; while they simply absorb their inflated salaries, something only the 1% of managers will be able to do if they save up the money/revenue.

Anyways, I like the 8-man rotation idea, because it forces B3 managers to use up cap space on three additional roster spots so they can't just buy 5 160+ TSP players without any depth at all; however, if the 8-man rotation is put into practice . . . the salary inflation will need to be addressed one way or another.

Otherwise, no team could afford to field a competitive roster under the current salary cap with an enforced 8-man rotation.

Last edited by A-Dub at 10/12/2021 8:28:39 PM

I think maybe to control players playing time there should also be more fouling, some even matches finish with one team with 20 fouls and other teams sometimes like 6 fouls for the whole team for the whole match, I think there should be more fouling and more fouling out players, that maybe will force teams to have bigger roster and control their playing time