BuzzerBeater Forums

Agreed 100%, that's just what I meant.

And how many times have NBA teams sunk their fortunes on a rookie who turned out to be a bust. We're all dealing with the same risk factors. Some managers are willing to take risks on paying exorbitant sums of money on players who never played a game, and others are not. The debate about showing the Aggressiveness rating shouldn't be about how to mitigate risk, the market should take care of that.

And how many times have NBA teams sunk their fortunes on a rookie who turned out to be a bust

Probably every one. But it is already the same here, how many teams haven't drafted a dud?

the market should take care of that.

The market doesn't take care of it. I don't think it makes sense but if you look carefully at an 18 year old MVP with a $6,000 starting salary and the same player a couple of years later after they have been trained properly they are still worth about the same.

I think the European bankers from Iceland, Ireland, Greece and Portugal that told us all to trust in the market would say you are correct.

The actual comparason is you can see every stat except this one. You can see how well they handle the ball under pressure in a turly objective way, how well they can rebound which is incredibly hard to quantify, but you can't see that they have been ejected from 47 games for fighting, fouled out of every match they ever were in, get injured three times a season and have a police record. Why?

And how many times have NBA teams sunk their fortunes on a rookie who turned out to be a bust. We're all dealing with the same risk factors.

That makes the case for a hidden potential rating, more than anything.

Here's what I would like to see: visible potential and aggressiveness ratings - and maybe more, such as personality ratings, and maybe even game shape - with margins of error. That 18yo MVP you're spending $2m on may become a star, or maybe merely very good, while that unheralded allstar you landed for $2k may become the face of his country's NT. I mean, if it's realism we're aiming for, that's one way the game can go. You can call these the "non-basketball attributes" and leave the basketball attributes fairly exact.

(^^^ don't quote me on that. it's a hypothetical, and I'm not sure how I feel about it.)

Last edited by RiseandFire at 2/13/2011 5:29:16 AM

Point is, that player just isnt suddently aggressive. They have been playing for years before 18y in smaller courts and that's where scouts are looking for new players. They should have some kind of view about playing style/injuries. Aggressive action is something that doesnt just "pop up" for people, they grow like that whole their life. It's basic psychology.Big things in life can change that during years, but I guess we dont need accidents and such in real life happening for our players right? No need to be that realistic?

You know... teenage is when human starts for form their true self-image. 18y is no longer truly "teen", it's few years before that and from 18y you can quite much already say what he is going to be and what risks there are. So scouts that have been watching those kids playing... should be able to tell is player prone to injuries or fouls.

Or do you think that scouts never look youngsters playing and just when they are 18y, all players come to club and they just wish they have mentally good player? There's mental, physical and techinal attributes they are watching, starting many years before they are 18y (when they start showing their potential).

Do you think that players just pop up from nowhere to clubs, without additional information about past injuries, fouls and such?

And how many times have NBA teams sunk their fortunes on a rookie who turned out to be a bust. We're all dealing with the same risk factors.

That makes the case for a hidden potential rating, more than anything.

+1 ball

best point of the whole debate

what makes more sense to be able to see?
aggressiveness or potential?

that is the slam dunk, argument over right there

I am never sure if I should report a team that has sold an obviously foul prone rookie for an uber amount like 2mil+ - imo these prices should be adjusted.

what makes more sense to be able to see?
aggressiveness or potential?

I think you've just convinced me that potential should also be be hidden. :p

what about partial hidden aggressiviness? it could be hidden for 1-2 season, after that show at player stats something like Agressiviness: Average (or low, high).

cause to me, at start no one knows how any player is, but after some season(1-2) or games(30-50) people notice if certain player is more agressive or not.

So are there only aggressive and non-aggressive players or is it a range of values?