BuzzerBeater Forums

Yeah, wow. That was a ballsy move. Always thought of Patient as sort of a Hail Mary attempt. Gradzinski is one helluva player.

Patient plus the Lineup swap is gutsy. A little surprised Acker and Soto didn't get more o-boards, although Dog Rivers SG/SF counterparts basically had 3 total defensive rebounds combined.

i've been spending a good deal of time on the TL recently, and it is complicated. i was never very good with numbers (check out my transfer balance), but i sense there are some relationships between salary and asking price that i can't quite get a handle on.

as a recent example, take the case of Tobe M. for Desert Storm and the guard i just purchased. Tobe is a very good player, with probably at least two more high quality seasons ahead of him. huge salary ($244,000) but Tobe is on the NT. What is he worth? Jason began by asking, i recall, something like $2 million, then $1.4, the $1 million, and now has asked the bare minimum.

i bought a good G, younger, but no where near Tobe's skill level, but what i thought was a lot of skill for a much lower salary. the guy selling him figured that lower salary was of value, and i agreed, shelling out $1.3 million.

the outlines of the finances becomes clear -- low salary, high transfer fee, high salary, low transfer fee. but did i overpay? is jason asking too little (how many teams can afford such a salary and need such a player? if the answer is "too few", then there will be no bidding and tobe is transferred for $100,000 or less.) (but Jason shells out $240,000 every week tobe stays on his roster, unwanted.)

i've seen people do this kind of analysis of the tradeoff between salary and bid amount for staff, but the numbers and issues there are relatively straight-forward. i don't have the skills to analyze the patterns on the TL -- and that is why i am always losing money, i suppose.

Hassan>

I think I can speak clearly on this subject for you:

Its all about supply/demand.

By any team that wants to compete Tobe is only useful in a couple situations 1) As a starter in Div I, 2) As a hired gun in the playoffs. Even as a starter in Div 1, he may be salary inefficient, enough so that even starting for the NT doesn't help. Maybe there are only half a dozen teams that could be interested in him even if the price was right and they are all probably NBBA teams.

Also when it comes to low salary players...the demand is much higher. A salary efficient SF can sell for $4 M. Where as a 15/15 SG with lax other skills will get no interest at the same salary.

Also old players...just look at the Lethargy strategy as a prime example. Just because someone sells for barely anything doesn't mean he's a bad player either. In the right circumstances they can be efficient. You don't need all your starters to be efficient salary wise just productive for their salary. Nobody has unlimited cash.

I've been reviewing teams that have "staying power" they seem to have either a SF/PF that they built their team around or bought and then added pieces to around him that are rather interchangeable. That's why IMO those players sell for so much more than SG/PG/C. The market in BB is pretty efficient in that manner. It's not so efficient with high salary and older players in most cases. Unfortunately many teams end up building players beyond their usefulness and then have to toss their salaries out. In which case the market can't absorb so many high salary players especially with bad secondaries.

thanks for the response. i see the sense of your response, but there is still a vagueness that i wish i could quantify / clarify. i am focused on Tobe M. because his skills are on view, at least for a bit longer.

for example, your definition of "market" for such a player -- by "half a dozen teams" i infer you mean the NBBA, but the BB world is vast -- indeed, the first bid on Tobe has been placed by a DII team from Chile. "demand" is problematic, for it only needs two or three teams to create a very expensive bidding war.

but i am stuck on Tobe because he is, in my opinion, "salary inefficient". 133 skill points is pretty impressive, and he has acceptable skill levels, again, in my opinion, in all categories. my calculation is that 133 total is solid for another season, then comes the decline -- but even if the decline averages 3 skill points a season, after four seasons (aged 35) Tobe will still have 121 skill points. i could see this player contributing significantly until aged 40 or so. if that is the case, is our Chilean squad making a good purchase, buying Tobe for $1000 and keeping him for seven or even ten seasons? or should he instead spend $1.3 million on a player whose salary is a small portion of Tobe's, but also begins at a level Tobe will reach in a decade? i would love to figure out a way to answer that with something other than my gut.

4 skill points in passing costs him $100,000.
5 skill points in rebounding costs him $30,000.

Compare 2 players:
20/12/20/20/20/12/9/10/2/8...$157K salary
16/12/20/18/17/16/9/10/7/8...$244 salary

I'd rather have player 1. Passing training is a trap. It trains too fast and ends up costing too much in salary. So is rebounding. Its minimally effective to have more rebounding skill but ends up costing guards much more salary...especially at lower salary ranges.

I once grabbed the skills of Dionysus players from when he was the top team in China and the world when he listed them. There was clearly a pattern to his to player builds and it was largely quite effective for the salary.

i don't have the skills to analyze the patterns on the TL -- and that is why i am always losing money, i suppose.

Well, I'm glad to hear there are some skills you lack. Nice first season in the NBBA !!

thanks. good luck tonight -- hope it is not decided on penalty kicks!

i think we are starting to talk in cross purposes -- in a perfect world, certainly, take the player with the most skills for the least salary.

but i was not trying to evaluate players, but the cost of players.

to take your example: i am sure there are a couple of other managers who are guided by the principle that one should buy the most player one can for the money. it just so happens that there is a player on the market (19373076) who is very similar to your first player: 133 skill points, $166K salary, age 29, and the owner is asking $1.4 million. Jason is asking $1K for his $244K player, one year older.

if we assume you are in the market for a top-notch guard, and the decision has come down to these two, which is the better choice? (this is actually a poor choice, for it would be Tobe M. after shelling out the cost of purchase, it would take some 18 seasons or so for the outlays to match.) an important part of "cost efficiency" is "cost of purchase" or "cost of training".

244-166 =78
78* 24 = 1872
So it would take roughly 2 seasons for the salary variance to equal out. Assuming they stay with their relative nations for merchandise reasons.

In general I believe salary efficient players are sometimes overpaid. The most salary inefficient players tend to be very old players that are losing skills. However, because you can buy them so cheap they end up cheaper than the younger player.

The other consideration is when you are cash strapped or building an arena still, the more money you have wrapped up in your players means the less you can spend elsewhere...mainly the arena is the tradeoff. That is why Utopia is full of aged veterans.