BuzzerBeater Forums

Well then I apologize. I suppose I just find it too hard to believe that it can work out that well for you without traditional big man builds. You must have had a ton of SF\PF looking guys on your team.

if you have to spent 33 SP without regarding potential and salary it is reasonable to give your C like 18 ID 12 SB and 3 OD, and your PF 16 ID, 10 SB and 7 OD or something.

the more important question though is, what would you do considering salary?

for a C like this you need at least MVP potential and have a salary around 170k*
your a PF as described above you need also MVp pot and end up with a salary around 120k**

(salary estimated with with complementary skills like this: *C: 6/6/a/8/8/8/15/b/15/c, **PF: 12/8/a/10/10/8/15/b/14/c)

If you add OD (lets assume C: 8, PF: 12) to those builts it does not raise the salary or go against the cap.
so the decision is not between 2 points more OD for 2 points less ID but if you consider it worth to spent a few week/a season more to add OD additionally to the number in SB and ID you already have.

on the other hand if you rly spent only 33SP the way you built your C/PF depends a lot on the competitiveness of your league and the salary you want to spent. just an example. if you play in a low league like league III or sth. a combination of OD 8/ ID 15/ SB 10 at C would flat out dominate because he stops all drives and shots while forcing a lot of TO, while in a higher league he will still be servicable for this purposes but will get flat out dominated by $100k+ opponents with 16+ IS.

You will never make it to D.II unless you have a Center with at least 16-17 ID

Interesting. I could have sworn I spent 5 or so seasons in D-II before deciding to tank. Never had a 15+ ID that whole time except for one season in D-II (and I didn't do particularly well that season). There are many ways to win...you don't need monstrous ID guys to make it happen.

I always find "I did" to be a most satisfying answer to "you can't."

The thing I will add that may be more important as well for the higher OD variety big man is RB. The game I got run out of the Cup (on a -2 effort on the road, but still) my defense was pretty adequate in terms of the first shot, but because of the CT and massive rebounding edge (they rebounded more of their misses than I did!), there were a metric buttload of followup shots where Gigantor the Dunkinator stepped on my guys and either scored, drew a foul, or both. It would be interesting to see how the responses in the thread would be changed if instead of 33 points for three skills, it was 44 for those three plus RB.

The thing I will add that may be more important as well for the higher OD variety big man is RB. The game I got run out of the Cup (on a -2 effort on the road, but still) my defense was pretty adequate in terms of the first shot, but because of the CT and massive rebounding edge (they rebounded more of their misses than I did!), there were a metric buttload of followup shots where Gigantor the Dunkinator stepped on my guys and either scored, drew a foul, or both. It would be interesting to see how the responses in the thread would be changed if instead of 33 points for three skills, it was 44 for those three plus RB.

That might not be the best game for you to use as an example that your require better rebounding, whenever I've played TIE vs Crunch I find that rebounding is the biggest statistical edge that the Crunch team receives. Makes sense though as rebounding has a lot to do with effort.

The thing I will add that may be more important as well for the higher OD variety big man is RB. The game I got run out of the Cup (on a -2 effort on the road, but still) my defense was pretty adequate in terms of the first shot, but because of the CT and massive rebounding edge (they rebounded more of their misses than I did!), there were a metric buttload of followup shots where Gigantor the Dunkinator stepped on my guys and either scored, drew a foul, or both. It would be interesting to see how the responses in the thread would be changed if instead of 33 points for three skills, it was 44 for those three plus RB.

That might not be the best game for you to use as an example that your require better rebounding, whenever I've played TIE vs Crunch I find that rebounding is the biggest statistical edge that the Crunch team receives. Makes sense though as rebounding has a lot to do with effort.

Oh, I know that the specific game was a non-typical scenario (-2 Effort, on the road, with the wrong specialty PR guy). It's more of a general case that if you're playing a strategy looking to prevent the ball from getting down low rather than trying to smother the guys who get it down low, you've got to have enough rebounding to make sure they can't go around your defense by going over it.