BuzzerBeater Forums

I agree with huzzel on his point, why I asked to be shown a guard with 4 equal skills compared to the centers 3 equal skills.

I don't think your calculations are fair, let use mine I hope you have the time to read it, because it's pretty long.

First I don't think a guard really uses 6 as important skills, but 3 main and 3 extra, JS, JR and DR (SG 1st, PG 2nd) vs PA,HA and OD (PG 1st, SG 2nd)

But lets quit the skills part, the most important thing is how much a player contributes to the team performance right?
So lets talk about ratings from now on, instead of individual skills.

I will use our national team, Nederland, as the example.

We got 3 centers above 20k salary, the best guards got around 11k salary. We got 1 SF with 15k salary, and another C with 15k salary.

Then lets take a look at our match ratings;
Offense first, we played a lot of Push the Ball, which is a normal focus, so that should give a clear view about wether you are better inside or outside.
I checked the official games where we playing PtB this season;
In every game but one (the other one the offense is the same outside and inside) we had a better outside shooting than inside shooting (1 sublevel), remember salary's weren't even close.
So you pay double the salary to get 1 sublevel lower offense.

Ok now we will check our defense ratings, which is harder to compare of course since we have rebounding, and ID and PD. Lets skip rebounding for now (just like we do with the offensive flow), and look only at ID and PD.

We played vs inside teams the most, so mainly 2-3 zone, which is not usable when you want to compare PD vs ID but we did play a few man-to-man games.
The first man-to-man game ID was 1 sublevel higher than PD. The 2nd man-to-man game (after the guards improved some of their OD of course) the PD was 1 full level higher than the ID.

Now I can tell you our Centers' ID is way higher than the OD of our guards. But still we got a huge difference in the PD vs ID, while again the Centers got double as much salary as the guards.

Ok the rebounding is hard to compare just like the OF, but since the SG/PG and SF contributes the most to the OF and the C/PF and SF the most to rebounding we maybe could even those out.

Ok so now a summary. What we see is this:

It's easier to boost your outside ratings, as guards need lower stats to achieve the same ratings. Centers got way higher salary, since they need higher stats to achieve the same ratings.

So a with a few guards around 10k salary you get the same outside ratings as the inside ratings of a few centers around 20k salary.

The question is now what should change? It's clearly that guards are more powerfull, since they don't need a high salary to get high ratings.

Imo there something is not fair/right here, I hope you had the time to read this all, but I think or the difference of salary between guards and centers should be reduced, or the difference of skills needed to achieve the same ratings should be reduced.

Cheers and sorry for the long post
PatjeBono

Last edited by BB-Patrick at 3/22/2008 9:19:58 AM

probably salaries will be measured by the average of their skills, while more important skills weight more heavily then the others. Therefore a guard with respectable JS and inept rebounding will have a higher salary then a guard with inept JS and respectable rebounding.

no because "guard" and "center" are just the suggested roles
unless they give different values to the skills based on height

the real answer is in the first part of you post

I dont know why all center trainers start complaining suddenly.

it is way easier to train centers, cause u only have to train 4 skills, compared to 6 skills for a guard. Thats one reason why so many decided to train centers.

Last edited by mark_lenders at 3/22/2008 9:25:37 AM

no because "guard" and "center" are just the suggested roles
unless they give different values to the skills based on height

actually my theorie is: players suggested position is always the position where they would earn most. its just a theory but it would work this way.

actually my theorie is: players suggested position is always the position where they would earn most. its just a theory but it would work this way.

that makes sense

but that's different than what you said before

first I have read the complete post ;-)

But lets quit the skills part, the most important thing is how much a player contributes to the team performance right?

TRUE!!! Look on your example on the transfer list. he is having an average rating of 7.5. a center with 2 prominents and 1 prolific would receive ratings about 10

I cannot say much about the netherlands nationalteam, because i dont see their skills AND we do not really know how much the positions influence which rating, using a certain tactic. maybe PFs influence the outs Def rating more than we expect at the moment. So talking about the netherlands NT would be a lot speculations for all of us. Only the coach of them could say a little about it.

BUT look at the game engine changes. BB had to make the outside focus better, cause teams with an inside focus had an advantage. That alone makes me think inside players were more contributing to the team than outside players.

TRUE!!! Look on your example on the transfer list. he is having an average rating of 7.5. a center with 2 prominents and 1 prolific would receive ratings about 10

Not true, check out my main center, he got exactly 2 prominents and 1 prolific, he averages 8.5, and yet again, this is the personal rating, instead of the teamratings.

So talking about the netherlands NT would be a lot speculations for all of us. Only the coach of them could say a little about it.

Since I'm a scout of the NT Netherland I know the stats of every single player in the NT, and I know the stats of most of the talents as well, so I guess I could say something about it.

BUT look at the game engine changes. BB had to make the outside focus better, cause teams with an inside focus had an advantage. That alone makes me think inside players were more contributing to the team than outside players.

They didn't make the outside focus better, they just changed the fact that guards didn't hit enough shots. You will probably still see the same ratings, but just more shots will go in. Quote out of the news post:

We will be increasing the efficiency of longer-range jump shots in order to improve this balance.

Last edited by BB-Patrick at 3/22/2008 10:13:35 AM

Not true, check out my main center, he got exactly 2 prominents and 1 prolific, he averages 8.5, and yet again, this is the personal rating, instead of the teamratings.

you must be doing something wrong. ;-)

my centers are not even clos to 1 proefcient and the receive 8.0 ratings^^

They didn't make the outside focus better, they just changed the fact that guards didn't hit enough shots. You will probably still see the same ratings, but just more shots will go in. Quote out of the news post:

i havnt said anything against it. as long as my guards are contributing to win the game, I dont really care what team ratings I have. BBs change how many outs. shots they hit, then I dont mind if the ratings wont change.

The ratings are definitely NOT where you should go to find your best examples.

There is a quite a number of guards playing in first division here in Brasil (Amaury Leopardo for the Devils, Nuno Maia for Bauducco) with great ratings, and they still don't earn half of what my french center does (11k A.L. (9,5 average rating) and 19k N.M. (9,5 average rating) vs. 37k (9,0 average rating) my center)

Why not?

This is just another example of the effectivness of guards.
Look at the way they contribute to the team ratings, you will see that the outside ratings of those teams with the 11k and 19k guards are higher than the inside rating of your team, with the 37k center. (if both would play a normal focus)

Last edited by BB-Patrick at 3/22/2008 10:57:35 AM

I know!
it was supposed to be an answer to Huzzel
ratings arent good example for him