BuzzerBeater Forums

Players appear to be classified based on their skills, first into inside players and guards.

Point guards have better passing, driving, handling than their shooting. Do a TL search for a PG with awful passing and you'll find a horrible player because his shooting and defense will be even worse. Your player has good PG skills, so his shooting and OD must keep him as a SG. Your player probably has better passing, etc. skills than most players who are classifiied as PG. If you had a player who was more of a pure shooter without the passing/handling, I could see using your player as a PG and the other as the SG, rather than using one as a starter and the other as backup at SG, with some player with so-so passing and no shooting who is classified as a PG.

Forwards are inside players with a good jump shot. The range doesn't matter - or perhaps shifts them towards being a SG. So since your player isn't a forward it is probably a combination of IS and ID. Rebounding and Shot Blocking are probably weighted somewhat less when classifying forwards. I don't know for sure whether the jump shot makes a forward a better forward, or simply gets him classified as such. Having the combination of inside skills and JS for fowards is probably why there are so many centers - forwards need more skills.

SF have a relative poor inside shooting. I can't imagine that makes them a better SF - but perhaps means that they aren't PF. So your player also looks like a lot of SF, but maybe it the addition of the passing-etc. skills that pull him into the guard category. I'd expect him to get pretty reasonable ratings at PG, SG, and SF without any training.

Edited by jimrtex (11/30/2007 6:20:05 AM CET)

Last edited by jimrtex at 11/30/2007 6:20:05 AM

This guy should play on the wing (SG or SF). His passing isn't good enough to be a PG (maybe a backup) and his IS isn't really good enough to be an effective post scorer. Although I think he could play some at PF.

How old is he and what's his salary? Good overall player if he's young enough to train.


Steve
Go Bruins!

He is 19 with a salary of $4625 and his DMI is 12800.

Ok so what you are saying I could use this guy for my SG and the other guy for my PG?

Jump Shot: respectable Jump Range: mediocre
Outside Def.: average Handling: inept
Driving: awful Passing: respectable
Inside Shot: atrocious Inside Def.: mediocre
Rebounding: awful Shot Blocking: mediocre
Stamina: pitiful Free Throw: atrocious

Edited by SSJCrono (12/1/2007 7:04:15 AM CET)

Last edited by SSJCrono at 12/1/2007 7:04:15 AM

As he is still young and I guess it's worth training him I would also consider his height.
If he is close to 2m I would make him a SF, as he is very complete. But if he is too short (1.80) it is less worth training him in IS or ID.

I played him as a pf in my last game and he did pretty well there. He is 192cm tall.

The height does not influence the match ratings, but only the speed of training. Tall players will train slower in jump shot, jump range, handling and driving (i think), short players in blocking, rebounding, etc...

He is already a good PG, but he is so complete that with little effort he could be a very good SF (slightly too short, but still ok I think). I would suggest you to train him in Inside shot and driving to start with.

I'll try to buy a player like that in a few days... but a bit older (cheaper), not to be trained.

Good luck! :)

Tall players will train slower in jump shot, jump range, handling and driving (i think),

Remember, this will change after the all-star break. From the News item regarding upcoming changes:

2) The height modifier to training will be reduced, particularly for jump shooting. Additionally, a third type of jump shot training will be introduced that will allow SG and SF to train jump shooting in a way similar to the one PG and SG can currently train. Upon further study, it would appear that there are tall players (see Dirk Nowitzki) that can shoot. I guess this is the sort of mistake that happens when we design jump shot training during the playoffs.

Oh, thanks.
I better re-read the editorials :)