BuzzerBeater Forums

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?

Yes it is a disaster and i feel really sorry for you if you spent $4,000,000 on three trainees only to find all of them will be untranable because they constantly foul out of games. Most 18 year old trainees have to get their minutes in the weekly scrimmage so they don't cost the team too many losses in league games but then when they foul out after 11 minutes they ruin the weeks training, their game shape drops and they become even more likely to foul out in the next game again. Why is every other stat visible and not this one?

How can you see their experience any more than their aggressiveness?

Because every other skill can be improved or declined. Aggressiveness can't change, so it isn't shown.

euhm, i tend to disagree on this. their are other hidden skills, but not everyone knows about them yet...

for example: how can you explain that one player gets injured each season for 3 or 4 weeks, where as some other players hardly ever get injured during their career, and when they get injured, it's a 1 week, max 2 week injury.

my guess is that their are other hidden skills ( of which one that would show how injury prone a certain player is) but that the community doesn't know that much about them yet.

As for the hidden skills, i'd rather have keep them 'invisible'. if you want to know if your draftee is an agressive player, play him in a few games, and see how it goes.

Alot of draftee's faul alot in the beginning, due to their lack in defence, but once trained in defence, that ammount of fauling often goes down, so you can't know for sure if your Draftee is agressive or not, not untill you have had him in your team for a few weeks ( a few meaning having him play atleast 6 games, preferably against opponents that are more or less as strong as your own draftee, cause if you play a 5k draftee against a 50k C, not only will that 50k C destroy your 5k draftee, but your 5k draftee is very likely to pick up fauls because of the difference in skills...)

Keeping those hidden skills invisible is part of the game. it makes it all the more interesting.

Revo

I'm not saying that I disagree that there are other hidden skills, I'm just saying that the only hidden skill we know about is the physicality attribute. And I agree they should all remain hidden.

Potential being visible, but with a varying margin of error, would be awesome and very much like real life imo. The chance of a prospect becoming a bust would add a lot to the game - although I do understand the possible need to add more prospects to the game in order to keep a similar amount of talent in the system. But if potential was equivalent to a scout's subjective assessment, rather than a hard numerical rating - yeah, that would be cool.

This could also apply to injury risk, but aggressiveness is more of a personality trait and maybe that should be discussed separately...

If you get into it, certain personality traits (aggressiveness, chemistry, effort rate, etc.) could be quantified but then there's a compelling argument that you should be able to train them. That opens up another can of worms, one which may best be left closed.

Last edited by RiseandFire at 2/17/2011 12:38:52 AM