BuzzerBeater Forums

do you really think a mono-skilled player (Mike Conley) should be paid more than an all-around player (Kevin Durant)?

this is a change for the better: the more skills a player has, the more he should be paid

Yes, but it loses the point of training skilled players. You invest a lot into training a player, so he would be paid less than he deserves. Otherwise, why bother training?

this is a change for the better: the more skills a player has, the more he should be paid

No more needs to be said.

Let me just clear some things up a bit. We never said anything about 30% raises nor did we ever mention a direct TSP vs salary relation. I just don't want people to get the wrong idea like we did that.

So, it might help a bit to think of the announced changes like this; a small part of the salary weights that are calculated based on primaries will now be replaced by secondaries. This means that most players will actually have their salaries reduced, as their primaries are the highest skills. This is true both for forwards and guards. On average, since not many teams have rosters brim filled with individuals with incredible secondaries, most players will have their salaries reduced even some players do get higher salaries, so it will at least balance out. For most teams, it will probably even reduce their total salary spending.

In other words, we are not increasing salaries, we are just shuffling the skill weights in them, adding some, reducing others, to better reflect their true value. Even then, the change should never allow for a 30% salary increase.

According to your text , player's skills will predictable easily . The higher salary -> the higher skills ... and then we can predict the skills with salary similator

If you want to make your life easier, just release the damn formula(s). The old ones were already figured out and if you are only changing a few coefficients, it won't hurt to be open about it.

I am all for the change, but assume it might be a too small change anyways.