BuzzerBeater Forums

SBing at a higher level than ID results in better usage of SB.

I agree this could be the case, but unfortunately I concluded it's almost impossible to try this at top level because one of the points I made above: training.

Training a big man punting ID is very hard if not impossible, while training a big man punting SB/IS/RB is doable and much easier to do. Since nobody gives up RB (rightfully so) and you need IS in inside offenses, then the choice is between medium ID and elite SB or elite ID and no SB. The second option costs tens of thousands of $$$ less and is effective in limiting inside shots.

I tried as much as I could to figure out a way to have a big man with minimal ID and elite IS, SB and RB and I could not find any based on training simulators and CP. More precisely: you can do it at D2 level or below, but not at top level, while you routinely see players with 54 IS+ID+RB and 7 or less SB on the transfer list. There are some on the market right now.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 6/10/2019 4:49:46 PM

SBing at a higher level than ID results in better usage of SB.

I agree this could be the case, but unfortunately I concluded it's almost impossible to try this at top level because one of the points I made above: training.

Training a big man punting ID is very hard if not impossible, while training a big man punting SB/IS/RB is doable and much easier to do. Since nobody gives up RB (rightfully so) and you need IS in inside offenses, then the choice is between medium ID and elite SB or elite ID and no SB. The second option costs tens of thousands of $$$ less and is effective in limiting inside shots.

I tried as much as I could to figure out a way to have a big man with minimal ID and elite IS, SB and RB and I could not find any based on training simulators and CP. More precisely: you can do it at D2 level or below, but not at top level, while you routinely see players with 54 IS+ID+RB and 7 or less SB on the transfer list. There are some on the market right now.

I suppose you could find guys with 7 IS/RB/SB and 1 ID as draftees and train them, but that's something you pretty much have to go all in on yourself since you're not going to stumble across D1 ready guys with skills trained that way. Punting IS is a lot easier, of course, but that naturally has its own complications.

The problem is that IS and SB train ID as secondary skill and the effect from SB on ID in particular is stronger than other secondary training, so with that massive gap and the elastic effect on ID, it will grow quite fast and therefore it will reach levels that have an impact on salary.

At some point I can run again a simulation to achieve something like 18 IS, 18 SB, 16 RB and minimum ID with perfect initial skills (7 JS for IS elastics, 7/7/1/7 inside skills etc) and trying to push IS via 1v1 as much as possible.

The other problem I can see with limiting ID and having high SB is that you have to be lucky getting a trainee that doesn't foul, because I agree that such a player will guard more shots due to lower ID.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 6/11/2019 3:59:26 AM

You did quite a long time ago now when you had lots of players with SB and played zones. If you want me to say you were experimenting? No problem, but I think it's fairly accurate to say this is what it was: team building relying heavily on shotblockers (due to Nachmahr and other trainers) on the assumption that you can stop and beat inside tactics this way.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 6/11/2019 9:02:20 AM

You did quite a long time ago now when you had lots of players with SB and played zones. If you want me to say you were experimenting? No problem, but I think it's fairly accurate to say this is what it was: team building relying heavily on shotblockers (due to Nachmahr and other trainers) on the assumption that you can stop and beat inside tactics this way.

To be honest, slowing down/stopping inside tactics isn't necessarily that much of a problem if that's the goal. Hell, I think I've given up 100 points once in the league the past few seasons despite almost always playing a predictable fast outside offense. Pairing that with enough offense to actually take advantage of that without burning through money is the challenge that seems to be out of my reach. ;)

If you build for success outside you are usually playing teams built to stop it.
If you build to stop inside you are usually playing teams built to excel inside.

If you build for success inside you are playing teams not built to stop it much, and that means it's a waste in efficiency.
If you build to stop outside not many teams are built for outside so there is a waste of efficiency there too.

I think some teams don't bother stopping outside as aggressively because the benefits of OD against flow do taper off a little compared to the salary hike for guards.

Similarly they don't build up their bigs inside offense as much since it's not as necessary unless they face significant inside defense so the extra salary can be a waste.

THere is room to eat in the middle of the bracket with a team that is surprising people with an elite outside attack and effective inside D.

When we get to even skill points to spend though I'm not sure if there is any thing that will beat a team built for LI other than another LI build. The long-haul of the season is salary and money...and in the top leagues we are looking at old money too... teams that maybe have money and strength not for being efficient or winning lately but just because they've had assets and money for a long long long long time so it's hard to measure that.

Anyway tactics get washed out when the other team just has overall more TSP, more valuable players- they just bash you with team strength.

I an not 100% apposed to the idea that there is an alternative build out there that might work on a head to head basis against a traditional cookie-cutter LI build.... If I had to bet on it though I'd say LI is going to continue to dominate and that if you gave veteral players 100 TSP to distribute on each player to build a 10 man team that those who built the LI teams would win in simulation against all other build types, and that is with salary ignored....with salary limites also imposed hands down the LI teams will always win. That free OD/IS is unbeatable when salary is considered on the same high TSPs


Last edited by WolphyWolph at 6/12/2019 2:00:32 AM

Salary wise LI is most cost-efficient. But it can be optimized. Now two problems you get with LI salary wise is:

1: you would like to have better offensive flow and more high percentage shots. But for LI guards passing jacks up the salary.
IS on guards is free salary wise.
2: You want to have 20 IS atleast for your big men with decent rebounding and defence. But this jacks up the salary for centers.
PA on centers is free salary wise.

Do you see solution? It is natural. Best PF playing as SF; PG and SG with 20 IS playing offensively as PF and C and defending as PG/SG. 20 Passing big mens with oly rebounding and decent inside defence and maybe some little 10 js, driving playing as PG and SG and defending PF and C. You get perfect offensive flow, low salaries but loose offensive rebounding. But offensive rebounding can be compensated with higher defensive rebounding/better inside defence on centers because of low salaries.

In seasons 20-23 i had tried this kinda. In lower lever worked. had 16 and 14 Passing big mens defensive minded; and guards with 16 and 17 IS. Made to div 2, got to college, had no time, quited. Had games with 60-80% assited shots for SF, PF, C. centers offensively are terrible like bellow 40 percent, but as they have high passing they tend not to shot that much.

Going to retry this. Training my own draftee to like 18-19 IS guard. toobad so low potentia. But i can train IS over cap because he will be playing center So 20 IS here we go.

Last edited by Vilkai [LTU NT] at 6/12/2019 3:14:04 AM

I disagree yo uneed 20 IS on bigs or want it. If you swap around offense/defense it doesn't work IMO as you describe, not so many positions. There is some swapping to be done but not really.

It's better to be efficient at all positions.

At 20 IS you are getting dminishing returns for your salary. IF yo uare playing the guards there, no RB nad who is running flow on your offense?????

I guess you mean tanked IS big with enogh RB/IS/ID to still have high OD/PA or something and not be in a guard formula where the IS would have been free????????

Doens't make sense to me.

Better to have guards high IS and bigs lowered IS to level of maximum output versus salary cost. Similarly balance that guard PA with the OD level to get maximum bang for buck salary wise.

After a stat gets so high the amount of return in game efficiency versus salary massively reduces. I don't think position swapping works against legit opponents that much. THe higher flow guards with lower OD can PG offense SF D, that is a good area to make a swap. OR higher IS SF swapping up for a Big spot on offense if they have RB. Good to have RB on offense, leaving bigs as is both sides of floor for good RB numbers IMO

here is 30k salary PG/SG playing offensively as PF and C, while defending at PG/SG. 60-65% True shooting percentage depending on league.
(https://i.imgur.com/7sHnbs6.png)
PF/C attacking as PG/SG, defending as C/PF
(https://i.imgur.com/3NfwFam.png)

Pluses is passing on big men doesnt depend on their height, trains as fast as for guards. to get 20 IS for guard you need draft with 7IS train SF/PF shooting/driving and youll be close to 14-15; then some IS training at center because since 22 year old it would play purely center, you can even train through cap... Also dont need very high skillpoints for players. Especially in lower leagues.

Also DIV4 can have 20IS guys affordable to decimate oponents and tear through leagues. This is my plan to tear through leagues, but with lower skilled centers because of salary...Did it before but it was kinda not so extreme.

Also you would need 3 guards and 3 centers. because you need 1 of each to backup if injuries or fatigue.

I agree with you of diminnishing results. 18 IS/PA would be enought, but 20 is broad simplification and also real possibility because it salary free and does not require training off-position.


Last edited by Vilkai [LTU NT] at 6/12/2019 12:03:40 PM