BuzzerBeater Forums

So we should back to old GS system, no psychologist and lowered optimal GS minutes to 50-60.

Well this way we will not be able to play high stamina players in two competitive games a week, even with garbage time...

I agree though that we should address GS as well, in addition to stamina. That's why I suggested that the effort should be focused on the B3/BBM game where the GS of every player who plays more than 38-40 min in that particular game will have a chance to suffer an exponential penalty after the psychologist's effects are applied.

This will instantly hurt competitive short rosters and not harm the rest of the managers who don't participate/don't care about the B3/BBM games. And if stamina's effects are diminished anyhow decent subs will get more court time, thus making it relatively easy to manage minutes if at least 3 decent subs are available.

Let's assume if we can set undefined for all positions. A roster of 10 will be the optimal strategy.

That's how it used to be. Even 7-8 players were enough for perfect rotations.

I'd surely appreciate that!

The 5-6 player rotation stradegy is primarily an economic issue. Tampering with stamina/injury is not the best solution. Fixing salary inflation, so teams can afford to pay more than 5-6 players, and implementing an 8-man lineup rule are better solutions.

This.

A million times this.

Please listen to this paragraph.

I'm wondering if we lower player's salary or give more money to teams, will it really motivate them to buy better backups or will they just use 5 players with higher salary than before with still bad backups.

If you don't need to use $70k backups because they will not play, there is no reason to buy them and you can use that money to pay even more your starters.

There has to be a reason within one game to have subs playing to get people to have better/more expensive subs.

That's a good point that certainly needs to be discussed.

I personally believe that any team that is forced to play a scrub will be at a major disadvantage and that's the most important aspect that would help teams that DO choose to play quality backups. Especially with tactics like: 'patient,' which creates mismatch opportunities by isolating terrible defenders; that would create nightmare mismatches that could very will lead to a certain loss for any team playing scrubs, let alone a B3 team.

Again . . . how deep a team is, in terms of depth and quality for players 1-8, will heavily depend on the salary cap or the cost of player salaries. If the current salary inflation stands, it might be too difficult to pay three solid bench players, and teams might instead choose to play scrubs, but again, I'd be very optimistic about the advantage I would gain if I were to play a B3 team that chooses to dress even one scrub.

When I was competing in the B3 back in season 33-35, I had three very good depth players under 60K that I trained myself (all forwards) and my team was very deep and formidable. It was easier to keep salaries low back then compared to today, where due to the current economic situation, I was forced to play a 6-man rotation while competing in the B3 (which I hated doing).

With the salary inflation, those same trainees that I mentioned above went from 50K to 100K, and that was back in s35. Now, with the new training advancements, players salaries have grown significantly higher making it difficult more managers to pay for weekly salary expenses, or have a deep rotation with solid depth.

But, anyways, I believe this 8-man rotation talk is a step in the right direction regardless of the salary inflation crisis (which I believe needs to be adjusted and balanced by reflecting a players' TSP).

Just increase stamina impact indeed : if it's a better strategy to have a 8-9 men rotation (rather than a 5-6 one), people will do that. It applies to any money level.

To me this is the most important point.

If you can have a better team with an 8-9 man rotation than a 5-6 man rotation for equal or less total salary then managers would do it.

In my opinion the substitution patterns and stamina impact should be adjusted in the GE to reach this goal.

Any adjustments to salaries, tv contracts, staff, can and (should be) looked at after the core problem is resolved.

I agree with you 100 percent.

But if the stamina impact make a player irrelevant after 35 minutes (just a number) we need to manage very precisely the substitution patterns by saying this player should play X minutes as a starter this one X as a backup. Otherwise it will be very hard to manage trainees minutes since we will not be able to play them the whole game.

And when I say trainees I mean all of them not only 18 - 19 - 20 years old because we still train after that.

So for me the first thing to do is to fix/change the substitution patterns.

And as a developer even without knowing the code I think it will be the most trickier.