BuzzerBeater Forums

I disagree. This is a management game which the developers have said time and again is all about making choices. The "best" player should be the player who can contribute the most to his team's success. If a 500k salary player can contribute 30 pts and 20 reb but forces you to field a team of guys who combined average 40 points and 20 rebounds then he might not be as good as a player who can contribute 20 and 10 but enables you to have four other guys who contribute 20 and 10. The choice is up to the manager. A level 5 trainer is NOT worth the money you pay for him relative to a level four trainer, yet many many managers will swear by a level 5 guy.

BB teams do have a salary cap- it is ( max revenue from the arena + merchandise + TV) - (staff salaries + scouting). You have wiggle room with cup money and transfers, but essentially the above is the formula for your team's salary cap.

Training-wise, you have the choice to make a guy too expensive or to limit his salary to something affordable. Perhaps if NT managers had a more sophisticated training philosophy, players would be cheaper but more effective. 51 total primary skill point centers are ~200k, 54 skill pointers are ~275k. If managers are creating players who are above anyone's salary cap, why would they continue to create them? This is a fantasy world that a little bit simulates real life. It shouldn't be hyper reality, as the developers have also said numerous times, although not as frequently recently. I mean there are 50 000 plus teams, including 16 D. 1 teams in Thailand. Currently Thailand has one professional basketball team in real life.

I don't think a skill drop should occur when a player is transferred, but I do think a game shape drop should, and I think it should be compounded . If guys are traveling all over the world, changing teams and time zones every week, they are going to get worn down and will not be on top of their game. This would compel NT managers to concentrate on truly effective players- salary efficient and good and who have a stable home where they have lots of bytes to eat.




Last edited by somdetsfinest at 10/11/2010 11:43:56 AM

I like the gameshape drop suggestion. I don't think it solves any problems though because the players that currently exist will still exist for 5 to 10 seasons.

Also, farm teams would still create these types of players.

I'm going to have to do some research and find out about this ;) I might try playing a great SG and the Center position on offence and see if he takes 3 pointers or not.

. Perhaps if NT managers had a more sophisticated training philosophy, players would be cheaper but more effective.

I really don't agree on this phrase.The secondaries are important,you had try to create player affordable for the managers because it means that they will have better shape and so on...
But there's a minimum in the primaries that a player had to reach to be effective in the international field
I was first scout and than big man responsible for the South African under 21 team in the past season,and in a so small country I had to fight against potential problems(there are few player with > all star potential in a country with 10-12 users every season),so I and my chief had to find a way to create the best player possible,and I am pretty sure that a large part of the Nt coaches and stuff all around the world make this work.But when we put on the field our triple 14 in inside skill with only decent secondaries,we had much better results than with his reserve with triple 10/11 and good secondaries
So,while the coach of an Nt had to understand the needs of the managers,they still have to ask to push over the limits the players on primaries,also if this caused a much greater expenses for the owners,because they need to have these players to obtain these results.You can close a gap of 3-4 levels in primaries with good secondaries,you can't colse a gap of 8-9-10 primaries against your adevrsaries


Last edited by Steve Karenn at 10/11/2010 12:01:12 PM

Let me know,I'm always curious to know these things ;D

I'd be very surprised if the Shooting Guard didn't start taking 3 pointers when playing against a center that may often have inept or even lower outside defence. I'll try playing a SG this week at PF and see what happens, and then I'll try it next week at Center.

I'd be very surprised if the Shooting Guard didn't start taking 3 pointers when playing against a center that may often have inept or even lower outside defence. I'll try playing a SG this week at PF and see what happens, and then I'll try it next week at Center.

That would be right...But the SG will be in the position to drain 3pts if you put him on C and on PF position,or he will more probably play in the paint so losing occasions to shot from the outside(where he has the advantage over his defender)?That's the main reason why I have doubt about this thing

Last edited by Steve Karenn at 10/11/2010 12:22:41 PM

hmm....I'll try it and find out. I think it would only work if the opponent plays a man to man defence though. Playing a SG at Center wouldn't work against a zone.

hmm....I'll try it and find out. I think it would only work if the opponent plays a man to man defence though. Playing a SG at Center wouldn't work against a zone.

Agreed

The mere fact that he would be a threat from 3pt territory would give him an relative advantage inside.
Combine great jumpshot & range, with decent driving & inside scoring, this will "keep the defense honest".
The defending center will have to close down on the shooter, and with low outside defense, will not be quick enough to prevent the shooter from driving all the way to the hoop.
Just imagine a play where you isolate someone like Ray Allen on Shaq at the 3pt line. If help defense is poor (or if other 4 players are good outside threats), Allen would get an easy lay-up/2 free-throws/an assist every time.

That is why I think the first player is the better player. But I have no proof yet, so I'll try it out to confirm.