BuzzerBeater Forums

The issue we face when looking at salaries and team ratings when trying to determine relative ability is that it is very difficult to disentangle exactly how much each player contributes to each rating.

No doubt, there are over-salaried players out there, and undersalaried ones too. As a guide to team quality, you go by ratings. As a guide to player quality (as asked for), you go by salary.

yeah but dmi is a bit more detailed ;) But for opponent analysys game shape was much easier but in my own team i use dmi instead of gameshape because i could see the sub of form with it.

But for looking for my opponent i take mostly just like damena and look how he plays and what ratings he gots.

DMI is useless for anything other than determining that training took place.

Thanks for the replies, guys

I've heard such, about DMI only being useful to see if training happened. At that same time, though, most of my better players certainly have more DMI than my weaker ones. I don't see any logical rhyme or reason to it -- and it's certainly not consistent in any way -- but there does seem to be a loose trend to it.

Thus, I thought that perhaps it would help to tell which players I would need to watch out for on the opponent's team.

My conundrum came from looking through two different teams which used similar inside scoring tactics. Both had star Centers, one of which had a very high DMI but rather low salary -- and the other with a fairly low Salary, but a very high DMI. They seemed to perform relatively similarly, so I wasn't sure what the difference was.

In regards to scouting, it appears I still have a lot to learn Obviously better game shape is what I'm looking for, but what exactly is that telling me? Are players with better game shape going to perform better every time?

DMI is useless for anything other than determining that training took place.

if you mean *gg

But i say you you could track form, and you could track it pretty exact with it.

How?

Training is so dynamic that it's incredibly difficult to do so.

Non-trainees you could try, but I still wouldn't rely on it

yeah for none trainees, but for look these are 80% of my rooster, and so incredible difficult isn't it. And for trainees i could even compare 2 guys who have pretty similiar DMI, so usually the one with the higher DMI got a better game shape.

Edit: And for comparing their strength, i think dmi is better then salary ;) In this case, because because salary is to much depending on highest skill

Last edited by CrazyEye at 5/18/2008 2:57:27 AM

DMI is useless - why do you think it's called Deliberately Meaningless Index?

because you can't use it?