BuzzerBeater Forums

Players get MORE expensive and QUICKER if you rotatet IS, Reb., ID instead of IS, Reb, ID, SB.

Put in this way I agree, it's like training only one skill, it will make the salary jump up by a lot; but - I'm not a big men trainer, so I'm asking - I bet we all agree that for example a 15 14 14 7 player has a salary much lower than a 15 14 14 10; is that SB difference worth the salary? And again; comparing the first player and one with a same salary buth higher SB (maybe 13 13 12 10?), who has the better impact on the match?

PS No need to shout anyway. :-)

Well Id say training the SB from 7->10 pretty much is worth it but if you want to make and all-around center like that (who is good in both defence and offense) then he will be very expensive anyway. With about the same salary you could get two big men: an offensive 18 11 13 1 (who'd have some PA too) and a defender 9 16 14 15. Havent checked those salaries but just about like that.
Atleast Id take rather two specialists. And play them in different tactics.
rubbercube

Last edited by rubbercube at 1/8/2012 7:08:32 AM

Didn´t mean to shout, just tried to underline ;)

I think the main problem is that SB is not to be seen in the direct stats. Just like the advantage of place 4 over place 5 cannot be seen immediately, shot blocking is a subtle thing and most of us just speculate on it beeing useful or useless.

Same for the question about shotblocking and guards - I guess simply nobody knows...

I fully agree with you - it's like trying to find the switch in a dark room... Maybe SB is like an additional bonus, it is probably useful - all the skills are useful, in their way. We should understand the impact of two players with comparable salary, one with IS-ID-REB-SB at similar level or so and one with lower SB and higher other skills.

I don't want to go OT.. but what is your idea about 4th place better than 5th? Now I'm curious! :-)

Player #1
IS, ID, RB all 14
others 5
Salary 64k, potential needed: allstar

Player #2
ID, RB, SB all 14
others 5
Salary 36K, potential needed: star

So though potential doesn't work the same way that salary does, it still seems that SB "costs" less also in filling potential.

Wow,the second player force you to play always outside tactics,and when your adversary discover this,he can simply use an outside defensive tactic
So you basically have to choose between:
-play inside tactic with a big man with 5 in IS(laughable)
-ALWAYS use outside tactics,so if your adversary can easily put an outside defence and stop your offence

Player 2 could be decent on defence,but overall is basically useless

No, no, no, no. You're missing the point. Of course a team with only a defensive big man like that would be in trouble. But one team could have both of those players at the same time because their salaries are so low compared to an all-around center: (14, 14, 14, 14 salary: 111k pot. needed: perennial all-star ). That way the team could change the tactic for every single game if they want. If those salaries are still too high/low --> simply lower/higher them all, but maintain the differences.
With those players I originally tried to prove that a defensive big man with SB is cheaper than the #1 with IS, but yes one needs both kind if one wants to be many-sided.
But when you consider that so many teams are running LI offense, player #2 might have even higher ID and SB and be more useful nowadays than number 1. For that use let me present you player #3:
PA, ID and SB 19
RB 14 and IS 1
JS 11, JR 13, DR 13, HN, 9
OD 5
Salary 66K, potential needed: superstar

Okay, he may be a little too rough example, but his salary is almost the same as player #1's but he'd be way more useful in BBB. Don't you (people) agree?
rubbercube


Last edited by rubbercube at 1/8/2012 12:42:39 PM

No, no, no, no. You're missing the point. Of course a team with only a defensive big man like that would be in trouble. But one team could have both of those players at the same time because their salaries are so low compared to an all-around center: (14, 14, 14, 14 salary: 111k pot. needed: perennial all-star ). That way the team could change the tactic for every single game if they want. If those salaries are still too high/low --> simply lower/higher them all, but maintain the differences.
With those players I originally tried to prove that a defensive big man with SB is cheaper than the #1 with IS, but yes one needs both kind if one wants to be many-sided.
But when you consider that so many teams are running LI offense, player #2 might have even higher ID and SB and be more useful nowadays than number 1. For that use let me present you player #3:
PA, ID and SB 19
RB 14 and IS 1
JS 11, JR 13, DR 13, HN, 9
OD 5
Salary 66K, potential needed: superstar

Okay, he may be a little too rough example, but his salary is almost the same as player #1's but he'd be way more useful in BBB. Don't you (people) agree?
rubbercube

The probelm remain the same,you are forced to play oustide offensive tactics that can be easily stopped by your adversary playing outside defense

You can simply avoid to have 14 SB and have TWO players with 14IS,14,ID and 14 Reb,for 120k salary

I would let that guy play only if the opponent was running an inside offense. Yes I would have to use outside offense myself but how is it so easy to defend? That guy with three times 19 in ID, SB and RB could stop world class centers and block the opponents guards driving to the hoop. In the offensive end he could pass the ball brilliantly and wouldnt be so bad at shooting himself from range for a big man. Of course my team would in that case need excellent outside offense guards too.
Atleast I dont believe that inside offense is a lot more difficult to defend than outside offense, instead theyre pretty equal.
A team with those big men you suggest could use both offenses yeah, but it would be crushed with LI as the opponents guards get easy lay ups game after another like everybody else in this days BBB...
rubbercube


Last edited by rubbercube at 1/8/2012 3:30:57 PM

Is great actually, isn't that how the NBA is modelled now? Players brought in for what they can do, having different roles. And I don't think it limits much of your offensive possibilities; I think, for example, even LP is still possible as it looks for the best inside matchups (even point guards can have more shots, posting up if they have a lot of IS) so it won't go much to this low IS C..

I know he can pretty much compete with the national PF, which he happened to play a couple of times during his career
http://www.buzzerbeater.com/player/6742609/overview.aspx

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..slippery slope my friend..dont compare ur dude with the living LEGEND!! :-D

allways have in mind that u didnt have enough competition in ur league..ur player is allways at the top of the rating chart ;-)

btw: 35 skills difference r not "pretty much compete" ;-))))))

Thanks Will for that one.

I´m pretty sure Fagot (great name to have on an international board...) has these 35 skill points extra, and you never saw me discussing my player for the national team. I actually slowed down training for keeping him affordable (I know, I know...) Still, as I said, the gap between these two is not as high as 35 skill points and 160k salary gap might assume.

I would let that guy play only if the opponent was running an inside offense. Yes I would have to use outside offense myself but how is it so easy to defend? That guy with three times 19 in ID, SB and RB could stop world class centers and block the opponents guards driving to the hoop. In the offensive end he could pass the ball brilliantly and wouldnt be so bad at shooting himself from range for a big man. Of course my team would in that case need excellent outside offense guards too.
Atleast I dont believe that inside offense is a lot more difficult to defend than outside offense, instead theyre pretty equal.
A team with those big men you suggest could use both offenses yeah, but it would be crushed with LI as the opponents guards get easy lay ups game after another like everybody else in this days BBB...
rubbercube

You let a 66k big man play only against teams who play inside offense,and in that game you are forced to use an outside tactic that your adversary can easily defend?
Only 3 or 4 super-rich team in the world can afford to WASTE 66k/week on a player like that that can play maybe 1/3 of the games because of his big lacks in key skills...and you can't suggest a thing only because 3 teams in the world could SOMETIMES have little benefits from it
In addition to that,your hypotetical players can't be created,because training ID and RB you train IS too,and to reach 19 in ID and RB you bring your player to at least 3 IS with the conseqeunt growth in salary(and you should add the effect of cross-training too
And is impossible to build a player with such skills

PA, ID and SB 19
RB 14 and IS 1
JS 11, JR 13, DR 13, HN, 9
OD 5

to cover his deficiencies,because even if you could train him in IS,ID and REB to 19 level without raising IS too,and to do this you need to have a tall player;you don't have the time to train guard skills to that level with a so tall player

So basically,you are supporting your opinion using as argument things that can't realistically happen