BuzzerBeater Forums

I haven't watched a ton of games BUT when the game is close or when there are key plays, the higher experienced guy seems to take/hit that important shot. It may not show up on the stat-line as much, but it seems to help win close games. Using more experienced players I have won two of two OT games and several close games. I haven't lost a game in awhile that I was predicted to win and I think experience helps in making sure winnable games are won.

Also the low experience (1) guys seem to make bonehead mistakes. Like fouling a guy going for a half-court at the end of the quarter.

So overall the impact seems to become apparent when it "needs" to be. However, its not going to make a sucky all-around player perform well. It also doesn't seem to have an effect the whole game. Just more important phases of the game. So overall stats matter, but I think a lot of people underestimate the importance of experience.

Just FYI I deal mainly with very high experience players and very low experience players. My tremendous experience shooter is clutch for me in a lot of games. Whereas my rookies will make obvious mistakes in pressure situations. Most of my starters are proficient or better, and my trainees are obviously low.

I like dealing with older players because the price you pay to aquire is cheaper. I think the experience is a nice bonus to have as well.

Last edited by lawrenman at 7/11/2013 3:54:45 PM

I like dealing with older players because the price you pay to aquire is cheaper. I think the experience is a nice bonus to have as well.

I think I may enjoy that same perk if I buy a non-trainee before the playoffs.

Works in theory if you're trying to whittle down a large group of prospects, but I think there are too many intricacies to use this as an effective method to evaluate individual players. For example (obviously an extreme here), you'd have a player with 5 JS/5 JR/16 OD show up with the same number of primary points as a 9/6/12 player when the latter would be more effective. You don't wind up purchasing all too many players, so you might be best figure on what build you're looking for and go from there, rather than trying the shotgun approach to get 1 player that adds up to 75 skill points, or whatever.

Excellent point. I'm be more cautious in judging all players by these standards.

Also, depending on what I run tactically, a positions main skills could differ especially if my players are playing defense on a different position.

This formula may need some fine tuning but I think it might suffice as a first check.

That's a decent way to get a rough estimate, but it's a different game than Hattrick and the value of individual skills matters more than just how they contribute to sector ratings. My philosophy here has always been more that I don't want any skills below a certain level regardless of position, so things like handling and driving even for big men for me has to be at or above 7 for the most part (though I've taken somewhat lower in the past when necessary, but only in rare situations).

wow I have a center right now that I started training at 18 yrs and a salary of 1,600$. I know I'm cringing as well. Now he is pitful in all guard skills and 8+ in most big man skills.

We all make mistakes in BB adolescence lol. However, I think you are absolutely right. It is important to be selective with your players and having a plan on how to use the players you attain will probably give me the most success.

they stopped all that, the player will play very awful in those matches, and skill is the only thing that matter and youth.

they stopped all that, the player will play very awful in those matches, and skill is the only thing that matter and youth.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but would you kindly refrain from trying to invent your own facts?

High skilled older players who know what to do in the 4th qtr when the game is tight is the real value of the older player. .. against a young skilled player. The younger player you can keep much longer and with the training week in and week out you see the improvements thereby an attachment to this players can be made.

Older players. ... you want to win right now weather you are in a position to contend or not, and you know going in they won't be with you long.

Personally I prefer more experienced players for the reasons above.
Mix in some trainees from time to time and you will have a team that has both.

High skilled older players who know what to do in the 4th qtr when the game is tight is the real value of the older player. .. against a young skilled player.

I wonder how exactly it is that I am so confident that the importance of experience has not been removed. ;)

Wait, that's not something that should make me smile.

Indeed
One poster wrote down something simple that can help you make a decision and that is to simply watch the game. You would be surprised how many don't have the time or choose not to really. So eye witness evaluation..... One of the more important aspects of a GM is taken away.

Or how about this. ... if and when you do watch a game or games, see how many positive things your players do to help you win games. ... if you win any games at all then you have your answer. Some Gms don't take stock into watching games like a GM.... they watch it like a fan. ... the two are diametrically opposed.

IMO.

New players don't play well with the team when they are 1st bought , they changed that, it has been said. And the only thing that matter is skills and youth in this game experience means little to nothing in this game. That not a opinion of my own its out the Gm mouth .

If youth player has great skills and low exp he will get picked 8-10 times before a older player at 30 yrs old but high exp with same skills. Because of longtivity.. It would be foolish to buy a older ball player because exp? skill and youth potent is what make BB world go around.

If it an opinion of yours then the Nt managers/ nor the managers of BB are listening to it.. All I see is high skilled youth with little to no exp. Exp mean little to nothing in this game. Yes it good to have but same times it mean nothing, who you know pay for exp of old players. Comical at best. my opinion, ha tell me another hurley please I got time.

Last edited by Mr. Glass at 7/12/2013 8:49:26 PM

New players don't play well with the team when they are 1st bought , they changed that, it has been said. And the only thing that matter is skills and youth in this game experience means little to nothing in this game. That not a opinion of my own its out the Gm mouth .

What I bolded above is utter bull and I challenge you to show where a GM said that (though, of course, it doesn't have to be verbatim as many of the GMs don't speak English and sometimes it's questionable whether you do. But as I am nothing if not a conciliatory fellow looking for intelligent exchange of ideas, I'll relay a phrase an Argentinian friend of mine once used that simply fits here: you talk as if you are the owner of the true.

If youth player has great skills and low exp he will get picked 8-10 times before a older player at 30 yrs old but high exp with same skills. Because of longtivity.. It would be foolish to buy a older ball player because exp? skill and youth potent is what make BB world go around.

If they were the same price, sure - I'd find more value at that point in the young guy. But it's not common that you'll find a 23 year old with good skills available at the same price as a 31 year old with those same skills. And by it's not common, I mean it's simply not going to happen.

If it an opinion of yours then the Nt managers/ nor the managers of BB are listening to it.. All I see is high skilled youth with little to no exp. Exp mean little to nothing in this game. Yes it good to have but same times it mean nothing, who you know pay for exp of old players. Comical at best. my opinion, ha tell me another hurley please I got time.

If you've got time, why don't you look over the NBBA's rosters and sort them by salary and see how many players under 25 you find that have a salary of 10k or more. The NT's a completely different and irrelevant comparison because those rosters don't have acquisition costs nor do they have to be concerned with profitability, so that's always going to be a race for maximum skills. But I can't imagine you'd underestimate the effects of experience, since you had so much time playing against bot teams with low skills but high experience in V.whatever and it took you such a long time to promote.