BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Scale up heights

Scale up heights

Set priority
Show messages by
From: Hadron
This Post:
00
191728.1
Date: 7/26/2011 2:36:00 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
3333
There's probably no point in making this suggestion, but..

Why are most SFs of height 6'5" or below? In the NBA they are all at least 6'6", mostly taller than that. Here I'm lucky if I can find one over 6'2" when I'm looking for decent SFs. And then there are the 6'0" PG/SGs. No wonder everyone is encouraged to train guards and play them at SF.

I checked the TL post the new draft and of all the 18 year old SFs who had perennial all star potential or above, around 140 were 6'5" or below and only around 110 were 6'6" and above. A similar ratio level can be found across potentials and ages.

So I suggest that the heights of (at least) the top guards and wings be scaled up to reflect that of their real life counterparts.

PS. Maybe things are as they are because heights are linked to training, but even then optimal height ranges for each position could be adjusted. And so on..

This Post:
00
191728.3 in reply to 191728.2
Date: 7/27/2011 3:20:26 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
3333
And a good one it is at that. But wouldn't you like it better if you could have 6'4 PGs 6'6 SGs and 6'8 SFs? ehhh I'm just a little bugged because I drafted this great MVP SF and he's 6'5. I have half a mind to sell him everytime I look at him.

This Post:
00
191728.5 in reply to 191728.4
Date: 7/27/2011 7:02:02 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
3333
The metric system is more sensible, definitely. But with heights, I'm used to feet and inches. Anyway, I looked up the conversions for you and anyone else who is not familiar.

6 feet = 183 cm. And 1 inch = 2.5 cm. So a 6'8 SF would be 203 cm, a 6'6 SG would be 198 cm, etc.

From: B.B.King

This Post:
00
191728.6 in reply to 191728.1
Date: 7/27/2011 4:59:11 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
12061206
In World Cup final played 4 Small Forwards - 3x 201cm + 1x 206 cm ;-)
In this strange system with feet and inches it should be 6'7" and 6'9" ;-)
And one more thing. If You check TL You shouldn't look at best position, it practically doesn't matter. In my opinion quite good Small Forward could have PF or even PG as best position.

From: Coolbobj

This Post:
00
191728.7 in reply to 191728.1
Date: 7/27/2011 7:57:57 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
152152
Rookie SFs don't matter, many players have their positions changed depending how they were trained. Also many SFs in BB are SGs with decent ID, so they tend to be short. As far as some elite "NBA" type SFs there are some who are taller and are true SFs: (9469959) (5829870) (4526936) (4667257) (5728352)

Check the Suggestions they are important
From: Hadron

This Post:
00
191728.8 in reply to 191728.6
Date: 7/28/2011 4:21:49 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
3333
Sure players change positions and there will be a few top players who will have the right range of heights. I'm talking about proportions though. If players with certain heights for certain positions are fed into the game then those ratios will not be very different at a later time. Thats just law of averages.

Only way to sort this out is to feed a higher proportion of taller players for PG SG SF in the draft each season. And change optimal training heights.

From: B.B.King

This Post:
00
191728.9 in reply to 191728.8
Date: 7/28/2011 5:24:26 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
12061206
I was scout of 18yo players in Poland for many years. And I think that players with best position SF after draft are in average worse than other players. The best candidates for SF have best position as PF.
I think reason is here that in formula of salary SF has only 5 skills (impact of 5 other skills is 0 or very low). And JS for SF is the most expensive skill in BB. And therefore I saw many SFs with many "black holes". Very ofthen they have only high JS and RB, a little JR, OD or ID and other skills = 1-3.
And one more thing. If player have all 10 skills on the same level his best position is PF, not SF.

From: Hadron

This Post:
00
191728.10 in reply to 191728.9
Date: 7/28/2011 11:49:19 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
3333
:D SFs with black holes. Nice.

I don't know if the best SFs are PFs, seems a lot of teams play an SG type player at SF, especially if they play outside oriented offence. But that's a different matter.

All that jazz aside, it'd be nice if this game got more realistic in simple ways.

From: B.B.King

This Post:
00
191728.11 in reply to 191728.10
Date: 7/29/2011 6:25:49 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
12061206
:D SFs with black holes. Nice.

It's effect of salary formula. But as I said before best position doesn't matter. And my tip is: never look at best position ;-)

First example:
JS, JR, OD, ID, RB = 7
HN, DV, PS, IS, BS = 1

sum of 10 basic skills = 40
best position = SF
salary = 6260



Second example:
All skills = 5

sum of 10 basic skills = 50
best position = PF
salary = 2641



Third example:
All skills = 6

sum of 10 basic skills = 60
best position = PF
salary = 4159


(formula of salary from previous season, of course by Josef Ka).