BuzzerBeater Forums

Help - English > Research

Research (thread closed)

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
66
219860.1
Date: 6/10/2012 5:07:22 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
4242
I started this research a couple months ago with my old team, and I've finished it now. I was going to publish it at the end of next season because I thought it would endanger my promotion plans, but on second thought, i don't think it will. So, here goes!

This Post:
00
219860.2 in reply to 219860.1
Date: 6/10/2012 5:08:00 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
4242
This research is based on a balanced vs unbalanced team. The following example should make the object of my research clear.

PREMISE - Basically if you have defensive guards with no offensive power and very good big men on one side(or defensive big men with no offensive power and very good guards on the other side), and a good balanced team on the other, who will win?? The balanced team obviously has better offense, and guards take 45% of the shots even in inside offenses, whereas the defensive team will have AMAZING defense and offensive flow.
Good offense obviously gives you more points, but good defense forces turnovers, prevents assists, encourages steals, and the old simple stopping a basket.
I'm trying to figure our if the loss in offense is worth it due to the fabulous defense gained. I mean, you'll lose, say 35-40% of your offensive power but how much defensive power will you gain?? I'm gonna look at conclusive evidence and come up with a thus influenced conclusion.

This Post:
00
219860.3 in reply to 219860.2
Date: 6/10/2012 5:08:23 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
4242
FINANCES - Financially, a balanced team is obviously more expensive to buy or longer to train. (NOTE: Balanced doesn't only mean uniform salaries across the board, it means decent secondaries) Especially in the case of a big man dominated unbalanced team, this gap is widened further.
( NOTE: The unbalanced team can have decent secondaries as well, but decent secondaries on already high salaried players will sky-rocket the price beyond any logical sense. For eg. Tungi's team. No Average Joe can buy 3 million guys who obviously have good secondaries considering the price they were bought for. )
Training- Again, training unbalanced defensive players take less time because JS-JR or IS doesn't need to be trained.

Round 1 goes to unbalanced team.

BALANCED-UNBALANCED

0-1

This Post:
00
219860.4 in reply to 219860.3
Date: 6/10/2012 5:08:50 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
4242
MISCELLANEOUS - In the previous post I mentioned that the balanced team has decent secondaries. An example to prove that secondaries don't cost THAT much on low salary players is my player who was bought only for 100k-

Jump Shot: respectable Jump Range: respectable
Outside Def.: respectable Handling: mediocre
Driving: strong Passing: awful
Inside Shot: prolific Inside Def.: prominent
Rebounding: prominent Shot Blocking: pitiful
Stamina: inept Free Throw: inept

Experience: respectable

This further buffs the offense of a balanced team. Can the defense keep up?!!

This round goes to the balanced team.

BALANCED-UNBALANCED

1-1

This Post:
00
219860.5 in reply to 219860.4
Date: 6/10/2012 5:09:05 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
4242
THE MAIN BODY -
Here I've done the majority of analysis. Its complicated stuff and too much to post, but basically I've created an Excel spreadsheet with team ratings, turnovers, steals, percentages, etc.
Here is the main part of the research....!!

I've documented several instances and games, and it turns out that the defense is not able to put all stops to the offense. First of all, a balanced team obviously will have good handling and passing, so turnovers and steals were reduced. Also the secondaries mean that in Base Offense, matchups can be effectively exploited. For example my PF with JS-JR wouldn't do badly at all against a 70k PF because he would take a lot of jumpers.
Still, defense does stop the offense quite a bit.
On the other side of the coin, 35-40% of lost offense proves too much for the unbalanced team.

So the main body goes to balanced, but only by a little bit.

BALANCED-UNBALANCED

2-1

This Post:
00
219860.6 in reply to 219860.5
Date: 6/10/2012 5:10:19 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
4242
CONCLUSION - In conclusion, I won't discourage balanced teams, they have their own set of advantages, and can beat balanced teams if the balanced team are not as 'balanced' in skills as necessary. Once again I can't stress the difference between 'salary-balanced' and 'skill-balanced'.

So, both types have their good and bad points:

1. If you have a completed arena, then by all means go a buy a monster team with good offense and defense on all positions! ;) Of course this is not always possible, hence the research...-

i. Balanced beats unbalanced if the 'balance' is properly distributed. Let's say 60-40 to balance.
ii. Balance costs more financially, but is very long term because young monsters in unbalanced can cost a lot, so managers tend to buy veterans.
iii. Unbalanced has the element of surprise. How many teams want to attack an 80k big man when they see a 20k guard on the team??

So in conclusion both teams have advantages and disadvantages.

This Post:
11
219860.7 in reply to 219860.6
Date: 6/10/2012 5:12:40 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
4242
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS -

I would like to thank all the balanced and unbalanced teams who unknowingly helped my research a lot. I wouldnt have been able to do this without your help.
One of the teams was Tungi's team. Thanks Teru. His AMAZINGLY balanced team helped me a lot with my balanced team research.

I hope you guys enjoyed reading this as much as I enjoyed writing it!

And yes, if you guys enjoy my thesis, you could award me my PHD :P

This Post:
00
219860.8 in reply to 219860.7
Date: 6/10/2012 5:16:28 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
4242
Please bear with me. This is my first research. If you guys have doubts about my experience, I managed an India IPBL team that got banned in a misunderstanding. This is a new team I'm managing. My total experience is around 3-4 seasons. All constructive critisism(and praise ;) ) will be much appreciated.

Last edited by Dr. Iron Man at 6/10/2012 5:17:10 AM

This Post:
11
219860.9 in reply to 219860.3
Date: 6/13/2012 11:18:30 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
1212
I find it interesting. There's just one thing I don't agree with.
You say balanced is better and more expensive. Then... what's the definition of better? You win more while spending more?

If you want to see it from a tactical point of view, you should have kept the other variables constant throughout your experiment. I respectfully believe that your conclusions are invalid, because salaries shouldn't have differed much. Nice try though.

This Post:
00
219860.10 in reply to 219860.9
Date: 6/14/2012 12:06:15 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
4242
A balanced team is more expensive to buy but IS LONG TERM, hence the money gets compensated over seasons. This is because young, high-salaried guards and big men are very expensive so people tend to go for older guys.
Second of all, are you kidding me??? If salaries are the same, THEN the research is invalid. It will be balanced vs balanced. To be unbalanced salaries HAVE to be different.

This Post:
00
219860.11 in reply to 219860.9
Date: 6/14/2012 12:07:34 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
4242
Balance costs more financially, but is very long term because young monsters in unbalanced can cost a lot, so managers tend to buy veterans.