BuzzerBeater Forums

Is there any chance we can have a couple of slight changes:

1. Increase the ST depletion coefficient (in the game simulation, not the weekly drop to the skill). This would give an advantage to balanced teams that have an actual bench instead of the 5-7 man rosters we routinely see in the B3. This will reduce also the practice of buying and firing scrubs on a weekly basis by the teams with an artificially short roster.

2. A substitution pattern toggle to add to the current options that would modify the coefficient used by the GE to decide whether to sub a player or not. This would increase/decrease the likelihood that the coach goes to the bench and would not require to modify the actual sub patterns (including known buggy effects like the coach subverting the manager's orders for the non-garbage time minutes). You could start by having 3 options: short rotation, normal rotation and deep rotation. Normal is the current coefficient, short rotation will change the coefficient to have the starter kept on the floor more than he does now (presumably this will also lower the chances of the coach subverting the starter/backup order and may reduce the missed trainee minutes a little), long rotation will change the coefficient so that the coach is more likely to go to the backup (presumably also more chances of a subversion plus missed minutes, but more spread minutes between starter and backup).

The 2 changes should be done at different times (ST change first), as one does affect the other: more ST depletion should lead to more time for subs, although the impact should be assessed first.

This will accomplish a number of things:
A. Reward teams with a normal basketball roster instead of teams with unrealistically short and top heavy rosters (which right now can simply train ST/FT and use the psychologist to boost GS...a better and easier situation than when they had to train GS)
B. Give us more control over minutes (after we figure out what to expect by the new substitution options)
C. Potentially reduce the complaints about training minutes (although it is unclear what would happen on this since ST depletion would work against and short rotation would work in favour of this)



Hopefully with the new servers you may create a test environment to check this kind of things.


Last edited by Lemonshine at 5/30/2020 6:30:33 AM

IMO stamina is fine. Basketball, more so than other sports, is a star driven sport. Look at the NBA, teams with stars beat teams with depth every time. The Raptors, before Kawhi had a very deep roster, but could never get past the Cavs even when Lebron was the only good player on that team. Lebron by himself, was able to turn terrible teams into contenders. The Warriors gave up a lot of depth to get Durant, yet that move made them nearly unbeatable. The Lebron-era Heat didn't have any great players outside of the Big 3, yet were still quite succesful.

Getting a bunch of superstars and then filling out the roster with cheap guys on vet min is a winning strategy in the NBA, I don't see why it shouldn't be in BB. In fact I'd argue B3 teams are usually even deeper than NBA superteams, since they often have 7-8 great players on the roster.

Kawhi, the man who skips over a quarter of the season precisely because his body can't handle heavy play time and has barely played more than 30mpg for his career: spot on example, congratulations.

In the NBA there are exactly ZERO players who are averaging 37 minutes per game or more, I don't know what you are talking about and probably neither do you. In any of the teams you mentioned the only player to ever play more than 38 minutes per game in a season is LeBron (for one single season), but on the other hand you had Chalmers logging nearly 30 minutes, Haslem and Battier 25. Toronto lol, the team who had VanVleet on nearly 30 minutes, Anunoby, Lin and Powell on nearly 20, Wright also on nearly 20 (before being traded) plus Valanciunas and CJ Miles on nearly 20 and 15 respectively before they went to Memphis. I don't even need to bring up Ibaka starting from the bench and logging 28 minutes to say that Toronto had SIXTEEN players who averaged 11 or more minutes for them during the season and ZERO with more than 34. The warriors had 11, 14 and 15 players between 11 and 35 minutes per game in the last 3 seasons and I will spare you the list of 'nobodies' who logged heavy minutes, but it's even more egregious than Toronto's.

The problem is not whether you have great players or not, if you have the dream team, the heatles or the showtime lakers. The problem is having 5 players playing a combined 235 minutes out of 240 (that's just because you have a 6th player who is there in case of injuries and foul outs) and no bench. It is completely unrealistic. BB is currently in a situation where having fewer players is more advantageous than having a normal basketball roster because it has next to no negative consequence and only advantages (lower payroll first and foremost).


Last edited by Lemonshine at 5/30/2020 11:04:41 PM

Not sure why you're going on about Toronto when I used them as an example of a team with great depth (who before Kawhi, still couldn't beat a team with just a single star).

But you make the point that NBA players rarely play 48 minutes, and even stars usually do not go above mid 30s. This I agree with. BB and NBA are clearly different in this regard, but I would say a lot of this is due to the NBA having better quality subs. If you're in the NBA, you're already one of the best players in the world. That's why NBA teams can get guys for 1/10 the salary of superstars, who can actually hold their own on the court (or at least not blow a 20 point lead in 10 minutes). BB has a much wider range of player abilities, and getting cheap subs (I'm talking under $20K/week) who can perform reasonably well for a top tier team is nearly impossible.

BB does reward depth in a way that the NBA doesn't though. Players weekly minutes have to be limited so you can't play your starters more than 2 games per week without having their GS tank. This gives deep teams an advantage as they're able to win cup games, without sacrificing league play. NBA players on the other hand are easily able to start every game as long they're healthy (barring some exceptions like Kawhi).

Also one final thing, I think your suggestion would hurt teams who train as they're the ones who often to need to play their trainees for the entire game to maximize training.

who before Kawhi, still couldn't beat a team with just a single star

With Leonard they needed a lucky shot to even make it to the conference finals, where they already got before. Toronto is non starter as a conversation point as they would have never sniffed a title if it wasn't for they 8 injuries to starters and rotation players the Warriors suffered, including season ending injuries to 2 of their 3 best players. The real impact of Leonard is highly debatable as Toronto has shown a better winning percentage both the year BEFORE and the year AFTER he played for them.

BB does reward depth in a way that the NBA doesn't though. Players weekly minutes have to be limited

Are you naive or just oblivious to the current situation? What you say may have been valid 20 seasons ago, but for sake of argument I will explain what the situation was then, what happened and what the situation is now.

20 seasons ago top teams (B3 teams) had a 7-8 man rotation, most of them trained GS EVERY week to ensure performance and that the players got picked for the NT. GS was not tied to ST so if you had a player with 9 or 10 ST and he played 80 or 85 minutes he would drop in GS even if you trained GS. This was mitigated by the fact that these teams regularly get garbage time, BUT they would have weeks where they had competitive games, plus cup games which made having a 5-6 man rotation + scrubs impossible to manage. In addition to that, LCD/Blanks very clearly produced superior ratings, better team performance, more balanced rotations and even minute splits, so playing 5 players instead of 7 or 8 actually produced worse ratings even if the backups were ok but not close in level to the starters because the substitution pattern always selected the best possible lineup at each break in play.

What happened since then:
- GS training has been changed to have diminishing returns when you train it several weeks in a row
- GS has been linked to ST so that high ST player actually benefit from playing more minutes than the original sweet spot (around 60 minutes per week)
- LCD/blanks has been removed: if you put blanks now the GE will select starters and backups and work the subs based on the resulting depth chart (while LCD/blanks was equivalent to having all players listed at every position and all considered equally for a spot on the floor)
- the psychologist has been introduced, which removed the need to train GS and gave another tool (on top of the massage specialty doctor) to help with high weekly minutes

So the current situation is that instead of having 8 players, just get 5 plus 1 backup just in case, use a top level psychologist, a massage doctor and high ST players. You will have top GS even if your players play 75-85 minutes per week (assuming at least 1 garbage time), something that was impossible before the changes. From a GE perspective there is no longer any benefit in having a longer rotation as the LCD/Blank is no longer available, so no matter what sub pattern option you select you will have relatively similar results in minute splits and limited to no benefit on team ratings.

Also one final thing, I think your suggestion would hurt teams who train as they're the ones who often to need to play their trainees for the entire game to maximize training.

Not really. Most dedicated trainers with low ST trainees already play 5 or 6 men lineups. The fact that a trainee is subbed out for 1 or 2 minutes (with no garbage time) when backups are much stronger than he is, happens also to trainees with decent and good ST and it's clearly a bug (like other depth chart subversions I reported in the past in CPfDC). Nothing will change by just increasing the ST depletion rate, the bugs will still be there, but the second part of my suggestion actually is likely to have a larger impact on this than ST depletion as it affects the substitution pattern rather than performance.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 5/31/2020 8:52:55 AM

With Leonard they needed a lucky shot to even make it to the conference finals, where they already got before.

Well both the Bucks and 76ers were far better teams than any the Raptors had beaten in their previous runs.

With regards to your other points, this season's B3 finalists both had 7-8 good players on their roster (and it was arguably South Dragon's 6th man who won him the title). They didn't use their bench that much, because like you said, without LCD/blank, there really isn't much advantage to depth. However, if the situation was reverted to how it was 20 seasons ago, I'd imagine these teams would still be very successful.

Also, I looked at how long South Dragons was playing his starters per week and it generally seemed to hover around 65-70 minutes/week during the regular season. During playoffs of course it was higher (around 80), but this happens even in the NBA, where lineups shorten in the playoffs and stars take on a higher load (often averaging 35-40+ minutes per game).