BuzzerBeater Forums

Well once again i base it on my own experience as i do play mainly with team build around drafted players. And i've been doing so for 29 drafts. I did a full study (all skills all potential) of two drafts a long time ago just after the change with more valuable draftees. One was exceptional, the other on Utopia was completly crap. And i had a typical example of 5/3 A+ tall guy with 34 TSP.

Why do i associate atrocious with tall guys because very tall guys (>7'2") are often with atrocious outside skills even on the market.
This is why you should always be cautious with drafting a tall center. An estimated position will always go for at least a PF position if it had a decent outside set of skills. On the other hand a very tall guy with good outside skills out of the draft is very valuable.

Of course if you draft a center, and you only train him in inside skills, if there is an atrocious it will be there forever. But an guard or forward usually gets training in most skills and the atrocious will disappear soon. Maybe that is the reason of your apparent association.

Well i was just talking about players out of the draft not about trained players.

> I did a full study (all skills all potential) of two drafts a long time ago just after the change with more valuable draftees.

So that is a nice set of data. We can talk about it if you make it public.

I made it available on the day of the draft on a french external forum.

> An estimated position will always go for at least a PF position if it had a decent outside set of skills.

This is not true. A PF is a C with Jump Shooting. That is the only skill that makes the difference.

Well lost in translation apparently, when i say" at least a PF position" it might be guard as well as SF or PF. But you can focus on an exception, you're very good at that. And stop fousing on 4x7 inside skills when you evaluate a position. You'll find more outside evaluation then.

> On the other hand a very tall guy with good outside skills out of the draft is very valuable.

A short player with good inside skills should be equally valuable.

"Equally" ? As a principle yes, as a probablity no. If a very tall guy is rarely with outside skills then its rarity make it worth more. Plus the fact that some coaches prefer to pawn the rebounding skills on oustide players.

Well i see a deadlock in that discussion and will let you with what is an "hypothetical conclusion as a premise" when simply we do not speak of the same thing or should i say you interpret things to suit your thoughts and your demonstration.

As for the neutral reader that want to have my opinion : i do speak of very tall guy more than 7 feet 2 inches tall and just drafted players in C Position.

Enjoy the game.

You are making way too many assumptions and baseless incorrect claims. The salary formula especially at that level of salary does not depend on 3 skills, because 1 skill (out of 8 or 9) difference may move a player between PG/SG/SF/PF. One level in one skill, everythig else being the same. So yeah, there's a lot riding on the skills a player doesn't have.

You may have a player with 7 JS/JR/OD who is not a SG. And for players that are not A+ this is even more true.
SG https://i.imgur.com/8gvhig1.png
SF https://i.imgur.com/ZIQuF5v.png
PG https://i.imgur.com/ldJjQLz.png

I can't remember what lower rating mean in terms of salary, I don't know for sure what C+ means in terms of salary, but I think around 2k. That C+ could be something like this (although this may be a B or B-): https://i.imgur.com/WG6TyNQ.png, but that's a best case scenario. Of course, as I stated, I would assume 45-50 for the 18yo C+ and mid 60 for the 19yo A+. The SF formula is a pretty good formula, with the highest likelyhood of a hole being in PA (which not a big problem to have)
Note that if you are around 2k you can easily go in any other formula (except C) by moving a skill by 1 point. Increase PA/DR/HA and he goes into the PG formula, increase OD and he goes into the SG formula, increase IS or ID and he's a PF. It works by taking away skills as well.


Last edited by Lemonshine at 8/24/2020 7:44:41 AM

That said, with all the rest the same, I would select a SF or PF over a C. But you are giving too much importance to the position.

If i disregard a C draftee based on the sole information of its salary estimation and on its position C. Yes i do care about its position and yes i will share that information based on my knowledge and no i cannot do anything if you need to have encounter this by yourself to accept it.

Last edited by boule at 8/24/2020 7:19:06 AM

I remember making research before draft update and 7,2"+ center with all atrocious seemed to be a bias. They used to be not more trashier players than the average trash from the draft.

The bias probably happening because of limited data size, since there is very few 7,2"+ players per draft. There is equal ammount of 6,2" or lower guards with atrocious inside skills as there are tall players with atrocious outside skills percentage wise.

The lowest variation between balls and TSP as of 2 recent seasons scouting data with utopia seemed to be: PF, PG, SG, C, SF. The SF is the riskiest one, althrough in the market last season the elite of 65+ TSP guys had been listed as SF's mostly, PF being second.

SF salary formula generally don't have bad OD because they'd revert to PF. SF draftees often have low PA because if they don't they end up in the PG formula. There is nothing shocking or debatable in what I said and Alonso is incorrect on this. Best case scenario he has more than 50 TSP balanced all around, but on average he will be below 50.

In the following post, boule says:

Atrocious in a drafted player is often associated with a tall player and with a center position.

This is correct. You have plenty of examples of C that have been actually trained and still have garbage secondary skills even on the TL. My current trainee Banuelos was a C in the scouting report and I put him second on my list precisely because of that. He was a 6'4'' A+ 5/5 C mind you and he had elite inside skills and good outside skills, but that could have gone south quite badly. The safer pick was the 7 footer A+ 5/5 who was in a more reasonable formula and sure enough whoever picked ahead of me thought the same way.

C is the worst possible listed position. You know he'll have good inside skills but you know little to nothing about secondaries. A player with all 7s and 5 JS is an A+ Center (68 TSP). However a player with 7 in each inside skill and 1 otherwise is also an A+ Center (33 TSP). This is why it's dangerous to pick a player in the C formula: the same thing can't happen with other formulas and A+ rating. People do train very tall C draftees with garbage outside skills in their primaries because it's quick and easy.

So you tell me: Who are making way too many assumptions and baseless incorrect claims?

You are assuming that the formula and the salary only tell you about 3 skills which is just wrong, because what the position is NOT, as well as the salary, give you information. You are out there saying A+ SF "will disappoint" when it's realistically impossible to make a 3.5k+ SF with less than 50 TSP (you quite literally need less than 6 skills in HA/DR/SB combined) and even then he'd be a player with great shooting, rebounding and defense. And yeah an A+ SF can be as high as 68.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 8/24/2020 12:51:32 PM