BuzzerBeater Forums

Your examples tell me this:

Before the game, first you lay the foundation (defense) which in your case was very good.

After your defense does the work, you have to score points. And here's where I think you're a bit wrong: You won a game with outside tactic where inside tactic would give you bigger win margin. If you have such suffocating defense, it does not matter which offense you employ since you are probably going to win with almost any (except maybe Inside ISO).

So let's say that for the same payroll you can get LI players that can do the same work on defense, but more on offense. Since I'm not a native speaker, I hope I made myself clear.

I'll respectfully disagree with you at least as it pertains to my team - certainly as it relates to me running LI being a better choice. My three 'trainees' that played PF/C are not at all suited for inside offenses, other than oddly enough inside iso - the average IS for them is under 9, but all have double digits in handling, driving and OD (as well as ID and RB). And the guards are much better suited for outside offenses - especially the actual good ones.

And building an LI team with the same defensive choices would be much harder - if we brought IS up to parity with where I'm going on the ID/RB for the big men, the salary would start to skyrocket. Their job is going to be to rebound, defend, and then shoot jumpers or threes when guarded by the traditional big men or drive against zones.

Last edited by GM-hrudey at 8/28/2013 8:05:16 AM

The problem is that the salary of the players you quoted is greatly influenced by some skills that doesn't worth their cost.
You pointed out that the highest SB of your team is 8.That's help to keep the salary of your big man low for the level of their primary skills.Do you know how much SB have the big man you played against?Because, if SB drove up the salary of the adversaries big man,in reality the difference between the primary skills of your and his big man is smaller than what salary indicates

Well, to be perfectly honest, the 8 SB appears on the guy who started at PG and also on a player who didn't appear in the game at all. The highest for the five guys who played SF/PF/C was 6. As far as the opponent, feel free to check out his record both in the IBBL and against several of the top-1000 teams in the world that are in the PL and see how effective his offense has been against teams far better than my own.

But of course, SB isn't the issue here - the real skill that jacks up salaries on big men the most is IS. Maybe the discrepancy is more that I'm not wasting money on that pointless skill. ;)

I'll respectfully disagree with you at least as it pertains to my team - certainly as it relates to me running LI being a better choice. My three 'trainees' that played PF/C are not at all suited for inside offenses, other than oddly enough inside iso - the average IS for them is under 9, but all have double digits in handling, driving and OD (as well as ID and RB). And the guards are much better suited for outside offenses - especially the actual good ones.

And building an LI team with the same defensive choices would be much harder - if we brought IS up to parity with where I'm going on the ID/RB for the big men, the salary would start to skyrocket. Their job is going to be to rebound, defend, and then shoot jumpers or threes when guarded by the traditional big men or drive against zones.

That's why I said entire payroll and not just the bigs. If you play outside tactics, your outsidep players take bigger paycheck. And ditto for inside offenses. So your backcourt would have less salary than now, and that salary would transfer to the bigs. Basically same payroll.

You don't have to worry about ID on your bigs, as opponent's bigs will score almost equally good against ID 10 and ID 12 while the difference in salary is not negligible. You can somewhat compensate with OD and better RB on bigs.

You don't have to worry about ID on your bigs, as opponent's bigs will score almost equally good against ID 10 and ID 12 while the difference in salary is not negligible. You can somewhat compensate with OD and better RB on bigs.

LMFAO

The problem is that the salary of the players you quoted is greatly influenced by some skills that doesn't worth their cost.
You pointed out that the highest SB of your team is 8.That's help to keep the salary of your big man low for the level of their primary skills.Do you know how much SB have the big man you played against?Because, if SB drove up the salary of the adversaries big man,in reality the difference between the primary skills of your and his big man is smaller than what salary indicates

Well, to be perfectly honest, the 8 SB appears on the guy who started at PG and also on a player who didn't appear in the game at all. The highest for the five guys who played SF/PF/C was 6. As far as the opponent, feel free to check out his record both in the IBBL and against several of the top-1000 teams in the world that are in the PL and see how effective his offense has been against teams far better than my own.

But of course, SB isn't the issue here - the real skill that jacks up salaries on big men the most is IS. Maybe the discrepancy is more that I'm not wasting money on that pointless skill. ;)

SB drove up the salary of a big man as much as a primary skills,but is not necessary as a primary skill.
Look at the salaries say little about the strength of a team

LMFAO

I'm thankful for such a comprehensive argumentation of your thoughts on my statement. You must be very mature and experienced.

LMFAO

I'm thankful for such a comprehensive argumentation of your thoughts on my statement. You must be very mature and experienced.

My answer is more sensible than your statements.Everyone who has played at half-decent level in BB can see the difference between having a 10 and a 12 ID on their big mans

100% respect for you but...

As the only outside team in the NBBA

doesnt that just sum up the problem as well as explain ur success

if 15/16 teams r inside teams wouldnt every manager build their teams 2 stop inside attacks not outside attacks so the 1 guy who is outside actually ironically has the advntage by running the worse tactic lol :D

That's why I said entire payroll and not just the bigs. If you play outside tactics, your outsidep players take bigger paycheck. And ditto for inside offenses. So your backcourt would have less salary than now, and that salary would transfer to the bigs. Basically same payroll.

You don't have to worry about ID on your bigs, as opponent's bigs will score almost equally good against ID 10 and ID 12 while the difference in salary is not negligible. You can somewhat compensate with OD and better RB on bigs.

My expected salary after this season's training probably comes close to 350k, so let's go with that. I'm not nearly good enough a manager to come up with a reasonable inside-focused team concept at 350k that can compete with a well-built inside team with 750k salaries. I don't want to say that it can't be done - I think USA Elite may have pulled it off, or came darned close - but I just can't see making it work myself. It'd be like taking a knife to a gunfight.

On the other hand, my team as currently comprised has already been competitive (well, and got a win that's probably fortunate) against one 750k team, and been reasonably competitive against other teams with much higher salaries and probably better managers as well. It's pretty much been a direct response to the "it can't be done" rhetoric around trying to beat LI with an outside offense. I'm certain I'm never going to get as far with this as SM got with his Motion team, and I don't presume to think that my experience changes the fact that LI is broken at the absolute top levels of this game. My goal is simply to show that at the levels 99% of users can aspire to, it's quite possible indeed for an outside offense (and really, Princeton!) to be competitive with LI, if you build it right. And since I haven't quite built it right yet, it may just succeed. ;)

*yawn*

Clearly, it's impossible to compete with a high salary LI team with an outside offense unless you have NT-level defense. I mean, look at:
(59082488)

This is an unfair example of LI dominance, since the road team started three bigs at SF, PF and C with more combined salary than the entire home team's roster. Look at how those 100k+ big men tear apart the sub-25k salary players they're going against... wait, what? The outside team won?

Just playing devil's advocate with this example.

Home vs Road. 6 players vs a deep bench, 3 of his starters playing the entire game. Ratings show that his guards don't have very high OD and they played the entire game. Bad combination IMO. We can't see stamina, gameshape or enthusiasm for last week to know how they effected the outcome either.

Not exactly a huge surprise in my eyes that you won this game and even then, it was close.


Last edited by Beener not Beanerz at 8/28/2013 10:32:46 AM

SB drove up the salary of a big man as much as a primary skills,but is not necessary as a primary skill.
Look at the salaries say little about the strength of a team

SB itself is not expensive - it costs less than the other three inside skills. Where it hurts is that when you look at a 15-15-15-5 build and raise SB to 15 the cost skyrockets, and since so few people ever even consider cutting out IS, ID or RB, the myth persists.