BuzzerBeater Forums

I think you even forgot Kevin Love. But that´s exactly what I´m talking about. that´s like 1 / 15 of the players (in a closed market - we have an open market here). And guys like Granger, Wall etc. remain to be on our focus in that list, because those are most like the players who get "canned" once the team decides that it´s going nowhere and those get swapped for future prospects (see also: Dwight Howard).

Durant, Wall and Rose and Aldridge are not qualifying for that list btw (so are many others) as they have not been on their teams for 5+ years (due to age, obviously).

Pierce, Wade are the players that I meant - quite rare, that you don´t switch team, won´t you agree?

Last edited by LA-seelenjaeger at 1/4/2012 8:54:49 AM

Once again I am not 100% on this but I think three of those four do qualify for the list: Durant, Aldridge and Rose have all signed their second contracts although I don't know how Rose did as he should still be on his rookie contract.

Derrick Rose is signed for 5 years / $94.80 million with the Chicago Bulls.

Wall still is on his rookie contract.

i also think that teams try to stick more to their franchise player in the NBA like you, but that have also to do with the close market and that player who qualify to play top start there and not in div 4 for example. In BB

there are each yseason ton of player who qualify to div one but do not get drafted there, and a lot of NBA teams (16 per country who also could trade di v 1 talent betwen each other). which makes it hard to compare those.

But giving div.1 excellent draft picks, also in depth would give those premier division and huge advantage which is really hard to balance out. And it still would be hard to pick the fitting draft for their strategy, and still the best would start them in div 2 instead of div 1.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 1/4/2012 9:10:12 AM

Durant and Rose are both within the mentioned 5 year span, though I´m sure those are actually valid points, as they will not leave their teams anytime soon.

Aldridge is a borderline guy - not quite a superstar, and quite possible, that after another disappointing season a solid offer at the trade deadline might end his Portland stint.

What I´m basically saying is ...

(1) in NBA, teams get contributing players, still, only a rather small percentage of the players stick with their teams and contribute on a high level for a long time. Wade and Pierce are the shining examples, Nowitzki is a nice example for a team "buying" a trainee on the market to then train him.

(2) NBA is at the top a closed market with a pretty closed pool of both talent and overall players. In the lower tiers, position 12 - 18 on the rosters, NBA is an open market, and there you have a high fluctuation between NBA teams, Europe and Minor League Teams when it comes to signing those players.

(3) If even the closed market cannot exceed the margin of 20% "own developed" contributing on the roster (-> 3 or more), how do we expect a complete open league to buy into that concept.

Open Market relies alot more on "see where we are going with that guy, and if we somehow find out, "selling him" might take us further" concept, than the NBA does, still it´s a pretty often used concept even in the NBA.

Given the rather big gap between talent and contribution in the major leagues, it´s rather obvious, that especially young upper medium talent is not going to take the top teams very far, so instead selling those and trying to get your hands on a more promising talent seems pretty obvious to me.

Each league (in BB), which consists less than 30 teams, gets a draft that is equal to each league upon potential comparison.

It is not compared of choosing from a 50K pool, but of 50K teams choosing from an equal pool of 16 (per round). Each league having the same (upon potential) pool.

Basically you continue to play with the numbers so it with suite with the arrow already placed at "I don't want draft to be an aspect of a BB-managing game for every league, as it may interfere with the way I'm playing the game" (meaning W/O training a draft player).

I've already told you - you are mixing him up with too many FACTs...

He tried (W/O even knowing on what he is speaking about) to turn the discussion to number of all-star a team had originally drafted. Like the draft consists only all-star players, and the teams NBA teams are all0-start players only.

Most of the teams in the NBA are using extensively their drafted (mainly first round picks) players during those players contract.

This is a FACT.
Oops. I've brought a fact... My mistake...

And as expected after his trying to narrow it down only to all-star players, now he gone to a deeper narrowing.

Let me guess your next argument step...
Hmm. all-star players who played in Chicago and their initials are M.J., they have been the greatest player to play the game, and their name is NOT Michael Jordan...

Training draft players consists Dejuan Blair, Lopez, and others on that level.
They are not thrown, quite the opposite - they have a significant role on their team.

So I should stop using your method, eh?

Summary;

1) Most of the teams in the NBA has a player they drafted in the last 3 seasons, that has a significant role on their team.

2) The draft is the same as it is in the NBA - each league has the same pool of quality good players to choose from.
It is not like choosing from 50K pool, but like having separate leagues with separate players that set their name to the draft and each league has the same potential on the draft....Hey, wait, this is exactly what it is...

3) As "yodabig" have said - training your own draft players is what is expected from BB-managing game.
For that, the draft quality (not potential but the mature-ness of the players) is needed to be adjusted for the different leagues.

Then, another adjustment is needed to be made for making the game competitive as giving better players to higher divisions causes the opposite.

How?
For example - a contract that must be paid, and is adjusted to that a player with the same skills will ask for much more in higher leagues (and specifically drafted players).

0) The basic here is - Training drafted player is the basic of BB-managing.

1) The draft for higher leagues will have players that will be more ready - higher skills.

2) They will be older, as higher league users should not be able to get to higher maximum level.
Any draft's best player (for example) from any division can get up to "500K DMI when in respectable GS after ending his 21 YO season, and upon maximum training" (numbers are for example). Meaning - same potential, different readiness.

3) Another option that may be used in addition or instead that one, is that you will get the same player, at an earlier age, but he can be trained slower at higher division, and that will be applied to any training at an higher league.
Of course the comparison is when both teams at different divisions are using the same trainer skill, and the same training schedule for that same player.

4) But still, an higher team will get a better player, and hence need to pay more for that.
This should be upon salary.
Same player - higher salary when playing at higher league.

5) Basically the idea of harder to train at higher divisions , older players at higher divisions and higher salary at higher divisions is something that can be seen all over the real world.
The same player that will get to the NBA will get much more than he got in Europe.
The same player playing in the NBA with the same level of trainers will have slower improvement, as the league is harder, and they need to concentrate more about the next game than working on their own skills.

6) A reminder to all;
You are playing at a league which is one of those three huge nations I've brought as an example of nations that does not contain a single team at the first division that joined the game at the last 14 seasons (out of 18 that is been played...) - [Maybe it was true until current season, and was changed this season, but it is still a fact that points to competitiveness issue on this game.]
I find it related and important to mention, as user here (not naming a single user) are acting with interest.