BuzzerBeater Forums

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

Not A+, try again.

TL; DR: I think the two players are similar.

It seemed that the discussion went into a debate, but I just want to try to answer the OP's question by some simulation.

The OP's situations is to choose among two candidates.
Candidate 1: 18yo, 3/5/C+, 6'7", SF
Candidate 2: 19yo, 5/5/A+, 6'7", PF
Goal: Find the best strategy to pick a good candidate who eventually grows as a SF.

My assumptions:
1. The ten player skills are independently (to other skill and height/potential) and uniformly distributed between 1.00 to 7.99 for 18 yo and 1.00 to 8.99 for 19 yo (could be argued, especially that for MVP+ potentials, skill distribution might be leaning toward the high end side, but no one except Marin knows the actual distribution).
2. C+ means 2000-2200 in salary and A+ means 3400+. I made this assumption from another guy's draft data in season 48.
3. I don't have the updated salary formula. Used CoachParrot plus a simple scaling on my own so that it should be within 2% most of the time from BuzzerManager's estimation.
4. The OP wants a SF prospect, so only the TSP matters.

The simulation:
1. Randomly generate players until salary/ position fall in the right range.
2. Round the skills to integers (anyway, no one sees the decimal from the draft ;) ).
3. Repeat 10k times, make histograms.

The results:

The 1%/5%/10%/20%/30%/40%/50%/60%/70%/80%/90%/95%/99% percentiles for the two situations are:

For the 18yo: 33/36/38/39/41/42/43/44/45/46/48/49/52; average=42.87.
For the 19yo: 42/45/47/49/51/53/54/55/57/59/61/63/67; average=54.04.

Picture:

Analysis:
How much difference in TSP from a 18 and a 19 equalizes the value of the two player? It's probably true that the 18yo will get 15p+ in his first year with good training, but there is a training cost... So the expected market value of the two players might be quite close!

Personal thought:
1. I would probably pick whomever, sell him, and buy a real good one from the TL. The OP is from the U.S. so it should be easy to find the right man with the right flag!
2. If you want to change something in the generation, please suggest, maybe I can do one or two when I have the time ;).

Last edited by Feizai Passing by at 8/24/2020 7:34:16 PM