BuzzerBeater Forums

I think you are misunderstanding the financial aspect of the roster structure and the reasons why managers opt to use a strong 8/9 vs an unneccessary (IMO) 12+ roster. It boils down to what would you prefer for your money.

a) 8-9 players with $600-700k combined salary and then scrubs OR
b) 11/12+ players with $600-700k combined salary (weaker starting 5) OR
c) 8/9 of the core players in b) without 3 strong back ups which could amount to a weekly wage saving of $100k+ per week.

Bottom line is you can be competitve and can aim to achieve your end of season goals (league/cup/both) throwing games or attempting to win them both.

I am sure that in this example, Brianjames is confident he can throw a game here and there and still be on track to hit his goals without having to spend $100-150k more in wages per week (@2mil per season) and the outlay of purchasing those players. In a 14 week season with injuires/key matches I would argue keeping a money reserve to use if needbe is much better than investing in more players that are close to the skills of your core guys.

If there was a pool of amazing 27-30yo's (not quite there yet) that were past trainable age but very good roster players then we might see these kind of players start appearing in teams as opposed to the basic scrubs you buy and sack before the economic update. But to pay a premium for a 10th/11th decent player that is unlikey to get training and is only there to assist with a few mins here and there and as back up to injuries is not yet worth it.

Your roster of 5 strong players 2-3 bench guys and 3-4 scrubs puts you in the c category which allows you to bank more money throughout the season. This is fine for Bulgaria or indeed Japan but in other countries you would have to step up to a squad more like a) or b) to be competitive. I guess until you are faced with the dilemma of what to do (invest and try to keep winning vs stay as I am and lose a couple of games) you are not in as great a position to judge others choices.

The flipside to the money argument is that losing a game decreases revenue from future games and possibly merchandising, but I still believe this is less than the money saved from unecessary wages. On that note I will stop as I'm not the greatest one to talk about salary management :D (although I am still making a profit!!)

im glad to see the question is now set and not throw away in rubbish bin like it was before, so issue exists(bb's thx for ur reading)

It's simple for me, the best manager is this who win more money and obtain good result in same time.I'm make 450k profit per week and i make medium result but for futur, i can go better.
If you want to win some title, you need a good room and a good team but you make less profit than me and i can go in future to recover the best player in France.
The problem is to expense so many money for poor result and for poor profit with room.You can't developping your team at this moment because your money is poor comparatively to other players of your league.

Last edited by pascalou at 9/30/2009 6:28:57 AM

NBA teams carry 15 players. I'm pretty sure that a BB team with 15 decent players won't have to throw a game, ever. So no, this is not true.

I think you have made a statement and you refuse to take it back.

NBA do not need to consider the gameshape BB is linked to playing minutes.

BB is at this moment not at a level yet that people can do 3 games at satisfactory level except maybe the top 12 in BB. Most people can afford or have trained 2 or 3 people in their first 2 seasons so no way they are able to do 3 good games in a week. Does that mean poor management? Or simply a developing team? A team in development does not mean poor management and is an insult to many people who are trying a good job in management.

A better way to say it:

Sometimes it is understandable to accept a loss due to the depth of one team. BB is not a sprint it is a marathon.

I think it's true but the best, it's to develop team, train and obtain good result but in high league, the problem is very hard to solve but the best is to make training, the man between 20 and 22 years or 19 for the cup but it's not be certain to win the heading.

Last edited by pascalou at 9/30/2009 6:44:53 AM

I really understand where you come from. I was in the NEDERLAND top division and most of them are good teams.

Instead of looking at it negatively I saw it as a real challenge to see how one can survive through a season without being demoted and still go far in the cup and get good development of the trainees. It is fun to see some going for a cup and some dont;' when you study your opponents team settings you will find out some info and built your strategy on it. For me it is one of the excitement of BB management. If minutes played are not related to gameshape; than why not just have 5 good ones and just put 5 players on the game; every game. No one will limit you in that way. its kinda boring though..

I understood Torooo was happy to see B3 going back into arcade mode. No minutes management just plain the best 10 and bring back the win.

I like BB.

Klaas Jan Huntelaar for ever

Last edited by GM-Rijswijker at 9/30/2009 6:45:55 AM

It's long to be the best and i have to start 2 season after the leaders in France but i think it's possible to be better than them.I can to have 600 or 700k of salaries and i just to be at 300k, i make a great room and i take result in same time, i can't do better.

Last edited by pascalou at 9/30/2009 7:01:37 AM

NBA do not need to consider the gameshape BB is linked to playing minutes.

Sure it is. There is a reason why the top players in the NBA do not play 48 minutes per game night in and night out. There is also a reason why top teams sit their starters when they've clinched the playoffs.

How tired a player is definitely affects his performance negatively, and this aspect is mirrored in game shape behavior in BB.

BB is at this moment not at a level yet that people can do 3 games at satisfactory level except maybe the top 12 in BB. Most people can afford or have trained 2 or 3 people in their first 2 seasons so no way they are able to do 3 good games in a week. Does that mean poor management?

Yes. I don't buy the "can't afford" theory, and if you've trained 2 players to the detriment of your team in the long run, then this is most definitely poor management. As you said it yourself, this is a long-run game, and it applies to all of its facets, including training.

I see the merit in your argument -- and it's quite different from "game shape is forcing people to throw minutes", to which I was originally reacting (I think).

Carrying 12-15 decent players might have its downsides, but it also has its positives: you can carry "more specialized" players for different tactics (thus more flexibility), you don't have to worry (that much) about injuries, etc.

you can carry "more specialized" players for different tactics (thus more flexibility),

After you have played your first 2 games, you are pretty much stuck with who you are going to play in the 3rd one. So carrying extra players only gives you flexibility in some games.

There is a reason why the top players in the NBA do not play 48 minutes per game night in and night out.

Though average NBA teams play their starters much more per week then we can in BB. Here's the top 5 in total minutes for the Lakers during 08-09 last year:

NAME..........gm/wk.. mn/wk..mn/gm
Kobe Bryant....3.4.....123.3....36.1
Pau Gasol .......3.4......125.0....37.0
Lamar Odom....3.3......96.5......29.7
Derek Fisher....3.4.....101.7....29.8
Trevor Ariza....3.4......83.3.....24.4

gm/wk = games per week
mn/wk = minutes per week
mn/gm = minutes per game

The games per week is pretty close to the 3 we have in BB. As you can see, the Lakers played their players much more per week then you can do in BB.

I'm not saying this is poor game design, but it is different from the reality of most professional team.


Last edited by brian at 9/30/2009 12:20:15 PM