BuzzerBeater Forums

I think that star/allstar can get you players who are important role players in D2, as rotational guys and strong backups, but for top line starters I'm don't think so. I've seen too many players who capped at the low end of their potential range, leaving the trainer wanting for a few more pops.

He's in d5 and has just started. How good this player is gonna be at d2 is completely irrelevant (ok not completely, it should probably be about .2% of the decision which rounds to 0%).

I guess in the end, my preferences are exactly that, my preferences. I prefer training to TL buying and selling. I like the idea of trying to have almost all my starters be my own draftees (or at least significantly trained by me).

This is kind of a side subject so I'm not gonna spend time on it, but playing this way is an enormous handicap. It's a "preference" thing like playing mario kart with your feet is a preference.

Well, my own experience contradicts both of those assertions.

Some of the players I trained in my D5 seasons will be good enough to be in D2. They should be among my starters.

And it's hard to see that my approach slowed down my progress immensely. If I've been in D3 in too many consecutive seasons that you see it as accepting a huge handicap, it's only because I'm training players that are very difficult to purchase on the TL. Building those players now, myself, will provide a strong foundation for my team for many seasons to come.

Well, my own experience contradicts both of those assertions.

Some of the players I trained in my D5 seasons will be good enough to be in D2. They should be among my starters.

And it's hard to see that my approach slowed down my progress immensely. If I've been in D3 in too many consecutive seasons that you see it as accepting a huge handicap, it's only because I'm training players that are very difficult to purchase on the TL. Building those players now, myself, will provide a strong foundation for my team for many seasons to come.

Around one percent of new managers in USA d5 are going to make it to d2. Nothing "in your experience" could possibly change this. New managers should worry about trying to be in this one percent, not about what they will do when they get to d2.

As to the second part, your team is an outlier with good draft picks early on and plenty of success. Probably in the top 1-3% of outcomes for a new D5 team. Even after this somewhat extreme case of good draftees and team success with 6 seasons of playing (the odds this OP even makes it to 6 seasons are really low), and you still only have two players you drafted who are in your league rotation. So even you have had to rely far more on the transfer list for your success than drafting, and you can't even claim the "almost all my starters be my own draftees" which is what I was objecting to.

I have no problem with training one's own draftees to be starters. My problem is that making this your only strategy will take multiple real life years to have a good team, make it so that your builds lag your knowledge of the game by a year or more, and would require largely ignoring by far the best resource for team building in this game (the transfer list).

Around one percent of new managers in USA d5 are going to make it to d2. Nothing "in your experience" could possibly change this. New managers should worry about trying to be in this one percent, not about what they will do when they get to d2.

The only reason to bring up my team's history is to show that training players isn't the long slog to success that you seem to have made it out to be. You can be successful rapidly while spending time training up players.

As to the second part, your team is an outlier with good draft picks early on and plenty of success. Probably in the top 1-3% of outcomes for a new D5 team. Even after this somewhat extreme case of good draftees and team success with 6 seasons of playing (the odds this OP even makes it to 6 seasons are really low)

True, I was lucky to get some very good draftees, but at least in the case of two of them, I probably paid more in scouting costs than I would have paid in transfer fees if I had bought similar players after the draft. But I think this highlights the fact that we may be arguing about slightly different things.

I feel like somewhere along the line "training your own draftees" and "training players in general" got conflated. I may like the idea of training one's own draftees, but regardless of whether you draft or buy trainees, I think training is an important part of team building. Don't extend that idea to a requirement that a team train all of their players, or only train their own draftees. I've gone back and reread what I wrote, and honestly I don't see where I suggested that all managers should do that (nor where I'd committed myself to only that approach- see below).

and you still only have two players you drafted who are in your league rotation. So even you have had to rely far more on the transfer list for your success than drafting, and you can't even claim the "almost all my starters be my own draftees" which is what I was objecting to.

True, only two regulars are my own draftees, but three regular starters are guys I've trained since they were created. And I only have 3 training slots, so it's a bit strange to impugn my approach by saying I don't have more. Again, nobody says you need to train all your players. Obviously, you'll need to fill non-training positions with veterans, hence you will have to use the TL. That's Training In BB 101.

This makes your objection to my stated preference that "I like the idea of trying to have almost all my starters be my own draftees (or at least significantly trained by me)" very odd. If you read that sentence, it's not nearly the absolutist dictum that you make it out to be. Furthermore, I never said I had actually achieved this. So why bother to tally up if I have, and then upon seeing my failure to reach this fanciful level, suggest that my approach cannot work?

I have no problem with training one's own draftees to be starters. My problem is that making this your only strategy will take multiple real life years to have a good team, make it so that your builds lag your knowledge of the game by a year or more, and would require largely ignoring by far the best resource for team building in this game (the transfer list).

And as I said before, I never suggested it was my only strategy.

In the end though, this paragraph only makes sense if the sole criterion that a manager uses to evaluate their experience in BB is their team's winning percentage. For some people it may not be. To extend your MarioKart metaphor, yes, perhaps I am driving with my feet, but maybe winning a few races while feet-driving is more enjoyable to me than winning more races while hand-driving. And that's why I was careful to tell Mr.495 that he needed to consider his own preference before deciding on a course of action.

So many words...

As far as I could tell you were proposing identical strategies and preferences, so arguing against one is necessarily arguing against both. I only meant to respond to the strategy part, and I'm sorry if that got twisted somewhere. Debating preferences is obviously pointless and I make a point to never do it. I don't know why you want to keep bringing up preferences in a strategy discussion anyways; the OP can decide his own preferences without our help.

You also seem to respond to every point I make as if I am implying you disagree. I am trying to explain things at a basic level so that assumptions are minimized and newer users can follow my logic. Really we seem to disagree with each other very little and most of our posts are talking past each other. I'll stop if you will.

With this absurd back and forth (I'll take some blame) my original argument got kinda buried, and I want to bring it up again because I am still confident it was the best advice in this thread and it is surprising to me that I am the only person who seems to hold this opinion.

I am going to attempt to list all the major reasons why this guy isn't an optimal trainee for a new user. Obviously no trainee is ever perfect, but I think this guy is far enough away that pulling the trigger is clearly best.

Surplus Potential: This player has a lot of surpluss potential compared to what this user needs which adds to his market value but doesn't add to his training value. This surprlus value can be cashed in by selling the player and buying lower potential, otherwise it will disapeer.

Lowish starting stats: Compared to this trainee's value, his starting stats are pretty bad. He's not gonna help you win much the next season or two, especially if he is trained inside first. SF type players take by far the longest to be useful on court and new teams need as much help as they can get as soon as they can get it. This isn't a major concern for trainees in general but it should be when you have half your value wrapped up in one player.

Surplus Value: This player is worth more than the rest of this user's players combined. New teams have very limited assets and tying them up in one long term player who won't even hold value very well is a poor allocation of resources. It's a team game and there's a huge amount of cheap and easy improvements one can quickly make with a new team and some cash. Spending money instead on some salary efficient veterans, cheaper but just as effective trainees, and stadium expansion gives way more bang for the buck.

I object to your characterization of our discussion as absurd. I found it interesting and illuminating.

I agree with your analysis here 100%, but only by stipulating your implicit preference of winning as fast as possible. Making that preference more explicit is the only reason I continue the discussion. Because the way you state it, you appear to maintain that your advice is objectively the best ("because I am still confident it was the best advice in this thread and it is surprising to me that I am the only person who seems to hold this opinion").

But obviously the best advice to achieve a goal presupposes that very goal. Yet not every manager has the same exact goals as you do. Frankly, I'm having a hard time understanding why you are unable to conceive that some other managers are willing to pay the opportunity cost to train their own draftees.

My preference is for long term success. I think that for d5 teams, promoting into d4 and building a stadium up is usually the easiest way to make the team better in the long term. If you have some other goals in mind besides winning in the long or short term, like only buying players whose name starts with M, that is totally fine with me. I just don't see why it needs to enter a strategy debate.

Frankly, I'm having a hard time understanding why you are unable to conceive that some other managers are willing to pay the opportunity cost to train their own draftees.

Frankly, I'm having a hard time understanding why you are unable to conceive that I am debating strategy and not preference. If buying players whose names start with M makes you happy, then I strongly recommend filling a roster with Michaels and Martins.

Frankly, I'm having a hard time understanding why you are unable to conceive that I am debating strategy and not preference.

Because every strategy implies a goal, and that goal is ultimately a product of a manager's preferences. You cannot separate them.

Now, as far as your other points, I think there's plenty of evidence that paying the opportunity cost of training one's own draftees does not prevent long term success, and it may not delay early success very long at all. But yes, as I've already said, if a manager's goal is to win as many games as possible quickly, then they should absolutely sell their high value draftees.

EDIT - I must say that we've probably reached the end of the line in this discussion. But, should any other managers raise the question of selling versus training their "good" draftees, this is a fine thread to direct them to.

Last edited by Tangosz at 9/19/2012 2:43:06 PM

I never said anything against training your own players when the fit is alright. There are plenty of teams that can get good use out of high value trainees. That's why they are high value.

Now, as far as your other points, I think there's plenty of evidence that paying the opportunity cost of training one's own draftees does not prevent long term success, and it may not delay early success very long at all. But yes, as I've already said, if a manager's goal is to win as many games as possible quickly, then they should absolutely sell their high value draftees.

The first sentence you have already repeated tons of times and it doesn't contradict anything I have said in this thread. The second is made uselessly unobjectionable by the injection of the word "quickly".

Last edited by w_alloy at 9/19/2012 4:16:20 PM