BuzzerBeater Forums

WP/GG all

Just curious on how you all will interpret the results of this match: (121857241). It's a small sample size since it's only 1 game, but isn't this an example of how exhaustion cannot solve the problem of short rosters?

Basically based on my understanding (do correct me if I'm wrong), only players aged 27 and above are affected by exhaustion?

The whole of my opponent's team is above 27. His players started to hit 40 minutes of game time with around 6 minutes left. And guess what? That's when they started to pull away further from my team. In fact, the guy who hit 40 minutes first could still hit shots and pull rebounds. Yea I had 4 players who passed 40, but only 2 of them were above 27, and they both barely passed 40. My opponents pulled away before they hit 40 mins of play time.

I also kinda realized a flaw: this guy basically played with only 2 subs, and he only has 3 players who played 40 minutes, meaning that it's easy to minimize the effect of exhaustion.

Honestly I think it has to be dragged down to 33 or something like that. Having exhaustion only kick in late in the 4th isn't really cutting it, and I don't think games will swing very much. You'd probably only lose close games.

Wait, 7 is not short roster? Seriously? That's a bit on the extreme side if short rosters are 6 or 5. What's the use of introducing a feature which encourages people to have 1 extra player then.

5 x 48 = 240 minutes / 7 = 35 minutes each … i think that‘s realistic to avoid exhaustion (in a 22 games season).

Will be little but tricky to spread the minutes evenly 🤷‍♂️

IMO, 7 is definitely a short roster.
They couldn't even practice/train (tactically) properly with 7 players lol
The season may be 22 games only but it's adjusted to a full year/season.
A team playing a full season with 7 players should be more prone both to injury and inefectiveness, due to overplaying if applicable (the time almost surely wouldn't be split evenly).
Resting/Spelling players with a longer roster should be part of the team management (and development), I assume.

BBs have been clear that 7 players is not considered a short roster. (314729.87)
While I would have preferred 8 and there may still be a move towards that direction, there is still a huge difference between needing a top 7 and top 5. If your budget is 1.25m, you can't just have 5 players with 250k+ salaries anymore, and will probably have an avg salary of about $180k for your top 7. It has already cratered the market for players making over $200k/week.

I see (thanks for the link).
Well, I'd say BB is wrong by default since it considers 5 players a roster
But hey, it's their definition/decision to make, so I guess that's that.
I get what you say but that's where the management gets in... in my view, a team/roster should have a few superstars/top players, a solid core and, possibly, a few role/development players. Since there's injuries and (partial and game by game) exhaustion, you can't (or shouldn't) just have the same players playing over and over again, though it is certainly possible. It really depends on how they want things to work.
Yes, there's been a lot of talk about that. I assume some calculations must be made in order to figure out how and if to adjust things, if they think they need to.

Ah, got that. Thanks for the explanation. This will definitely help me out in terms of building my team.

That said, I'm wondering if it's still possible to use 5-6 players if all of them are below the age of 27? That should get around exhaustion right?