BuzzerBeater Forums

salary is everything for a team on bb. we cant neglect something because its such and such level it don't matter.

If is the case then why are managers screaming to the gms of bb not allow team in the lower brackets to afford 300K players? f salary means nothing then it should be no issue? understand its a Br rule, but same its salary rule. Salary matters

My center get fouls because of sb Increase by BB Ge,before this he never got this many fouls. t has nothing to do with trainng stamina, game shape. It some kind of silly high sb penalty. thnk my bg od, jr.jr. pa.MY C way better than yours not being rude. does your center have jr 13. js 13. pa 8. od 13. ha 12 is 10. id 11 sb 12?. I doubt it

don't you mean inside defense you can't dunk from the 20 ft area. LOL ok maybe on BB

I also thought that IS was not a factor in driving layups, but it is. DR helps you get open/uncontested. IF the opponent/opponent team has high enough pressure rating, SB and to a lesser extent ID will make driving layups miss. I understand the idea you don'T need IS for driving layups, I experimented with it. It's just not true. I am moving towards building a 10+ SB and OD for all positions team (nowhere near the goal right now). I think if you can do that, if you can have all your ODs in the teens and you can have all your SBs (guards too) over 10...I think you will stop more driving layups and/or prevent them from happening.

The USA offsite has a lot of analysis about what skills are used to determine the success of the various type of shots, both offensively and defensively, and contested vs. uncontested. Based on wozzvt's number crunching, in the most general terms, IS doesn't increase your chance of making a contested drive (it does, however, help on uncontested ones, so maybe I should have phrased what I said differently).

And I'm certain you'll enjoy the 10OD across the board. I can't speak to the SB part of that, but the OD is quite nice.

When IS loses to the opponent ID and pressure, the team will shoot outside more. IF this is what you want anyway, maybe not a bad strategy. In my experience though teams that are limited in offensive options don't do well overall, they take more rushed and sloppy shots IMO. I think the quality of opportunites reduces each time one is 'passed up'...or somethign along those lines in the GE. Obviously the rate of this is probably relevant to the strategy used. So far people have seen only high paced offenses do well, motion and LI.
IN real basketball high paced offences will give up easy buckets to the opponent, there is a defensive liability. In BB it seems this doesn't really happen (no connection between your defence and offence, all half-court calculations, not full court) so what is the benefit of slowing down your offence? For the way most teams and players are built, for now, it seems the faster paced offences are dominate. For these offences atleast I think you suffer when your team is not diverse scoring wise.

As far as offensively, I'm going to admit I have no clue - the player on my team with the highest JS shoots barely 41% on open jumpers and 56% when contested over the last two seasons, which makes no sense to me at all. But for me at least, slowing the tempo and thereby reducing the number of possessions for each team makes the effects of turnovers increase, and since my team commits the fewest turnovers and causes the most in the league, that's a pretty decent advantage. Generally speaking, I want to get 20 points or more and hold my opponents to under 20 in each quarter - and if that happens all four quarters of course I win. Rarely does it actually work out like that, and I'll have stretches where points just don't come and other stretches where one of the outside shooters lights it up and the points pile on.

salary is everything for a team on bb. we cant neglect something because its such and such level it don't matter.

If is the case then why are managers screaming to the gms of bb not allow team in the lower brackets to afford 300K players? f salary means nothing then it should be no issue? understand its a Br rule, but same its salary rule. Salary matters

My center get fouls because of sb Increase by BB Ge,before this he never got this many fouls. t has nothing to do with trainng stamina, game shape. It some kind of silly high sb penalty. thnk my bg od, jr.jr. pa.MY C way better than yours not being rude. does your center have jr 13. js 13. pa 8. od 13. ha 12 is 10. id 11 sb 12?. I doubt it

I'm not sure how my big men compare to your center, because I'm not sure what rules apply in the make-believe land where your player exists. The only two skills you didn't list are driving and rebounding, and the skills you did list are those that would have a salary of 31k as a shooting guard (assuming 1s in DR and RB, which wouldn't even be possible with that build). You have one player above 30k on your roster, a PG, and taking DR to 20 still wouldn't switch his salary anywhere near enough to be a PG. Likewise, taking the player's RB to 20 would still take him nowhere near a C - he'd be a SF in the salary formula, with C being his fourth highest salary.

Having to resort to lying says all we need to know about how much credibility you should be given in this discussion. Good day.

So to come in here with some theories that IS is meaningless....well you would then need to explain why so many B3 and WC clubs are dominate with high IS guards and so many with crummy IS guards are not doing well (and worthless on the open market)

I'm not saying it's worthless. I'm saying it's not important to my team.

I know you're a big fan of "prove it." And so we're clear, I'm not at all saying that at the extreme top of the game, this could work. I doubt I could envision training the big men to compete with 250k behemoths who also have decent secondary skills. But what I am saying, and what I think I've proven, is that a team that is running exclusively Princeton/MM in the top 2000 WR range is more than capable of competing with LI teams in the top 1000 range. Not because of some theory I have, not because it makes for a good argument, but because I have done it and there's no asterisk besides any of my wins that say "Not valid when contradicted by Wolph's (or anyone else's) theories."

So as it often ends up when we discuss things, and I do mean this with respect, you're absolutely an expert at your level of the game but don't presume to know more than me about the levels I play at. You don't, period. I'm not going to tell you how you should run your team (though the 10 OD on everyone, yes, you'll love that), nor am I going to say anything about the balance of the game at the B3 level other than that I am inclined to agree that LI breaks the game there. But I'm not going to accept "it can't be done" as an edict from above; I'm going to go out and do it or fail trying, and hopefully at that point at least be able to set with some credence a range where LI is absolutely not unbeatable.

(edit to add that I'm not dismissing the rest of your post. There's good stuff in there, but just trust me that I do watch my games live for the most part and while my recollections of watching the games usually are that my guys are playing much worse than they usually are, I'm pretty confident in knowing what to expect from my players - even when it doesn't make sense, like Poirier missing open jumpers but hitting contested ones in streaks, or Busch for some unknown reason being a much worse shooter from 3 than Klein despite the skills saying that it should be otherwise).

Last edited by GM-hrudey at 8/30/2013 10:05:17 AM

This has been an epic debate.
My favorite line of this debate is this gem by Wolph:

Seriously dude. I am not talking down to you. I am looking at your ideas, and telling you I think they are garbage.

Not sure what that post is about. Do you mean to say that you are at a level where you can get away with weak IS because the competition just isn't that good?

No, I mean, unless you count beating a 750k LI team in a PL game as not good competition. I'm playing teams at higher levels and competing with much lower salary and no IS - winning at home, losing respectably in most cases on the road. And not against their scrub lineups, either, but legit competition lineups (for the most part; today's game was an obvious exception). I'm not exactly out there slugging it out with NBBA teams or B3 semifinalists, nor do I think I'd be competitive there, but definitely fighting up a weight class or two.

NOT training IS pops when its FREE in a given build, then you are just being dumb. I'm not saying you are doing that, but some people do, especially in DIII and below USA. Seriously dude, if you look at the salary formula you will find time and again that IS doesn't cost salary up to a given point. If you want to say you don't need to train it beyond that point, I actually can agree with a lot of that, to a point.

Hey, if I could raise IS with no salary implications, no cap implications, and not requiring the training time, I'd absolutely do it. But if I have to train it? If I could have free training weeks, IS would be way down the list of choices - behind OD, JR, PA, ID, RB, and 1v1 for sure, probably behind SB and JS as well.

Either your theory and approach works or it don't. PERIOD. The lower down you go, the less foolproof your strategy needs to be NOT because the teams you are playing have lower/different stats or whatever. But because they are lower quality managers.

At some point, it won't work. I know this. At some point, maybe to be effective defensively 10OD won't be enough, and it'd take 13 or 14. Maybe it'd take 13 or 14 JS and 12 JR to make them effective outside. Maybe they'd need more rebounding and ID than I could afford to put on them, or more passing than I've had time to do. When you have a build that requires at least 8 skills to be effective, 6 of which are slowed by their height, going against guys with far fewer skills required, at some point there's a gap that's too large to be made up. But just because something can't be done in B3 doesn't mean it can't be done for the 99% of users who will never sniff a B3 appearance.

When someone makes DI in a large nation with no IS on any of his players, let me know. If not, all you have is WILD speculation and excuses. Point blank. I'm not just a fan of proof. I require it. Winning a few games in DIII doesn't prove anything. **SNIP**
Point blank. I am fully aware that several managers currently in DIII and below are gonna be DI and maybe even b3 champ one day. I will know who they are when they get there, and if its you, dude you can tell me full on 'I told you so'. And I will say 'You did, props dude'. but if we made such a deal, when yo uare still in DIII in like 5 seasons, how would you respond if I told you, 'I told you so'. You surely wouldn't give any props. YOu'd be pissed.

I've played some top 500 teams. Lost by 13 at Stunners, for example. Beat another one at home. Got smacked around by Yellow Cake's team early in the season. But you also should understand I'm not making B3 promises - I expect my peak will probably be somewhere in II, with the ability to compete with some higher level teams but maybe not the horses to make that leap up to I. Of course, I thought I was going to immediately demote when I moved up to IV and III, so who knows?