BuzzerBeater Forums

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?

You mean the game lineup.
Yes, that's totally understandable.
You shorten your rotation, like they use to say.
But it's still a 10 player roster that you're managing, which (IMO) makes more sense.

I posted this in an old thread and haven't really got an answer. See below:

Hey guys,

I just had a question about exhaustion. I just played my league game tonight (121043755) against a team with 450k starting 5. All on mediocre (5) Game Shape. I also CT'd vs Normal.

Not only did his players play huge minutes with terrible Game Shape, they're also all over the age of 28. The top scorer was 32 years old.

Am I just really unlucky in this instance? I feel like exhaustion should have a multiplicative effect when Game Shape is poor.

IIRC, exhaustion doesn't work (properly?) in OT, so think about it that way. If you had an "advantage", you lost it on OT.
I lost a game similarly on BBM because of it. They get some rest and they're back to how they were when the game started (or so it seems). Exhaustion also doesn't carry between games, so it is what it is.
I'd addapt what you suggest to "I feel like exhaustion should have a bigger effect on teams with poor Game Shape".

7 player lineups are not considered short rosters, (although they still had 2 of 5 starters exhausted). They are in a grey area as you can see by some players exhausted but not all. Also they are risky because fouls and injuries could cause major issues.

In summary, the changes to prevent short rosters were specifically geared to 5 or 6 players playing the entire game with no downfalls.

I don't know enough about either teams' players to comment about the match, but the ratings were pretty similar for both teams, so a close game seems to make sense.

A full season roster of 7 players is, IMO (and in reality I believe), a short roster. That team has 7 players on its roster, so if that isn't short, that's not very realistic (though it's the game is entitled to choose to be so or not, of course).
A team that consistently plays the same 7 players should be more prone to injury and "wear and tear" or ineffectiveness, if you will (as the accumulated effort should start taking its toll during the course of the season). The GE also doesn't seem to consider "exhaustion" based on players that play big stretches with small rest, regardless of total minutes. I've seen games where guys play like 22 out of 24 minutes but they don't show any signs of getting tired/ineffective or alike.
So, basically and IMO (of course), ehxaustion is a very small factor, especially in teams that avoid it by small margins. I believe there's room for improvement there.