BuzzerBeater Forums

I don't think the difference is normal. For the record, I do agree that the draft is a bit top-heavy as far as the ratings are concerned. I was merely pointing out that it is counterproductive to calculate the height in the star rating formula, in my opinion. It should be provide as some sort of a range in the second scouting report instead.

Range would be fine with me, as long as it is a small enough range to understand at least if a guy is trainable.
For example, instead of having the stats from a single game (often times useless like my atrocious free throw shooter who shot 2-2 in that one game), I would MUCH rather know how old he is and if he is taller than 6'8 or shorter than 6'4 for example.

If you have a 7'1" PG, train him in C skills. He will train very quickly because of his age and height. Then you will have a C who can handle the ball and pass and still do the inside work. He will be a better all-around player. Same with the 6'4 C. Train him in SF skills- he already has the inside skills.

Granted, my team is in a league with only a few owners. But, my four best players can play any position and play it well. I have played two seasons now and my combined record is 39-5 and a two-time Champion. So, maybe having a huge guy with PG skills isn't a bad thing, if you develop his bigman skills.

If you have a 7'1" PG, train him in C skills

Not if he has atrocious rebounding and pitiful ID (just an example). It would only be a waste of time

I would MUCH rather know how old he is and if he is taller than 6'8 or shorter than 6'4 for example.

For the age a solution could be to make it influence the star rating.
The age would still be unknown, but, for example, if a 18yo 5 star has a 4k salary, a 19yo 5 star could have a 5k salary.

You still only see 5 star, but then at least the year more is (partially) compensated by better skills.

I totally disagree. By the time he was 22, his inside skills would be well-trained and you would have a 22 y.o center who could pass, drive, shoot, and bang inside for your team for the next 10 years. Does that sound like a waste of time?

Here's something to think about.

With modest scouting (2/week), you will know the star rating of about 1/2 the players. Or alternatively, 1/2 the teams will know the star rating of any given player.

Now imagine that the top 1/6 of the players (8 of 48) were given a 5 * rating. The average team would know the rating of 4 of them, and move them to the top of their rating. They would use the rest of the information (grade, box score, and potential) to order them, but they are still going to put a player who is a 5 * with no other information among their very top picks. You simply don't pass over a player who you know is in the top 16%. You might put him 4th or 5th.

So with roughly 8 teams having every 5* player in their top 4 or 5 picks, the teams drafting last have almost no change of getting a 5* player.

So it is better havimg a large share of players rated 5*. If 1/3 of players are given a 5* rating, then it is pretty reasonable that every team is going to get a 5* player. Those drafting early, will have the advantage of some additional information, so they're not going to get stuck with the 5* bench warmer, and can probably also draft for position. Those at the end are going to get a player in the top 1/3 and that is about the best that they can hope for.

Likewise, if you gave the $7500 superstars a rating of 9* and had the national anthem play whenever you ran the cursor across his number, he would always go to one of the top few teams. It would be a very lucky team that got such a player with a 6th pick overall. You simply can't have such players visible.

So you either have to have a lot of players with high ratings, or think of some other way to distribute talent.

if you gave the $7500 superstars a rating of 9* and had the national anthem play whenever you ran the cursor across his number, he would always go to one of the top few teams. It would be a very lucky team that got such a player with a 6th pick overall. You simply can't have such players visible.

But a $7500 superstar MUST be the #1 pick!!! not a #5, #10 or #20 pick! (why should LBJ drafted #16?????)

The draft help to strengthen the weak teams not the lucky teams!!!!

So you must have such player visible!!! (and last 2 season i had a #16 pick!!!)

The draft help to strengthen the weak teams not the lucky teams

I think that it should be somewhere between..

But a $7500 superstar MUST be the #1 pick!!! not a #5, #10 or #20 pick! (why should LBJ drafted #16?????)

The draft help to strengthen the weak teams not the lucky teams!!!!

No, it doesn't have to be the first pick. There are always players drafted a bit lower who turn out to be great players and nr1 picks that can't deal with the pressure for example.

The weak teams will have a large chance to pick a really good player, but it doesn't have to be 100% sure they'll get the Jackpot.

I totally disagree. By the time he was 22, his inside skills would be well-trained and you would have a 22 y.o center who could pass, drive, shoot, and bang inside for your team for the next 10 years. Does that sound like a waste of time?

Yes :)
I still would not train primary skills starting below inept. I 22yo with all respectable does not have a great value, imo.

More important. To train that player in inside skills you need to position him either as C or PF. How can you do it without losing competitiveness, if the starting skills are very low? As long as i am in the tournament I find it difficult with average skills already :)