BuzzerBeater Forums

i disagree and that for the simple fact:

if you are facing a SG with JS 20 JR 14 and you can chose; have your OD lvl 16 (with RB and ID) or have it lvl 18 (without RB and ID) then i'm taking the second one.

difference won't be as big on OD 18 or OD 20 on that point, but between 16 and 18, it has a big impact.

i recall reading a post form a BB, that the difference in defence with the offensif skill, has alot to do with the chance to score. well, i remain in favor of what i said earlier. for NT, secondairies are beter, but i refuse to ask any manager to train a guard in rebounding, or to trian a C in HA/PA. first off, that manager needs to play him 48 minutes out of position, which teams who play in the BBBL obvliously can't afford to do, and secon off, trainng a PG/SG (which are typical small) at the age of 24/25 or older on RB, will make em pop real slow. it's just not realistic. if they got nice secundaries, so be it, but i'm not gonna give up primairies for secundaries skills.

Revo

Yes but look at it from a team perspective.
Is it better to have your PG at 20 OD and 8 ID and the PF+C at 8 OD and 20 ID?
Or have the PG at 18 OD and 10 ID, while having your PF+C at 10 OD and 18 ID?
If you face a team with a PG who is good inside, and bigs who can shoot, then I take the latter.

I have no experience at that level, so I'm assuming a lot of things, but I also try to read between the lines.
I think (and hope) that it's how the game is evolving.

Last edited by Thelonious at 1/16/2011 8:59:29 PM

Yes but look at it from a team perspective.
Is it better to have your PG at 20 OD and 8 ID and the PF+C at 8 OD and 20 ID?
Or have the PG at 18 OD and 10 ID, while having your PF+C at 10 OD and 18 ID?
If you face a team with a PG who is good inside, and bigs who can shoot, then I take the latter.

I have no experience at that level, so I'm assuming a lot of things, but I also try to read between the lines.
I think (and hope) that it's how the game is evolving.

the point i wanted to adres is that from club perspective, it's hard to train players in secundairies for one, and it makes salary go up pretty fast aswell... and 'im not to sure someone wants to pay an extra 40-50k for a player (maybe in the BBBL, but in II, extra 40 to 50k really hurts your economy, and i'm not even speaking about III or lower, where that would most likely trash your economy) a NT coach also has to keep in mind that the managers need to be able to pay the players salary. It's no use asking people to make 600k C's, cause they'll only be going from one team to another to start with AND their GS will never be in good shape either. You need to try and find a balance for people to pay those salaris.

and considering your suggestion, an OD 18 ID 10 PG could possibly play SF, as an OD 10 ID 18 C could do so to. so i'd pick up those players to have more options at the SF spot, but i'm not gonna ask trainers of C's, who typically have to pay 120 to 200k salary a week, to play their C's out of position on the PG spot to get some extra OD. they just can't afford to lose the production of their C in that way...

Revo

well, there are some weirdo's who do play their players out of position each game to be able to train them well. Or else how would you ever get good SFs at a reasonable rate? ;)

okay it is not possible in the BBBL, but who says the NT players need to be in the BBBL?

further I think secundary skills have less impact on wage then primary, and moreover, the highest skills have the biggest impact, so instead of training the primary even higher still, it would benefit the player to get a few secondaries instead, it will cost less wage! And he's more versatile on the field.

You say you can't ask. In fact you can ask. They do not need to do it, they choose, but you can always ask. If they don't then so be it, but then maybe some day you find someone else who DOES want to do it, and then the NT will benefit from it. If you never ask, and tell everyone to be happy with what we can get, then the majority can agree, but there will always be managers who think you should get the best possible you can get, and not just lay down with what you have.
Always go for 100%, then see if what you get is reasonable, if not, get better, if so, still keep an eye out for better, but keep what you already have in the meantime.