BuzzerBeater Forums

It's far too early in the game's evolution to state with authority what optimal management is, any statements to that effect are merely opinions. I do think it's fair that there is a consensus among the teams most successful so far that at least eight good players are needed on your roster.

I think about 11 is the right number but enthusiasm management issues lead managers to focus on some games more than others and this is seen as throwing games. I don't think it is, it's more a question of giving yourself the maximum potential to win the games you have identified as must win games.

There was a good post on the EBBL forum recently that said that you can drive yourself nuts wondering why Team X CT's Team Y but TIE'd Team Z - it's better to think of it as everyone having their own masterplan - so don't worry about where you fit into someone else's.

Wow koz, you've got a new record. Never seen that many 1 person 1 balls in 1 topic hehe Cheers.

Last edited by BB-Patrick at 9/30/2009 6:47:01 PM

Wow koz, you've got a new record. Never seen that many 1 person 1 balls in 1 topic hehe Cheers.

They missed one. I am shocked.

edit: Bah, humbug. They actually missed two.

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 9/30/2009 6:51:53 PM

I grant you 5 for this one, just to make sure your average wont go below 3, since that would be a disgrace!

Don't assume any of those were me either. The motive was there though

Though average NBA teams play their starters much more per week then we can in BB. Here's the top 5 in total minutes for the Lakers during 08-09 last year:

NAME..........gm/wk.. mn/wk..mn/gm
Kobe Bryant....3.4.....123.3....36.1
Pau Gasol .......3.4......125.0....37.0
Lamar Odom....3.3......96.5......29.7
Derek Fisher....3.4.....101.7....29.8
Trevor Ariza....3.4......83.3.....24.4

[snip]

I'm not saying this is poor game design, but it is different from the reality of most professional team.

And like the Lakers, if you play your key players between 29.8 and 36.1 minutes in every league game and in no other competitive games, it'll come out just about perfectly.

This of course being the key part of the sentence, since the Lakers don't have any other competitive games to play, but the majority of BB users do.
Another, more realistic, way of putting the phrase would be that any normal team (the Lakers in this example) can play their best players in EVERY game, while BB owners can only play their best players in 2 games out of 3. And this is why you don't see the Lakers throwing games, and on the other hand you DO see this wide-spread phenomenon amongst BB owners who play in competitive leagues.
The whole discussion about whether this is good/bad/horrible/terrific/etc. etc. management is simply a moot point, because just observing the reality of the BB world and seeing that this phenomenon is taking place in EVERY major league in the BB world tells you that either a)the most successful users are idiots (not very likely) or b)all users are forced into this kind of "behaviour" by a set of rules which are incompatible with each other (game-shape/minutes/salary).
I'm guessing that if the Lakers purposely put their 8-12th best players on the field and lost by 80 points once every week, the commissioner would look into the matter and do something about it. I don't know if the BBs are looking into the matter and are considering whether to do something about it, but ignoring the issue or even justifying this set of rules with comments like the one above is frankly discouraging to all users who would like to see BB improve.

I don't know if the BBs are looking into the matter and are considering whether to do something about it, but ignoring the issue or even justifying this set of rules with comments like the one above is frankly discouraging to all users who would like to see BB improve.

I give you five balls for this one.

I like BB and I accept the rules that has been set.

But not acknowledging the fact that it is true that globally BB speaking coaches can set just 2 good teams out of 3 games and if they do, claim them for poor management is not true and was a patronizing comment. I am more used to more neutral comments from Koz or any other GM than the above one.

i like this point too, anyway we play like this with this, i hope some thoughts and comments could help bb to really consider there are some problems(talking about pooor management is useless)

In the early seasons it was made clear that no new training options for SF would be implemented - after all this time I really cant see any modification to the way GS is calculated.

These may be enjoyable/infuriating aspects of the game but they are in my mind now set in stone and something we will always need to plan with in mind.

I mostly agree with you on this one, and I don't know where the problem is, game is written as it is written, it's all about management here and I, for one, wouldn't like to see the game get more simplified. I really don't understand what most people that have disagreed with you, want, that all of players on their team has proficient GS all of the time, well, that wouldn't be any challenge at all. Of course, that it's easier to play quality tournament if you are in II league, cause you have easier opponents and could, with more ease, balance minutes, but let's not forget that arena profit is quite bigger in I league, and that financial balance could be invested in bigger number of quality players on team, and one more thing, everyone from I league are in the same position, so everyone has the same problem with balancing minutes and it that way good management can come to the surface. My conclusion is, there is no need to change the game itself, because good management is the key to overall success.

Last edited by LA-Kasie K. at 10/1/2009 5:46:16 AM