BuzzerBeater Forums

I once saw a 3 ball player who turned out to have benchwarmer potential put up 55 points on 25-26 shooting (4-4 from three, 1-1 FT). Let me reiterate that he was a 3-ball player with crappy potential. Don't decide to interview let alone draft a player based on box score stats. Star rating is way more reliable.

Just did the group demonstration, here is the stat of a player (Position PF):
40mins, 12-17 FG , 0-1 3PT , 1-2 FT , 3 Reb , 4 Assists , 3 TO , 2 Steals , 2 Blk , 0 PF and 25 points

Star rating : 2 balls only; Dont know his height and age yet.

Excellent stats , poor star rating. Would you interview him? Is the star rating reliable?

Any idea is welcome, thanks in advance

There's the outside chance that he's a 2/5 guy with All-time great potential and if that's the case, I suppose you could train him for about a third of a season to get his skills closer to decent and try to get a windfall. There's also a very strong chance that his potential sucks and you'd be wasting two draft points. I suppose it's all down to how much of a gambler you are with them and how many points you're sitting on.

But don't do it because of the box score. That's just crazy talk.

I have an opinion about the boxscore, I think its purpous is to tell us what are that player best/worst skills, so we know what we want to train.
A guy with 35 mins got more stamina than a guy with 15, 5 TO's prob got bad pass/drible, 7 assists, good pen/pass, 0/5 3pt's bad jump range, 2 blocks and 2 steals, prob good defender...etc etc

The number of "balls" is relative to player salary, and so in my opinion does not directly means hes bad with only 2 balls.
A guy with all mediocre would have like 2k salary (probably your 2 balls guy lol) and a guy with all ridiculous and IS, ID and RB respectable would get like 3,7k salary (4 balls probably).

P.S - I love your quote: "2 balls only" Thats a normal guy!!! xD

Thanks for your reply anyway.

Possibly there is no conclusion as there are too many uncertainties. As my team is 1st in the standing, possibly I saved the scouting some points and try to scout/interview the draftees next season.

a few seasons back i conducted a study on box score and the relation to the player skills.

At the time i discovered no relation to the two..... points/rebounds/FG% etc... nothing.

BUT

im drafting again this season. and .... i dunno... i just find it very difficult that Buzzerbeater gives us useless information. Nowhere else in the game is information useless, there are no other examples of 'red-herrings'.... yer sure the game engine does my head in sometimes and tactically how a 6'3 C can consistently out-rebound a 7'3 guy doesn't make sense BUT,

basically there are no other examples in the game of such a blatent incorrect piece of info that are presented to us. A Strong OD is better than average. ALL THE TIME. not just sometimes. all the time. Proficient game shape is better than average game shape. the 2-3 zone vs LI is debateable, but its not like its a red-herring.

so yer.... whilst ive done the exercise myself, im still doubtful again this season that there is NO correlation.
so im going to collect some stats again this draft. box score vs end-skills. maybe there was something I missed last time?

a very smart post. +1

I like box scores because I can predict to some degree how aggressive a player is. They don't really change their "style of play". If a player gets 0-2 free throws he's probably not that aggressive. If he got to the line 5-6 times, he's probably more aggressive. I haven't taken stats on this over time, but I'd think that the number of free throws is pretty accurate.

The argument against free throws is the defender. I think the number of shots and the shot percentage is more predictive of the quality of defense.