BuzzerBeater Forums

Salary efficiency. Look I can tell you that my guy is better than defensive players I've seen on good NTs and more salary efficient. That is enough for me and that is exactly what people look for when building teams. Players like Hakkinen (near 160 TSP) are not Centres for a reason.

I have not seen C over 135 TSP on any team really. The German guy (who was more of a D oriented PF) was the highest I've seen on the market. Centres are a bit peculiar: the salary gets easily out of hand so you hardly ever see 140 TSP on guys with 66+ inside skills. He would probably have a salary cover 250k even now after all the reductions.

I think your whole point is about SFs type player, which is fine. It doesn't apply across the board though.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 4/7/2016 3:54:14 AM

The japanese guy's stats look a bit like my guy, he was a better scorer (not by much) and had marginally better steals, but in his best seasons he had significantly fewer boards, fewer assists and significantly fewer blocks than my kid. Note that I played my guy out of position even last season and this season is the first time he's only played either C or PF (hence the bump in some stats).

Besides he played in a micronation through most of his peak years in what looks like a farm team (1 top player and several D2-D3 level players) and he had better potential than my guy.

You don't need C position players and they don't have value that much in the top end.

Good teams will usually not use a player listed as a PF.

look, apart from the incoherence here, it's not for me to convince you. My kid has very high PA and high OD, high enough to guard most top end PFs and be effective at passing against top end PFs. He's listed at C because his inside skills are extremely high. When I gave you the totals, I used the + because I don't want to give the exact numbers, but they are higher. And beside good luck defending a guy with 15 DR, 19 IS, 17 RB with a PF with relatively low ID and RB. Yeah you might manage to get a couple of steals, but you will get butchered on the block and destroyed on the boards. A lot of PFs have stupidly high amounts of JS, which just kills your salary and your cap, punt 1 inside skill and have a low or relatively low second inside.

I went and checked the TL. The top 2 big men on the list (by TSP) have 134 and...55 and 52 inside skills respectively. Of course there are also exactly 0 C with 120+ TSP on the market.

If I use the same trainee, and the same training plan as you, but I use an L7 and you use an L4, I am going to have 15-25 more skill pops after 10 seasons and if we play eachother even with all other factors I will win.

It's like saying that my guy, could have, say, 73 inside skills, he could not. He's fully capped and the only things you could have improved are outside skills. Outside skills also count towards the cap and he has OD and PA in abundance already.

So, no, first and foremost you have to clarify that you are talking only about HoF and ATG potential players and for guard or forward positions. And second according to Coach Parrot the difference is not even close to 15-25 TSP. Even assuming it's 10%, I've added 70-75 pops, so an extra 10% (according to coach parrot is even less than that) training would have lead to 77-83, 7-8 extra pops. Your extra 25 TSP on 75 pops is +33% speed which is, obviously, completely unrealistic

Last edited by Lemonshine at 4/7/2016 11:45:11 AM

Anyway you are trying to back peddle around my point that you can never have the same quality of player with an L4 trainer as you can wiht an L7.

Its just silly.

You train the same guy, in the same pattern, the L7 gets more pops. That is the core rules and it will always work that way.

I haven't really change my position and I think I already explained why your reasoning is flawed. Once you reach the cap a lvl 7 is not going to do you any good. So for the purpose of taking 1 guy and capping him: you can do it with a lvl 4 and you can do it with a lvl 7 faster.

HoF/ATG SF prospects if you want to achieve the highest TSP possible? That's a different story. However this is not the discussion you're entertaining. You are making absolute statements.

Is trianing with L4 or 5 smarter/more cost effective/more profitable YES! Does it make better players HECK NO! Does it make EQUAL players....wait for it.... HECK NO!!!!!

If you think it does, or you want to give me some text walls to try to prove it you are just being silly. How could it ever make equal players EVER!

Look, I have explained, but I'll repeat it once more: after you cap a player you can't add more skills to him. So, if you can do it with a lvl 4, that's it, end of discussion. Of course you can do it with a lvl 7 as well and faster. The problem is the 10% extra training you get that way costs you (by your estimates) 600%-1000% more.

So if you have a cappable player, you really should go with the lowest trainer level that allows you to achieve that build. An MVP C, like my guy, can reach 125+ in the C formula with (mostly) a lvl 4 trainer. A MVP SF with 140+ probably not, but if we do some math and Hakkinen reached 158+ (this is a fact) and 7v4 is 10% extra training, then it means that he would have got to 144 with a level 4 trainer. So there you go, you can achieve 140+ even with a lvl 4 trainer based on currently available knowledge.

I don't spend as much time as you hunting down cheap staff (if you tell the truth on what you pay, I am using a 5 now and I started at the cheap one on a 500k purchase, he is at 19k a week after about 2 seasons now) so I probably pay a little more in staff

Meh considering how many there are, I think it requires a lot less effort to look for.

someone else will make proper DI studs with 140 TSP and a proper spread of skills.

I swear that it's been ages since I've seen a C with proper inside skills (like 65+) and 125+ TSP. When you see one, let me know. Or when you see a player above 140 for that matter.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 4/7/2016 11:27:02 AM