BuzzerBeater Forums

i know you were in my division. i was one of the teams picking towards the end of the round. i'll probably continue to do that until i reach D.II. i suppose it was because i only want to draft C/PF. and there were a lot more SG available in the superstar range.

In my first year I got 2 very good and 1 decent player from the draft (Season 3), 1 very good player and 1 decent player in the next draft (Season 4), 1 average player the next year (Season 5) and all 3 of my draft picks this year (Season 5) kinda blow. I am finding as training goes on that the draft picks seem less and less worthy because everyone else is getting better on my squad.

Since we were in the same league for this draft, I suppose my results are relevant to this discussion.

Somehow, picking 16th, I managed to get my #1 preference, one of the 5* players I scouted. 18yo. 4-ball potential. A Center.

Guess what? He's crap. Not total crap, mind you, but not exactly 5* in my book. Without linking him here, I'll list his skills:

Weekly salary: $ 3 858
DMI: 0
Age: 18
Height: 6'9" / 206 cm
Potential: starter

Jump Shot: average Jump Range: pitiful
Outside Def.: pitiful Handling: atrocious
Driving: mediocre Passing: mediocre
Inside Shot: mediocre Inside Def.: mediocre
Rebounding: average Shot Blocking: average
Stamina: pitiful Free Throw: respectable

Experience: atrocious


For any player scouted at 5*, I'd assume they'd have at least one relevant skill at respectable (other than FT). He's got none.

So, from what I can tell, the scouts rating is nearly irrelevant.

i think the numbers are still out of whack.

as for you dary, i suspect looking at the wage thats an A- guy or even a b+ guy, with his sublevels all near popping. in fact, starter only corresponds to 3 star potential. the potential ive never seen screwed up, so if anything i dont think you got the guy you wanted

as far as i can tell the range at the higher end is:

starter-all star: 3 ball potential
perennial allstar-superstar (4 star)

anything above 5 star, though ive never had one that high so i dont know.

as an aside, if you sum the relevant skills, one of my best draft picks ever is a 3rd round guy with lousy wages and musta been a 2-3 star player. im keeping him as bench fodder simply because his overall skills are pretty nice. i think some skills are much more valued than others, and a high average (6.8) at the right pairing of skills is worth more than two 7's in skills such as passing or whatnot.

just my thoughts

etiher way, too many draftable players IMO


Last edited by TheUnrepentantGunner at 11/20/2008 6:45:36 PM

I just cancelled any future scouting. I invested 40K per week the entire season and ended up with garbage that I could have picked up on the transfer market for - maybe -- 100K.

I don't expect all-stars - in fact that wouldn't be any fun. But there's no sense even trying to train these guys. There's too big of a gap between them and my current trainees, and I can't even sell a current trainee and replace him on the bench because these five star guys are SO bad.

So I'll just buy my trainees on the open market - it will be much more cost effective.

Lesson learned then, no?

Your original point was that these players were somehow destroying the economy. I completely disagree, only exceptional young players get serious money bids and there only seems to be 2-3 of those per league.

Oftentimes if you draft that kind of player you keep them to train them knowing that their finished product will make your team better by having a nice player to sell or stock your roster with. For the most part the complaint is that theres not enough value especially for high tier teams in investing in the draft.

As for the number of total players, even the low quality players can find niche roles with some teams. I don't see how even a 1k guy causes any kind of havoc with the economy since no one will spend any money on them. Also for teams who invest considerable sums of money in the draft they need to get the best value they can for their money and the 48 player total makes it less likely that someone can "guess" their way to a 5 star quality 5 star potential player so I don't at all see your point.

No, you missed my argument badly.

first of all, 5 star potential is nice for NT, but 3 star potential playesr in reality are very good too (sure some got loopholed in and outdid their potential such as some NT centers, but many people ive trained from 18-22 straight and still pop regularly and have good years of training in them)

anything at all star or higher is probably going to be trainable for a long time as a guard or small forward.


I'd also argue any player with a B ranking and 3 stars of potential or higher is a training worthy player. I've sold worse players and watched them get trained (Mack grimes being one example if u look him up)

So in reality, most teams get 2 players pumped into their team each year that are probably trainable, inflating rosters at unsustainable paces. I am not a top team but I am pretty darn close (top 50 or so i bet in my country out of 1000)


Id argue that these kinds of players can find roles even with big teams. If i had 4 star 3 ball potential guard and i drafted him, id slot him as my #6 guard right now, and he'd get trained plenty in non-competitive weeks, and intermittently in weeks where i really needed to try to win at least 2 games (and still would get 30 minutes in a friendly)

i guess only time will prove me right.

i don't look forward to being right sadly.

There is something that you are missing here. There may be a ton of trainable players created every draft. However, the vast majority of them do not get trained. I would say that in Canada, only 5-10% of the trainable players have historically received training. The players either get fired, end up on bot teams or the owner just never bothers to train them.

I'm sure it is the same in many other countries. Go back to the season 2,3,4 drafts and tell me how many of those players are still around? How many of them got training? How many were trained enough to be starters on a division I team?

So you may find lots of trainable players, but if they never get training, the market flood that you describe will never happen.

On the other hand, there is probably no point in investing in scouting.

that may be something youre right about. maybe if there were sell on fees for the owner there would be more incentive to train and sell players you woudlnt train

i can only speak from my own experience..

my "mother club" team, could easily be in nbba or most any division, and would beat the crap out of my current team