BuzzerBeater Forums

Granted, think of it like this...

You sit down at the table for a game of poker.

Its $100 a hand.

I announce that I have switched the number of cards in teh deck, and the amount of types of some cards. I give you some vague hint that clubs are suppose to be stronger as a result.

Are you gonig to wait till you lose a few thousand dollars over the course of several hands to draw conclusions about what has been changed??? Or are you gonna start wtih guesswork till you got the cards counted.

Hence the title 'nervous'

haha...ur BB knowledge is over average but we can bookmark that ur poker knowledge is way over the sky...classic wolph :P

The way I see it, stats like blocks are just like plays like "goes inside and switches hand mid-air for a dunk". They only have very little to do with the game ENGINE. they're part of the game viewer, or the viewing experience if you will, and that includes the box scores.

So it may very well be, that despite the effectiveness of shot blocking increasing in terms of FINAL SCORE, it has no visible impact anywhere else.

If you think it's stupid, well, yes it kind of is, but that's how this game is built. A program takes a few parameters for a game like the outcome, the final score (hopefully) and half a dozen (probably) other things like average level of starters and bench, probably weighted towards starters, and from that it just "invents" a scenario and presents it to you as what happened.

The main point is, box scores and game commentary and shot charts don't probe the game engine at different moments during the game to see what happened and report it to you, don't necessarily respect the same basketball philosophy the GE uses.

That said, it's probably a good idea, if they're going to increase the importance of shotblocking, that they change the box scores, especially individual ratings and player matchup opponent's ppp. Increasing blocks per game, doesn't necessarily make sense though: maybe attacking players have an exaggerated tendency to avoid shooting close to a shotblocker, plus, a shotblocker can make you miss without actually blocking the ball.

Well if your going to keep the player a SF with lots of IS you need to add even more JS to the mix. And then salary goes up. If you dont add much JS he will be a PF and thus still have his salary increased by the JS he has above the range where he turns from C to PF.
What needs to be looked at maybe is the OD cost of a PF and i agree on JR to.

Nope.
The current salary/potential formula punish outside SF. It's true that JS it's the main skill, but if not accompanied by either JR no IS the SF is almost (offensive) worthless. What we see it's pure inside focus SF.
In this game the kind of NBA player like Mike Miller or Iman Shumpert does not exist.
It's ridiculous that IS it's almost free.

^ Wait, you never know. Maybe the new change is that opposing SF's is the position most affected by the SB increased effectiveness in terms of lower conversion rate when driving. In that case the small cost of IS for SF's is balanced by the fact that it is less effective against certain tactics.

That's assuming SF's are playing SF on offense, though, but it would have an impact regardless.

Well, look at this two SF, they have the same skills but JR and IS switched.

1)
16-8
15-12
13-9
14-13
10-7

2)
16-14
15-12
13-9
8-13
10-7

The first one need at least Superstar(low) potential, the other need at least MVP(low) potential.
Player one has a salary around $75.000 and player two around $120.000.

Now, the same SF with both IS and JR lvl 14.

16-14
15-12
13-9
14-13
10-7

Need at least MVP (low) potential and his salary is around $120.000.


Now you see what I've been trying to point? the salary and potential formula for SF need a tweek.

Well, player1 may still have a 75k salary compared to player2's 120k, but player1 would now be easier (and cheaper) to defend against since you need less SB on your bigs to stop him. So it would be a progress towards justifying his lower salary.

Likewise, you wouldn't need as much potential on your bigs as you did before to defend against a team using player1: player1's potential requirements would therefore make more sense than they did before.

To be clear:

In this game the kind of NBA player like Mike Miller or Iman Shumpert does not exist.
It's ridiculous that IS it's almost free.

It's because you needed expensive shotblocking help defenders like Dwight Howard or Roy Hibbert to defend against cheap Michael Beasley or Demar Derozan (offensive minded players who are not threats from 3pt territory but can finish through contact).

Now, instead of Roy Hibbert you may just need Robin Lopez or Tiago Splitter to defend against these guys. Just sayin'

back to read the forum after a long time.. i hoped not to see again you writing such things..
too optimistic :(

Well the last player you posted seems fair. Training a player this multiskilled is hard. Very hard. So the reward that you get a salary-effective player is correct.

Personally I think it's fine that the hard work of training an SF is rewarded this way. And personally I'd prefer the second player over the first.

Just try imagine LeBron James and his inside attack (layups, dunks, ally oops, low post offense,etc) and somebody told you "this skills are not that good to pay a cent for it" or "anybody can do that, you don't need potential at all"
And we are talking about SF not guards nor shooting guards.

I'm not saying that IS need to cost exactly the same that JR. Not at all. I'm saying that it's crazy IS it's almost free for SF.
The potential formula says 1 pop in JR = 7 pop in IS for SF; and salary formula says IS it's free for SF.

In my opinion this is the main factor for inside tactics domination.