BuzzerBeater Forums

The NBA-stars of today are not comparable to the players discussed in this thread. I doubt Lebron would have under 12 in any skill, if suddenly summoned to the-BB game.

The players (centers) discussed here are more similar to classic old-school-centres like Kareem, Mark Eaton or the occasional Dwayne Schintzius. Only Kareem and Eaton could block 4 shots a game, so perhaps they are all mostly like Dwayne Schintzius...

So my own conlusion is that the destiny of 400k-salary-centers beeing journeymen is quite realistic, because they are too common, and they all look the same (orange eyebrows and growing bald since they were 18).

I think what's more relevant than how common they are or how they'd compare to RL basketball players is that in this case, realism has to take a back seat to game balancing. To satisfy the complaint that these "best guys" are worthless on the TL, BB would likely have to reduce their salaries to an amount that is reasonable for most teams to carry. Once that happens, salary no longer becomes a reasonable constraint on teams and instead those who have amassed much money will be able to buy up these donkeys and never have to worry about balancing the budget. The market for players who have reasonable salaries now will of course drop - why buy a guy with 50k salary skills when there are 200k guys all over the place? In the end it will just become an arms race to see who can train and otherwise acquire the biggest monsters, with everyone else left to watch the gap between them and the top teams grow further.

I'm not really sure but what he might be saying is that the increases in salary compared to increase in skill are too high.

Well, that's one way to see it and you probably are right.

But I'm a fan of realistic =)

I don´t have sufficient data to back this up statisically, but my feeling is that really low "secondary" attributes don´t affect performence enough.

I have seen some IRL-centers that could not get hold of a rebound or recive a pass, mostley dribbled on their feet, and could throw a 15 ft. pass into the bleachers on a daily basis. Sure they were strong, heavy and could make their way to the basket during warm-ups, but in game-situations their lack of skills were absolutley devastating, even in the backyard-series i Sweden.

On the TL there are some recent examples of +200k-centers with 4 attributes below "average", and 1,5 - 2,1 TO's per game playing 30-45 minutes in a competitative league. If realistic, these players would either not get the ball from their teammates, or hoist up 5 To's a game.

If really bad secondaries had more effect on performance, BB-managers would be more stimulated to develop players with wider skillsets, and the pack of 300k journeyman-centers bought for 50k could perhaps be a lesser problem?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

You have, however, explained what is going on very well.

I really don't see a direct problem with these high salaried players being sold for peanuts. It's happening because they're bad investments.

The market dictates the selling price and in some cases, these high salaried players simply aren't considered worth purchasing by the high ranking teams that can afford them. This is primarily due to age, bad training/builds many years ago and now the market is flooded with guys like this. That's the simple reality. Start BuzzerBeater over again from season 1 and it would almost certainly run into a problem again because the market would eventually end up at this point.

Personally, I see a much different problem. Because these players can be had for cheap, new managers to the game such as the one that started this thread think that they're stealing a high price bargain when in fact they're simply killing the economics of their team and fast-tracking bankruptcy. I wonder how many new users will be lost to BB because of this? And how is the game going to grow or even continue if it keeps losing new users?

It's not much different that professional sports where the owners need to put rules into the collective bargaining agreements to save them from themselves because they can't control their own spending without them. In this case, I think that rules need to be put into place to keep new owners from bidding on these high salaried players. A rule could be put in place where unless you weekly revenue level is at a certain level, you can't bid on a player with a salary above $XXX.

This will serve 2 purposes, it will weed out these high salaried players into retirement putting more balance in the market and it will save newer teams from extinction.





Last edited by Beener not Beanerz at 8/27/2012 12:21:55 PM

Great, great post. I've never looked at it this way. BBs should read that.

In Hattrick you have to pay the salaries of your players the moment you buy them, not some days later. You cannot even bid on a player whose salary you cannot afford. I don't know why the BBs didn't implement it like this.

It would be tough to determine who could and couldn't afford the cost of these players. Some people don't mind going temporarily into debt.

Last edited by Axis123 at 8/29/2012 7:21:21 AM

No it wouldn't. If you have a low income, you can't afford a $200,000 player and you'd be absolutely foolish to add one to your roster. For every one low income owner that doesn't go bankrupt adding such a player I'll bet that 30-50 do go bankrupt. So the end result would be worth it anyways.

Funny, I reached D1 and the most expensive player on my roster at the time was paid $101,000. So tell me why would a D4 or D5 team need a $200,000 player again?

I don't know what it's like in Canada (love the country by the way), but here in Oz there are a few leagues that, in order to promote, teams (including myself a while back) have had to go far beyond what their income allows for.

So, yes it would.