BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

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.

No, a 200k+ player still is not a good option for lower teams (other than perhaps in targeted cases as playoff donkey rentals). Needing to carry better players and having more salary because of it is of course a condition of progress in some leagues, but there are far better ways of doing it than having that much of your team's salary tied up in a single player. You'd probably be better off with two 75k big men than a single 200k one, for example, even assuming they're all just as useless with secondary skills.