BuzzerBeater Forums

Well if it helps new managers...

Anyway I don't find it useful (for me) because:

1) some of my players are evaluated 1.6 - 1.8 (point guards with proficient almost in all their 6 major skills) while I have seen worst ones sold for 3 millions on the market recently
2)

Of these, the ones with skills most similar to Erotas Tsaousidis have been selling for around $ 200 000 to $ 1 850 000.

Anyway as I said, if this helps some managers why not... But I hope If one day I sell a player for much more than what he is estimated for, I will not have this extra money taken away! (since you are not supposed to bid over the market price!)

well, i do agree that it takes away some "uncertainty", which was quite nice for a transfer market... but if this system seriously wants to estimate prices, it must take more factors into account tbh.

plus that what johnny said.. penalties need some serious evidence.

Last edited by shades236 at 6/1/2008 7:20:15 AM

AGREED

I really hope this doesnt promote the idea of training mono-skilled players and listing them for the top end of their estimate....

a) These are not the kind of players noobs need to be buying &
b) These are not the kind of players to encouraged to be trained.

On a starter I do have a valuation on he is 900k - 4mil..... and is supposedly better than 10 others with the same primary skill! How many 4mil + genuine transfers have there actually been?

I think it looks very professional on each players page BUT I will be taking the numbers with a very fine pinch of salt until a lot more data has entered the system (even then you cant factor in inflation/deflation, stage of the season week one 18yo vs week twelve etc.)

Noobs dont have large amounts of money to spend and some lower end players I have looked at give indications of 20k - 400k.... I cant see this helping.

Once you have played the game and have money to spend - you dont rush in to make your first 500k purchase. If you do then you have no grounds to complain if you later find out you over paid.

Last edited by Superfly Guy at 6/1/2008 7:50:32 AM

It is really bad at present , it need improve.
Age , First Skill , Potential is not enough , the estimate price is not accurate.

Please check following samples :

(4893261)

Comments:
There have been 37 recent transfers of 18 year old small forwards with respectable (7) jump shot and perennial allstar (7) potential. Of these, the ones with skills most similar to Pauli Pienim ki have been selling for around $ 300 000 to $ 3 050 000.

300,000 to 3 050 000.......same as no comments

Critical bunch here. Complex idea and it's far better than I expected.

Critical bunch here. Complex idea and it's far better than I expected.

Well lets see how long the list of appraisals is.

I'm curious to know who is actually struggling to value their players.

I too like the idea but fear it is near-on impossible to implement as others have suggested.

How can you consistently value a player without knowing the softcaps that each potential has or the true value of each skill when inputted into the Game Engine. It is all speculation and with a few exceptions each week the transfer market ticks along quite nicely as it is. Now we have big labels on each player that at first glance seem to confuse the more established managers.... so how can a noob be expected to take comfort from this?

As a new player, I quite like it.

I've noticed a couple of them say a little bit more than just a straight comparison. It'll be interesting to see how accurate these statements are. eg:

Transfer Price Estimate: There have been 10 recent transfers of 19 year old shooting guards with respectable outside defense and starter potential. Manuel Forcadell is probably better than all 10 of these players, but the few that are most similar have been selling for around $ 35 000 to $ 250 000.

That makes it sound it sound like he's worth more that the highest compare, but on what basis is he considered better?

I too like the idea but fear it is near-on impossible to implement as others have suggested.

My expectations were low on this, because it seems near impossible to perfect. I like how there's a few comments on the valuation, which gives it the chance to be a useful tool.

HT's tool is also only somewhat useful, even though there's a larger database of players and skillset's are much easier to value.

Of course, given the limited turnover of players on the market

Prob good conversation for another thread, the TL seems much weaker then expected considering salaries continue to grow.

Not sure if it's the potential feature, increased agent fees, or confusion of what transfer changes were actually implemented.

300,000 to 3 050 000.......same as no comments

yeah, I have one 100000 to 1400000

prety funny.

the reason is easy, only 1 skill is taken into account, agegroups of 2 years, and potential (I honestly can't see why potential is a factor while any most secondary skill is not) this ofcourse gives a very wide variaty of players, but on the other hand, narrowing it would soon bring no results, and that would not be good either. At least now you can see that the ones with good secondaries will probably sell near the topvalue, while those without will sell near the low value...