BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > B3

B3 (thread closed)

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
164600.84 in reply to 164600.83
Date: 12/7/2010 9:21:27 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
196196
Fair point. Just this: if and when you have that conversation, be careful with the data. In season 12, Los Dragones rented the mother of all rental players: Silves. Not suggesting that this alone should make you change the systems but simply that strictly speaking:

teams have tried essentially renting superstars but haven't been able to win the tournament that way.


is false.

Look who's back in the BBB final...I wonder if they will even bother printing his name on a new jersey since he'll be long gone in a matter of days...


Well fair play to the winner if the gamble pays off. I can't believe that there isn't at least 2 teams in Buzzerbeater wanting to fight for his signature.

In Japan the losing cup finalist should've signed him or someone similar, won the final and the $300k then immediately sold without paying the wage and at worst taken a 20% hit on the sale price (softened by the $300k)... that would've been $300k spent to win the cup.

The BBB final prize is $1mil.... so there is plenty of scope for tactics like this IF you win. I can't believe in the BB world there aren't other cup finalists prepared to take these risks. Maybe the losing finalists/semi finalists this week will regret not stepping up to the table for the sake of a few hundred thousand $.


This Post:
22
164600.85 in reply to 164600.70
Date: 12/7/2010 9:52:23 AM
BC Hostivař
II.2
Overall Posts Rated:
12041204
Second Team:
Jirkov
Do you still think when you see transfers of both this season finalists there is no need to change the rules yet?

Message deleted
This Post:
00
164600.88 in reply to 164600.87
Date: 12/7/2010 1:09:29 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
Maybe the transfer rules could be as the champions league..
Who played in a B3 match with another team and when he transferred an another team, he's ineligible for the B3 matchs..
Just an idea..

Doesn't make much sense on any level. Either you have a large amount of such monsters circulating around, in which case the measure is more or less irrelevant, or you're distorting the market so that the team that bought a given player first have an advantage throughout the tournament.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This Post:
00
164600.89 in reply to 164600.88
Date: 12/7/2010 1:16:35 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
404404
Maybe the transfer rules could be as the champions league..
Who played in a B3 match with another team and when he transferred an another team, he's ineligible for the B3 matchs..
Just an idea..

Doesn't make much sense on any level. Either you have a large amount of such monsters circulating around, in which case the measure is more or less irrelevant, or you're distorting the market so that the team that bought a given player first have an advantage throughout the tournament.

What kind of team would sustain $ 1 080 848 salaries only for two big mans for an entire season
Are you joking?

This Post:
11
164600.90 in reply to 164600.89
Date: 12/7/2010 1:25:54 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
Maybe the transfer rules could be as the champions league..
Who played in a B3 match with another team and when he transferred an another team, he's ineligible for the B3 matchs..
Just an idea..

Doesn't make much sense on any level. Either you have a large amount of such monsters circulating around, in which case the measure is more or less irrelevant, or you're distorting the market so that the team that bought a given player first have an advantage throughout the tournament.

What kind of team would sustain $ 1 080 848 salaries only for two big mans for an entire season
Are you joking?

Did you take a minute to understand what the discussion is about?

The suggestion is that a player becomes ineligible for B3 competition with other teams once he's played a B3 game with a given team. Therefore, if this is implemented, doing the divine trick will not only give you advantage, but also eliminate that player from the competition in the future.

Since the player situation is dynamic and may change in the future, there are two cases in which this situation is worth examining:

(a) There is a relatively large amount of "divine" players on the market. In this case, the implementation of the suggestion simply does not change anything.

(b) There is a relatively small amount of "divine" players on the market. In this case, the implementation of the suggestion gives unfair advantage to the teams that use one of them in a B3 game first.

It's a poor suggestion that's not going to work, no matter how you slice it.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This Post:
00
164600.92 in reply to 164600.91
Date: 12/7/2010 1:46:49 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
My comment is semi-irrelevant because I think there is a large amount of "divine" players and your case (a) holds.

But I think your argument is severely mistaken and unfair in case (b). If there is a small amount of "divine" players, the teams that use them first have an advantage, no doubt. But it's not unfair. They have had the player when it didn't matter so much (e.g. the early rounds). Now they have a choice whether to keep him for the late rounds and pay the extra salary (as steve karenn suggests) or get rid of him, but no one else would be able to pick him up within the same season.

I think this suggestion isn't crazy, but it's a rather odd special case of the "freeze rosters" option, which I still prefer (e.g. especially in a format like: freeze rosters after week 3).

I also think that the "freeze rosters" option is superior.

But I don't see how option (b) can be viable in any form or shape. You're forgetting one critical aspect of the strategic options: "recycling" as many "divine" players as they can in the early rounds to make sure that they won't be surprised in later rounds. I don't see how this situation is superior.



Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 12/7/2010 1:49:19 PM

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This Post:
00
164600.93 in reply to 164600.92
Date: 12/7/2010 3:20:13 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
404404
My comment is semi-irrelevant because I think there is a large amount of "divine" players and your case (a) holds.

But I think your argument is severely mistaken and unfair in case (b). If there is a small amount of "divine" players, the teams that use them first have an advantage, no doubt. But it's not unfair. They have had the player when it didn't matter so much (e.g. the early rounds). Now they have a choice whether to keep him for the late rounds and pay the extra salary (as steve karenn suggests) or get rid of him, but no one else would be able to pick him up within the same season.

I think this suggestion isn't crazy, but it's a rather odd special case of the "freeze rosters" option, which I still prefer (e.g. especially in a format like: freeze rosters after week 3).

I also think that the "freeze rosters" option is superior.

But I don't see how option (b) can be viable in any form or shape. You're forgetting one critical aspect of the strategic options: "recycling" as many "divine" players as they can in the early rounds to make sure that they won't be surprised in later rounds. I don't see how this situation is superior.


It means that basically in the late round the teams will arrive with the final structure of their roster that they structured during the course of the season,because the best divine players would be out of the game

So,the team would be forced to choose at the start of the season if they want to have the salary monster,and they should be able to build a winning team knowing that large part of their resources are gone for salary monster,or if they build a more equilibrated team(in terms of salary,of course),renouncing to the salary monster.This is exactly the way to reward the mid-term management of the team,because divine trick would became a negligible factor in the late round,when the best teams directly face off each other

This Post:
00
164600.94 in reply to 164600.93
Date: 12/7/2010 3:29:33 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
It means that basically in the late round the teams will arrive with the final structure of their roster that they structured during the course of the season,because the best divine players would be out of the game

If this is the desired result of the policy (as I think we all agree), one can just introduce a B3 transfer deadline, and be done with it.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
Advertisement