BuzzerBeater Forums

You only need one game. One game, zero faults and that is already a good estimation. Take two or three games for good measure.

So you're basically saying that managers who buy aggressive rookies are stupid

No, they are either careless or noobs. Or maybe the player went cheap first week after the draft and they were gambling.

One game is clearly not enough.
You need at least 5 games, and even then the sample is super small but whatever.
After 5 games rosters are mostly full (in terms of trainees), so you’re gonna sell your player at a discount.
So you’re going to make a loss because you bought an agressive player when there was absolutely no way to know it was the case before hands.

That doesn’t make you a noob in my humble opinion.

One game is clearly not enough.
You need at least 5 games,

Have you done the math? Because I did.

So you did the maths and found out that one game was enough to determine the aggressiveness of a player?
Allow me to doubt.

It is perfect that you doubt if that moves you to study math.

Still waiting for an explanation though.

Even a super agressive player with 50% chance of fouling out can finish a game with 0 faults.

You just don’t carry out a decent statistical study with one single observation.

Still waiting for an explanation though.

It is in Spanish. You are supporter, look for "teorema de bayes" in the forums and I can translate. I don't want to write it from scratch again.

Still waiting for an explanation though.

It is in Spanish. You are supporter, look for "teorema de bayes" in the forums and I can translate. I don't want to write it from scratch again.

My spanish is not great but still good enough to understand. And again, I don't agree with you, at all. Whatever statistical model or framework you use, it is impossible to draw conclusions from a single observation analysis. It's just statistics 101.

Your analysis would become relevant after, say, 5 games. And as I said, after 5 games it's already way too late, your player has lost most of his value.

Anyway just say for the example that I agree with you. I pay 1 million for a rookie and he has 4 fouls during his first game. Looks like he's an aggressive guy, what do I do next? Sell him straight away? He already lost value and he could very well not be aggressive after all, because the statistical significance of his aggressiveness is low (1 observation!). Keep him for a few more games and then sell him if he's, indeed, aggressive? The loss is even bigger. So, do I keep him and train him for years? That would make me stupid according to you.

So in this situation, I either lose money or keep training him even though that makes me stupid. The very fact that I can lose a potentially large amount of money in just one or two weeks, because of something I couldn't have avoided since it was impossible to know the player was aggressive, proves that there's something wrong with the foul system right now in BB (or at least until last season, let's see how things are different now).

You talk about "long-term choices" and managers being rewarded for their sound "long-term" strategy while we're talking about a totally random process, where you can buy a player and instantly lose money because of a hidden attribute.

As I said in my first reply to you, it doesn't make sense. You're just pushing elitism beyond limits, if you ask me.

However, consider what the price of such a trainee would be after a suitable number of games where the trainee has demonstrated they are not a foul menace. I submit that the price would be higher - that is, buying a trainee with no game history comes with a discount that reflects that risk.

I do think a less aggressive player should be sold at a premium. But I also think that the seasonality effect more than offsets this premium. After 2-3 weeks, most rosters are full and basic economics tell you that when there's less demand, the price of a good falls. All in all, the value of any rookie, aggressive or not, is lower 3 weeks into the season than at the beginning of it.