BuzzerBeater Forums

Thanks Joseph and Charles for your reply. I will make a probably reasonable assumption that the accuracy of the calculator has some pretty interesting and complex reverse engineering. Although I am not quite sure how a static algorithm can predict the certainly dynamic changing entirety of the Buzzerbeater world. But I am very thankful for it :) and your entire spreadsheet Joseph.

at the point of the game's equilibrium, do we want the best players in BB to be guards who can't defend inside and rebound, or big men who can't take a bring the ball up the court or make a clean pass?

they will not be the best players,they will be the most expensive in terms of salary

thats what i understood

my point was: if the best players when the game reaches equilibrium are monoskilled players, then the game will have issues because the top players on the top teams would be flawed

we don't have Wilt Chamberlain or Michael Jordan equivalents in the game yet

my point has nothing to do with cost

we don't have Wilt Chamberlain or Michael Jordan equivalents in the game yet

Sure not, people for salary reasons will stop training them.

But maybe we can have a Lebron James with a low salary(SF's will be the cheapest position to train players), when Lebron salary on NY ;) is going to be awesome.

Last edited by Marot at 03/24/2010 20:55:34

thank you for this post , this clears up the majority of the issues i had with the salaries , while i still think pf/c are too expensive / too hard to train balanced compared to guards, this post clears up enough in my mind to help me sit back and watch the game evolve

this will be the start of "guards era"..

i don't get it.... very quantitatively we have increased salaries more ON A PERCENTAGE BASIS for top level players, who play on top level teams.

So for instance, a player with skills making 300K before, now makes ~330K, a 30K hike.

In contrast a player making 30K makes now ~32K a 2K hike.

So.... both in absolute terms and relative terms, we have affected upper division teams more than middle and lower division teams. It is simply untrue that we have affected lower division teams more than the upper divisions.

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear.

Even if it is a bit off-topic I am not only complaining about the salary increase. I do understand it is on a percentage basis with top players getting a higher increase which should affect top division teams the most.

Take a look at this team from ACBB in Spain last year (please consider he just increased his arena a lot):

http://www.buzzerbeater.com/team/75328/arena.aspx

He filled an almost 12000 arena (top teams dwarf these numbers) at MAX prices all season while compiling an impresive 0-22 record. He sold all his top players at the beginning of the league so his fans loyalty was quite amazing as he was being whiped out every game.

A top II division team in Spain with a 22-0 record would not be able to fill the same arena at the same prices.

The diference in income from I to II division and from II to III is considerable.

The salary hikes will hurt lower division teams the most because they are already running on a tight budget. The rich will be rich but maybe you are making it a bit too easy for them.

I like that you regulate the economy on a year to year basis and I have seen changes on salaries, TV contracts, merchandising and never the arena.

Cheers!

A player's experience increases each season even untrained, right? I view the salary increase as a normal process just like in the NBA.

Since, BB teams doesn't have salary cap and the players can't be on CBA with owners, having the salary hike on a percentage basis would be the closest solution.

Even unproductive office workers gets salary increase as long as it sticks to the company for a long period

Just my two cents

:)