BuzzerBeater Forums

thanks for that.
yer certainly the thing i noticed with box scores, was that players played a minimum of 20, and max of 40 mins for their box score (from my memory).
but still.... only 1 box score? an average of 4 games would be much better. and knowing that it came from a BB game engine game would be nice as well.

Secondly
I know a lot of people don't like the draft, its just that there are so many people out there who do use it and use it successfully.... If everyone who played BB could not succeed at the draft, then yer, there is a problem... but there are just too many people who know how to draft and use their draftee's successfully.

So just a few comments.....

is finding 5 ball potential players and sell them.

- training 4 and 5 ball potential 18 and 19 year olds is still a viable option? don't you think?

For teams playing in higher divisions is almost impossible drafting a 3k player and train him.

- Its harder, but not impossible. the main reason why its harder is because the top league teams tend to also be in the cup longer, thus losing many weeks of scrimmages where training minutes are easier. This isnt a problem of the draft, this is a choice that top league managers need to make.... train, league, cup, managing minutes etc etc.

With a 20 yo player with 20k salary would be possible instead

If they were going to have 20 year olds in the draft, i couldnt see them being more than $10k salary.

I respect and understand your points. At the end, we both agreed that some more informations about draftees would make the investment a little bit more safe for who decide to invest.

The reason for training being so hard in top divisions is only ONE! The game shape training is ridiculous, and nowadays is killing this game for those who love to train, like me.

Solution: Simply destroy game shape training and make teams who really manage their guys minutes win (and also have trainees). Or even make the training less eficient, right now your player can grow 2 levels of shape on a week with 20 or 90 minutes...no sense!


Last edited by Melo9 at 07/02/2014 07:53:39

The reason for training being so hard in top divisions is only ONE! The game shape training is ridiculous, and nowadays is killing this game for those who love to train, like me.

Remove GS training or not, there's no way that you can play an 18 year old in league matches in the top level against other competitive teams and succeed. Thankfully there are often a lot of teams that are throwing games for the Cup, or easy Cup draws, etc., but training isn't unappealing because of GS training, it's more that GS training is more appealing because training is unappealing.

Well, you can't train the 18years old if your on Division 1/2 and competing to win it...but that's obvious, it's like in real life...
However, if you're on division 1 and on mid of table, you can use your trainee on cup matches early and as reserve too on league...

This is exactly what I have thought about over the last couple months and you just completely hit the nail on the head.

If we want to make the Draft a great experience for everyone, we have to take the randomness factor out and make scouting equal for everyone. Adding additional costs to scouting wouldn't be a bad thing because it will create an experience there everyone would enjoy. It would also allow it to be more realistic.

Let's be honest, every NBA team utilizes the Draft and scouts players. I like being able to see the box scores and ratings because many people can get a good indication of skills based on these. No more of just random box scores with no ratings.

Also, I like the addition of 20 and 21yos in the draft, but I think these players need to be specialty players. Just like the NBA draft, the guys picked later on have one or two decent skills that make them worthy of playing time but just may not have potential. These are the role players and bench players. The middle of the Draft usually has some starters and could have decent starting skill sets. The beginning of the Draft has the studs. Guys with good potential (unless they are busts) and decent starting skills.

The only way we can mimic this is with a second scout like Ramon Simon suggested.

Hi,

I think there are too much 7 Feet or more players in the draft, if i just count 5 players over 7"(2m15) by rookie class, there are something like 800 divisions in France that makes 4000 very tall player each year, i think this is ridiculously higher compared to real life demographic stats. You should have at least 70 % under 6'6, and 97 % under 7"

in real life yes, in basketball?

Check out the heights of the top 48 picks in the NBA draft, I counted at least a couple.

The NBA draft is global, and deals with only 60 players every year

How many divisions in BB? There can't be so much 7 footer, just have in mind than 17% of American 7footer plays in NBA, so it is nonsense to have thousands 7footer rookies in the BB world each year.

Just check out my example, about 4000 7 footer in France or other 6 divisions champs,each year!!There is no way 4000 7 footer in France and even in the USA, just check the demographics

(http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2013/06/27/nba-dra...) Look at this article only 70 7footer in USA (counting people from 20 to 40), in BB 4000 each year ...

Last edited by Tom2vals at 01/15/2015 14:50:14

true
but BB isn't real life. and the number of league's is not proportional to the number of professional BB players. It would be unfair that only the top leagues had 7ft's, whilst the lowly Div IV could only scrap together 6'6 guys at best.

So essentially each 'division' level should simulate that proportion of 7fters.
this is how your statistic's are becoming skewed. If you looked at it more from a 'proportion' perspective, it become a bit better.
eg: In my league, there are 16 teams', about 200 players. of those, there are about 20-25 players over 7ft.
10-15% as a proportion is pretty spot on. Some NBA team's have no one over 7ft, some have 2, some 3. so the proportion is about right.

Also I would cast extreme doubt over that article. only 70 people in the USA are over 7ft? cmon, lets use common sense here, that article is bogus.

34 current NBA players listed at 7ft or above, so the average per team is just over 1. So the NBA proportion to each leagues proportion is correct.
The other thing with BB, is that height is directly related to training speed (slower/faster). if you drastically reduced the number of 7fters, you would make EXTREME problems with the transfer market, as players over 7ft would be so expensive. This would cause massive economic issues with the transfer market and so to keep the balance, they keep the proportion.

Last edited by Coach Regan at 01/15/2015 19:39:56