BuzzerBeater Forums

I humbly admit that my english is not immaculate.
I also have no problems to admit a mistake should someone else provide convincing arguments.
You, however, provide none.

There are two possibilities for your reply:
A: i was indeed out of line and the reprimand neccessary (nobody else seemed to think so, including the person i replied to) or
B: You see it as your divine mission to put others that violate the rules you imposed on everyone else into their place by making them aware of your moral and intelectual superiority.

Your reply fits into B:

If someone laughes at you you can reinflate your scratched ego by:
1. Make fun out your opponents shortcomings like foreign language skills - check
2. Repeat your statements, the more often you do it the more true they become - check
(some humility would be good for you too)
3. Ignore all arguments, they just distract from your mission - check
4. The rules you set for others dont apply for yourself - check
(derogative comments about a player someone trained for 11 saisons without offering any reason or point of view is much more demeaning in my book than a question about a trade deficit.

a comment which is personal and is clearly demeaning towards the other person is a low blow. And if that's allowed, so are my replies.

I wonder how you would have reacted if the player in question would have been one of yours...)
5. Your own experience is universally applicable to anyone else, research is just a waste of time - check
(The german fourth league i started in had 14 human managers, the playoff contenders had fully build arenas and 200k teams. I thought it more beneficial to invest in the draft, train and build my arena the first saisons than trying to force PO with some old players even though it now blemishes your idea of an immaculate track record)
6. Utter some gibberish to make the other one feel stupid when he does not get it - check
(what does: "Oh, and for the record your post was not directed at you either. Does that make us partners in crime? Shall we agree to not do this again, especially if we're not irreprehensible ourselves? Thank you for understanding." even mean?
My post was not directed at me? No, i dont tend to soliloquies)

Sorry for being offtopic again @everyone

On topic:
It is a pity that Heak does not consistently play in the team setting he was made for, that would give much more info than some NT minutes.


Last edited by Robard at 8/5/2015 3:43:32 AM

he will be foul prone not because of SB, but rather because of the face he was born with. The scowl sporting fellows were born with a tendency to foul. I will have the same challenges with the hairless wonder I drafted.

I agree. He has a fouling face, for sure.
But check out this terrified draftee from my main team.
(36747472)
Based on his face, I'm pretty sure he'd rather hide behind the scorer's table than go into the game when called upon.

Are you speaking of Humberto as the hairless wonder? Come on, man, he's still got some hair. You're going to make him self conscious.

Last edited by Iguanadon Joe at 8/5/2015 1:18:27 PM

Are you speaking of Humberto as the hairless wonder? Come on, man, he's still got some hair. You're going to make him self conscious.

I hope he is going to be doing a lotta action with his name like 'tis Travis bloke xD

Last edited by King_Domm (CZE/U21) at 8/5/2015 1:49:08 PM

The lack of players though puts up a big hindrance.
The number of players with SB has drastically gone up though since I started building.

This is not true either. The players with SB may be there but they are very inefficient (either in salary or build) that they are not really viable. My kid has 60+ Inside skills and 112+ total skills (both numbers are given as a reference and are higher in reality) while being listed as C. His salary is less than $100k. The number of shotblockers with that kind of split on the TL have been 0 for a while.

Now if I go on the TL and look for 60+ inside and 112+ total, can you guess how many players appear? 6. The number of players with salary under 190k (which is twice as much as my guy)? 2. Number of guys with at least prolific SB among those 6? ZERO. You may say ok let's look for Shotblockers. SB>=16. There are 3 guys matching that criteria at the moment and the one with most outside skills has 29...he may have never been trained out of position ever.

So in truth there are no good, well rounded shotblockers on the market. And the big men with reasonably high SB and good overall builds are in 200k salary bracket, which bolster the point of those who look at SB as 'expensive' further. Additionally I think taking Haek as an example is not gonna help the SB cause. That German player who had 12/17/17/17 (if I remember correctly) when he hit the market a couple of seasons ago, would be a much better example of a viable player, capable of scoring some points and not being a complete liability in some aspects of the game (my kid scored 40 in the toughest game of the playoffs in the last promotion run, for example).

Besides the other often (intentionally) ignored topic in these discussions is what relative value of a skill do you need to have in order for it to be effective and where do diminishing returns start? Take Haek as an example. If you play him C despite his low rebounding, does 16 passing really help the team's Flow and him getting more assists than, say, 14 passing when most top level big men have 10 OD or less? I doubt that. That, of course, means that the flipside of a build like Haek's is that while he can play multiple positions very well, he also ends up with wasted extra "secondary" skills. That is why we should move the discussion to builds with SB-ID optimised to play a certain position rather than extreme builds like that.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 8/6/2015 8:48:13 AM

Please remember that "number of players" is not the same as "number of players on the TL"
Most of those "new" SB builds are current training projects for their managers, just like your kid, and quite unlikely to be sold.

You do have a point with the diminishing return question. I am not sure how that works and if someone has insight please chime in. For skills like SB i dont see any evidence of diminishing returns, neither for RB. So how is PA working in this regard?
PA on C does not contribute to flow in a reasonable scale even when he has most assist in the game, so is it really checked only vs OD of the opposing C or team OD rating or something else?

PS: That "other" German is in my team btw. and yes, he is a valuable part of my team as a big man that can support a 3-2 zone defense while still being able to score.

I also have no problems to admit a mistake should someone else provide convincing arguments.
You, however, provide none.

What convincing argument should I give you aside the fact that you are a hypocrite for telling someone "oh you have been in DIV for 14 seasons" so you have no right to criticise anyone (because you don't understand the game or whatever, while you yourself managed the astonishing feat to demote from a lowest level league?

There are two possibilities for your reply:
A: i was indeed out of line and the reprimand neccessary (nobody else seemed to think so, including the person i replied to) or
B: You see it as your divine mission to put others that violate the rules you imposed on everyone else into their place by making them aware of your moral and intelectual superiority.

Your reply fits into B:

My reply really fits into A, but you and other people ganged up on the guy criticising your friend, so of course you can't see the arrogance you displayed there and you think it's acceptable because you were not alone. Note that the disdain you displayed for someone playing for so long in a lower division is exactly the "elitism" that Mike Franks has a problem with. Every time you go out on forums and demean someone for being in DIV or for having been in DIV for quite some time, you help driving the game into the ground. If you don't realise this, well, I suppose we can end this conversation here.

If someone laughes at you you can reinflate your scratched ego by:
1. Make fun out your opponents shortcomings like foreign language skills - check
2. Repeat your statements, the more often you do it the more true they become - check
(some humility would be good for you too)
3. Ignore all arguments, they just distract from your mission - check
4. The rules you set for others dont apply for yourself - check

1. This is an English forums. You may have better luck participating in the German help forums, I guess. While the ability to play the game is not a prerequisite to participate in a forum, appropriate language skills should be...
2. Not really I made one single claim, you're obviously butthurt that someone has called you out. It's ok, it's not uncommon to react like this
3. You made no argument. You just insulted someone and drove him away from the discussion (because he was criticising your friend) and now you're just attacking me. You made no argument whatsoever to prove that you are such a good manager that you can tell other that they are shit (and should refrain from participating) because of it
4. Oh no, the rules do apply to me. I'm sure I'm arrogant, but the difference between me and you is that not only you're arrogant but your also a hypocrite, while I am not

I wonder how you would have reacted if the player in question would have been one of yours...)

I would have been angry and would have replied showing that my trainee is actually worth it. I surely would not have said that the other person should not even dare say anything because his game track record is not good enough

5. Your own experience is universally applicable to anyone else, research is just a waste of time - check

My first league had 3 bots and there are lower leagues in England with 15 or 16 human managers. What is your point? Are you attempting to make yourself look better or that you tanked only for a few seasons rather than 14? In the EBBL currently there is every teamwho promoted from my old D2 in the last 5 seasons. Boowhoo, I was so unlucky!!! Is it like this?

6. Utter some gibberish to make

I was just pointing out that you intervened on a post where you had no business intervening in, which is exactly what you accused me of doing...

Last edited by Lemonshine at 8/6/2015 10:03:31 AM

On topic:
It is a pity that Heak does not consistently play in the team setting he was made for, that would give much more info than some NT minutes.

Well then it would certainly help to have some support, actually any support, to the claim that Haek plays better and is more useful against top class opponents, rather than the one game he started and Germany underachieved allowing 129 points against an inferior team. I'm sure someone will come up with some explanation on how that happened, experiments and whatnot, but that fact remains.

Besides a single start in 7 games does seem to suggest, as BB King implied, that according to the NT staff the pros of his build do not outweigh the cons compared to the other Germany NT players. On a club level, given the low salary, it might be a different story, but the low rebounding is always going to be a problem (and his salary would be much higher if the guy had 16 RB and 9PA instead of the other way around). When we exchanged messages, I did tell Nachtmahr that he could not push RB to the level of his original plan, but I did not expect him to give it up completely...

Now please, if you want to talk about ID-SB players let's move the discussion to players, like the one you own, who actually could fit in a system in a non gimmicky way (you know, stuff like playing him as guard but defending a C, which is something similar to playing guards at C in Patient...)

Last edited by Lemonshine at 8/6/2015 9:59:42 AM

I am very much interested in reasons why someone thinks Haek is not a good build, so i did have a reason to intervene when someone writes a post that had only the intent to show off (7.5 million) and be demeaning to another manager while not contributing anything to the topic of the thread.

Being a brother of mind to this poster i can see why you symphatise but it is your intervention that was uncalled for.

I agree that you are arrogant, the rest of you post is just funny.
As much as i want to reply i will abstain as it does not contribute to anything.

Enjoy your (imagined) victory.


Last edited by Robard at 8/6/2015 10:33:33 AM

Haek is not viable for his own NT, except situationally, how much more proof do you need? To me not his lack of scoring, but his rebounding gimps the build. The original plan Nachmahr had was excellent, then he gave up on RB (probably because he realised he could not get to the target) and the current build is just not as good as his original plan which was 18 in OD/HA/PA/ID/SB/RB or something along those lines.

I don't think you can have an elite big man without 2 out of 4 inside skills and since he's built not to play on offense except for passing the ball, then defense (including rebounding) is the only thing he brings to the table. If he defends guards, he might be more successful, except guards can pass the ball, while big men (usually) can't. Therefore in this case, I believe it's his inside skills that would go to waste.
You're left with setting him against top level 130+ TSP SF. At SF RB is important but not essential, so at SF I guess he may work, but would you really deprive your team of an equally gifted 130+ TSP balanced SF in order to stop the opponent SF?

Now take a guy with 12/17/17/17 and decent outside skills. Can he hit the open looks generated by his teammates? Yes he can. Can he hit outside uncontested shots at a reasonable clip? He probably can. Can he defend big men with 70k more salary? He can. So why are we still talking about Haek and trying to push that build on those criticising SB?

Last edited by Lemonshine at 8/6/2015 10:28:56 AM