BuzzerBeater Forums

Finding balanced American players is extremely hard. I can never find power forwards with decent outside skills. To get to a division where you can bank some decent cash per game requires buying crappy one-dimensional players to promote because of the lack of balanced players on the TL.

In three seasons I have only been able to hire one player I feel can belong on a Div III squad. However he is age 34 so I will probably have to sell them shortly after I get there lol. But interestingly he's practically legendary in 3 skills and I have never seen a player like him. He's rated as a SF but is truly a PG. Which again to me is a bargain considering that PG's are usually priced at a premium.

Overall even in large countries its hard to find salary efficient players, even at low divisions.

Finding balanced American players is extremely hard. I can never find power forwards with decent outside skills. To get to a division where you can bank some decent cash per game requires buying crappy one-dimensional players to promote because of the lack of balanced players on the TL.

In three seasons I have only been able to hire one player I feel can belong on a Div III squad. However he is age 34 so I will probably have to sell them shortly after I get there lol. But interestingly he's practically legendary in 3 skills and I have never seen a player like him. He's rated as a SF but is truly a PG. Which again to me is a bargain considering that PG's are usually priced at a premium.

Overall even in large countries its hard to find salary efficient players, even at low divisions.

That's why you have to train a portion of your squad to create those future players, and then figure out how to find more efficient bargain players. I know that a habit I got into early (even as far back as V) was that every TL search I would do to find players would start with players from USA with at least average in handling and passing and usually for OD as well, and then whatever other parameter(s). And that wasn't for guards, since I was already training those - those were what I looked for in big men. It often means taking lower values in "primary" skills at first but I started out with 8-12k big men with those secondaries and then kept eyes out for upgrades as I moved up.

And heaven knows banking cash (at least while also being competitive) is a whole lot easier at lower levels, since it's a lot easier to win with lower salaries against lesser competition than it is against the type of teams you face as you move up higher.

Last edited by GM-hrudey at 4/20/2013 5:05:04 PM

It's kind of funny hearing about $1.5M being such a high price to pay and that you'd have to tank for several seasons to achieve more than that, when in reality by replacing your two players earning over 200k each with players earning at about 100k each you could "earn" about $3M in one season - and without being entirely uncompetitive either. The fact that the game is rewarding people for training balanced players rather than the glut of three-skilled donkeys that have littered the TL is far from unfortunate - it's arguably the best case scenario.

This.

You know some of the options to improving at this game but you seem to be missing several obvious options as well. One poster says that he knows for a fact that one of your high priced players isn't cost efficient, that tells that that most of your roster likely falls into this category. If you're not happy with the results based on how you've been operating thus far I would change your direction completely. There have already been a few excellent alternative suggestions in this thread.

I agree, it's a pain in the butt to build up a good team. I'm just trying to give you some perspective from my experience- I was in the same situation as you for a while, in a similar size country. It's not an immediate process, but it can be done while maintaining your team. Find the guys on your team you think are salary efficient that you can build around. Sell off the others. Buy guys that will keep you afloat in IPBL- those in the 50k-80k range. I know it's not easy to take a few losses, but playing a season with 3 guys in the 50k-80k/week range ought to keep you from relegating, and by the end of the season, you'll have enough money just saved from the salary decreases per week to bring in 1-2 of those salary efficient players you're talking about that cost $1.5M.

Even better. Sell off the guys who you don't see as parts of a championship team, and buy one or two younger players (24-25ish) that are close to being salary efficient players, but with one or two holes. Spend the season training them, and for less money than it would cost you at the end of the year, you'll have two well-trained players to fill up two of your starting 5 spots.

Obviously, this may all be for nothing, it's just a recommendation based on what I've found worked for my team. You've obviously done a very strong job already, I just think, like you said, that you need to take a step back for a season or two in terms of competitiveness if you really want to jump to the next level.

Obviously, this may all be for nothing, it's just a recommendation based on what I've found worked for my team. You've obviously done a very strong job already, I just think, like you said, that you need to take a step back for a season or two in terms of competitiveness if you really want to jump to the next level.

Actually, I agree with all that you've said and I may go to it in the end. My concern is that, and this may be unique to the IPBL, one or two seasons is not likely to cut it. We have teams that have not tanked but have done middling well for 7 seasons with savings of 20+ million. One team is now 7th ranked in the world and one other team is ready to buy another 20 million roster.

So what I, and others, try to do is to patch holes. That's brought me to 3rd in the country but to go the extra step may need the sacrifice that you say.

I've decided never again to get players with legendary JS. I got Abrlic for the playoff games last season and kept him through the cup run. I like outside offenses but outside players always seem to underperform..

I'm puzzled by that statement not to pile on here. ....I would hope that you are not running a low post oriented offense , if so from the way you are talking it just won't justify having such a player on your team.
If you are running an inside offense deal with the strong possibility of that guards not getting enough touches.
But I doubt you may understand you are already at the top of the hill with a country with just 40 teams you say.
I'm wondering how you would do in the U.S or Spain or Italy, Germany.
I would drop you in D. IV.32 here in the U.S for starters. ..I have done old friends that would test your mettle.

Was there a point to this post? Other people made good suggestions and I tried to reply to them positively by explaining my rationale, which may or may not be eventually be successful.

All I said here is that SG often perform poorer than their salary might warrant. Surely this is not a heretical idea in BB.

I timed out on my phone my response was so long. No big deal chum.

I think it makes more sense to play two PG's with excellent PA then one PG and a SG with good shooting and so so PA.
He wont take many shots anyway so.

I think you are right. Sorry to shift the thread but, in your experience, would motion be competitive with LI if everyone has good passing?

ok.