BuzzerBeater Forums

yep, i'd love a player like this, I had a similar one before, well on a lower scale for my division, and he was extremely useful.

before i sold my entire team.... lol

someone like this could thrive in the setting i had, 3 main scorers, a 4th guy who can score, but not a lights out scorer, but can facilitate as well and is a great defender. And the 5th guy would be like him, he can facilitate plays, but doesnt need to score, because i already have 3 good heavy scorers, and a 4th capable player. He's also useful because although my other players have good defense, they aren't completely shutdown, this guy gives me the option to shut down my opponent's most dangerous player, making him an almost non factor in the game.

This is a good starting 5, because you won't have to pay 5 huge salaries. The only true "high" salaries are the 3 main scorers, though, you can get good builds for relatively low salaries that are just as effective. I'd honestly love to add this guy to my current team, he'd make life much easier for me in d3 next season, someone pass me 7.5 mil lol.





Last edited by BarcaSwag at 7/29/2015 2:08:59 PM

Probably snores a lot

No, really, the problem you seem to have with this idea of scaling down is incomprehensible. In debates about player builds, it is completely irrelevant how high the skills are; what matters is the ratio of skills. Anyone who's familiar with BB and the buzzer-manager salary estimation tool should be able to produce equivalent yet cheaper builds in a matter of minutes.

So, what's the deal?

What I said is,

The vast majority of managers have never even seen any "triple-17" nor have they had any players with the lofty salaries like those mentioned. And I see that no one disputes this; the best they can do is dance around it and try to justify it.

This is still true. Wah wah wah, hubba hubba hubba, but no one denies the truth of what I said. Whether less is more is another argument separate from this. Scaling down may be true and it may not be, I haven't seen that analyzed and I don't expect ot see it analyzed (bluster is NOT analysis, even from the expert from Japan who we all know walks on water). But what I said hasn't been denied. No one says, "The average USA DivV or Div IV team does have three triple-17's, so you are wrong, Mike." No one.

DO you seriously expect that people who are losing games and unable to promote after seasons after season of losing have anything to legitimately contribute here???

Wow. That kind of arrogance makes my point even better than I did.

It might be arrogant but it's true. Would you listen to a PT (personal trainer) who had a huge beer gut, fat arms and legs and who had regular health problems from poor eating and lack of exercise? I wouldn't.

Is 'haek' German for potter?

No, for defensive monster. ;) If you don't belive me: Haek [häk] is swabian for "Hecke", in englisch hedge... a plant wall. So he is a defensive plant wall^^
When Marin and I talked about his skills three seasons ago, he had a really nice definition for him :D

I think it's final proof that SB is worthless. SB 19 and only 2,2 blocks per game in 3rd division. His SB is twice better than on NT and top B3 teams level, however it didn't help to avoid relegation.

I think his plan doesn't matter because I judge effects. GE calculates current skills, no future plans.
And (maybe it isn't clear) I judge only SB, not Nachtmahr or his team or plan.