BuzzerBeater Forums

I know this is straying a little from the original question—is there a similar relationship between JS/IS?

Especially with guards and forwards, I've typically tried to have JR/IS relatively equal (or sometimes IS a little higher b/c it's cheap) and to have those at about a 0.6–0.7 ratio with JS. My reasoning for this has been that it seems to allow for greater tactical flexibility between outside and inside offenses. But now I'm wondering if there might be a more efficient offensive build.

Also sorry if there's already a thread on this elsewhere. I think I remember having seen a similar discussion before, but I can't find the thread.

I don't personally value/think about that relationship between JS/IS as much. I think that is more dependent upon specific offenses that are being ran for if you want more IS compared to JS or the other way around. JS and JR influence each other way more than IS influences JS.

Last edited by E.B.W. at 4/12/2024 12:15:31 AM

I think I agree that this is optimal but to me its real advantage is the salary efficiency. I don't believe the argument that a 17/15 player is worse than a 17/11 (unless there is evidence, I'd think the cases in which they "chuck" tend to be more impressive data points than actual statistical trends).

What I do believe is that the 17/11 is almost guaranteed to be in a better salary configuration than the 17/15.

I have started also experimenting with some players whose ratio is a whopping 1.7 or more. They don't play as well as the 0.7, but they offer some things that the 0.7's don't. Check out the shooting percentages of this guy (46570827) who I had on my team in his last season before retiring. I think he was something like 8 JS and 15 JR. I ran him off the bench for bouts of outside scoring, especially against lower quality opposing defenders. In many seasons, his 3FG% was higher than his FG%!!

Incidentally, I think passing is another piece of the "chucking" equation.

Yeah, great point on passing being a huge element as well.

I am not arguing and fully agree that 17/15 is better than 17/11 because ultimately, when in doubt higher skills are nearly always better than lower skills from a player effectiveness standpoint (just not salary-wise sometimes).

The point I was trying to slam home is that if I had 32 outside shooting skills to distribute, I would much prefer 19/13 JS/JR (0.68 ratio) over 17/15 JS/JR (0.88 ratio). You can train players to each of those marks in identical timelines and the 19/13 will outperform 17/15 a good chunk of the time in my experience.

The problem with higher JR is that you probably want higher PAS to go along with it so that they don't "chuck" but both JR and PAS are expensive, whereas JS is much cheaper.