BuzzerBeater Forums

I didn't say that position influenced DMI. I was saying that there is no use in comparing the DMI of my Center to the DMI of my opponents Point Guard. DMI is heavily linked to salary and gameshape. Centers and Power Forwards generally have higher salary than small guys and consequently have a higher DMI (at least that is what I've noticed).

I don't think that training dramatically increases the DMI. It increases it a little bit, but if the player was on strong gameshape one week and got trained and was still on strong gameshape the next week his DMI could be higher, lower or exactly the same. If it goes higher you don't know if his gameshape went up or he got trained.

Can you give me an example of a player and then explain to me how you judge his strength using his DMI?

I am not talking about how strong a player is in every skill. Notice player 2 has high js adding heavily to his salary. What dmi would do is tell you the overall strength difference if player a was proficient and player b was strong or respectable.

Training increases dmi according to the skill change that would effect the players current salary. I will have to show you when I finish work because it is clear I have to use many examples as the math is quite simple and even though you have the formulas, you still have no concept (yet you still disagree).

Last edited by Pablo Ignatio Montoya at 7/21/2010 4:17:01 PM

Looking forward to seeing the examples.

So in saying that, not only would I say DMI is an indicator of how good a player is, but I would say it is the single best indicator available!

This is what you said. I disagree. You said that at strong GS, the DMI is 7*salary. That would make player b in my example around 440000 DMI if he had GS 8, still higher than player a at 9 GS. Player a would still play circles around player b even if they were both at 9 GS.

DMI is simply a function of GS*salary (not the salary shown but the salary as calculated by the code), modified by training.

Not sure if you have seen this, but I'll post it anyway:

DMI: The overall player index, DMI, gives a very rough indication of how good your player is. This is a good way to check that your player is getting training, but is otherwise a lot less meaningful than it first appears. Be warned!
-Game Manual

Ok, i will say this again. There is no way you can predict a players skillset. You can study match ratings and stats from 2 seasons if you like, but you will never get an accurate reading of a players strengths and weaknesses in his abilities. Therefore the best you can do is work out a players rough ability by his salary, assuming that he is evenly balanced (possibly factoring strengths if stats consistantly favour a certain tendancy ie fg%, fg3%, assists etc).

Since the best (although flawed, still the best) method is a lot of relying on the opponent being relatively balanced, the next biggest factor into a players strength is gameshape. Now it is known to you that gameshape and DMI and salary are relative to eachother, and I know that the game manual plays down DMI (it also says 2-3 zone is increased inside defence even though there is a large number of people who say it is useless), but I will try my best to explain how I use them all together as a scouting tool...

1) DMI=salary calculated by the code. Correct?
2) DMI is affected by gameshape, which is a major factor in a players strength in a match. Correct?
3) DMI is affected by a players skills increasing or decreasing. Correct?

If DMI was only modified by training, then why is it affected by gameshape? When you do the math, it does not always come out exact, but when you consider that gameshape has sublevels it is very close (especially since it is more consistant at Proficient which is the highest point). Now a players DMI is also affected by a pop in skill according to what it would make the players salary if it was reset that day... So with 3 different factors related to a players strength, how do you not see DMI as a guide to how strong an opponent is on gameday?

Lets take your original example. Player B drops to 440000 DMI opposed to 380000 DMI in your opponent. If those players were evenly balanced, I would therefore predict that the difference in gameshape would have made the contest between these 2 players almost a dead heat. Yes, player B would have his arse handed to him, but in the world we live in nobody is priveleged to such information when lining up against an opponent. Now in my experience I would say that the difference in gameshape and the percentages that my theory calculates strength would be pretty much on the money. Feel free to do the math yourself on a few players and see if im making it all up.

So in conclusion to your disbelief of the quote...

So in saying that, not only would I say DMI is an indicator of how good a player is, but I would say it is the single best indicator available!

I would say that there is enough evidence there to prove DMI is an indicator of how good a player is (as also stated in the quote from the game manual), but also just how effective it is in getting the average strength of your player against the strength of your opponent on matchday... If you believe you have a better available system I would like to hear it.

I would say that your assumption that players are evenly balanced is wrong. Most players in this game are not balanced. This is easy to see from a brief glance at the TL. Secondly, as I said before, salary is not really an indicator of how good a player is. As Naker Virus said, a player could have 17 JS and 5 everything else. His salary would be about 21k. You could make a guy with 8 js 8 jr 8 od 8 passing and 5 everything else and his salary would be about 8k. He would the 21k player every time.

The quote form the manual says that the DMI is "a very rough indicator." That means, "not very good." In fact, it goes on to warn you about putting too much stock in the Deliberately Meaningless Index.

To answer your question-
1) salary does not accurately assess a player's strength on the court.
2) GS can be seen on the player profile. translating it from a single digit number to a 4,5,or 6-digit number seems silly.
3) knowing that a player has trained in the previous week tells you nothing about his skills except that at the last training update one or more of them have gone up by some fraction of 1. It might be in ID for a PG which wouldn't really affect the game in which said player would be an opponent.

I think a better way of judging a player's value is to check his profile and take a look at his stats, to whatever degree of depth you choose to.
Which one of these players do you think has the 38000 DMI, and which the 54000? They both rate at 11.0 on the season, but one is better in every single statistical category.
7/20/2010 30 4-7 1-2 1-2 1 4 1 0 0 0 1 10 11.5
7/17/2010 36 4-13 2-8 1-2 1 9 3 1 1 1 1 11 11.5
7/15/2010 48 14-26 3-7 2-3 2 14 7 1 3 2 2 33 11.0
7/13/2010 12 2-4 1-2 0-0 0 5 1 0 1 0 0 5 13.0
7/10/2010 21 9-13 2-3 0-0 3 7 4 1 1 0 6 20 13.0
7/6/2010 39 5-16 1-3 2-4 0 7 1 1 1 0 3 13 9.0
7/3/2010 33 7-15 1-4 1-2 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 16 10.0
7/1/2010 13 6-11 3-6 2-2 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 17 12.0
28.6 0.456 0.364 0.500 0.8 5.5 2.0 0.5 0.8 0.3 2.2 12.5 11.0



7/20/2010 37 8-15 2-5 4-8 1 8 7 1 1 0 0 22 11.0
7/17/2010 28 4-8 2-5 3-4 1 4 0 5 3 0 1 13 11.5
7/15/2010 14 2-5 1-2 0-0 0 3 2 2 1 0 0 5 10.0
7/13/2010 28 11-22 5-10 2-3 2 3 5 1 3 1 0 29 11.5
7/10/2010 20 6-16 0-1 0-0 4 11 1 1 1 0 0 12 12.5
7/6/2010 34 6-22 1-6 1-2 1 5 2 0 2 0 2 14 9.5
7/3/2010 25 11-15 2-3 4-4 3 7 2 1 0 0 2 28 11.5
28.6 0.469 0.400 0.667 2.0 6.3 2.8 1.5 1.7 0.2 0.8 19.7 11.0

Amazing that they exactly the same average minutes. I didn't notice that until I posted here.
Anyway, if you want to use DMI as an indicator of a player's strength that is fine. If it works for you, even better. I am just saying that I don't personally put any stock at all in it when I scout an opponent, and don't believe it to be intrinsically valuable to the success of your team. I have done okay without ever looking at it as a scouting tool, so for me it has absolutely no importance.

It is obvious which player is who or else you wouldn't use it in your arguement. Fact remains however, that can't discredit my theory as we do not know the DMI of the players in every match, nor that of their opponents as it changes from week to week. And if anything your example is saying that the best rounded player is best everytime? Wouldn't that mean that if my calculations work (which you have not shown how they don't) that by preparing for a well rounded player, you are going to be better off if the player does have 1 very high skill and the rest mediocre? If so, as long as you can cover a balanced skilled player in the equation, I would say that you have covered the worst case scenario and almost guarantee a good result. And looking at those stats you could never predict the players exact skills. If both have had proficient gameshape and either one drops to strong, then with skills that close you would say gameshape would have a massive factor in the matchup.

I really don't understand what grounds you are trying to say my theory is wrong on? So far your only arguement is that a player that is well rounded will beat a 1 skill wonder, which you will find I have said several times that the best you can do is assume just that. And just because you have done "okay" without it as a scouting tool, does not mean it isn't effective!

If you see a guy with 380000 DMI at GS 9 and you say to yourself, 'Oh my player at GS 9 is 540000... I'm gonna run my offense to exploit that mismatch" and it turns out that your opponent's guy is the MUCH better player even though he has lower salary and DMI, you're going to have problems.

Like I said, if it works for you, great. You seem to be having middling success so far.

If my 540000 DMI player has a massive has 1 over the top skill, I know that he is a player that is suited for one role and one role only. Its much easier to scout your own players.