BuzzerBeater Forums

High skilled older players who know what to do in the 4th qtr when the game is tight is the real value of the older player. .. against a young skilled player. The younger player you can keep much longer and with the training week in and week out you see the improvements thereby an attachment to this players can be made.

Older players. ... you want to win right now weather you are in a position to contend or not, and you know going in they won't be with you long.

Personally I prefer more experienced players for the reasons above.
Mix in some trainees from time to time and you will have a team that has both.

High skilled older players who know what to do in the 4th qtr when the game is tight is the real value of the older player. .. against a young skilled player.

I wonder how exactly it is that I am so confident that the importance of experience has not been removed. ;)

Wait, that's not something that should make me smile.

Indeed
One poster wrote down something simple that can help you make a decision and that is to simply watch the game. You would be surprised how many don't have the time or choose not to really. So eye witness evaluation..... One of the more important aspects of a GM is taken away.

Or how about this. ... if and when you do watch a game or games, see how many positive things your players do to help you win games. ... if you win any games at all then you have your answer. Some Gms don't take stock into watching games like a GM.... they watch it like a fan. ... the two are diametrically opposed.

IMO.

New players don't play well with the team when they are 1st bought , they changed that, it has been said. And the only thing that matter is skills and youth in this game experience means little to nothing in this game. That not a opinion of my own its out the Gm mouth .

If youth player has great skills and low exp he will get picked 8-10 times before a older player at 30 yrs old but high exp with same skills. Because of longtivity.. It would be foolish to buy a older ball player because exp? skill and youth potent is what make BB world go around.

If it an opinion of yours then the Nt managers/ nor the managers of BB are listening to it.. All I see is high skilled youth with little to no exp. Exp mean little to nothing in this game. Yes it good to have but same times it mean nothing, who you know pay for exp of old players. Comical at best. my opinion, ha tell me another hurley please I got time.

Last edited by Mr. Glass at 7/12/2013 8:49:26 PM

New players don't play well with the team when they are 1st bought , they changed that, it has been said. And the only thing that matter is skills and youth in this game experience means little to nothing in this game. That not a opinion of my own its out the Gm mouth .

What I bolded above is utter bull and I challenge you to show where a GM said that (though, of course, it doesn't have to be verbatim as many of the GMs don't speak English and sometimes it's questionable whether you do. But as I am nothing if not a conciliatory fellow looking for intelligent exchange of ideas, I'll relay a phrase an Argentinian friend of mine once used that simply fits here: you talk as if you are the owner of the true.

If youth player has great skills and low exp he will get picked 8-10 times before a older player at 30 yrs old but high exp with same skills. Because of longtivity.. It would be foolish to buy a older ball player because exp? skill and youth potent is what make BB world go around.

If they were the same price, sure - I'd find more value at that point in the young guy. But it's not common that you'll find a 23 year old with good skills available at the same price as a 31 year old with those same skills. And by it's not common, I mean it's simply not going to happen.

If it an opinion of yours then the Nt managers/ nor the managers of BB are listening to it.. All I see is high skilled youth with little to no exp. Exp mean little to nothing in this game. Yes it good to have but same times it mean nothing, who you know pay for exp of old players. Comical at best. my opinion, ha tell me another hurley please I got time.

If you've got time, why don't you look over the NBBA's rosters and sort them by salary and see how many players under 25 you find that have a salary of 10k or more. The NT's a completely different and irrelevant comparison because those rosters don't have acquisition costs nor do they have to be concerned with profitability, so that's always going to be a race for maximum skills. But I can't imagine you'd underestimate the effects of experience, since you had so much time playing against bot teams with low skills but high experience in V.whatever and it took you such a long time to promote.

Indeed
One poster wrote down something simple that can help you make a decision and that is to simply watch the game. You would be surprised how many don't have the time or choose not to really. So eye witness evaluation..... One of the more important aspects of a GM is taken away.

Or how about this. ... if and when you do watch a game or games, see how many positive things your players do to help you win games. ... if you win any games at all then you have your answer. Some Gms don't take stock into watching games like a GM.... they watch it like a fan. ... the two are diametrically opposed.

IMO.

You bring up a really good point. I tend to watch most of my games, but when I can't, I try to go back and watch crucial time frames, such as the run that pulled me into the lead, or vice versa (my opponent's run that led to my downfall). Usually, the players behind my game changing runs tend to be my veterans with experience in the 10+ range. The younger guys of course keep the ball rolling throughout the game, but the veterans are the ones that usually bring it home when it's a tough game on the line.

We can debate on the other half of what you spoke but it quite clear what was said. "New players wont play well when bought to a new team, they play well after some time", I'm not making it up.

We can argue about exp and etc but at same time my team had xp when I them 1st got them in league 5.. It wasn't enough to just play nothing in tactics and promote even versus bots. I built my arena and studied tactics during my long term in 5 league. I'm better for it to today. So we can disagree on this exp vs skills debate. Which is fair enough

Last edited by Mr. Glass at 7/13/2013 5:27:42 PM

I think the 'new players not playing well when brought to a new team' had more to do with a hit to Game Shape that transfered players undergo now when purchased off the transfer line, and not as much to do with experience. It takes a couple weeks to get their GS back to where it was, and you can do that by managing their minutes.

We can debate on the other half of what you spoke but it quite clear what was said. "New players wont play well when bought to a new team, they play well after some time", I'm not making it up.

That's the game shape drop - read the season 24 news post. Or just this excerpt:

They don't make BuzzerBeater players like they used to. We're not sure if it’s today's society, education standards, or sheltered mentality, but players these days just seem to need more time to acclimate to new surroundings and teammates. As announced in the Season 23 news post, players will now experience a game shape drop upon joining a new team. The game shape hit will affect players in peak shape the most, with the effect having a lesser impact for lower levels. As announced, the affected players should bounce back to form in a couple of weeks with proper weekly minute management.

my point was relating to buying a new player to promote in the playoffs.. My argument on exp is another matter and is still just. NO one is buying players for exp they buying them for skills..exp is good but just a small bonus. Which any younger can get over time. If the younger player skills are better to start than a older player with same amount of skills but good exp.

Its just make sense to get the younger player, because you can always get the exp. I don't see how anyone can argue that.