BuzzerBeater Forums

Not quite: I gave you examples of players who are not gone to free agency (at the very least those who are still in their teams gone bot). My point is that young, high potential, high salary players are going bot while previously they weren't and this is the opposite of what the news said. Your point is that the News Announcement and the actual Free Agency policy are coherent, am I wrong? I think it's fair if I ask you or anyone else having this opinion to show us why with actual examples, because so far the only thing we have seen is examples this is not the case.

Let me quote the paragraph of the news.

The current system of Free Agency has been seriously overhauled. So far, only one criteria was used to determine whether a player will end up on the transfer market as a free agent or be retired: player salary. The result was that most free agents have turned out to be old and, in borderline cases, mono-skilled players. Young, high potential players, with a broader range of skills were forever lost. Therefore, we decided replace the current system with one that determines free agency eligibility based on a wider range of parameters like age, potential and a total skill point count, all the while making sure the cream of the crop doesn't end up retired, as the wouldn't in real life. Older players have a higher tendency to retire and enjoy their hard earned cash, which means that in order to be free transfered, they need to have a wide range of skills. However, young players compensate their lack of skills with high potential. This will surely change the range and flavor of free agents in the market, making them more spread out over the age spectrum, evening out some price discrepancies.

Now, you see that I have bolded a section. Please note that it's referring to a set of players (young, high potential, broader range of skills) as being forever lost in the old system. Your 22 year old SG with a 33k salary would clearly not have been lost under the prior system. None of the players you posted, would, in fact, be lost in the old system. Nor does it say anywhere that the intent is to save all players of trainable age, of a certain salary or skill set. It certainly appears instead that the goal is not to save everyone under 25, or 22 with high potential, but instead to eliminate the fact that all under-20s and almost all 20 year olds would be automatically retired, no matter what potential or training they had received.

If you consider 25 or 22 young, that's great. I've trained players older than that too. But those players were not the problem being addressed here, and they are instead older than the target group that was going to be saved by the new formula with potential adding extra weighting to the TSP calculation. And if they're not in this "young" group to be saved, I guess that would necessarily make them "older" with all that entails.

I'll ask you 2 questions:
-Reading the news announcement, do you understand that more or fewer young players will retire?
- If you think the News Announcement means a higher number of young players will retire, do you think it's clear enough?

I understand that every player under the age of 20 on the old system would have retired instead of choosing free agency. With the new changes, will the retirement rate of those players be more or less than 100%?

Last edited by GM-hrudey at 5/29/2015 1:02:08 PM

Now, you see that I have bolded a section. Please note that it's referring to a set of players (young, high potential, broader range of skills) as being forever lost in the old system.

So your reasoning would be like this:
1) some young players with sub 25k-25k-20k-30k-35k were actually TSP monsters despite their salary was too low and now they should be saved
2) some young, high potential players, far above those salary thresholds were saved in the previous system irrespective of skills
I thought it is crystal clear that the news post only talks about young players falling under 1), it does not say anything anywhere about players under 2). Unless you're telling me that "old" players describes also 21-25yo players. The post says that the change will save more young, high potential, skilled players compared to before, which is very welcome if true.

I believe what it said is:

The current system of Free Agency has been seriously overhauled. So far, only one criteria was used to determine whether a player will end up on the transfer market as a free agent or be retired: player salary. The result was that most free agents have turned out to be old and, in borderline cases, mono-skilled players. Young, high potential players, with a broader range of skills were forever lost. Therefore, we decided replace the current system with one that determines free agency eligibility based on a wider range of parameters like age, potential and a total skill point count, all the while making sure the cream of the crop doesn't end up retired, as the wouldn't in real life. Older players have a higher tendency to retire and enjoy their hard earned cash, which means that in order to be free transfered, they need to have a wide range of skills. However, young players compensate their lack of skills with high potential. This will surely change the range and flavor of free agents in the market, making them more spread out over the age spectrum, evening out some price discrepancies.

My interpretation is that when the message says "Young, high potential players, with a broader range of skills were forever lost. Therefore,..." that the intent of the changes is, primarily, to address that class of players specifically. My other interpretation, though I'm not as convinced of this, is that if they're talking about most free agents being old, that quite a large number of those players have been in the 23-28 range that falls outside the "old/young" discussion you're having.

You and Mike Franks are both reading a promise of "more" younger players or "more" free agents, when in fact that is never even stated, other than for the group that previously had a zero point zero zero zero chance of becoming free agents. Could it have been clearer? Absolutely. Is the fact that what happens isn't what you want the words to mean a sign of deception? Only if you really, really want it to be. The fact that the threads that were closed had the people who asked the questions disappointed but not foaming at the mouth while you, grullo and Mike Franks were convinced of a conspiracy to deceive the BB playerbase is unsurprising, and the vehemence of your positions combined with the utter lack of people chiming in to support these conspiracy theories is equally unsurprising.

I have no interest in playing your sentence parsing, rules lawyering game. I've said what I intend to say, not said quite a few more things, and wish you the best in enjoying a game other than who's got a bigger dictionary.

I agree with this, I didnt realize I may have overpay my starting center untill now. But now I realize that everything except for trainees is clearly overpaid. To some extent it is because I dont see how I would pay 200k for a mvp potential with less of a salary im exagerating here just a example.

Ive come to realize that its more about how you train than salary and or age. My team is under the age of 25 my first and second team are yet im 4th with my first team. Tie each game testing it out with bb for myself my 2nd game

You probably can't say, but I will ask anyway.

It seems to me that young players need very high potential and decent skills to finish up as a free agent, and older guys (23-28) have to be multiskilled to have a try at a free agency.

So going with this theory, 24y MVP center with 120k salary will retire beucase his guard skills are at a very low level and he doesn't match the multiskill criteria to become a free agent. I know BBs are pushing hard for managers to train multiskill players; elastic effect and cross training are the prime examples and I think multiskill now also affects free agents-to be.

I think the problem many users have with this is that it creates inflation. Based on your post, you seem to want this as it will encourage more managers to train. I can't argue with your logic that low prices lower a manager's incentive to train. I think, however, that not only are there more effective ways to promote training, but also, this low price low training problem could have sorted itself out without the rule change.

As you mentioned, these recent low prices were due to a mass exodus of users combined with low FA requirements. Basically there was the same amount of talent as when there were 60k teams, only now it was concentrated amongst 20k teams. Now, the user number has essentially stabilized, so even with the old FA rules there were fewer FAs than before and prices have seen a modest rebound. Think back to previous eras where the number of users was stable or even rising; FA requirements were even more lenient than before: players only needed a 10k salary to become a FA, yet prices were far higher than what they are now. This suggests that the root cause for low prices was not low FA criteria, but rather a sharply declining user count. With a stable number of users, there are fewer FAs on the market and they have a smaller impact on player prices, acting simply as you say "a market balancing tool."

If you had not changed the FA rules and these low prices are in fact discouraging managers from training, in the long term, this would only reward teams who continued to train, provided the user number remains stable. As players get older and their skills start dropping, managers would look for replacements. But since so few users choose to train during this time, the supply of skilled players would be much smaller and, thus, their value would skyrocket. Unless the user number is in steep decline, there would not be enough FAs to counteract this effect. With player values being so high, more managers would return to training.

In short, the fewer managers who train, the more valuable players will be. If every user focused on training, there would be such an abundant supply of players that most would be practically worthless. Only very salary efficient, highly skilled players would be of any significant worth.

If what you want is for more managers to train, there are more direct ways of going about it. For instance you could make out of position training 100% effective or give every team a "training game" each week.These changes would make training so easy that it would be foolish for managers not to train. As well, it would allow teams at all levels to put a heavy focus on training without sacrificing competitiveness.

But the thing is that this game is powered by training and there is no way around that fact.

Yes, that is the conclusion I have reached, too.