BuzzerBeater Forums

Yeah, that's my experience too. If you're doing strictly follow depth chart, and you list a starter and backup for each position, you'll get in the range of 34-37 minutes for the starter, with the rest for the backup, when you loose (or the score is close).

If it's a blowout win, then it depends on when the garbage time kicks in. Typically I see 28 min starter/20 min backup, but I've also seen 25/23 split

Essentially, it would sound like this:
Phil Jackson (to Kobe): "Oh, sorry Kobe, I don't know how to give you 35 minutes as a starter, so I am going to have you come off of the bench. It's for your own good!"

Very often difference between starters and bench players in typical club in BB is very very higher than difference between Kobe and the worst player in NBA. Maybe here is answer.
All players in NBA are better than 99,9% players on whole world (and I suppose number of nines after comma should be higher). Meanwhile in BB very often bench player has skills like children in kindergarten.

All players in NBA are better than 99,9% players on whole world (and I suppose number of nines after comma should be higher).

It saddens me that this is said by an European. Man, you don't have a clue about European basketball. Teodosić, Navarro, Lorbek and a few others would like to have a word with you.

Maybe they are in that 0,1% the best players on the world too, like NBA players. But it changes nothing, still conclusion in my previous post is the same.
Differences between players on top level (in real life) are smaller than differences between starters and bench players in typical BB club.
IRL usually the worst bench player in club but still fresh can play better than the best player in club but tired after 40+ minutes on court. If not, then he is fired, because nobody wants to waste money to pay him salary. Meanwhile in BB in many teams we have big disparities between players, and therefore very often starter after 48 minutes on court still can play better than bench player.

Last edited by B.B.King at 8/17/2011 5:04:17 PM

I risk going off-topic, but you need to get your math straight here. There are 30 teams in the NBA with (at most) 15 player rosters. That's 450 players. You mean to say that the best international players, and not only in Europe, are not better than any players in NBA rotations??? Because (100-99.9)% of 450 is less than 1... And to be honest, there's no way that players like Teodosic, Mirotic, or Papaloukas back in the day wouldn't be regulars on NBA rotations

Last edited by rcvaz at 8/17/2011 7:20:03 PM

I wrote nothing about these 0,1%. If in NBA we have 450 players, and if I wrote that they are better than 99,9% players on whole world, it means, that I need to find only 450.000 worse players to be right ;-)
And even if You can find 450 other players better than NBA players, so it means that I need to find only 900.000 worse players and still I'm right.
And I think many millions people play in basket ;-) So I'm right.

Most users on this forum compare they teams to NBA teams (or at least to top teams in their country). But in NBA we have only 30 teams. So they should compare their teams to NBA teams only if they are in top-30 in world ranking in BB (or let's say top-100 if we include very strong teams but not from NBA). If they arent' in top-30/100 in world in BB, they should compare their teams to worse teams in real life.

And less than 1% of all players on world are professionalists. 99% of them are amateur. And therefore most of teams in BB should be compared to amateur teams in real life. And amateur player has "normal" job and play in basket for fun, not for money, and has very weak skills.

If we want to use BB scale to descrie players in real life it doesn't mean that 20 is the best player in NBA and 1 is the worst player in NBA. It means that 20 is the best player on the world and 1 is the worst player on the world. So if Michael Jordan has skill = 20 in BB scale, then the worst player in NBA has 18, maybe 17. Other values are for semi-professionalists, amateurs and school players.

I thought you meant that the 99.9% best players of the world are in the NBA... If that had been your statement I would need only one player better than 1 out of the 450 currently in the NBA (and it wouldn't be very hard) to falsify it. But you say a different thing, and I see what you meant. Sorry about that ;)

Okay, I understand now where is missunderstunding. My statement is that all NBA players are in 0,1% the best players of the world. But it's of course possible that in this 0,1% exist players not from NBA too.
And it is only example to ilustrate this topic.
In my opinion the best player in NBA should have skill = 20 in BB scale (let's say MJ had 21). Other NBA players have skill = from 20 to 17. So if in NBA trainer have Kobe (let's say skill=20) as starter, and backup player with skill = 17-18, then Kobe can play under 40 minutes and bench player ~10-12. But if bench player had skill = 10-12 then Kobe would play always 48. And similar situation we have in BB.

The real question here would be if you american or nba players. Ginobili, Nowitski, Sabonis, are top world players. Are they great international or nba players? Bodiroga was one of the greatest scorers of all times and never played a minute, to name an example.

The real advantage in NBA is phisical. There is talent on the level of Wade, Kobe, but it's really hard to find players outside the NBA like Shaq, Amare, Lebron or Dwight Howard.

I love NBA, but I also love my national team, Argentina. Can anyone say that USA is way better than Argentina? It's a never ending debate, and a really cool one.