BuzzerBeater Forums

I think that two of the most unrealistic aspects of the game come from training. The two biggest culprits are the 48+ minute training requirement and out of position training. I have two proposals that will make training more intuitive for new users, and will lead to more training.

P.S. Wolph please don’t ruin this thread. Please stay on topic. Thanks.

Proposal #1: Change 48+ Minutes Training Requirement
Marin has stated that the BBs never intended for players to consistently get 48+ minutes in one game and has stated time and time again that there will be no changes to make players able to consistently get 48+ minutes in a game. I agree with Marin that the GE should not be changed in order to accommodate getting players 48+ minutes. However, it must be recognized that the training system, as currently devised, creates a huge economic incentive for players to play their trainees for 48+ minutes a game. There is a huge economic cost if you single position train 2 players instead of 3 players or two-position train 4 players instead of 5 or 6. Getting rid of this incentive will make the make more realistic and give players the incentive to train more.

The easiest way to get rid of this unrealistic incentive is to change the number of minutes needed to get 100% training. I am not really sure what the magic number would be, but decreasing it to somewhere around 42 minutes per week would allow all people who are training to set normal lineups with starters and backups but would prevent managers from getting more than 3 people at single position training and 6 people at two position training 100% training.

For example, if I am single position training Pressure at PG decreasing the limit would look something like:

Game #1:
PG: Trainee #1/ Trainee #2
SG: SG/Trainee#3

Game #2:
PG: Trainee #2/ Trainee #3
SG: SG/Trainee#1

Game #3:
PG: Trainee #3/Trainee #1
SG: ???/Trainee #2

Assuming starters get 32-36 minutes and backups 12-16 minutes a game. All three trainees would get somewhere between 44-52 minutes at PG and somewhere in between 56-68 minutes a week for GS purposes.
IMHO, that looks a heck of a lot better than the 48+ minute lineups and you can’t really manage minutes in a way that leads to being able to train more than 3 guys.

Proposal #2: Get rid of Out-of-Position Training.
The other training aspect I would like to see change is to get rid of out-of-position training. When the New Orleans Pelicans want to improving Anthony Davis’ ballhandling and passing, they don’t play him at PG.

The new training types that were added a couple of seasons ago were a step in the right direction, but I don’t think it went far enough. You still need to train out of position in order to get the most efficient training possible. The new training types also help managers that say want to play a trainee at SG rather than PG more than it does a manager that is training a big at guard. Short and Tall Players are already penalized for out of position training based on their height. Why do we need two penalties? Getting rid of one penalty and just keeping the other would simplify things and making training easier to understand for new managers. The height based penalty on out of position training makes a lot of sense, whereas the out-of-position training type penalty is arbitrary and needlessly complicates training.

It is also my opinion that is a way easier to train guards out of position than it is to train bigs. If I am training a guard at PF or C, I can very easily run patient or an outside offense with that guard even if he has average outside scoring skills and poor IS and be very successful. The same cannot be said for bigs. I can’t put a big at PG with poor HA/DR/PA and expect him to do well at LI/LP even with great IS. (Cut off continued below)

Last edited by Phyr at 10/12/2015 10:02:14 AM

Poll:  Which proposals do you like?

The consequence of this disparity is that it is heck of a lot easier train an inside team with high IS guards and primary heavy bigs than it is to train an outside team with High JS/JR bigs. Ending the out-of-position training penalty will give managers more of an incentive to train more diverse builds and try different tactics at all levels of BB. If SB is the stopper of inside offenses and JR essential to outside offenses, we need to be able to train it at all positions easily.

A Final Thought
Marin has said that he doesn’t want to make training too easy. While both of my suggestions, would simplify certain aspects of training and make it more intuitive & realistic, neither proposal changes the essence of training. It will take 9-10 seasons (multiple real life years!) to turn that 18 year old MVP/HOF into an elite player.


Last edited by Phyr at 10/12/2015 10:02:25 AM

When the New Orleans Pelicans want to improving Anthony Davis’ ballhandling and passing, they don’t play him at PG.

When the Milwaukee Bucks want to increase Giannis Antetokounmpo's ballhandling and passing, they play him at PG.

Still: At the end of the day I am riding the spoonfeeding bandwagon. Any change that decreases difficulty and adds some options to play a roster to it's strenghts, is a good change.

I'd just change the system in a way, that we define three or six players that should receive training and as long those guys reach 48 minutes on any postion, they get trained.

Bucks play Giannis at the position that best helps them on the court, but I agree with you for the rest of your post.

I did not read your proposals.

Small world!

I'll say it one more time for you, too ...

... training [reform] will stop out of whack lineups that never happen in real games, let games actually be basketball games, promote training across every division, becomes a strong tool to the ones knowledgible about training and actually trying to learn the game, and for once make buzzer beater more enjoyable.

Everyone who cares about Buzzerbeater should say this, over and over, until it stops falling on deaf ears. I imagine a basketball sim where players are trained and their talents grow in a logical manner, where every manager can and does train their players because training is conducted in a logical and straightforward manner, and where the result is a game with intense competition from top to bottom among all managers.

Heh heh, the guys at the top of this game will hate this post. No way do they ever want to see intense competition from top to bottom among all managers.

Heh heh, the guys at the top of this game will hate this post. No way do they ever want to see intense competition from top to bottom among all managers.

Yeah, the guys at the top must love that they can't train and be competitive while the in lower levels can.

Last edited by GM-hrudey at 10/13/2015 10:12:25 AM