BuzzerBeater Forums

Hi.
I see a lot of Centers and Power forwards that have a skill set pretty damn good and particular.
They are players with both defenses at least in 17, with passing skill in 14+ and high shot block, dribble and rebounding.
How could such a incredible skill set be train as that in the game?
I'm really interested in train my players on that way, but i don't figure out what path to take after giving him 1v1 for Guards. What should i do next?

Since we're at it, I'd like to have your opinion on this: assuming we're having a newly drafted player, start with ID first, then 1v1, or 1v1 right off the bat?

A lot of managers are training ID to 11 and then starting 1 on 1 Fs.
I actually do a pressure training when the DR/HAND are 5 levels above the OD level.

IMO, the faster the player can actually start to play in games, the faster he will not be a liability.
This is my 21 yr old. I will do 1 on 1 Fs until DR/Hand are 5 levels above the OD again.

Jump Shot: prominent Jump Range: average
Outside Def.: prolific Handling: marvelous
Driving: marvelous ↑ Passing: prominent ↑
Inside Shot: prolific Inside Def.: prominent
Rebounding: proficient Shot Blocking: mediocre
Stamina: average Free Throw: prolific

Like I said. This is only my opinion.

Thanks for the insights Yellow Cake and EBW.

Yes, I agree that this can be quite subjective and might be tailorable to each trainers taste (also depending on starting skills I guess?).

Personally I take the same route as you both, 1v1 first, then OD. I agree with Yellow Cake on the fact that such players be game ready earlier (playing a high JS outside player at C with reverse patient is always better than playing a high ID C at PG during season 2), and I kinda feel it might be more economical too because you're actually using those skills at reverse patient while the high ID C at PG isn't really maximizing his salary. But it just makes me wonder if the ID first training is a faster one if we don't take salary and playability into account.

I actually do a pressure training when the DR/HAND are 5 levels above the OD level.

That said, I personally practice something similar to this as well (tho not necessarily 5 levels). Not because I want them game ready as soon as possible. But rather because I don't want negative elastics on my DR caused by OD (is this a thing?). Just wondering if there is a sweet spot where DR isn't too high but high enough to pull OD faster. I tend to drag the gap bigger for taller players tho.

If you want a defender with low JS/IS (for salary and/or potential reasons), you should consider training Handling instead of 1v1 G to keep DR/JS low. Prevents them from taking shots away from your scorers too, without sacrificing flow.

Furthermore I've read conflicting reports about elasticity; one theory says the effect caps at 4 levels difference, but I've recently read another that says the effect keeps increasing with higher levels difference. I haven't read much about the negative effects of elasticity, but I assume it should be equal to the positive effect. However most just take that with 1v1 training since it trains so quick anyway.

I personally stick to 4 levels difference also for performance, but it depends on your situation.

Ah, I think that must explain why some managers are too stubborn and insist on training their driving to legendary. I guess it's just not common knowledge

Yes, having your DR too high and OD too low will cause your DR to train slower the more you train it. Negative elastics exist. However the relation isn't exactly that straightforward. If I'm not wrong, some skills like passing do not have negative elastic effects on other skills despite being positively affected by driving. I think you should be able to check it via coach parrot.

If you train a skill that's much higher than other skills, it will get slowed down by the elastic effect. (Source: (144856.38). Note that it's an old source, don't remember if there were more that talked about the negative effect but I thought it was commonly accepted. Don't know if it was ever proven.

Wow … completely new information for me.

Doesn‘t sound unlikely.