BuzzerBeater Forums

I dont think so.

It makes a huge difference if you can play your SF at his natural position or as a C or PG - you could use him in a 4-5 man rotation (less minutes per game) instead of forcing him to play the full 48 minutes plus the ratings and thus the output would be much better.

my problem with this suggestion, is that is it a huge Change for people who just trained there player the "complicated" way and make those sacrifices to have an extremly valuable player. Just to notice that the next generation is pretty easy to train and destroys the value.

and i don't see the necessarity of a change in one of the game cores like the training, so it isn't trouble for me ;)

my problem with this suggestion, is that is it a huge Change for people who just trained there player the "complicated" way and make those sacrifices to have an extremly valuable player. Just to notice that the next generation is pretty easy to train and destroys the value.

That might be, but if it is announced early enough - like 2 seasons before the change happens I think it will be a fair and good improvement.

On the other hand offering a 2-position training that is considerably slower than the complicated 1-pos training might not be such a huge change at all.

It is my opinion that if there is a desire to modify Training, which I don't think has been modified since I've been here (maybe I'm forgetting an ancient modification?), it could be done. Yeah, it would change the market and strategies pretty quick for those paying attention, but if it's for the betterment of the game, then it should be done. Perhaps the compromise should be to make the announcement with a 3 or 4-season lead time. This won't make everyone happy, such as the manager who spent several seasons training a hard-to-train position like SF and won't be able to sell such a player for as much in the future, but at least these managers will still get to keep their players, and this will mean the loss of what, probably no more than a few hundred-thousand dollars for a player at the most for the best of these players. I think a typical manager spends no more than 3 or 4 seasons intensely training a player before making a different player a training priority, which is why I suggest that sort of time frame, to minimize the impact. For a change in Training that has been this long in coming, we could wait that long before a change is implemented. What's another 4 seasons? By know, we all know what the major issues with Training are, I say let's just fix them and have the perfect Training system by Season 20!

No, but he assumed the usual duties of a PG and C at times when learning how to handle, pass, defend bigs, and rebound. He still does, of course. How did he learn?

The point is that the rare versatile SF must be stretched to assume many different roles early on. He doesn't sit in his SF slot and magically learn how to assume PG and big man duties - hence why most NBA SFs don't have incredible all-around games, like BB managers seem to expect their SFs to have. You could argue that most are converted guards, or taller guys with jumpshots. Even Larry Bird wouldn't have great insides if he were a BB player.

Your expectations aren't in touch with reality, which is the underlying factor here. All-around SFs are supposed to be a pain in the ass to create because they're extremely rare to begin with and rely on a great deal of managerial commitment from the beginning. Mono-skilled bigs and SGs are not as rare in reality, or in BB, so it's easier to train them (once again, like real life)

Last edited by RiseandFire at 2/17/2011 2:57:22 PM