BuzzerBeater Forums

In BB players who play regularly [48 minutes] get the training, either ignoring those kids at the end of the bench with the potential to go far or playing them often out of position and at the cost of fielding one's most competitive lineup. There is no RL counterpart for that, and no logical one-to-one connection between training and minutes. In BB the effect of minutes played, ie players gaining experience, could be rewarded by the Experience attribute, and that would be logical. Minutes played could even be a small mitigating factor, upward or downward, in logical training coding. For example, if a player didn't play a minimum number of minutes (say 20) over a two week span, his training could be reduced 5% (choose your own numbers) to reflect a paucity of game experience. Even this would just be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, though.

Your Scalabrine example is also nothing but a red herring. What logical head coach would limit his training to three players and ignore the rest, as is so often the case in BB?

The myopic emphasis on training in BB results in managers playing less than optimally competitive lineups, wasting youngsters' potential when they can't crack the lineup, wildly erratic hyperinflation adversely affecting almost every aspect of the game ... and a steady string of valid complaints in the forums about "minutes" and training, all of which seems to fall on deaf ears. You cannot really consider that well done, can you?

In BB players who play regularly [48 minutes] get the training, either ignoring those kids at the end of the bench with the potential to go far or playing them often out of position and at the cost of fielding one's most competitive lineup. There is no RL counterpart for that, and no logical one-to-one connection between training and minutes. In BB the effect of minutes played, ie players gaining experience, could be rewarded by the Experience attribute, and that would be logical. Minutes played could even be a small mitigating factor, upward or downward, in logical training coding. For example, if a player didn't play a minimum number of minutes (say 20) over a two week span, his training could be reduced 5% (choose your own numbers) to reflect a paucity of game experience.

Sure, there's an RL counterpart, just not an exact one. A coach is going to spend time preparing his players for the next game in the proportion that he needs them to play. For the Manchester United/LA Lakers level of wealthy franchise, of course, there are a number of assistant coaches that could surely focus on the end of the bench to help those players develop more, naturally. But everyone ain't at that level. So in that case, you figure the minutes played roughly corresponds with how much time the coach has to spend with a player in practice. If you're a 7 foot guy at the end of the bench, who's never going to play except if the entire team gets food poisoning, you're not going to find yourself improving much in outside defense because the coach isn't going to work with you on that for any serious time.

Of course, the minutes thing isn't the best way of achieving some sort of tradeoff between "everybody gets to field their best players and train young players in whatever they want with no cost but money" and "you can't get your players to get better passing the ball unless they play at PG, or at least not as efficiently". I think cutting the required minutes down by some percentage and giving partial credit for out of position minutes might work. I think a focus where the coach spends a percentage of his time on training, a percentage of time on preparation (leading to gameshape), a percentage of time on stamina and a percentage of time on free throws would be a far superior solution, of course. There you have to make meaningful choices with real sacrifices and the choices are different for each team depending on what they want to accomplish, rather than having no meaningful choices or one dominant choice.

The myopic emphasis on training in BB results in managers playing less than optimally competitive lineups, wasting youngsters' potential when they can't crack the lineup, wildly erratic hyperinflation adversely affecting almost every aspect of the game ...

It's not an ideal scenario, but I disagree on two things. First, your alternative is like having your cake, and eating it too, and then selling it to a neighbor for his kid's birthday. It sounds great, but it's ridiculous to think that any system where you can compete with maximum efficiency and train with maximum efficiency without any limitations other than how much money you can spend on trainees and staff will lead to anything other than a money-accumulation game (which too many people already were convinced of). Second, if people had been training instead of building up money and buying cheap older players we wouldn't have inflation, so blaming that on training is backward; if anything, it would be more logical to try to get people to build their teams, not buy them.

and a steady string of valid complaints in the forums about "minutes" and training, all of which seems to fall on deaf ears. You cannot really consider that well done, can you?

Gosh, and that's just your posts! It could be better, but I think a system where you have to sacrifice something beats one where you just buy your way

...any system where you can compete with maximum efficiency and train with maximum efficiency without any limitations...

Of course, but no one is suggesting "without any limitations, certainly not me. How about some logical limitations, like a trainer only has so much time to spend on training each week, so some decisions have to be made where he applies himself and what skills he trains?

...any system where you can compete with maximum efficiency and train with maximum efficiency without any limitations...

Of course, but no one is suggesting "without any limitations, certainly not me. How about some logical limitations, like a trainer only has so much time to spend on training each week, so some decisions have to be made where he applies himself and what skills he trains?

In your plan, a team can play their best lineup and can train three players fully. It's no longer a case where you have to prioritize, it's merely everyone gets their strongest lineup and gets to create three players with whatever training they want. Now, of course, that's a massive benefit to older, established strong teams in top leagues, since arguably the inability to continue to train players easily and still be competitive is the major thing that causes top teams to start the process of erosion that finally leads to their demotion and lower level teams moving up. I know - I've been there. If I could have trained three players and still played my full lineups, I probably would still be finding new and creative ways to blow promotion from II to I, rather than trying something entirely different.

...any system where you can compete with maximum efficiency and train with maximum efficiency without any limitations...

Of course, but no one is suggesting "without any limitations, certainly not me. How about some logical limitations, like a trainer only has so much time to spend on training each week, so some decisions have to be made where he applies himself and what skills he trains?

In your plan, a team can play their best lineup and can train three players fully. It's no longer a case where you have to prioritize, it's merely everyone gets their strongest lineup and gets to create three players with whatever training they want. Now, of course, that's a massive benefit to older, established strong teams in top leagues, since arguably the inability to continue to train players easily and still be competitive is the major thing that causes top teams to start the process of erosion that finally leads to their demotion and lower level teams moving up. I know - I've been there. If I could have trained three players and still played my full lineups, I probably would still be finding new and creative ways to blow promotion from II to I, rather than trying something entirely different.

It's hard to know how to continue a discussion where you evidently didn't even read the lines you quoted. I don't think I'll even try, other than to suggest you read first and respond to what you read second. Thank you.

...any system where you can compete with maximum efficiency and train with maximum efficiency without any limitations...

Of course, but no one is suggesting "without any limitations, certainly not me. How about some logical limitations, like a trainer only has so much time to spend on training each week, so some decisions have to be made where he applies himself and what skills he trains?

In your plan, a team can play their best lineup and can train three players fully. It's no longer a case where you have to prioritize, it's merely everyone gets their strongest lineup and gets to create three players with whatever training they want. Now, of course, that's a massive benefit to older, established strong teams in top leagues, since arguably the inability to continue to train players easily and still be competitive is the major thing that causes top teams to start the process of erosion that finally leads to their demotion and lower level teams moving up. I know - I've been there. If I could have trained three players and still played my full lineups, I probably would still be finding new and creative ways to blow promotion from II to I, rather than trying something entirely different.

It's hard to know how to continue a discussion where you evidently didn't even read the lines you quoted. I don't think I'll even try, other than to suggest you read first and respond to what you read second. Thank you.

Well, I know that you have already stated that a link to minutes trained is illogical so I know that's not part of your logical plan, the details of which I must have missed somewhere while dazzled from your use of bold type and your Vulcan-like addiction to the use of the word logical and its opposite. What I can infer, however, is that you desire a system where the players on the end of the bench can be trained, and a system that allows you to field a full competitive lineup without worry about training, which... gosh, that's pretty much exactly what I was talking about.

If you have any logical limitations to your ideal plan that actually requires teams to make a meaningful choice between full out competitiveness, full out training, or some balance point in between, I'm all pointy ears. You're no doubt aware I've thrown out some ideas on that myself, even. But if you simply want to argue about training being illogical and comparing it to deck chairs on the Titanic then please don't be offended when I'm bold enough to question it.

Several possible answers to your insolence:
1. You still haven't read this, have you?

How about some logical limitations, like a trainer only has so much time to spend on training each week, so some decisions have to be made where he applies himself and what skills he trains?

Or is it just too hard to understand?

2. Sit on this and twirl a while, and then quit being such a child and live up to the GM attached to your name if you can. One would have hoped that "GM" would at the very least suggest a constructive contributor to the forums. Sometimes not, though, eh?

BTW, "... a system that allows you to field a full competitive lineup without worry about training" Do you see any logical disconnect there?

Several possible answers to your insolence:
1. You still haven't read this, have you?

How about some logical limitations, like a trainer only has so much time to spend on training each week, so some decisions have to be made where he applies himself and what skills he trains?

Or is it just too hard to understand?

How, precisely, does this prevent a team in the NBBA, say, from having 10 high quality players that they use for all of their competitive matches, and then have the coach focus entirely on three 18 year olds with very high potential? I must have missed that, since you're clearly not avoiding it, and must have just answered this in invisible ink.

2. Sit on this and twirl a while, and then quit being such a child and live up to the GM attached to your name if you can. One would have hoped that "GM" would at the very least suggest a constructive contributor to the forums. Sometimes not, though, eh?

Do you even irony?

I am well aware of many of my flaws. My wife can certainly elaborate as needed. But as a constructive suggestion, I would counsel you to stop reacting to losing arguments by attacking your opponent. It's not something that makes your argument any stronger, and if you're hoping to reach the enlightened type of people who generally play this game, you have to respect their intelligence enough to see through ad hominem nonsense.

BTW, "... a system that allows you to field a full competitive lineup without worry about training" Do you see any logical disconnect there?

I'm answering this because I don't want to be accused of ducking this. Honestly, I have no clue what you're asking. My best guess is that I should have said "a full-strength" competitive lineup and still received maximum training, which is my biggest problem with the idea of free training. I've suggested alternatives, of course, but clearly your interest in constructive discussion focuses enthusiastically on attacking me and peripherally at best on any alternative that isn't "give me what I want in no uncertain terms".