BuzzerBeater Forums

calm down.. i do understand perfectly.

i do think the training should probably be tweaked, but I think it shouldnt be to allow for single training on skills for SFs, for a number of reasons.

1. Unfairness to current SF trainers
2. Realism in that SFs should be able to be trained at a lower rate than all other positions but be able to be trained in a wider variety of skills. If SFs were able to be trained at the same rate in the wider variety of skills then everyone would train SFs and then play gaurds and forwards out of position at SF. Imagine you could train both your center and your point gaurd at jump shot by playing them at SF and neither were particularly poorly out of position. As of now you need to play your SF at SG if you want a little bit better passing and PG if you want a lot better training at passing. This seems to be to be at least the SORT of tradeoff one wants the system to have. If you want optimal training you have to sacrifice, not having any tradeoffs is stupid.

That being said, I think there is a real question as to whether the current system has the right QUANTITATIVE tradeoff. Training SFs at their position should result in a reasonably skilled SF, not as good as a SF who was yanked around out of position to get personal attention on all his skills to the detriment of his team, but good enough that he is a reasonable choice to have on a team consisting of his peers (same starting age/potential/training time).

1. Unfairness to current SF trainers
2. Realism in that SFs should be able to be trained at a lower rate than all other positions but be able to be trained in a wider variety of skills. If SFs were able to be trained at the same rate in the wider variety of skills then everyone would train SFs and then play gaurds and forwards out of position at SF. Imagine you could train both your center and your point gaurd at jump shot by playing them at SF and neither were particularly poorly out of position. As of now you need to play your SF at SG if you want a little bit better passing and PG if you want a lot better training at passing. This seems to be to be at least the SORT of tradeoff one wants the system to have. If you want optimal training you have to sacrifice, not having any tradeoffs is stupid

if you say that,excuse me,but you don't understand
i was calm also in the previous message,i wrote with capital charachters to make my message more clear but it had no effect
I repeat again:I'm a current SF trainer,and I can't imagine how this type of training could penalize the current SF trainer,who have rather the advantage to coan put their SF in their original role
The second thing you say,i think it's conceptical wrong,also now i can train my center in jump shot if i want,out of position,but you don't consider that jump shot for a center is a surplus,a secondary skill,to train his primary skill he can play in his role.And we don't request a great variety of training,but ONE training,which have some charachteristics that i wrote in the previous message,and which has the only advantage,I repeat again,to consent to the SF trainers to make their player in their basic role

After thinking, I have kind of reconsidered my position on this. I'm just neutral now - I don't care one way or the other.

regarding calmness... my apology it is very hard to detect the difference between yelling and emphasis in capital letters over the internet, this isnt your fault, it just comes with trying to communicate in text only.

second, I might be misunderstanding you because your writing is not very clear. I'm not trying to be insulting, I just want to be clear that I might not be understanding you correctly.

regarding fairness) any change which changes the valuation of current SFs is going to affect SF trainers. You might not see that as a large problem, but others have expressed that they feel strongly that it would, and i can see how they might feel that way.

on the second point, I dont completely follow your argument, so let me sketch out what I think you are saying....

you say, I can train my center in jump shot by playing him at PG, but that is not his primary skill.. where as a SF you feel you need to play out of position to train his primary skill, and so you want one skill to be dedicated to the SF position, and so you would have like... single position driving be available for SF, and then maybe Driving SG/SF and then Driving SF/PF/SG ... etc etc...

I think that would create a certain symettry amognst the positions if that were done, but I think the primary skill of a SF is that he is well rounded, and so the most appropriate way to do that is to have a training system in which the SF can effectively train at many skills, but not optimally train as those optimal trainings are reserved for the more specialized roles. That isnt to say you can't play the SF out of position to train optimally, but you have a tradeoff to pay in that case... though presumably a lesser tradeoff than playing C at PG because the SF is more well rounded.

I think the original suggestion is valid. However, I think that Lord of Doom made a very valid rebuttal, which shows that for some the SF training issue is not an issue. To make changes when there is no concensus is foolish. To continue to bicker and flame is childish. Because Dr. J sees it one way and Donkeyman sees it another does not make one right and the other wrong. It means that there is more than one approach to the issue.

There are no single position trainings for PF. Saying it is "nicely bundled" with C doesn't make it single position. A check of the training speed analysis page shows that training C only is faster than C / PF.

Perhaps a wingmen OD option and a forwards ID option would be a compromise.

If:
OD trains in 4 weeks
HN trains in 8 weeks
ID trains in 8 weeks
DR trains in 8 weeks

ID trains in 4 weeks
IS trains in 8 weeks
DR trains in 8 weeks
SB trains in 8 weeks



In this scenario, a SF could raise a level of OD in 4 weeks while raising his ID, HN, and DR by 1/2 a level. Then he could raise his ID in another 4 weeks while raising his IS, DR, and SB 1/2 a level. Half a season of training would net one and a half pops in ID, one in OD, one in DR, and half a pop in HN and SB. That doesn't seem like too much, given that the wingmen I train get between 8 and 12 pops per season, which is fairly slow training I imagine.

Alternating trainings would see:

week 1 OD 25% ID 12 % , HN 12%, DR 12%
week 2 OD 25%, ID 37%, IS 12%, DR 24%, HN 12%, SB 12 %
week 3 OD 50 %, ID 49%, HN 24%, DR 36%, IS 12%, SB 12%
week 4 OD 50%, ID 74%, HN 24%, DR 48 %, IS 24%, SB 24%

No?


Last edited by somdetsfinest at 1/13/2009 2:31:38 AM

on the second point, I dont completely follow your argument, so let me sketch out what I think you are saying....

you say, I can train my center in jump shot by playing him at PG, but that is not his primary skill.. where as a SF you feel you need to play out of position to train his primary skill, and so you want one skill to be dedicated to the SF position, and so you would have like... single position driving be available for SF, and then maybe Driving SG/SF and then Driving SF/PF/SG ... etc etc...

I think that would create a certain symettry amognst the positions if that were done, but I think the primary skill of a SF is that he is well rounded, and so the most appropriate way to do that is to have a training system in which the SF can effectively train at many skills, but not optimally train as those optimal trainings are reserved for the more specialized roles. That isnt to say you can't play the SF out of position to train optimally, but you have a tradeoff to pay in that case... though presumably a lesser tradeoff than playing C at PG because the SF is more well rounded.

Your thought could be right,if you dont' consider that,to train the primaries skill of a SF and also stamina and free throws,i don't have the material time to make him a well rounded player without playing ALWAYS,not in few match,but ALWAYS in another role.We don't want any type of training available for a SF,only this training

good to see. I read this whole thread and I thought your position was a little one sided.

I'm often that way - especially when it effects me directly.

To be fair, though, there is a lot of that in this thread on both sides.

By the way, I don't know if I would ever train ID/OD. The pops would take too long. I want to see my pops!

By the way, I don't know if I would ever train ID/OD. The pops would take too long. I want to see my pops!

Heh, that made me think of this old commercial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjkSUZu24sA