BuzzerBeater Forums

I don't care if my players grow faster. I care if they grow better. If the guy asked what is the best way to train an under 18 NT player, then you could advise him how to do it better then me, I am sure. That's not what he asked. And by the way one on one doesn't train handling at the same rate as driving. It' about a 5:4 split, so you get 20% less handling which is more important to guards than driving, I think. And handling is a lot cheaper at that level, too. Just play around with the salary calculator, and you will see what I mean.

I have played extensively with salary calculators and especially for PG's Handling is way more expensive than Driving. The importance of handling vs driving can be argued depending on if your goal is to develop a PG or SG

When I said to get involved with the national team it was for you to expose yourself to some of the most experienced players in the game to learn more about training grade A players. All of us could do with more knowledge of people's experiences with BB as none of us are sure 100% how everything works.

Growing faster factors in to making your player grow better. As we know each year their training speed slows with age so you want to try and push up skills like JS quickly before the slowdown from age can effect it more. What is your definition of growing better? I can see on your lineup that you prefer the balanced slow approach and thats fine, but in terms of train a star speed is KEY.

And by the way one on one doesn't train handling at the same rate as driving.

The point I made was handling trains driving as fast as 1v1 does so if your looking to not "waste" skills and minimize what you don't want to push up your mentioning of training handling over driving was an invalid point.

Last edited by FatCurry at 1/3/2010 7:47:02 PM

I don't care if my players grow faster. I care if they grow better

I like faster and better ;)

One on one training is awesome imo. You get the best value out of it. With it training driving, handling and JS it is a beauty if you have players that need those skills. Last season I managed 13 pops with one player and a large portion of that was based on one on one training. I needed to bring a guy from mediocre to proficient :)

What I meant was I want to minimize driving level of a guard as it is unnecessary and expansive. Every dollar spent on handling will help your game flow, but driving just doesn't help guards as much as it helps SF. Plus, I don't think it even matters at all if the ball movement allows for an open shot, which is what the game flow is for. As far as you suggestion to get involved with the NT, I appreciate the offer, but it takes an entirely different philosophy to train an NT player and that's not my goal personally :) I have one NT player on my team, but he is from a small country. Coincidently he had been trained in precisely the way you described when I got him... and he will make a wonderful SF, I am sure. A guard he will not be. Not on my team anyways. As far as the cost of handling and driving, you are partially correct in that sometimes driving is more expansive, but some times it's the other way around. It's a moot point, though since I don't want quite that much driving on my guards at any cost.

Last edited by Batman at 1/3/2010 8:08:27 PM

Its not about a NT philosophy its about discussing the best training regimes for players and a team overall but since you seem to have already mastered it perhaps you could join up at the forums and share your wisdom with us?

A few things I'm curious on:

1) What evidence have you seen that shows Driving is useful for a SF but useless for a guard. Most would argue that its either completely useless or vice versa.

2) Have you read that driving is a bigger factor in a guards inside shooting over IS itself? (This was posted by BB Charles)

As far as the cost of handling and driving, you are partially correct in that sometimes driving is more expansive, but some times it's the other way around.

3) I said Handling was more expensive in almost every case and thats most likely due to its dual functionality at decreasing turnovers as well as increasing your players steals on defense. But you would prefer a player with 13 Handling 5 Driving over a player with 9 HA 9 Dri?

1) You answered your own question with #2. I do want to have my players drive to the basket.

2) Yes, I am aware of that which is why I would train it on a SG/SF like I mentioned. If you are running Look Inside for example it would be quite useful. Even necessary. But for most tactics I would prefer a pure SG. That includes Low Post.

3) That is an extreme example, but purely hypothetically if the player in question were a SG - yes. If he were a PG he couldn't have that combination of skills and have much passing so his driving would increase as I trained it. I have recently sold a PG, by the way who was good at driving but bad in IS. He couldn't drive to the basket successfully, so it probably takes both to do well.

It doe's take a different philosophy to train NT players.

1) More single position training.

2) No regard for salary.

3) Training skills which will help NT team more as oppose to concentrating on your own team needs.

4) Maintaining game shape even when it is not beneficial to your schedule. Say you have 3 tough games and the next week is easy. You want to start your best player in all three and don't need him to be in top shape for next week.

I am pretty sure I have mastered nothing, but I am not sure why you would think that you have. Most of the stuff I talk about came from more experienced (and successful) players then you or me. Some of it I was able to confirm with my own experience, and some I am yet to experience, but one thing I can do for myself is basic math. And I have decided that I want to have the most bang for my buck at every position. That means no unnecessary skills. In my view excessive driving for SG is unnecessary since they won't be able to use it to it's fullest anyways because of the lack of IS. I try to avoid such tactics were guards end up driving to the basket. Look inside for example. Also I am at a bit of a loss how you came to the conclusion that I advocate handling training to the degree in question #3. That time is much better spent training OD. The only way you could get that big a spread between the two skills is if you went completely crazy on handling training, and you know as well as I do that that's is just not smart.

even with IS they don't use it much, and i doN't think that those skills are highly related ;)

Driving as a training isn't bad(lots of secondary up, who are all more usefull then driving), but nothing you have to do.

Well, that is exactly my point, though. The secondary ups are in handling and JS. Since when has it been a problem to train those on a guard directly. There is no need to get creative here. A more direct approach is more appropriate. Plus JS and handling training give more useful secondary pops of their own. At least with forwards one on one you get some pops in IS as well. I mean why would anyone want to use their left hand to scratch their right ear?

i like two position 1 on 1 more then Hndling for two position, and some weeks even a single position trainer goes two position ... In the most of them that should be JS, but it isn't wasted time in my eyes, even when it isn't really necessary.

Are you talking about one on one for guards or forwards. And the point I was making wasn't so much that it was a waste of time as much as it wasn't necessary, while adding salary to a skill that won't be as useful as if that money was spent on a more useful skill, like OD. I guess in the past driving was more important, but from what I have read combined with my own experience, with the new engine game flow is more important now. And OD is the #1 skill for guards in my opinion anyways cost effectiveness wise.

i don't think that it was in the past more important, and the salary impact is very very small. I talk about both training, te forward trainign don't give that much extra up, at least in my experience hthe JS up take longer and IS comes pretty rare.