BuzzerBeater Forums

Lee Parkes is a bit of a project i think as he is 203cm and 19 already with mostly ok skills across the board. His height at and current skill mix suggests an SF training regime for me, but i guess training his big skills wont take too much longer at 203cm?

i dont know, PF or SF if someone had the patience, what do others think?

SF is possible too. but than as a SF inside minded. think he is too tall to raise his OD, JR etc

ive yet to try to raise od on a player over 2m so you are probably right. Especially as OD is so slow to train anyway. and thinking about it he is more the short end of a big player rather than the tall end of a short player if you know what i mean?!

do you know if the slowdown of training big skills as players get shorter is similar for guard skills on guys as they get bigger?

what do you think a inisde SF would look like? (broadly say with 100 skills except SB, ST+FT)
JS 11, JR 7, OD 12, HA 10, DR 10, PA 10, IS 14, ID 14, RE 12 ?

interested in any opinions / variations

i am sorry

i cant answer that

it all depends on team build. opponents players build. opponets tactics used. your tactics used etc...

for example in club teams a player with all skills level 10 will do i think. in NT level all skills tremendous wouldnt work in most situations cause a mono skilled guard or mono skilled big will kill him i think...

i understand that for an inside focused SF (whatever that might look like) and indeed any type of SF whether balanced or outside focused could be outplayed in some respected with more monoskilled versions...

I guess another way of answering the question is when does a PF start to look more like an SF? This range of skillsets must be a bit like an inside focused SF...

i only mention 100 skillset so that in theory i can compare other SF 100s PF 100s etc.

oh not sure i knew about leznensky if that is who you referring to?
he's probably on our shortlist to find out more, so if you want to ping his stats over...
300k probably isnt a bad price if he started out with really good skills. 18yos are really overpriced in my opinion

Allan Leszczynski (21067995)
Auction ends: 06/11/2011 22:48:36
Owner: O Dogs


Weekly salary: $ 4 154
Age: 19
Height: 6'0" / 183 cm
Potential: MVP
Game Shape: respectable
Jump Shot: respectable Jump Range: respectable
Outside Def.: average Handling: awful
Driving: respectable Passing: respectable
Inside Shot: pitiful Inside Def.: pitiful
Rebounding: average Shot Blocking: atrocious
Stamina: average Free Throw: awful

Experience: atrocious

I disagree about 19 year olds, just picked one up who is at least 4 in every stat and with two years of training with my level 6, he will be very nice indeed, we need to start promoting elastic skills in our forums, my 19 year old hong kong guard has every high od and has popped two js in 3 weeks of training including a week of driving training, singh recently popped twice in driving in just 2 weeks.

The hong kong u21 manager has this description for making the team

U21 skill requirement:
PG/SG/SF: Ouside Defense: >15 ,Jump Range:10 Other skills,please contact us!
C/PF: Inside Defense:15 , Inside Scoring:15 , REB>12

Surely we need to be promoting od despite the time it takes to train as for other countries this is clearly a main expectation and then after reaching a high level take advantage of the elastic effect to train other important skills, obviously doesn't have to be od we train, but we are wasting training minutes otherwise.

I think it would be worth setting out our minimum requirements and then adjusting them from season to season based on experience. i believe OD is very important for outside players in particular and so im not surprised this is a minimum requirement for Hong Kong and other countries.

I'll get in touch with Eminence and see what he thinks.

About this elastic effect, i hope there arent managers out there building up one skill just to get this going!
The point of the elastic effect is that it slows down the training speed of the skill as you pump it far ahead of the others and that this is partly (or at best completely) compensated by faster training in one/some of the low skills.

I doubt there is a net benefit to training this way, compared to a balanced training method.

In theory there could be, if it can be proved that that the pumped skill is linked elastically to many (not just one) of the other skills and the sum of these elastic effects outweighs the elastic effect you struggled through to pump the skill up in the first place.

However, i would be surprised if this is how the elastic effect works in practice - it just wouldnt make sense.