BuzzerBeater Forums

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

Haha i know what your saying here. I cant wait until my 20 y/o SF actually can play at the SF spot outside of PL's in say 5+ seasons

This sums up the problem perfectly.

The inflexibility is accepted from a difficulty perspective...but I wonder how many farm teams are created in order to create SF's for their NT?

Why should clubs be pretty much forced to enjoy their player in a capacity they never play to their full ability in order to improve them? You either are forced to buy supporter to actually see how your SF's play when in their natural position OR you have to be lucky enough to have them on a NT to watch them.

The argument... oh you have scrimmages to train out of position.... so as you say enjoy your player for 6-7 seasons and watch him come off the subs bench every once in a while at SF whilst 95% of the time you get to enjoy him playing beneath his capability.

The inflexibility is accepted from a difficulty perspective...but I wonder how many farm teams are created in order to create SF's for their NT?

here is one.

actually, I was a little bored of being in the top league in Belgium doing the same over and over, and was looking for a new challenge.

and since trainign an Sf seems to be a real chalenge, I took it on, and I like it.

I dropped out BBBL the first season I started training him ofcourse, but I didn't mind.

I am playing him at PG and C most of the times, and in div II he's not doing so bad at that. But that's not the point ofcourse.

the point is that users will have to choose between training a SF, or getting game-results. and yes, it might be nice if they where combineable.

the danger it holds however is that it will get too easy to create all round players, for every position. I believe BBs think that to get players some nice secundary skills, which will obviously make the player better then the 1sided skilled players, the manager will have to make some sacrifice.
They already made it possible to switch defensive positions, which makes it easy for your SF to actually defend as SF, even though he trains his PG or C skills.
And I think it will be as far as they go for now...

The problem of this is that the SF spot is so complicated and you need lot of patient and a long term strategy.

You will need the first 4 seasons to get a balanced SF, thats a lot of seasons which means you will loose competitiveness and the impact of this player on the GE is still not important compared to the PG-SG or PF-C spots.

So after this seasons, you start to see a litle bit its worth to have trained a SF and still have 4-5 seasons more to keep improving.



The problem of the SF's compared to the other positions, is that you expend a lot of time training that player while the effect on the games is reduced because you have to change his position on game just to train him, while a PG or SG will always be playing on PG-SG position or PF-C haven't to change at all their positions.


So the performance is lower compared to the other positions, because is not playing on his natural position where you can have the advantatge to face a PG at the SF position or a PF playing as a SF.


So as a manager that trains SF i would like to see new trainings positions for SF, im not worried if others managers then start to train SF's.


Too much sacrifice for low recompense =)

It's funny how this debate follows the same arc every time. One side cites real examples of SFs (Lamar Odom in this thread, in the past Scottie Pippen gets a lot of mention) and tries to use logic as it makes BB seem more realistic (i.e. the real SFs don't play PG to learn how to dribble the ball, they learn in practice and then in the game they are used as one the three players on the court along with the guards to bring the ball up or to dribble a lot). The the other side says things like how it's not fair to switch SF training methods since "by golly the current way is how I train my SFs and I'm a martyr for taking the high ground and doing something really challenging."

I think the fundamental questions here are:
1.) Is BB is willing to take a long hard look at whether or not the current system for training SF (and all positions for that matter) is the best it could be for the game? (If the answer is yes, then no need to proceed to Question #2.)
2.) If there is a better system for training, can an improved system be implemented in a fair way? (If the answer is yes, then it's a no-brainer that it should be done.)

The answers in basic practicality should be yes to both. However some say no because the logic says play PG & C makes sense for training but playing SF doesn't. In real life it would be a joke to see Scottie Pippen play PG & C for training purposes, but in BB people claims with strong vote of confidence that training PG and at C makes more sense than training at SF.