BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Minutes at a position?

Minutes at a position?

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
11
435.18 in reply to 435.17
Date: 8/22/2007 6:37:50 PM
Molson Canadians
III.5
Overall Posts Rated:
9191
Hmm... RESPECTABLE guess, but AWFUL when you actually look at the algorithm :-)
The training curve is not linear... In fact, someone who only plays 24 minutes will get much less than 1/2 training.
Essentially, we've set it up so that you can't be on the court for a few minutes and expect to get a significant amount of in game experience. You need to play for quite a while before you actually reap the benefits.

This Post:
00
435.19 in reply to 435.18
Date: 8/22/2007 7:33:27 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
6666
That kinda sucks, but oh well.

How would making it linear be bad though? If someone played "a few minutes" (3), then they wouldn't get a significant amount of game experience - they'd only get roughly 7% of optimum training.

I guess I'm not seeing the negatives of making it linear, especially considering the fact that we as managers can't exactly dictate how many minutes our players get.

Friends Do not Let Friends Play 2-3 Zone
This Post:
00
435.21 in reply to 435.19
Date: 8/22/2007 7:54:07 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
1919
I agree. If for some reason one of the players I really want to train has 40 minutes (player A) at the training position going into the final game of the week and the backup trainee has 0 minutes (player, my choices are to either have almost no training for player B, or have player A end up with over 70 minutes and essentially waste 25 minutes of precious training minutes.

This certainly makes training the third group of trainees much harder - especially when having to deal with the blowout factor in the third game of the week (because of a blowout the starter may only play 20 minutes instead of 35 minutes).

This Post:
00
435.23 in reply to 435.22
Date: 8/23/2007 12:35:53 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
11
Yeah I agree, sometimes my players start to get subbed out in the 3rd quarter.

This Post:
00
435.24 in reply to 435.18
Date: 8/23/2007 5:34:48 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
in this case some sort of adjustement on the rotation algorithms of the game engine would be advisable.

i am really struggling convincing my coach in using players other than the starting 5s... and as the starting 5s are usually the strong ones that means that only some of the players will meet their full potential training target despite how well i try to plan it. at least if i hope to actually win sometimes...

ie with 3 matches per week (2 league 1 friendly) my first 5s receive 80 plus minutes, while the trainees will get 40plus in the best case (too lazy and too busy with real life job to figure out the numbers correctly) effectively receiving circa 50% of training.

edit: the form also...

regards


Edited 8/23/2007 6:05:52 AM by slackboy

This Post:
00
435.26 in reply to 435.25
Date: 8/23/2007 1:02:52 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
2121
i think coach decides is crazy now. it follows the depth chart like mad. i put my top players as reserves and a lot of my young players as starters. they played about half the game each. my backups got no minutes. when i had a blowout my crap starters got taken out and my good reserves got put in and i blew out even more

shouldn't this be a middle choice in the strictness? minutes were a lot easier to do before and you could win playing strictly follow, now if I pick that all my starters are probably going to be injured

Creator of (http://www.buzzerbeaterstats.com) and (http://www.buzzerbeaternews.com/) -- Ex GM of Australia -- Division 1 winner of Italy Season 1 then moved team to Australia after the country was created by the BBs. Australian team manager for 2 seasons. Won various tournaments and division 1 titles in the following seasons.
From: raonne

This Post:
00
435.27 in reply to 435.26
Date: 8/23/2007 2:18:45 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
1616
man, just let it go. I think it's fine the way it is now. All the other tweaks or changes were just bad in my opinion.

Things have been stable for the last 10 games and we finally had time to figure it out how to win the games and at least try to give the minutes we want to players.

Another change now would be unacceptable!

What they could change are the names of the substitution strategies, that don't really make sense anymore. And perhaps add new strategies (like one without the blow out rule). But don't change the 2 strategies we have now, please.

Edited 8/23/2007 2:21:15 PM by GM-Raonne

From: stogey23

This Post:
00
435.28 in reply to 435.27
Date: 8/23/2007 5:37:14 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
6666
The problem isn't in the strategies, it's in the non-linear nature of training.


Please, someone tell me the negative of having a linear training system where 5 minutes equals 10%, 10 minutes 20%, etc, etc. (numbers are roughly of course). This is the only change that has to be made.

Friends Do not Let Friends Play 2-3 Zone
Advertisement