BuzzerBeater Forums

You're right, I agree with you here. I forgot about numbers, I also like to use them.

Back to question - 2nd player will train OD/JR faster than 1st player, because in 1st case greater part of training will go to cross training.

Last edited by B.B.King at 10/11/2011 6:50:31 AM

You are totally wrong a few points.

I agree, You are totally wrong ;-)

#1 We do not know

1st of all - You don't know. "You" isn't "we" ;-)
2nd of all - if You don't know how something works it doesn't mean that it works in way You think (or want) and it doesn't mean that it doesn't work in way I think ;-)

#1 We do not know that the crosstraining, which has been explained, works the exact same way as elastic effect and secondary skills

It was described in announcement and it works in the same way.

It is that quote:

In the past, coaches would teach a new skill (such as driving) using related things players already knew how to do (such as handling), so that players with a higher handling skill would learn driving more quickly, and players using this method to improve their driving ability would also learn better handling, at a slower rate.

With cross-training, these new techniques emphasize each skill as part of becoming a more complete basketball player, and make reference to every skill. Thus, improvement in driving is related not just to related skills (like handling), but also more weakly to unrelated skills (like shot blocking).

a. elastic evaluation is not random, nor is the application of secondary training

Effect of crosstraining isn't random as well.

Your examples and calculations. It means that if somebody has well rounded player then he will receive penalty because he can't train him as fast as one-dimensional player. It has no sense. This change was implemented to help to create well-rounded players, not to penalize managers who have well-rounded players ;-)

I believe elastic effect changes distribution of training, not increase total effect of training.

You even don't understand my opinions but You said they were wrong ;-)

In the tracking pops in crosstraining thread it has been shown that crosstraining is random.

Skill, which is selected to get crosstraining probably is random. But effect of crosstraining isn't random ;-)
If player is well-rounded then effect of crosstraining is very small. If player is one-dimensional then effect of crosstraining is large. There is no randomness.

Your THEORY that elastic effect is a placebo and nothing more is interesting, but ungrounded.

It isn't placebo. Elastic effect could be very useful, but not to increase total effect of training. If You want to have great player You must set him on different possition (for example PG must play as C to train IS and C must play as PG to train HN, etc). But if You use elastic effect in right way then number of matches, in which this player must play on different possition, could be smaller.

And because this discussion is all about long term planning with training lets see its perspective with one dimensional training regime. The idea is to reach to a certain value of skills for a player the fastest you can, and there are different opinions whether the EE will lead you there. Basically, I share the idea of B.B.King (197824.4). Now, let's see how the cross-training adds to that.

IMO, the cross-training can be a real headache with it's potent randomness. It's really a question how much randomness you are willing to afford. If you are a perfectionist, I'd say you will always try to stay close to the 90%. One-dimensional training for the purpose of gaining huge EE could produce cross-training share of ____ %. For a player:

JS 14 JR 7
OD 7 HN 14
DV 14 PA 7
IS 1 ID 1
RB 1 SB 1

how much % does fall to the random training if you continue with the 1-on-1? We certainly know it is more that 10%. Could it be 20% with these set of skills? If we say it is, what is the training speed of 1on1 in the next week?

base speed x negative elastic effect x 0.8?

Obviously you will be training 1on1 slower, but the bigger problem for me is that ___ % of cross-training. For a manager that cares very much of total skill points vs potential vs salary this is probably not the most desired outcome.

Last edited by Onisifor at 10/11/2011 10:37:28 AM

Is there any proof of an elastic effect then training a big man on the lagging small man skills (or vice versa)?

Is there any proof of an elastic effect then training a big man on the lagging small man skills (or vice versa)?

Sorry, I didn't understand fully what you mean...can you explain a bit better? You mean, if there is negative elastic effect on big men if they have bad guard skills? As far as I know, there shouldn't be. But I have never trained big men, so maybe someone else should have a better answer.

how much % does fall to the random training if you continue with the 1-on-1? We certainly know it is more that 10%. Could it be 20% with these set of skills? If we say it is, what is the training speed of 1on1 in the next week?

base speed x negative elastic effect x 0.8?

Obviously you will be training 1on1 slower, but the bigger problem for me is that ___ % of cross-training. For a manager that cares very much of total skill points vs potential vs salary this is probably not the most desired outcome.

I see your point, it's a very interesting one. If you train the player you "created" in either JR, PA or OD, then very little goes to cross training (more than 90%) and a lot goes into trained skills. So there is probably a threshold where you have to stop training 1 on 1 because it creates so much negative effect that even faster OD or JR training can't recover it.