BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

Hello,
This is an issue that should be looked closely, and obviously improve the current training system to ALL positions.

In my own humble opinion, there should be the possibility to train ALL players in their "core" skills, because now we can do it with PG/SG and C.
We should have the possibility to train 3 major skills for every position on 1 position training, 3 skills at 2 position training, and another 3 skills at 3 position training, and then the remaining 3 at team training.
This way the training would be more balanced, and we still can use players out of position if we want to train some skill faster.

For instance, if you wanna train passing for a Center, you can do it at 3 position training and use him as a SF, or you can do it at 2 position training using him like a SG, or at 1 position training using him as a PG.
The more you move away from the player "core" skills, the harder to train them, but you still have the chance to choose, and train ANY skill you want for ANY player (faster os slower).

Best regards.

Last edited by Araujo67 at 2/18/2011 12:28:10 AM

I also train SF an i think it is true that you make a big sacrifice, but your reward it is very good too. I have tree players now that can play in any position so taking care of game shape is easier, with lots of habilitys hight and a low salary un relation with their good game results. I started with inside habilities an now they are playing as PG. Playing inside tactics make them socore a huge number of points as the are defended by PGs with not too much ID, so the are actually being very useful in this position. Adicionaly i am planing to align the three of them in PO, and coach parrot says me my team will get califications never seen by my rivals. I hope this surprise factor will help me in my way to III division.

While all around SF training correspond with 1-2 of my players, obviously also freaked myself that everything takes so long and that player, in order to have some GS, will play most of his time out of position, which means reduced contribution to my team and so on. On the other side it seems like a best strategy if you want to keep such player, have low-league team, if he is your draft, because after like 3,5 seasons of training he earns just 17k p/w and Im sure that this "pain" will have some payback soon.

So only thing which I dont understand is that why we cant train passing to our big men, while it seems so important and in fact real pain for training speed (+slight salary payback just for the skill, but usually with salary 50k+ anyway), and asking ourselves why nobody does it and driving is available easily.

Last edited by aigidios at 2/19/2011 4:48:42 AM

I agree with those saying that it should be possible to train an SF by playing hom on the SF position. it is just ridiculous that an SF is trained best by not playing hm (mostly) in the position he is aiming to become good in.

The logocal thing to me would be that he effect of training would depend on the tactic you choose. For instance, imagine you are training OD on all three positions PG, SG, and SF, then the guards should get 1 "unit" of training, while the SF should get e.g. half a "unit". On the other hand if you play a 3-2 zone, each of the three positions would get 1 "unit", i.e. in total the traing would be more efficient in this case (which is logical considering the chosen tactic).

if you have chosen 1 position training on SF, with MM tactics the SF would get something like 1.5 "units" of training, while if you play OD he would get 3 "untis" of training. It should of course be possible to set 1 position OD training on C and PF too, but hen the training would be very inefficient.

For me this would be more logical, while a the same time requiring better planning and skill, and compromising, to balance match and training efficiency.

Finally a possible effect could also be that if you have chosen e.g. 1 pos OD training on SF with a 3-2 zone, then the coach would take this in consideration when adjusting the tactics during the game. I.e. even if it would be a good reason to switch to a more inside oriented defense during the game, the coach would still keep the outside defense in order to maximize training. On the tactics page you might even have the choice to set "prioritise training", "priorities match result", "or balance training and match result", just as you can choose how the coach should handle substitutions and fouls today.

I thought it was. Unfortunately I have no material which could tell me what is depended and what is not.

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.)

it's not that easy.
in this topic training for SF is discussed, but if the BBs are to change anything about training, they will need to revise the entire thing, as there are other points that could be discussed as well.
driving for instance, and handling are in a lot of trainingtypes as secondary, while passing is in none. there's positions that can get certani types of training, and a lot of other points to take a closer look at, because the last thing they would want is to alter the system, only to discover a new thread about a training change proposition.
So just answering the questions and implementing the SF training if they are yes, is no road to take.

Also people claiming they are taking on a challenge by training SFs in the current system are not martyrs. they just do what they say, taking on that challenge, because the want to, not to be martyrs. Believe me, it;s not the people training the SFs at this tmie that want the change, it's the ones that are not training them, but want to, that are requesting it, because they want to do it the easy way.

Personally I wouldn't mind either way. If the BBs decide there are enough people that want it to change, and they change it, and it's no longer a challenge, I'll find something else which is challenging to me. I have no problem with that.

It's also not right to try to stop discussion by simplifying it all into a few questions that would solve the entire topic here.
In order to get a clue at how many people want things to change, the BBs want the discussion to go on, not extinguish it, as it will not give them the needed info.

training is BIG in BB-world. if it is ever going to be changed, there better be a large majority in favor of changing it. ;)

Also people claiming they are taking on a challenge by training SFs in the current system are not martyrs. they just do what they say, taking on that challenge, because the want to, not to be martyrs. Believe me, it;s not the people training the SFs at this tmie that want the change, it's the ones that are not training them, but want to, that are requesting it, because they want to do it the easy way. :)

Great! I totally agree with you !

Anyway, it wolud be nice to have a train that improves ID and OD at the same time but not very fast. You wold need to change positions if you want to train one faster than the other and to train pass, rebounds, outside shoting,... training a good SF would steel being dificult but not that much.

I train SFs and i am hapy with their contribution to the team even not playing in their perfect position.

The thing that is the real problem is the thing that was identified by the very first post in this thread. Whatever player you want to train you have to train him as a C or a PG and that simply isn't realistic. There is exactly ONE single position training that I am aware of that isn't C or PG and that is JR for SG. Why is there no skill at all that is best served by playing as a forward as some sort? Why are PGs best at everything?