BuzzerBeater Forums

If you start with the fast skills first, you are finished earlier with them, and could train the slow one longer so that in the end you finished at the same time.

I'm not convinced

Let's say that our goal is that our player had to arrive to the same level in both a fast and slow skill(call them X and Y)
And let's say that I will train first slow skills and you will train first fast skill.
If our players always had the full training,there will be a point in an avdanced age where the sum of their X+Y skills will be equal,while they are still training,right?
If the point when X+Y is equal for both the player,arrive when they still not reach the goal,it means that the player that had to be completed in the X(fast) skill,will finish earlier than the player that has to be completed in the Y(slow) skill

If the point when X+Y is equal for both the player,arrive when they still not reach the goal,it means that the player that had to be completed in the X(fast) skill,will finish earlier than the player that has to be completed in the Y(slow) skill

if you make a point landing with both training it would be the same, but it is hard to create example who will end up exactly with zero sub ;) So in reality there will be difference in maybe one week, depending when you arive the skills more exactly(but when it takes longer the player had more subskills).

If the point when X+Y is equal for both the player,arrive when they still not reach the goal,it means that the player that had to be completed in the X(fast) skill,will finish earlier than the player that has to be completed in the Y(slow) skill

i believe you mean who completed the slow skills, will be ready earlier ;) But when X and Y is the same, the would be always the same amount of training open or none.

Try to work it out with my example, and think of that OD will ten weeks for a skill up, and JS and 1 vs 1 will pop in one each. It will change nothing on the calculation itself and i would wonder if you could find a scenario which will take longer then 24 weeks(and in this case you have tons of subs^^)

I was wondering about issues you mentioned and I think it works as follows. Elastic effect works even if you have 1 related skill above the one you train. Unfortunately for this I have no data, but it "feels" like that.

Also seems from training of my SF prospect that once you have related skill equal or above 1, it has a full effect no matter how high differences are. (so dont matter if is related skill bigger by 10 or by 1)

I trained whole season IS this player. 18y old, 193cm, lvl4 trainer

JS 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
JR 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
OD 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
HA 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
DR 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
PA 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
IS 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9
ID 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

The point in rules about more skilled player, faster he will train is in my opinion about something else than elastic effect. I suppose that it just compensate the age. So if you train intensively from the beginning, you might have better "base" for the future training, so player will not be in 25 so dumb like the other would be.

If we start with wrong assumptions we will never arrive to a good observation

You can't use as argument assumptions without any sense

We should use as base the studies that was yet made on the normal training of the players

Last edited by Steve Karenn at 9/28/2010 3:21:22 PM

In regards to training the hardest skills first, on account of penalties like height:
Multiple penalties magnify each other in most models of training speed, such as the coach parrot spreadsheet for example.

An example with age and height:

1 week of ideal training / (.75 for age x .5 for height) = 2.67 weeks of training
+
1 week of ideal training / (1 for age x 1 for height) = 1 week of training
=
3.67 weeks of training (to be equivalent to 2 weeks of 18yo with ideal height)

OR (by switching where the age penalty occurs)

1 week of ideal training / (1 for age x .5 for height) = 2 weeks of training
+
1 week of ideal training / (.75 for age x 1 for height) = 1.33 weeks of training
=
3.33 weeks of training (to be equivalent to 2 weeks of 18yo with ideal height)


The 2nd case accomplishes the same amount of training in a shorter time frame as the penalties are not magnifying each other and are instead offset. If those models where the penalties compound each other are accurate, as far as that principle, then it is better to train, for example, the most penalized skills due to height when the trainee is younger. This benefits the trainee by offsetting those penalties.

Training a small forward for example can be accomplished with any height player as long as you account for this without too much of a difference between that player and a 6'6"-6'8, or whatever preferred height, player. Theres a tremendous difference in what that player will be like during the journey, but the end result will be similar. The right height still benefits, along the same lines as multiplying two groups divided out of ten, i.e. 3x7=21 4x6=24 5x5=25.

Good advice would probably be not to worry too much about this, or the 'elastic effect' as well, as the degree of training being sacrificed is likely not great and it may complicate the value of the trainee as a financial asset, or its game performance, during their development. Along the same lines as just using a lvl4 Trainer instead of worrying about the cost/benefit of higher levels trainers. Instead just wait and see if theres a general rule that develops out of it that applies to your situation, training for cost effectiveness/or to develop a national team player/etc. Finding that shot blocking on your good center can develop from atrocious to prominent in half the time as normal and rushing to do it will probably just make a player you can no longer afford.