BuzzerBeater Forums

Your answer is kind of specific and not realy realistic to most of the cases.

In your first case, it describes a case when each of the 3 players played exactly one game (on that single position) from start of the game untill its ending.
This means that they need to have a very good stamina, that you are able to give them those minutes with no harm to the team ability (meaning they are all in a very close ability level, or at least higher than other teams).

In addition, if the engine is desgined right, your players should suffer more from injuries, as the probability to an injury rises upon minutes in a single game. The same is true for stamina drop.
WWhat I mean is that 48 minutes in a single game should have worse affect than 48 minutes spreaded in a week.

Your way of thinking in general is "it is working don't touch it".
This way of thinking causes things to stay as it is and not improve.

You also basically didn't gave any reason why a coach will act as he did in the scenario I gave.

So summarizing it up, I think the case you gave doesn't answer the general cases.
I think that there is no reason why not improving the engine for example in the given scenario.

Thanks for your time and response.

If it truly is a waste of your time, you should revisit your priorities because our lives are too short to be wasting our time.

I love the game of basketball and Buzzerbeater is still the best basketball manager online, in spite of the flaws and idiosyncrasies that I mentioned. So I shall continue to waste my time on the game for the near future, but thanks for your concern.

No problem.

Simply not going to happen.

Minute management is what differentiates the good managers from the bad. Taking this away would make the game far too easy for everyone to manage GS and training.

For the purposes of game design, I can see why the BBs don't implement this.

Making it too easy would definitely be a problem. But on the other hand, if you have two starter-caliber players at the same position, both with high stamina, it's nearly impossible to try to get the backup anything more than about 6 to 8 minutes, regardless of which one you pick, and when you have three bigs you want to have a reasonable rotation at PF/C, it's even worse. I'd honestly just like the option to reduce a player's stamina to mediocre. if we can't get get an option to at least let the coach know that we would like them to use the backups at certain positions.

sadly your post it a bit overseen here, cause i think that you could change it without taking away the challenge of managing minutes. Maybe it would be really possiblie, to make something like an 6th man role where the backup is considered equally as a starter.
or overwork the Coach deciision with the coach set up, cause i get such an 6th men feeling easily when i play coach decides with a blank lineup but when i ply coach decides with a given lineup my coach forgets to substitute. Sounds weird but at least that is my experience with my roster, that when the coach have a pair of players for a position the result may change from 28/20 to 42/6 through the fact that you give him a starter(and strictly follow gives more backkup minutes even with equally strong players).

Simply not going to happen.

Minute management is what differentiates the good managers from the bad. Taking this away would make the game far too easy for everyone to manage GS and training.

For the purposes of game design, I can see why the BBs don't implement this.

Making it too easy would definitely be a problem. But on the other hand, if you have two starter-caliber players at the same position, both with high stamina, it's nearly impossible to try to get the backup anything more than about 6 to 8 minutes, regardless of which one you pick, and when you have three bigs you want to have a reasonable rotation at PF/C, it's even worse. I'd honestly just like the option to reduce a player's stamina to mediocre. if we can't get get an option to at least let the coach know that we would like them to use the backups at certain positions.

sadly your post it a bit overseen here, cause i think that you could change it without taking away the challenge of managing minutes. Maybe it would be really possiblie, to make something like an 6th man role where the backup is considered equally as a starter.
or overwork the Coach deciision with the coach set up, cause i get such an 6th men feeling easily when i play coach decides with a blank lineup but when i ply coach decides with a given lineup my coach forgets to substitute. Sounds weird but at least that is my experience with my roster, that when the coach have a pair of players for a position the result may change from 28/20 to 42/6 through the fact that you give him a starter(and strictly follow gives more backkup minutes even with equally strong players).

I like that idea too. I just think that there needs to be something somewhere that we can do to influence on a broad level whether or not backups (or even reserves) should be played regularly or sparingly. If I want a guy to play 48 minutes, I can fill him in all three spots on the depth chart. I could probably get very close to that by having him as the starter/backup and someone else at reserve. If I want 36ish minutes and he's got low enough stamina, I can have a backup. But trying to get anything approaching an even split, especially for high stamina players, is almost impossible unless you're having a blowout win or injury of course.

If I want a guy to play 48 minutes, I can fill him in all three spots on the depth chart

Well, that's does not work either!!!
In case you are using 10 players in a game and you are in garbage-time (and winning), still all the starters goes to bench, and no matter wether your other 5 had been defined as backups or not.

This again proves how much current situation is just wrong.

Targeting minutes or at least improving coach desicions are a must improvements and not just "nice to have".

Using 9 players (2 per position, one as Starter / Backup / Reserve) gives my guy 48 minutes 9 out of 10 times.

If I want a guy to play 48 minutes, I can fill him in all three spots on the depth chart

Well, that's does not work either!!!
In case you are using 10 players in a game and you are in garbage-time (and winning), still all the starters goes to bench, and no matter wether your other 5 had been defined as backups or not.

This again proves how much current situation is just wrong.

Targeting minutes or at least improving coach desicions are a must improvements and not just "nice to have".

Well, yes, to be complete you need to also make sure that you have no players who are dressed for the game that are not either a starter or backup at some position. The coach will replace your 48 minute guy with a player who is dressed only in a reserve position or who is not assigned any spot on the depth chart at all in a blowout. But if all of your players are starters or reserves, you won't have that happen.

The main argument against "targeting minutes per player" or even improving coach deisicions to be at least logical, are that the game should not get easier.

I'm strongly disagree.

In the same sense you can say that the game plan - defence and offence should become just random to make it harder.

When a user asks that a player will be a starter, it should play more than the backup unless of a need.
When the game is in garbage-time and you are winning there is no reason to give the backup more minutes than the starter.

In addition ,a coach should be aware to the minutes issue, exactly as he aware of the stamina and the shape issue.
And again, if you argue against the minutes spreading issue, why wouldn't you argue in favor of removing his awareness of stamina and game shape?

When the game is in garbage-time and you are winning there is no reason to give the backup more minutes than the starter.

This isn't true, theoretically or realistically. Garbage time means just that. Your garbage players get time. Starters sit during garbage time to negate the chance of injury, if it is 2 minutes or twenty-five.

My opinion is that you are not being open-minded to the ways which you can ensure a reasonable number of minutes for your players, or that you have not adequatley experimented with the various factors involved. As several people have psoted, myself included, managing minutes is not that difficult once you have your team figured out.

What's more, the game is about having to make choices on your road to success. If you want to play 10 guys, that's your choice. You do so at the risk of not getting players 48 minutes. The choice is yours.

When the game is in garbage-time and you are winning there is no reason to give the backup more minutes than the starter.

This isn't true, theoretically or realistically. Garbage time means just that. Your garbage players get time. Starters sit during garbage time to negate the chance of injury, if it is 2 minutes or twenty-five.

My opinion is that you are not being open-minded to the ways which you can ensure a reasonable number of minutes for your players, or that you have not adequatley experimented with the various factors involved. As several people have psoted, myself included, managing minutes is not that difficult once you have your team figured out.

What's more, the game is about having to make choices on your road to success. If you want to play 10 guys, that's your choice. You do so at the risk of not getting players 48 minutes. The choice is yours.

Come-on, let's summarize it by two points already mentioned.
1) When a coach has tired players and he decides to make them backups but still beating the other team, he most definately not say, OK so let's make the already tired players suffer more.

2) The coach in BB is aware of GS and stamina for its substitution.
What is the difference between that and weekly playing time? There is none.