BuzzerBeater Forums

Off to Ukraine. I doubt very many of you can watch tomorrow. 2:30 isn't the best time. Sorry for not naming the squad yet. Personally I'd like to keep it this secret every week if I could as its to my advantage I think, but I understand anyone with a 21yo might be wondering if your player will make it. You'll find out soon enough.

Ok. Time for me to start doing the job I was voted in for.

This week's "advice" is about game shape. I will be getting in touch with managers of players who should have made the squad today but haven't because of game shape being too low but I'm going to say here what I believe is the way game shape works. Anyone who disagrees, please, please post after me saying what you think. The more opinions the better, as it will give people choices.

It's important to say that this is just an opinion, but since I do generally have good game shape on my players, I feel confident that I'm right. The most important number in the game shape calculation is the starting game shape of the player. This is why after week one we're often surprised by the game shape of our players. Simply put, the best way to have good game shape (proficient) is to already have it. If you do, then the range of minutes at which you'll keep proficient game shape widens.

So; how do we get to proficient? Well, that's harder of course. For me, 60-72 minutes is best. I prefer to give advice stating a range of minutes than one exact number, though in reality, I myself look for closer to 60, but that's not always practical.

From checking players' minutes, I've come to the conclusion that some people must think their player needs 48 minutes in a game to get his full training for the week. This is not the case. 48 minutes in a week in the required position is what he needs.

Generally the best way to get 60-72 minutes is to either play your player as a starter twice, as a starter once and backup twice, or, the best way if you're training, 48 minutes in one game, and then backing up in another game.

I feel almost like I'm begging now, but please, if you agree or disagree, please post here. Its slightly preposterous for me to say your community needs you, but at the very least, they could use your assistance.

Thanks, Gully.

I think as low as 48 minutes will still give good results, I aim for 48-72 minutes with 60 being the sweet spot. They also adjusted the range for high stamina players, in my experience guys with 8+ stamina can flirt with 80 minutes every week and still be in good shape.

I think as low as 48 minutes will still give good results, I aim for 48-72 minutes with 60 being the sweet spot.

Thanks, this is exactly the kind of reply I was looking for.

They also adjusted the range for high stamina players, in my experience guys with 8+ stamina can flirt with 80 minutes every week and still be in good shape.

Definitely agree with this. With the u21s though high stamina players are few and far between, but still, for the ones this does apply to, its an important point I missed.

Again, thanks for the comments.

the only thing with 48 is if you plan on only playing 48, you should get your player the minutes early in the week

Hadn't really thought of mentioning that but its worth considering.

ultimately game shape can be a crap shoot sometimes.

Yes, anything with randomness is going to end with an element of luck involved. That can mean players who play too many minutes can still have reasonable game shape. I did actually discount one player because he had played too much, even though his GS was still 7(considered the minimum), because I couldn't be sure he'd stay in shape.

(38856)
Iceland U21 72 England U21 98
Player of the game was Malcolm Lambert, top scorer and top rebounder. 9 player lineup worked quite well.

(http://www.buzzerbeater.com/world/standings.aspx?teamid=1...)
Standings here for those who don't know where to find them. Too early to read much into it, but the top 4 seeds all won their first games, though Hungary had to use more effort to beat Switzerland, which was interesting.

Probably should have mentioned this sooner. If anyone is after a possible u21/NT trainee and the price is too high for you, either get in touch directly with the manager in question, or if you prefer, get in touch with me and I'll see if I can help.

I know everyone has been waiting to see what I'd be discussing this week. Trump's hair? The state of the Labour Party? The effect of Brexit on the BB economy and our chances in the Euros. Well, obviously we're finding things much cheaper in Ukraine because of the weaker pound but other than that I can't see much difference, its not like we needed visas.

No. None of those things. I'm going to pose a much more important question. Or questions actually. Why should I draft? Why should I train someone for England? What's in it for me?

Why should I draft?
There are two trains of thought on this. One, that the draft is useful because you gain three players, and there's a chance (quite small according to some) one of them could be very good. And two, that the draft is a complete waste of time and money because its a lottery.

Which is true? Well, in fact both are true. Yes, its a bit of a lottery as you don't know in advance the quality you're going to find, but inevitably some people will be lucky, and if you spend money on the draft, its much more likely to be you than your division rivals.

As examples of this, I'll use two of the current U21 squad as examples. Andrew Reeve, drafted by Irvine Blackhawks, sold for over $1.5m, albeit after being trained for a season by that team, and Ernesto Corral, drafted by Olympian of T20 Cricketers, sold for over $2.5m.

That's a massive profit for both of those teams compared to what they must have spent on the draft.

Obviously there's the matter of draft position. Reeve was pick 13, and Corral pick 10, but generally you want to spend relatively less the later in the draft you pick. In D3 obviously there are more bots who can be disregarded and so a later position there might be more attractive than in D1 and D2.

I'll be commenting further on the draft later in the season, probably quite well in advance of the actual draft.

Why should I train someone for England?
For one thing, because its good for me. I personally think its good for England to have a healthy NT and U21 team, and it adds interest to the game.

Perhaps more importantly though, its a way of making a very good player, to fit your own needs, that perhaps might not be available through the transfer list.

Will this be expensive? If you want an NT player then yes, it probably is. Too expensive? That's a value judgement. In my opinion, not excessively expensive as its possible to make very good players indeed.

For U21 players however, training need not be expensive. And if you don't draft a good player, there's not necessarily a need to invest a lot of money in a young trainee who could make the U21 squad. Again I can use an example of a few members of our current squad.

Malcolm Lambert, our MVP of last week's game, a perennial allstar potential, cost only $10,000. Ethan Sanderson, another perennial allstar cost $100,000. And Julian Wilson, a superstar potential, cost only $4,000. Allstar potential players are also often available for as little as $1,000 so the initial cost of a trainee can be very small indeed.

Again, comments are invited, especially if you have a player you can comment on, or particularly if you have strong feelings about the draft.



Last edited by Gully Foyle at 9/19/2016 10:12:01 AM

I would love to see that debate on Trumps hair XD