BuzzerBeater Forums

Great report and really interesting to look at...

You should take into consideration that the height has a great influence on the pressure training. Probably your 18 year old trainee would have poped more that the 21 if the heights were the same. If you continue with pressure on this guys please report how did they go

Thanks

27 pops in 10 weeks isn't very good considering it is spread out over 27 players.
Using that method you are getting 1 pop every 10 weeks.
That means that your team is not improving very fast (remember you can only have 5 players on the court at a time),
and it also means that you are losing a lot of value on your 18 year olds because all of them only increased by 1 popup and it took 10 weeks which is most of the season.
This tactic would not work.

I was just explaining that it wasn't worth it.
What are you counting as partial minutes? 45? 40? 35?
Even if it was 1 pop every 4 weeks it wouldn't be worth it. I was just saying the tactic is no good incase someone decides to try it.
I think that it is too hard to get partial training anyway so 2 position is easier in that respect.

Playing 1 minute is NOT the same as playing 47 minutes for training.

It has been stated by BB that if you train 24 minutes you do get less than 50% efficiency in your training. This is a fact. None have been able to make very good approximations of how the decrease in training efficiency works though.

To train 27 players in tre positions does not make sense no matter how you try to motivate it.

If you think economically it might be good to train 3 positions and 9 players but training more than 9 will never be a good idea. Of that I am very sure based on both what BB said and how few pops I had on players with low number of minutes.

From my experience this season I am very confident that training a player for 40-45 minutes a week in one position will be more efficient than training that player in two positions. Considering my team and league it does not feel as an option to train more than three players and I therefore advice people to stay with one position if they are in my situation.

Economically I very much doubt that it is good to train too many players either. It will work fine as long as you are in lower leagues as you will win most matches even if you play with an 18 year old talent but against tougher opponents it will work poorly. Economically it is much better to play in a better league and earn more income due to that than to place too much effort on earning more money from training objects. At least in Sweden many teams sacrifies training positions on older players due to that. I think that you should make sure to have efficient training also at top level though, i.e. at least training a 25 year old who already is good enough as starter who has not reached his potential.

If you can actually read, we were simply pointing out that why it was a bad idea. We didn't say you were promoting it or anything like that. We are simply point out why the idea you put forward as a 'crazy idea' was a really bad idea. And I am sure you agree.
Then you started saying getting 1 minute of training is the same as getting 47 minutes of training which is completely wrong.

As for:

and naker, although he is normally completely off base and incapable of remembering details correctly

I gaurantee I know more about the game than you so am not normally completely off base.
Simply look at the difference between out 2 teams as proof of that.