BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

Using much closer numbers:
Passing - 1 week trains .9
OD - 1 week trains .75
Each years trains 95% of previous year
11 weeks of 1 pos training in the first year
Want 8 pops of each

The assumption that all the different types of train decrease at the same pace every year the player gets older is, in my opinion, wrong!

We discussed this before and if you have patience you can read it here (read a few posts to understand the whole discussion): (126140.633)

Basically, what I want to say is that, an 18 year old and a 21 year old player can train passing almost at the same pace and that just doesn't happen with pressure training!

And I would say that also if all the differenty types of training decreases in the same percentual way,the effect will be however different on the various types of training because they haven't the same speed at the start

Little example:
If i buy a title in Wall Street with a 100$ price in the first day,it deccrease of the 10% the second day and then it raises of the 10% the third day,what would be the value of my title at the end of the third day?
Many people would say 100,but that's not the right answer,because the percentage of the 10% is calculated on different values


And I suspect that it's not only a question of the age factor,but is more a question of the combination between age and height factor.Age ould act in a certain way on height factor for some training,and in other way for others training
For example in the 18-19yrs season,the difference between a 185 and a 203 player training Od monorole is almost non-existent in terms of pops,in the 20-21-22yrs season the difference became very important, while for 1 vs 1 the difference is smaller

Last edited by Steve Karenn at 9/29/2010 6:43:09 AM