BuzzerBeater Forums

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

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.

I'm somehow tempted to believe this. But what to do when one skill is higher and one lower than the skill we're looking at? or is it that only the highest skill is slowed down, and all the other ones are accelerated? even if it is something like 2-10-11? the 10-skill would be accelerated? hard to believe somehow, but maybe.

I will just speculate right now, but seems to me strange that we have here different training types (2 position minimum on rebounding - two related skills (IS, ID) and 2 position minimum on DV - three related skills and so on). The question is if it is this way because developers wanted to offer wider opportunity for elastic effect or the opposite.

This can be figured out by the character of these skills. Imagine how is DV underrated, it doesnt affect match ratings and it seems that it is only helping to the scoring abilitiy which has to be on high level already otherwise does not have any effect.

Rebounding seems to be way more important, maybe thats why there is no opportunity to have 1 position training for that and you have to have a good IS and ID to make elastic effect happen.

Imagine the future when all of this managers know, how it would influence theirs behavior?

Logically it would mean that DV would become most effective training, however it could be only until the day managers figure out that the best way to stop that is the shotblocking. For RB such a tight elastic option can be necessary for managers to realise that theirs guards can use ID at decend level...

So I see this issue like a twisted way of motivational factors, while easiest or necessary for elastic training are the skills which have to be most usuall for a competitive game. Therefre it means that you need only 1 related skill above, if Im right.

This can be figured out by the character of these skills. Imagine how is DV underrated, it doesnt affect match ratings and it seems that it is only helping to the scoring abilitiy which has to be on high level already otherwise does not have any effect.

That's what driving do,why it should be underrated?It helps you to score,what it shoud do?And this have also an indirect effect on your offensive flow,because more offensive options you have,better the GE would be able to build the shots of the whole team