BuzzerBeater Forums

Training SF in OD is a big deal, especially since so many SFs are really JS freaks with just enough rebounding and IS or ID skill to play SF.

if they are JS freaks with barely enough ID and reb, then that is because managers create them that way.

even IF there would be a single position training available for SF, then they STILL would be the least on the national teams.
Guards and inside men can be trained in 1 area, for SF you need to train 2 areas, so the SF will always be weaker in both areas then the other players, and thus being the weakest player on the team.

If someone is training a PF or C, there is no way someone is going to be able to get the Sf the same level of inside training, as he also needs to take care of outside training.

If people wheren't so focussed on trying to improve (or make it easier) the training part, they might have noticed SFs playing at PG (for instance, and I also think playing at C, but didn't test that yet,) DO perform well when the right tactics are chosen. So in fact that already is an improvement in the direction that is being asked here, it just needs to be discovered.

even IF there would be a single position training available for SF, then they STILL would be the least on the national teams.
Guards and inside men can be trained in 1 area, for SF you need to train 2 areas, so the SF will always be weaker in both areas then the other players, and thus being the weakest player on the team.

Not if your split it 50/50 in training progress so if you had strictly SF training you give 50% to OD training & 50% to ID if you trained defense for example, and say the player happen to be 5'9 where he isn't fit to play SF due to short size then he'll barely like usual not improve 50% in ID and will improve only 50% in OD opposed to 100% if he was to be trained in pressure which stirctly focuses in OD. Meaning you shouldn't train 5'9 player at that SF, it would be most optimal to train a guy at SF who is the average BB height which is 6'7 so at that height his training progress in OD & ID would be equivelant for each as if you trained a 5'9 player at OD for that 1 week and divide it by 2 and do the same with ID. Given you divide each of the 2 skillset by 2 that way you don't make it so super short or super tall guy would benefit from such training cause you really would be giving them half the training speed considering training their other super weak skill would hardly progress.

It should be such If you trained a player for 4 years at SF for example, he would grow according to the current settings as if he was trained 2 seasons at guard and 2 seasons at center, being that age factors into growth for each season he'd train half the times on guard skillset and the other half at center. If a 5'9 trained at SF for 4 years it would be as if he got trained at guard for only 2 years and the barely pops he got at center training fom 2 years.
This way you have complete fairness, balance, and a league that's not only suited for super short at super tall being most prosporous in growth

Last edited by Coach_Gil at 3/3/2011 12:28:53 PM

as you are saying completely the same as I do (unless I get it wrong), I don't get why you start with "not if"

:)

you say it yourself: as if he would have trained 2 seasons outside and 2 seasons inside.

so, the guards will have trained 4 seasons outside, and the inside men 4 seasons inside, so both groups would have had double the amount of training, where it matters most... which was exactly what I was saying.

Even if you want more balanced players and will not train solely on inside or outside for these players, the optimal share of training will not be over 3+1 , I estimate, so they will still have had a full season more trainnig on their primary skills, and will also have been able to work away any real weakness in the season of secondary skilltraining.

But, because this is the same for everyone, the players facing off against each other have a chance to be equally strong.

if they are JS freaks with barely enough ID and reb, then that is because managers create them that way.

That's an excuse I often read(saying it's the manager mistake or fault), but it's not only about JS, it's also about what passing skill the SF has to play on the PG position, and ofc what OD has.

even IF there would be a single position training available for SF, then they STILL would be the least on the national teams.

Well i dont really know what exactly you want to say there, but you can't compare the global situation of teams with NT's since only the best join the NT's, but the most importing position on a NT is the SF(at least for me).

Anyway, on a NT a center can play as a PF or a SG can play as a SF(depending on secundary skills), because the performance is more ore less the same(changing the position doesn't affect a lot), but if you have a SF playing on the PF or on the SG position there's a huge difference on the performance( on the negative way)

If people wheren't so focussed on trying to improve (or make it easier) the training part, they might have noticed SFs playing at PG (for instance, and I also think playing at C, but didn't test that yet,) DO perform well when the right tactics are chosen. So in fact that already is an improvement in the direction that is being asked here, it just needs to be discovered. :)

Well, going to disagree again. If you have trained a SF you might have noticied that you have to sacrifice a lot and this sacrifice means playing the SF most of the times out of position. The most affected position when this kind of changes come, it's always playing the SF on the PG position that's all we are saying.

We don't need to discover America xD, even if you play one tactic or another the low performance of the SF on the PG it's still the same.


PD: From my pov, you can't always say it's the manager mistake, i've read that excuse in a lot of suggestions threads and it's not true, but it's really easy to say it as an 'argument'.

Last edited by Marot at 3/3/2011 3:11:16 PM

you say it yourself: as if he would have trained 2 seasons outside and 2 seasons inside.

so, the guards will have trained 4 seasons outside, and the inside men 4 seasons inside, so both groups would have had double the amount of training, where it matters most... which was exactly what I was saying.

There won't be double the training, in case there is something in the algorithm of training which makes 50/50 split such that it won't make it equal to overall progress of training to SF because say the algorithm is exponential, then whatever you do set it such that the calculations in the algorithm will ultimately result in equal progress to the example I mentioned 2 seasons guard & 2 seasons center if trained 4 years at SF. Not saying change the algorithm but place the right coefficient that will make it equal.

Also consider that for example since it takes more to train a player from colossal to legendery compared to pitful from atrocious, if you train for example for 4 full seasons to get a player from atrocious to legendary(20), because its not linear calculation in 4 seasons with the SF his training will not reach half of legendary(20) which would be Prominent(10) it will reach in one guard skill perhaps Tremendous(13) and the other center skill Tremendous(13) also if the player is 6'7. This assumption is based as if you trained 2 seasons guard & 2 seasons center and instead of getting legendary by being 4 seasons in one area you get tremendous in 2 of them.

This would not be any more or less the impact with splitting the training one week at guard and one week at center as far as skill progress goes, except you can place them in just SF opposed to having to start at PG then C then PG then C it's just absurd and it changes nothing except for now allowing the reasonable way of training at SF be possible.

PD: From my pov, you can't always say it's the manager mistake, i've read that excuse in a lot of suggestions threads and it's not true, but it's really easy to say it as an 'argument'.

don't twist my words, I never said it's anyone's fault, I said it is the managers choice. And yes, I know a lot of managers do like to train JS. Somethimes I even get the impressing managers think it's the only important skill every player should have, luckely this has improved very well over the seasons. It's not a fault, it's a choice.

I have played my SFs on the PG quite a lot of games this season, and experimented with tactics and for 1 tactic this has worked realy well, and devastating on my opponent, it even worked so well, that my SF entered the table on the leagues page, something even my best players in my best period seldom achieved. At that time my SF was even the top scorer in my team...
All I try to say here is: having to play him out of position isn't SO sacrifysing as everyone is claiming here, you can turn it into a usefull positionswitch if you want. Don't forget that defensivewise there should be no problem either, as you can easely take along 2 guards in your game and make your SF defend on SF and the guards in the guard position.

Ah, yes, nice! but, doesn't it make you realy predictable, having only 1 tactic working for your SF playing on PG?
Only if you make it so. By switching the SF to the C or PF spot to train ID or Reb for example, at odd times, your opponent can gamble you will play your working tactic, but if he is wrong, he will be sorry, so many won't risk that, and still be sorry.

There realy isn't much I can do to convince anyone, as everyone needs to experience for themselves. But I have no problem playing my PG out of position, and winning games...
(and to get ahead of those who will now claim I dropped a league: yes, but that is because the SF was a new player, and by no means good enough to perform at ANY spot in my team back then, and afterwards I sold my best players, because I had/have no ambition to get back up. IF I wanted to, I could by new players and get back up, but I don't feel like proving something to myself, and for the rest, they can do with my info as they wish, either believe it, or not,... )

okay, you are clearly missing what I am saying. I'm not talking about double training.

let me put an example, maybe that will be more clear:

let's say we have 3 players, a guard, make that a PG, a C and an SF.

they all start out training at the same time.
Let's say we focus on defense only, as that is what you use in your example too.

then this is what happens:

after season 1:
PG: 1 full season of OD
SF: 1 full season of D resulting in 1/2 season OD and 1/2 season ID as result (your 50/50 rule)
C: 1 full season of ID

after four seasons:
PG: 4 x OD
SF: 2xOD and 2x ID
C: 4x ID

or to put it in skills: when your guard will have an OD of 15 and your C also 15, your guards will be 11 on both defenses, so clearly less good in either defense then the other guys. the result would be the same as it is now. The only difference would be that you don't need to play him out of position.
So if that is your only argument , fine, you are right, but that was not what I was reacting on in my post. I was reacting on the comment the SF is the least player in the NT teams, and with this proposed new system, it will be the same, so it's no valid argument.

I think the reason why we don't see SF on NT teams is because there is scarce amount of users who try to train SF since you have to play them PG & C. If there were equal amount of guys who train SF as PG or C i think it would make more difference. Right now NT managers lineup a guard or center at the SF position, a SF good enough should be able to exploit their weakness like in real life if you put Yao in SF and had him guard Lebron.

I am also a strong believer that a ral SF on the SFspot would benefit a NT on overall performance.

et there often is a reason why the managers select PF or SGs for that spot, even when they get a real SF available, yes even a C somethime, because they opt for an inside or outside attack, and just want to get an extra strong man for that tactic rather then putting the more versatile SF on that spot.

So on 1 side , yes, the real SFs are scarse, but on the other hand, some managers still prefer SG or PF/C for their team.

I'm training an SF and getting him 100% training each week since I bought him at his early 18, yet I am unsure that he will even see any playing in the NT. I'm almost positive he won't get in the U21, because his defenses might be 10, but the U21 manager might prefer a defense 12 or 13 on OD when he will be playing a strong outside team, or Id when he plays a strong inside team, or when he is expecting those offenses from his opponent...
So it's also the NT managers choice.
I somethimes have put PFs on the SF spot, even though I always had 2 splendid Sfs, to surprise my opponents with it, and it has worked well, so I realy can't blame managers for choosing 1 inside SF (read PF) and 1 outside SF (read SG) over 2 real SFs, for the NT.
It's just how that manager feel, and what he thinks would work best.

So I, and others can be convinced a real SFs will benefit an NT more then playing SG and PFs out of position, if the NT manager feels diffrent, our players won't even reach the NT team.

But to get back on tpoic. Would this be enough reason the simplyfy, or even improve SF training? I don't realy think so. At first sight it might look like that, but I think that if they improve it, so the SFs actually get better then what they become now, I think the teams might get imbalanced, and the SF players might show op on 2 spots on the field. We would get PG-SF-SF-SF-C formations all over BB, and I don't think BBs would prefer that over PG-SG-SG-PF-C or PG-SG-PF-PF-C.

There is a delicate balance, which I feel is about right in this game right now, and to tweak it might improve it, but there's equal or more chance it will disturb it.

That being said I am still pro working out new training. Mostly because some skills are only trained in 1 trainingstype (passing) and some are showing up in far too many (handling or driving), but then best revise the whole thing. Not just adding some single SFspot training.
The system is good, they just need to tweak the options.

There is also huge issues with how players get labeled their positions. I had a player once who was atrocious in IS & REB and was labeled as SF when he clearly was a guard. Whenever I see that rare player who is all around skilled at every single one they are labeled as PF, so the labeling can also be misleading.

The thing is that I also think needs improvement is the fact that JS seems to only work for short players, while many of the greatest outside shooters such as Ray Allen happen to be 6'6 - 6'9.

I noticed that for a player labeled at SF, the IS skill has no factor whatsoever in the salary calculation for SF. So there are all those other things that's happening in BB that shouldn't happen. Those things not only need to be tweaking so we can see more Ray Allen like players out there, but also because they will help solidify the SF training as well.