BuzzerBeater Forums

I also make a similar Excel as you did. Because of many reasons, I don't release it.
The Excel that I maked will be considered:
1.
One or more skills acceleration to another skill.
For example:
High OD(PD) skill will acceleration to JR.

2.
The impact of age on the speed of training.

3.
Players' Height and Trainer's level affect the speed of training.

4.
Salaries are determined by the growth of the age(Update at S22).

5.
When skills reach PO Cap, the training speed will slow down.

And some other functions...

If you like, I can send you a copy of the Excel Training Simulator.

PS. It was xxx.xlsx. So you need to open it by Office 2007 or later edition.

I just sent you a bb-mail. Your excel simulator sounds very interesting! I'd love to see it.

Added a few bells and whistles to download if you'd like them.

v2.5.4 includes:

1) A button that lets you select whether to display "age during training" or "age upon completion" in the "Training Results" section.
2) Past dates that cross themselves out, so you can easily see where "now" is.
3) The ability to add empty player slots which will gray out to allow you to more easily read your training results.

Last edited by rhyminsimon at 1/9/2013 12:26:52 PM

Can a GM add this to the help programs list?

(http://www.buzzerbeater.com/community/forum/read.aspx?thr...)

Thanks!!

And while I'm thinking about it, could you or another GM change the name of the thread to "Training Simulator" since we've progressed beyond 2.1? Thanks in advance.

how is the salary efficiency calculated? I have a SF with nearly 0,7 whereas my PF hast 0,3 even if i trained him a lot in secondaries.

I am just curious how it works and what kind of efficiency is good for each position

It is an experimental metric. What it does is divides actual salary by an "average" player salary calculated by averaging the coefficients for every skill and position and using TSP as the determining factor. My experience is that it isn't terribly useful in comparing players of vastly different salary or position. But it helps distinguish players with the same position and/or similar salary. I would be curious whether or not you find it useful. I use it to determine what is a "salary efficient pop" on a player I am training, but not much else.

Hi Rhyminsimon, and thank you for spending your spare time creating such great tool and sharing it with others. I've just started using your tool and it looks very nice. A question from me: what can be the reason that the difference between a full season of Passing (PG) and one of Passing (PG/SG) is just very minor (0.7 more or less)?

I simulate the following:
3 trainees, all 18 currently but I'm adjusting for the next season where they will be 19. Trainee 1 and 2 are 6'0" and Trainee 3 is 6'5"

PA Skills at start of season (assumed, not actual):
Trainee 1: 7.5
Trainee 2: 2.5
Trainee 3: 7.5

PA Skills after 1 season of PA (PG/SG):
Trainee 1: 13.42
Trainee 2: 9.46
Trainee 3: 13.29

PA Skills after 1 season of PA (PG) instead of (PG/SG):
Trainee 1: 14.18
Trainee 2: 10.37
Trainee 3: 14.06

Is this an expected outcome? I thought from reading the training speed analysis topic that single position PA training would amount to 1 pop per 1-2 weeks, while double position training would amount to 1 pop per 2-3 weeks. Is this difference just that small (1.9 weeks/pop vs 2.1 weeks/pop), is the simulator not accurate or am I making a mistake in using the simulator?

Thanks for your time

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. When I first created this three months ago, I was working with the best numbers/analysis that was available at the time. Since then I've concentrated on adding functionality and extra features, and assuming that the numbers/analysis hadn't changed my model much.

At that time there was some noise in our data which skewed the computer's analysis of Passing (PG). It suggested an unrealistically steep slope (like .3 for a 18yo 6'0" & 1.1 for a 18yo 7'6") for Passing (PG). In order to better approximate reality, I talked with wozzvt (who runs the BB-Training site:(http://training.bb-usa.net)) and we estimated the Passing (PG) numbers by looking at the all heights <6'8" (.60) and >6'8" (.63) which I used in my model. (In the interest of full disclosure, this and Shot Blocking (C) were the only training types I did this kind of thing with.)

Now that we've collected more data, the noise has quieted down some on this one. And when I look at the analysis now it looks like a 6'0" 18yo would get .73 from Passing (PG) and .53 from Passing (PG/SG). The slope still seems a little steep, but more reasonable. And the difference from the current model is not huge (at least for guards). But the analysis is closer to the order you were expecting than the current model.

Before you brought this up I had hoped to put off a new release until Season 23. But it looks like I should do it sooner. I will look at the raw data and the analysis and then: I will update the model this week or next and release a new version.

In the meantime, here's a quick fix using the computer analysis displayed on the BB-Training Site currently:
– Go to the "Coef" sheet and in the top left you will find a table labeled 6'0",18yo.
– In the PASSING (PG) row find the PA column and enter .73.
– Directly below find the PASSING (PG/SG) row and enter .53 in the PA column.
– Find the table labeled 7'6", 18yo below.
– In the PASSING (PG) row find the PA column and enter .88.
– Directly below find the PASSING (PG/SG) row and enter .64 in the PA column.

Last edited by rhyminsimon at 1/24/2013 9:37:55 AM