BuzzerBeater Forums

Using your own logic PF has no single position training why should SF have one?

the request is a training as Jump shot for Forward
Pressure for forward,bi-role SF-PF which train 50-50% ID and OD

i'will be yet happy with a pressure training for SF-PF which train 50-50% ID and OD
if it we'll be monorole,it's better
Sfs if i had to define the identity of my SF,i need to make play her some weeks in another role,but generally my player had to have the possibility to play in nhis role

Ok after eurocup games I'm back:D + I am easily amused!
I will not bother to quote you but give a little insight on things. In real life what kind of SF-s are there? Usually there a two types of SF-s. One is a guard like SF that can defend outside but is being dominated inside because of height or weight. The other type is a little longer SF that can not play outside defence very well because of his height his quickness is low. So he will be dominated by guards but will provide extra rebounding support and some shot blocking. Has a good enough 3 range on his jumper. So basically there is the SG type with some PF skills and PF type with some SG skills.
Because you like RL comparisons so much I'm going to give you some. I will use Dallas Mavericks as an example (you being from the states can easily relate to that) Dirk Nowitzki what spot can he exactly play? He can play any spot on the floor. Yes he has played PG for Germany NT (when the starting PG could not bring the ball over the HC). He shoots like the best of the guards and rebounds like forward or C. So basically his shooting and inside skills let him play at any spot. This year for example J.Kidd has played SF when there was J.J.Barea and J.Terry on the floor with him.
So basically what I am trying to say is that basketball is more all around game and with giving SF spot 50%od 50%id SF only training there will be a lot of SG's and PF's playing out of position at SF.
There are a lot of players that I can come up with that can play atleast 3 spots on the floor. Lebron, Kobe, Wade, Pippen, A.Stoudemire, Carmelo to name a few. I believe there are no players in NBA that can not play 2 spots.

Ok nighty night we will start again in the morning:)

And just about what percentage of time did Pippen or Lebron spend at center to work on their inside defense skills? Little to none, really? Huh, must have had a high level trainer to 3 position train them up so fast.

Yup. The common sense in this thread sometimes comes through in bits and pieces.

For our European expert, it should be pointed out that sometimes a team will do things like run a "three guard set" or run a big lineup. This basically means that in real life teams aren't always lined up with a typical PG-SG-SF-PF-C set. Sure Scottie Pippen could handle the ball well and bring it up court and shoot from downtown, but he could also crash the boards with the big guys. He wasn't going to guard Charles Barkely too often, but he could switch over to him in a pinch. John Paxson could not guard Charles Barkley. (Sorry if I'm making you have to research the history of arguably the greatest dynasty the NBA has had, with apologies to the Celtics fans of old.)

BB doesn't have the option of running any sort of lineup other than one of each position. BB doesn't have players switching over to guard players at other positions. We're a little limited here. I assume in a few years the developers will be so advanced that they'll burn the game engine and just have robots that they programmed running the games in real time that we can watch streaming on our 3D computer that will flash holographic highlights from the PDAs we'll all have wired in our heads.

But in the meantime, we need a way to train versatile players without having to put them out of position or water down the training while training at least 2 or 3 players at the same time.

Just when i thought I could get through an entire chihorn post without laughing, you had to bust out the robots. Cheeky.

But in the meantime, we need a way to train versatile players without having to put them out of position or water down the training while training at least 2 or 3 players at the same time.

My comment on this point, which has been made a few times in this thread. Multi-skilled players are way better than 3-4 skilled players. While it is true that you do take a hit at the beginning of a SF training regime (the first 2 seasons, max), eventually your team is much better off. It is not reflected in the ratings, but you do see it in the pts per 100 shots and the final score.

The playing out of position bit is being way over-exaggerated, and is probably being propagated by players who are not SF trainers. My best player is supposedly a "PF". However, he has outclassed guards 2-3 times his salary a few times this season.

Not to mention that my team now has enormous flexibility. That same "PF" can play any position on the court and get pretty much the same rating.

You also appear to be able to play backups and win your league games.

If i do that I can plan for a loss. As leagues become more competitive from the top down, current SF training will become even more difficult.

Look at the national teams, it's become a tactical guessing game as just about every country has roster that can field and inside team and a decent outside team. There's still very few players that are actually better at SF then they would be at some other position.

Last edited by brian at 1/6/2009 9:00:06 PM

"Multi-skilled players are way better than 3-4 skilled players."

3 or 4 is sort of "multi", no?

"The playing out of position bit is being way over-exaggerated, and is probably being propagated by players who are not SF trainers."

For the record, my best player is a SF. (He's Eric Paz, you can out my roster to verify this.) And count me as a non-exaggerating propagator, you exaggerating non-propagator! Don't make brianjames have to make some robots and program them to injure you SF's favorite knee!