BuzzerBeater Forums

I don't know how many people have tried this, but I've been toying with the idea of training in a way that would hopefully cut down on salary costs. First of all, I always put my players through 1 position training and hope to get 3 players the full 48 minutes and hope for no foul-outs or injuries. The schedule has been Week A: train the 2 guards and the sf, Week B: train the 2 post players and the same sf.

That is not the new part of the training. This is. I would buy 4 people with at least Perennial Allstar potential and another player with at least Supersstar potential and all of them would be 6'5-6'7 in height. I am wondering if it would be a good idea to train two of the players for Week A in OD, IS, and a little bit of RB. I would train 2 other players in Week B in ID, JR, and a little bit of PA. My last player would train every week. My Week A players could play PF/C on offense and play defense as a PG/SG. All players would get some JS training. My Week B players would play PG/SG on offense and play defense as a PF/C. My last player would always play SF.

Of course this could pose some problems when trying to find adequate role players to fit the system. Hopefully I can work around that. Please reply to this so I can get your thoughts.

I don't think this is a good idea at all... a couple of things i should state:

1) Training 4-5 players is TOO MUCH. 3 is the limit for effective training. I even prefer to just train 1-2 players.
2) If you were planning on train 4 players you wouldn't need P.Allstar+ Potential (all you would need is star potential... maybe) because most of them would never reach their cap due to VERY slow training.
3) Although it may be more "salary efficient", that would only because none of your trainee's would be getting as skilled as they could be. It would better to just get 2 quality players rather than 4 players with holes in them or weak skills.

so what I gather from this is that although 2 position training is more cost efficient, 1 position training is more effective at capping out a PA+ right?

Not necessarily. You can cap out two PA+ trainees almost as well as just one trainee. You just can't do that with 3+ trainees because there will always be a few strange substitutions that screw up minutes or injuries or fouling out games.

mmm I think either you misunderstood what I was saying or I misunderstood what you were saying. When I say one/two position training I mean like, training pressure using just PG vs PG/SG. Not specifically training 1 vs 2 vs 3 specific players. Unless I am not reading what you are saying properly :s

Last edited by jeffjeff at 1/20/2013 1:00:27 AM

Oh yes. Training pressure for PG/SG is much slower in the long run verses just pressure for PG. However, if you have two league games a week and two trainees then you can just do one position pressure training and play each trainee 48 minutes for the two games (Then if minutes get screwed up you can book a scrimmage).

I don't know how many people have tried this, but I've been toying with the idea of training in a way that would hopefully cut down on salary costs. First of all, I always put my players through 1 position training and hope to get 3 players the full 48 minutes and hope for no foul-outs or injuries. The schedule has been Week A: train the 2 guards and the sf, Week B: train the 2 post players and the same sf.

That is not the new part of the training. This is. I would buy 4 people with at least Perennial Allstar potential and another player with at least Supersstar potential and all of them would be 6'5-6'7 in height. I am wondering if it would be a good idea to train two of the players for Week A in OD, IS, and a little bit of RB. I would train 2 other players in Week B in ID, JR, and a little bit of PA. My last player would train every week. My Week A players could play PF/C on offense and play defense as a PG/SG. All players would get some JS training. My Week B players would play PG/SG on offense and play defense as a PF/C. My last player would always play SF.

Of course this could pose some problems when trying to find adequate role players to fit the system. Hopefully I can work around that. Please reply to this so I can get your thoughts.

It's an interesting thought, I will give it that.

But if you're planning on training five guys, *ESPECIALLY* five similar height guys, they should all be trained every week, and that means two position training. The way you're going about it is that you have four guys who get trained at 100% (1 position) every other week - which is essentially training them at 50% speed when you factor in the alternating weeks. Two position training is roughly 2/3 the speed of one position, so you'll be picking up a lot of training on those other four guys if you two position every week, though the 1 guy who you'd "always" train will naturally train slower under this regimen.

And if you're going to be two position training them, you don't need PAS potential, and certainly not higher than that, since you'll just be spending more money on acquisition and you'll never really seriously approach those levels.

I would think it might be possible at lower levels to end up creating some pretty nifty SF types using that approach, but you'd have to be extremely disciplined in training to pull it off. But the downside is that you'll never really end up with elite players using this approach - so if you have hopes of a guy you're training now leading you to the NBBA it's best to put those aside. If you think of them more as guys that can get you to IV, keep you there, and then help get you to III and contribute there, you'll have a much better frame of reference - but a team built by training two position players from scratch probably won't go much beyond that, which means needing a transition plan to figure out how to proceed from there. That's all much, much longer term stuff, though.

Nifty is a fun word. I dig it.

there was a manager a few years ago, who had a similar idea.

he trained the whole roster and went nowhere. training too many players is a losing strategy. if you rallye want to, you can train one on one or rebounding, but switching 1-position training every week will be a dead end for you,.

there was a manager a few years ago, who had a similar idea.

he trained the whole roster and went nowhere. training too many players is a losing strategy.

i trained almost my whole roster (alternating weeks) my first few seasons and did really well with it.
Even later on i still did a lot of 3 position training & sometimes complete team training too. (such as training rebounding for team, outside shooting for team, etc...) I think it ultimately worked out far better than the boring 1 position training most people use.
edit: for most people the "X for team" training options probably aren't a great idea usually. i always will love the 3-position training options though.


Last edited by shikago at 1/22/2013 4:19:47 PM