BuzzerBeater Forums

South Stags from Season 32

I think one thing I would like to change is the training methods of 18-20yo players. By that I mean I would like us to identify roles sooner for players and have them work towards being those players when they start their 21yo season.

By that I mean I would move a away from saying "If training a big have big man skills all over x", and instead move towards "You big man's offense sucks, but his ID/SB/RB are strong, lets make your player a true R'n'G center and ignore his offense all together". I guess I ma saying that due to the size of the community I would want to have greater mix of Big men (some that a standard well rounded Bigs, some only for off, some only for def, and maybe even 1 that is a 3 point shooter).

This comment was from someone running for u21 last season. I think it's a relevant discussion to have now, given other teams have gone down the u21 path a bit differently. Can we afford to ignore having potential call-ups available to change the structure of the offense and defense to outplay another team that might be comparable to us? I'll post my response in a few posts, but wanted to see what other potential u21 managers think of South Stag's discussion point, and whether Serbia's victory over us last season with a star player a few weeks into the season is enough to at least consider opening up All-star level potentials to the u21.

I will start off by linking the Game vs. Serbia for those of you interested

(http://www.buzzerbeater.com/match/35162/boxscore.aspx)

(http://www.buzzerbeater.com/player/35600049/overview.aspx)
Player in which everyone is talking about.

Based on the results of this game, and the PP100 Ratings, we should be focusing our attention a little bit more to players of lower potential. Instead of just having the same willy nilly 7s 8s and up, we should also not exclude the 6s at least, and possibly even 5s if they have the talent enough to do so. Dojkov not only beat our SF considerably, he dominated our SF at the game. He went 50% clip from the field, with 6 rebounds and 3 assist to boot. The over 30 difference in PP100 is very interesting to look at and a performance from a player of Dojkov's caliber is really unheard of in many aspects of BB. If Serbia can make a star player look good against us, why do we still have "At least 6 Potential" as a requirement? Now, there are other U21 players that hit the stage as an allstar (Another Serbia player, cannot list or say name because he is on TL) Another couple of Serbians players at that time were also star/allstar. An allstar in Spain who I also cannot list because of TL (Spain is a pretty good U21 btw) Even Taiwan who made it to the semi finals had a couple all stars mixed in there. That's a major difference I have between USA and the other countries who did better than us on the U21 stage.

I will also hint on a little disagreement I had with one of Phyr's decisions. There was a USA SF, Zheng Qunxing, had 92 TSP at the time of the discussion, was better than 2 other SFs that would eventually make it later on at the time. The coach decided not to put him on the team. I'm not saying it was a bad, terrible decision, I'm just disagreeing with the call. He had the skillset to play well at the time and would've performed well imo. But it is what it is.

"If training a big have big man skills all over x", and instead move towards "You big man's offense sucks, but his ID/SB/RB are strong, lets make your player a true R'n'G center and ignore his offense all together".

Now I can explain this a little further as we go on with the debate. I do like the idea, however you do need to consider what IS is appropriate for a certain offense. Let's use the RnG template for example.

If you're running RnG at the U21 Level, you will need considerable amount of passing and rebounding at the big spots to make up for the amount of missed shots you will get from the guards, because let's face it, making a 3 is more difficult than making a 2. You will need a bit of JS on the PF, and some JR as well. I say you need more JS because the PF will take 44% of jump shots in a RnG, while a Center will have 33% taken. Now let's go back to that "his IS sucks": You'll need some sort of IS on the center because he takes 38% shots inside still, most likely coming from tip in attempts. So I would suggest that the skill distribution for these 2 players would be a lot like this, the 5 skills going from most important to least:
C: RB, IS, ID, PA, JS
PF: RB, ID, PA, JS, IS (takes 27% inside shots in RnG)

Now back to the allstar.

The allstar can be a highly coveted piece with the right training. We have 18 spots to call up on (2 usually for future players) So I think we have plenty of call ups available for certain types of players. If you see an allstar that has a intriguing build to fit a certain tactic perfectly, by all means go for it. That's what I'd do as the U21 Manager. I'd look at my options as far as tactics goes, see who I need to call up, weigh the pros and cons of that decision, and make a decision that will help the US Move On to latter stages of the tournament. At the end of the day, you have to do whatever it takes to win, and if it means calling up that one extra player for one or 2 games, you do it.

Q:
A head coach is only as good as his coaching staff around him....

How will you (guys) handle this? I feel like the last several seasons the scouting has been lacking a lot, and there hasn't been much personalization to managers training U21 candidates.


I also notice that most U21 players keep coming from the same managers who train the same way for the same builds each time.
Do you see this as a problem? If so: How do you think this can be improved upon?

I will like to add to that since my post was about to get cut off...

I think what you would need to do with such allstars and star players, is you build them already for a specific tactic to use just in case you need that player in the future.

In the Serbia game, he knew he was CTing off the bat in order to secure a win for them. He decided to go with the best LI lineup he has set possible, which means he more than likely brung in this batch of starters:

PG: Specialist with low JR, decent JS to not miss an open look. OD to stop penetration of the ball and make it tougher for the guards to pass inside to the bigs ready to post up and score. Has PA and possibly IS to help in the offense

SG: Purely a defender to disturb our passing in the lanes. Probably has IS and a bit of PA too to help with passing to their own bigs.

SF: This star player more than likely was a defensive hound who could score and rebound inside. Likely has little PA but good enough IS and D to make a player pay. For all I know I could be wrong, and it was Williams having a terrible day. But you can't just go 1-15 for no reason. This Serbian player ain't no scrub.

The Bigs were probably LI Men who could score. I won't go in depth on those players because it's probably self explanatory.

Main point is, we should take a look at developing a few Allstars to fit certain tactics...particularly SFs because they will be the most cap friendly and salary efficient for both the team and the U21. I'm not saying, "hey lets make a team of allstars and stars just because we lost one game" I'm saying we should definitely not completely ignore these type of players like we have for such a long time.

Q:
A head coach is only as good as his coaching staff around him....

How will you (guys) handle this? I feel like the last several seasons the scouting has been lacking a lot, and there hasn't been much personalization to managers training U21 candidates.


I also notice that most U21 players keep coming from the same managers who train the same way for the same builds each time.
Do you see this as a problem? If so: How do you think this can be improved upon?

Thanks for the question EightPackKilla

I will address the bolded first and the Italics second.
As many of you know, I'm usually in chat a lot. Game days, weekdays, anyday that I'm basically off from my job. I will use some of this time to work on things the U21 needs work on. The issue you pointed out I think is based upon the amount of managers the game is losing and gaining.

I want to revive the scouting network a bit. There is something I think lacks in the usual scouting procedures that needs a change: Activity.

When I had the utopian team Houston Bombers, I had a borderline U21 prospect for Italy U21. The scout who PM'd me PM'd me almost every week to check in on pops for the player. With our US Player Database not showing signs of returning anytime soon to where you can just update your player and boom! we have your player's build, we'll have to take a step back in technology and do it the old fashioned way bugging a manager every so often for the update on a player.

Other managers might find it annoying; but to those who want to make the US U21 great it will only show that we are interactive in making the player better. I'm also not saying we just reach out to prospects. We reach out to BORDERLINE prospects as well, because you never know. That same manager who didn't get sound advice on his borderline player now has a complete U21 stud and doesn't know how to do anything with him. What does he do? The trainer eventually falters and messes up that gem and you have one less player to consider for the team. Not saying that we can save and get everyone aboard the U21, and scouting, as some players just want to train for their clubs; I understand that. But we should be more interactive throughout the community in helping the newer generation of BB Managers adjust to the game quicker. Whether it be through BB Mails, offsite, or in game chats it doesn't matter; it must get much better than what we have right now.

The U21 players coming from the same managers? Well, that can be fixed a bit by reaching our hands out to that new generation of BB players. This is a problem I think, not because of the old managers; but more so of the new ones. The new managers are already put into a hole financially, especially against other teams that have thousands, perhaps, millions in the bank. I think if we reached out to them throughout BB Mail instead of forums, it will be a step towards getting them involved in the U21 scene. Again, not every manager can be salvaged or brought into the U21 scene, some will disagree on it and others just don't like training. But I will say a BB Mail will give the manager a better feeling...because to simply put it, not many new managers will check out the forums at all for the first few days of existence. We, ourselves, have to show the initiative and maybe, just maybe, 2-3 managers will hop aboard the U21 scene. even 1 beats zero.

1)I would say that in part, that i would probably be doing a lot of the game to game analysis as the head of the u21 program, whereas tough would be more of the guy seeking out the talent. You have to have a team involved rather than just one individual involved. One person taking on all the duties on their own is possible, but you might occasionally run out of time to find everyone. It's part of the job of the scouts to find the talent, and it's part of the player's actual team to also bring their player up to scouts, or to the u21 head coach. In some cases this past year, players that were probably good enough to be on the team or in consideration for a call-up spot were missed. The blame is equally spread on that error.

2) I think that when a u21 manager does this, they are doing it for purpose of having a guy that is capable of staying in good game shape. This past season, several of the best call-up options were players that fluctuated week to week in gameshape, and were too risky to bring aboard. The easiest solution is teach everyone with a player in the u21 the best ways to manage their teams gameshape. This benefits both the US team and the team that trained him into that position, because it teaches them good habits that improve the overall performance of their team.

Last edited by FurY at 2/15/2016 11:31:20 PM

Some seasons are just better than others for draftees:
This is a fact.

In these cases, what have we done, are we doing, or have you thought, in regards to 19 year old new draftees and their roles in possible U21/NT?

For instance: I did the 18 year old bigs for scouting for S33. This S34 draft class, i have already seen, more than 1, some prospects that are already good enough to be in the top 5-10 of all the bigs from LAST Seasons' 18 year old crop, and these are guys that are 18 this season already. So needless to say, there are probably some 19 year olds that at the very least should be in the running/considered.

I also notice that most U21 players keep coming from the same managers who train the same way for the same builds each time.
Do you see this as a problem? If so: How do you think this can be improved upon?

Yeah, I see it as a problem if their builds suck. How do I improve this: I tell them not to use their crappy player builds; Use mine.

It's simple, you're training a guard? 1v1f, OD, maybe some IS, train some passing and boom you're done. Inside guard. We win.

Forward? 1v1f, IS, hit ID/OD boom done.

You're training a big? 1v1f, IS, ID, RB. Boom done. We win.

Show me any prospect and I'll give you a build to aim for (there's only three in my book), I'll even hold your hand through the whole training process and wipe your ass if you need it...The fact is, do you want to win? I'll help you build a prospect that wins: IS and defense! Pound it down their throats the American way.

I also notice that most U21 players keep coming from the same managers who train the same way for the same builds each time.
Do you see this as a problem? If so: How do you think this can be improved upon?

Yeah, I see it as a problem if their builds suck. How do I improve this: I tell them not to use their crappy player builds; Use mine.

It's simple, you're training a guard? 1v1f, OD, maybe some IS, train some passing and boom you're done. Inside guard. We win.

Forward? 1v1f, IS, hit ID/OD boom done.

You're training a big? 1v1f, IS, ID, RB. Boom done. We win.

Show me any prospect and I'll give you a build to aim for (there's only three in my book), I'll even hold your hand through the whole training process and wipe your ass if you need it...The fact is, do you want to win? I'll help you build a prospect that wins: IS and defense! Pound it down their throats the American way.

refering to bolded part:
Well... we have not been winning lately. So, yeah, that fits into this.

It's simple, you're training a guard? 1v1f, OD, maybe some IS, train some passing and boom you're done. Inside guard. We win.

Forward? 1v1f, IS, hit ID/OD boom done.

You're training a big? 1v1f, IS, ID, RB. Boom done. We win.

I noticed we don't win if we train a forward? Haha, why is that?