BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Committee for the Rights of Small Forwards

Committee for the Rights of Small Forwards

Set priority
Show messages by
From: Elmacca

To: Coco
This Post:
00
67212.115 in reply to 67212.106
Date: 1/7/2009 3:04:47 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
387387
Yeah, +1, as they say. I'm more of a forwards trainer than a pure SF trainer but that suggestion of yours is one I can see the benefit of and agree with.

Mind you, I'd also like to see two-position OD pressure training for wingmen* and have one-position** passing training for any position.

*If I can train OS or wingmen, why the flip not OD?

**Why on earth not, you seriously telling me learning how to pass is position-dependent???

From: brian

To: Coco
This Post:
00
67212.116 in reply to 67212.106
Date: 1/7/2009 3:43:36 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
Contrary to some people say, it is upsetting for a current SF trainers to see the training become easier. Brianjames said that current SF trainers will have better players to start with, so they don't stand to lose from the proposed change: well, not if those players are 23 and maxed out (think Ismael Grubbs here).


The game can't progress (or, some would prefer change) cause it might poorly effect some players. Fair enough. I don't think it makes BB any better for the future, but that's just me.

Based on that, I think it's ironic that some of those taking this opinion are telling others to adapt.

Last edited by brian at 1/7/2009 3:45:47 PM

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
From: Elmacca

This Post:
00
67212.117 in reply to 67212.116
Date: 1/7/2009 3:46:51 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
387387
Hmmm, but you are suggesting penalising the players that looked at the situation and thought long-term and are only now due to be rewarded.


From: brian

This Post:
00
67212.120 in reply to 67212.117
Date: 1/7/2009 3:57:47 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
I'm supporting the idea that there's a flaw in the training system that is also poorly affecting the diversity of tactical choices occurring. Teams are developing into inside teams or outside teams. Some are to the point they can play both. Tactically, BB is growing into the equivalent of a coin flip.

I believe this outweighs the costs of making changes. It's not like this change won't affect me. I have the ability to create a strong inside our outside attack, and have positioned well to develop the rare SF's we're talking about. I've spent time training players out of position and have and currently benefit from it.

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
From: brian

To: Coco
This Post:
00
67212.121 in reply to 67212.118
Date: 1/7/2009 4:02:54 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
I'm not telling anyone to "adapt", as should be clear from my previous post. I'm in favor of a balanced move towards a proper SF training (as I described it above).


Sorry, I should have added that my comments weren't directed at you, but it was a convenient train of thought to make them.

I subscribe to the Forrest Doctrine: we can make major changes, but we need to understand exactly the tradeoffs of each move.


Agree, the last thing I want to see is BB make major changes. Any changes are best made gradually with plenty of notification ahead of time.

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
From: Elmacca

This Post:
00
67212.122 in reply to 67212.120
Date: 1/7/2009 4:12:30 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
387387
I don't think it's a bad thing that teams who develop the ability to play any tactic reduce the opposition's ability to start with the right defensive tactics to a 50% shot. And that teams that do not do so, do not.

What we perhaps need to think about then, is how fast The Coach can adapt (and how much the GM/owner/player is prepared to trust the coach to do so - while accepting that personnel selection may mean optimal adaption to visible tactics may not happen). It kind of opens up a player 'Intelligence' rating, that could provide a modifier to how players can exploit opposition tactics, but that's another story I suppose.


From: dhoff

This Post:
00
67212.123 in reply to 67212.65
Date: 1/7/2009 5:35:55 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
1919
Michael Jordan can prolly play any position in basketball.


Sure, he has good post moves, yet the bulls never played him at center. I wonder why?


Two words: Luc Longley!

Oh, and to stay on topic, I don't mind training the way it is now. It's tough to build SFs, but the market rewards it accordingly.

This Post:
00
67212.125 in reply to 67212.2
Date: 1/7/2009 6:28:54 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
154154
And second, it would let us put a C/PF or PG/SG at SF for a game or two to train out of position instead of doing something more extreme, like having to play a PG at C/PF to, say, train up shot blocking or rebounding.
That's my point. If the SF training would be that omnipotent, it would damage the balance (we can argue how much balance there currently is but at least some). Especially if SF training would provide reasonable traing for outside defence and inside defense at the same time many players would choose that training not only for future SFs but for other positions too, making defenisve squads more common and thus unbalanced the game as it is now (and there are theories that defense in BB is mroe trained than offense even now reasulting in lower FG% than managers expected). The same with other attributes if they could be trained more easier for SF than now. It would inflate those skills. I don't want to see a day where whole starting five on many teams are all small forwards.

Advertisement