BuzzerBeater Forums

Help - English > Position Height

Position Height

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
92084.13 in reply to 92084.12
Date: 6/3/2009 4:48:05 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
Wow im pretty sure i never said taller SGs are better I just said that they dont need to be as short since they use less handling training then a PG.
Do you understand what im saying now?

No, it still doesn't make any sense, especially given that all outside skills are affected by height, not only Handling.


i find it easy ;)

He don't want the sg to be tall, but you don't argue that a PG must be 1.75 right? So you doesn't mean that players need the optimal hight everytime ;)

A bit higher is ok in your eyes - and he thinks you could make more compremises with a Sg then a PG with the hight, because the training of the SG isn't affected that much of the height then the one of the PG.

Edit: Oh is see he make a higher sign in it for the SG in this case you a right this don't make any sense ;)

I just thought he give them a bit more maximum hight.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 6/3/2009 4:49:48 AM

This Post:
00
92084.14 in reply to 92084.10
Date: 6/3/2009 12:43:58 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
246246
This still doesn't explain how taller SGs are better.


Very small players will get higher prices when transferred. This means they are more costly for you at acquisition. If the economic system is in balance in wouold be wasting resources not to develop the dwarf talents into PGs.

I found this proposed rational quite convincing

This Post:
00
92084.16 in reply to 92084.15
Date: 6/4/2009 12:54:16 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
246246
I think you are right but the point is you do not need to be so selective on height for a SG. What is the price of an18 year old top draft with hall of famer potential if has 1m 85 or 1m75? I expect a significant difference. The PG would benefit more from this superior investment.

This Post:
00
92084.18 in reply to 92084.16
Date: 6/4/2009 8:22:34 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
I think you are right but the point is you do not need to be so selective on height for a SG. What is the price of an18 year old top draft with hall of famer potential if has 1m 85 or 1m75? I expect a significant difference. The PG would benefit more from this superior investment.


better buy just an MVP is you don't have enough money, especially with a HoF who get training till he falls dead you could invest in it to make it faster.

What would you do with such an player:

JS:7 JR:7
OD: 7 HA: 3
DR: 6 PS: 1

size 1.75

for me it is clear a SG trainee, and i won't but that much effort in passing training to make an SG training of it.

This Post:
00
92084.19 in reply to 92084.18
Date: 6/4/2009 11:10:57 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
246246
I don't get your point - are you disagreeing?

This Post:
00
92084.20 in reply to 92084.19
Date: 6/4/2009 11:16:30 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
yes ;)

This Post:
00
92084.21 in reply to 92084.15
Date: 6/9/2009 9:28:38 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
22
This still doesn't explain how taller SGs are better.


Very small players will get higher prices when transferred. This means they are more costly for you at acquisition. If the economic system is in balance in wouold be wasting resources not to develop the dwarf talents into PGs.

I found this proposed rational quite convincing

As it has been mentioned before in this thread, all outside skills train faster for short players, so I don't see why it should only be ok to get fast training if you're training a PG?


I see exactly what you are saying. You are not training SGs in inside skills so the ideal height for them would be as low as possible. And that is exactly what the question is asking, what is the ideal height, correct?

People (Einpeitscher) are argueing that it is more costly on the TL to buy shorter players, but that isn't at all what the question is asking. So he is saying taller SGs are better because they cost less...? doesn't make any sense to me.

Last edited by Tay Zonday at 6/9/2009 9:29:20 PM

Advertisement