BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

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.

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.

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.

since we have a "jumper for forwards" training option that is actually 50% IS and 50% JS, I can't see where's the problem in having a "defense for small forwards" training option that is 50% ID and 50% OD.

Because it would be used massively. And excessively maybe. Everybody sane would consider it. It would be unbelieveably easy way to make all-around players.

if the player is 18-19 yo, otherwise the time is much longer.

vavavuma

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.

Excuse me,and what's the problem?It's better than to have players with level 16/10 in jump shot and jump range and level 3 in outside defence...

Well I think you know my thoughts on this subject.

But i want to see a return to faster training speeds... if you are talking about change that will effect our long term decisions then the decision to create potentials and thus capping growth on top trainees by their 23rd birthday killed off every ambitious managers domination dreams that invested in the best trainees money could buy.

You quashed the plans of creating quadruple prodigious players (after we calculate you need 18yo with at least 5/6 respecatables to do this) by implementing potentials which effectively means 'sorry we aren't going to let you grow these players beyond triple wondrous so other teams can keep pace with you and sorry you paid a massive premium for a better trainee because now even players 2 years older can grow to the same level as your guy if given a few weeks more training when your guy hits his soft cap.

Adding a few sensible training options to help create better players (more challenging opponents) surely cant be detrimental to the game. 1) They will still have the same potential skill soft caps as any other player and 2) It will spice up a slowly stagnating transfer market where you can all but predict the weekly free agents and not quite well enough trained dross that is trying to be sold off on the market.

That's exactly the problem. See, everybody thinks so.