BuzzerBeater Forums

Managing means getting along with both the expected and the unexpected. Pini is on the one hand asking for "carreer ending injuries", to make the game more realistic, on the other hand he´s against a (pretty realistic) unpredictable factor in the GS part. Pretty inconsistent. Can´t fight the feeling he´s asking for a change just because.

I don´t see any improvement in the suggestion over the current system, as I do think that some parts of the game should be both within the managers hand AND beeing to some degree unpredictable. In the end, you can go GS training if you want to make sure. If you do, that´s a management decisiion to do so, as it is if you don´t. Sacrifice training time for GS? Management decision. Those choices are key to BB imho, and the more you make this a "press green, press pink press yellow - win!" game, the less fun it will be, as EVERYBODY will do it.

Getting different ways, different approaches, strategies, different DECISIONS a fair shot on winning is what managing is about. In my world.

GS is on the positive side of that equation of things increasing difficulty while yuo have all the tools you need to manage it at hand. Leave it as it is.

No. You don´t have to throw 2 games in order to have good shape, you have to either manage your team better, manage your minutes better or get a deeper roster.

I have a PG who is currently hands down my best PG on the roster, but he has a silly Stamina, much better than the rest. So that means I can most likely only give him one start and maybe 2 backup games a week. Is that good or bad? It´s fair, because it´s me who has to manage this situation. And actually there´s theories around here who tell you that 55-60 minutes might be best for optimal GS. That´s a good amount for playing a guy at least 2 games with significant minutes.

I wouldn´t go as far and say that GS is perfect (had enough problems with that during the season), but GS is one of the -concepts- that work fine. And everybody has a fair shot (and all the tools) to handle it.

Last edited by LA-seelenjaeger at 1/28/2012 3:29:19 PM

I think what like the least about the original suggestion in this thread is the part about the fan survey. Fan survey is a horrible way to measure anything in BB. I guess I´ll make a new thread with a suggestion about the fan survey thingy, which is (just my two cents) really ... broken?

I dont know what you mean when you say GS is random. Sure it is not the same for every player. But if you keep giving good minutes to your players they will stay in high GS all season long.

i think i am pretty clear

shape is RANDOM, more or less, first they say that there were some good minutes, now there are good minutes for each player, next will be that there will be good minutes depending on the player, nationality, height and the name of his father ...

all studies had shown that there arent no guide for it, and this in my opinion is RANDOMLY, ok, its not 100% random, but you can play 100 minutes and go ahead or play 50 minutes and go ahead

It sounds that you are looking for an easy formula.
In real BB, each player as its own (GS) affect due to additional minutes.

I think training out of position would be a pain in the b*** with this

Bingo.

Game Shape would now be calculated by a players playing time, and his performance stats related to how consistent his stats are.

Each Player has a two part score, x.y (ex. 8.4), x is consistency y is confidence.

X is the normal game time related GS we have now, but Say a player has a great game earning a 11.0 rating at that position coming off the bench(when normally he'd play around 7.0 or 8.0 rating).

So whenever the fan survey is done the players y variable is reassessed between 1-9. So after an amazing game a player could be 7.8 or 7.9.

SO, that player is playing more like a 8 then a 7 and 7.0 or 7.1 is more like a 6 then a 7.

I think it would add a variability to the game particularly at higher levels D1's and NT, and also give that chance that bad players with good game shape could have a great game as we know can always happen.

basing it on rating would be a bad idea, also since the rating isn't that much depending on the player play, and more reflect the ability to play on circumstances. Your example with him coming of the bench with higher rating is one think you will notice on every player, since he can play harder since he isn't on the court so long, also the rating raise in the begin of the season through raising GS himself(with your system a GS down will provoke the next one) and raising enthusiam(and i think the punishment for a Ct is already quite high).

Making it on scoring etc. performance could make sense, but as manon asaid training off position is already hard, but will also lead to weker stats, and beeing star player on a weak team don't mean that you are always in good shape.

My personal wish would be limit the impact of voverplaying player, since this leads to forfeits ... Even when we them need also other changes, that team will still invest into a deep bench(like higher decline in performance with playing time etc)

My Federation did an exhaustive study on GS tracking about 100 players over an entire season. Our conclusions were that there is a large variable factor with players getting very similar minutes having consistently different GS. However we could not break down if it was random or constant, and the fact that certain players seemed to always have worse GS than other players with similar minutes suggested that there was an attribute (hidden or otherwise) that was a factor.

Some have suggested age.
Some have suggested the confirmed hidden physicality factor.
Some have suggested another hidden "fitness" factor.
Some have suggested the enthusiasm used in matches is a factor but we didn't track that so have no idea.
Some have suggested the way the minutes are achieved is a factor, so 53 minutes in one OT game gives worse GS than playing starter 35 minutes in one game and then backup 18 minutes in another.
Some suggested that when you look at any truly random data it is human nature to see patterns where there are none.

We had a scientist on our team analyse the data but he concluded that there were too many unknown variables and not enough data to form any conclusions.

Maybe we will try it again.