BuzzerBeater Forums

I find the choice of words kinda funny "can yield unpredictable minutes". I think this could also be used on Strickly Follow setting as depending on how the game play out minute distribution may change drastically.

THis is exactlu at the bound of probable PREDICTED.
On the other hand, when one define a starter and he does not start, and does not get to many minutes, etc. this is NOT predictable.
And as the BBs wrote that this is a bug, this argument ends here.

I guess what im saying is that, in my experiences, strictly follow depth chart and play 11+ players, and i cant say ive really noticed the issues you have mentioned.

I understand what you say, and I agree with you. The method you wrote is safe and I've tried it myself many times, successfully.

But let's talk a bit more on a theoretical level.

What I state is: the system can "recognize" if a player is PG or a C... why can't it use this knowledge to manage unexpected substitutions?
Let's say you are very unlucky today, and ALL your PGs got injured (I mean: all the 3 people you set as PGs are injured). The system will not pick from the SGs/SFs to substitute this spot... it will pick random guys, MOSTLY (and I don't know why) from the big men... swapping them all the time. I think that's just silly.
I mean: when I want my trainee to get 48mins I don't set a backup or a reserve. So if he gets injured (or fouls out, or gets ejected, and so on...) my training is screwed, and it's all my fault. This is ok.
What is absurd is that, MOST of the times, that spot will be covered by a guy who has never played there and will never play there! C gets usually substituted by PGs/SGs and vice versa.
The training is screwed (because of me), but the game is not! And if the game is tied and you put a C in a PG spot... you are throwing that game, and that's not my fault. This part of the system needs to be fixed.

I wrote something also here (206915.28) (where you can find also my lineup).

yar i hear what ur saying.

id be interested to see if someone is willing to test this out in a scrimmage/private league. .. im just trying to figure out how, that is, simulate the injury business.

i feel sometimes that, the game engine would prefer to have a mismatch at the, say, PG position, by playing a C there, then have 5 mismatches at each position by shifting everyone down .. know what i mean?

not saying its right. ... anyways. i think ur suggestion is probably reasonable. Let coach decide should follow some kind of logic in that, if a player is listed as PG, then coach plays him there, with a preference for SG's, followed by SF, followed by PF.

so if no SG's are available, he picks a SF.

again, id be interested to hear from anyone who has tested this logic.

for the 48min logic, i like the randomness since i don't like so much as the way to train here, and like that it have some downside.(and yes i use it myself quite often)

With 3 injurys it is really ugly on the other positions, but how often such things happen.

And let coach decide is also an alternative, then the selection is relativ smart, and for me this works quite fine at least.

yar this is true, i cant even remember a game where i had two injuries let alone 3.

although i do remember a golden state game many years ago where both Centres, and both PF's who were dressed go injured, and Chris mullin was playing Centre.

quite an interesting game really.

3 injuries never happens, but most of the people set up 2 players in each position and it's not so rare an injury and a fouled out player. Or sometimes even 2 fouled out in the same spot.

btw I can't understand people "I'm fine with this absurd thing because...". This isn't about realism, this is about a bit (a bit!) of common sense and intelligence. Coaches can't make these kind of mistakes.

Again: if my training is screwed up it's all my fault and I'm ok with that. I'm NOT ok with throwing a game just because a C is dishing assists to fans instead of team players.

Last edited by Biffo (*DT Member) at 1/28/2012 10:15:46 AM

but when the sg play it to end your training wouldn't screwed up, since you still could fix it since most likely your second trainee come in , at least most would design it as an rescue line.

Basically you are right, and I think that what is missing here is a definition.

"When there is no backup nor reserved player left for a specific possition, use upon positions (or upon starters positions)."
The last means that if you decided to play your SG as your C, than also the replcament will be (if has) of the same position.

I believe that the above definition that you expect your coach to act upon is a basic design for the coach, and it should be implemented that way.
I don't know how one can say that it is not fair or any stupid thing like that, as it is a basic desicion a coach will ususally take.
And of course much more common than - I'll use my C as my PG.

but when the sg play it to end your training wouldn't screwed up, since you still could fix it since most likely your second trainee come in , at least most would design it as an rescue line.

Well, no.

Maybe the substitution has already played 48min in that position (if this isn't the first game of the week, this is very likely) and so all the minutes added are useless. Moreover, if you didn't notice, the system swaps many times players, so you will NEVER get a player to play it to end, but your SG will get 10mins, another SG 12mins, the SF 5mins... just an example.
So, managing training is almost impossible in this scenario, you can get a player full training, the other 2 will be like 38mins and 35mins which are still good values, but not the best (now with the cross-training it's even worse).

Again: the point here is NOT training, but that you threw a game, that's the sad part.

Last edited by Biffo (*DT Member) at 1/28/2012 1:16:33 PM

Maybe the substitution has already played 48min in that position (if this isn't the first game of the week, this is very likely

if this pattern is know before i am pretty sure, that in the first two games the backup would make sense for training. And also then you maybe get lot of minutes that it matters at least a bit for the replacement.

And if you swap far away is it most likely like today.

Again: the point here is NOT training, but that you threw a game, that's the sad part.

As i said i am not a big fan of the 48 minute, but when you take away those downside the two position 5 people training which works with injury fouls and backups get even less attractive to 6 player training. And yes i would like the change when, those 48min trick get impossible ;)

(now with the cross-training it's even worse).

that need to be explained to me, did they changed the minutes with it?

Last edited by CrazyEye at 1/28/2012 1:51:44 PM

[...]

if this pattern is know before i am pretty sure, that in the first two games the backup would make sense for training. And also then you maybe get lot of minutes that it matters at least a bit for the replacement.

And if you swap far away is it most likely like today.

[...]

As i said i am not a big fan of the 48 minute, but when you take away those downside the two position 5 people training which works with injury fouls and backups get even less attractive to 6 player training. And yes i would like the change when, those 48min trick get impossible ;)

I'm sorry but I didn't get any of what you wrote, especially the first part :s

The second part again seems different from what I'm saying: do not think about training, just think about a C in PG position is making you lose a game, just because your coach is dumb. It's pointless to have such a system.