BuzzerBeater Forums

Help - English > Game Shape & Minutes

Game Shape & Minutes

Set priority
Show messages by
From: Stalzag

This Post:
00
196914.17 in reply to 196914.16
Date: 9/23/2011 9:33:03 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
4646
60-70 is the sweet spot! Above 72 is mighty risky.

Also... I have noticed that if the minutes are split between 3 games, it has a slightly better effect on GS.

Say both players play 65 minutes, but player A does it in 3 games vs player B in 2. Both are in the sweet spot, but A seems to have a slightly better chance at improving from 8 to 9 GS. (just casual observations without hard data) A might be 60% while B is 50%.

From: Ashurri

This Post:
00
196914.18 in reply to 196914.17
Date: 9/23/2011 10:24:44 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
7979
My SG Brcic was respectable last week with very low DMI, I was suspecting low sublevel as well. And the last game messed up my minutes, the whole week he only played 42 minutes. I was praying for it to at least stay at respectable. Then as I scrolled to see my players' gameshapes, he hit Strong.

I think there's always some kind of randomness involved, and I also believe those who state that it also takes into account the previous week's minutes (maybe the other previous week too) as well. Lately there's also been a discussion about Stamina affecting GS, it's still a theory, but some managers have sweet spots for certain players depending on their Stamina.

This Post:
00
196914.19 in reply to 196914.17
Date: 9/23/2011 5:43:22 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
104104
That is my theory as well. I wonder if anyone has more data on this subject.

From: rcvaz

This Post:
00
196914.20 in reply to 196914.19
Date: 9/23/2011 6:58:01 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
172172
You actually haven't presented any evidence. What have you seen that actually suggests this? If a long time ago you seem to remember that your player #1 played 60 minutes in a triple OT and didn't go up in GS, whereas your player #2 played 30+30 and did go up, it really isn't much help...

From: Mike Rice

This Post:
00
196914.21 in reply to 196914.20
Date: 9/24/2011 9:07:11 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
104104
I understand that I haven't presented any evidence. I have none. This is just my theory that I personally believe. You don't have to believe it if you don't want to.

From: rcvaz

This Post:
11
196914.22 in reply to 196914.21
Date: 9/24/2011 11:08:04 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
172172
Then this is just as good as those idiots who claim evolution is wrong and believe in something else because it's said in the bible. In my case, I believe that a player decreases in GS if he plays at PG and defends at SG, or if he throws and end-of-quarter prayer from half-court, or if he doesn't commit any turnovers

From: Ashurri

This Post:
11
196914.23 in reply to 196914.22
Date: 9/24/2011 12:28:21 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
7979
I guess I'm one of those people you call idiots however it's based on science, I'll name one for example, that a single cell organism cannot come into its own by itself unless you believe that a jet airplane can assemble itself from a junkyard after its being run by a tornado.

The probability of an average protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids being arranged in the correct quantity and sequence in addition to the probability of all of the amino acids it contains being only lefthanded and being combined with only peptide bonds is "1" over 10950. We can write this number which is formed by putting 950 zeros next to 1 as follows:

100.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00000
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.
000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.
000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.
000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.
000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.
000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.
000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.
000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.
000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.
000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.
000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.
000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.
000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.
000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.
000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.
000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000


But then again we are out of topic.

From: Tangosz

This Post:
00
196914.24 in reply to 196914.23
Date: 9/24/2011 12:43:23 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
573573
Horribly misguided and ignorant, but not uncommon.

As far as gameshape and minutes, I personally sense a trend that some players are just easier to keep in high GS, some need more minutes than others. Haven't gotten the feeling yet that the distribution of total minutes between games matters, or that the possible preference a player has for total minutes depends on stamina.

But, these are all anecdotal impressions, and as such have no statistical power to infer the truth.

This Post:
00
196914.25 in reply to 196914.24
Date: 9/24/2011 12:50:54 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
147147
Horribly misguided and ignorant, but not uncommon.


To what are you referencing?

As far as gameshape and minutes, I personally sense a trend that some players are just easier to keep in high GS, some need more minutes than others. Haven't gotten the feeling yet that the distribution of total minutes between games matters, or that the possible preference a player has for total minutes depends on stamina.


If I remember correctly from an earlier post, you've been tracking DMI and game shape this season. Could you be more specific in the trends you've noticed, if any?



From: rcvaz

This Post:
00
196914.26 in reply to 196914.23
Date: 9/24/2011 1:07:20 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
172172
If there is one thing we know for sure, is that creation "science" resembles nothing remotely close to science... You chose one of the cliche "evolutionists can't answer that! ha!" examples, which is just as valid as "if humans evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?" and "how do these people find million-year-old fossils if the earth is only 6000 years old???"

From: Ashurri

This Post:
00
196914.27 in reply to 196914.26
Date: 9/24/2011 1:17:48 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
7979
If you want to debate on creationism/evolution this is not the place. What I said in my post was exact science, I studied biology, it's something every evolutionists knows, including it's much more difficult for that cell to come on its own than that jet plane assembling itself. If you choose to believe that, then I respect that, and you can go on doing that. I just stated that I don't believe in evolution wholly because of science including findings found by evolutionist scientists.

Advertisement