BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Better training?

Better training?

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
264403.20 in reply to 264403.7
Date: 10/23/2014 9:02:02 AM
Florida Champs
IV.2
Overall Posts Rated:
252252
Second Team:
Great Lakes Spartans
Thanks for clearing that up. I was kind of thinking it was that all 3 were 100% (compared to 1 position) towards one training but i knew that was wrong. Thanks.

From: BB-Marin

This Post:
00
264403.21 in reply to 264403.17
Date: 10/23/2014 9:04:29 AM
TrenseRI
II.1
Overall Posts Rated:
36073607
Second Team:
ChiLeaders
@jonte: Thanks for the kind words, I appreciate them and will try to improve the communication aspect even further. I promised to try and be better and these are the results.

We know now - based on statistics - that for example training IS on positions PF/C is somewhere around 70%-80% of the speed with one position training. If we were given this information than we would be able to make decision on whether we are training two positions or one (not optimal) position - with consequences known.
@picia and Ogi: We don't want to reveal everything. It is up to you, the players to figure out the numbers, not on us to just reveal everything, what fun would that be? No fun! Training analysis is a part of the game, and we refuse to just give it up. Btw, it was my initiative to reveal these percentages, but in the original idea we didn't plan to disclose them. What would you say then?

From: picia

This Post:
00
264403.22 in reply to 264403.21
Date: 10/23/2014 9:28:19 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
234234
Training analysis is a part of the game, and we refuse to just give it up. Btw, it was my initiative to reveal these percentages, but in the original idea we didn't plan to disclose them. What would you say then?


Than I would say that the rules remained unchanged. Everything would be new to discover. That is why I was surprised, that we knew the numbers this time. That left the situation where the results were certain on one side (out of position), but not the other (multi-position). I gave it a shot ;)...

Keep on the good job, as the game has changed while I'm playing it a lot and hardly always in good direction (in my opinion). Inside tactics are not so dominant, overspending made harder and balanced growth is rewarded.

From: Ogi

This Post:
00
264403.23 in reply to 264403.21
Date: 10/23/2014 9:30:05 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
172172
Training analysis is a part of the game, and we refuse to just give it up.

Than without that information this new stuff in training has no practical use for good training..maybe only Jump on SF/PF for outside players is something that we can use in practice-... thanks for answering ;)

Last edited by Ogi at 10/23/2014 9:31:45 AM

This Post:
11
264403.26 in reply to 264403.25
Date: 10/23/2014 10:23:49 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
Until now, I still don't get why training alone (against a wall) in passing trains faster than training in tandem


It's not with a wall. Single position you throw the ball to a coach, who tells you what you did right or wrong and you get the next ball from the rack. Two position means you throw the ball to a teammate, who tells you what you did right or wrong, and then wait for him to throw it back and tell him what he did right or wrong. Anything you can do, two can do slower! ;)

This Post:
33
264403.27 in reply to 264403.26
Date: 10/23/2014 11:09:41 AM
Bombers BC
II.3
Overall Posts Rated:
137137
Second Team:
Havířov Miners
I like this addition - it could make training a little bit more fun.

This Post:
00
264403.29 in reply to 264403.24
Date: 10/23/2014 12:01:37 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
14901490
I think it's useful when you have a SF and you don't want to train him out of position for the week, because you need to win (finals and relegation anyone?) and you don't want to train 1v1 or JS forwards. The change doesn't harm anyone, it just gives extra options so we should be thankful.

Advertisement