BuzzerBeater Forums

I think what's getting lost in this conversation, and which I think was a key point in the opening post in this thread, is that training SFs as SFs is more realistic than the current system. I.e., how do you train Scottie Pippen to be be Scottie Pippen? Do you make him play center a few games to get his post game better? Do you run him at the point to get him to pass better? The current system is pretty good for PGs and Cs. (Even though I centers need to learn to pass, too, or they couldn't play in, say, a Triangle Offense, passing skills for players on teams that rely on passing can be done as part of team training.) But SFs can only be trained either in a watered-down training mode (training 3 positions at once) or playing out of position, and that detracts from the realism of the training system, that some players get short changed only because they are versatile and play one particular position.

Changes can happen, good managers can adjust, especially if we're given, say, a full season or two heads-up on something like this so we can prepare.

Then if you feel that it is better to get more out dollars at the expense of others ... bravo!

Absolutely within the framework of the game.

This isn't Lake Woebegone.

Then if you feel that it is better to get more out dollars at the expense of others ... bravo!

Absolutely within the framework of the game.

This isn't Lake Woebegone.

Are you saying the children aren't all above average?!

and guards needs inside shoot etc. they learn such things but normally they don't need to play ;) In reality you see improvement of bench players who just got few minutes each game, often they are the one who learn the must, but here that it impossible.

The training here is far away from realistic, and to make a change who you like to see, and saying thats realisitc won't change anything and is a real bad argument. And it hits those players who use the system to train difficult to train players, which gave you probadly a bit lesss succes but you get paid off hen you selling then, thats what chuckd like to explain.

I think you have not brought a valid justification to say that it is not necessary. You say it is a bad argument to your personal interests, not because the game would work better or worse. You say that it is impossible to make it realistic, in my opinion is far from impossible

my personal interest, why?

I just could imagine, how others players thought who adept the system.

And when you say thats not a valid justification that it is necessary, i want to see one that it is necessary to beat the Sf trainers?

I think that:
if a training for the SF will be updated it might be a training that improve only SF and not a combination of other roles (like sf+pf or sf+pg+sg, etc...), so if a manager wish try this he know that can train only 2 or 3 guys, isn't?
at the end of the season the hypothetical manager have 2 good or excellent sf and a half wank!
And the other players?
wasting 1 or 2 season for the training of a single role isn't the better way for the PO's victory!
But we must try before say: Its a good change or isn't a good change.

(i'm a sf trainers!)

I think this could mean that instead of having options to train Inside Defense for either C, C/PF, or C/PF/SF, that there could also be an option to train only SF or perhaps SF/PF. This would help a team focus training for a SF any week, and it would also mean that if someone wants to train, say, a SF for Inside Defense, he could play the SG at SF, which would hurt his team less than playing the SG at C or PF.

I think that if this were the only sort of change that was incorporated, giving us the option of focusing training of SF rather than creating new types of SF-oriented training, that would be all that would be necessary to get the SFs trainin on par with other positions.

Then if you feel that it is better to get more out dollars at the expense of others ... bravo!

Absolutely within the framework of the game.

This isn't Lake Woebegone.

Are you saying the children aren't all above average?!

If you've seen my draftees, you wouldn't need to ask.

Strange reasoning. So according to you since you've sacrificed to create small forward from (congratulations for the great work done) now you should be able to sell goods to the detriment of those who start now?

What can I say - I played by the rules to create a situation where my team would be successful in the long run. I had to make sacrifices in the short run in order to do that. I expect that the game will be stable enough to allow me to do that.

We started BB at almost the exact same time. You could have done exactly the same thing. Instead you chose a path that allowed your team to be more successful in the short term. That was your choice.

Now you want to complain that you can't afford a balanced SF? In fact - you want to change the rules to make it better for your team, at my expense (and the expense of all other SF trainers who followed the rules). Sorry, but I'm going to take exception to that.

The good news is - all other teams are in the same boat as you. So there really is nothing to complain about.

i want to say .... i have a lot of sympathy for this position.. and we BBs have agonizing discussions weighing this generic position (and really it is a generic position that applies to every situation where we want to change the rules) against the benefit to the community of having a new set of rules/procedures/whathaveyou.

each case i think is different as the cost and benefits change from situation to situation.

in general we try to make the announcements ahead of time so that people have some time to readjust their strategy (i.e. sell all their SFs and stop training them) but even that isnt perfect as obviously people will think.. oh ... cheaper SFs are coming, i should just wait...so demand goes down and down goes the price.

in general in this case, although i think it is undeniable that is is harder to get a "good" SF, meaning equivalent skill levels at all the skills one thinks SF should be "good" at. I will say that I don't think the fact that "good" SF costs too much is really a problem... in fact its a self balancing feature. The fact that being a SF trainer is possible is the direct result of SF being hard, cause the prices are higher for that reason.. and in general that is going to be the case as the market regulates itself... and as long as the market is liquid enough the proper equilibrium should be found... and the challenge of the game is to know what that equilibirum is so you don't pay too much or sell for too little.

maybe it makes BB a more interesting game to have the cost of training a good player at a certain position be different than the cost of another?

isnt part of what makes the NFL interesting that it is harder to get a good QB than it is to get a good LB? and don't good QBs get paid more?

I know the NBA is less like this and the "best" players at each position get paid about the same.... but for most sports its not true.

I dont know... i think its an interesting argument to have... but that is where the argument should be, how is it better for the game... not for your team.. but for the game... to have "good" SFs cost the same as every other position. Just cause they will be cheaper doesn't make it better i don't think.

EDIT: SOME OF THESE STATEMENTS MIGHT BE MISLEADING.. PLEASE READ (66639.86)


Last edited by BB-Forrest at 1/7/2009 9:54:24 PM