BuzzerBeater Forums

Shall we all pause...

It snowed where I live today, I've been making snowballs and enjoyed tea in the midst of a snow fort made by my son. It was fun and what life is all about... Family.

Ultimately we still need a core community that are able to work together rather than reading sarcasm into every statement (no sarcasm was in that statement). This community will never run by strategy but ultimately as Elmacca rightly summarises, it will work by community and communication, with what is inferred in his last post 'trust'.

Looking at the way this thread has gone over the last few days; looking at how it began to deteriorate after accusations of blanket snobbery was hurled generally in the direction of anyone found to be disagreeable or hold contrary opinions (not a put down or sarcasm), there has been a blanket disregarding of huge efforts that have been put by people into players and the NT over countless seasons (not a put down or sarcasm and I do not include myself in that group so you cannot claim that I am bemoaning not being appreciated). There are overcritical attitudes from some and others reading overcritical attitudes into others where there is none (not a put down or sarcasm).

It is rather obvious that there is a significant level of trust within the community that needs to be brokered before things can improve.

Myself being positioned now in the ebbl has given many reason to see that as a reason to read that whatever I say is from a position of putting people down, please do not, never do, I would happily drop to D3 just to make sure nobody felt put down. That is the way I live my life and frankly that is the furthest thing from my mind. I personally do not get my sense of self worth from playing online games, so what would be the purpose of point scoring (and that is not a put down either)? There are clear power plays on this forum (not a put down), where individuals are seeking influence and to be the 'main man' (not a put down), honestly if you need someone to recognise your greatness (not sarcasm) I'll happily call you wonderful (not sarcasm) so we can all move on and work as a team (not sarcasm or a put down). The ones this most applies to will probably become apparent as anyone that feels affronted by even that statement probably has a share in what is going on here (which is not a put down but a call to work together).

So shall we all take a night off, some may want to make a snowman, others may just watch a movie and have a glass of wine.

And lets come to the table in a day or so, warm hearted and with a commitment to overcome our assumptions and differences and actually pull a team together for the NT?

I'm most upset by the fact you have snow and all I have is this terrible blue sky with not even a cloud in sight! Elitist! Snow Snob!

What would be great is if EBBL teams stopped spending such huge wages on players

So, I hear you, but I still have B3 ambitions, which means a hefty payroll.

My thing now is to try and learn how to win B3 - and that isn't cheap - and then win it, which will be even more expensive.

The EBBL I look at more as a 'been there, done that' thing gets me into B3. I also like setting a high bar that other teams have to plan, and hopefully innovate to get past, if they want to make it into B3.

To be honest, if it wasn't me carrying the big salaries and competing with the big boys and making life difficult for everyone else, then it would be Muse (and soon will be Muse anyway, by the look of his roster).

I want the NT to do well, but it is one of a number of interests for me, and not the main one.


Last edited by Elmacca at 12/12/2014 12:51:30 PM

wow with a 6 vs 2 record you didnt make it into the next round off B3? Even some 7-1 teams not making it. CRAZY!!!

It's pretty unforgiving, B3. One bad tactic and one early Sharpling injury cost me two games against teams that went on to finish 8-0. And that's all she wrote for another B3 campaign.

Hey, a league mate mentioned this thread to me and I just scheme read it.
I'm not going to enlighten anyone, also because those of you who post here and will read me are 6-7 coaches with nice achievements in the game by the looks of things.
Apparently there's no training brain in lower divisions. I'm unaware of this fact, but if it was true, it is a usual problem of a community with less active people. It doesn't matter if you send 5 mails to the person, because if that person don't want to spend time on the game, the mails won't help either. Me myself, I didn't have any help but I am aware of how training works in the game because I like to spend time on knowing it, simple as that.

About NT performances, well I don't know how different NT is from a team, but shouldn't it be about getting closer to the final skills you imagine your player? Despite my transfer list, I spend hours on the market, and in there you see maaany int players. Slovakia or Czech rely on similar patterns, a player like
18-14
19-19
19-13
11-11
7

And specific bigs that I'm sure you know of, maxing to the possible extent od and ps, secondaries in general.
Once the player is with a committed manager, I believe the next step is to lead to those "skills you imagine". And that's about it.

Now, being realistic, are you seriously suggesting a center with 17sb? I mean, SB teams, as I understand, work well solely because of their mutual support and use of zones, mainly 3-2. What would that center do in a community where he is the only very peculiar player designed for that? I understand something more generic like the example of SL and CZ is more feasible.

Nice to meet you, and may I just say how informed and measured your post is. I think you are very sensible in your approach to realistic and achievable goals within the context of the community we have. Thank you for taking the time to write, definitely food for thought.

I've been thinking about this and I think what struck me about your post was the question about SB and zones. Yes indeed it is the case that people are finding 3-2 with high SB on bigs a very effective defense.

Traditionally in tactical thinking in BB, m2m has been the default defense and players have been modeled around high OD and ID with SB being a secondary concern seen to increase salaries rather than being a useful skill. I remember when 'everybody knew' that SB was a useless skill and the advice we were given, if we were training players, was to avoid it and never train it. It is only in recent seasons that SB is increasingly being seen for the value it has in defending, especially against the dominant offensive tactic LI. I too have watched with interest of the rise of 3-2 around high SB bigs.

I think the main tactical difference between NT and regular teams is that NT's do not have to think about salaries, they only have to think about tactics. As a consequence, you look for as much tactical variety as you can get where you only focus on players reaching their maximum potential (in a variety of ways) rather than raising concerns over salaries etc. Nobody holding a C with 350k salaries is thinking sensibly about their team, heck even 200k+ is tough to keep. That is where in all honesty you are right. A team that chooses to have SB built bigs is locking themselves into a particular type of defensive strategy. Variety of training rather than centralization and prescriptive training may well end up being counter productive because it restricts experimentation.

I'll give you a personal example. Innes should score way more than he does. When Gully and I sit down and compare my two bigs, we scratch our heads wondering why one seems to score more than the other. 'By the book' or 'by the ideal' I have trained Innes along the lines you have read from Lemon, myself and the others here, Mac picked up training almost second fiddle to Innes. However chunk for chunk, Mac always surprises and Innes rarely seems to have a game you expect him to. One I have done by the book and the other I have not. Why is this? Are there hidden skills training in the background we do not know of? Is it ratio's between skills rather than merely maxing out tsp? Is it possible to have too many secondaries? All of these questions contain maybe's and more questions.

Which is why I was so struck by your post. I don't know if you meant to, but you questioned the question. We are talking about designing players, and you ask is that realistic? I think the answer to that is, yes it is and no it isn't. But in endeavoring to cookie cutter players, maybe we are actually not doing ourselves any favours because we are removing the very essence of a persons personal creativity and feel for the game.

Traditionally in tactical thinking in BB, m2m has been the default defense and players have been modeled around high OD and ID with SB being a secondary concern seen to increase salaries rather than being a useful skill. I remember when 'everybody knew' that SB was a useless skill and the advice we were given, if we were training players, was to avoid it and never train it. It is only in recent seasons that SB is increasingly being seen for the value it has in defending, especially against the dominant offensive tactic LI. I too have watched with interest of the rise of 3-2 around high SB bigs.

I hate to cherry pick part of an excellent post and then appear to take issue with one piece. However, I'm not really taking issue with what you've put here, which is fairly accurate.

What I would like to point out is that I know at least one person told you SB wasn't useless. Even when everyone said it was. Everyone who ever posted about it, even though some of those people now want to say they never said it at all. I trained Paulk initially intending to have high SB, and much lower IS, which is now what the "modern" trend is for SB bigs. Paulk has passed 30 now. That he was unfinished is one of my main regrets in the game. But he still has his uses, in both 3-2 AND man to man.

And this is a modern fallacy to compare to the old SB is useless mantra. SB doesn't only work in 3-2 zones. Nor does 3-2 work only if you have SB bigs. I believe 3-2 works because OD is far too powerful, and the bonus for playing 3-2 over man to man is too much. I also believe you can play 3-2 with high OD guards and have surprisingly low ID and still win. I regularly played 3-2 last season with only one starting big. Fallon, listed as a PG played at C. I think I should have promoted using that defence but made an offensive blunder in a playoff game and had to stay in D2.

People don't really understand how skills work in the game and become very blinkered about what does what. I've always bought Cs with more SB than most people. I've also always had one of the best defences in my division, even when I was struggling for wins. I don't think those two things are a coincidence. And yes, SB is even useful on guards.

I don't particularly force these views on people because I don't believe that's my job. Certainly if I was asked for advice on a big, I'd point out I'd like more SB, but I feel its not my job to tell people how to train their players. Its more of a negotiation so we can both be happy.

I'm also mindful, and I'm sure I've pointed this out before, each NT manager/coach is temporary. Players lost longer in most cases. So no NT coach should demand anything without thinking of those who follow. Even when they think they're right.

Last edited by Gully Foyle at 12/13/2014 9:16:37 AM

You're not the only one, I've always insisted some SB is useful, including on guards.

Anyway.

Back to the main issue - I think we need a third NT guy to continue the player development work the U21s do.

Our NT manager has done a great job with the players he has, but I think it's a big ask for him to get the 22-25 year olds with the best owners for their continued development.

Last edited by Elmacca at 12/13/2014 9:22:48 AM