BuzzerBeater Forums

The other thing is that, at the end, we're talking maybe the difference of a couple of weeks of training over the course of many seasons. If you're looking to completely maximize a player's ability, of course, going to that level of detail may be necessary, but if you're building to a specific target or even just a general profile, it might just be best to go ahead and train the player to get to the skills you need in a manner that makes him most helpful (i.e., instead of trying to min/max elastic effect, maybe train him in an out of position skill in a week where you have easy or unwinnable league games, and in his most natural position if that week it may mean the difference between a win and a loss).

I can't agree more, though, with you and Lemon that you don't want to end up not being able to reach the levels you want in the skills you find important because you were too focused on 'efficiency' and the skills you got to speed up his training ate a bit too much potential. That shouldn't be an issue for a well-managed, intelligent training plan, but for dopes like me who trained three seasons of JR, then a ton of SB, and are now bumping into cap range trying to get some OD, it may present an issue. (Of course, in my case it's just the slowness of training at their age now, not cap issues yet, but I've already had to scale my target OD down even if speed weren't an issue).

So one of players I'm training have 11 HA, 12 DR. Should I stop training him in 1on1 guards because you said it will slow down training of HA/DR since his OD is 3?

What is his potential? What is your plan for him?

As a rule of thumb, 1v1 is so fast that for it to be slower than other skills (say JR), most of the times and the real benefit is that, of course, it does set up the elastic on every other outside skill and you can train 6 players instead of 3.

In any case even with very low ID your player should train faster in OD than in 1v1 now, so if you have only 3 trainees I'd give them some OD too.


There is another insidious thing to account for when looking at 1v1 training, especially for guards.
1) HA elastics are not the same as DR elastics. HA depends on OD and DR, DR depends on JS and HA
2) 1v1 trains JS but not OD (HA trains OD as secondary but it's a one-position training)
3) This means that training 1v1 always results in more DR than HA training in the long run, both due to the baseline speed and the fact that DR benefits from the elastic effect from JS growing, while HA does not and the lower OD is to begin with the more the difference due to training will be

Last edited by Lemonshine at 7/21/2017 11:46:42 AM

His potential is 7 (PAS) and I want to make him balanced. But the only problem is, I have a 18 MVP USA trainee who is far behind on HA/DR

Personally I'd stop training 1v1 or do some sessions only when you need to have the flexibility or when there are only 2 games in a week (ASG and last week) and go for OD now. Even without doing any extra training HA and DR will both reach 14 from secondary training probably.

However because that MVP 19yo is your own draftee, I'd prioritise him unless his skills are quite bad. In this case you may want to train 1v1F for the rest of the season. This would mean that you'll have to be careful with the PAS in the future because his HA/DR are too high and count towards the cap. The alternative would be to sell the PAS and get an equivalent trainee who fits better with your main trainee (if you decide that the American MVP is your main guy)

Last edited by Lemonshine at 7/21/2017 12:27:34 PM

I'm so sorry I turned this elastic effect thread into a training advice thread. But here are the players.

http://lien.buzzer-manager.com/r2vtd4yzlvy3l7qgw338admmhb...
http://lien.buzzer-manager.com/c3k72b6wsv0t705kfpjp2fzlqm...
http://lien.buzzer-manager.com/gv0szex4qqso8zkj3pyo3u1pfq...

Last edited by Manon at 7/22/2017 2:16:19 AM

Yeah, I have a lot of 18-19's year olds on my team who need training.

With my trainees I first trained 1v1 for HA and DR to increase and set up elastics. IS also got a some pops. After that I did SB which I finished last Friday. Now I will continue to train ID which probably will benefit for the higher SB. Sometimes I trained RB during the last 3 seasons so I probably need only 1 or 2 training in RB. On the other hand, I do need more IS. So basically I still need to train ID and IS.

Thanks for your very comprehensive post. I had to read it more than once to understand it well. That’s why I have some further questions:)

I think that Joe’s reasoning is not wrong. At least from a qualitative point of view. It’s in line with the game manual as well according related skills: If the skills who are receiving secundary training are higher than the primary trained skill, the primary trained skill increases faster. Don’t you use this logic in your advice? When you further deduce this for the different inside skills the result will be IS/ID>RB>SB.

SB trains both RB and ID why would you train ID first? It has a little elastic boost from IS, but not enough AND it trains IS as secondary instead of RB which matters to you.

In line what Joe is saying:

SB training improves SB, ID and RB. So it's better to have higher ID and RB than SB. RB training improves RB and ID but not SB. So RB won't improve faster if SB is higher. Conclusion: better to train RB before SB.

And you can make the same reasoning with ID: ID doesn't improve RB but RB improves ID => better to have a high level in ID when training RB but the level of RB has no impact on ID improvement => better to train ID before RB.

I agree with you that we need quantitative numbers to validate this and training speed between different skills differ. Your table is pretty comprehensive but I am not familiair with the percentages you’re using. What’s the source of these numbers or are they a rough estimate? When I look at the training simulator spreadsheet at SB training I see that SB will increase with 0,79 and ID with 0,23 (which is 29% when I divide this by 0,79). For 6'0" ID increases with 24% when training SB. That’s different than the 40% you’re using.

I also mailed Joey Ka and he referred to his coach parrot tool. I used his spreadsheet with a 18 year old player with 52 TSP (6 6 6 6 6 6 4 4 4 4), trainer level 6 and MVP potential. I tried to get as close to the following inside skills: 15 15 12 13. I tried different scenarios:

1. SB>ID>IS>RB. After 28 weeks SB, 21 weeks ID, 34 weeks IS and 15 weeks RB I got: 15,2 14,9 12,2 13,0 (98 weeks in total)
2. ID>IS>RB>SB. After 32 weeks ID, 34 weeks IS, 14 weeks RB and 20 weeks SB I got: 15,1 14,9 12,3 12,9 (100 weeks in total)
3. IS>ID>RB>SB . After 47 weeks IS, 21 weeks ID, 13 weeks RB and 24 weeks SB I got: 14,9 15,2 12,1 12,9 (105 weeks in total)
4. SB 3 weeks>ID 3 weeks>IS 3 weeks>RB 3 weeks, SB 3 weeks, ID 3 weeks, etc. After some time you don’t traind SB and RB anymore and only ID and IS. After 98 weeks training I got: 15,1 15,4 12,2 13,0

When the model is right training SB>ID>IS>RB is most efficient even in scenario 4 (more or less the same). The difference with scenario 2 is very low, only 2 weeks on 100 weeks total. I’m suprised on the result of scenario 3 which will last 5 weeks longer than scenario 2. The model uses data from the US database so should be pretty reliable (we don’t have better numbers I guess). So according to the model the elastic effect on inside skills doesn’t have a very big impact on the decision which skills to train first. Or am I mistaking?

Of course you normally first train 1v1 which will make IS probably higher than other inside skills, so this is just one example.

I also tried the training simulator with scenario 1 and 2. The inside skills in both scenarios ended up at 16,3 16,2 10,3 14,8. Scenario 2 was 23 weeks faster than scenario 1. But there’s no elastic effect for SB in the simulator so I didn’t continue this analysis.