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.