BuzzerBeater Forums

I had a guy miss an entire week, after getting around 30 minutes the week before, then just like 46 or something again...he went to 8.

This doesn't surprise me.
I consider that BBers are generally too bold with high minutes and too unadventurous with low minutes.

Terrible cases of Gs are rare so it's difficult to draw conclusions but by experience, i find it's better to start slow after an injury and at the start of the season. Plus even if it is unconfirmed, I have seen too many occurences of players hit again by an injury just after a recovery and I don't like to start good players immediately.

I have tested it two times with long-term injured players. One time with a player I bought with pitiful GS, he upped to strong in 3 weeks by playing "only" 37, 56, 55 minutes in that order. I can show you the player and the weeks but you'll have to take my word for the Gs levels.

What is usually taken as optimal by the tips of the forums is higher than what I find optimal myself.

Thank you.
This is really helpful.
My best player is out for two weeks right now, and I was considering how to integrate him back into my lineup when he comes back. Obviously, I wanted to start him right away, but it makes sense that I should take it easy on him for a week or two. He'll just be a really awesome sub for those two weeks.

55 minutes would be a very poor choice for a sweet spot for GS.

55 minutes out of 3 games a week? Such few minutes for their salary. 2 games starting @ 64-68 minutes or 1 full game and 1 game backup @ 60-64 minutes is proper I think.

I wish I could get paid for 40 hours a week while explaining that overworking me will lower my productivity. If I could come in for 24 hours (perhaps a straight 24 hour shift with the rest of the week off), I'm sure I could find a way to be in great shape for work each week. ;)

The game is about choices, decisions, finding a balance.
Training, results, GS, etc...You can't do eveything perfectly and simultaneously. It's by design and an openly biased approach :)

I want to add that in my biased point of view I find that the game is usually harsh on me and far too generous to my opponents in GS. I am serious!

I think Manouche is pretty accurate with his theory, and 55 minutes would be the sweet spot purely for GS purposes. What he says is that most people on the forums also take into account the desired performance, increasing the ideal minutes to a higher amount of 60-65 because you want to play your best players as much as possible. So if you take GS and game performance (output) into account, the sweet spot is higher.

I like Manouche's view on equilibrium, temperance and compromise. There is no one way to optimally manage your team, there's always pro's and con's and that is what makes the game fun. I can imagine this is easier to accept for people who for example study business administration as opposed to a technical study, because most business problems are about equilibrium, temperance and compromise while techinical problems are usually about finding the one or at least limited optima.