BuzzerBeater Forums

I thought it was. Unfortunately I have no material which could tell me what is depended and what is not.

It's funny how this debate follows the same arc every time. One side cites real examples of SFs (Lamar Odom in this thread, in the past Scottie Pippen gets a lot of mention) and tries to use logic as it makes BB seem more realistic (i.e. the real SFs don't play PG to learn how to dribble the ball, they learn in practice and then in the game they are used as one the three players on the court along with the guards to bring the ball up or to dribble a lot). The the other side says things like how it's not fair to switch SF training methods since "by golly the current way is how I train my SFs and I'm a martyr for taking the high ground and doing something really challenging."

I think the fundamental questions here are:
1.) Is BB is willing to take a long hard look at whether or not the current system for training SF (and all positions for that matter) is the best it could be for the game? (If the answer is yes, then no need to proceed to Question #2.)
2.) If there is a better system for training, can an improved system be implemented in a fair way? (If the answer is yes, then it's a no-brainer that it should be done.)

it's not that easy.
in this topic training for SF is discussed, but if the BBs are to change anything about training, they will need to revise the entire thing, as there are other points that could be discussed as well.
driving for instance, and handling are in a lot of trainingtypes as secondary, while passing is in none. there's positions that can get certani types of training, and a lot of other points to take a closer look at, because the last thing they would want is to alter the system, only to discover a new thread about a training change proposition.
So just answering the questions and implementing the SF training if they are yes, is no road to take.

Also people claiming they are taking on a challenge by training SFs in the current system are not martyrs. they just do what they say, taking on that challenge, because the want to, not to be martyrs. Believe me, it;s not the people training the SFs at this tmie that want the change, it's the ones that are not training them, but want to, that are requesting it, because they want to do it the easy way.

Personally I wouldn't mind either way. If the BBs decide there are enough people that want it to change, and they change it, and it's no longer a challenge, I'll find something else which is challenging to me. I have no problem with that.

It's also not right to try to stop discussion by simplifying it all into a few questions that would solve the entire topic here.
In order to get a clue at how many people want things to change, the BBs want the discussion to go on, not extinguish it, as it will not give them the needed info.

training is BIG in BB-world. if it is ever going to be changed, there better be a large majority in favor of changing it. ;)

Also people claiming they are taking on a challenge by training SFs in the current system are not martyrs. they just do what they say, taking on that challenge, because the want to, not to be martyrs. Believe me, it;s not the people training the SFs at this tmie that want the change, it's the ones that are not training them, but want to, that are requesting it, because they want to do it the easy way. :)

Great! I totally agree with you !

Anyway, it wolud be nice to have a train that improves ID and OD at the same time but not very fast. You wold need to change positions if you want to train one faster than the other and to train pass, rebounds, outside shoting,... training a good SF would steel being dificult but not that much.

I train SFs and i am hapy with their contribution to the team even not playing in their perfect position.

The thing that is the real problem is the thing that was identified by the very first post in this thread. Whatever player you want to train you have to train him as a C or a PG and that simply isn't realistic. There is exactly ONE single position training that I am aware of that isn't C or PG and that is JR for SG. Why is there no skill at all that is best served by playing as a forward as some sort? Why are PGs best at everything?

I think that it is because the more you go to the middel of the list PG-SG-SF-PF-C, the more the skills have to be divided over the entire range.
if you take the outer ends, PG and C, they have most single position traingtypes, because they have most specific need of skills...

wingmen and forwards and guards and even teamtrainings do exist as well, and are perfectly okay as trainingtypes.

There isn't any type of training that you would only trani your SF in. ANY type of training you want to give to your SF, is usefull for at least 1 other position on the field, and I think that is why you don't find single position training for SF.

Not saying it is good, or supposed to stay that way, or any other thing one might try to make of my answer. It's just an answer to the question why there is no single position training for SF...

5 seasons traning SF's and yes i prefer a change to make the training a little bit easier and im not the only one saying this...

5 seasons traning SF's and yes i prefer a change to make the training a little bit easier and im not the only one saying this...

as you say it: a littlebit easier.

Getting single position training for SF spot would make it a lot easier.

I'm not sure if this is something you prefer or not, let us know, and all other people training SFs too, please tell us how you think about it.

I think the training system is fine as it is. I'm training SFs and I find it enjoyable (for now at least).

Because right now you don't have to use him at the wrong position. Training a SF means that 90% you have to use him at his weakest position and you have the outcome of your training at the deep end.

I planned to train a SF but i change my mind, theorically the player need 83 weeks to be the SF i want.
Here the training position :

1 : 15
2/3 : 9
3/4 : 2
4/5 : 20
5 : 22
Team : 15

So i could use him at the SF spot only 26 weeks. So basically i will pay him a lot for almost no real impact till i finish his training it's a little bit too hardcore.

Last edited by Cydius at 3/1/2011 10:18:08 AM

data like this is what we need to show people around. I seen too often times the SF being the weakest player in national teams or all star starters. This are squads composed of large group where all stars comes from the 16 teams in the division and national comes from whoever is from that nation. Meaning when you pick a giant poll of players you rarely to never come out with SF being nothing but the worst of the starters.

The data you provided shows why that's the case, simply it takes much much longer it isn't worth it to train SF. Which makes sense why national teams cant pick good SF or all star teams. The disparity is large enough its almost like Centers being on average 2.5 times more expensive than all the other positions. Change has to be made

5 seasons traning SF's and yes i prefer a change to make the training a little bit easier and im not the only one saying this...

as you say it: a littlebit easier.

Getting single position training for SF spot would make it a lot easier.

I'm not sure if this is something you prefer or not, let us know, and all other people training SFs too, please tell us how you think about it.

I was going to answer but Cydius post is brilliant(maybe some more weeks on the PG position i would say).

The hardest part it comes when you put him as a PG to train OD(which takes lot of time) you can lose lots of matchs only because your offensive flow is not working or imagine your SF has a weak pass that will hurt and maybe you will have to train some passing to dont suffer when you put him to train OD in the PG position.

- I suggest a change on the OD training positions to make it more reliable for the SF's.