BuzzerBeater Forums

I've got a lot of confidence in the data from the training crowd source project

The numbers there however indicate this harsher scenario:

47 M =90%
46 M =81%
45 M =72%
44 M =65%
43 M =58%

So 45:32 would cost closer to 26% or so

Except that those numbers were not based on any sort of analysis, just as placeholders. The related messages:
(203921.182)
Wozzvt posted (in response to yellowcake's question):

Here is my question....
I had a player get 44 minutes at C, he also got 16 at PF(due to a foul out)..So do I train 1 position or 2?
I have always thouht that 44 minutes(40 and above) for 1 position training(ID) would be worth more than the 48 minutes(full training) for 2 position. Well, I went back and checked my old trainings and it seems the 44 minutes was only a .57 out of the 1(full training for 1 position) where when I did 2 position ID in the offseason it gave me a .70 for the fulltraining. Are these numbers for partial trainings accurate?

no... it was just a guess i put in (min/48)^3 just to be able to have something. that's one of the things on the list to look at closely, though.

I don't see anything in the thread that indicates they ever updated that based on any analysis, but of course I don't see anything that says they didn't either.

From the training site, personal player
what happens when players get less than 48 minutes:

Outside Shooting SG (47 mins), +0.9 (of 1)
Pressure PG (46 mins), +0.81 (of 1)
Outside Shooting SG (45 mins), +0.72 (of 1)
Passing PG (44 mins), +0.65 (of 1)

Last edited by Headless T Gunner at 8/5/2014 11:15:57 AM

From the training site, personal player
what happens when players get less than 48 minutes:

Outside Shooting SG (47 mins), +0.9 (of 1)
Pressure PG (46 mins), +0.81 (of 1)
Outside Shooting SG (45 mins), +0.72 (of 1)
Passing PG (44 mins), +0.65 (of 1)

Right, but I don't see anything anywhere that those figures were based on any analysis of the data. Wozzvt posted early on that the minutes estimates were just a placeholder value. Of course, Joey Ka's conclusion doesn't indicate anything like that either. I know my anecdotal experience tracking my training was that losing 2-3 minutes did not really bump any of my players off of their progression compared to the 100% in a significant manner, but I think at this point I've already spent more energy on the topic than it's particularly worth anyhow.

I agree with this, I've stated before (and been shot down) that I believe the training equation is more likely the following:

(Minutes played/48) squared

This means a player who played 36 minutes at a trained position would recieve approxametly 56% of the training. This seems much closer to what has happened with my secondary trainee (my third trainee). He has often received 36-44 minutes of training and does not seem to be falling too far behind the training simulator spreadsheet (I think it was made by Joseph Ka).

suit up only 7 players

How does dressing 7 players instead of 9 help? The players who get subbed in if you have 9 or less player cannot be a backup or a reserve. Math is really simple: 5 starters, 4 backups. It should be common sense you can't have 4 backups filling 5 spots.

For this game I had 5 starters and 3 backups (PG, SG, C).
• http://www.buzzerbeater.com/match/75130404/reportmatch.aspx?realTime=2775
ca 46.15 the SF gets subbed out, SG replaces him till the end
• http://www.buzzerbeater.com/match/75130404/reportmatch.aspx?realTime=2830
ca 47.10 the PF gets subbed out, the C replaces him till the end

It has happened to me also in non-blowout games (with a backup instead of another starter) when I fielded a low stamina trainee (the 2 trainees I just linked have 3 and 4 stamina respectively).

It looks clear to me that stamina is a huge factor. Another factor seems to be whether your trainee worse and how much worse than other starters and backups at a position. If you train (especially at a position of weakness) a 18yo guy with medium to low stamina while the rest of the team are vastly superior, odds are he'll get subbed out, especially if some of your starters also have much better stamina. It used to happen to me with starters or backups (in a different position) with high stamina replacing a 1 stamina 18-20yo big man trainee in the PG slot. Example here with a backup taking the trainee spot in the first half:
• http://www.buzzerbeater.com/match/69295503/reportmatch.aspx?realTime=1400.

So there is no clear cut answer. Everything people have mentioned here, me included, are just speculations and whatever seems to be working for them (apart from fielding a 5 man roster for obvious reasons).

Last edited by Lemonshine at 8/6/2014 6:24:30 AM

7 players reduces the odds of having your trainee get subbed

it doesn't nullify it, but just reduces it.

But your right, stamina is still a factor - I also believe this to be true.