BuzzerBeater Forums

I've been studying the gameshape patterns of my players over the last two seasons and I've noticed a cumulative effect of several weeks of playing time on the current week's GS update. I think it could be as many as 4-5 weeks that matter, or maybe even the entire season's minutes up until your current week. Which would make sense as players would tire out at the end of a season they played too many minutes in. I didn't quantitatively track this though, so I'm not sure about it.

I've been studying the gameshape patterns of my players over the last two seasons and I've noticed a cumulative effect of several weeks of playing time on the current week's GS update. I think it could be as many as 4-5 weeks that matter, or maybe even the entire season's minutes up until your current week. Which would make sense as players would tire out at the end of a season they played too many minutes in. I didn't quantitatively track this though, so I'm not sure about it.

In Italian forum we had a big discussion some seasons ago about a statement similar to yours to explain the strange thing about GS
At the time my idea was that that players's Gs go through some trends during the seasons,and the minutes played in the single week work to exalt a positive trend,and to limit a negative trend.With 60 minutes played in a week,you'll have the best effect on your game shape,as always come out from all the studies...when you go far from a decent range(40-80 minutes) both as single week's minutes(close to 0/144) and multiple weeks where you miss a decent range(multiple weeks close to 30/90 or worse),you'll change the trend toward a negative trend
More experienced users instead say that GS work like a rigged nut,and minutes work to change the probability of a positive or negative outcome(improvement or decrease in GS decimals).The cumulative effect would come from the fact that with a similar number of minutes played in the various weeks,the outcome will be often similar and the result will accumulate during weeks,but it could however happen sometime a strange result for a single week

The general opinion was that the second solution is probably the right solution because it's basically similar to the GE(minutes instead of skills)

Although relatively new to BB (2nd Season), I was under the impression that between 55-70 minutes was optimal for GS pop. Now, I've been monitoring my players closely and this seems like a reliable range. I agree with Hadron that it is most probably a cumulative process.
Additionally, training GS when minutes have been poorly managed for the week doesn't necessarily prevent a player from having his GS improve. My new centre, newly acquired, had played 117 minutes prior to my purchasing him. Due to some significant restructuring of my roster, I had to train GS to limit his potential for injury this week. So far so good. But my point is this: improving the GS of a player is, for me, a hit and miss process in general. Keeping my players minutes within that 55-70 range has shown the best results for me thus far.

Matty

To deal with the randomness, I had come to the conclusion that there was a seasonal arc to the GS, starting at respectable and more or less rising to strong / proficient by season's end (given careful management, which for me is in the 60 - 70 minute range). (These numbers are impressions and personal guidelines, not the result of systematic study.)

To put it another way, I base my playing time on the standard that it is very likely a given player would wind up at proficient for the playoffs if they could play 36 minutes for 2 games a week for the season.

So I like this idea there are "trends" in the GS. Anything that reinforces my own perceptions I consider to be correct.

I wasn't seeing the GS as a seasonal arc,but more as a function with ups and downs...but my mathematic knowledge is too limited to explain well it.The most similar thing that comes to my mind it's a sine wave where the minutes played in a week are a parameter that you change and help to influence the trend of the wave,but I don't want to say a stupid thing,because I'm far from being a math expert :D

I appreciate what you say -- it is just that my experience would modify your sine wave so that it sloped upward. It would stand to reason that players play themselves into shape, so I could easily understand a bias in the GE to improvement over time with reasonable management of GS.

I understand your idea...it's interesting..So,we should expect an higher number of players with strong and proficient GS coming into PO?I have to put attention in the next Po and check :D

if a players GS is at Proficient it will automaticly go down to strong no matter what. p.s i learned tat if your player has proficient GS you can play them like 48's a game and they'd still only go down to strong :D