BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Training Speed Analysis

Training Speed Analysis (thread closed)

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
381.644 in reply to 381.641
Date: 8/27/2008 10:48:01 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
As far as I remember, if training 1 position is a unit of training received, 2 positions are 1/2 and three positions are 1/3, at which point it's quite easy to do the math;. But don't quote me on that, since I can't remember for the life of me where I picked this piece of info.


I hope it isn`t that way, because there wouldn't be any reason to train more than one spot then. With one spot, your players would improve much faster and you would get as much overall training as with two spot training.

This is a strategy game, and you are supposed to make strategic choices. There is an strategic choice if a player with 2-spot training gets less training than a player in 1-spot training BUT you get more overall training with a 2-spot training

(the same could be said for 3-spot training and team training)

From: Rambo

This Post:
00
381.646 in reply to 381.644
Date: 8/27/2008 11:46:59 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
219219
Why would you expect to receive more overall training for more positions?

A trainer only has 24 hours in one day to train players. If you decide one player should receive all 24 hours of course he would benefit more and quicker than if you decided to train 3 players for 8 hours each.

That is where the strategy lies. Do you want a single force or a well rounded team?

This Post:
00
381.647 in reply to 381.645
Date: 8/27/2008 12:36:20 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
First, it might be financially more effective to train 6 players instead of three.

I don't think so. You can buy 3 players, train them x levels in 1 season and sell them. Then buy another 3 players one year younger, train them x levels and sell them. This will be more effective (for several reasons) than buy 6 players and train them the same x levels in 2 seasons.

Likewise, a weak team might want to get simultaneous improvement at 2 positions, even if it comes a bit slower.
.

I don't think so. It will be better to play with 4 veterans and 1 trainable player than play with 3 veteran and 2 trainable players.


From: FCardelle

This Post:
00
381.648 in reply to 381.646
Date: 8/27/2008 12:41:07 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
Why would you expect to receive more overall training for more positions?

A trainer only has 24 hours in one day to train players. If you decide one player should receive all 24 hours of course he would benefit more and quicker than if you decided to train 3 players for 8 hours each.

That is where the strategy lies. Do you want a single force or a well rounded team?


In real basketball, you need 8 or 10 players for most of the drills. For example, how do you expect to train pressure with only 3 players?

With less training players, the trainer can be more focused in those players, but you need around 10 players for a good training session. (except for some technical issues)

From: Rambo

This Post:
00
381.649 in reply to 381.648
Date: 8/27/2008 12:59:24 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
219219
You've never trained on your own outside of practice? You can work on your outside defense (pressure) by doing quickness and agility drills alone or go one on one with the other 2-3 players training at your position. Jump Shot? Jump Range? You can have one player sitting in the gym shooting or your whole team.

From: FCardelle

This Post:
00
381.650 in reply to 381.649
Date: 8/27/2008 1:16:06 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
You can have one player sitting in the gym shooting or your whole team.

That's the point. A coach can train the whole team at the same time. So you can expect more overall improvement if he trains the whole team.

Anyway, the important thing is how it works in BB, I think.

This Post:
00
381.651 in reply to 381.645
Date: 8/27/2008 1:37:24 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
137137

I see enough strategic choices to be considered even if the amount of training is a zero-sum game between regimes. But that doesn't necessarily mean this is the case.


You'd better get more overall training from training more players, because there is no strategic benefit to training more players...its all downside/harder to win with. Hence, it would have to be more profitable (hopefully).


Steve
Bruins

This Post:
00
381.654 in reply to 381.652
Date: 8/27/2008 5:34:32 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
137137
You'd better get more overall training from training more players, because there is no strategic benefit to training more players...its all downside/harder to win with. Hence, it would have to be more profitable (hopefully).

It's harder to win if you're a mature team. It's overwhelmingly easier to win if you're still developing.


How so? Is a more mature team just one in a higher division?

Steve

Advertisement