BuzzerBeater Forums

I'm not the original poster and I'm not arguing anything in particular, except that it's pointless to say "it's part of the game". It does not mean anything. It's an arbitrary part of the game that doesn't bring pleasure to anyone.

In this specific instance, I am probably in the top 1% at knowing how to manage minutes for optimal GS (don't look now, I did manage to screw up my GS this week due to a holiday trip ). Even so, I think the system is a silly hoop to jump through, and no amount of "it's part of the game" blabber is going to change it.

This is important because I actually think there *is* something that is a pleasurable part of the game that I wouldn't want to give up in any modification. I wouldn't want to lose the fact that you need to make plans and anticipate the week.

I'm not the original poster and I'm not arguing anything in particular, except that it's pointless to say "it's part of the game". It does not mean anything. It's an arbitrary part of the game that doesn't bring pleasure to anyone.

Well, forget those few words used in my post, and focus on the underlying point, which is.... Every game has its challenges, that's what makes a game interesting. If you don't like the way part of the game works, you'd have to make a much better case for changing it than the 2 sentences the original poster put together.

Cause as far as I can see, majority of teams got little problem with GS. Most teams I play against have an average GS of 8+ anyway. And there are tons of things to help you too, such as coaches, specialities and training. I can argue, making minute managing easier will make game shape completely obsolete and we'll lose a valuable aspect of the game. :)

Using the "Attitude" set for the match makes no sense in my opinion. TIE is not only used to give playing time to one's coaches, but also in order to accumulate/recover enthusiasm during the season, as well as other levels of commitment.
So we give "Attitude" two very different uses which would make its use very complicated.

Some time ago I also pointed out another thing regarding garbage time, which did not only concern playing time (and very simply the difference in baskets), but also merchandising.
Since it was made public that the team's merchandising is influenced by the presence of the players in the individual rankings, it has become more important to try to get high playing time for the best players (who therefore contribute more to the team).
If a very good player almost always plays 25 minutes per game because his team goes into garbage time, he will tend to have worse statistics than other players who play 35 or more minutes in teams that do not go into garbage time (or that do not have substitutions, the which also goes against all the work that has been done to limit short rosters).

Plus there is an inherent error in garbage.
Many times, having a decidedly stronger quintet than the bench, I went into garbage time at halftime because my team was up by 20 points, but then with my reserves on the pitch against the opposing team's starters the gap always closed to reduce and I often ended up winning around 10 points or sometimes even less.
This makes no sense in any garbage time you want, if a team returns to a recoverable gap the garbage should be removed and we should return to a rebalancing of forces, otherwise it is really a wrong way to evaluate a team better than another .
You can't see games in which a team leading by 20+ points halfway through the third quarter plays the rest of the game with the bench players, making a comeback and risking losing without the coach putting the starters on the field again.

So I am in favor of changes to garbage time, if not to "choose" it explicitly, then at least to regulate its use in a more sensible way.

In my opinion Garbage Time is used to keep the score in real mantinels. Removing this will cause the need of some additional changes to keep the results within realistic limits.

Give the manager a x amount of times during a season to influence garbage time.

Like* "go all in, we need as much points as possible to be best in points differential"