BuzzerBeater Forums

Help - English > Training Efficiency Question...

Training Efficiency Question...

Set priority
Show messages by
From: BinMei

This Post:
00
6647.9 in reply to 6647.8
Date: 11/14/2007 4:10:26 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
55
Do scrimmages count for training time?

This Post:
00
6647.10 in reply to 6647.5
Date: 11/14/2007 4:13:46 PM
Balls of Steel
III.15
Overall Posts Rated:
145145
believe that is correct also, that coming short of 48 carries a rather large penalty.

It's not a system where 24 minutes is 50% training, 36 is 75%, and so on.


if that is the case, then the "Ideal Roster Size" is more like 12-14, not 15-18 as has been suggested.
As an example, I have a player who has 47 minutes and another who has 45 minutes after two league games. my plans are not to play them in the scrimmage and let a sub get alot more minutes. If I should not do this, then I guess I should sell/fire my 14-18 players to make sure everyone gets 48 minutes.

This Post:
00
6647.11 in reply to 6647.10
Date: 11/14/2007 4:29:38 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
304304
Remember that TRAINING is 48+.

Game Shape (formerly PTW) "should" have 48+ minutes, but I'd rather have the extra guys to soak up scrimmage minutes if needed.

Your financial situation also may dictate what you do.

NO ONE at this table ordered a rum & Coke
Charles: Penn has some good people
A CT? Really?
Any two will do
Any three for me
Any four will score
Any five are live
From: jimrtex

This Post:
00
6647.12 in reply to 6647.9
Date: 11/14/2007 9:13:47 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
44
Do scrimmages count for training time?


Definitely. That's the main reason to play scrimmages

This Post:
00
6647.13 in reply to 6647.10
Date: 11/14/2007 9:36:18 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
44
It doesn't make a lot of sense for there to be a huge difference between 47 and 48 minutes. That's just being cute.

But it might be that for minutes less than 48, the amount of training is something like:

(M/48)^2 rathet than simply (M/48).

So someone who plays 43 minutes (90%) might get 80% training, and someone who plays 24 minutes would get 25%. And anyone who plays one minute would get a bit more than someone who plays not at all.


This Post:
00
6647.14 in reply to 6647.13
Date: 11/14/2007 10:22:36 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
137137
It doesn't make a lot of sense for there to be a huge difference between 47 and 48 minutes. That's just being cute.

But it might be that for minutes less than 48, the amount of training is something like:

(M/48)^2 rathet than simply (M/48).

So someone who plays 43 minutes (90%) might get 80% training, and someone who plays 24 minutes would get 25%. And anyone who plays one minute would get a bit more than someone who plays not at all.



Does anyone really have any evidence one way or another on whether its linear or some less?

Seems like everybody is guessing or going with a gut feeling...

Steve



This Post:
00
6647.15 in reply to 6647.14
Date: 11/14/2007 10:37:30 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
304304
I'm not saying with 100% certainty, but I'm going with more than a mere guess/gut feeling.

I swear I saw this discussed somewhere, and that was the answer.

NO ONE at this table ordered a rum & Coke
Charles: Penn has some good people
A CT? Really?
Any two will do
Any three for me
Any four will score
Any five are live
This Post:
00
6647.17 in reply to 6647.16
Date: 11/14/2007 10:55:55 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
137137
It was discussed at one point and the BBs said it was NOT linear.

I don't think they said anything more, but it is not linear.


Yeah, I've seen the discussion too...but I haven't seen any numbers. That's was my point...

Steve

From: dennis54

This Post:
00
6647.18 in reply to 6647.16
Date: 11/14/2007 11:07:18 PM
Balls of Steel
III.15
Overall Posts Rated:
145145
I am fine with it not being linear. I just hope there is not a GREAT penalty for being one minute, or 3 minutes under the 48

meanwhile, back to re-read the rules, and see if I can find a BB to ask this of...