BuzzerBeater Forums

But the criticizing basing U21 on inside builds is just insane. It ignores blant truths about how buzzerbeater works. Those cute 12/12/12/12 builds with ok guards skills don't really work when Italy and other U21 giants can putting guys up 17-18+ IS/ID. Please look at Italy and tell how how they designed their Gold Medal winning team this year. They did it by putting high amounts of IS and ID on the either bigs. Show me one gold medal winning team that based their team around something other than inside. To say that we havent been successful using inside is revisionist history. If it wasn't for a shitty manager (me), we would have had a gold medal at Americas last season running inside as our main offense and a nice run at Worlds. Instead we secured HCA at Americas, guess what using inside offense.

Its interesting you bring up last season(I.E s32) and running an inside offense. the games for s32 season:
Patient
Princeton
Outside Iso
Inside Iso
Low Post
Low Post
Look Inside
Base Offense
Base Offense
Look Inside
Base Offense
Forefeit

Not overly Inside, but evident we have heavier inside.

So i went ahead and compiled the Bigs from s32, well the main 3, Rooney, Helms and Hendrickson

Rooney and Helms being traditonal u21 IS IS bigs and Hendrickson being as you state it... a cute build.

Your all free to browse, i compiled all starts and then normalized them down to 7 games, including Helms best performance.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Xqctm48PII6zV1HFph...
For those who dont want to look,
All Games:
Games Minutes FG 3PFG FT plus-minus OR TR AST TO STL BLK PF PTS Ranking(AVG)
Helms 10 326 47/91 4/12 18/30 377 38 136 20 14 6 20 13 116 14.6
Rooney 9 244 43/84 0/6 33/35 296 23 100 12 8 8 9 22 119 11.5
Hendric 7 193 35/65 2/3 10/12 136 22 94 17 7 1 20 11 86 16.4

Equalized Minutes, Games

Games Minutes FG 3PFG FT plus-minus OR TR AST TO STL BLK PF PTS Ranking(AVG)
Helms 7 189 42/60 2/7 11/18 201 18 73 15 11 2 12 7 77 15
Rooney 7 191 38/68 0/6 27/28 239 21 84 12 5 6 9 22 103 13.3
Hendric 7 193 35/65 2/3 10/12 136 22 94 17 7 1 20 11 86 16.4


It seems the numbers dont lie, albeit you mostly played inside offenses with Hendrickson and played Patient and Princeton with Helms/Rooney, also the only "decent u21" teams ewe played there came during Hendricksons turn.

Id also like to point out, Hendrickson had GS issues the entire u21 season, never getting past 8. And these were the builds according to your own pipeline document
Robbie Hendrickson 34286071 C 21 8 8 792 5 3 1 6 10 8 12 14 13 15 5 4 33 54 87

Robert Rooney 34284980 C 21 8 8 356 4 7 8 7 5 4 16 14 13 8 2 9 35 51 86

Victor Helms 34286184 C 21 8 7 356 4 8 6 6 6 5 14 15 15 9 2 5 35 53 88

I never had any issues with you phyr, I was not personally attacking you nor do I feel you had an overly bad tenor as manager of the u21. We had a disagreement about player builds this past season, but in that disagreement i was the first person to comment on the downside to him(his GS). My only point I'am trying to get across to the people of the USA and u21 and BB in general that there are better ways to train players for peoples TEAMS and u21 so that they dont cripple the d.4 team financially so they have to sell and start over but are still productive players for u21 and potentially still make NT builds.
We can build players for the u21 and NT at the same time, you guys just refuse to see it.

IS ID REB is not the end all be all and if it is, this game is broken and theres now reason to play. Any game that offers only one end game winning build would be a flawed and broken game, and I dont think that is the way BB is. Just do that math people.

Last edited by tetrahydroc at 2/17/2016 10:12:03 AM

You're doing a great job of Donald Trump-ing against the other candidates and going all Marco Rubio on the current/soon to be former guy in charge.

Alright all....back to the debate.

My question for all- there can be a fine line between training for the U21 and training for the NT. Sometimes, training for the NT can mean that players wont necessarily be great options for the U21 because of getting the out of position training early on. As manager, will you be willing to work with myself, and any other possible future NT manager, if that means some of your best young talent wont be options for the U21?

Also, to go along with the question above, typically the Scouts are in charge of the players 21 years old and younger. As the NT manager, I typically work with guys in the 22-32 years range and even had some amazing help with the 22-25 years range last season. Due to rarely working with U21 players, how will you determine which ones go the NT route compared to U21? Do you plan to make this a conversation between myself and you, plan to make that decision yourself, or plan to make that a community decision?

An Americas season is not the best example because we don't really play against elite competition for the most part. A lot of the tactical choices and the stats reflect the subpar competition.

For BB in general, you are absolutely right. IS/ID/RB is not the end all be all. Just look at the players I trained on my USA team! I think you are training some great players for your team and should continue to do so.

But for U21 it definitely is because of the time frame. You have three seasons to train a player and you need load them up with as many skills as possible and they have to be effective in an offense. The easiest way to do that is to load up on IS.

The other issues is that OD is overpowered and most great U21 teams emphasize alot of OD on their guards. A big with 15 IS is more effective against 15 ID than a guard with 15 JS against 15 ID.

I am also not saying that you shouldn't have specialists on the roster but most guards still need to have good OD/PA with high IS as a bonus, and most bigs need high IS/ID/RB. Even a specialist SG is going to need min. levels of HA/DR/PA to be successful in multiple offenses.

I understand the criticism that a high IS/ID/RB big can cripple a lower division team, which is why I bit the bullet and trained two bigs on my own utopia team. Fewmit did it for the U21 and so did EBW. All owners should do what is best for their teams training wise, but they should understand that some unique builds that are great for a team are not going to make U21 because of the special conditions involved in U21 play.

That being said, this is an important conversation to have and I am glad to have it! I apologize for my tone in some cases. It reflections frustrations with my own failings.

I want to say that I will definitely take use of the USA-Offsite and the USA Forums. I will be implementing a "Fan Survey" of the USA U21 Team, and if GM Jason, hrudey, and Chichorn allow it, have a weekly thread post game survey for each USA U21 game on BB USA. That way we get feedback from not just the offsite users, but the BB USA users as well.

Well, you spelled my username correctly, which is a plus, but since you misspelled Chihorn's username, I'm afraid we're going to have to ban you for a period of time no less than 87 weeks.

And I know you understand I'm just joking there, but just in case anyone read that literally, don't. I don't think any of the GM staff or anyone else will have a problem with actual BB discussion occurring in the USA forum.


Last edited by GM-hrudey at 2/17/2016 9:32:17 AM

i agree with most points you make here. I think there are training plans yet to be in mass use that will allow a player to be trained for both U21 and NT purposes and still be salary efficient.
With Hendrickson he was a 7/4/5/4 Inside skills start. I alternated alot of ID/SB and did alot of SB training.
SB trains SB ID IS and REB, you can see it in my diary, in my players, my utopia players, in EPKS players, in anyone who takes my advice and alternates ID and SB. you will see faster ID/SB/IS/REB growth than you do with the current u21 big training plans.

If Hendrickson had followed the same path as a 7/7/7/7 start big.....you could of been looking at a 14/16/15/16 kind of player in 3 seasons. I will put 2 of those bigs against 2 of any u21 big out there. I have half the mind to sell off my team and find two bigs with the right builds just to prove to you guys that this method does in fact work, but Im very attached to my players and I fear no matter what proof i show no one will change there ways so whats the use?

Last edited by tetrahydroc at 2/17/2016 9:53:27 AM

I agree there is a fine line between training for both, with some players and builds. However I think that you can effectively train a 6'3-6'10 player with a u21 path and a nt path long term, its all in the start and the end build and how you get there.

Its not that I dont like 1v1f training, of course I do, but everything in moderation. The more you pump HA/DR and JS/IS the higher the salary goes faster, and in my eyes you can squeeze more SP onto players by building defensively first, but keeping your IS/JS/HA/Dr relative to the OD/ID/SB/REB/PA/JR. The more SP the better, the more balanced, the cheaper and happier everyone is.

For example, if Carl Baxter had a slightly different training path or a slightly better start (3/4/4/4) He could have potentially made the u21 this season as a Big. I now am training him outside and this season alone he grew 12 pops 5 OD's alone. IF he had a greater Potential he would be a NT Candidate, even as he is now he may approach 135-140 TSP by the time Iam done with him and be a potential NT Candidate.

I am ok with including SB if the owner wants to train, but even the Hendrickson build you mention has the U21 min of 12/12/12/x, but you still need guys with 16-17 IS on the roster. 60 big skills by the end of year 3 is also very very optimistic. You need a higher level trainer, a trainee that is MVP or HOF and that build is well over 100k. No one will complain about a build like that. Some of the training plans do have to be revised. Training SB with ID is what I would do too.

of course thats just an out of the park example, Hendrickson popped well, had a 5-7 trainer for most of his life and only missed 3 weeks on injury during his 18-21 seasons. Ideal factors would be needed.

The scenario that presents itself to me is that we allow the manager his age 21 season to train mostly 1v1F allowing for managers to train 4-6 guys and ideally keep our u21 players in the best GS possible by reducing the 3 guys for 48+ effect of one position as we scramble to pile more ID/IS on our guys in year 21. A 1v1f here and there, some rebounding every little bit to keep the pops flowing. Some guys end up higher in IS because of start and some guys end up higher in defense/reb
they all have decent flow skills and js that get better as the u21 season wears on and the GS stays easier to manager for all the players involved.

Scenario
yr 1 SB/ID/IS Yr 2 IS/ID/SB yr 3 Reb/IS/SB(or fill in holes based on build) yr 4 1v1f/ big skills as needed.

Last edited by tetrahydroc at 2/17/2016 10:06:25 AM