BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Changes in Season 10

Changes in Season 10

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
93604.597 in reply to 93604.596
Date: 8/27/2009 11:53:23 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
Considering the massive advantage one gains for having a balanced defender


Based on the training CLM was alluding to (say, getting a short player/guard up to 9 or 10 in ID), the effort is not worth the gain both in the GE and on the TL. There also the opportunity cost of losing games you may have won by putting players in their best position.

In short, it takes effort and short-term pain to make a player who will long-term be incredibly valuable.


It takes effort and short-term pain to make a player who will long-term have marginally increased value to the GE and TL.

As long as managers as a whole are making a mistake by not training well-rounded players, we don't see this as someplace where a rules change is the right answer.


There's a cost-benefit line that gets crossed once you start to attempt to train players in skills that are outside of their position and not fit for their height. Every case of manager (that i'm aware of) going out of their way to attempt to build a player(s) that can defend inside and outside (to be effective as a SF), has appeared to be detrimental to their team's long-term success.

Last edited by brian at 8/27/2009 11:56:10 AM

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
This Post:
00
93604.599 in reply to 93604.596
Date: 8/27/2009 12:56:53 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
168168
Hi
Can You make a +/- partition to the Standings table?

This Post:
00
93604.600 in reply to 93604.599
Date: 8/27/2009 1:24:42 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
44
If you want to make bigger discussion about it use the Suggestions forum. It's already posted here: (104624.221)

This Post:
00
93604.601 in reply to 93604.600
Date: 8/27/2009 1:37:23 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
168168
thx l-)

From: brian

This Post:
00
93604.603 in reply to 93604.602
Date: 8/27/2009 3:08:05 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
2. balanced attack: option 2 is problematic, option 1 is better


You have a little bit less inside defense but much more outside defense. The key here is what kind of player are they using at SF in a balanced attack? Most of the time a team that runs a balanced attack will be using a guard at SF instead of a big man.

I agree with Charles that many managers train inefficiently and with brianjames that the TL doesn't reward balanced training because buyers


Many do train inefficiently. In this case, training a player with balanced defense is, for the majority of cases, inefficient training. You could train a 6'2" guard, starting with 7 OD/7 ID to this:

10 OD
8 ID

or

12 OD
7 ID

I'll take the 2nd player every time. I get to play them at their best position and they end up better defenders overall. The 1 level of ID AND the performance loss from that player being out of position is not effective from whatever angle you look at it.


"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
This Post:
00
93604.604 in reply to 93604.598
Date: 8/27/2009 3:21:30 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
404404
I can say you that your player was weak?9-8 in the two defences at that point of the season is too low in both the defences(is a little over a guard who started from average in ID and had a pop in that skill training ID),also for an equilibrate defender,and at medium level,one pop is still important for improving the pefromances of a player.And you have to use however a complete Sf for the mismatches he can create,this choice doesn't pay with that offensive tactic

Advertisement