BuzzerBeater Forums

Well, GM-JuicePats has made some statements on this subject recently: (381.744) to (381.750). He is as close to a BB as a GM can get, so there must be some truth in there... If you really lose (about) 8% training efficiency for every minute short of 48, it would mean that your 6 trainees combined can only lose 13 minutes of playing time to get a more effective training then 5 players who all play over 48 minutes...

I used to have a large squad of players and tried to get them all between 42 and 50 minutes which was quite doable.

I did notice there indeed is a diffrence in full training or a few minutes less, however I change trainingtypes so often (to maximise effects of it depending on which players player how many minutes) that it is hard to exactly quantify it.

The way I am guessing it is, is the following:
the ones who are not convinced much training is lost for minutes under 48 probably underestimate the effect
the ones thinking a considerable part of training is lost when 48 minutes are not reached are probably overestimating the effect.
In reality it will be somewhere in between. There IS certainly a loss, but it isn't THAT bad as many think.

The result of that loss however might be prety bad indeed.
(to explain this: say you loose only 5% training when you wuold have your player play 45 minutes, which obviously isn't that much. However if this happens consistently, your player who started out equal to your opponents for example will at the end of the season be clearly less good and may cause you to loose your game.
Ofcourse, if this caused your reserve player to gain more skill then your opponent's reserve because he waisted like 15 to 25 minutes every week to make sure his 1 player gets full training, this might balance things out again... Conclusion, I'm not sure which way to go would be best, except trying to get your players 48 or 49 minutes, which is VERY VERY hard. )

Conclusion, I'm not sure which way to go would be best, except trying to get your players 48 or 49 minutes, which is VERY VERY hard. :) )

My best was 6 trainees...4x48mins a 51mins and a 45mins... and that was more luck than judgement.... when i actually try it never gets anywhere close to this!

this week I made:

1x50min
4x48min
1x46min

Usualy for me 1 or 2 players are behind 48min...but very close...from 40min to 47

The result of that loss however might be prety bad indeed.
(to explain this: say you loose only 5% training when you wuold have your player play 45 minutes, which obviously isn't that much. However if this happens consistently, your player who started out equal to your opponents for example will at the end of the season be clearly less good and may cause you to loose your game.

45/48 = .9375 (missing 3 minutes of training will cost you more than 5% even if its linear).

Actually, I got six players 48+ minutes plus one week (but I had a double overtime game).


Steve
Bruins

there is also the theorie that training look like a sigmoid, in this case it could be less then 5% ;)

there is also the theorie that training look like a sigmoid, in this case it could be less then 5% ;)

That theory is incorrect.

is your 8% theory, for sure?

For me it is a bit to high.

Thanks for the advice everyone, I will sell 2 and cut it to 6...that seems to be the most efficient way.

If you can play 3 games a week and keep a true rotation, such as this, you can get 48 minutes for each, or close to it:

1st pair START PF/C
2nd pair BACKUP

2nd pair START PF/C
3rd pair BACKUP

3rd pair START PF/C
1st pair BACKUP

there is also the theorie that training look like a sigmoid, in this case it could be less then 5% ;)

That theory is incorrect.

I guess this is what I find vexing...if nobody knows what the training curve looks like (other than the BBs) and nobody can present hard data, who can we say anything is right or wrong or how it might be? Seems like everybody is just giving their opinions or hunches based on very limited training data.

Steve

there is also the theorie that training look like a sigmoid, in this case it could be less then 5% ;)

That theory is incorrect.

I guess this is what I find vexing...if nobody knows what the training curve looks like (other than the BBs) and nobody can present hard data, who can we say anything is right or wrong or how it might be? Seems like everybody is just giving their opinions or hunches based on very limited training data.

Steve

This is based on what the BB team has stated - they're not releasing anything resembling hard data, but everything I've been told points to a big drop in training under 48 minutes.