BuzzerBeater Forums

Ahhh, think I understand now. Training percentage applies to the position actually played, rather than what a player's best position is. Maybe? If so, I can understand how the training matrix would affect W/L.

Right. Let us say I am training bigs, so most of my training is ID, IS, RB type stuff. However, my bigs are terrible passers, so I want to spend a few weeks bumping their passing up. I can either keep playing my "Shaq" at center, and get only 60% passing training at that position, or I can play my "Shaq" at PG so I get 100% of the training. Now try to imagine "Shaq" playing PG. Not a pretty picture, BUT "Shaq's" passing will go up much faster playing PG than C, so by prioritizing training over winning I am less likely to win the games "Shaq" plays at PG, but his passing skill will go up much faster than iof he was training at C.


Either teams are casually training, where winning is the goal and any training pops are just basically bonuses (which is why 1on1 for forwards is so popular, and also why defense in BB is often ignored)….or teams are power training, where pops on your trainees is the priority, and winning is secondary to maximum training for one or more of your players. This was what the OP was talking about, that by training as a priority, he may have lost more games than if his focus was winning and training was secondary.

Makes sense to me now. Always assumed that training would apply to whatever the player's best position is rather what position he is actually playing. I was definitely the confused one here. Appreciate the lesson, will definitely start to apply it.