BuzzerBeater Forums

Depending on the minute rules, it could even be that a team play all three players in one thrown game and then play full competitive lineups in their other two.

Uhm could it be that you "seem to be advocating" that training 3 players out of position would be "making the effort" because it requires managers to throw more games than 1? What kind of game pushes a player to lose more in order to succeed/have fun?

I'm ignoring the rest of the quote because it was just more building upon the same faulty initial premise, that you have to throw games to train players out of position in competitive leagues (and further that the game requires that). That's the equivalent of sitting in a room where the door is open, the window is shut, and claiming to be trapped in the room because you can't open the window. It's simply faulty logic - you are not required to throw games or be uncompetitive to train players out of position, unless you're at a very high level. Obviously, in the NBBA you're going to have a tough go of it, and probably in my current league I would have a hard time, but I had three eighteen year old big men that I played pretty much exclusively out of position for training from season 19 through season 21 and still sporadically after that. I was in a competitive III series, and I didn't throw games - I'd have weeks where I did the two position stuff to try to have stronger lineups when needed, and one position some weeks when I was facing an easier team, but I didn't throw games.

So I categorically reject the premise that it "can't" be done and that the game "pushes a player to lose more in order to succeed/have fun?" I mean, I ended up fifth all three seasons, though I'm still bitter about a buzzer beater dunk at the end of the last game that meant I missed the playoffs by two points of PD. It was not as easy as just fielding a cookie cutter lineup, of course, and it required me to think about what I was doing, but those appear to be things about the game that others might like. I know I enjoyed the competition and the challenge.

Well I completely agree. However, use the same logic you applied in your last comment and apply it to the second last. You'll find out that all you can apply all the arguments to the current system as well and maybe more.

Point 1 you made:

a team play all three players in one thrown game

I was trying to explain that the situation would not be worse than today where you have to train every game out of position because the same regime must be applied to all trainees. All you have said in your last comment applies equally to the current system as well. As I was trying to argue, on average teams would be a bit more competitve in the new system than they are today.

I would expect that at the middle to higher levels, there'd be even more incidence of teams completely throwing a game per week - which is common enough as it is in the middle levels for teams contemplating Cup runs. If throwing a single game would also allow you to train three players a full 48 minutes as well, it would simply add additional incentive for that. But of course, that's just as much speculation as the thought that it would improve competitiveness so we can just leave it as a difference of opinion.

My last two thoughts on the subject:
1. I reject the notion that you have to throw games to train out of position, and seeing as how I did it, my opinion is pretty resolute.
2. If you can train all three players in one game, it takes away the concept of having to make some compromises; it makes it possible to be your most competitive and still train three unique players with no side effects (other than perhaps bailing out of the Cup early or throwing a league game). The difference is now the teams that already throw games like that will now also be able to get a full week's training to do so. It replaces a meaningful decision (to do training or squeeze a little more productivity out of the roster) with an almost mandatory decision to do both.