BuzzerBeater Forums

Well, I almost am
I've had players get close to 80 minutes one week and around 40 the next, without a drop in GS. Based on this theory, I assumed that the 80 minutes from week 1 helped my guy not drop in GS the following week, when his minutes were really low. This is just what I think, and why that theory sounds reasonable to me. I don't have any proof or data to back it up.

from game manual:

Players who do not play much each week tend to lose focus and their Game Shape will be sloppy. Players who play too much in a week will get tired and their Game Shape will also be low-quality. These changes are gradual, and will build up over a few weeks' time. If you have three games in a week, you should consider rotating your players unless all three games are really important, because it will hurt your players ability to play the next few weeks. However, Game Shape is an indication of how sharp the player looked in practice and therefore how well he will be expected to play in a game; it is not an indicator of how effective his training sessions were.

Well, I almost am
I've had players get close to 80 minutes one week and around 40 the next, without a drop in GS. Based on this theory, I assumed that the 80 minutes from week 1 helped my guy not drop in GS the following week, when his minutes were really low. This is just what I think, and why that theory sounds reasonable to me. I don't have any proof or data to back it up.

It sounds like a convincing example. But only if this gameshape was proficient.

If he was already awful and didn't drop further I'm not convinced :p.

You know that graph on gameshape? (haven't got the link anywhere). That graph shows surprisingly little dots out of position. While with the "compensate" theory we should find some extreme dots that don't fit in the graph due to them being extremes that were compensated with the week before. (hard to explain without the graph, but hope you get what I mean)

I think you're talking about this graph, right?
(http://i39.tinypic.com/p895t.jpg)

It sounds like a convincing example. But only if this gameshape was proficient.

If he was already awful and didn't drop further I'm not convinced :p.

Of course, game shape was not awful I don't remember exactly, but I'm almost certain it was at least respectable, since I value game shape a lot. And I even get a little iffy when my players sit at just respectable game shape :-p

Thanks. Yeah that's the one I meant.

However I consider respectable gameshape a sign of bad minutemanagement (I have 7 proficient and 5 strong atm, not counting the players that I use as low salary fillers). So it would show me that the 80 and 40 minuten was having a bad effect.



Looking at the graph again I see that the +1 range is pretty big. So that would support the theory, that it either has quite a bit of random in it (and therefor even 20 minutes can be enough to rise a level) or that there's indeed a compensating over weeks factor which explains how even 20 minutes can make a +1 because of minutes the week before.

So yeah, this graph actually supports that theory more than disproves it imho. (so I'll move one step close to the believer group)

Alright!! I got you on my side a little bit:))
Yeah, I agree with you, like I said before, respectable game shape is not OK. In fact, right now I have 7 guys at proficient and 4 at strong. The remaining player is at respectable, but he's a filler.

From what I read, GS is correlated with Stamina, so a player with atrocious Stamina will pop in GS with 35-45 minutes(I've had a similar example), and also I've had a player consistently playing 70 minutes per week(respectable Stamina), and stay at strong-proficient GS.

As for the "build-up" from previous weeks, I don't think it ways that much. I've had player pop from 2-3 to 7 in 2 weeks of good GS management( These examples were scrubs though, who I had never player till that point of the season, it may not apply - and probably doesn't apply - to overplayed players)

I think it's not a matter of jumping up or down... If I'm not wrong, every single week is a new week for GS, so whatever happens in the previous week would not affect your player's GS.

I don't agree.
The most important factor of game shape in next week is... game shape in previous week ;-)
If you have GS = 3 and if you play perfectly ~60 minutes in week, then you have no chance to have GS = 9 ;-) I think GS should be ~6 in next week.
And symmetrically if you have GS = 9 and play 0 or 144 minutes, then you have no chance to drop to 3. I think GS will drop to ~6, maybe to 5 if you have bad luck, maybe to 7 if you have luck.
And one more interesting example - if you have GS = 9 and you play perfectly ~60 minutes, then... you have no chance to increase GS ;-) GS could be "only" the same or of course worse (because of random factor) ;-)
What is my point? It means, that if you had very good GS in previous week and if you destroy GS in current week (e.g. because you forgot set lineup), then you need to good manage minutes for few next weeks to restore very good GS in your team.
And please note that GS in previous week depends on... minutes played in previous week ;-)
So in this way minutes played in previous weeks have indirect impact on GS in next week ;-)
But I think they have no direct impact (or impact is very, very low) and here I agree.

Last edited by B.B.King at 6/1/2011 3:31:41 PM