BuzzerBeater Forums

Here's another way that 10-12 player teams can be indirectly encouraged:
The number of minutes played during a game should have an larger impact on their in-game GS.
Besides the minutes the player has been active in a game, the player's stamina and experience, as well as the team Attitude (Take it Easy, Normal, Crunch Time) should also have an impact.

For example, if a player stars with GS 9, if they have stamina of 5 they will lose 1 GS after 18 mins, 2 GS after 24 mins, etc.
If they have stamina of 9, they will lose 1 GS after 24 mins, 2 GS after 30 , etc... you get the point.
Similarly, the higher experience the slower the impact on GS, because presumably XP helps players better manage their in-game energy and intensity.
Attitude should also impact in-game GS: TIE might make a player start with lower GS, but it lasts longer because they're taking it easy. While on the other end, CT gives a player a higher starting GS, but deteriorates faster (higher intensity).

In other words, GS has a default curve based on in-game minutes played, and stamina, experience, attitude are modifiers.
And then, after the game, GS is restored by a certain fixed amount (or could also depend on stamina, experience, attitude, age etc.).

I would also argue that stamina should decrease by age, possibly drastically after a certain age.

Finally, it would be cool if stamina increased if players play more minutes and it should similarly decrease if players don't play many minutes. This can probably be implemented regardless.

If done correctly, it could result in a need for teams to have more depth, because a $100K sub with GS 9 would perform better than a $200K starter whose in-game GS has deteriorated to 5 after 40 minutes.

I'm sure there are several holes in this suggestion, and some of these ideas may already be part of the game, but putting it out there as a thought-starter.

I would argue teams that only play 7-8 players already have a higher risk due to the higher minutes played. Every minute played is a chance to get injured. Are you saying the injury risk should be exponentially correlated with minutes played?

But I couldn’t agree with you more about removing injuries, in any facet of the system. Injuries are the “risk” feature to teams that prioritize training or deep runs. There are already risk mitigation features like the doctor that players can take advantage of. Plus the randomness that injuries create is one of the reason this game is fun. Every injured star player on one team is a Cinderella story for another team. Every lost week of U21 training for a prospect is another prospect that gets his chance at glory. Removing or diminishing the effect of injuries (or any other unfavorable effect) will only result in a more consolidated and unified strategy, which IMO is bad for the game.

I get it, injuries suck when they happen to you. Take your lumps and look to take advantage of another injured team another time.

Hello

So basically gatekeeping. That's how I read it .

That u21 sentence is really shameful. When we think of buying a trainer level 5-6 350k to 600k then another 520k in Bb draft also weekly salaries . Taking lumps s basically saying rub dirt on a torn acl & Get better soon.

Also level 6 doctor 225k bid and 30k+ a week...

Last edited by Big city at 5/19/2026 11:04:36 PM

I appreciate the frustration of it, but if it was easy and there was little risk, then everyone would do it.

There is a real (and I would argue more likely) scenario where you allow training to occur while players are injured, and that will make it MORE difficult to create a u21 player. Less risk -> more managers participating - more u21 competition -> higher cost for trainers. I think you need to consider the long term consequences of reducing the impact of injuries to the game and not just the short term desire for 1-2 more pops.

I’m all for modifying the current system, but there must always be a risk/reward approach to keep the game from becoming one-dimensional.

An exponential correlation of injury and minutes played would be interesting and I would be in favor of it IF it was applied over a full week (or longer if that’s possible), and not within a game. The current training system almost requires you to play your trainee a full 48 mins a game, so if that correlation is applied intra-game, it would severely disrupt training.

Hello

So spending 3 million for gym to train is not a risk? Plus 15k a week plus player various salaries. Every aspect that goes with training. Not a risk?

If everyone could do it.,?? Do you know how hard it is to create a u21 player or NT .This game creates thousands of generated players a year, Thousands.. I can surely say maybe less 1% make of those players , will never see things like NT/U21.. 50% will never see division 1 play. Not because of fired, but because of poor training and injuries, bad potential. If we want to get negative about that instances there gatekeeping there as well.

Now poor training is a manager choice.. Injuries is not a choice. We have things here for training and none for injuries beside a doctors who are worthless.&expensive, Discipline of the said doctor levels,do not matter. Because 1 injury sets a player back 5 weeks.

Because the gameshape and stamina are ruined ,By a random factor with no control.. It sets the team back 75k+ a week that those players don’t get training your playing for a week. Why can’t we mitigate injury?

This a managerial game and a very popular training game ..There’s nothing to help injuries in training if we are talking realism .Zion William basketball team in the nba. Has spent 8 million to get him back on the court., 8 million in rehab. But when saying create a Rehab center 4-5 million .. oh no!.. So How does the realism argument hold up. This is a training game.!!!!!

Its gatekeeping, scared of competition..Lack of innovation. As a community we need to get past this egos, Start pushing for positive change in the injury area. Rehab center is part of training ,, it’s giving the owner more control of the player health. It not creating super man by substaining, The player stamina level or gameshape a little bit while they get half training for the week and heal up

.What’s wrong with that.

Last edited by Big city at 5/20/2026 4:41:51 PM

No, spending capital is not inherently a risk. The risk comes from that investment not paying off. Remove the risk of injury and this investment is now completely risk free. Reward = faster training / Risk = injuries can still sabotage you.

To your point, u21/NT training should be difficult and rewarded to the most diligent of managers. This includes risk management. If you want to reduce your risk of injuries sinking your prospect, invest in a good doctor. Or take the risk and live with consequences. Seems simple to me.

I think you severely undersell the value of a mid/high level doctor. I recall seeing an analysis on the forums but can’t dredge up where it is, perhaps someone else can assist. Doctors and the Health & Recovery Centers are already your injury risk mitigators. We want to mitigate risk, not remove risk from the game.

Buzzerbeater is basketball manager game, not a training game. Training is an aspect of the game, but the identity.

Your suggestion does not make sense in the real world. A player with a broken arm does not undergo treatment/rehab AND improve their jump shot simultaneously. I tore my rotator cuff playing football, and I can promise you I did not get better at tackling while I underwent rehab.

Opposition to your suggestion is not gatekeeping. We all want what’s best for the game. I’d love to see improvements to make training more dynamic, or the suggestion of a minutes/injury correlation also sounds interesting. Perhaps an additional Physical Therapist staff member to further aid in recovery. There is tons of room for improvement without jeopardizing the risk/reward balance of the game.

The root of my argument is that you can not simply increase the effectiveness of a certain strategy without offsetting it in some way to remain balance. If you said the gym would grant 50% training speed to injured players, but the overall effect of the gym was reduced by 10%, then I can at least entertain the idea even thought that doesn’t make practical sense. As with all things in life, balance is key.

Hello

Spending capital is not risk. How do you come to that point of thinking .? Instead do Bb draft ,home grown arena ,you can just buy the player and pay the tax. Buy some old beets and flip every 2 season with roster 15 deep . Dodge every single feature from fatigue to game shape. Team get old rebuy it again. Basically a treadmill team . So money is always has a risk . No matter what direction you choose.

Just to be clear, a high level doctors mitigate time,not lost training..a 5week injury still losses 5 pop with that level 5-6doctor.. Sometimes the player stamina is dropped from 8- 3 after a injury . That's 7 more weeks to get the same level . Basically 12weeks of training derailment .

I remember a GM saying" this game is a training game not a economic game". Those may not been his exact words ,but that's themes given .So it's a training game. Meaning you manage your team by training not anything else . I hate put this out out Rehab is part of training ..

Rehab training is very realistic in sports . I don't recall kobe bryant sitting around when he pulled his Achilles. If I remember it correct he was shooting FT every night . Micheal jordan. Dennis rodman. Many other where not sitting around. You sitting around doing nothing. .Did you have a 100 million dollar medical sport medicine facility behind your to support you. Your argument end right there. Buzzer beater can do the same .

There no. Balance in life just cause your think so..you have to create that balance ..we can't sit here saying balance the game. No we can say give us the power to mitigate issues with our teams .. balance is subjective to training . ..no is asking to remove injury out the game

.I'm asking for things that improve gameplay not gate keep . It take 3 year to create a top players. No one asking for any balance..it's a privilege not a right , why can't we protect that privilege, we have spent the time and the effort. While others say oh say well , that's the risk or etc etc.

Risk come with what? Options !! Why should the only option be failure by random(injury).. where the random option of deter( rehab center). The option we have today are not doing the job. It's been proven many times.

Last edited by Big city at 5/21/2026 12:24:58 AM

I’m not going to argue semantics, but you’re conflating risk with opportunity cost. Risk involves unknowns. Opportunity cost is based on choices, and is and should always be prevalent in a managers decision making processes as well as the risk. Weighing those factors is what makes this game realistic and enjoyable.

Agreed on the function of the doctor, just not the straw man example you postulate.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, however I more see this game as an economics game that fronts as a basketball game. Training is an optional, albeit a very fun feature of the game.

I suggest reframing your proposition in the form of a tradeoff; “I would like to continue to train injured players, while making it more difficult to xxx”. I oppose just making training easier or faster.