BuzzerBeater Forums

Ok. Thank you for the reply

,ok particularly when it comes to position-specific skills. Training a pure SG and a pure Point Guard simultaneously is tough because they're totally different. You need to focus on handling or passing one week, and jump shot or inside shooting the next. It's gotta be done individually for each player. Players with specialized skills are the most expensive, except for Centers, which are easiest to train.

Building a team takes time, and homegrown players can take years to develop and attain. Buying established players is faster, but you have to consider their quality and stamina. Slowing down the training pace isn't ideal, but maybe introducing a youth team at 13-14 years old could help with development and costs.

This would benefit everyone from.nba to level 5. This would help you have better players. This would help with player cost.

I understand garbage time and etc. I think that training should not be included in games as the factor to receive it .

I feel there's a missing link in the discussion in that discourse of environments. I have been reading on look-inside players and guards.Alot where saying the easiest to create. this leads me to believe there some kind of experience/skill to the tactics..

As for me studying training to find the best solution for training.. I don't think 48+ a game should or week should be out right solution . How did they look in practice .and your trainer game shape, stamina Etc. I don't assume garbage time removal is the antidote either . It help but at same time. I honest feel training should be outside of games.. if anything based on performance give more pops

Now what that you could see the progress in games with that tactic better . You could see what kind of player your developing.,like look inside ..Blind training is no good.

Last edited by Big city at 1/11/2026 1:27:04 PM

Can someone clarify what the argument against having rosters of 7-8 key players?
It feels like we've finally got some predictability in the game, and it seems like it'll be upended. Once again, the more expensive players ($220+k salary) will be unusable, and the market will crash more than it already has. Managers holding these newly worthless assets won'tbe happy.
There has been various strategies teams have been able to use to be competitive, granted it has started leaning towards outside. I suspect it'll take years to find balance again.
And as a side benefit, I think it mimics the NBA as well. Contenders tends to have rosters of 7-8 key players, particularly once playoffs roll around. Although deeper teams will do better during the season, as is the case in BB.

Seems like a headache in the making, and I can't find any benefits to try to require teams to carry 10+ good players.

Last edited by Fresh24 at 1/25/2026 12:37:58 PM

I also don't see problem in using 7 guys for crucial games. But for entire season, there should be some sort of negative effects for using only 7 guys. Cause now it can be minimized with psychologist/massagist combo

My only gripe is minute management for trainees. This 48 minute requirement probably got copied from Hattrick manager game and in football it makes sense that players play entire game, but in basketball - it doesn't. Now we require 45, 48 or 40 minutes, but maybe with this new garbage option we could reliably achieve certain minutes (36 for example), regardless of game outcome or foul trouble or opponent forgeting to select roster. And that custom amount of minutes would be universal to ages and there would be no need blank lineups or playing trainees full game