Asunto: General Talk

Hellloooo from the UK !! *squawk squawk* CI Seagulls coach swooping through. Keep training that technique up on your big fellas, I'd say minimum half of aggression. It allows my guys to play aggressive D all day long and watch your opponents shot % drop through the floor

259 days into Basketball.....and I still feel like it just started 2 months ago....

I've heard time flies when you get older but this is a bit ridiculous.

Glad someone else see's the obvious.

In Ref to fluff79 comment. I've said it b4. TRAIN your TEC with your AGR. A player with twice the agr to tec is useless. I dont care if his OR is 400+...cant depend on a player that fouls out every game.

PPM should rewrite this part of the guide for newer managers.

I think it's a relationship between Tec/Agr
min.Tec = 2/3 * Agr

I can see a 2/3 being effective. My comment was a bit vague, not to imply a 1 to 1 ratio. But what i commonly see on the market are centers with 34 Tec...80 agr.

I realize people have a different view on the guide, its open to misinterpretation but it does clearly state. Tec is responsible for lay ups & dunks., as well as dribbling / ball control. As minimizes fouls. Whereby shooting has ZERO effect on close range shots. NONE.
My personal center certainly isn't a good representation, but he doesn't foul out often, He also would have lead the entire Div.I league in rebounds this season had he not been hurt. This can also be attributed to a player that remains in games.

Main point being. people are not putting enough emphasis on Tec when training centers. According to what I have seen on the market. NOT to imply the top teams or vet managers are guilty of this.

+1

2/3 sounds like a promising ratio to me as well. It should be enough to decrease personal fouls without sacrificing too much.

Preach it.

to be clear, this is for centers and power forwards, right? 1-1 is about where SF's would be (using the guide). PG and SG, the ratio would tip way in the favor of tech with lower need for agr (according to the guide)

Yes, centers and PF. I cant say for certain that a 1.1 ratio is best. By doing so you're bound to lose attribute pts overall as it seems most centers i have seen have low Tec quality. It's a gamble, spend the time on Tec and give up other critical aspects during the build up. Atleast for right now while training academies are relatively low. a 2.3 ratio seems to be effective.

agreed. I was going more for a 3/4, but i started experimenting with lower ratios and I think the 2/3 is probably right.

I also think i am just getting the main and secondaries to the point i have to start training the tertiaries on the PG, and SG. The SFs take forever to train because you pretty much have to train everything. The guide indicates that everything should about the same for those. Has anyone found a better set of ratios to train up SFs?

2/3 sounds good. Going to go for that.

Do we have a national team supporter person.