I have always understood that fatigue was the best way to go, at d3. What is the consensus on this? 

i agree unless you are promising a lot of starts to new recruits, then target minutes i hated playing fatigue but changed to it like 6 seasons ago.

I can see the benefit to both.  The big problem I had with minutes was if I was trying to play my star John Smith 32 minutes a game, then you would think 16 minutes a half.  But, if he happened to get in foul trouble in the first half and only got 12 mins, the computer will try to make up those minutes and play him all 20 mins in the second half, which could make him extremely tired.

Ok jay so that tells me that target minutes is broke..thanks for the advice..

Posted by damonh1992_ on 11/6/2014 7:16:00 AM (view original):
Ok jay so that tells me that target minutes is broke..thanks for the advice..

Just because target minutes doesn't work the way you would choose to have it work does not mean it is "broke."

I've used target minutes since I started playing the game, what I found to work was just trying to assign 30-35 minutes per position between whichever 2 or 3 players play there and then leaving the last 5-10 to be decided by the flow of the game. Most times the majority goes to the starters but if there in foul trouble or it's a blowout then the computer throws the remaining minutes to the backups.
Target minutes will burn you every once in a while but if you have a good defensive team that doesn't foul much, or you run a lot of slowdown, then you wouldn't run into many problems. 

mik,, what, in your mind, are the advantages of target minutes?

i occassionally use them when trying to deliver on a recruiting promise... for instance,  if i promised a start, but really prefer the kid play 10-15 minutes and let his older, better backup play 25-30.



by the way, how many of you can remember back before the fatigue setting when the only option was target minutes?
i liked that way better as you had to try to caluculate the optimal number of minutes for each player (in other words,, how many minutes can my best plaeyrs play without getting too tired?)   i thought it made for a nice chess match between coaches... hmmmm... will he go uptempo?  if so,  i better put my guys on 24-28.... if not, maybe i can squeeze 33 minutes out of my best players?)
i think it owas mainly changed for the sake of realism.  i mean, what real life coach would set up a substitution pattern and then stick with it regardless of tempo fatigue, foul trouble etc?   but i think it removed a great strategy element from the game ... dumbed it down i guess i would say

I would agree its broke.

What real coach would leave a player in at "dead tired" an entire half just because at the beginning of the game he had a plan for playing time?

Target minutes offers no room for deviation. Seble should develop a hybrid. Wouldn't be too hard to do.

Not speaking for mikvitu, but he did provide some feedback in a thread we had a while back discussing the viability/usefulness of target minutes.

http://whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=453933

Haha that's awesome thank you for reminding me of some reasons I like target minutes. 
Yeah my thing with the target minutes is the control factor of it. Every couple of seasons I'll run fatigue in my exhibition games and can never get the minutes to spread the way I want. Also my starting lineup is not always my 5 best players as I like to keep balance between the starters and bench to avoid runs. It also gives me the ability to start a player who needs a work ethic boost, but keep his minutes low which I haven't been able to figure out in fatigue.
A question about fatigue, when the player is set to take out when he's getting tired, or tired, at what level is he put back in the game, fresh?

Fatigue fatigue fatigue. And when you start wondering otherwise, take a deep breath, maybe a walk around the block to clear your head, and stick with fatigue.