T&T Games General Drafting/Off-Topic Thread

[8on]

I still don't understand why an extra FGA is required to make this happen.

I think what you're wondering is whether or not the same thing would happen at 86 as it does at 85.

We decreased from 90 to 85. As such, we could afford less talent. It's a bit more realistic, but we still get to put fun teams together.

What we found in the 75 FGA game is that all benches were atrocious.

With 85 FGA, we're no longer picking peak versions of every starter, but benches seem to suffer.

It would still happen, but it would happen less. In a draft like the one we just finished, it should be easy to avoid Prig and Crotty. Instead, half the field has (to be fair) players who don't contribute.

The goal is to keep the talent level the same, but have less scrubs on average.

Honestly, the reason benches have suffered is that everyone feels the need to have five or six stars or their team will be marked down. I don't see how adding an extra FGA is going to change anything in that regard.

The only reason I bring it up is because it is the exact same budget for talent, plus not enough FGA to significantly improve any of your starters. Only the bench can benefit from 1 more FGA. If you choose a slightly more expensive version of the same player, that's on you. I'm seeing a lot of players who don't contribute anything. I thought that was a problem, and then I thought of a way to fix it without changing much.

this concludes my proposal.

[Laimbeer]

I think what you're wondering is whether or not the same thing would happen at 86 as it does at 85.

We decreased from 90 to 85. As such, we could afford less talent. It's a bit more realistic, but we still get to put fun teams together.

What we found in the 75 FGA game is that all benches were atrocious.

With 85 FGA, we're no longer picking peak versions of every starter, but benches seem to suffer.

It would still happen, but it would happen less. In a draft like the one we just finished, it should be easy to avoid Prig and Crotty. Instead, half the field has (to be fair) players who don't contribute.

The goal is to keep the talent level the same, but have less scrubs on average.

Honestly, the reason benches have suffered is that everyone feels the need to have five or six stars or their team will be marked down. I don't see how adding an extra FGA is going to change anything in that regard.

The only reason I bring it up is because it is the exact same budget for talent, plus not enough FGA to significantly improve any of your starters. Only the bench can benefit from 1 more FGA. If you choose a slightly more expensive version of the same player, that's on you. I'm seeing a lot of players who don't contribute anything. I thought that was a problem, and then I thought of a way to fix it without changing much.

this concludes my proposal.

I still think there's a case for not having benches at all. It would resolve this issue, shorten drafts, and eliminate the wide discrepancies in how people view/judge their value. You could require maybe 32-34 MPG for the starters in the season selected.

[Fadeaway_J]

Honestly, the reason benches have suffered is that everyone feels the need to have five or six stars or their team will be marked down. I don't see how adding an extra FGA is going to change anything in that regard.

The only reason I bring it up is because it is the exact same budget for talent, plus not enough FGA to significantly improve any of your starters. Only the bench can benefit from 1 more FGA. If you choose a slightly more expensive version of the same player, that's on you. I'm seeing a lot of players who don't contribute anything. I thought that was a problem, and then I thought of a way to fix it without changing much.

this concludes my proposal.

I still think there's a case for not having benches at all. It would resolve this issue, shorten drafts, and eliminate the wide discrepancies in how people view/judge their value. You could require maybe 32-34 MPG for the starters in the season selected.

I for one would have no interest whatsoever in a game with no benches. The judging is already stilted enough as it is.

[migya]

The only reason I bring it up is because it is the exact same budget for talent, plus not enough FGA to significantly improve any of your starters. Only the bench can benefit from 1 more FGA. If you choose a slightly more expensive version of the same player, that's on you. I'm seeing a lot of players who don't contribute anything. I thought that was a problem, and then I thought of a way to fix it without changing much.

this concludes my proposal.

I still think there's a case for not having benches at all. It would resolve this issue, shorten drafts, and eliminate the wide discrepancies in how people view/judge their value. You could require maybe 32-34 MPG for the starters in the season selected.

I for one would have no interest whatsoever in a game with no benches. The judging is already stilted enough as it is.

The point is to build teams not starting fives. The bench players are key and require thinking and skillful planning. Role players can mean the difference between good and great teams.

[Timmaytime]

Does taking away the minutes restriction do anything? Letting people do 7 man rotations again?

Feels like if everyone is gonna have one guy who doesn't contribute on average they might as well just not have that guy. That can open up 1-3 FGA to be alotted elsewhere.

[migya]

Does taking away the minutes restriction do anything? Letting people do 7 man rotations again?

Feels like if everyone is gonna have one guy who doesn't contribute on average they might as well just not have that guy. That can open up 1-3 FGA to be alotted elsewhere.

I always thought the aim was to build life like teams. Players really shouldn't be playing more than 38mins and the team is reduced to 7 players you have high minutes for everyone. 8 players looks ideal.

[ardee]

What is your big board going into a draft at least for the first round? Let's say it's '80 onward, that is typically what most drafts are these days.

Mine:

LeBron
Bird
Jordan
Duncan
Magic
Durant
Shaq
Kareem
Dirk
Garnett
Kawhi
Robinson
Curry
Kobe
Hakeem
Paul

This is based on FGAs (Kobe/Hakeem suffer), versatility (Durant/Kawhi get boosts), and just generally who I've noticed ends up on winning teams (LBJ/Duncan/Durant get boosts, Curry/Hakeem suffer).

[Fadeaway_J]

I tend to have Magic higher, although I rarely get to pick him. There was a stretch a few months back when he was winning everything in sight.

In smaller pools with fewer centers I bump Shaq up considerably, although I'm starting to wonder if (and I include myself in this) we've begun to forget/underplay how nigh on unstoppable he was at his peak. Guarding him one-on-one was pretty much not an option.

[Dr Positivity]

I get into trouble when I try to pinch FGAs in the first few picks, so I have Lebron and MJ as the top. After that probably Magic even though I have found putting the perimeter players around him can be annoying, in the right situation the FGA and mismatch is obviously powerful. Durant would probably be my other pick for top 4 valued in this as he is so easy to build around and has a good price for a wing player, though in real life I'm less of a fan of him than others are. I have had most success with Paul and Malone but it has a lot to do with where they were picked

[Fadeaway_J]

I've had a lot of success with KD in the past. As I said in another thread, in most games you can find the pieces to cover for his weaknesses, and the FGA value is outstanding. If you throw out his low-FGA seasons or told me we were going to build teams with "regular" supporting talent, I would pick him much lower than I normally do.

Outside of KD I don't know if I have any strong leanings one way or the other. I don't really like building around high-FGA big men and I hate when I'm forced to pick one because they're too good for me to let drop. Maybe it's no coincidence that I've only ever won one game with that type of player (Shaq).

[migya]

It's all fit with other players on the team. The top 15-20 players are all good and other good players can be found to fit with them. It's great to see variety and different lineups winning the drafts.

[8on]

This takes into account cost and history trying to build a team around said player:

LeBron
Magic
Jordan
Kareem
Shaq
Curry
Durant
Bird
Hakeem
Robinson
Duncan
Barkley
Karl
Garnett
Dirk
Wade

[Laimbeer]

Anyone know a way to get a BR table into excel without copying or exporting just one page at a time? Can the whole table be done at once?

[Snakebites]

The only reason I bring it up is because it is the exact same budget for talent, plus not enough FGA to significantly improve any of your starters. Only the bench can benefit from 1 more FGA. If you choose a slightly more expensive version of the same player, that's on you. I'm seeing a lot of players who don't contribute anything. I thought that was a problem, and then I thought of a way to fix it without changing much.

this concludes my proposal.

I still think there's a case for not having benches at all. It would resolve this issue, shorten drafts, and eliminate the wide discrepancies in how people view/judge their value. You could require maybe 32-34 MPG for the starters in the season selected.

I for one would have no interest whatsoever in a game with no benches. The judging is already stilted enough as it is.

I agree. The problem is the way things are judged.


Benches were still underfunded even when we had 90 FGA games. Maybe marginally less so but most of that extra FGA was going to the starters. That just made the starting lineups even more absurd. In 90 FGA games I used to spend 20 FGA per game on my bench, only to see my benches ignored and lose to a player who largely ignored their bench to the tune of 12 or so FGA. Voter writeups would completely ignore the bench and simply look at comparisons between starting lineups. I didn't start winning these games in reasonable frequency until I started cheaping out on my bench.

These days I feel like I'm overspending on my bench when I've got 15 FGA to round it out.

People see that most voter explanations simply compare starting lineups (and even then only the starpower in those lineups) and as a result there's absolutely no incentive to invest in a quality bench. I've started to become guilty of this as well. The only thing that's really going to fix that is a change in the voter culture, the players are always going to move their teams in the direction that's rewarded by voters regardless of the FGA limit. There's no easy answers there.

Also, I just found that there was simply no challenge when it was 90 FGA. With 85 you have to make some sacrifices and hard decisions- there's much more strategy involved, even if its mostly strategy related to starting lineups.

[Dr Positivity]

Benches seemed to be all but ignored during rankings but during playoff matches I think they do have an impact on voting. It just takes one person to pick between teams based on a bench to swing a matchup.

[migya]

I still think there's a case for not having benches at all. It would resolve this issue, shorten drafts, and eliminate the wide discrepancies in how people view/judge their value. You could require maybe 32-34 MPG for the starters in the season selected.

I for one would have no interest whatsoever in a game with no benches. The judging is already stilted enough as it is.

I agree. The problem is the way things are judged.


Benches were still underfunded even when we had 90 FGA games. Maybe marginally less so but most of that extra FGA was going to the starters. That just made the starting lineups even more absurd. In 90 FGA games I used to spend 20 FGA per game on my bench, only to see my benches ignored and lose to a player who largely ignored their bench to the tune of 12 or so FGA. Voter writeups would completely ignore the bench and simply look at comparisons between starting lineups. I didn't start winning these games in reasonable frequency until I started cheaping out on my bench.

These days I feel like I'm overspending on my bench when I've got 15 FGA to round it out.

People see that most voter explanations simply compare starting lineups (and even then only the starpower in those lineups) and as a result there's absolutely no incentive to invest in a quality bench. I've started to become guilty of this as well. The only thing that's really going to fix that is a change in the voter culture, the players are always going to move their teams in the direction that's rewarded by voters regardless of the FGA limit. There's no easy answers there.

Also, I just found that there was simply no challenge when it was 90 FGA. With 85 you have to make some sacrifices and hard decisions- there's much more strategy involved, even if its mostly strategy related to starting lineups.

I've only been here 3 months and I saw that within the first two games and though I didn't agree I had to "play" to the majority wayof thinking, which you have to do to compete. I still do what I can to have a good bench as some have taken bench into account in playoff matchups but you can't go cheap on your starting five, and that does hold some merit, just there is more to a team than just the first five.

Perhaps we should try two or three drafts with a separate fga for starting five and bench.

I've liked the last two drafts because we haven't been able to just pick from the crop of all the stars and the restriction criteria really has made things interesting.

[Laimbeer]

Tiers

LeBron
Jordan

Shaq
Magic

Duncan
Durant
Kareem
Garnett
Robinson
Hakeem

Dirk
Bird
Curry

Kawhi

Kobe
Paul

[ardee]

Tiers

LeBron
Jordan

Shaq
Magic

Duncan
Durant
Kareem
Garnett
Robinson
Hakeem

Dirk
Bird
Curry

Kawhi

Kobe
Paul

Why Magic so far ahead of Bird? Bird is more versatile, offers better spacing and is better defensively, wouldn't you say?

[Laimbeer]

Tiers

LeBron
Jordan

Shaq
Magic

Duncan
Durant
Kareem
Garnett
Robinson
Hakeem

Dirk
Bird
Curry

Kawhi

Kobe
Paul

Why Magic so far ahead of Bird? Bird is more versatile, offers better spacing and is better defensively, wouldn't you say?

Cheaper mainly, but I also think Bird's standing is probably a little low in these.

[8on]

Motion for Larry Nance (the original) to get more respect. 17/8/3/1/2. Doesn't cost a lot. Midrange game. Five seasons over 10 WS. 109.6 career WS.

More career WS than Detlef, Hornacek, Manu, Bosh, Laimbeer, Sheed, Cheeks, Melo, Eddie, Tyson, TMac, Bobby Jones, Ben Wallace, Steph Curry, Chris Mullin, KJ, Iguodala, Rodman, Kemp, Mason, Tim Hardaway, Chris Webber.

Less career WS than Elton Brand, Terry Porter, Tony Parker, Kevin McHale, Walt Frazier, Dikembe Mutombo, Kevin McHale.

More 10 WS seasons than Horace Grant.

He had a lot of support around him in the Cavs years, but that shouldn't diminish his value.