T&T Games General Drafting/Off-Topic Thread

Post #41 » by **Fadeaway_J** » Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:10 am

One day is too small a window for my liking, whether as a drafter or the commish.

The idea of assigning judges still relies on those people actually being willing to vote.

Laimbeer · Post #42 » by **Laimbeer** » Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:20 am

Fadeaway_J wrote:One day is too small a window for my liking, whether as a drafter or the commish.

The idea of assigning judges still relies on those people actually being willing to vote.

If they only have to vote in one or two match-ups per round and know the game hinges on their vote, I think people would. Right now I think people just sort of wait knowing others inevitably step up. Who knows though.

Maybe if we got a few guys from the PC forum or something. I think a new perspective would be fun and interesting.

Post #43 » by **Fadeaway_J** » Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:25 am

Laimbeer wrote:
Fadeaway_J wrote:One day is too small a window for my liking, whether as a drafter or the commish.

The idea of assigning judges still relies on those people actually being willing to vote.

If they only have to vote in one or two match-ups per round and know the game hinges on their vote, I think people would. Right now I think people just sort of wait knowing others inevitably step up. Who knows though.

Maybe if we got a few guys from the PC forum or something. I think a new perspective would be fun and interesting.

That's been suggested before and I wouldn't be opposed to it, but the question is always can you round up enough interested parties who would show up consistently?

8on · Post #44 » by **8on** » Fri Aug 31, 2018 3:31 am

what if we shortened the clock from 24 hours for votes to 18 hours. maybe it would encourage people to hurry up and vote.

Dr Positivity · Post #45 » by **Dr Positivity** » Fri Aug 31, 2018 4:30 am

Without looking can you remember what team Mozgov's contract is on?

8on · Post #46 » by **8on** » Fri Aug 31, 2018 4:43 am

Dr Positivity wrote:Without looking can you remember what team Mozgov's contract is on?

Charlotte. traded for Dwight because somehow Dwight is a worse contract than Mozgov, now.

8on · Post #47 » by **8on** » Fri Aug 31, 2018 4:45 am

nope, that wasn't it!

i forgot about that.

Dr Positivity · Post #48 » by **Dr Positivity** » Fri Aug 31, 2018 5:01 am

8on wrote:
Dr Positivity wrote:Without looking can you remember what team Mozgov's contract is on?

Charlotte. traded for Dwight because somehow Dwight is a worse contract than Mozgov, now.

I remembered he got traded from Charlotte again but it took me 5 minutes to figure where

ardee · Post #49 » by **ardee** » Fri Aug 31, 2018 10:29 pm

Timmaytime wrote:
ardee wrote:On Kobe, Timmaytime and I built a beautiful team with him, KG, Howard and Porter in a team-up game... then we lost in the final to a Billups-MJ-Chuck-Ewing team.

Ahh that was the other one, I guess it did quite well. And I actually quite like it, too.

Then we got matched together again in an East-West team-up draft post-2000 where I think we ended up with Curry-Iggy-George-Draymond-DRob... Great team but too many complimentary players I guess.

8on · Post #50 » by **8on** » Mon Sep 3, 2018 12:02 am

how about 86 FGA? then we don't have to see as many Dwayne Joneses and Darvin Hams

Post #51 » by **Fadeaway_J** » Mon Sep 3, 2018 12:12 am

8on wrote:how about 86 FGA? then we don't have to see as many Dwayne Joneses and Darvin Hams

We don't "have to see" them now.

8on · Post #52 » by **8on** » Mon Sep 3, 2018 12:22 am

Fadeaway_J wrote:
8on wrote:how about 86 FGA? then we don't have to see as many Dwayne Joneses and Darvin Hams

We don't "have to see" them now.

clearly we do. in this draft, we see:
Charles Jones
Ervin Johnson
Salah Mejri
Omer Asik
John Crotty
Pablo Prigioni
Darvin Ham
Joel Anthony

It's only one FGA. You could spend it on an ever better version of one of your main guys, or you could spend it on someone better than those guys.

8on · Post #53 » by **8on** » Mon Sep 3, 2018 12:25 am

slightly different version: if you vote in the playoffs, you get 86 in the next game. if not, you get 85.

Post #54 » by **Fadeaway_J** » Mon Sep 3, 2018 12:41 am

8on wrote:
Fadeaway_J wrote:
8on wrote:how about 86 FGA? then we don't have to see as many Dwayne Joneses and Darvin Hams

We don't "have to see" them now.

clearly we do. in this draft, we see:
Charles Jones
Ervin Johnson
Salah Mejri
Omer Asik
John Crotty
Pablo Prigioni
Darvin Ham
Joel Anthony

It's only one FGA. You could spend it on an ever better version of one of your main guys, or you could spend it on someone better than those guys.

There's nothing stopping you from spending more on your bench if you want to.

8on · Post #55 » by **8on** » Mon Sep 3, 2018 12:43 am

Fadeaway_J wrote:
8on wrote:
Fadeaway_J wrote:We don't "have to see" them now.

clearly we do. in this draft, we see:
Charles Jones
Ervin Johnson
Salah Mejri
Omer Asik
John Crotty
Pablo Prigioni
Darvin Ham
Joel Anthony

It's only one FGA. You could spend it on an ever better version of one of your main guys, or you could spend it on someone better than those guys.

There's nothing stopping you from spending more on your bench if you want to.

there is. it's "the other guy has more talent."

Post #56 » by **Fadeaway_J** » Mon Sep 3, 2018 12:46 am

8on wrote:
Fadeaway_J wrote:
8on wrote:
clearly we do. in this draft, we see:
Charles Jones
Ervin Johnson
Salah Mejri
Omer Asik
John Crotty
Pablo Prigioni
Darvin Ham
Joel Anthony

It's only one FGA. You could spend it on an ever better version of one of your main guys, or you could spend it on someone better than those guys.

There's nothing stopping you from spending more on your bench if you want to.

there is. it's "the other guy has more talent."

Well if you only consider "talent" to be "All-NBA Second Team or higher", I guess this is true...

8on · Post #57 » by **8on** » Mon Sep 3, 2018 12:51 am

Fadeaway_J wrote:
8on wrote:
Fadeaway_J wrote:There's nothing stopping you from spending more on your bench if you want to.

there is. it's "the other guy has more talent."

Well if you only consider "talent" to be "All-NBA Second Team or higher", I guess this is true...

plenty of voters do. seems to be the main way to win these days.

one more FGA doesn't change anything other than the bench. there's no reason to spend 16.9 on Klay when you can spend 16.2 on Klay and get the same thing. you can't get a significantly better version of a star for one more FGA. the only thing you can do is make sure you don't have a scrub.

Post #58 » by **Fadeaway_J** » Mon Sep 3, 2018 1:00 am

8on wrote:
Fadeaway_J wrote:
8on wrote:
there is. it's "the other guy has more talent."

Well if you only consider "talent" to be "All-NBA Second Team or higher", I guess this is true...

plenty of voters do. seems to be the main way to win these days.

one more FGA doesn't change anything other than the bench. there's no reason to spend 16.9 on Klay when you can spend 16.2 on Klay and get the same thing. you can't get a significantly better version of a star for one more FGA. the only thing you can do is make sure you don't have a scrub.

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

8on · Post #59 » by **8on** » Mon Sep 3, 2018 1:08 am

Fadeaway_J wrote:
8on wrote:
Fadeaway_J wrote:Well if you only consider "talent" to be "All-NBA Second Team or higher", I guess this is true...

plenty of voters do. seems to be the main way to win these days.

one more FGA doesn't change anything other than the bench. there's no reason to spend 16.9 on Klay when you can spend 16.2 on Klay and get the same thing. you can't get a significantly better version of a star for one more FGA. the only thing you can do is make sure you don't have a scrub.

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.

Post #60 » by **Fadeaway_J** » Mon Sep 3, 2018 1:22 am

8on wrote:
Fadeaway_J wrote:
8on wrote:
plenty of voters do. seems to be the main way to win these days.

one more FGA doesn't change anything other than the bench. there's no reason to spend 16.9 on Klay when you can spend 16.2 on Klay and get the same thing. you can't get a significantly better version of a star for one more FGA. the only thing you can do is make sure you don't have a scrub.

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.