BuzzerBeater Forums

Well, at least you're consistent in your desire to subvert carefully thought out game mechanisms to suit your own goals.
Misguided, but consistently misguided, definitely.

A better overall level of the draft doesn't give me any direct advantage

So,I don't really understand your comment



Last edited by Steve Karenn at 10/7/2010 5:31:14 PM

Also height excludes some players with good age,potential and skills...when I see 185 cm centers with decent potential,good inside skills but with very bad outside skills,I can't consider him as valuable for a training or a sell

Actually, when I see a draft candidate as having a position that’s out of whack with his height, I actually like that (as long potential isn’t bad) since it means that I can train that player at his natural skill positions without worrying about rounding out some of his unnatural skill positions. For example, if I see a player is a 6’1 SF (or PF!), I’ll be thinking, hmmm, that player probably will come with decent inside skills, like rebounding or IS, something that’s pretty good to have in a well-rounded guard but a pain in the neck to train at the slow speed a short player would train at. That means I could just spend his training minutes catching up at the skills where he’ll be training at a faster rate! I’ve actually hunted those sorts of players on the TL and have a young guard I grabbed with these thoughts in mind who’s probably going to end up as my best guard within a couple of seasons. Just food for thought ahead of your next draft…

Also height excludes some players with good age,potential and skills...when I see 185 cm centers with decent potential,good inside skills but with very bad outside skills,I can't consider him as valuable for a training or a sell

Actually, when I see a draft candidate as having a position that’s out of whack with his height, I actually like that (as long potential isn’t bad) since it means that I can train that player at his natural skill positions without worrying about rounding out some of his unnatural skill positions. For example, if I see a player is a 6’1 SF (or PF!), I’ll be thinking, hmmm, that player probably will come with decent inside skills, like rebounding or IS, something that’s pretty good to have in a well-rounded guard but a pain in the neck to train at the slow speed a short player would train at. That means I could just spend his training minutes catching up at the skills where he’ll be training at a faster rate! I’ve actually hunted those sorts of players on the TL and have a young guard I grabbed with these thoughts in mind who’s probably going to end up as my best guard within a couple of seasons. Just food for thought ahead of your next draft…

Just read other people's posts


Last edited by Steve Karenn at 10/7/2010 5:55:20 PM

(16723109) - When a guy like that get picked 46 overall, someone hasn't been taking advantage of the new scouting system... I wish he was in my draft.

I ascertain if you are not interviewing your top picks then they will be likely wasted because potential is soo important a factor

True. But I think you're overlooking the key word in your own sentence: YOUR top picks. Who you interview when you have the #2 pick and who you interview when you have the #14 pick should be completely different.

If you are 6th in a league than 12 guys draft before you and you can'T inteview 12 guys AND scout once everyone else without spending a lot of money.

True again. But why spend money interviewing prospects you have almost zero chance of selecting? Resources are limited, and you have to focus your scouting points on the players that are likely to fall to you.

If you have a high draft pick, spend your scouting points on the 5-ball prospects, to make sure your high pick pays off with a quality prospect.

If you have a low draft pick, spend your scouting points on the 3- and 4-ball prospects, because the 5-ball prospects won't fall to you and you need to find a talent amongst the lesser lights. This is what I did; I knew I was picking late in the round, so I spent all my scouting points on 3-ball prospects. This turned up a 5 talent/4 potential player with the 14th pick. You've got to kiss a few frogs to find the prince, but overall it's a worthwhile investment.

But every team gets a the original list of players in a different order. A player who is an initial three ball prospect on your list could be a (and likely is) a 5 ball prospect on another teams, as well as being a 1 ball prospect for someone else. As a result, I don't know if you really increased your odds by deciding to scout the 3ball & 4ball prospects over the 5ball. For that matter, I found my best prospects using the group workout, as many (12 of the 19) of those originally 1 & 2ball prospects ended up being 4 and 5 ball talents. But while these were the last 19 players on my prospect list, I'm pretty certain some of them were at the top of the list for other teams in my league.

There is still a fair amount of lucky going into whether or not the players you choose to interview (and find their potential) aren't also players that the other teams in your league are interviewing as well. Of course if you find a 5 or 4ball talent and bring him in for an interview when no one else does and he turns out to also have high potential, certainly the odds of you being able to actually get that pick increase. But I don't think you can increase (or decrease) the odds of that happening by choosing to scout any particular group from your initial prospect list.

Edit - corrected combine to group workout.

Last edited by Alec Burke at 10/8/2010 11:48:39 AM

I think you're right.
You can certainly increase the odds of finding a good prospect by scouting high on your list.
However, you will probably find some good prospects by scouting low, but there is more probability for those good prospects to be ranked higher on other managers lists rather than lower, so you don't increase you're chances of them not being drafted.
The only way to increase your chances of getting a good prospect, aside from tanking, is spending more on scouting.