BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > DRAFT

DRAFT

Set priority
Show messages by
From: chihorn

This Post:
00
239376.20 in reply to 239376.19
Date: 4/8/2013 12:13:39 PM
New York Chunks
II.2
Overall Posts Rated:
943943
(continuing...)

Suggestion #3, however, I like. This has been suggested in the past and I’ve always sort of like the idea that older players might possibly be better than younger players. Sort of like how that extra year at college, or working for the Peace Corps, or whatever experience in life does to help other skills, could make the older draft picks more desirable. But I will now temper my enthusiasm… In today’s world of kids entering a draft, it’s typically the younger ones that are seen as having the most long-term potential and possibly the best skills (otherwise they wouldn’t enter the draft so young and feel like they can skip getting more experience in college or other lower leagues first). In fact, I’d say that the best NBA rookies most seasons tend to be the youngest players, so I don’t know why we would think that older players should have better skills. If anything, I’d think that if we’re going to alter the skills of draftees by age based on real life, then perhaps we should see the 18-year-olds with generally better skills than the 19-year-olds, but with a slight bump in Experience for 19-year-olds. But looking back at this from the perspective of BB, the difference between an 18 and 19-year-old when it comes to training is that the younger players get an entire extra year of training before training speed declines, which means a much better chance at reaching their potential than the older draftees, so the value of the younger players is greater and maybe if the older players could come with a “year of pre-training”, then that would make the older players at least as valuable as the younger players. Ultimately, I think the question really comes down to whether or not there are enough quality value players in the draft already, not whether or not we should recalibrate the value of the older players, so in the end I guess I’m thinking that there should either be “real life adjustment” as I suggest above (better 18-year-olds, experience for 19-year-olds), or just leave things the way they are since it’s actually not so bad. (And I remember back when the draft was not so good and we’d have intense “change the draft” suggestion posts at least few times every season.)

Don't ask what sort of Chunks they are, you probably don't want to know. Blowing Chunks since Season 4!
This Post:
00
239376.21 in reply to 239376.4
Date: 4/8/2013 3:30:54 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
1717
Agreed...And I also agree with the premise that the draft as it is now, is a waste of data space. I would be in favor of anything to make the draft more relevant.

From: Timbo4

This Post:
11
239376.22 in reply to 239376.12
Date: 4/14/2013 3:39:58 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
116116
In the event the amount of support for any particular ideas leads to changes in the game, I completely agree that the draft should provide a higher % of useable trainees.

I really like yodabig's suggestion. In fact, this might completely solve the problem (at least how I see it). We don't need to flood the game with MVPs/HOFs/ATGs. But we do need more all-stars and perennial all-stars in the draft, and less 1 ball potential players.

I could also really support thylacine's suggestion #3 (increasing the skill level, on average, of 19 year olds)

From: tykit

This Post:
00
239376.23 in reply to 239376.12
Date: 4/15/2013 6:11:12 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
106106
Hi,
I was wondering about another different way to decrease the amount of useless draft picks :
Are drafted only players who are at least scouted once.
Only managers who spend their scouting points get draft picks.

It wont change the challenge of finding a high potential out of the other draft applicants. Bots won't get draftees (and no more 18 yo 4k HoF in a bot's roster). Low potential players or low skilled ones won't be drafted that often neither.

Do you think this could be implemented ? It shouldn't need much changes in GE i guess ...
Cheers