BuzzerBeater Forums

Ok just to those who say that in RL the superstars are always drafted as 1st pick:

Michael Jordan was a 3rd Pick
Scottie Pippen was a 5th Pick
Larry Bird was a 6th Pick
Karl Malone was a 13th Pick
Clyde Drexler was a 14th Pick
Julius Erving was a 12th(!) Pick
Dwayne Wade was a 5th Pick
Tracy McGrady was a 9th Pick
Dirk Nowitzki was a 9th Pick
Manu Ginobili was a 57th(>>!<<) Pick
Kobe Bryant was a 13th Pick

so this is just a small list, i'm sure there are some more, but please don't say now that the players above are just average players, and none of them has been drafted as a 1st Pick. so you see that also in RL it's some kind of lottery in it:)

As in RL the thing even goes one step further:

Ben Wallace for example was an undrafted player who signed in as a free agent !

Last edited by Undertaker at 5/7/2008 5:23:20 PM

But this has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
The problem is that scouts are giving the same grades to players with similar total skills, only some of them are set up in a manner that makes the players very very promising, others are set up in a manner that make them completely useless.
It's like a real-life scout recommending a player who has great interior scoring and defense and bad perimeter skills (say dwight howard for example), and failing to mention that the player is 6'2 (and consequently useless). I would be pretty pissed if I were a GM that is paying that scout.

the draft helps teams that invest on it: I have picked the best players of my division (1-8-12 in my list preferences)even being the last team to pick (won regular season)

this is not luck at all.

i think you should sue who you paid to do the scouting.,

he is sure doing a damn lousy job :D

cheers mate!

Again, this is not the point of the thread (unless you were only addressing the point made by the poster you replyied to).
The person who started this thread also picked the first player in his list, which should have been a great player according to his scouts, but instead is useless. That is the issue.

sometimes i wondering,

the scout lists a player playing as or positioned at center but his height is either of small forward or worst a guard.

i would understand his potential since he might have develop skills for a center since maybe he started his playing days in the little league when he was 8 years old and already his a big buy but along the way of adolescent hood he just didnt grew anymore. but the draft scouting for me has to be precise base on a general aspect not just skills.

i mean yes a 6 foot 6 shooting guard or even 7 footer small forward if he has the skills. but to say 5 11 center would be too much. and his set skills wouldnt even be a thing to look at if the better skills are somewhat you cant use.

i think there has to be a change? in how listings go too.

its kinda dumd to think your scouting a guy, who probably was playing guard but his skills playing a pf or center is better than their present big men which outshines his skills or talents as a guard since his lousy at it. then list him as a center rather than a guard?

just erase this if it doesnt go ith the topic

That is exactly the point of the thread. It does go in the topic.
The problem is basically that the scouts aren't considering height and age at all when giving the rating of a player.

Joe Klein was the first pick of the Sacramento Kings. He had great skills for college, but as it turned out, his 6'9" and wide frame just didn't cut it in the NBA and he was a washout. Maybe your picks are the same.

Also, you are looking at the outcome in a purely negative light instead of looking at it as either a challenge or an opportunity to create a balanced player, which the BB's have basically screamed from the rooftops is the kind of player who will help your team.

Since we really have no idea how fast a player trains, who knows how quickly your 18y.o 6'5" might train up his perimeter skills, of which three are average to begin with. He might be respectable.. he might be marvelous. YOU and I just don't know with any certainty.

And I believe the point of this thread, while none was actually stated, was to merely gripe that he got screwed. His player has MVP potential, which means that there is a good deal of improving for him to do. I would play that guy at small forward when I trained my wingers and power forward when I trained my big men and am willing to bet that in three or four seasons he would be an exceptional player. So while this guy and others are complaining because they got screwed, they could be excited that they got a potential MVP who has the ability and skills to play 2 or 3 positions. The fact that none of them are center shouldn't matter, because as the rules state, the "Best Position" is just a guide, not anything written in stone.

i get what your pointing out,

true he has mvp potentials, but how he develops is another thing. but how can you develop someone is how you do it.

for me i cant just gamble a season of wins and loss to develop a player far out than someone who i can already insert in my regular lineup , which means is a better potential player.

thats just me, because if your in a league that everyone competes grinding it out its kinda hard to gamble. :D thats why someone spend so much imagine 40k a week how many weeks are there in a season just to get a good or average help and when you pick of yours you just found out your in a strange situation because you cant use em.

its like this, for example i train my team outside which means the guards, so i dont get much development on my front court, i have to rely on their skills without improving as the season goes.

then the draft, i hired scouts to look for potential or trainable or even someone i can say could be included in my normal lineup as a center. so here is my scout looking. then when the season is almost over my scout hand me a list of guys he scouted, then i arrange who i want but from his list also includes guards and small forwards he insist to given a chance to look at.

but your the manager, your the boss, so you still arrange it since you need big men you list them first.

on draft day your surprise to see your first pick as you hope for is a center but stands 6 foot 5 or even worst his height is of a guard.

this makes it more frustrating, the skills he has since his listed as a center are more superior than what should be at his height. how do you deal with that?

all in all its either you take time in developing him, ( lets hope he has less atricious skills for a guard ), sell him hoping someone buys him on a good deal ( if its bad at least you got compensated ) or lastly just got rotted at the bench as to dont know when he can play.

overall, when my scout say center he has to be at least 6 foot 9 or 6 foot 10. because basing it on skills doesnt really make sense especially when your arranging your draft.

Here is the problem that BB is trying to solve.

In real life, you may know quite a bit about how good a player is, but not for sure. You also don't really know how he will develop, or whether he will have a career ending injury at 22, or perhaps he will be a player who just doesn't play up to his capacity.

In BB, you will know exactly how good a player is and how fast he will train. BB doesn't have career ending injuries - and it wouldn't be much fun if you just spent a $1,000,000 on a player who misses the next two seasons, and when he returns has dropped 2 levels in almost any skill that requires speed.

So is there some way that BB could implement a player who is a malcontent, or someone who plays strong in playoffs, but inept during the regular season. Or perhaps the opposite. A player who has 35 point games against a weak team, but is 0-2 in a critical game (he only has two shots because he is afraid to shoot, and misses both of those)? Or would this be too frustrating if this was hidden?

Or what about development? Should training rate be different for each player, and hidden? What about potential? Maybe it could vary through a career.

Or could there be a different way of presenting the draft information? Maybe the rating should be different for each team. Perhaps your scout saw the player in his best game, and my scout saw him when he was recovering from the flu. Scout him more times, and the information will become more accurate.

How many $7500 players were drafted? Whatever league got him was pretty lucky. The top draftee in my league only had a salary of $5400.

And are the teams within a league that much different in talent? With 100s or 1000s of teams within a country, why should a team that is promoting to D.III get a much worse pick than a team that is relegating to D.III.

Maybe BB needs a draft lottery.

Potential: MVP

And why are you bitching????