BuzzerBeater Forums

great suggestion , just to add to it, on other players scouting page in your div it should show different heights that still match up.

so say a pg with the height range 5'11-6'5 on 1 players listing then 6'1-6'7 on another players.

thus players cant match up the heights to try and get a better pick

BBs simply don't want teams to have a chance for collusion so no matter what we think about it it won't going nowhere. Try to imagine that it is not heigh but trainability - that is hard to predict just by scouting. I guess that's the best approach as there won't be change - ever.

But one of the suggestions above is to have 3 (or 5) height categories, potentially 'short', 'medium', 'tall', and they can or cannot overlap as well. Not sure how that wil provide any chance for collusion, while it will substantially improve drafting because I don't want a tall player if I'm training guards the following season.

Last edited by Fresh24 at 5/14/2010 2:23:22 AM

I guess there won't be many tall PGs or short Cs in the pool, so go figure... Add age, potential, the first rating...

I guess there won't be many tall PGs or short Cs in the pool, so go figure... Add age, potential, the first rating...

Well, my limited experience is that randomness heavily influences the creation of draftees... I had several short PFs and several 'tall' PGs...

However, I want to express once again my point of view: the current draft system is so bad that it can hardly be worsened by any change. Even completely removing it and giving three random players to every user without user involvement would be better.

In fact sometimes when you are training SFs you might actually like to draft a short PF/C or a tall SG/PG depending on what aspect you are training.

Yeah but thats IF you are training SFs. Most people don't train them so its a pain to find out you just drafted a short C or a tall PG...and to have wasted your money on scouting on these guys which you aren't going to keep to train anyway.

Absolutely, that's why i stated I wouldn't want a tall player if I was training guards the following year, as opposed to not wanting players suggested as PFs or Cs

maybe I'm missing something, but if height is given after players attend a private training session (ie. after being scouted the second time), what difference does it make if two teams can determine they are looking at the same player?

And aren't box scores a much bigger tell than adding very general height categories?

Box scores won't allow you to compare players as each manager gets different box scores for the same player.

I would argue for removing positions and only displaying height (short, medium, tall) if push came to shove. It could even be projected postion at the next level (Guard, Forward, Center) based on height mostly and skill only secondary. This would further add to the ambiguity of the draft, but make the information available much more valuable.

Consider the following example:

A)
Height: 7'0
Potential: All Star
Salary: 5k
BB Postition: SG

B)
Height: 5'11
Potential: MVP
Salary: 4k
BB Position: C

C)
Height: 6'6
Potential: Starter
Salary: 6k
BB Position: PF

How they would appear:

Current:

A)
Position: SG
Potential: 3*
Ability: 5*

B)
Position: C
Potential: 5*
Ability: 3*

C)
Position: PF
Potential: 2*
Ability: 5*

Proposed:

A)
Proj. Position: Forward
Potential: 4* (Would train Forward skills very quickly, making him a better candidate)
Ability: 3* (He would probably be a mediocre day 1 Forward)

B)
Proj. Position: Guard
Potential: 5* (MVP potential + 5'11 Guard projection)
Ability: 2* (5'11, but BB-Center indicates very poor guard skills)

C)
Proj. Position: Forward
Potential: 2* (starter potential and no bonus for height)
Ability: 5* (Proj. Position and BB Position match well)

Conclusions

When drafting players, height is just as important as potential and ability if not much moreso in certain circumstances. Leaving it out of the provided information makes the draft much more of a crapshoot.