BuzzerBeater Forums

But consider this, they make a draft of 100 players instead of 48 players. And they make the drafting system weekly so that we pick who to scout and we see the info of that scouting after each week. You say the other team might have to keep spending on scouting if they aren't lucky to find one, but that is what scouting is about, you are going to go out and look for talent. If you don't find any then bad luck, if you do then great. Having 100 players is necessary otherwise a bottom team could scout all 48 players once and only scout the good onces twice, where as having 100 players means that there is some randomness.

This was only my first season, but I don't believe I could purchase any of my players on the draft for under 140k. Let alone all 3 of them, that are Australian and increase my merchandise value.

I do understand that targeting skills on the TL can be very advantageous. But you don't know for sure that you will get him, other people are bidding as well. Plus I prefer having Australians so it makes it harder. It is painful to get a draftee that doesn't fit with the training, but you can either change your training, or sell the player for a nice profit.

The problem here is quantifying risk. When people use "gamble" or "take a chance", then that is not investing. Anecdotes about big winners in the draft are heartwarming, but do little to come to a realistic assessment of the utility of getting decent draft picks.

I write in this stentorian tone because of frustration with trying to figure this out. In some ways, this is perhaps one of the more realistic aspects of the game, because I can easily envision where my $5000 a week goes: for Joe Slobovich's expenses and hotel rooms as he follows his wizened old nose about the countryside tracking down rumors about the Next LeBron James. He could get lucky, or maybe he does know what he is doing, or he could be drinking my salary in hotel bars talking to bitter floozies who recognize an easy mark, flirting with low, husky voices damaged by too many cigarettes and looking good only because the lights are low, pretending to be entertained by Joe's stories about how he was the first person to see Oscar Robertson.

So if I hire ole' Joe, will he deliver? Who knows? It's not like hiring a doctor or trainer or PR man. What are Joe's chances of bringing me something of value? One chance in five? ten? twenty? Or another way: for $70,000, what are my chances of getting a decent player valued at $150,000? or getting that PF I need? or of getting three 19 year olds whose best days are already behind them?

For these reasons, I have decided I am not going to spend a penny on that boozehound Slobovich, I don't care what his reputation is. (I've heard he was the first to see Hakeem Olajuwon in Lagos!) Draft day is like opening presents on Christmas Day, mysterious gifts that show up on my roster, with the occasional keeper. If I need a PF, I'll will go where I have a bit more control and discretion and can evaluate the risks a bit more clearly, the Transfer List (although the pitfalls of that is worth a separate thread altogether).

I understand what you are saying, but what if you know your team is going to come last this season (or very close to last). Why not spend 40k a week on scouting. That is 560k. Chances are that you are definitely going to uncover a good player that is 18 and has great potential. That 1 player alone, which you are gauranteed to get as you have 1st pick, is going to be worth more than 560k. And the other 2 players are probably going to be decent as well.

Since season 1 the draft didn't satisfy users and if I remember well BBs too. 2 seasons ago I knew to be relegated cause I wanted to do that so I've invested money in scouts. Well, my best drafted was a 19yo potential MVP, last season I've invested less money and of course the players drafted aren't players but human waste. I tried to saw in these 2 seasons if someone else had better luck in my divisions but I didn't find anyone, it means that no one player worthed a lot of money on the market. At the end for me it is sure that:

1. Draft = random
2. Money invested are wasted
3. Not all the divisions can see one perennial all star
4. There are teams that receives a gift of 3m cause they're soo lucky to pick a good player

This draft not should but must be changed

Sorry for the other post ;)

How would it be changed without fundamentally changing the game? Should their be no Hall of Famers or All Time Greats and instead every team getting a couple of 4k waged potential Allstars?

Why even bother with a draft in that case.

Randomness does not imply that investing is a mistake

Charles, I've an idea I will leave my bank code, you start to pay and at the end of the season I promise you that I will make you a gift. Of course it can be extremely good but can be also a 2 cents gift :p

Excludining jokes I understand your point but the real world is another thing, honestly if I can suggest a way to change the draft I will link the income of every team to the final result of the draft. It means for 2 players I could accept the random but with my first choice I'd like to have the possibility to have or not a great draftee in my roster. If I earn 100k/week I can decide to spend the 10%-50%-100% of the income every week to have at the end of the season a player that can be horrible if I invest 0% but that must be a 18yo with at least good potential if I've invested the 90% of the weekly income.
In this way there aren't difference between the divisions, the teams that are saving a lot of money can decide to continue to earn money or to have a good player. This idea has a big problem, if I earn 1$/week I can easily put the 100% in the research but you can avoid it linked the % of investmens at the average income of the league. In my division we lost -78k/week so also in this case my idea seems not so good but at the end the concept is that if I want to have a good 18yo I could have the possiblity to draft him and this possibility is related to the money I want to spend, more money better player. 2 seasons ago I wanted a good 18yo and I would spent even 5m to have him, with the current draft I think few teams are paying 40k/week

I'm not going to respond to most of these comments because I want to let the debate flow without outside influences. However, I do think I should mention a couple of things:

1. Draft = random
2. Money invested are wasted

Randomness does not imply that investing is a mistake. You should bet with me on a coin flip if I give you 2:1 odds, but you should not bet with me on a coin flip if I give you 1:2 odds. In the case of the draft, it is more complicated because whether your investment is wise probably depends upon the investments of the other people in your league and on your league finish. It is very likely that the correct amount for most teams to spend on the draft is neither $0 nor $40k/week.

It depend from the rate of randomness...I choose the first player in my draft list this year,investing a decent amount of money in the year(10/k week),and i picked up a 19years old with potential sixth man.Now,I'm not pretending to have a players with 7k salary and potential all stime great every year,but with the first choice,I'd like to have at least a decent player for my team
If you put the 19years players in the draft,you should make him a little bit stronger than the 18years old,so also if they will be disadvantaged from having one seson less than the other in their future training,they could be useful from the first moment.
i don't think this reasoning is out from the world...

Last edited by Steve Karenn at 3/27/2010 7:55:47 AM

the only 5 ball with potential that i see was a 19years old center that i put in the fifth place in the list,if i remember well(and i was looking for a guard in the draft).And i see eight or nine players with five ball rating...What should i do in that situation?
My proposal will at least make the random less randomic,if i pick up a five ball,also if old and with low potential,had to be at least useful from the first moment,also if only for the cup