T&T Games General Drafting/Off-Topic Thread

[Snakebites]

Because we don’t use full rosters- we use 8 man rosters, so the total FGA should be slightly less than actual league average. Some shots per game are going to be taken by guys who aren’t in the top 8, factoring in garbage time and such. The players we use are typically given more minutes than they get in reality for this reason. I’d argue 85 FGA for an 8 man roster is more realistic than going the full 89.

Plus, the goal isn’t necessarily realism- it’s having shots be a constraint. Building with 89 FGA is way too easy. There’s no sport in it.

[Fadeaway_J]

When I started playing in the summer of that year, the norm was 90 FGA. As I recall it, we dropped it to 85 because the consensus was that it had become too easy to build stacked teams with 90 - the average FGA in a real game didn't have anything to do with it. I could be wrong but that's my recollection. And for what it's worth, I still think it would be too easy.

[DerrickNoah]

I agree with this 100% & feel this current draft has proved that. Cheap 3&D guys like Battier, Bowen, & Danny Green are drafted every single game & have become overvalued

[Laimbeer]

We just didn't feel 90 really pushed people to manage it. You can't really compare it to actual teams since we have the luxury of cherry picking.

[Fadeaway_J]

I agree with this 100% & feel this current draft has proved that. Cheap 3&D guys like Battier, Bowen, & Danny Green are drafted every single game & have become overvalued

Well to be fair those guys were/are pretty valuable in real life - they should be drafted in every game.

The main reason they're so valuable in these games though is that they allow people to stockpile more stars, which I don't think would change much if we went to 89.

[DerrickNoah]

I agree with this 100% & feel this current draft has proved that. Cheap 3&D guys like Battier, Bowen, & Danny Green are drafted every single game & have become overvalued

Well to be fair those guys were/are pretty valuable in real life - they should be drafted in every game.

The main reason they're so valuable in these games though is that they allow people to stockpile more stars, which I don't think would change much if we went to 89.

Okay, Yet so many guys pretty much run a 7-man rotation with one crazy cheap dude at the 8 minute minimum restriction. Instead of some guys using that loophole, maybe just let everyone have a real 7-man playoff rotation at 85 FGA’s while everyone adds an 8th man with a 4 FGA max & 10 minute max = 85-89 FGA’s total

The Pablo Prigioni, Charlie Ward, Joel Anthony, etc picks are silly but understandable with the current rules

*** Brainstorm!
Maybe change it to 89 FGA’s but everyone counts for a least 4 FGA’s

[Hawk Eye]

I guess I’m just not really seeing how tacking on a few extra FGA’s somehow makes these games easier. I think each game presents its own set of challenges with the additional new set of restrictions not counting the FGA limit. It would also be refreshing to see actual benches from increasing to a 88.0 or 89.0 FGA limit. Seeing the Minute Bol’s of the world as the 8th man is tiresome.

I’ve also always leaned realism over functionality with these things. When we first brought the FGA restriction rule into play with these games I was for it because of the realism dynamic the rule brought to these games; not because of the additional challenge it forced. Though it looks like I’m going to be alone here on this one.

[Fadeaway_J]

I guess I’m just not really seeing how tacking on a few extra FGA’s somehow makes these games easier. I think each game presents its own set of challenges with the additional new set of restrictions not counting the FGA limit. It would also be refreshing to see actual benches from increasing to a 88.0 or 89.0 FGA limit. Seeing the Minute Bol’s of the world as the 8th man is tiresome.

I’ve also always leaned realism over functionality with these things. When we first brought the FGA restriction rule into play with these games I was for it because of the realism dynamic the rule brought to these games; not because of the additional challenge it forced. Though it looks like I’m going to be alone here on this one.

A "realistic" NBA rotation includes more than eight players, even in the playoffs when you see rotations tighten up. Unless you're planning to also expend the draft to say, 10 players, I just don't see how 88 or 89 FGA makes it more "realistic".

As for the eight minute rule, that was a reaction to people drafting the corpse of Andris Biedrins and then just using seven players. Which is fine if that floats your boat, but it certainly isn't realistic. That issue could be eliminated simply by adding a FGA minimum, but again, that doesn't require increasing the FGA limit. (Although if realism is the goal, it should be noted that a lot of those cheap backup Cs were actual rotation players on title contenders, so...)

In terms of the benches in general, my prediction is that increasing the limit wouldn't change much. The people who value benches would spend a bit more on their benches, and the people who don't think they're a big deal would load up more on stars.

[Hawk Eye]

I guess I’m just not really seeing how tacking on a few extra FGA’s somehow makes these games easier. I think each game presents its own set of challenges with the additional new set of restrictions not counting the FGA limit. It would also be refreshing to see actual benches from increasing to a 88.0 or 89.0 FGA limit. Seeing the Minute Bol’s of the world as the 8th man is tiresome.

I’ve also always leaned realism over functionality with these things. When we first brought the FGA restriction rule into play with these games I was for it because of the realism dynamic the rule brought to these games; not because of the additional challenge it forced. Though it looks like I’m going to be alone here on this one.

A "realistic" NBA rotation includes more than eight players, even in the playoffs when you see rotations tighten up. Unless you're planning to also expend the draft to say, 10 players, I just don't see how 88 or 89 FGA makes it more "realistic".

As for the eight minute rule, that was a reaction to people drafting the corpse of Andris Biedrins and then just using seven players. Which is fine if that floats your boat, but it certainly isn't realistic. That issue could be eliminated simply by adding a FGA minimum, but again, that doesn't require increasing the FGA limit. (Although if realism is the goal, it should be noted that a lot of those cheap backup Cs were actual rotation players on title contenders, so...)

In terms of the benches in general, my prediction is that increasing the limit wouldn't change much. The people who value benches would spend a bit more on their benches, and the people who don't think they're a big deal would load up more on stars.

Almost every single team in the playoffs last season deployed a realistic 8-9 man rotation (unless injuries occurred). By italicizing realistic, I am conveying that when you look at how many guys on each playoff roster averaged more than 10 minutes per game — it doesn’t typically go past 8 or 9 guys.

I also wouldn’t have any problems with issuing a minimum FGA requirement per player. Not really sure what a reasonable number would be but if it gets rid of the Andris Biedrins types then it has my vote.

I’d argue for using 88.0 as the new limit. Snake made a good point earlier about how our 8 man limit doesn’t take into account the shots being taken by the end of the bench rotation guys. Since we use 8 man rosters instead of a full roster, the total FGA should be slightly less than the actual league average. Which would be 88.0 versus the actual 89.0. It would also be a better compromise for those who feel 89.0 is too much.

[wackbone]

I guess I’m just not really seeing how tacking on a few extra FGA’s somehow makes these games easier. I think each game presents its own set of challenges with the additional new set of restrictions not counting the FGA limit. It would also be refreshing to see actual benches from increasing to a 88.0 or 89.0 FGA limit. Seeing the Minute Bol’s of the world as the 8th man is tiresome.

I’ve also always leaned realism over functionality with these things. When we first brought the FGA restriction rule into play with these games I was for it because of the realism dynamic the rule brought to these games; not because of the additional challenge it forced. Though it looks like I’m going to be alone here on this one.

A "realistic" NBA rotation includes more than eight players, even in the playoffs when you see rotations tighten up. Unless you're planning to also expend the draft to say, 10 players, I just don't see how 88 or 89 FGA makes it more "realistic".

As for the eight minute rule, that was a reaction to people drafting the corpse of Andris Biedrins and then just using seven players. Which is fine if that floats your boat, but it certainly isn't realistic. That issue could be eliminated simply by adding a FGA minimum, but again, that doesn't require increasing the FGA limit. (Although if realism is the goal, it should be noted that a lot of those cheap backup Cs were actual rotation players on title contenders, so...)

In terms of the benches in general, my prediction is that increasing the limit wouldn't change much. The people who value benches would spend a bit more on their benches, and the people who don't think they're a big deal would load up more on stars.

Almost every single team in the playoffs last season deployed a realistic 8-9 man rotation (unless injuries occurred). By italicizing realistic, I am conveying that when you look at how many guys on each playoff roster averaged more than 10 minutes per game — it doesn’t typically go past 8 or 9 guys.

I also wouldn’t have any problems with issuing a minimum FGA requirement per player. Not really sure what a reasonable number would be but if it gets rid of the Andris Biedrins types then it has my vote.

I’d argue for using 88.0 as the new limit. Snake made a good point earlier about how our 8 man limit doesn’t take into account the shots being taken by the end of the bench rotation guys. Since we use 8 man rosters instead of a full roster, the total FGA should be slightly less than the actual league average. Which would be 88.0 versus the actual 89.0. It would also be a better compromise for those who feel 89.0 is too much.

It’s gotta be a multiple of 5, so 85 or 90. Please. I don’t wanna argue about 88, 89, etc. Either 85, 90, hell I’d prefer 70 over 88. But I’m also someone who puts the volume of anything to a multiple of 5...

[Fadeaway_J]

I guess I just don't feel the impetus to move the FGA limit. The idea of matching up with the FGA average in 2018-19 doesn't hold any relevance to me. Even an issue like all the cheap-ass backup Cs is more a byproduct of the way the games are judged than anything to do with FGAs.

[Tony Snell]

I guess I’m just not really seeing how tacking on a few extra FGA’s somehow makes these games easier. I think each game presents its own set of challenges with the additional new set of restrictions not counting the FGA limit. It would also be refreshing to see actual benches from increasing to a 88.0 or 89.0 FGA limit. Seeing the Minute Bol’s of the world as the 8th man is tiresome.

I’ve also always leaned realism over functionality with these things. When we first brought the FGA restriction rule into play with these games I was for it because of the realism dynamic the rule brought to these games; not because of the additional challenge it forced. Though it looks like I’m going to be alone here on this one.

A "realistic" NBA rotation includes more than eight players, even in the playoffs when you see rotations tighten up. Unless you're planning to also expend the draft to say, 10 players, I just don't see how 88 or 89 FGA makes it more "realistic".

As for the eight minute rule, that was a reaction to people drafting the corpse of Andris Biedrins and then just using seven players. Which is fine if that floats your boat, but it certainly isn't realistic. That issue could be eliminated simply by adding a FGA minimum, but again, that doesn't require increasing the FGA limit. (Although if realism is the goal, it should be noted that a lot of those cheap backup Cs were actual rotation players on title contenders, so...)

In terms of the benches in general, my prediction is that increasing the limit wouldn't change much. The people who value benches would spend a bit more on their benches, and the people who don't think they're a big deal would load up more on stars.

As one of the prime culprits of the anti-bench movement, I can safely say that any added FGA would be allocated entirely to my starting lineup. Whether or not this flies with voters is a different conversation, but I am pretty comfortable saying that those of us who dont value benches will likely allocate any additional FGA to improving starting lineups.

The lineups are inherently not realistic. For the most part, we are choosing all star/all nba talent that score/create offense at way higher rates than any normal NBA offense would. If realism is the goal, the FGA limitation should be lower than actual FGA per game figures to account for the cherry picking of efficient offensive players that occurs.

[DerrickNoah]

If we raise the FGA’s, it should be to improve the bench players only. Make a rule that all bench players count for a minimum of 4 FGA’s. This would cut out the over drafting of garage players like Joel Anthony, Michael Cage, Pablo Prigioni, DeSagana Diop, Bo Outlaw, Ervin “NOT Magic” Johnson, & “my guilty pleasure” Darvin Ham.

[Snakebites]

I guess I’m just not really seeing how tacking on a few extra FGA’s somehow makes these games easier. I think each game presents its own set of challenges with the additional new set of restrictions not counting the FGA limit. It would also be refreshing to see actual benches from increasing to a 88.0 or 89.0 FGA limit. Seeing the Minute Bol’s of the world as the 8th man is tiresome.

I’ve also always leaned realism over functionality with these things. When we first brought the FGA restriction rule into play with these games I was for it because of the realism dynamic the rule brought to these games; not because of the additional challenge it forced. Though it looks like I’m going to be alone here on this one.

I think you can talk about it in theory and that's fine.

I'm just speaking from personal experience. If you get close to 90 FGA it almost gets to the point where FGA doesn't even feel like a limiting factor anymore when you're drafting. With 85 FGA the choices get tougher and I like that.

[Hawk Eye]

I guess I’m just not really seeing how tacking on a few extra FGA’s somehow makes these games easier. I think each game presents its own set of challenges with the additional new set of restrictions not counting the FGA limit. It would also be refreshing to see actual benches from increasing to a 88.0 or 89.0 FGA limit. Seeing the Minute Bol’s of the world as the 8th man is tiresome.

I’ve also always leaned realism over functionality with these things. When we first brought the FGA restriction rule into play with these games I was for it because of the realism dynamic the rule brought to these games; not because of the additional challenge it forced. Though it looks like I’m going to be alone here on this one.

I think you can talk about it in theory and that's fine.

I'm just speaking from personal experience. If you get close to 90 FGA it almost gets to the point where FGA doesn't even feel like a limiting factor anymore when you're drafting. With 85 FGA the choices get tougher and I like that.

I’m giving it a test run in the auction game to see how things go. 88.0 FGA with a minimum of 3.0 FGA for all seasons. Maybe 85.0 is the perfect barometer for the time being — and if this game proves that then I’m fine with leaving it. But I’d like to at least give it a shot and see how things play out.

[euroleague]

There's definitely a problem with voter bias in the playoff process.

I've seen someone vote against the same guy twice, in two match-ups where the teams were almost identical, but swapped. Even the write-ups were mostly similar. That voter voted against that drafter every single contest for over 6 months... including contests where the teams won championships. It's pretty ridiculous the level of nitpicking possible to justify voting for the team someone wants.

I've also noticed a lot of unofficial "vote reciprocating", where the team I voted for then votes for me and the one I didn't vote for will vote against me.

I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice this type of thing...

[wackbone]

There's definitely a problem with voter bias in the playoff process.

I've seen someone vote against the same guy twice, in two match-ups where the teams were almost identical, but swapped. Even the write-ups were mostly similar. That voter voted against that drafter every single contest for over 6 months... including contests where the teams won championships. It's pretty ridiculous the level of nitpicking possible to justify voting for the team someone wants.

I've also noticed a lot of unofficial "vote reciprocating", where the team I voted for then votes for me and the one I didn't vote for will vote against me.

I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice this type of thing...

Yes I have noticed it as well, although I am not sure of the context of your main point. Not sure who is involved, I mean.

Nitpicking is going to have to happen quite often, because generally the teams are so close in talent/fit, that voters have to nitpick to come to a conclusion of which team to vote for. I feel like nitpicking is often necessary to vote in these super close matchups.

I have also noticed that if the teams in the matchup are discussing things beyond their initial posts, whomever gets the last word in often gets the next vote in their favor. Not an intentional thing, but it happens more often than not

[Laimbeer]

There's definitely a problem with voter bias in the playoff process.

I've seen someone vote against the same guy twice, in two match-ups where the teams were almost identical, but swapped. Even the write-ups were mostly similar. That voter voted against that drafter every single contest for over 6 months... including contests where the teams won championships. It's pretty ridiculous the level of nitpicking possible to justify voting for the team someone wants.

I've also noticed a lot of unofficial "vote reciprocating", where the team I voted for then votes for me and the one I didn't vote for will vote against me.

I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice this type of thing...

Yes I have noticed it as well, although I am not sure of the context of your main point. Not sure who is involved, I mean.

Nitpicking is going to have to happen quite often, because generally the teams are so close in talent/fit, that voters have to nitpick to come to a conclusion of which team to vote for. I feel like nitpicking is often necessary to vote in these super close matchups.

I have also noticed that if the teams in the matchup are discussing things beyond their initial posts, whomever gets the last word in often gets the next vote in their favor. Not an intentional thing, but it happens more often than not

I really hope polls get a fair run as an alternative. Comments optional. People say they want the feedback but often it just makes them unhappy. If I lose a poll with more votes I find that more decisive and fair than fewer votes and maybe two comments of any depth.

[migya]

There's definitely a problem with voter bias in the playoff process.

I've seen someone vote against the same guy twice, in two match-ups where the teams were almost identical, but swapped. Even the write-ups were mostly similar. That voter voted against that drafter every single contest for over 6 months... including contests where the teams won championships. It's pretty ridiculous the level of nitpicking possible to justify voting for the team someone wants.

I've also noticed a lot of unofficial "vote reciprocating", where the team I voted for then votes for me and the one I didn't vote for will vote against me.

I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice this type of thing...

That's the main reason why I stopped playing these games, voter bias and not proper evaluation. I built very good teams and rarely got past the first round. Usually the same participants win and it makes it all a rather waste of time.

[euroleague]

There's definitely a problem with voter bias in the playoff process.

I've seen someone vote against the same guy twice, in two match-ups where the teams were almost identical, but swapped. Even the write-ups were mostly similar. That voter voted against that drafter every single contest for over 6 months... including contests where the teams won championships. It's pretty ridiculous the level of nitpicking possible to justify voting for the team someone wants.

I've also noticed a lot of unofficial "vote reciprocating", where the team I voted for then votes for me and the one I didn't vote for will vote against me.

I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice this type of thing...

That's the main reason why I stopped playing these games, voter bias and not proper evaluation. I built very good teams and rarely got past the first round. Usually the same participants win and it makes it all a rather waste of time.

I kind of want to do a draft, and have the winners decided by an NBA2k simulation season+ playoffs... but I think it may be too much work.

Sometimes I sim my matchups for a bo9 on whatifsports, to see what their algorithm says... but, I tend to disagree with the way the games play out (have to have a 12 man team, so I fill it with Omer Asik’s 4 worst seasons... but Asik seems to dominate in Whatif)