Future Draft Games

[migya]

Same franchise, players picked can't have played on that team at same time. Draft

eg. Larry Bird, Kevin Garnett, Antoine Walker, Dee Brown etc. Noone played on Celtics at same time. Chosen seasons must be when they played for that franchise.

How many franchises? Wouldn't work if you were limited to 1 franchise.

Each participant picks players from the sane franchise chosen seasons.

Next one?

[Laimbeer]

How many franchises? Wouldn't work if you were limited to 1 franchise.

Each participant picks players from the sane franchise chosen seasons.

Next one?

So you're saying each participant selects eight players from the same franchise, and those eight players must have never played together for that franchise? Sounds kinda tough.

[migya]

Each participant picks players from the sane franchise chosen seasons.

Next one?

So you're saying each participant selects eight players from the same franchise, and those eight players must have never played together for that franchise? Sounds kinda tough.

Post merger.

[Colbinii]

Each participant picks players from the sane franchise chosen seasons.

Next one?

So you're saying each participant selects eight players from the same franchise, and those eight players must have never played together for that franchise? Sounds kinda tough.

Seems impossible with poirly talented teams.

[wackbone]

It would have a similar effect as the current game, but what about one in which you have to use the player's highest FGA season (has to be eligible in terms of games played)? So if you wanted LeBron you would have to use his 3rd season at 23.1 FGA. Could fairly drastically change the field.

We actually did something similar a while back, although we didn't get much participation.

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=340&t=1645598

Your idea would be tougher as we limited the requirement to All-Star/All-NBA players.

I would definitely want to have it apply to everyone.

That was also 3.5 years ago, we have some new faces now. Granted our overall participation is super low so I am certainly not rushing to start anything

Perhaps we could do mine that I proposed a month ago?

[Fadeaway_J]

We actually did something similar a while back, although we didn't get much participation.

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=340&t=1645598

Your idea would be tougher as we limited the requirement to All-Star/All-NBA players.

I would definitely want to have it apply to everyone.

That was also 3.5 years ago, we have some new faces now. Granted our overall participation is super low so I am certainly not rushing to start anything

Perhaps we could do mine that I proposed a month ago?

Yes I'd forgotten about this one.

[wackbone]

I'll get it up and running later today/tonight.

[Dr Positivity]

Doing it with all players would be pretty painful especially without basketball reference player index. I'd consider making it so the lowest minute player on the team doesn't have to or something.

[Fadeaway_J]

Doing it with all players would be pretty painful especially without basketball reference player index. I'd consider making it so the lowest minute player on the team doesn't have to or something.

How would the player index help? Wouldn't you still have to arrange the player's FGA from lowest to highest on their BR page?

It doesn't sound particularly difficult to me either way.

[Dr Positivity]

Doing it with all players would be pretty painful especially without basketball reference player index. I'd consider making it so the lowest minute player on the team doesn't have to or something.

How would the player index help? Wouldn't you still have to arrange the player's FGA from lowest to highest on their BR page?

It doesn't sound particularly difficult to me either way.

It's more finding bench players who's highest FGA season is low enough to fit.

[wackbone]

Doing it with all players would be pretty painful especially without basketball reference player index. I'd consider making it so the lowest minute player on the team doesn't have to or something.

How would the player index help? Wouldn't you still have to arrange the player's FGA from lowest to highest on their BR page?

It doesn't sound particularly difficult to me either way.

It's more finding bench players who's highest FGA season is low enough to fit.

I would be willing to allow for an 8th round exemption. You must use the highest FGA season on each player in the first 7 rounds, but you don't have to in the 8th. This would allow you to ensure you have at least 3 FGA saved for your last pick, then you can take some scrub to fill that last spot.

[Dr Positivity]

How would the player index help? Wouldn't you still have to arrange the player's FGA from lowest to highest on their BR page?

It doesn't sound particularly difficult to me either way.

It's more finding bench players who's highest FGA season is low enough to fit.

I would be willing to allow for an 8th round exemption. You must use the highest FGA season on each player in the first 7 rounds, but you don't have to in the 8th. This would allow you to ensure you have at least 3 FGA saved for your last pick, then you can take some scrub to fill that last spot.

I think people would save FGAs until the last round and use it on an affordable all-star. I'm not totally against that but it would change the game a bit beyond the original point. There are downsides to both scenarios as if you went the minutes route, someone may be able to set it up so their 8th minute guys plays a solid amount.

Maybe 3.5 FGAs or less you can use exemption? Takes Rodman out of the equation.

[wackbone]

It's more finding bench players who's highest FGA season is low enough to fit.

I would be willing to allow for an 8th round exemption. You must use the highest FGA season on each player in the first 7 rounds, but you don't have to in the 8th. This would allow you to ensure you have at least 3 FGA saved for your last pick, then you can take some scrub to fill that last spot.

I think people would save FGAs until the last round and use it on an affordable all-star. I'm not totally against that but it would change the game beyond the original point.

Yeah that makes sense.

[Fadeaway_J]

RIP Shane Battier in this game

[wackbone]

After wack's draft, I have an interesting proposition. We should do a "30/18" draft, where drafters must select 10 players total in order to form 2 lineups. Rotationally, one lineup plays exactly 30 minutes together and the other exactly 18 minutes together. Substitutions only take place as collective units, so lineup compatibility is important.

The premise would really shake things up in that it places more emphasize on depth and a bit less on top-end talent. Some of the schmucks that get relegated to 8 min off the bench probably wouldn't be viable for a full 18 minutes, and no longer would we have the option of playing LeBron/MJ etc 40+ min.

What do you guys think?

That could have some traction. Would certainly be unique. Perhaps a good change of pace. Bring it up towards the end of my game?

[GeorgeMarcus]

After wack's draft, I have an interesting proposition. We should do a "30/18" draft, where drafters must select 10 players total in order to form 2 lineups. Rotationally, one lineup plays exactly 30 minutes together and the other exactly 18 minutes together. Substitutions only take place as collective units, so lineup compatibility is important.

The premise would really shake things up in that it places more emphasize on depth and a bit less on top-end talent. Some of the schmucks that get relegated to 8 min off the bench probably wouldn't be viable for a full 18 minutes, and no longer would we have the option of playing LeBron/MJ etc 40+ min.

What do you guys think?

That could have some traction. Would certainly be unique. Perhaps a good change of pace. Bring it up towards the end of my game?

For sure. I was thinking 110 fga to keep with the 11 fga/player, and also that lineups aren't set in stone (can be adjusted based on matchup).

But yeah I'll resurrect this convo in a few days.

[wackbone]

After wack's draft, I have an interesting proposition. We should do a "30/18" draft, where drafters must select 10 players total in order to form 2 lineups. Rotationally, one lineup plays exactly 30 minutes together and the other exactly 18 minutes together. Substitutions only take place as collective units, so lineup compatibility is important.

The premise would really shake things up in that it places more emphasize on depth and a bit less on top-end talent. Some of the schmucks that get relegated to 8 min off the bench probably wouldn't be viable for a full 18 minutes, and no longer would we have the option of playing LeBron/MJ etc 40+ min.

What do you guys think?

That could have some traction. Would certainly be unique. Perhaps a good change of pace. Bring it up towards the end of my game?

For sure. I was thinking 110 fga to keep with the 11 fga/player, and also that lineups aren't set in stone (can be adjusted based on matchup).

But yeah I'll resurrect this convo in a few days.

110 seems a bit too much, even with 10 players. I'd recommend 100.

[JimmyPlopper]

has anyone ever done a Build Around [X player] type draft in which we all start with someone like 2001 Vince Carter and have to build around him

[wackbone]

has anyone ever done a Build Around [X player] type draft in which we all start with someone like 2001 Vince Carter and have to build around him

Yes, we have done something along those lines before, but I don't think it was a super popular idea.

[migya]

How about a pair from four decades post merger?