sd1306 and BlackIce, glad you joined!
SamBone wrote:SabasRevenge! wrote:[size=150]
We will be using January 1995 rosters, before the trading deadline has passed. Jordan is not presently on the Bulls
I just caught this, does this mean MJ will be a free agent for all to bid on?
MJ is not a free agent because he was still under contract with the Bulls. He will be a free agent after the 1996 season though.
Jordan returns at the end of the season and is back for the playoffs, but it's not '96 Jordan. He shot .411 for the remainder of the '95 season and was definitely a bit rusty. He was better in the '95 playoffs, but still posted a career low playoff PER. '96 Jordan is a different story...
poopdamoop wrote:Random question, but how are we dealing with injuries and retirements? Maybe I didn't notice in the original post, but if a guy was injured for half the 1995-96 season, are we just assuming he'll be injured in this game too, even if he was traded or moved to a bench role or something? And are retirements set too? (eg Malone retires after the 03/04 season no matter what)
Injuries were a significant and sometimes defining facet of a career. Even though the situations will have changed, I believe that we should still consider injuries as a limiting factor. I think it's reasonable to see how long a player was injured, how effective they were upon their return, and if they were injured for the playoffs.
For me, a player's statistical output AND effectiveness/efficiency/contribution to winning will be considered.
EXAMPLE: Jerry Stackhouse might not be the best first option on a team that's trying to win, but he could be a terrific second or third option on a good or great team. Just because Stack scored almost 30 in '01 doesn't mean he'll produce the same on whatever team he's on in this game. It all depends on the role you designate for that player and how whether we believe that player will thrive in that role.
Another great example is my own Shawn Kemp. After Kemp was traded to Cleveland his usage soared and his efficiency decreased. He was expected to be the man and he was never a player who should have been thrust into that role. My plan with Kemp is to keep him in the same situation that he thrived in - as a 2nd or 3rd option with a great PG to allow the game to come to him. I make the case that Kemp's trade to Cleveland (while he was still in his prime) was a great detriment to his career and his legacy/production/efficiency would have been very different had he stayed in Seattle.
Also, George Karl was a horrible coach for Kendall Gill. He ran Gill out of town and was actually psychologically abusive to him. While Gill was statistically impressive in Seattle, he really thrived in the years right before and after Seattle - without Karl.
This game has room for historical context and interpretation by us GMs. I'm hopeful and confident that we will be able to create unique paths for players we already know and deduce a different, reasonable, and possibly greater outcome for them. Harold Miner won't turn into MJ or vice versa, but perhaps Nash begins to flourish earlier or maybe his production lags due to a slower pace, but he wins a chip playing with an incredibly efficient supporting cast that plays very good defense. Back to Kemp again, maybe he doesn't suffer the same fate he did after his trade to Cleveland. I wouldn't argue for a longer prime for Kemp, but I would argue for greater effectiveness during his prime.
