BaTATAS 1.0: DISCUSSION THREAD 1 - LOCK PLEASE!!!

[EArl]

This longevity grading is highly subjective it would seem, as some posters are harping over T-mac only having 7 good years while others are cool with players like Drose, Harden.

They are blatantly misreading the OP's rules then. I mean everybody is subjective to their own opinions, like obviously players from now (some of them) would average way more in the time frame that some of these older players did, but that's not how this will be graded

RIght, this draft would have went differently if longevity wasn't a factor. With only a few rounds left there will be a lot of great current players left off teams for that same reason.

It does make it confusing as far as where the line is drawn though. For example, Durant went early, so maybe Harden at the end. But then again, plenty of other newer players haven't been taken yet.

Durant wasnt a good pick taht early and i'm pretty sure the majority would agree on that.


Also I saw something about James Worthy vs Durant.
You cant really compare both players. They played different styles.

Plus BIg Game James is know for BIg games FMVP

[WillyJakkz]

Ok, I appreciate your clarification of how you stand and I agree it's in the Rules and I fully well knew what I was doing when getting Durant and though he only has 4yrs under his belt, I'll take his four yr peak over many guys 10yr peak as his numbers are better than their's regardless of how long they did it, his IMPACT is more meaningful in some instances so maybe thats where the conflict is.

Peak vs Longevity vs Impact.

Maybe that's what I was trying to say and didn't articulate it properly, my bad.

[EArl]

Gasol was a very good pick there I would really considered him if u didn't take him

Gasol isnt a bad pick late in this round.

[Grinditout]

Guys, it's opinions. I'm glad you guys know about the rules and such, much better than if you didn't at all. There's no exact science to this and never will be. There's no formula or rubric to determine longevity VS peak. As long as we can all agree to take into consideration a player's longevity, then I think it's fine if people value certain things more than others. I think it would be too hard and subjective to ask LBP or anyone to come up with a very set or detailed judging definition for these things as it is fantasy.

At the end of the day everyone should take into account the rules and info we have so far, and then interpret them in whatever way you want.

[spree8]

I said Gasol pick was good he is a bench guy I think you should only be hurt in rankings if your team is based soley around someone who had 3-4 years great than sucked for 7 or has only had 3-4 years good and is still young you cant argue this now the rules were really really clear u don't like it you didn't have to play. Your team is very strong man idont see why you are argueing it Gasol hasn't played a long time but he is good and only a bench guy

Are you really going there with the childish "if you didn't like it you didn't have to play" stuff? I read the rules, and what I read is not what people are saying. Look at all the confusion in here regarding this topic. I never had a problem with any of it until people starting saying bad things about the Gasol pick when he totally fits under "a good pick" when I comes to the longevity rule since we are counting Euroleague play before the NbA. People posting that I was going to basically have points taken off for it are the ones not really understanding the rule and putting way too much emphasis on it. Therefore, I'm simply trying to get an understanding since its been going on all game. That's all.

Also wasn't referencing you on the Gasol pick...it was the others, but didn't want to make multiple posts on it.

I am just going by the rules man I considered Longevity very strongly with all my picks and its really unfair for you guys to come in here and get all mad now

For the love of God! Gasol has been playing pro ball since 2004...Olympics since 2006 where he got a gold medal. 9 professional years and 5 going on 6 in the NBA...I'm not understanding your definition of a long career? 15 years you have to play to meet the criteria? At what point is it an acceptable pick?

[CoolKids]

Thoughts on lever/Jamison?

[EArl]

Guys, it's opinions. I'm glad you guys know about the rules and such, much better than if you didn't at all. There's no exact science to this and never will be. There's no formula or rubric to determine longevity VS peak. As long as we can all agree to take into consideration a player's longevity, then I think it's fine if people value certain things more than others. I think it would be too hard and subjective to ask LBP or anyone to come up with a very set or detailed judging definition for these things as it is fantasy.

At the end of the day everyone should take into account the rules and info we have so far, and then interpret them in whatever way you want.

This pretty much right here.

At the end of the day we are the ones judging the teams. I will follow the rules according to my interpretation just as others will do the same.

If I were a user I would see how users view their team and you can get an idea of how your team will fare in the voting.

[Smash3]

Ok, I appreciate your clarification of how you stand and I agree it's in the Rules and I fully well knew what I was doing when getting Durant and though he only has 4yrs under his belt, I'll take his four yr peak over many guys 10yr peak as his numbers are better than their's regardless of how long they did it, his IMPACT is more meaningful in some instances so maybe thats where the conflict is.

Peak vs Longevity vs Impact.

Maybe that's what I was trying to say and didn't articulate it properly, my bad.

You could argue Dave Bing was a better pick than D.rose

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y3=2012

[spree8]

I'm going to sleep lol.

[Grinditout]

Thoughts on lever/Jamison?

Lever is a really good pick up, very high peak despite the short prime(lets not get into longevity again lol).

Antawn is solid too.

[EArl]

Tawn is a good pick. He had a decent Peak and his longevity is long as well.

Ill read picks that I was hoping would make it into my round.


Deng, Jamison.
Still have a few others i'm hoping for.

[WillyJakkz]

Well impact (which is huge in my book) will be taken into account.

Also doesn't matter what rd a player got took, I see players taken later and in these late rds better than alot of players taken in the earlier rds impact-wise so I think the rds taken point is kinda moot.

[SOUL]

got my man gus! wish he had a longer career but he was a **** beast for 8 and a half seasons, surprised he lasted this long..

[SOUL]

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1265429&p=36674019#p36674019

by the way, 7 spots left in the forums survivor game, check out the OP of it if you're interested

[Hooplah]

I didn't pick Bill Walton in the first round because I picked the best pf of all time (Duncan is a center!) and I believe that Walton @ 210 lbs head to head with a powerful center like Shaq or even Dwight Howard would simply die or be turned to dust.

You can't really look at it like that though. Russell and wilt wouldn't score 10 points a game in the current nba.

Wilt scored 50 a game, if he can't score 10 ppg in todays NBA, does that mean Dwight could score 60, 70 or more ppg in Wilt's era?

(Mutombo finger wag) "No no no".

Wilt: 7'1 275.

Modern day centers: Dwight: 6'11 240, Bosh: 6'10 228, Garnett: 6'11 220, Duncan 6'11 248, Chandler: 7'1 235, Noah: 6'11 232, Horford: 6'10 245, Hickson 6'9 242, Biyombo: 6'9 229, Chuck Hayes 6'6 240

Hibbert is probably the only current center as big as Wilt was. He's 7'2 278.

[TDJacksonville]

dwights atleast 260 and probably closer to 270.....

[Hooplah]

dwights atleast 260 and probably closer to 270.....

If so he's almost as big as Wilt was.

[LBPTarHeel27]

The longevity thing was CLEARLY stated when LBP first made this whole thing before anyone started drafting, it's in the original post. To complain only now means that some people didn't fully read his post or understand it and should have clarified before joining or making their picks.

Why is it hard to understand the value of having someone who has a long lasting career over the value of someone with a much shorter career? Wouldn't a ball club have to deliberate or think hard about having a guy who can give you 10+ great years VS someone who can only give you 4-5 excellent years?

The thing with current players is that since we're basing this whole competition on actual games played, then of course they would be at a disadvantage as it's entire subjective as to how the rest of their careers would play out, otherwise people can say "Oh he's definitely going to have 4-5 more great years" and it would be subjective.

I love the discussion and activity today...but Ginditout is absolutely right. There was plenty of time to discuss the rules and make adjustments, if needed. Once the draft starts...I am assuming that everyone knows the rules. Why would you play a game when you didn't know the rules? It's definitely become quite clear that several people on here just saw B-a-T and said sign me up...without reading much of anything.

As for the longevity discussion....
The entire point of building an NBA team is to win NBA titles. Everyone here should be building the most cohesive team they can...but one that they would personally love to see play together. At the end of the day, your team is competing against the other 19 teams that have been assembled. If you bring me two teams...Team A has an 8 man rotation, in which, 6 of those players played 9+ All-Star seasons and the other 2 played 6+. Team B has an 8 man rotation that is slightly superior in terms of their player's peak seasons to Team A. However, Team B has 3 players who, for one reason or another, only had 4 All-Star level seasons.

When I look at those teams, I see a team that will be competing for 9 or more seasons against a team that will only be competing for 4 seasons. Even is Team B is slightly superior in talent...I'm taking Team A 10 times out of 10. That was made clear in the OP.

[MagicFan32]

So is the next dude being skipped? Been more than 3 hours since the last pick.

i like ur bigs. think it was a touch early for Gasol though

Gasol is interesting in that he's already 28/29, but has had a short NBA career which is a disadvantage in this particular competition. It's not a bad pick but like you said he probably could have been around a little late, but I guess better not to take the chance and grab him early.

I considered Gasol. I mean sure the body of work isn't that great yet but we all know how skilled he is on offense and defense. even though a guy like vlade has a larger body of work, i think the better overall player would be gasol

[Grinditout]

i like ur bigs. think it was a touch early for Gasol though

Gasol is interesting in that he's already 28/29, but has had a short NBA career which is a disadvantage in this particular competition. It's not a bad pick but like you said he probably could have been around a little late, but I guess better not to take the chance and grab him early.

I considered Gasol. I mean sure the body of work isn't that great yet but we all know how skilled he is on offense and defense. even though a guy like vlade has a larger body of work, i think the better overall player would be gasol

I dont know about that, obviously Gasol would be the better defender, although Vlade was pretty solid in that regard.

But on the offense I see Vlade having just as much of an advantage just due to his elite passing skills. Vlade was the type pf center who was a solid at everything with the advantage of being a really good passer. Also Vlade has a little more size than Gasol. I'd say they would be on the same level if we brought the 28 year Divac back into the NBA. Both are top 3 centers in todays NBA.