FGA restricted all time fantasy draft meta thread. 2 MORE JUDGES NEEDED FOR PLAYOFFS

[wojoaderge]

Are we allowed to draft players only from NBA or also ABA counts? Also, can we draft players from pre-shotclock era?

You're headed for disappointment

What do you mean?

I've been in two of these drafts and I like the same general players he does. Let me rephrase - you're headed for disappointment if you intend to be successful. If you want to just go through the process, there is some fun there

[Dr Spaceman]

Are we allowed to draft players only from NBA or also ABA counts? Also, can we draft players from pre-shotclock era?

You're headed for disappointment

What do you mean?

He means that it's very tough to draft those players because a lot of the judges have never seen them play and so are going to rate those guys worse basically by default.

[Dr Spaceman]

Eminence, you were in. Doctor MJ, welcome aboard. It's at 16. Time for meta talk now

Sent from my SM-J700F using RealGM mobile app

What are you thinking of setting as the FGA limit? Last time it was 85, which has been league average for a team over the last 5 years or so.

Genuine question, does using the number from the past 5 years discourage taking players who played in eras with a higher pace or higher average MPG? A guy like Elgin, perhaps?

Additionally, I would tend to believe that a higher limit encourages more varied team building. With it being strict, certain players are borderline undraftable if they don't carry their weight in efficiency. Players such as Jermaine O'Neal, Allen Iverson, Elvin Hayes are devoid of value. Even a wonderful all-around player like Havlicek becomes difficult to really justify when one must dedicate 25% of their FGA towards him. It inflates the value of certain player archetypes (hyper-efficient scorers, 3&D players, low volume rim protectors) and deflates the value of others. I do believe a higher FGA limit would be beneficial for the sake of variety. If not that, perhaps a one-time mulligan round or something of that nature at the end of the draft.

Of course, I'm up for being corrected.

It does exactly as you say, unfortunately there's not a ton to be done since per 100 stats only go back to 74. A higher FGA could be healthy though.

[ardee]

What are you thinking of setting as the FGA limit? Last time it was 85, which has been league average for a team over the last 5 years or so.

Genuine question, does using the number from the past 5 years discourage taking players who played in eras with a higher pace or higher average MPG? A guy like Elgin, perhaps?

Additionally, I would tend to believe that a higher limit encourages more varied team building. With it being strict, certain players are borderline undraftable if they don't carry their weight in efficiency. Players such as Jermaine O'Neal, Allen Iverson, Elvin Hayes are devoid of value. Even a wonderful all-around player like Havlicek becomes difficult to really justify when one must dedicate 25% of their FGA towards him. It inflates the value of certain player archetypes (hyper-efficient scorers, 3&D players, low volume rim protectors) and deflates the value of others. I do believe a higher FGA limit would be beneficial for the sake of variety. If not that, perhaps a one-time mulligan round or something of that nature at the end of the draft.

Of course, I'm up for being corrected.

It does exactly as you say, unfortunately there's not a ton to be done since per 100 stats only go back to 74. A higher FGA could be healthy though.

95? 100?

[Dr Spaceman]

Genuine question, does using the number from the past 5 years discourage taking players who played in eras with a higher pace or higher average MPG? A guy like Elgin, perhaps?

Additionally, I would tend to believe that a higher limit encourages more varied team building. With it being strict, certain players are borderline undraftable if they don't carry their weight in efficiency. Players such as Jermaine O'Neal, Allen Iverson, Elvin Hayes are devoid of value. Even a wonderful all-around player like Havlicek becomes difficult to really justify when one must dedicate 25% of their FGA towards him. It inflates the value of certain player archetypes (hyper-efficient scorers, 3&D players, low volume rim protectors) and deflates the value of others. I do believe a higher FGA limit would be beneficial for the sake of variety. If not that, perhaps a one-time mulligan round or something of that nature at the end of the draft.

Of course, I'm up for being corrected.

It does exactly as you say, unfortunately there's not a ton to be done since per 100 stats only go back to 74. A higher FGA could be healthy though.

95? 100?

I'd advocate for 89. Gives some extra breathing room but still makes you draft your 3-7 with guys who played those roles in real life.

[ardee]

It does exactly as you say, unfortunately there's not a ton to be done since per 100 stats only go back to 74. A higher FGA could be healthy though.

95? 100?

I'd advocate for 89. Gives some extra breathing room but still makes you draft your 3-7 with guys who played those roles in real life.

Maybe round it off to 90?

Also, for players, I am wondering, the last draft I participated in, we took 3 year versions of them. I'm assuming here it should be one year?

[Dr Spaceman]

95? 100?

I'd advocate for 89. Gives some extra breathing room but still makes you draft your 3-7 with guys who played those roles in real life.

Maybe round it off to 90?

Also, for players, I am wondering, the last draft I participated in, we took 3 year versions of them. I'm assuming here it should be one year?

90 sounds good. You can draft a guy like peak Oscar and he only takes about 24% of your FGA. We basically have to do one year versions because of the FGA requirement.

[ardee]

I'd advocate for 89. Gives some extra breathing room but still makes you draft your 3-7 with guys who played those roles in real life.

Maybe round it off to 90?

Also, for players, I am wondering, the last draft I participated in, we took 3 year versions of them. I'm assuming here it should be one year?

90 sounds good. You can draft a guy like peak Oscar and he only takes about 24% of your FGA. We basically have to do one year versions because of the FGA requirement.

Is there really much else to discuss then? It isn't that complex, just gotta draft. Did you guys do 8 or 10 players per team last time?

[Dr Spaceman]

Maybe round it off to 90?

Also, for players, I am wondering, the last draft I participated in, we took 3 year versions of them. I'm assuming here it should be one year?

90 sounds good. You can draft a guy like peak Oscar and he only takes about 24% of your FGA. We basically have to do one year versions because of the FGA requirement.

Is there really much else to discuss then? It isn't that complex, just gotta draft. Did you guys do 8 or 10 players per team last time?

Yeah, put everyone's name into a random number generator. We can also set a time limit for the picks. But I think we should get started ASAP, could even be tonight.

EDIT: 8 per team.

[70sFan]

You're headed for disappointment

What do you mean?

I've been in two of these drafts and I like the same general players he does. Let me rephrase - you're headed for disappointment if you intend to be successful. If you want to just go through the process, there is some fun there

As long as I will enjoy creating my team and changing gameplan for different opponents it should be fun. I'm not Bill Russell, winning isn't the most important thing in this project for me

[Dr Spaceman]

What do you mean?

I've been in two of these drafts and I like the same general players he does. Let me rephrase - you're headed for disappointment if you intend to be successful. If you want to just go through the process, there is some fun there

As long as I will enjoy creating my team and changing gameplan for different opponents it should be fun. I'm not Bill Russell, winning isn't the most important thing in this project for me

Yeah for me winning comes a very distant second to the team building process. I just love putting teams together and being creative.

[ardee]

What do you guys think? 8 or 10 per team? I am leaning 8 because this is a Playoff format and most Playoff rotations are shorter.

[BasketballFan7]

90 sounds good. I can start whenever.

[ardee]

90 sounds good. I can start whenever.

I'm on my phone. Can someone quote everyone in the list I posted earlier + Doctor MJ and see if everyone is ready to go today? If so I'll do the randomizer when I get home

Sent from my SM-J700F using RealGM mobile app

[Dr Spaceman]

What do you guys think? 8 or 10 per team? I am leaning 8 because this is a Playoff format and most Playoff rotations are shorter.

Definitely 8, otherwise we should increase the FGA limit.

[ardee]

What do you guys think? 8 or 10 per team? I am leaning 8 because this is a Playoff format and most Playoff rotations are shorter.

Definitely 8, otherwise we should increase the FGA limit.

8 is good, 128 picks will take six weeks even if we afford 8 hours per pick.

[70sFan]

Also, am I right when I think that we will be playing in 2016-17 rules? For me it's more important than anything.

[ardee]

This is everyone. We are trying to start asap. Does that work for all of you? The rules are, 90 FGA total, 8 players drafted, you can specify the year of the player you want, but change it later if you so desire. Snake format.

[BasketballFan7]

Also, are 2017 seasons permitted or no?

[ardee]

Also, are 2017 seasons permitted or no?

These are based on RS, so yes, I would say let's use it. Even though the judges can use Playoffs as a part of the evaluation, the Playoffs will be over by the time our Playoffs start.