Fadeaway_J wrote:8on wrote:Fadeaway_J wrote:I still don't understand why an extra FGA is required to make this happen.
I think what you're wondering is whether or not the same thing would happen at 86 as it does at 85.
We decreased from 90 to 85. As such, we could afford less talent. It's a bit more realistic, but we still get to put fun teams together.
What we found in the 75 FGA game is that all benches were atrocious.
With 85 FGA, we're no longer picking peak versions of every starter, but benches seem to suffer.
It would still happen, but it would happen less. In a draft like the one we just finished, it should be easy to avoid Prig and Crotty. Instead, half the field has (to be fair) players who don't contribute.
The goal is to keep the talent level the same, but have less scrubs on average.
Honestly, the reason benches have suffered is that everyone feels the need to have five or six stars or their team will be marked down. I don't see how adding an extra FGA is going to change anything in that regard.
The only reason I bring it up is because it is the exact same budget for talent, plus not enough FGA to significantly improve any of your starters. Only the bench can benefit from 1 more FGA. If you choose a slightly more expensive version of the same player, that's on you. I'm seeing a lot of players who don't contribute anything. I thought that was a problem, and then I thought of a way to fix it without changing much.
this concludes my proposal.