Future Draft Games

[Dr Positivity]

A short FGA game (50-60) would probably be like the recent games in terms of deciding between one MJ and balance

60 FGA isn't remotely realistic for an 8-man rotation. It's tight even for a starting lineup.

I was thinking of doing the one player per country idea next, just trying to work out the best way to prevent top picks from being overpowered.

It's not really about whether it would be realistic in real life because the low FGA players would take higher FGA roles on these teams. A team may be 60 FGA in this game but if the 11 FGA all-star is the 2nd option he's taking 14-15+ in real life so it bumps it up

For example Super Powered's team in the current draft

Porter 11.7
Bowen 5.8
Tatum 10.4
Lebron 17.8
Capela 9.1

That's 54.8. So it's tight for 60. But if you replaced Capela with Warriors Bogut it would be enough to squeeze it in with a 10 FGA bench. Maybe 65 would be a better target. This team also paid big for Lebron when eg. an opponent could have strategically built around Nash so they could have possibly fit 3 all stars instead of 2. A starting lineup with Nash, Amare and role players should have no problem fitting under 60

[Fadeaway_J]

A short FGA game (50-60) would probably be like the recent games in terms of deciding between one MJ and balance

60 FGA isn't remotely realistic for an 8-man rotation. It's tight even for a starting lineup.

I was thinking of doing the one player per country idea next, just trying to work out the best way to prevent top picks from being overpowered.

It's not really about whether it would be realistic in real life because the low FGA players would take higher FGA roles on these teams. A team may be 60 FGA in this game but if the 11 FGA all-star is the 2nd option he's taking 14-15+ in real life so it bumps it up

For example Super Powered's team in the current draft

Porter 11.7
Bowen 5.8
Tatum 10.4
Lebron 17.8
Capela 9.1

That's 54.8. So it's tight for 60. But if you replaced Capela with Warriors Bogut it would be enough to squeeze it in with a 10 FGA bench. Maybe 65 would be a better target. This team also paid big for Lebron when eg. an opponent could have strategically built around Nash so they could have possibly fit 3 all stars instead of 2. A starting lineup with Nash, Amare and role players should have no problem fitting under 60

I could see the appeal of being challenged to build a viable starting lineup within a certain FGA limit, but past experience suggests the benches would be unsightly.

[migya]

I was thinking of a pair of players per decade, 1980s onwards.

[Dr Positivity]

60 FGA isn't remotely realistic for an 8-man rotation. It's tight even for a starting lineup.

I was thinking of doing the one player per country idea next, just trying to work out the best way to prevent top picks from being overpowered.

It's not really about whether it would be realistic in real life because the low FGA players would take higher FGA roles on these teams. A team may be 60 FGA in this game but if the 11 FGA all-star is the 2nd option he's taking 14-15+ in real life so it bumps it up

For example Super Powered's team in the current draft

Porter 11.7
Bowen 5.8
Tatum 10.4
Lebron 17.8
Capela 9.1

That's 54.8. So it's tight for 60. But if you replaced Capela with Warriors Bogut it would be enough to squeeze it in with a 10 FGA bench. Maybe 65 would be a better target. This team also paid big for Lebron when eg. an opponent could have strategically built around Nash so they could have possibly fit 3 all stars instead of 2. A starting lineup with Nash, Amare and role players should have no problem fitting under 60

I could see the appeal of being challenged to build a viable starting lineup within a certain FGA limit, but past experience suggests the benches would be unsightly.

I like the idea of having more of an auction feel. It doesn't become as much of a no brainer to pay 22 FGA for Jordan

[LA Bird]

On the topic of auctions, how about a blind auction? It's pretty easy to run and we haven't had an auction game on here for years.

[Fadeaway_J]

The last few auction games we tried to get going haven't garnered much interest.

I don't mind giving it another shot, as long as it's set up to make acquiring stars costly. Maybe link the minimum bid prices to the accolade system we've been using lately.

[Laimbeer]

60 FGA isn't remotely realistic for an 8-man rotation. It's tight even for a starting lineup.

I was thinking of doing the one player per country idea next, just trying to work out the best way to prevent top picks from being overpowered.

It's not really about whether it would be realistic in real life because the low FGA players would take higher FGA roles on these teams. A team may be 60 FGA in this game but if the 11 FGA all-star is the 2nd option he's taking 14-15+ in real life so it bumps it up

For example Super Powered's team in the current draft

Porter 11.7
Bowen 5.8
Tatum 10.4
Lebron 17.8
Capela 9.1

That's 54.8. So it's tight for 60. But if you replaced Capela with Warriors Bogut it would be enough to squeeze it in with a 10 FGA bench. Maybe 65 would be a better target. This team also paid big for Lebron when eg. an opponent could have strategically built around Nash so they could have possibly fit 3 all stars instead of 2. A starting lineup with Nash, Amare and role players should have no problem fitting under 60

I could see the appeal of being challenged to build a viable starting lineup within a certain FGA limit, but past experience suggests the benches would be unsightly.

Require the three players lowest in FGA add up to ten or more. And I'd keep it at 60. Keep in mind SP did this without really trying.

[LA Bird]

The last few auction games we tried to get going haven't garnered much interest.

I don't mind giving it another shot, as long as it's set up to make acquiring stars costly. Maybe link the minimum bid prices to the accolade system we've been using lately.

I am not seeing the reason for setting minimum bid prices. Wouldn't the top players automatically get a higher auction price from higher demand? Some team can bid only $1 on an All NBA player but as long as there are other teams who value that player more and bid a higher price, the low bids wouldn't matter. If nobody bids higher than $1 for that All NBA player, then he is obviously not seen as particularly valuable, in which case the minimum price requirement would be unnecessary.

[Fadeaway_J]

The last few auction games we tried to get going haven't garnered much interest.

I don't mind giving it another shot, as long as it's set up to make acquiring stars costly. Maybe link the minimum bid prices to the accolade system we've been using lately.

I am not seeing the reason for setting minimum bid prices. Wouldn't the top players automatically get a higher auction price from higher demand? Some team can bid only $1 on an All NBA player but as long as there are other teams who value that player more and bid a higher price, the low bids wouldn't matter. If nobody bids higher than $1 for that All NBA player, then he is obviously not seen as particularly valuable, in which case the minimum price requirement would be unnecessary.

What if only one person happens to bid for, say, Kobe in a particular round? I could throw up a hopeful $1 bid and get him by default.

[LA Bird]

The last few auction games we tried to get going haven't garnered much interest.

I don't mind giving it another shot, as long as it's set up to make acquiring stars costly. Maybe link the minimum bid prices to the accolade system we've been using lately.

I am not seeing the reason for setting minimum bid prices. Wouldn't the top players automatically get a higher auction price from higher demand? Some team can bid only $1 on an All NBA player but as long as there are other teams who value that player more and bid a higher price, the low bids wouldn't matter. If nobody bids higher than $1 for that All NBA player, then he is obviously not seen as particularly valuable, in which case the minimum price requirement would be unnecessary.

What if only one person happens to bid for, say, Kobe in a particular round? I could throw up a hopeful $1 bid and get him by default.

My idea would be that instead of dividing the players randomly into rounds, every player in the allowed seasons is available in the first round. Then whoever is left unbidded would be available in the second round and so on until every team is eventually full. If somebody is able to steal Kobe for $1, the failure is on the rest of the participants for not bidding on him. There would be no incentive to pass on a great player as in previous auctions because the talent available in each round would be worse than the previous round.

[Fadeaway_J]

I am not seeing the reason for setting minimum bid prices. Wouldn't the top players automatically get a higher auction price from higher demand? Some team can bid only $1 on an All NBA player but as long as there are other teams who value that player more and bid a higher price, the low bids wouldn't matter. If nobody bids higher than $1 for that All NBA player, then he is obviously not seen as particularly valuable, in which case the minimum price requirement would be unnecessary.

What if only one person happens to bid for, say, Kobe in a particular round? I could throw up a hopeful $1 bid and get him by default.

My idea would be that instead of dividing the players randomly into rounds, every player in the allowed seasons is available in the first round. Then whoever is left unbidded would be available in the second round and so on until every team is eventually full. If somebody is able to steal Kobe for $1, the failure is on the rest of the participants for not bidding on him. There would be no incentive to pass on a great player as in previous auctions because the talent available in each round would be worse than the previous round.

It's not about passing on a great player. Everyone can only bid on one player at a time, and some people will end up targeting the same guys, which means some stars are bound to slip through the net. In our first auction game I was able to pick up Bob Lanier as a bench player just because he was left on the board at the end.

[LA Bird]

What if only one person happens to bid for, say, Kobe in a particular round? I could throw up a hopeful $1 bid and get him by default.

My idea would be that instead of dividing the players randomly into rounds, every player in the allowed seasons is available in the first round. Then whoever is left unbidded would be available in the second round and so on until every team is eventually full. If somebody is able to steal Kobe for $1, the failure is on the rest of the participants for not bidding on him. There would be no incentive to pass on a great player as in previous auctions because the talent available in each round would be worse than the previous round.

It's not about passing on a great player. Everyone can only bid on one player at a time, and some people will end up targeting the same guys, which means some stars are bound to slip through the net. In our first auction game I was able to pick up Bob Lanier as a bench player just because he was left on the board at the end.

There is nothing stopping a team from bidding on multiple players in a round though. You just write down all the players you want, the respective prices you are willing to pay and then PM the list to the commish who publicizes all the bids after the round is over. Each player goes to whoever bid the highest price and anybody who was not bidded on would be available next round.

Regarding the possibility of somebody as good as Lanier being available in the end for cheap, I don't think it makes a big difference. You will most likely already have a better starting center, in which case Lanier is just coming off the bench for like 12 minutes a game. And to get Lanier in the end, the talent pool is probably so overloaded that other teams will also have stars coming off the bench, in which case Lanier off the bench won't stand out much in comparison. All this could be prevented by simply setting an appropriate time period depending on how many participants we have.

Is anybody else interested in an auction? Otherwise I'll just drop the topic since it seems like it's just Fade and me.

[Dr Positivity]

How about a game based on 2017-18 salaries? Instead of a FGA cap, we would get a salary cap. Of course there would be some bargains, but that would be part of the strategy. A different way to value players and same season for all, eliminating any era translation.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/contracts/players.html

I'm definitely down for this btw

[Dr Positivity]

Auction drafts have had trouble getting sign ups because of people having commitments that day. Maybe an auction 1 hour draft would get enough people. No bench which gives more time for the 5 picks, and I noticed in the previous 1 hour drafts the benches were kind of dumb due to no FGA limit, I had Kyrie, Blake and Drummond off the bench

[Laimbeer]

My idea would be that instead of dividing the players randomly into rounds, every player in the allowed seasons is available in the first round. Then whoever is left unbidded would be available in the second round and so on until every team is eventually full. If somebody is able to steal Kobe for $1, the failure is on the rest of the participants for not bidding on him. There would be no incentive to pass on a great player as in previous auctions because the talent available in each round would be worse than the previous round.

It's not about passing on a great player. Everyone can only bid on one player at a time, and some people will end up targeting the same guys, which means some stars are bound to slip through the net. In our first auction game I was able to pick up Bob Lanier as a bench player just because he was left on the board at the end.

There is nothing stopping a team from bidding on multiple players in a round though. You just write down all the players you want, the respective prices you are willing to pay and then PM the list to the commish who publicizes all the bids after the round is over. Each player goes to whoever bid the highest price and anybody who was not bidded on would be available next round.

Regarding the possibility of somebody as good as Lanier being available in the end for cheap, I don't think it makes a big difference. You will most likely already have a better starting center, in which case Lanier is just coming off the bench for like 12 minutes a game. And to get Lanier in the end, the talent pool is probably so overloaded that other teams will also have stars coming off the bench, in which case Lanier off the bench won't stand out much in comparison. All this could be prevented by simply setting an appropriate time period depending on how many participants we have.

Is anybody else interested in an auction? Otherwise I'll just drop the topic since it seems like it's just Fade and me.

I played a game on the Knicks board like this and it worked well with just current players. You couldn't low ball or wait for guys to slip, because there were only so many top players.

[Laimbeer]

Auction drafts have had trouble getting sign ups because of people having commitments that day.

I think the one Bird refers to is a group of players made available each day and everyone has 24 hours to submit a sealed bid, then the next day the players are awarded to the high bidder, another group is up, etc. It's actually ideal in terms of getting everyone on the same page from a time standpoint.

[Laimbeer]

How about a game based on 2017-18 salaries? Instead of a FGA cap, we would get a salary cap. Of course there would be some bargains, but that would be part of the strategy. A different way to value players and same season for all, eliminating any era translation.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/contracts/players.html

I'm definitely down for this btw

I'd throw out 50M with some of the bargains out there?

[Dr Positivity]

Auction drafts have had trouble getting sign ups because of people having commitments that day.

I think the one Bird refers to is a group of players made available each day and everyone has 24 hours to submit a sealed bid, then the next day the players are awarded to the high bidder, another group is up, etc. It's actually ideal in terms of getting everyone on the same page from a time standpoint.

That could work but 1 pick a day and an 8 day draft, even 5 with no bench is pretty drawn out. I would suggest there also has to be a starting bid on players. Otherwise with the first group of players the logical move is to bid $1 on every player and you're guaranteed a $1 MVP.

[Dr Positivity]

How about a game based on 2017-18 salaries? Instead of a FGA cap, we would get a salary cap. Of course there would be some bargains, but that would be part of the strategy. A different way to value players and same season for all, eliminating any era translation.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/contracts/players.html

I'm definitely down for this btw

I'd throw out 50M with some of the bargains out there?

That seems low, I mean Lebron made 33 himself last year. A full salary cap would be fine since if it's just 17-18 players the talent pool is going to get drained for the normal reasons. A player like Jokic's salary is a crazy bargain but it's part of the strategy whether to take him over the best players in Rd 1

[Laimbeer]

I'm definitely down for this btw

I'd throw out 50M with some of the bargains out there?

That seems low, I mean Lebron made 33 himself last year. A full salary cap would be fine since if it's just 17-18 players the talent pool is going to get drained for the normal reasons. A player like Jokic's salary is a crazy bargain but it's part of the strategy whether to take him over the best players in Rd 1

A full salary cap seems like no constraint at all. The elite big salary guys will naturally get divided and people will avoid bad contracts.