Future Draft Games

[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 10 FGAs be spent on the three lowest FGA players?

[Fadeaway_J]

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 10 FGAs be spent on the three lowest FGA players?

Here's what I would propose:

- Use an overall limit of 70-75 FGA (we've done 75 before)
- Out of that total, you can't exceed X amount (say 60) with your starting lineup.
- The bench slots would have some kind of minutes restriction to prevent people getting cute with minutes for overqualified bench players.

Make sense?

[Laimbeer]

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 10 FGAs be spent on the three lowest FGA players?

Here's what I would propose:

- Use an overall limit of 70-75 FGA (we've done 75 before)
- Out of that total, you can't exceed X amount (say 60) with your starting lineup.
- The bench slots would have some kind of minutes restriction to prevent people getting cute with minutes for overqualified bench players.

Make sense?

To make a real impact I think it has to be 60 total. Here's the first two rounds of the 75 FGA draft. Doesn't look a lot different than a normal draft. I want to see us digging for players and new names popping in different roles. I mean, with 60 I'd have to think hard about drafting Mike or Shaq, particularly spending a high pick on them. It would be interesting to see how far Nash, Ben, and Rodman zoom up. Does Dwight become the first center to go? We saw none of that before.

Round 1

1. Doctor MJ: LeBron James
2. Micahclay: Michael Jordan
3. BasketballFan7: Wilt Chamberlain
4. Colbinii: Bill Russell
5. Narigo: Magic Johnson
6. AustinCarr61: Shaquille O'Neal
7. OrlandoTill: Hakeem Olajuwon
8. lorak: Tim Duncan
9. LA Bird: Kevin Garnett
10. Dr Spaceman: Larry Bird
11. ardee: Bill Walton
12. SuperDario: Stephen Curry
13. eminence: Dirk Nowitzki
14. 70sFan: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
15. Quotatious: David Robinson
16. urnoggin: Chris Paul

Round 2

17. urnoggin: Kawhi Leonard
18. Quotatious: Oscar Robertson
19. 70sFan: Walt Frazier
20. eminence: Kevin Durant
21. SuperDario: Dwyane Wade
22. ardee: Steve Nash
23. Dr Spaceman: Draymond Green
24. LA Bird - Jerry West
25. lorak - Kobe Bryant
26. OrlandoTill - Julius Erving
27. AustinCarr61 - Scottie Pippen
28. Narigo - Karl Malone
29. Colbinii - Anthony Davis
30. BasketballFan7 - Charles Barkley
31. micahclay - Reggie Miller
32. Doctor MJ - John Stockton

[Fadeaway_J]

Require 10 FGAs be spent on the three lowest FGA players?

Here's what I would propose:

- Use an overall limit of 70-75 FGA (we've done 75 before)
- Out of that total, you can't exceed X amount (say 60) with your starting lineup.
- The bench slots would have some kind of minutes restriction to prevent people getting cute with minutes for overqualified bench players.

Make sense?

To make a real impact I think it has to be 60 total. Here's the first two rounds of the 75 FGA draft. Doesn't look a lot different than a normal draft. I want to see us digging for players and new names popping in different roles. I mean, with 60 I'd have to think hard about drafting Mike or Shaq, particularly spending a high pick on them. It would be interesting to see how far Nash, Ben, and Rodman zoom up. We saw none of that before.

Round 1

1. Doctor MJ: LeBron James
2. Micahclay: Michael Jordan
3. BasketballFan7: Wilt Chamberlain
4. Colbinii: Bill Russell
5. Narigo: Magic Johnson
6. AustinCarr61: Shaquille O'Neal
7. OrlandoTill: Hakeem Olajuwon
8. lorak: Tim Duncan
9. LA Bird: Kevin Garnett
10. Dr Spaceman: Larry Bird
11. ardee: Bill Walton
12. SuperDario: Stephen Curry
13. eminence: Dirk Nowitzki
14. 70sFan: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
15. Quotatious: David Robinson
16. urnoggin: Chris Paul

Round 2

17. urnoggin: Kawhi Leonard
18. Quotatious: Oscar Robertson
19. 70sFan: Walt Frazier
20. eminence: Kevin Durant
21. SuperDario: Dwyane Wade
22. ardee: Steve Nash
23. Dr Spaceman: Draymond Green
24. LA Bird - Jerry West
25. lorak - Kobe Bryant
26. OrlandoTill - Julius Erving
27. AustinCarr61 - Scottie Pippen
28. Narigo - Karl Malone
29. Colbinii - Anthony Davis
30. BasketballFan7 - Charles Barkley
31. micahclay - Reggie Miller
32. Doctor MJ - John Stockton

It looks the same because people were able to go cheap on the bench and spend big on stars, which restricting the FGA for starters would mitigate. 60 FGA would just lock in atrocious benches; 10 FGA sounds vaguely reasonable until you realise that a lot of the cheaper role players would suddenly have to be used as starters.

[Dr Positivity]

I can live with bad benches. 50 FGA with no bench or 60 FGA with minimum 15 FGA for the bench would also be an option

[Dr Positivity]

65 FGA, minimum 15 FGA for the lowest three players. That puts starting lineups around 50 which is about what I envisioned. Fade is correct that it's harder to get away with 10 FGA bench when players like Ingles and Posey are starting, so 15 is reasonable. I can run the game but not till later tonight

[Laimbeer]

65 FGA, minimum 15 FGA for the lowest three players. That puts starting lineups around 50 which is about what I envisioned. Fade is correct that it's harder to get away with 10 FGA bench when players like Ingles and Posey are starting, so 15 is reasonable. I can run the game but not till later tonight

[Fadeaway_J]

65 FGA, minimum 15 FGA for the lowest three players. That puts starting lineups around 50 which is about what I envisioned. Fade is correct that it's harder to get away with 10 FGA bench when players like Ingles and Posey are starting, so 15 is reasonable. I can run the game but not till later tonight

I agree in general, but I can foresee some problems with the "lowest three players" aspect. While a draft is going on, it's not really feasible to map out exactly who your three cheapest guys will be or how much they'll cost. And given the main idea behind this draft, it's a distinct possibility that those three players (some of whom may be starters) won't come up to 15 FGA total.

I would just cap the starting lineups at 50 and leave the remaining 15 for the bench, to be allocated as people see fit. You can go cheaper, but there wouldn't be any benefit since the remaining FGA couldn't be added to the starters.

[Laimbeer]

65 FGA, minimum 15 FGA for the lowest three players. That puts starting lineups around 50 which is about what I envisioned. Fade is correct that it's harder to get away with 10 FGA bench when players like Ingles and Posey are starting, so 15 is reasonable. I can run the game but not till later tonight

I agree in general, but I can foresee some problems with the "lowest three players" aspect. While a draft is going on, it's not really feasible to map out exactly who your three cheapest guys will be or how much they'll cost. And given the main idea behind this draft, it's a distinct possibility that those three players (some of whom may be starters) won't come up to 15 FGA total.

I would just cap the starting lineups at 50 and leave the remaining 15 for the bench, to be allocated as people see fit. You can go cheaper, but there wouldn't be any benefit since the remaining FGA couldn't be added to the starters.

So your top five FGA's can't total more than 50, and your lowest three can't go over 15?

[Dr Positivity]

65 FGA, minimum 15 FGA for the lowest three players. That puts starting lineups around 50 which is about what I envisioned. Fade is correct that it's harder to get away with 10 FGA bench when players like Ingles and Posey are starting, so 15 is reasonable. I can run the game but not till later tonight

I agree in general, but I can foresee some problems with the "lowest three players" aspect. While a draft is going on, it's not really feasible to map out exactly who your three cheapest guys will be or how much they'll cost. And given the main idea behind this draft, it's a distinct possibility that those three players (some of whom may be starters) won't come up to 15 FGA total.

I would just cap the starting lineups at 50 and leave the remaining 15 for the bench, to be allocated as people see fit. You can go cheaper, but there wouldn't be any benefit since the remaining FGA couldn't be added to the starters.

So your top five FGA's can't total more than 50, and your lowest three can't go over 15?

I think Fade is saying just make it 50 for starters (minimum 30 minutes played) and 15 for bench instead of top 5/bottom 3

[Fadeaway_J]

I agree in general, but I can foresee some problems with the "lowest three players" aspect. While a draft is going on, it's not really feasible to map out exactly who your three cheapest guys will be or how much they'll cost. And given the main idea behind this draft, it's a distinct possibility that those three players (some of whom may be starters) won't come up to 15 FGA total.

I would just cap the starting lineups at 50 and leave the remaining 15 for the bench, to be allocated as people see fit. You can go cheaper, but there wouldn't be any benefit since the remaining FGA couldn't be added to the starters.

So your top five FGA's can't total more than 50, and your lowest three can't go over 15?

I think Fade is saying just make it 50 for starters (minimum 30 minutes played) and 15 for bench instead of top 5/bottom 3

Exactly, I think getting into most/fewest FGAs is just going to overcomplicate things.

[euroleague]

I agree in general, but I can foresee some problems with the "lowest three players" aspect. While a draft is going on, it's not really feasible to map out exactly who your three cheapest guys will be or how much they'll cost. And given the main idea behind this draft, it's a distinct possibility that those three players (some of whom may be starters) won't come up to 15 FGA total.

I would just cap the starting lineups at 50 and leave the remaining 15 for the bench, to be allocated as people see fit. You can go cheaper, but there wouldn't be any benefit since the remaining FGA couldn't be added to the starters.

So your top five FGA's can't total more than 50, and your lowest three can't go over 15?

I think Fade is saying just make it 50 for starters (minimum 30 minutes played) and 15 for bench instead of top 5/bottom 3

I’m pretty sure he means ‘under 50 for starters, no specific limit for bench’

[Fadeaway_J]

So your top five FGA's can't total more than 50, and your lowest three can't go over 15?

I think Fade is saying just make it 50 for starters (minimum 30 minutes played) and 15 for bench instead of top 5/bottom 3

I’m pretty sure he means ‘under 50 for starters, no specific limit for bench’

Well the maximum limit would automatically be 15, I just wouldn't impose a minimum.

[migya]

Don't know if it's been done but a Rookies only draft, where only players in their rookie season can be picked.

[Fadeaway_J]

Don't know if it's been done but a Rookies only draft, where only players in their rookie season can be picked.

That was done a few months ago I think.

[migya]

Don't know if it's been done but a Rookies only draft, where only players in their rookie season can be picked.

That was done a few months ago I think.

Maybe an allstars only draft. 1980s onwards.

[Laimbeer]

Don't know if it's been done but a Rookies only draft, where only players in their rookie season can be picked.

That was done a few months ago I think.

Yep, rookie plus one soph.

[Laimbeer]

Someone mentioned a teammates game, but you wouldn't select two at once. You would just have to end up with four pairs of teammates in a season they played together. That could get interesting.

[Fadeaway_J]

What about a draft where you can only use a player's fifth, tenth, fifteenth, or twentieth year? So if you take Duncan for example, you can only use 2002, 2007, or 2012.

[Laimbeer]

What about a draft where you can only use a player's fifth, tenth, fifteenth, or twentieth year? So if you take Duncan for example, you can only use 2002, 2007, or 2012.

How about a twist - must pick two from each group. Maybe rookie, 5, 10, 15. Have a couple of pools that are more limited.