Future Draft Games

[Laimbeer]

Or we could do the 40 assists minimum. Adds more value to the players with 10+ apg. I’d be down to do any time frame.

I'd agree with you and Dr p this is more manageable and provides a bit more of a challenge than 25 for the starters. It's your idea - you want to kick it off?

I'll finalize it tomorrow and get the signup thread going.

I think it's a good balance and challenge. I'm sure a lot of people will try to cover the extra 15 by simply drafting high assist players for the bench, but obviously they're going to cost more and not be the same contributors. I'll be interested to see how high a pick might be spent on an effective bench guy with a great APG/FGA ratio and also how many people go smaller.

[Odinn21]

I'd agree with you and Dr p this is more manageable and provides a bit more of a challenge than 25 for the starters. It's your idea - you want to kick it off?

I'll finalize it tomorrow and get the signup thread going.

I think it's a good balance and challenge. I'm sure a lot of people will try to cover the extra 15 by simply drafting high assist players for the bench, but obviously they're going to cost more and not be the same contributors. I'll be interested to see how high a pick might be spent on an effective bench guy with a great APG/FGA ratio and also how many people go smaller.

Yeah, 40 apg for 8 players is better.
Also looked at players with 8 apg and apg to fga ratio higher than 0.7, found 25 names that can get picked but only 5 or 6 of 'em can be center piece. Those will be some weird a teams.

[Dr Positivity]

Uh oh https://www.sports-reference.com/blog/2020/05/play-index-tools-are-moving-to-stathead-com/

[wackbone]

Uh oh https://www.sports-reference.com/blog/2020/05/play-index-tools-are-moving-to-stathead-com/

Well ****. I’m certainly not paying $8 per month. Gonna make these games that much harder. Going to just have to search for players one at a time.

[Fadeaway_J]

Uh oh https://www.sports-reference.com/blog/2020/05/play-index-tools-are-moving-to-stathead-com/

Well ****. I’m certainly not paying $8 per month. Gonna make these games that much harder. Going to just have to search for players one at a time.

Yeah, it's going to be a pain for games with more specific criteria.

[Dr Positivity]

NBA.com search function could help sometimes, even if bball reference remains the bible

[Laimbeer]

Uh oh https://www.sports-reference.com/blog/2020/05/play-index-tools-are-moving-to-stathead-com/

Well ****. I’m certainly not paying $8 per month. Gonna make these games that much harder. Going to just have to search for players one at a time.

Yeah, it's going to be a pain for games with more specific criteria.

Eight bucks is pretty ridiculous. Ironically, if we don't pay it and just start clicking around that will probably increase their ad revenue.

My very back of the napkin estimates say there would be 130 pages (at 100 lines per page) to capture all player seasons at 41 games or more (post merger). Or going back to 1960 wouldn't increase that much. Would it be that big a lift to just paste them all into an excel file? Not the same, but it would help searching.

http://bkref.com/tiny/ZH2Ca

Or, thoughts on sharing a password?

[wackbone]

Well ****. I’m certainly not paying $8 per month. Gonna make these games that much harder. Going to just have to search for players one at a time.

Yeah, it's going to be a pain for games with more specific criteria.

Eight bucks is pretty ridiculous. Ironically, if we don't pay it and just start clicking around that will probably increase their ad revenue.

My very back of the napkin estimates say there would be 130 pages (at 100 lines per page) to capture all player seasons at 41 games or more (post merger). Or going back to 1960 wouldn't increase that much. Would it be that big a lift to just paste them all into an excel file? Not the same, but it would help searching.

http://bkref.com/tiny/ZH2Ca

Or, thoughts on sharing a password?

Sharing a password sounds good, but how would we fairly track who is paying? Unless someone WANTS to pay the $8 per month on their own and share it with the group. Otherwise I don’t think it would work logistically.

Putting everything into an excel file would be a very long process, no? If someone wants to do it, then by all means.

[Texas Chuck]

. Going to just have to search for players one at a time.

Looks left. Looks right. Realizes he's the only old guy doing exactly that.

On the plus side I'm pretty familiar with tons of players and just have to go spot check specifics plus it keeps me from picking players just because they fit a FGA slot and not because I think they make sense.

[Dr Positivity]

Yeah, it's going to be a pain for games with more specific criteria.

Eight bucks is pretty ridiculous. Ironically, if we don't pay it and just start clicking around that will probably increase their ad revenue.

My very back of the napkin estimates say there would be 130 pages (at 100 lines per page) to capture all player seasons at 41 games or more (post merger). Or going back to 1960 wouldn't increase that much. Would it be that big a lift to just paste them all into an excel file? Not the same, but it would help searching.

http://bkref.com/tiny/ZH2Ca

Or, thoughts on sharing a password?

Sharing a password sounds good, but how would we fairly track who is paying? Unless someone WANTS to pay the $8 per month on their own and share it with the group. Otherwise I don’t think it would work logistically.

Putting everything into an excel file would be a very long process, no? If someone wants to do it, then by all means.

With "copy table as CSV" form you can copy a whole page into excel in a matter of seconds, it's not like you have to go through the stats one by one. Still annoying to do that 130 times but likely less work overall than Tony did when he made the games spreadsheet.

[Laimbeer]

Eight bucks is pretty ridiculous. Ironically, if we don't pay it and just start clicking around that will probably increase their ad revenue.

My very back of the napkin estimates say there would be 130 pages (at 100 lines per page) to capture all player seasons at 41 games or more (post merger). Or going back to 1960 wouldn't increase that much. Would it be that big a lift to just paste them all into an excel file? Not the same, but it would help searching.

http://bkref.com/tiny/ZH2Ca

Or, thoughts on sharing a password?

Sharing a password sounds good, but how would we fairly track who is paying? Unless someone WANTS to pay the $8 per month on their own and share it with the group. Otherwise I don’t think it would work logistically.

Putting everything into an excel file would be a very long process, no? If someone wants to do it, then by all means.

With "copy table as CSV" form you can copy a whole page into excel in a matter of seconds, it's not like you have to go through the stats one by one. Still annoying to do that 130 times but likely less work overall than Tony did when he made the games spreadsheet.

Or click on "get as excel workbook (experimental)" and excel will open on your computer and open that page as an excel file. Then it's a matter of somehow saving / combining them all. Not techy enough to know if the CSV route is better or not.

[Odinn21]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Hk2YBxwiXS0-ZFaJl7XvyraTWyVtcbOh/view?usp=sharing
Can you guys try to download this? I extracted the data.

Code: Select all

For single seasons; in the regular season; from 1959-60 to 2019-20; requiring Games >= 41 and Win Shares >= -10 and Player Efficiency Rating >= -10 and Box Plus/Minus >= -10; sorted by ascending Player

[Texas Chuck]

Some more possibly too wild ideas(or ones you guys have already done for all I know):

The plan ahead draft where each pick has to use less FGA than your previous pick. Or maybe more wild, the opposite--start with the lowest FGA guy and go up. You'd have to pick role players that could work with a variety of stars.

A draft starting with the 79/80 season where you have to take 2 guys from the 80's, 2 from the 90's, 2 from the 00's, and 2 from the 10's.

A draft with the same 88 FGA limit but you have to draft 9 players instead of 8.

[Laimbeer]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Hk2YBxwiXS0-ZFaJl7XvyraTWyVtcbOh/view?usp=sharing
Can you guys try to download this? I extracted the data.

Code: Select all

For single seasons; in the regular season; from 1959-60 to 2019-20; requiring Games >= 41 and Win Shares >= -10 and Player Efficiency Rating >= -10 and Box Plus/Minus >= -10; sorted by ascending Player

This is great, thanks. I can open it in google sheets but I think you'd need to work with it in excel for the best results. Time to get a Microsoft account...

[Laimbeer]

Some more possibly too wild ideas(or ones you guys have already done for all I know):

The plan ahead draft where each pick has to use less FGA than your previous pick. Or maybe more wild, the opposite--start with the lowest FGA guy and go up. You'd have to pick role players that could work with a variety of stars.

A draft starting with the 79/80 season where you have to take 2 guys from the 80's, 2 from the 90's, 2 from the 00's, and 2 from the 10's.

A draft with the same 88 FGA limit but you have to draft 9 players instead of 8.

We have, but my favorite of those is lowest FGA and up. A draft where interest builds instead of waning.

[Odinn21]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Hk2YBxwiXS0-ZFaJl7XvyraTWyVtcbOh/view?usp=sharing
Can you guys try to download this? I extracted the data.

Code: Select all

For single seasons; in the regular season; from 1959-60 to 2019-20; requiring Games >= 41 and Win Shares >= -10 and Player Efficiency Rating >= -10 and Box Plus/Minus >= -10; sorted by ascending Player

This is great, thanks. I can open it in google sheets but I think you'd need to work with it in excel for the best results. Time to get a Microsoft account...

You can copy/paste it to Google Sheets. I'm just way more comfortable with MS Excel, didn't think of Google Sheets.

I tried it, and it takes a while to paste. If the browser asks about waiting, just wait. You can use conditional filters to make it work for our purposes.

MS Excel works way faster though.

[Laimbeer]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Hk2YBxwiXS0-ZFaJl7XvyraTWyVtcbOh/view?usp=sharing
Can you guys try to download this? I extracted the data.

Code: Select all

For single seasons; in the regular season; from 1959-60 to 2019-20; requiring Games >= 41 and Win Shares >= -10 and Player Efficiency Rating >= -10 and Box Plus/Minus >= -10; sorted by ascending Player

This is great, thanks. I can open it in google sheets but I think you'd need to work with it in excel for the best results. Time to get a Microsoft account...

You can copy/paste it to Google Sheets. I'm just way more comfortable with MS Excel, didn't think of Google Sheets.

I tried it, and it takes a while to paste. If the browser asks about waiting, just wait. You can use conditional filters to make it work for our purposes.

MS Excel works way faster though.

I don't think there's a way to easily filter a range of values easily in Google sheets, either.

[Hawk Eye]

A draft where you have three options when you are on the clock. You only get to choose one option each time you are on the clock.

Option 1: draft a player.
Option 2: increase your FGA budget
Option 3: decrease the number of FGA’s of one of your players.

If you go with option 2 or 3 you will have to wait until you are back on the clock to make your next pick.

[Hawk Eye]

Last one..

A draft that groups eras together like so:

60’s/70’s (seasons would be 1959-60’ through 1969-79’)
80’s/90’s (seasons would be 1979-80’ through 1989-99’)
00’s/10’s (seasons would be 1999-00’ through 2018-19’)

Your entire team has to be from one of these three groups. You get one exception (e.g. 1 player from any time period)

[Texas Chuck]

Last one..

A draft that groups eras together like so:

60’s/70’s (seasons would be 1959-60’ through 1969-79’)
80’s/90’s (seasons would be 1979-80’ through 1989-99’)
00’s/10’s (seasons would be 1999-00’ through 2018-19’)

Your entire team has to be from one of these three groups. You get one exception (e.g. 1 player from any time period)

Those games would have to use FGA/100 because of the significant difference in pace. You'd also have to retrain everyone away from a modern bias which I think would prove impossible. Otherwise literally everyone would draft the modern era to get the required shooters.