Future Draft Games

[migya]

How about a Steal Draft 2, we had a number 1 a couple of years ago?

Each participant can "Steal" one player from any other participant ONCE and noone can get a player "Stolen" from them more than ONCE. No "Stealing" can happen in the last round, so everyone has to make their "Steal" by the 7th round.


?

[Laimbeer]

Looked at my team's stats sheet. And remembered Dr Positivity's proposal about 55 rpg draft because my team's rpg total in r. season is 70.7 and rpg total in postseason is 77.7.
LOL.

You do have Moses and Russell starting - and Ray on the bench.

If you factor up the 40 assists to rebounds based on league averages in 2018-19, you get 73.5.

I'd agree 55 is too low. It uses pretty typical numbers except maybe the bench.

In the assists final I had 44 and you had 44.9. While stacking the bench with rebounds instead of assists would change that, I wouldn’t go higher than 60 or so.

I'd guess the 44 and 44.9 are a bit lower than average. We were favoring the opposite type of player. And I'd think it will be easier to come up with relatively low fga players to pad the rebounding totals on the bench.

[Dr Positivity]

Ballhogs draft - having less than say, 18 assists total.

[ardee]

Do we have a solution for when BBRef takes off the Play Index?

Honestly given how many regulars we have I think sharing an account would be the easiest way to do it. 24 people makes it $4 for a whole year.

Sent from my SM-A505F using RealGM mobile app

[Texas Chuck]

You do realize you can play this without using the play index? I've never used it.

[ardee]

The rebound draft for example is close to impossible.

[Fadeaway_J]

The rebound draft for example is close to impossible.

Yeah for those kinds of very specific restrictions it's going to be pain without the Play Index. Not so much for something like CSF's current game.

[migya]

How about a Steal Draft 2, we had a number 1 a couple of years ago?

Each participant can "Steal" one player from any other participant ONCE and noone can get a player "Stolen" from them more than ONCE. No "Stealing" can happen in the last round, so everyone has to make their "Steal" by the 7th round.


?

This is a good idea to play again.

??

[Odinn21]

The rebound draft for example is close to impossible.

I shared the dataset a while ago in this very thread.

It's not as easy to hover around surely, but I've been using it and it's OK.

---

BTW, another draft idea; duos draft.
In the first round, each participant will draft a duo with one the following restrictions;
One MVP or one All-NBA 1st
or
32 or 35 fga budget for that duo

ABBBABA draft order

How does that sound?

[Dr Positivity]

Efficiency draft - all players must be above .60 TS%

[Odinn21]

Efficiency draft - all players must be above .60 TS%

I think it could be done with ppg instead of TS%.

88 FGA budget is already used. FTA to FGA ratio is usually around 30-31%. Something like 120 or 125 ppg would do just fine IMO. (125 pts on 88 fga and 27 fta; .626 ts / 120 ppg - .601 ts)
That would also give some room to breath for someone picked extremely efficient scorer, like Curry in 2015-16.

[Fadeaway_J]

What about a 90s to now game where all your players have to be picked in the same season?

You'd have different pockets of drafters battling for MJ/Hakeem/Chuck vs Duncan/Shaq/Kobe vs Steph/LeBron/KD. Could be some different seasons from usual being selected for certain guys.

[BarbaGrizz]

What about a game where the only valid season will be the rookie season of the player? I predict Tyreke, Jennings and Michael Carter Williams being picked really high

[wackbone]

Just a heads up that '05 Mutombo is actually 2.7 FGA, not 3.0, so I don't think he'd be eligible

I assumed it meant a minimum of 3 FGA’s used per player

No it means you can't pick any season below 3.0 FGAs.

I will allow you to change it based on the precedent I set with Laimbeer. Sucks for anyone who was planning to pick Deke though.

I know that's the rule, but I think we could consider changing it to DN's interpretation for future games. If a player had less than 3 FGA in a chosen season, and you select them, their FGA gets adjusted to 3. Why not? All we are doing now is eliminating some players. If someone averaged 2.7 FGA, you should be able to pick them, just at 0.3 more FGA. Does that make sense? Definitely something to consider in future games.

[Laimbeer]

I assumed it meant a minimum of 3 FGA’s used per player

No it means you can't pick any season below 3.0 FGAs.

I will allow you to change it based on the precedent I set with Laimbeer. Sucks for anyone who was planning to pick Deke though.

I know that's the rule, but I think we could consider changing it to DN's interpretation for future games. If a player had less than 3 FGA in a chosen season, and you select them, their FGA gets adjusted to 3. Why not? All we are doing now is eliminating some players. If someone averaged 2.7 FGA, you should be able to pick them, just at 0.3 more FGA. Does that make sense? Definitely something to consider in future games.

A simple change we should make if we are going to keep the 3/88 limits, imo.

[Snakebites]

No it means you can't pick any season below 3.0 FGAs.

I will allow you to change it based on the precedent I set with Laimbeer. Sucks for anyone who was planning to pick Deke though.

I know that's the rule, but I think we could consider changing it to DN's interpretation for future games. If a player had less than 3 FGA in a chosen season, and you select them, their FGA gets adjusted to 3. Why not? All we are doing now is eliminating some players. If someone averaged 2.7 FGA, you should be able to pick them, just at 0.3 more FGA. Does that make sense? Definitely something to consider in future games.

A simple change we should make if we are going to keep the 3/88 limits, imo.

I prefer the actual interpretation. I like that you actually have to choose a 3.0 FGA guy is you want to maximize your FGA for other spots. You shouldn’t just be able to do that with anyone who played enough games.

[Laimbeer]

A couple of ideas -

Did we ever do the suggestion (not mine) of people having the option to pass on early rounds but get an fga bonus if they do? Something like a 10 round draft to get 8 players, but you pay a 10 fga penalty for picking someone in the first, maybe 5 fga peralty for the second?

Or have ever done a depth draft - maybe all of your players must be between 7 and 15 fga's?

[Dr Positivity]

Efficiency draft - all players must be above .60 TS%

I think it could be done with ppg instead of TS%.

88 FGA budget is already used. FTA to FGA ratio is usually around 30-31%. Something like 120 or 125 ppg would do just fine IMO. (125 pts on 88 fga and 27 fta; .626 ts / 120 ppg - .601 ts)
That would also give some room to breath for someone picked extremely efficient scorer, like Curry in 2015-16.

I think most players TS% are close enough together that it's hard to do a points/FGA draft. So I went with .60 TS% minimum.

[Odinn21]

Efficiency draft - all players must be above .60 TS%

I think it could be done with ppg instead of TS%.

88 FGA budget is already used. FTA to FGA ratio is usually around 30-31%. Something like 120 or 125 ppg would do just fine IMO. (125 pts on 88 fga and 27 fta; .626 ts / 120 ppg - .601 ts)
That would also give some room to breath for someone picked extremely efficient scorer, like Curry in 2015-16.

I think most players TS% are close enough together that it's hard to do a points/FGA draft. So I went with .60 TS% minimum.

I don't think you realize that most of the teams drafted in here stay in 55-58 TS% range. Your assumption about most players being close enough together is wrong.

I had statsheets of every team in the drafts I joined here, only 10% of the teams had a higher TS% than 59.

Also, this doesn't take into account the player pool. Remember 65 rpg draft? 65 rpg was the equivalent of 40 apg considering the distributions. But many failed to recognize that.
viewtopic.php?p=83321196#p83321196

There's only 108 different players which had a season with 15+ ppg and .600+ ts.

[Dr Positivity]

I think it could be done with ppg instead of TS%.

88 FGA budget is already used. FTA to FGA ratio is usually around 30-31%. Something like 120 or 125 ppg would do just fine IMO. (125 pts on 88 fga and 27 fta; .626 ts / 120 ppg - .601 ts)
That would also give some room to breath for someone picked extremely efficient scorer, like Curry in 2015-16.

I think most players TS% are close enough together that it's hard to do a points/FGA draft. So I went with .60 TS% minimum.

I don't think you realize that most of the teams drafted in here stay in 55-58 TS% range. Your assumption about most players being close enough together is wrong.

I had statsheets of every team in the drafts I joined here, only 10% of the teams had a higher TS% than 59.

Also, this doesn't take into account the player pool. Remember 65 rpg draft? 65 rpg was the equivalent of 40 apg considering the distributions. But many failed to recognize that.
viewtopic.php?p=83321196#p83321196

There's only 108 different players which had a season with 15+ ppg and .600+ ts.

Well for one thing the draft would be Pts per FGA not TS%.

To put things in perspective compare Dirk to Kobe who is a player ineligible in the everyone above .60 TS% draft

Dirk 2011 23.0 pts 16.2 FGA (1.42 pts/FGA)
Kobe 2008 28.3 pts 20.6 FGA (1.37 pts/FGA)

So let's say the minimum was 1.40 pts/FGA, which would be 123 pts per 88 FGA. If you draft a standard efficient backup center like Ed Davis (5.8 pts, 3.7 FGA) him and Kobe combined at 34.1 pts and 24.3 FGA, which is 1.40 pts/FGA. It doesn't seem that hard to overcome the difference between decent efficient players like Kobe and highly efficient players like Dirk. Even someone like Big Ben he has low FGAs anyways so it's not a deal breaker. 2017 Durant and 03 Ben combine for 1.42 pts/shot. I think eliminating <.60 TS% players altogether affects the draft more unless you made it a 130pts draft or something which would be brutal in my opinion.