BuzzerBeater Forums

I guess there won't be many tall PGs or short Cs in the pool, so go figure... Add age, potential, the first rating...

Well, my limited experience is that randomness heavily influences the creation of draftees... I had several short PFs and several 'tall' PGs...

However, I want to express once again my point of view: the current draft system is so bad that it can hardly be worsened by any change. Even completely removing it and giving three random players to every user without user involvement would be better.

In fact sometimes when you are training SFs you might actually like to draft a short PF/C or a tall SG/PG depending on what aspect you are training.

Yeah but thats IF you are training SFs. Most people don't train them so its a pain to find out you just drafted a short C or a tall PG...and to have wasted your money on scouting on these guys which you aren't going to keep to train anyway.

Absolutely, that's why i stated I wouldn't want a tall player if I was training guards the following year, as opposed to not wanting players suggested as PFs or Cs

maybe I'm missing something, but if height is given after players attend a private training session (ie. after being scouted the second time), what difference does it make if two teams can determine they are looking at the same player?

And aren't box scores a much bigger tell than adding very general height categories?

Box scores won't allow you to compare players as each manager gets different box scores for the same player.

I would argue for removing positions and only displaying height (short, medium, tall) if push came to shove. It could even be projected postion at the next level (Guard, Forward, Center) based on height mostly and skill only secondary. This would further add to the ambiguity of the draft, but make the information available much more valuable.

Consider the following example:

A)
Height: 7'0
Potential: All Star
Salary: 5k
BB Postition: SG

B)
Height: 5'11
Potential: MVP
Salary: 4k
BB Position: C

C)
Height: 6'6
Potential: Starter
Salary: 6k
BB Position: PF

How they would appear:

Current:

A)
Position: SG
Potential: 3*
Ability: 5*

B)
Position: C
Potential: 5*
Ability: 3*

C)
Position: PF
Potential: 2*
Ability: 5*

Proposed:

A)
Proj. Position: Forward
Potential: 4* (Would train Forward skills very quickly, making him a better candidate)
Ability: 3* (He would probably be a mediocre day 1 Forward)

B)
Proj. Position: Guard
Potential: 5* (MVP potential + 5'11 Guard projection)
Ability: 2* (5'11, but BB-Center indicates very poor guard skills)

C)
Proj. Position: Forward
Potential: 2* (starter potential and no bonus for height)
Ability: 5* (Proj. Position and BB Position match well)

Conclusions

When drafting players, height is just as important as potential and ability if not much moreso in certain circumstances. Leaving it out of the provided information makes the draft much more of a crapshoot.

I support this proposal (just like I supported different past draft improvement proposals...).

I think this would confuse more people. I would rather get MVP potential small guy with good forward skills, than Star potential tall guy with good forward skills. With your suggestion they would have the same suggested potential.

My ratings we just used to paint a picture, but I can see where you are going. I can half agree with you and half disagree.

For instance this player would now appear as an 18 y/o Center with 5* potential 5* rating.

Salary 4 423

Age: 18
Height: 5'11" / 185 cm
Potential: MVP
Game Shape: respectable
Jump Shot: inept Jump Range: atrocious
Outside Def.: awful Handling: pitiful
Driving: average Passing: inept
Inside Shot: average Inside Def.: respectable
Rebounding: average Shot Blocking: mediocre
Stamina: awful Free Throw: average

Experience: atrocious

I wouldn't rate him as a 5/5* Center if I was coming up with the ratings. I would rate him as a 5* potential 2* skill guard. He could be good with the right training, but he will be pretty terrible starting off.

In addition, a star potential tall forward would appear this way now: 18 y/o PF 3* potential 5* skill. Under my system, he would be a 3* potential 5* skill (same exact ranking). Where the current and proposed systems differ is where that player were a short PF with star potential and good forward skills. He would then be a 3/3* Guard, which I feel would be more accurate.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if the potential and skill stays the same... but do agree with your preference that they just stated the height as opposed to the current suggested position. It can take the form of labelling them as guard, forward, center, or height categories, but it does seem to me that height is more useful than the suggested positions.