BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

If you get a an 18 year old MVP Center who is 6'0" with atrocious JS and OD would you really try to train him as a guard?

With atrocious not, but with inept-mediocre it should be quite good choice, not all Centers has atroucious outside skills.

A lot more factors are at play. If you had your sight on training big men and you have big men existing trainees, it is certainly not worth switching your whole training regime to train guards just because you drafted a 6'0 C even if he has inept/mdeiocre JS to begin with.

That was my situation this season I had guard trainees then drafted an amazing big man, what was I to do? Change my whole team or sell that once in a lifetime player? I sold they guy.