BuzzerBeater Forums

Well, to say the truth, many of my best players come from past drafts. If you look at my past seasons you'll see that I always went to the play offs, so in the past I was surely luckier than this.

However, I'm not saying that I won't invest any more money in scouting because of the bad results and a personal disappointment, but because it is overly random and totally unpredictable. A friend of mine had one the first 5 picks and he's disappointed too (he's not writing because his English is not good), and in general scout indications are neither useful nor reasonable.

My scouts focused on (I mean, they scouted twice) a number of one-two ball draftees... and that's one reason for being disappointed with the draft mechanism: I cannot give any form of directive to scouts.

Second, I actually picked one of my top 4 choices, a 5 ball player... too bad it was an insanely tall PG, that would be a good SF in 2-3 years should he have a good potential... too bad he's a sixth-man... So indications are almost useless.

My opinion is that the draft mechanism got gradually worse since the introduction of potential... and right now I think it's a huge waste of time and computational resources.

(edit: typos)

Last edited by giona at 6/2/2009 1:16:35 PM

So it was your own fault is what you are saying.

Well, I think that we have three kind of messages here:
- some people are disappointed by draft results;
- some people are disappointed by draft mechanisms;
- some people are trying to write a sort of 'BB draft for dummies'.

Thanks to everyone for advices on strategies for a successful draft (one of which is simply 'ignore the draft with a record like yours'), but what I was suggesting is that the draft could be much more fun and interesting, maybe not only for teams with bad records.

(edit: typos)

Last edited by giona at 6/3/2009 4:10:57 AM

They are probably satisfied with it... personally, I'm not. I won't ever spend any more money in scouting until something is changed in the current draft system.


If the others in your league are scouting, it's probably a mistake to invest heavily in the draft if you expect a 17-5 record like you had last season. Most late first-round NBA picks aren't superstars either, although occasionally somebody does slip.

On the other hand, if you expect to have a lousy season, then a heavy investment in scouting is more likely to pay off.

I'm curious how many people with bad records are still unhappy with what they got; I suspect it's a lot fewer. Then again, teams with bad records seem to be less likely to post in the forums here...

you have atlist one who write here an highly unhappy with the results i have invested 40k for 14 weeks i got 23 full information players i finished 10-12 and 5th in my house and had 7th peek in the draft

the player i choose for no' 1 had a great game A+ renk and 4 stars potential you are more then wellcome to tell me what can i do with a SF with 1 OD he might be a good PF if any one will be thinking abut him this way but he have 2 IS

i wasted 560k on the draft this season got myself a 7 peek witch is a good peek when the rest of your league invest 13k on average a week on scouts to have atlist one dissent player the last 2 drafts i did not complain but is as i was peeking 18 and 16 but this season with 40k a week investment and a good peek i got the worst draft ever

i can tell you one thing though if the draft system sty this way i will not invests another $ in it

I'm quite happy with the draft system so far.

Last season I invested 40k per week, I got myself 1 trainee with mediocre potential. On the other hand, this season I hit the jackpot while ending 5th in the division and spending 20k per week. I got 1 supertalent and a decent trainee for myself.

Sure there is some luck involved, but it adds tension and fun. And if you do not want it, dont invest. Simple as that

They are probably satisfied with it... personally, I'm not. I won't ever spend any more money in scouting until something is changed in the current draft system.

If the others in your league are scouting, it's probably a mistake to invest heavily in the draft if you expect a 17-5 record like you had last season. Most late first-round NBA picks aren't superstars either, although occasionally somebody does slip.

On the other hand, if you expect to have a lousy season, then a heavy investment in scouting is more likely to pay off.

I'm curious how many people with bad records are still unhappy with what they got; I suspect it's a lot fewer. Then again, teams with bad records seem to be less likely to post in the forums here...

Excuse me, and I mean no offense whatsoever, but this is just nonsense (made worse by the comparison to a real-life NBA scenario which is totally useless since a)in every country in the world except for the US there is no draft at all, b)in real like players aren't a collection of numbers who improve in a predetermined way according to a mathematical formula, and c)you'll be the first to agree that there is quite a difference in the scouting process that takes place in real life compared to the one that we have here).

I don't know how many posts in this thread you've read, but (at least in my case) I made it perfectly clear that I had no problems with the results of the draft, nor did I expect an improvement in the level of the draftees.

My issue is with how the draft is implemented. It, along with the "scouting" system, has one major problem: it's boring as hell. You don't actually DO ANYTHING. That may be why lots of people just ignore it completely and invest the money saved on a new trainee.

Lastly, you make it sound like it's easy to predict whether a team will have a good season or a terrible one. Well, in most competitive leagues, that is usually not the case, since the difference from being 3rd or 4th out of 16 and being 10th or 11th is just a couple of games. So that "strategic" part of the scouting system really doesn't work at all.

They are probably satisfied with it... personally, I'm not. I won't ever spend any more money in scouting until something is changed in the current draft system.

If the others in your league are scouting, it's probably a mistake to invest heavily in the draft if you expect a 17-5 record like you had last season. Most late first-round NBA picks aren't superstars either, although occasionally somebody does slip.

On the other hand, if you expect to have a lousy season, then a heavy investment in scouting is more likely to pay off.

I'm curious how many people with bad records are still unhappy with what they got; I suspect it's a lot fewer. Then again, teams with bad records seem to be less likely to post in the forums here...

I can say nothing else than "what a good draft". A long, long season ran at conference bottom, 10K (then 5K in last couple of weeks) of investments, a very good player, one more than decent, a third bad. And a good draft last two years too - some good luck anyway.

However, in a "managerial" game, I feel frustrated when I cannot have any control on events. Observers work in a funny way, no control on their results over time, no influence on their job. And draft sequence too is unsatisfactory: I had field disadvantage in playout phase, but drafted later than my opponents!

My two cents to contribute to this discussion:
- draft order: keep the same, but give field advantage related to actual record, not position in the conference (easy to do)
- observers: transfer control (partly automated or fully manual) to human manager. For instance: don't waste second observation if evaluation is 2 balls.
- transparency: during RS (let's say 3 times) give evidence of observations to manager, allowing them to decide whether they are satisfied or not

Of course, late picks are not likely to be good, but that would (easily) transfer control to managers. Today, I can be happy for my picks, but just one (my "legendary" Center) is the result of something well planned (and, even, not much controlled, as the double 5 balls went out by hazard).

It's a managerial game, let me manage it!

- draft order: keep the same, but give field advantage related to actual record, not position in the conference (easy to do)

It's already done this way.

- draft order: keep the same, but give field advantage related to actual record, not position in the conference (easy to do)

It's already done this way.

No. I had field disadvantage, and drafted after Air Avellinooo