SSBA

Looks like an ok draft, wow Ralph Sampson!!!

Magic Johnson + 7 first rn picks for Raplh Sampson.

Deal.

Post it.

I can add some  more.

when I saw his stats I knew he would be good, but then I put them in and hit generate and he is like Yao already

That's overkill on Sampson and is taking the league in the wrong direction IMO.

Damn....Sampson is going to be a MVP candidate as a rook....hopefully i will have a lotto pick to have a shot at him

Other than Sampson the draft seems pretty fair

I didn't do it, I just input the stats and hit generate, I was going to edit it, but all the other players looked like fair ratings

Yeah I would much rather have seen him with higher potential and much lower ratings...A-/A/A- should be the peak of a players career ie Yao....not a rook's ratings.

Although in reality Ralph's best NBA season was his rookie year, and after the 2nd season regressed signifcantly...if that happens in SSBA he really won't have an impact at all unless by the off chance he gets drafted by an already very good team or gets traded.

And Clyde Drexler is a B-, C- scorer.... :screwy:

Why the fuck don't i have the first pick now?!?!?

I'm doomed.

Cursed.

Wichcrafted.

I thought that too, I thought Clyde should be better and Ralph worse, Clyde is lucky that they don't have a footwork rating, I saw dancing with the stars and yikes

like Derek has said all along, don't go by the names, just go by the ratings

Um...you've had what, 2 of the last 3 #1 picks? At this point you should be leading the league, not even talking about first overall picks.

That's the problem. Both of them are playin the same position. There was no such quaility big men when i had the picks. And you can't win without them.

I'd agree if he had an A potential.  But players with a D potential can fizzle out fairly quickly.

Does anybody remember Oscar Ferry?  He had an A- C- offensive rating, with an A- defense.  He was 18 years old, and put up 25/10 his rookie year, along with 1.6 blocks, 1.3 steals, 2 assists.

Think about that.  25/10 with 1.6 blocks, 1.3 steals, 2 assists.  He did that on 47% from the field, 77% from the line.  That's an amazing rookie.  He didn't ruin the league.  Why?

He entered the league with D potential.  His 5th year in the league he was a 17/7 player.  3 years later he was an 8/3 player off the bench.  He was only 27 at the time.

Sampson with an A potential would be terrible.  Sampson with D potential is fine and dandy.  Keep in mind, he put up 21/10 with 2.4 blocks and 2 assists his rookie year. 

It'll be a tough element for someone drafting that high.  Certainly he's a slam-dunk #1 pick.  But is he truly going to help a team that's that bad?  If he only has 6-7 years of top-flight play in him, is that good enough for a team that's many pieces away?

So draft for need then

Never mind Sampson. In the 15 or so FBB drafts that I've been apart of, I have NEVER seen a player with an A+ rating at draft time, and maybe only two A's - which of course Ennis Whatley has.

Sampson looks fantastic, but is also bone-rail thin. Risk #2. No doubt he's a slam dunk for #1....but he's not exactly perfect. He'll get eaten alive by big bigs.

time to buy some Celtics voo doo dolls

or TRADE one of those two PGs for another position.
I keep telling you for 2 seasons now, but you don't listen ...


(of course, knowing you I assume you would want Bird + McHale + 3 first rounders for either Magic ot Timmy, and that's where any possible trading ends)

close, it was Buck and McHale for Magic ;)

I could add. :P

Yeah i agree. God forbid we get some talent around here. Quick, make him a C-, C+, B- and F handles or else this league is doomed.

Close...

There is plenty of talent.  You just want a league consisting of only superstars.  Soon we will have tons of bench players with 2 or more A- ratings.

Can't wait to see the next draft...Olajuwon should be straight As with high potential.  Not to mention Barkley, Jordan, Stockton, etc.   

Um...what about them? It's not like DrJ, Mchale, Bird and company are tearin up the league.

Another draft with a mass amount of ready to play PG's...?!

Which is the one position SSBA is already loaded with.

Seriously, I have had ONE person contact me with real interest in Barton, and he's been on the block since after the first sim.

This happens in every FBB generated draft class in any league I have seen.

Barton was on the block for his last 3 seasons in Houston... Why shell out for an all-star when you can get a solid guy on the MLE?

btw I'm interested in Barton... :)

hey, not everybody has what you ask for. doesn't mean we're not interested ...

i ask for equal value. true, some don't have that. but plenty of teams do.

I have nothing against a draft class with many PG, because thats how it also works on the real NBA. THis way, we keep the league stay realistic and challenging with our endless pursuit of bigman like Scott Dickman and Edgar Barner. :)

Not in this year's draft.

It may not be on this year's draft, but in the previous drafts it was loaded with talented PGs. Heck, I don't think that there is a team in the league with a bad starting PG. Everyone already got 1-3 good PGs on their team in the NBA. The teams that I can name who have bad PG are only the Lakers and the Bucks (not sure with this).

What I like about this league is the amount of talent level/big men we try to produce every year to keep this league in this realistic form. It makes it challenging for everyone. We keep ourselves busy checking the potentials or trading for the right guys who can/will help our team.

Bucks have Mo williams....he's pretty good...  Lakers....smush is ok...he has defense..shooting and can finish...i think teams with bad PG's are Hawks who has speedy claxton and tyron lue , IMO joe johnson cant play PG...and grizzlies...chucky atkins? D. stoudamire?

Mo Williams and Smush doesn't play like PGs. Smush and the words "good PG" shouldn't be even allowed in a sentence. Yeah, I missed out the Hawks and the Grizzlies. But still, Atlanta got Joe Johnson as their PG who was playing all-star caliber performance prior to his injury. And for the Grizzlies, Damon Stoudamire is an above average PG.

Same with SSBA, there is also a few teams who lacked a "good" PG. LIke the Bucks, Hornets, Knicks, Celts, and maybe the clipps.

Death to the talent!

I disagree that Mo doesnt play like a PG. He can really dish out the assists, get into the lane and find his teammates where they shoot from best.

These retro drafts have left a lot to be desired. I thought the point of them was to reinfuse the league with talent... What we've gotten instead is one good player per draft and the rest are pretty much crap. This becomes obvious when you see that the teams that are dominating are the teams player original guys who are in the 30-35 range.
I guess eventually things will equalize once all the original players are gone.

How dare you?

Be thankful - your 2 #1's turned out to be the top players in the draft.

Eh, it would've been a real travesty had Magic not became a player like this. Yeah, Isiah is good but unfortunately i had to trade him for....Larry Bird. Who's having impressive 18ppg! :|

My #1 is putting up 18 ppg, but he'd be putting up about 13 on a higher scoring team.
The number 1 this year has great ratings, but he's completely crippled by a D potential. It's really stupid, imo. Who else is left? I'd take the fictional LaFrentz before any other player left.

It's a disgrace to a game of basketball. That's all i have to say.

actually it wasn't.  The computer generated names could have been improved if it was to reinfuse the league with talent.  It was to create interest and nostalgia, nothing more.

I also disagree (quite strongly) that "the rest are crap".  Frankly, these drafts have been the deepest the league has had not counting the first draft.  There are currently 11 rookies averaging 10+ ppg.  All of them have a B- or better defense, as rookies (3 B-'s, 3 B's, 2 B+'s, 3 A-'s).  That's pretty incredible.  You've got Taylor Bradley drafted 21st putting up major points.  Don Collins drafted 23rd.  Andrew Toney at 8 is a stud. As is Mike Evans at 13.   Calvin Natt was a high pick at 6, but 20/11 while still on his rookie contract is good production from a 6th pick.  Phil Hubbard was drafted 18th and is putting up 20/11.5. Mike Mitchell was the 12th pick.  Michael Brooks at 7 was good value.  He's putting up 17/6/3 as a 20 year old.  Michael Robinson at 7 has continued to produce.  As has Mark Aquirre at 9.  Nikolas Semjonova was drafted 20th, and is putting up nearly 17 ppg in his 2nd season.  Orlando woolridge is at 15/6/4 in his 2nd season.  Kyle Macy at 13th.

There are a lot of examples I could get, but these were the same complaints made when the guys who are now 30-35 and leading those winning teams came into the league.  There's plenty of talent going outside of the top 5.


Why?  has there never been a guy who was a stud early in his career, but then flamed out?  Does that never happen in basketball?  I thought the goal was to emulate real life.  Not all decisions are slam dunks, easy, no consequence decisions (in fact, virtually none are).  If Ralph had those ratings, AND a great potential, that would be stupid IMO

revisionism


also, are the potentials still randomized or not? Or did Sampson get the D special treatment?

Hey, it even fits with Sampson's career...
His best year was arguably his rookie year, and by the age of 28 he was coming off the bench...

I disagree that reinfusing talent was not a goal of the retro drafts. I specifically recall discussions about how teams trying to build through the draft weren't able to because the drafts were so bad; these retro drafts were put in to make those teams competitive. There is nothing less interesting than the same teams being able to maintain dominance with the same players year after year. I remember advocating stronger drafts even when I was a top team (competing with all orginal players.)

I don't argue that people fall off in real life, but outside of Sampson there are not really any impact players in this draft (LaFrentz looks ok). Crippling the only clear impact player is not conducive to the goal of maintaining interest in the league and leveling the playing field.

Also, am I mistaken, or were potentials previously randomized? I think it would be unfair to make the decision to give Sampson a D potential when potentials haven't been interefered with in the past.

I'm glad that you're telling me the objectives I had....could you tell me why i'm making other decisions in my life as well?

No, the argument came up once that the original retro draft was too strong, at which point I said I thought we could use a good year or two.  But that's not we switched to the retro draft.

As for the randomized potentials, I have no idea.  I didn't make this draft file.  I also didn't say that Ralph's D potential was deliberate.  Like I said, I didn't make the draft file.  What I did say is that it would be bad for the league if Ralph was an A potential.  You can look back at my original posts in this thread.  I'm just echoing that, nothing else.

This is one draft.  The league isn't going to become uninteresting with one draft.  Are you arguing about the strength and depth of the past drafts?  You can't have that every year.  I'd also be interesting in rehashing the comments of the draft classes that the star players of today came in.  I'll guarantee you (I know, because I took the heat for the draft classes) that the classes were criticized.

Well you can gloss over this if you want; the fact that you mention it now and try to downplay it speaks to something. Frankly I don't have the time or patience to go back and look over the discussions, so I'm not going to try -- take that as you'd like. I am almost positive that the point was brought up that this league was one of "haves and have-nots", where the "haves" had the great original players and players from the first couple of drafts.

Hopefully things will equalize once those players are out of the league.

I'd like to see some spreadsheets to see how the past few drafts have compared to these. I lost most of my info, so I can't speak to that.

In any event, I realize that my vision of things is colored by my position, so you don't really have to take me seriously if you don't want to, because I kind of don't myself. It's really just my frustration with getting two pretty crappy (in my opinion) drafts in a row where I had top picks.

Yup.  We have had those discussions.  They've had nothing to do with the real players, however.  We've been having those discussions since the FBCB generated draft files.  Making the players based on real life players was an addition based on nostalgia.

Once again, I (strongly) disagree with the notion that the last two were crappy.  Like I previously mentioned, this year there's 11 guys scoring 10+ ppg, all of them doing it with decent+ defense, and most of them with potential.  As for this draft, I think a few things need to be taken into consideration:
- It was HawksGM's first time making a draft file.
- Nobody has any idea how it's going to turn out.  Nobody's even started scouting potential yet.

Also, trying to rebuild quickly through the draft is always a quick proposition.  Sure, there are times where it works (Cleveland, San Antonio), but there are also teams that try for years and years, and fail miserably.

Only 2 guys in the top 10 in scoring are under 30 (realistic?). Frankly, I don't find 10 ppg from a rookie all that thrilling. Everyone knows that stars are required in FBB, and the drafts have generated precious few stars (or at least scorers).

I don't want stars out of draft pools... I want potential stars! No-one should be A rated in anything or even A-. Good solid draft should be the way forward

I don't really understand your point. The drafts for the last 5-8 years (with the exception of a scant few players) have produced neither stars nor potential stars. I'm not arguing that guys should come in and immediately score 30ppg, but time has shown that these drafts have not produced scorers --> look at the league leaders! Is this all simply a product of "unrealized potential", or is the more logical explanation that the drafts have been weak? Doesn't the fact that there are only 2 guys under 30 in the top 10 in scoring drain your statement of any meaning?

A few things.
- Your original argument was (outside of the top player in the draft, the draft's aren't deep).  Are we talking about depth now, or top talent?
- I think it might be a little off to look just at scoring.  If you look at rebounding (6 of the top 10 are 30 or under) or assists (7 of the top 10 are 30 or under), there's a different picture.  Star is not necessarily defined by scoring.
- If you look at the top scorers, it takes quite a while for them to progress to that point.  Gatling went from 20, to 22, to 24, to 26, to 30 ppg.  Very deliberate.  Dwight Howard didn't score 20 ppg until his 6th year in the league.  If he was in one of the last few draft classes, he'd be complained about.  Quincy Peters didn't score 20 ppg until his 11th year in the league.   Barton O'Connell only scored 20 ppg once before 9th year in the league.  His 9th and 10th years have both been career years scoring.  Bertram Shultz didn't score 21 ppg until his 8th year in the league.  Richard Milner didn't score 20 ppg until his 6th year in the league.   Jeff Robertson as well.

I think that right there drain's your statement.  The guys who are in the top 10 now, weren't in the top 10 five years ago.  Scoring has historically taken the longest to develop.  These same criticisms (all top scorers being old) was the same criticism's made 8 sim-years ago when the people leading the league today didn't lead the league in scoring. Scoring has historically taken the longest to develop, and these players are producing in other areas.


I think the past history and current league leaders do show this, yes.

Only 1 rookie in the NBA this year scored more than 12 ppg.  Only 5 scored 10 ppg.

Two of my players, who are retro players, very well may be in that top 10 in scoring in the next couple years..
Both Phill Hubbard and Don Collins have improved in scoring every year, and both are averaging over 20 ppg.

If they both continue improve incremantally, they will be top 10 in scoring very soon.
It just takes time for the players to develop...

Forget it. I gave up long time ago. They're in love with role players. God forbid the next Yao, Pettit, Mcgrady, Emeka, Jermaine, Shaq, Dirk, Marion etc. Who cares?

I find it disingenuous to switch "30 or over" to "30 or under":

6 of the top 10 in rebounds are 30 or over
5 of the top 10 in assists are 30 or over
7 of the top 10 in blocks are 30 or over
7 of the top 10 in steals are 30 or over

In his 4rd year in the league, Gatling was scoring 27 ppg
In his 3rd year in the league, Keogan was scoring 26 ppg
In his 1st year, Garrett Pettit scored 25 ppg

Magic Johnson, probably the best product to come out of the retro drafts (and statistically the best scorer), is scoring 23.5 ppg in his 4th year and has D potential.

Do you have spreadsheets of the very first few drafts? I'd like to see a comparison between them and the current draft, for comparison's sake. Otherwise we will both have to use this haphazard anecdotal kind of 'evidence'. It's no way to go about it. (btw, I don't have excel, so a cut/paste would be more helpful)

How can it be disingenuous?  We're both just picking a random number as our starting point that has no real significance.  I picked a different random number.

So now we've switched the argument to "the players who are good entering the league don't have good enough potential"?  So before you were a proponent of random potentials.  Are you now saying that we should manually change potentials as well?

I don't believe I have the old draft file spreadsheets.  I'll try to check some backups I have.

FYI:
http://www.openoffice.org/

Free ms-compatible office programs.  It's what I'm using now that I run Linux full-time.  Works great.

First of all, it's not random; secondly, you cannot deny that your switcharoo would be misleading to a person who did not read it carefully -- if you are trying to compare the leading scorers to the other categories, you should compare it using the same methods. It's disingenuous to use a different number (subtly) for comparing one category to another category. It's too early for me to think of a good analogy for what you did - maybe later.


I never made this argument. My statement regarding Sampson was directed towards consistency. My overall argument is that the drafts are subpar.


Thanks man, I'll download it.


Anyway, I don't know if I feel like arguing this anymore. I suppose that as long as the drafts stay at a consistent talent level things will equalize eventually in a few more years. It will still be difficult for the really bad teams to recover quickly enough for their GMs to maintain strong interest, imo. That's my bottom line -- strong drafts promote competition and competition increases interest. There's nothing worse than a team that has been stuck in the lotto year after year. This cannot be attributable to bad GMing alone -- a large part of it is the lack of talent in the drafts. I feel sorry for the teams that were in the lotto during the FBCB years; my point is that these retro drafts are not much better.

I saw the question about potential, and yes they are still randomized, I didn't edit them at all.

the new draftees have been imported, and you can now buy their potential:
http://forums.ssbabasketball.com/ssba_pages/viewdraftees.php

when is the draft lotto gonna be run?

dunno.  It depends on when HawksGM gets going.

Really hope Hawks' computer is OK  :shock:

I told you, Vista ...
 :bods:

lol, well here is where we stand.  Vista is screwy with FBB, so after a few days of mix matching parts from two different lap tops that don't work, we have one that does.  I will be running SSBA off that lap top.  Tonight my friend is going to finish setting it up for me and I will run the draft order tomorrow.  Thursday is when the draft will start, I will update the calendar later tonight.

I told you, Vista ...
 :lmao:

haha, i know I spent too much time trying to fix it because I thought it would work.  Apparently it can't install certain key components.  I'd like to publicly thank bods for all the work while I was fixing that issue.  He was a great help to keep the league on a good pace.

I got offered Vista couple of days ago by my uncle. I just said no thanks.

(http://www.mc-krsko.si/Data/MMCP/novice_new/Upload/Linux-penguin.picture.jpg)

oh, how cute ... is that the guy from HAPPY FEET ?
 :lol:

anyone care to break the news to me how bad the odds are of the Celtics pick landing in the top 10?

slightly less than Portland getting the top pick in the NBA draft, so ...

Oden-Aldridge-Roy. Total dynasty.

Andre Miller-Iguodala-Carney-Dalembert = Total mediocrity.

Chris Bosh-Andrea Bargnani-TJ Ford = better young core

Ariza, Dwight, and Darko = daddy long legs

wow. whata homerism.