SSBA

I know some started this in the TC thread but I thought starting a new thread would make it easier to look through.

It is not a great class, some good players though.

The thing that I am questionning is the hometown. It has a NBA team name. I guess that was not the case in last draft. I could be wrong...
So what does this mean? What influence does this have?
Funny thing.... a player that has hometown Lakers... shouldn't he have Clippers as well. Something like hometown Los Angeles would make more sense right?!

http://ssba.phillyarena.net/files/rules.htm#fa_loyalty

and it was in the last draft.[/quote]

Yeah I knew about the loyalty thing. But that does not matter when drafting. The player does not have a choice... he has to go to where he is drafted.

So does it make an impact on the way he plays?



I knew hometown was there. But was it also posted in a nba team name like 'hometown: clippers'. I don't remember that.

i think this draft class is not near as good as the last, but they are about 7 impact players in it

I'm fairly certain that it only affects signing/re-signing, not how they play.

I'm going to look to trade my pick.

Your looking to trade?!?  Please, allow my shock to dissipate... lol... :P

:)

Much, much deeper draft.  Just not as high on potential.

There's only one person who could have been a top 5 pick last year.  And his defense scares me.

But if you're looking to get a guy who can come in and contribute, this is your draft.

http://ssba.phillyarena.net/players/player594.htm

My first round target.  Don't anyone take him from me.

WICKED last name, FUNDERBURKE

Scoooooooonie...
Fuuuuunderbuerke...
Definitely a crwd favorite...  Of course, he will probably go up 5 in TC and jump to an A potential...  Just for the name...

Who needs defense anyway? Just score more points than your opponent.  :roll:   :lol:

After reviewing this upcoming draft class, I noticed a few things...

- SG is the deepest position, easily. No stars, but plenty of very solid players. And a lot of them have A or B potential, as well. Not bad...

- Center is the weakest position. I would say that there are only about 5 or so that will be worthy of a spot on a depth chart next season. But there are a couple that will be very good players.

- Not near the top talent that there was in last year's draft. You won't be seeing any Oscar Ferrys or Garret Pettits coming out this year.

- No single player that is the sure #1 pick. I see several different players that could be worthy of getting picked first overall. But that doesn't matter, anyway. Tanner Houbregs, anyone?  :lol:

I think Chase Hoiberg is a clear cut first pick.

Only SEVEN players that play B+ or better defense. poor.

This draft class sucks. Glad I traded both picks.

Hoiberg does have a good chance of being #1, but I also like Roberto Dickau there, too. And Bailey Snow and English are both excellent prospects at PG. One of them could get taken first. Depends on which team gets it. Since Seattle has like 23 first round picks, yeah it probably will be Hoiberg.

Lol. So true.

He has the same ratings as Jerome James with half the size; it just proves how disappointing this class is.

I like English and Lenard, but I weigh scouted potential more highly than most people.

If I had a top pick like I did last year, Id probably be looking at English.  Take him and hope his defense improves.

Hoiberg reminds me of Bosh.  In the sim, not real life.

ditto, he's also from ATL, producing possibly the 1st 2 #1 picks

A- handles to go along with A potential. That is amazing. If nothing improves but his defense, he'll be a top five PG. And that's just if only his D improves.

I see him as a Steve Nash type guy.

i think the top prospects are:

chase hoiberg
roberto dickau
Nicklaus English
Bailey Snow

outside of those 4 there arent many guys that can step in and help right away. there are a lot of project guys in this draft.

This class is better then most are giving it credit for, I think.
No clear cut top pick like last year, but you have 3 point guards who will likely start next year : Nicklaus English, Bailey Snow, and Al Garces.
Dickau is a 15-20 ppg scorer right now, and if his defense goes up, he will be quite good.  Hoiberg is already an A- B- player, and if he goes up at all in TC he will be very, very good.

This draft is just as deep as last year's, just with no dominant players at the top. Some really good players in the 15-25 range, imo....

Yeah, it looks like there will be some pretty good players that can fall. This draft is just deep. No big superstars, but a lot of depth.

last year's draft was deeper according to my chart. The 30th ranked player on my chart had a 2.33 GPA, this year the 30th has a 2.28 GPA.

My chart disagrees with your chart.

My chart ranks the 30th ranked player in this years draft as high as the 23rd in last years draft.  It's close to that in both readiness and overall (potential included).

but each rates things a little differently.

My chart is more like dabods chart...
the top 1-10 is a little weaker, 11-20 is better then last year, and 21-29 is about even with last year...  
This class is just guard heavy, while last years had better big men...

I am only talking about raw numbers, and I include potential. I haven't looked at it based on readiness.

Do you put your numbers into GPA? Like C+ = 2.3, etc.?
If so, I don't see how it could be that much different.

No, I use a different scale.

I rate 14 players from last year's draft equal or better than the top ten in this current draft.  Then I show 15 players in this draft equal to the next ten in last years.  In other words I show the 25th ranked player in each draft as equal.  The difference is that 7-20 in this draft are interchangable.

And in ranking them I use a GPA type formula but then weight the different attributes based on position.  e.g. point guards have handling and outside weighted higher; centers have inside and defense weighted etc.

This is why I don't trust my drafting skills.... I put everything into the raw GPA, then I "eyeball" it to make my actual rankings.
It would be much better if I could figure out some way to do it all by numbers. It seems like ratings are a pretty inconsistent way to judge actual performance though.

eyeballing is generally the best way IMO.  I just use my spreadsheet to give me ideas.  My spreadsheet will probably give me the 10 guys I consider, but then I pick between them like I normally would.

Even so, after getting my "10" I'll scan through the 100 draftees to make sure I didn't miss one.

I haven't found an actual rating system that I fully like.

BTW, for my scale I convert the letter grades from 0 to 12 (F or F+ being a 0, D- being a 1, D being a 2, D+ a 3, and so on up through A+, which is a 12).  Then I do put more weight in certain attributes, depending on the position.  Then obviously highest is best.

I have scores for both readiness (without potential) and overall (with potential).  For the overall, I don't rate potential equally.  A guy with A potential shouldn't get an 11, because he'll never increase in 11 categories over his career.