Sim 7 Discussion

[CavsGM]

Well he definitely was A+ on my team and on GS, when at SG.

[NetsGM]

Well he definitely was A+ on my team and on GS, when at SG.

I just tested it, and this is a save from golden state's.  After he switched him to pf.  When I change positions, he's still listed as an A at SG, on GS's team.  But he definitely was an A+ at some point.

Anyway, it doesn't matter.  Those ratings mean nothing, the underlying #'s haven't changed.

[PacersGM]

not necessarily a superstar/hall of famer every year, but I think there should be stars every year.  The entire point of the draft is for the bad teams to get better.  If the top of the draft classes are so weak, the worst team doesn't really have much more chances of improving than the 8th worst team.

yea i agree.
but one player never will turn around a team quick.
also i consider two maybe three players of the sonics as already good maybe very good players. lets wait and see if the 09 class will be better.
And give the rookies some time to develop.
Even the petit class isn´t so strong considering that at the moment only 5 players are more than role players after more than one year.

[GoldenStateGM]

not necessarily a superstar/hall of famer every year, but I think there should be stars every year.  The entire point of the draft is for the bad teams to get better.  If the top of the draft classes are so weak, the worst team doesn't really have much more chances of improving than the 8th worst team.

I disagree... there are not necessarily stars in the real NBA drafts...
In fact, there really has not been enough time to judge the draft classes yet.
Pettit, star, absolutely.
Ferry, star, although he actually declined last year.
Mercer, star, also declined..
Trent Kundla has the potential as well...

And right now, English has been incredible this year, I would call him a star.
Hoiberg is 22, and averaging 12 and 10...  TC or two, he could be very, very good.

You have to give the drafts time to develop before making decisions on them....

[GoldenStateGM]

BTW, draft wise...
I think Schabinger and Boykins could be very, very good.
Schabinger measures up well with Bailey Snow of the Celtics...  And he has a C rebounding.  I think the only other PG with C rebounding is Kidd (I am too lazy to look)

Boykins is two TC's from being an offensive monster...
As is Ivan Lo, who offensively looks like the next Nowitzki..

[CavsGM]

And Garret Ward, Andy Miles, Patrick Gatling. All should be very good players...

[NetsGM]

but one player never will turn around a team quick.

Dwyane Wade?  Ben Gordon?  Heck, look at the impact Carmelo had his rookie year.  

I disagree... there are not necessarily stars in the real NBA drafts...

Going Back to '95:
95: Sheed, KG, McDyess (pre-injury)
96: AI, Ray Allen, Jermaine O'neal, Kobe
97: Duncan, Tmac
98: VC, Pierce, Nowitzki, Hughes
99: Brand, Francis, Davis, RIP, Maggette, Artest
00: KMart, Magloire (ew...terrible draft)
01: Gasol, JRich, JJ, Randolph, Dalembert  
02: Yao, Stoudemire
03: LeBron, Carmelo, Bosh, Wade
04: Emeka, Dwight, Gordon

I can see one....two weak drafts.  But there was, IMO, 1 potential star in the last draft.  I'm not sure if there's one in this class.  If the 3rd one in a row is bad, I'll start to be worried.  The computer built draft classes appear to be very weak (the first draft class came default with the program, so I'm guessing Heavyreign may have done that personally).

[GoldenStateGM]

Ahh, but some of those players took years to develop into the stars they are now (TMac, Kobe, Hughes, Nowitzki, RIOP, Maggette, Artest, JJ, Zach, Sammy(homer:) ) )... These players took at least 3 years to develop into bonafide seruious players...

Our first draft class has only gone through 2 TC's...
The 2nd, only one...
Last year had players ready to produce immediately while lacking potential.
Next years is not as good in readiness, but the top players have alot more potential, at least by my rankings.

Out of my top 15, only one player is less then B potential, and I do not rate potential as much as others.  8 of them are A potential.

Last year, only 6 were A potential, and 5 were under a B rating...

[NetsGM]

Out of my top 15, only one player is less then B potential, and I do not rate potential as much as others.

Doesn't that counter your point to give them time?

You and I both probably have the data to go back and figure out teh average improvement in a guy with "X" potential.  And I'm using tha tto base my decision.  Sure, there will be some that come from nowhere, and some that fall off the face of the earth after looking great.  IMO they'll even out, and this is a bad draft class.  IMO the 2nd bad one in a row.

[GoldenStateGM]

Doesn't that counter your point to give them time?

You and I both probably have the data to go back and figure out teh average improvement in a guy with "X" potential.  And I'm using tha tto base my decision.  Sure, there will be some that come from nowhere, and some that fall off the face of the earth after looking great.  IMO they'll even out, and this is a bad draft class.  IMO the 2nd bad one in a row.

True, and we have both done it... lol...
This class is worse then last years, no doubt.
And the first class was disgustingly good.

[GoldenStateGM]

But if the potentials hold true, this class could and will be better then the last.
At least this year, you do not have to decide to take either the player with potential or the player with the skills...  The skilled players this year have potential as well.

[SpursGM-old]

IMO it is not a good idea to start "altering" the draft classes.  My guess is that the program has some sort of balancing logarithim that maintains a fairly stable midpoint and standard deviation for the player pool.  

In these 3 "years" I have been involved that seems to be the case.  If you start creating super athletes then the program through training camps, injuries or early retirments will push the overall player rankings back towards a norm.  Either that or we will get to a point where even the 12th man on rosters will have fantastic ratings but never see playing time to determine if the ratings are a true reflection of their productivity.

Part of the puzzle to solve in running a team is to evaluate the talent.  Some GMs give more weight to potential, some look at age, others focus predominatly on current ratings.  If a GM is not willing to take chances with the draft as it is generated then they can always trade away their picks.

[NetsGM]

Just to compare the top rated players (not taking into account potential) from the 3 draft classes.
2008: Gregory Schabinger   PG   6'3''   186   20   C   B-   B+   B-   C   A
2007: Nicklaus English   PG   6'1''   182   22   C-   B+   A-   B-   D+   A
2006: Mason Mercer   PG   5'7''   186   23   C+   B   B+   A-   D+   C

that leaves Mercer +3 over English, and English and Schabinger technically "even", but if you don't count rebounding, English is +2.

Schabinger, right now, is a guy who isn't good offensively (C B- is not good), or defensively (B-).  Boy, hope that potential is true, or that's a flat out bust.

[NetsGM]

IMO it is not a good idea to start "altering" the draft classes. My guess is that the program has some sort of balancing logarithim that maintains a fairly stable midpoint and standard deviation for the player pool.

I think you are giving this program far too much credit.

In these 3 "years" I have been involved that seems to be the case. If you start creating super athletes then the program through training camps, injuries or early retirments will push the overall player rankings back towards a norm. Either that or we will get to a point where even the 12th man on rosters will have fantastic ratings but never see playing time to determine if the ratings are a true reflection of their productivity.

First, I don't think anybody's talking about super athletes.  But more realistic to nba drafts.  The ROY this year is going to be a 13/8 player.  And he really has no competition.  Look at what guy's like LeBron, Stoudemire, Carmelo, Wade and Bosh are doing in their first, and especially they're 2nd years.

2nd, many leagues use player-created drafts.  In fact, heavyreign has made it easy for people to make draft files.  Most leagues do it to get "real" players into the pool, which I'm not going to do (would rather have fictional).  But IMO right now it's not representative of what the draft should be.

But hey, I really don't care.  My draft picks won't be worth jack for the foreseable future.

[CelticsGM]

But hey, I really don't care.  My draft picks won't be worth jack for the foreseable future.

... and who cares if the Celtics stink for another 2 or three years ...