BuzzerBeater Forums

All of this may be one of the better suggestions I have read in a long time. Well thought out.

it would be easier to see skills

Sounds like you need my patented Draft Box Score - Player Skill correlation analysis results formulae!

All new and now longer lasting, this formula will give your player stats some much needed confidence, all by simply analysing the box score!

Guarenteed or your money back! - Which is nothing, so yer you get nothing back.

(257837.1)

So, yer.... :) happy days! Look actually reading your post was good, its a good idea. Personally, I would first like to know from BB how the box score is generated. Do they run a series of pretend games with the players from the draft and then post the box scores? I dont believe that this is so. So first of all, I would like the box scores to be generated form an actual game.
And perhaps like you suggested, from many games. and supply the box score 'averages' for that player.

but otherwise im pretty happy with the way the draft is. :)

These are good points, draft should change. Right now the only reason to invest in it, is finding 5 ball potential players and sell them. That's sad. For teams playing in higher divisions is almost impossible drafting a 3k player and train him. With a 20 yo player with 20k salary would be possible instead. Average investment in scouts in my league is 625$ per week, veryvery sad.

@ Coach Regan: your work is great, but i think we need more informations about draftees, right now there is too uncertainty about this. And then, as you said, we are sure that box-scores are reliable? And if they are, 15 minutes stats are a good statistic-sample? i dont think so

thanks for that.
yer certainly the thing i noticed with box scores, was that players played a minimum of 20, and max of 40 mins for their box score (from my memory).
but still.... only 1 box score? an average of 4 games would be much better. and knowing that it came from a BB game engine game would be nice as well.

Secondly
I know a lot of people don't like the draft, its just that there are so many people out there who do use it and use it successfully.... If everyone who played BB could not succeed at the draft, then yer, there is a problem... but there are just too many people who know how to draft and use their draftee's successfully.

So just a few comments.....

is finding 5 ball potential players and sell them.

- training 4 and 5 ball potential 18 and 19 year olds is still a viable option? don't you think?

For teams playing in higher divisions is almost impossible drafting a 3k player and train him.

- Its harder, but not impossible. the main reason why its harder is because the top league teams tend to also be in the cup longer, thus losing many weeks of scrimmages where training minutes are easier. This isnt a problem of the draft, this is a choice that top league managers need to make.... train, league, cup, managing minutes etc etc.

With a 20 yo player with 20k salary would be possible instead

If they were going to have 20 year olds in the draft, i couldnt see them being more than $10k salary.

I respect and understand your points. At the end, we both agreed that some more informations about draftees would make the investment a little bit more safe for who decide to invest.

The reason for training being so hard in top divisions is only ONE! The game shape training is ridiculous, and nowadays is killing this game for those who love to train, like me.

Solution: Simply destroy game shape training and make teams who really manage their guys minutes win (and also have trainees). Or even make the training less eficient, right now your player can grow 2 levels of shape on a week with 20 or 90 minutes...no sense!


Last edited by Melo9 at 7/2/2014 7:53:39 AM

The reason for training being so hard in top divisions is only ONE! The game shape training is ridiculous, and nowadays is killing this game for those who love to train, like me.

Remove GS training or not, there's no way that you can play an 18 year old in league matches in the top level against other competitive teams and succeed. Thankfully there are often a lot of teams that are throwing games for the Cup, or easy Cup draws, etc., but training isn't unappealing because of GS training, it's more that GS training is more appealing because training is unappealing.

Well, you can't train the 18years old if your on Division 1/2 and competing to win it...but that's obvious, it's like in real life...
However, if you're on division 1 and on mid of table, you can use your trainee on cup matches early and as reserve too on league...

This is exactly what I have thought about over the last couple months and you just completely hit the nail on the head.

If we want to make the Draft a great experience for everyone, we have to take the randomness factor out and make scouting equal for everyone. Adding additional costs to scouting wouldn't be a bad thing because it will create an experience there everyone would enjoy. It would also allow it to be more realistic.

Let's be honest, every NBA team utilizes the Draft and scouts players. I like being able to see the box scores and ratings because many people can get a good indication of skills based on these. No more of just random box scores with no ratings.

Also, I like the addition of 20 and 21yos in the draft, but I think these players need to be specialty players. Just like the NBA draft, the guys picked later on have one or two decent skills that make them worthy of playing time but just may not have potential. These are the role players and bench players. The middle of the Draft usually has some starters and could have decent starting skill sets. The beginning of the Draft has the studs. Guys with good potential (unless they are busts) and decent starting skills.

The only way we can mimic this is with a second scout like Ramon Simon suggested.

Hi,

I think there are too much 7 Feet or more players in the draft, if i just count 5 players over 7"(2m15) by rookie class, there are something like 800 divisions in France that makes 4000 very tall player each year, i think this is ridiculously higher compared to real life demographic stats. You should have at least 70 % under 6'6, and 97 % under 7"