BuzzerBeater Forums

tl;dr: Suggesting a better draft implementation.

I know there have been a lot of complaints about the draft, but our league has discussed a few ideas that could improve it in our forum. I wanted to officially bring them here, and see what everyone thought of them.

First, the quality of the draft isn't very good. Yes, there should be scrubs, but the first full round of the draft should contain players that are at least "good enough" to not get fired right off the bat. As it stands, I don't even bother to scout if I don't have a top 6 pick.

Second, there should be more strategy to the draft. To fix it, I think the draft should include more than just 18 and 19 year olds. The idea is, there should be a few 20-21 year olds that are good. By good, I mean they should be no more than star/starter potential (possibly allstar), but they should be coming out of the draft capped. That means, there should be a few players in the draft that are good enough to start for a good USA D IV team or mediocre (or even good) D III team and be a decent backup for a USA D II or NBBA team. This idea would give teams a choice of "Do I go for the young 18 year old with a ton of potential, or do I draft a player that can help me right now?" (I'd be willing to bet the 18 year olds will still be preferred, but this will add some more strategy for the number 3-16 picks). The skill scale for 20-21 year olds could be different for the one for 18-19 year olds. For instance, 5 balls could be 20k-25k salary, 4 ball 15k-20k, 3 ball 10k-15k, 2 ball 5k-10k, and 1 ball 0-5k. The 18-19 year old scale would be unchanged.

Finally, I think the draft should be made a little more consistent (but still random). Ideally, the draft should contain: (when I talk about ball skills, I'm talking about how it is in the current system)
1-2 high potential (MVP-HoF), decent (4-5 ball skills) 18 year olds (I have had a few drafts with NONE of these players),
1-2 high potential (MVP-HoF), decent (4-5 ball skills) 19 year olds,
6-8 trainable (allstar-superstar, 4-5 ball skills) 18-19 year olds,
4-6 impact (starter-star, 15k-25k salary equivalent [maybe even up to 40k?]) 20-21 year olds,
8-10 decent (starter-star, 3-4 ball skills) 18-19 year olds,
6-10 decent (6th man-star, 6k-11k salary equivalent) 20-21 year olds,
16-20 scrubs/duds (1-2 ball potential, any skill, can be 18-21 years old)
These ranges give a total of 42-58 players, but obviously, the draft would still be 48 total. The numbers could be adjusted a bit, but I've tried to make it so that every player in the first round shouldn't be fired, the second round is decent, and the third round is scrubs. I suppose this could flood the market with more decent players, but I think that many people agree that the current first round of the draft has too many scrubs in it. Also, I don't think this will impact the market for high end (fully trained MVP-HoF) players.

So bringing it all together, teams participating in the draft would need to choose between taking a high potential, young player that can be trained to lead their team in the long term and a player that can help their team win in the lower levels RIGHT NOW (often, just like real life). I think this would add a lot more fun to the draft.

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you just suggested. I too am tired of having no fun at draft time. Cut 3 and done. Draft over for another year. What fun is that? The way it is now rewards teams that tank and leaves competitive teams holding the scrubs.

I support all of these ideas. It would give everyone a reason to buy scouting points and log in come draft day. I also think some information should slowly divulge itself even if you don't pay for scouting points. I find it incredible I have logged in every day yet know absolutely nothing about the draft class. There should be a feature that if you log in and look into the draft list, once a calendar day, some small random info is revealed. Maybe a guys age, his skill or potential. Totally random but it would also encourage people to log in everyday just to get that little bit of info if anything.

Last edited by Yuck at 06/01/2014 15:47:00

My thoughts on the draft:

1) I suggest that the 18/19 year old would be either 3/4/5 draft balls. But I don't think increasing the amount would be needed. Personally I believe there are enough 4-5 potential players in a draft for those who decide to draft.

2) For the 20/21 year old category these would be either 1-5 skill and 1/2 draft ball potential. I agree with having them come out capped if a 5.

3) Draft order should be randomized for the 2 worst teams and 2 relagating teams for a total of 4 teams. Right now all that is required to get the best pick is to toss out the worst possible lineup. So what you have is teams that will lineup 3 players for a game instead of 5 to ensure they lose the game. So it becomes a battle of how bad you can lose which I think is pretty stupid. Also this will combat tanking to a degree. And help those teams who unfortunately aren't tanking but lose a relagation series.

4) Players should have limit of 8 instead of 7 on starting skills. This will make them easier to train in the long-term. As is, it takes too long to train a good player. This will reduce that time without affecting the current game too much.

Anyhow good ideas!

OH and one other thing. I did a study of 14 drafts. My first seven drafts and the last 7 drafts in my current league. Here is my findings per draft:
11 Pot = 0.0
10 Pot = 0.6
9 Pot = 1.1
8 Pot = 1.8
7 Pot = 3.5
That is 7 high potential players per draft on average.

Last edited by lawrenman at 06/01/2014 21:30:32

According to the numerous threads about the draft on this forum it seems like everybody hates it.
I have nothing to add here but just want to say I like the system and how it simulates a real draft.
I must be the only one who thinks this works.

However, I would change it for a youth team system.

You're not the only one.
I have several members on my team that were drafted players. People are just too picky. Donald Luwa for instance was a Star potential 3k salary guy when I drafted him, and Marks, when I drafted him, he was an 1100 SALARY superstar potential player.

People are just too lazy to put in the work.

It shouldn't take 6 seasons or a year and a half time to get any value to your team. I would invest in the draft if you could actually pull a useful player, like the NBA draft is weighted to help the weak teams. This draft offers little help to a struggling franchise. It should. Starting salary and skills should be far higher and in accordance with their overall potential. You should be able to pull an MVP with a 21k starting salary, or a Per Allstar with a 13k starting salary. It's the only way to fix the draft and make it worth it to invest. It's not fun spending 18 months working on a guy to make him usable as it currently works, I'll never invest a penny into it again.

Everything else about the way it works is fine. I like the points system and how you have to uncover players.

Last edited by Hoosier at 06/01/2014 20:26:26

It's the spending years of real life time to develop players. My two trainees I have had for over a year and they are now serviceable backups. What if I chased a build that didn't work? No problem, build two more, see ya in 700 days!

I understand what you are saying, and I agree that we need to think about it's effects on the economy.

@law: the numbers would be negotiable, I suppose the effect on the economy wouldn't be as big if there wasn't a large increase in high potential players. But, maybe it would be a good thing by lowering the prices of the very high potential 18 year olds (quite a few of which never meet their potential). I guess I'm not really complaining about the average number of high potential players in the draft, more the variance. Also, my idea of high potential is different from yours. I consider MVP+ to be high potential, while allstar+ is just "trainable." I know some people train stars and starters, but IMO they cap before they can be truly great (although I'll train them as a 3rd trainee), but that is a discussion for a different thread.

But, how fun would it be to pull a PG with Sensational OD and PA? Or a C with Prolific IS/ID/REB? The key would be that they would have very little, if any, cap space left. Both of those players would be around star potential. A player like that wouldn't be much for an NBBA team, but would really help a D IV team.

Going back to the economy, it's a little weird in general. A lot of high end players can go for peanuts, mainly because only the top teams can afford their salaries. For the most part, the players with a lot of demand are those whose salaries are between $15k and $50k or $75k. I think this would help add a bit more supply in that area. It's debatable if that would be a positive or negative effect. Personally, I think it would be positive.

The other weird thing is the timing. I love the concept of the draft, but, to me, the major thing is that there is a flood of players at the beginning of the season and then hit or miss for the rest of the season.

The older, better but not as trainable thing is one I've been in favor of for quite some time. I simply have no reason at all to spend scouting points because I'm not getting anyone reasonably trainable and I can't get anyone to play even backup roles in anything approaching a competitive game. I think the number of high potential 18 year olds is what is usually lamented, but I think there should be more solid players rather than more winning lottery tickets.