draft master feedback (396 views)

[Heebs]

I hereby solicit GM feedback on the first three classes I've made so far. I'm going to get started on the next class soonish, Zelda addiction permitting, and would like honest feedback and suggestions.

[Heebs]

I think I'm making too many PFs that have SF potential. That's going to lead to a glut of SFs and put a premium on SGs. It also may lead to more software SFs that play at PF and give us more interesting rosters than our normal 3 outside, 2 bigs depth chart. Basically creating Lebron Lites. Thoughts?

[[Account Deleted]]

I like the depth of the last draft. It ended up not being like a loaded class but there were enticing prospects left fairly deep in the second round.

[2poor]

I agree that there is a dearth of SGs right now. I have not been participating much in the draft though, so I can't comment much on your DM quality.

[BKay Jewelers]

I echo your assessments from the one class I've seen so far, it seemed hard to find any serviceable guards, and all the good PFs fit at SF.

[IanBoyd]

You're also a bit too with giving PGs C rebounding imo.

[Heebs]

May 4, 2017 7:54:50 GMT -6 [Account Deleted] said:

I like the depth of the last draft. It ended up not being like a loaded class but there were enticing prospects left fairly deep in the second round.

Ya - my goal is to give 20s prospects to work with. It's also nice that 20s tries to stay trueish to shown potential with hidden potential, so I can give more C/D potential guys really nice starting grades. At some point I expect one of those players to blow up, but for the most part they are instant depth that will be career back ups, something that's very valuable with a second round pick.

[Heebs]

May 4, 2017 7:56:08 GMT -6 IanBoyd said:

You're also a bit too with giving PGs C rebounding imo.

Thanks. I generally give higher rebounding grades to PGs with high inside grades to not pigeon-hole 20s into their build. There is a lot of room between C and C+ to play with. But I appreciate the feedback. Just giving a little rationale on why I'm doing it. Happy to have you challenge that if you disagree with the rationale, especially given your knowledge of the software/building players. I've only messed around with a couple of players and read eric's articles. I've never built 60 players at once.

[[Account Deleted]]

May 4, 2017 8:05:43 GMT -6 Heebs said:

May 4, 2017 7:54:50 GMT -6 [Account Deleted] said:

I like the depth of the last draft. It ended up not being like a loaded class but there were enticing prospects left fairly deep in the second round.

Ya - my goal is to give 20s prospects to work with. It's also nice that 20s tries to stay trueish to shown potential with hidden potential, so I can give more C/D potential guys really nice starting grades. At some point I expect one of those players to blow up, but for the most part they are instant depth that will be career back ups, something that's very valuable with a second round pick.

It was a nice change to be picking at 2.26 and still be interested in who was available. Obviously Morlon Wiley didn't turn out to be anything but picking a guy with those grades that late was nice. It should generate more interest in the later picks if it keeps happening.

[Odin]

My issues are more with who we are using to populate the draft classes than with the actual grades.

[Face-in]

I didn't see any issues with the classes you've made so far. And since we're nearing the end of 4.0 it's okay to take some risks and give unique grades, shouldn't be any worries about inflation.

[IanBoyd]

May 4, 2017 8:08:02 GMT -6 Heebs said:

May 4, 2017 7:56:08 GMT -6 IanBoyd said:

You're also a bit too with giving PGs C rebounding imo.

Thanks. I generally give higher rebounding grades to PGs with high inside grades to not pigeon-hole 20s into their build. There is a lot of room between C and C+ to play with. But I appreciate the feedback. Just giving a little rationale on why I'm doing it. Happy to have you challenge that if you disagree with the rationale, especially given your knowledge of the software/building players. I've only messed around with a couple of players and read eric's articles. I've never built 60 players at once.

If you have the software, try putting in players' NCAA stats or NBA stats in to let the software generate a few grade sets for you to get a rough idea of what stat translates to what in the software's opinion.

[Heebs]

May 4, 2017 8:36:34 GMT -6 IanBoyd said:

May 4, 2017 8:08:02 GMT -6 Heebs said:

Thanks. I generally give higher rebounding grades to PGs with high inside grades to not pigeon-hole 20s into their build. There is a lot of room between C and C+ to play with. But I appreciate the feedback. Just giving a little rationale on why I'm doing it. Happy to have you challenge that if you disagree with the rationale, especially given your knowledge of the software/building players. I've only messed around with a couple of players and read eric's articles. I've never built 60 players at once.

If you have the software, try putting in players' NCAA stats or NBA stats in to let the software generate a few grade sets for you to get a rough idea of what stat translates to what in the software's opinion.

I had no idea that was possible. I'll definitely play with that.

[IanBoyd]

May 4, 2017 8:38:23 GMT -6 Heebs said:

May 4, 2017 8:36:34 GMT -6 IanBoyd said:

If you have the software, try putting in players' NCAA stats or NBA stats in to let the software generate a few grade sets for you to get a rough idea of what stat translates to what in the software's opinion.

I had no idea that was possible. I'll definitely play with that.

In the create player section, there's options to enter "low NCAA, high NCAA, NBA" stats or something like that

so like low/mid major, power conference or rookie stats

[20s Navidad]

Doesn't that feature pretty much suck though

[IanBoyd]

May 4, 2017 9:49:56 GMT -6 20s Navidad said:

Doesn't that feature pretty much suck though

its okayish

putting in players' sim stats translates pretty accurately (WW2 precision bombing accurate, but still not too bad) to what their grades are

[Heebs]

It's not helpful with our current drafts because it's all undrafted players.

When I build a player I typically look at their FT and 3pt% to get their outside, then compare their FG% to FT% to determine their inside (high FG% and moderate to low FT% means higher inside grade; low FG% and high FT% is lower inside grade). Then I look at their assists, which translate pretty directly to handling since passing is such a big aspect of handling grade. Rebounding and defense are generally based entirely on production. High steals/blocks gives a B or higher defense grade. Average production gives a C+ or B-. Poor defensive production is your C guys. No one is really lower than C defense. Then rebounding is based on rebounding averages, but can be buffed or nerfed depending on what their inside grade is (higher inside leads to marginally higher rebounding, lower inside leads to marginally lower inside).

[IanBoyd]

I know, but the software "generate player" function gives you a better idea of what assists number translates to what passing attribute/grade and what FTs attempts translates to what strength/inside etc from a new DM standpoint.

[Delap]

the unique skill sets are great.

[Citizen Cane]

you don't have much to work with. So I think you are doing well

[gbgalla24]

May 4, 2017 7:52:47 GMT -6 Heebs said:

I hereby solicit GM feedback on the first three classes I've made so far. I'm going to get started on the next class soonish, Zelda addiction permitting, and would like honest feedback and suggestions.

Mitch Richmond should have had C+ Defense.  I mean, the guy is in the NBA HOF.

[gbgalla24]

I don't have any reason to be biased on the subject, either.

[BKay Jewelers]

you might've made tim thomas too good

[Heebs]

I didn't make Tim. But I thank you for your remarks.