|
|
Post by Lazy Pete on Feb 25, 2015 15:29:53 GMT -6
again, this won't show pot. ive made dudes capable of scoring 30 ppg in one of these but with 20 pot. :ohhh: |
|
|
|
Post by ANK1990 on Feb 25, 2015 15:30:23 GMT -6
Don't like seeing guys playing multiple games. Really think a single game per prospect works well, and that box score you posted confirms it.
There could be multiple games to include more prospect, but I do think it should just be 1 game per prospect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Odin on Feb 25, 2015 15:35:08 GMT -6
Don't like seeing guys playing multiple games. Really think a single game per prospect works well, and that box score you posted confirms it. There could be multiple games to include more prospect, but I do think it should just be 1 game per prospect. The box scores confirmed nothing other than people were stupid to pass on niang because of potential, and that's something that should have been learned years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Souper Troopers on Feb 25, 2015 15:36:33 GMT -6
Don't like seeing guys playing multiple games. Really think a single game per prospect works well, and that box score you posted confirms it. There could be multiple games to include more prospect, but I do think it should just be 1 game per prospect. The box scores confirmed nothing other than people were stupid to pass on niang because of potential, and that's something that should have been learned years ago. meh you cant really call us stupid when you are diverse in how you create players. |
|
|
|
Post by Odin on Feb 25, 2015 15:37:27 GMT -6
The box scores confirmed nothing other than people were stupid to pass on niang because of potential, and that's something that should have been learned years ago. meh you cant really call us stupid when you are diverse in how you create players. i'm not calling you stupid, i'm calling the practice of paying attention to potential stupid. |
|
IanBoyd
Former GM 
Posts: 4,969
Likes: 687
Dump Bucks: 8,575
Joined: April 2014
|
Post by IanBoyd on Feb 25, 2015 15:37:52 GMT -6
based on those games, Georges Niang probably would have gone [HASH]1 or [HASH]2 with Myles Turner being the other, then at 3 I probably still pick Stanley but Okafor would drop maybe out of the top 5.
|
|
|
|
Post by MJ on Feb 25, 2015 15:38:55 GMT -6
Still would have picked Mudiay
|
|
IanBoyd
Former GM
Posts: 4,969
Likes: 687
Dump Bucks: 8,575
Joined: April 2014
|
Post by IanBoyd on Feb 25, 2015 15:41:51 GMT -6
Don't like seeing guys playing multiple games. Really think a single game per prospect works well, and that box score you posted confirms it. There could be multiple games to include more prospect, but I do think it should just be 1 game per prospect. The box scores confirmed nothing other than people were stupid to pass on niang because of potential, and that's something that should have been learned years ago. Niang wasn't even a profile guy, that coupled with C potential = he obviously should be a top 3 pick? He's not the same situation as Wilt or Emeka's potential scaring people off from possibly picking him #1 overall. |
|
|
|
Post by MJ on Feb 25, 2015 15:45:36 GMT -6
This is going to lead to hilarious over reactions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Odin on Feb 25, 2015 15:47:22 GMT -6
Oh come on. B- B- B- B- B- is still B- B- B- B- B-, profile or not.
C B- B B- C-
B- C+ B- B- D+
B- C C- B- C+
all were taken ahead of him because?
|
|
Bankz
Former GM
Posts: 7,254
Likes: 895
Dump Bucks: 18,475
Joined: April 2014
|
Post by Bankz on Feb 25, 2015 15:53:18 GMT -6
I like the idea of doing 3 games round robin and posted at different times of the year. One and done is stupid.
|
|
Bankz
Former GM
Posts: 7,254
Likes: 895
Dump Bucks: 18,475
Joined: April 2014
|
Post by Bankz on Feb 25, 2015 15:55:46 GMT -6
All those box scores tell me is that Wright was the best PG of the three and its a toss up between Mudiay and Russell... That just confirms my big board that I posted. Nothing new is given outside of Niang going higher. But on the flip side Frank would of gone lower so it works in both directions. Add to that Niang had C pot and you would be taking a huge roll of the dice on Niang given we can NO LONGER ask for true potential
|
|
|
|
Post by Lazy Pete on Feb 25, 2015 15:56:53 GMT -6
odin literally just above you said you should never use scouted potential, so that should never factor into it at all
|
|
Bankz
Former GM
Posts: 7,254
Likes: 895
Dump Bucks: 18,475
Joined: April 2014
|
Post by Bankz on Feb 25, 2015 16:01:27 GMT -6
odin literally just above you said you should never use scouted potential, so that should never factor into it at all sorry missed that as I was skimmng the last 3 pages of this thread... |
|
Bankz
Former GM
Posts: 7,254
Likes: 895
Dump Bucks: 18,475
Joined: April 2014
|
Post by Bankz on Feb 25, 2015 16:01:30 GMT -6
odin literally just above you said you should never use scouted potential, so that should never factor into it at all sorry missed that as I was skimmng the last 3 pages of this thread... |
|
|
|
Post by Souper Troopers on Feb 25, 2015 16:04:59 GMT -6
i think bankz missed it when he was skimming the last 3 pages
|
|
IanBoyd
Former GM
Posts: 4,969
Likes: 687
Dump Bucks: 8,575
Joined: April 2014
|
Post by IanBoyd on Feb 25, 2015 16:15:18 GMT -6
Oh come on. B- B- B- B- B- is still B- B- B- B- B-, profile or not. C B- B B- C- B- C+ B- B- D+ B- C C- B- C+ all were taken ahead of him because? because a non profiled C potential usually never improves all that much through their career? the risk is that you drafted a limited potential guy with 0 elite skills and is a perennial 18-20 ppg jack of all trades master of none. its easy for you to say he's the obvious pick because you made him, to the rest of the league he's just a non profiled C potential that might not have more than 60 potential (lets face it, not everyone has got 6.5k casino dollars to spare on true pot scouting) |
|
|
|
Post by Odin on Feb 25, 2015 16:17:03 GMT -6
Oh come on. B- B- B- B- B- is still B- B- B- B- B-, profile or not. C B- B B- C- B- C+ B- B- D+ B- C C- B- C+ all were taken ahead of him because? because a non profiled C potential usually never improves all that much through their career? the risk is that you drafted a limited potential guy with 0 elite skills and is a perennial 18-20 ppg jack of all trades master of none. its easy for you to say he's the obvious pick because you made him, to the rest of the league he's just a non profiled C potential that might not have more than 60 potential (lets face it, not everyone has got 6.5k casino dollars to spare on true pot scouting) If he has no elite skills then the three i posted don't either, so I'm not sure what your point is. And B- outside for a big is more than elite. |
|
|
|
Post by MJ on Feb 25, 2015 16:24:51 GMT -6
Bankz skinned 3 lemurs
|
|
Bankz
Former GM
Posts: 7,254
Likes: 895
Dump Bucks: 18,475
Joined: April 2014
|
Post by Bankz on Feb 25, 2015 16:29:11 GMT -6
nobody would of or should of taken Niang top 3... You make a better case with Reef because he had B pot and sexy grades and a profile. Vs Niang who had nice grades, no profile and C pot.
|
|
|
|
Post by MJ on Feb 25, 2015 16:31:33 GMT -6
Shareef was a cool name. [HASH]Lock
|
|
|
|
Post by Lazy Pete on Feb 25, 2015 16:38:43 GMT -6
If there is anything to take away from this lesson, it should be that you should ignore potential when drafting and look solely at grades. If you don't see that here then you never will
|
|
|
|
Post by MJ on Feb 25, 2015 16:55:12 GMT -6
What if I don't trust my eyes?
|
|
|
|
Post by 20s Navidad on Feb 25, 2015 20:08:21 GMT -6
nobody would of or should of taken Niang top 3... You make a better case with Reef because he had B pot and sexy grades and a profile. Vs Niang who had nice grades, no profile and C pot. Shareef had A potential |
|
Bankz
Former GM
Posts: 7,254
Likes: 895
Dump Bucks: 18,475
Joined: April 2014
|
Post by Bankz on Feb 25, 2015 20:41:39 GMT -6
nobody would of or should of taken Niang top 3... You make a better case with Reef because he had B pot and sexy grades and a profile. Vs Niang who had nice grades, no profile and C pot. Shareef had A potential apologies... Man I should of stepped out of the Kobe/Chalky/Ray hype to evaluate the class better... fuck me for not making a big board. |
|
|
|
Post by Heebs on Feb 26, 2015 5:36:42 GMT -6
based on that i think niang would have went top 3 Niang had the best raw grades in the draft. He dropped because of his scouted potential and no one potential scouting him. This game does not tell you anything about Niangs potential, it just tells you Odin put his grades in the right places. A strong inference, based on the way Odin makes players, is that he has better than C true potential, but I don't think that makes him a top 3 pick. |
|
Mad King
Former GM
Mel my queen
Posts: 3,451
Likes: 640
Dump Bucks: 1,000
Joined: April 2014
|
Post by Mad King on Feb 27, 2015 19:15:59 GMT -6
1 game day 60 1 game day 120 imo
|
|
Mad King
Former GM
Mel my queen
Posts: 3,451
Likes: 640
Dump Bucks: 1,000
Joined: April 2014
|
Post by Mad King on Feb 27, 2015 19:20:06 GMT -6
Winner of game A plays winner of game B on day 120
|
|
Trofie
Former GM
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 1,812
Joined: April 2014
|
Post by Trofie on Mar 1, 2015 23:53:37 GMT -6
Make scouting much cheaper. But it's only available day 90 -120
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 10:19:26 GMT -6
Going to need to make sure software guys are included.
|
|
