Gold ended up being where I dumped all my leftovers. I think Green and Blue should be pretty good. White and Rust have pretty clear identities which should *hopefully* make them competitive.

Might be a silly question, how do you create SL eFG%? I assume you use minutes and usage, but I’m not sure the exact formula.

You ready?

Mission statement - I learned a few lessons from Season 1.

I. If your guy plays less than five usable seasons, you need an extra pick to cover for it, or more minutes from a future pick. I tried to focus on guys with five usable seasons for as long as I could justify the pick.

II. Defense. Even if you can't get superior eFG%, get defense. If you can get five seasons of very good defense and make it fit, do that. Get minutes with defense. Get superior eFG% - you won't win without it - but make sure to get minutes and defense early, and in five season packs. Avoid crappy fifth seasons; I want to make the playoffs in all five leagues.

With that said, LeBron made things easy, so I just went off of the five seasons I thought I could/would use.

Here we go:

Round 1: LeBron - Easy as pie. The five best two way seasons at a shallow position.

Round 2: Ewing - Patrick was a nice surprise. As soon as I took LeBron, I realized I could take Patrick or Zo without worrying about rebounds too much. (For the skeptics, all teams are above 110 CReb%.) Pat was a bit more efficient for his best three seasons, six points across the board, so there it was.

Round 3: Capela - The thought of LeBron and Capela is too damn good. He's a second round talent in draft leagues, or he should be. Since I had a foundation (15K minutes for LeBron, ~14K minutes for Ewing), I could take a swing at a low minute guy with four to five seasons. I'd be up a creek if 19-20 didn't come out, but it did, so, yeah.

Round 4: Cheeks - I don't really get the criticism here. This is not to say I don't know what you're saying, but what am I saying? I'm saying that the other guards at this point were whatever. Conley's third to fifth best seasons? Philly Jrue? Knicks Harper? None of them pass, play defense, and score efficiently for five seasons like Cheeks. Bron can't cover all of the passing by himself. Was there another play with the opportunity to draft a player with 80-90 D at five positions for 13-14K minutes with that level of passing? No, there wasn't, and short of having to get passing at other positions, this was the move. 11-12 and 13-14 Bron don't pass all that much (less than 22%). I have no regrets here, and maybe we can leave it at that.

Round 5: Westbrook - Much has been made of this, but I submit for your consideration the notion that every pick I made after this was made possible by this pick. He doesn't have time to do too much TO and missed FG damage. It was a risk, but the depth I accumulated worked out in my favor.

Round 6: Favors - I can play Favors at the 4. In fact, he only moves up to the 3 on one team. He's a good defender and an acceptable scorer with some flexibility. I'll play the four point seasons behind Ewing, the two point seasons at the 4 or 3. 18-19 is a great season to have as a starter. Easy to justify.

Round 7: Thunder Dan - Dan's interesting. 90-91 is one of four seasons in the whole sim with 80 D, less than 2.5 TOP48, 50 eFG% and 7+ OReb% at any usage level. Did I want a good rebounder at the 3? Yes, but I also wanted threes. Dan, unlike Eddie Jones, is both of those things. His eFG% is better than a better rebounder I could have had, and he doesn't foul much. 92-93 is his best, 94-95 gives me 200 3s to play with, and the Heat seasons are upwards of 60% 3PAr with less than 1.5 TOP48. Good D, good eFG%. He'll move up to the 2 on some teams.

Round 8: Marvin - 15-16 is a gem. He's a good enough rebounder for what I need. Again, the Westbrook effect.

Round 9: Doug Christie - More defense, more threes. TO% might be a little high but his usage is low enough to stomach it. At this point in the draft, one of the few defenders left with good eFG% and threes. He'll back up Cheeks in a few leagues as well.

Round 10: Whose world is this? - The Legend of Zelmo: bds9992's Mask. Yes, he's terrible. Don't even draft him. He can't play SF at all and 70-71 doesn't rebound well. Pay no mind.

Round 11: Christian Wood - Only needed one season each. This one's as fine as any below 2000 minutes.

Round 12: Marquese Chriss - Pros: a live one, not a shook one, on the court. Cons: wasn't ready for the NBA, and precisely why you don't draft 18 year olds. That said, 19-20 is delightful, delectable, and, dare I say it, delicious.

Overall - 12-13 Bron is not to f'd with. One team is clearly the best. As for the others, well, I don't want to give too much away. Maybe I've made some tweaks. Maybe I haven't.

One thing is absolutely for certain: I'm immune to logic and reason.

No pressure.

Posted by jhsukow on 8/26/2020 3:32:00 PM (view original):
Might be a silly question, how do you create SL eFG%? I assume you use minutes and usage, but I’m not sure the exact formula.

Adjusting for their percentage of the total usage by their eFG%. You can short hand it with the sum numbers too, but it is a little less precise with some of the older players. In the overall one, I account for their percentage of minutes so it is a little more meaningful that starting lineup stuff. I only included that because it seems like what most people are using.

None of it is too exact, since their are pace adjustment, opponents defense, etc.

As the “rules” currently stand, I don’t think I’m allowed to disagree or critique.

I like the Christian Wood pick.

Posted by jhsukow on 8/26/2020 4:34:00 PM (view original):
As the “rules” currently stand, I don’t think I’m allowed to disagree or critique.

I like the Christian Wood pick.

Thank you.

You're allowed, but what's the point? I had to plan for all five teams, and I have numbers that make all five teams work. I have 110 CReb%, 59 Ast%, 400 threes, 60-90 D and 52+ eFG% (well, except Russell) for every player on every team, starting and off the bench. I kept TOs low and I made sure people who needed to start together did so for as long as they could. I have everything I need. What's there to criticize?

Name	Yr	Pos	MPG	USG	eFG	ORB	DRB	CRB	AST	DEF	STL	BLK	TOp48	Fp48
Ben Simmons	18	PG	34	22.1	56.3	6.6	18.8	25.4	28.3	71	1.8	1.2	4.9	3.7
Steph Curry	14	SG	32.5	28.9	59.4	2.3	10.6	12.9	27.4	72	2.7	0.3	4.6	2.9
Bo Outlaw	99	SF	28.5	9.8	60.2	8.9	14.3	23.2	13.1	95	2.1	3.6	2.7	4.2
Shawn Kemp	93	PF	33	24.2	53.9	13.3	23.2	36.5	9.3	100	2.4	3.9	4.8	5.8
Joakim Noah	12	C	30	17.3	48.1	11.3	21.1	32.4	14.6	90	1.5	3.5	3.5	3.7
				102.3	55.6	42.4	88	130.4	92.7	85.6	10.5	12.5	20.5	20.3

I don’t know if it’s my best team, but it’s my favorite. DRB is a little light but it’s a fun squad.

Posted by dBKC on 8/26/2020 5:17:00 PM (view original):

Name	Yr	Pos	MPG	USG	eFG	ORB	DRB	CRB	AST	DEF	STL	BLK	TOp48	Fp48
Ben Simmons	18	PG	34	22.1	56.3	6.6	18.8	25.4	28.3	71	1.8	1.2	4.9	3.7
Steph Curry	14	SG	32.5	28.9	59.4	2.3	10.6	12.9	27.4	72	2.7	0.3	4.6	2.9
Bo Outlaw	99	SF	28.5	9.8	60.2	8.9	14.3	23.2	13.1	95	2.1	3.6	2.7	4.2
Shawn Kemp	93	PF	33	24.2	53.9	13.3	23.2	36.5	9.3	100	2.4	3.9	4.8	5.8
Joakim Noah	12	C	30	17.3	48.1	11.3	21.1	32.4	14.6	90	1.5	3.5	3.5	3.7
				102.3	55.6	42.4	88	130.4	92.7	85.6	10.5	12.5	20.5	20.3

I don’t know if it’s my best team, but it’s my favorite. DRB is a little light but it’s a fun squad.

Please take this down. I should not have to think about this before they take my lunch.

Alright Mr. 130 AST%

Posted by bds9992 on 8/26/2020 4:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jhsukow on 8/26/2020 4:34:00 PM (view original):
As the “rules” currently stand, I don’t think I’m allowed to disagree or critique.

I like the Christian Wood pick.

Thank you.

You're allowed, but what's the point? I had to plan for all five teams, and I have numbers that make all five teams work. I have 110 CReb%, 59 Ast%, 400 threes, 60-90 D and 52+ eFG% (well, except Russell) for every player on every team, starting and off the bench. I kept TOs low and I made sure people who needed to start together did so for as long as they could. I have everything I need. What's there to criticize?

Huh...
1. Anything that is not perfect should be open to constructive criticism. None of our teams are perfect, so there is always something to be critical of.
2. None of us can see your exact lineups, people have been offering thoughts on the players you drafted and the spots they were drafted at. The lineups we've constructed and the #s they have isn't info others will have until after the leagues start. So, if others can't verify the info it can't be used to dispel criticism.
I do agree that there's little point to more criticism right now, at least until we can see each others' lineups. Also, some people don't receive constructive criticism well, so what's the point?

Posted by jpevans31 on 8/26/2020 5:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bds9992 on 8/26/2020 4:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jhsukow on 8/26/2020 4:34:00 PM (view original):
As the “rules” currently stand, I don’t think I’m allowed to disagree or critique.

I like the Christian Wood pick.

Thank you.

You're allowed, but what's the point? I had to plan for all five teams, and I have numbers that make all five teams work. I have 110 CReb%, 59 Ast%, 400 threes, 60-90 D and 52+ eFG% (well, except Russell) for every player on every team, starting and off the bench. I kept TOs low and I made sure people who needed to start together did so for as long as they could. I have everything I need. What's there to criticize?

Huh...
1. Anything that is not perfect should be open to constructive criticism. None of our teams are perfect, so there is always something to be critical of.
2. None of us can see your exact lineups, people have been offering thoughts on the players you drafted and the spots they were drafted at. The lineups we've constructed and the #s they have isn't info others will have until after the leagues start. So, if others can't verify the info it can't be used to dispel criticism.
I do agree that there's little point to more criticism right now, at least until we can see each others' lineups. Also, some people don't receive constructive criticism well, so what's the point?

I guess I'd say it the other way: how could anyone verify anything other than their own build?

Here's a general principle I believe: as long as the numbers are there, it doesn't matter who produces them. What the numbers should/must be is a fine topic for debate - like, for example, the idea that a lineup can tolerate more turnovers, but only with more rebounds and manageable fouls - but I'll play someone "out of position" if the numbers are right on that team. We can absolutely agree and disagree on that.

Without seeing how I applied whatever theories I have, there isn't much to see until we start playing games and rotations are put into action. Even then, it's hard to keep track of other teams when you're trying to manage five teams at once.

Certain things are objective, certain things are a little more subjective. Sub-52 eFG%, even from a low usage player, is bad. High fouls and turnovers are bad. How much is the subjective part. We can disagree on what a backup should do, how to manage multiple backups, whether each unit or the whole team needs scoring balance, how much is enough defense, whether threes are worth it even at the cost of team eFG%. If you believe someone else has gone beyond your subjective criteria, you can feel that way. I have no problem with that. But:

1. I don't know what your criteria are
2. you don't know what my criteria are
3. I can't see your work
4. you can't see my work (yet)

It's like trying a grade a math test before a student has turned in their answers. Feels counterproductive, unless you can point to something specific without seeing the specifics.

Starters
efg def ast orb drb crb tov
56.1 76.2 83.9 42.5 105.6 148.1 16.3
55.1 70.6 72.5 38 103.3 141.3 15.0
54.4 70.4 71.2 36 96.8 132.8 14.7
53.7 74.2 61.7 43.2 99.6 142.8 13.7
52.6 84.4 61.2 38.2 99.4 137.6 12.9

Full Team based on projected minutes
eFG% Ast% Def Orb% Drb% crb Tov%
55.0 76.4 71.5 38.9 96.0 134.9 14.4
55.2 68.9 67.4 35.8 91.7 127.5 14.3
54.8 66.3 65.8 37.0 91.6 128.6 13.6
54.6 61.4 72.0 41.7 93.7 135.4 13.8
53.4 61.4 79.0 37.7 96.1 133.8 13.3

I'm sure the formatting is *** as it always is, so I apologize in advance.

holy **** that's bad. Sorry :( I don't understand why I can't c/p from google docs anymore, so notepad always does this.

I'm almost universally 10% - 20% improved in almost every area vs season one... except turnovers, which are slightly higher

That’s pretty formidable. Remind me to rig the division lottery to stay away from you.