The Derek Harper pick at the back end of my 4 guards in 5 picks run really is the one pick that is screwing up my whole team. I wish he had some more lower minute options. I am being forced to play him some minutes at SF and it just really stinks. The only way to avoid it is to not use one of Stockton's best two seasons and that seems like such a waste.

Posted by Midge on 11/29/2019 11:25:00 AM (view original):
Seriously? I have four centers and three point guards?

I got zero pg's..I'll have to play 'His Airness' at the 1 spot. But I have usage...boy-o-boy do I have usage. lol

Posted by smokey63 on 12/2/2019 5:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Midge on 11/29/2019 11:25:00 AM (view original):
Seriously? I have four centers and three point guards?

I got zero pg's..I'll have to play 'His Airness' at the 1 spot. But I have usage...boy-o-boy do I have usage. lol

That was my problem. I'm only planning on prominently featuring two of the players I actually drafted. Big lesson learned for next time.

Posted by quaker128 on 12/2/2019 6:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by smokey63 on 12/2/2019 5:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Midge on 11/29/2019 11:25:00 AM (view original):
Seriously? I have four centers and three point guards?

I got zero pg's..I'll have to play 'His Airness' at the 1 spot. But I have usage...boy-o-boy do I have usage. lol

That was my problem. I'm only planning on prominently featuring two of the players I actually drafted. Big lesson learned for next time.

Because I have Jordan not getting a pg is not a problem. Last time I used the 88/89 Jordan he aveaged 10ast/gm at pg. I really like the 7 drafted players I have. Spent $45M on auto-drafted players, I think they'll win a few games. Basically...I hit the jackpot
.MJ/xxx @ pg
Gervin/Carter @ sg
Ibaka/Gervin @ sf
Bellamy/Daniels @ pf
Drummond//Daniels @ C

The Unseld Pick has killed me he has no usable low minute options uggghhh

I wish I could swap out my last pick, A.C. Green, as well. Next time I'm bumping some guards further up the list. I thought you had one of the drafts that could win sam. I'd go with the $2.9M Unseld and then only play him for about 15mpg. Minimize the damage.

Really, a bunch of teams are all guards and a bunch are all forwards. It would have been cool to have trades to sort this out... but I thought that would ruin the spirit of the theme.

Maybe next time allow the last pick to be able to be swapped out with anyone else you have left further down your list? Basically make the 7th pick an "owner's choice" with whoever is left on their list that isn't already drafted by someone else. But that last pick still has to come from their list of 168. To avoid owners making duplicate picks it should be a one round manual draft following the order of the 7th round with everybody using their own lists as their reference for player options.

Honestly, I think it’s very doable the way it is, provided people balance their lists by position and flexibility. I wouldn’t want to add too much to this format, seeing as it has taken this long to get started

I do think leaving it the way it is would get better next time as owners work their way up the learning curve on their draft lists. Still, there is always the possibility that teams will get screwed no matter how carefully you plan. A little variability isn't bad. But I guess that's what the last 5 picks are for.

Posted by bds9992 on 12/3/2019 6:05:00 PM (view original):
Honestly, I think it’s very doable the way it is, provided people balance their lists by position and flexibility. I wouldn’t want to add too much to this format, seeing as it has taken this long to get started

Meh. I agree it is doable and there will be challenges... but some of it is a crapshoot. My list is generally evenly distributed by position... but the code doesn't consider any previous selections. So even if you had a list that just alternated guard forward guard forward, depending on the picks that go before you there is still a reasonable probably you will get overstacked with guards or forwards... Hell, we could all submit the exact same lists and have a just a different draft order and the rosters could be wildly different. The only optimization anyone could really do is to engineer the likely outcomes based on an assumption that future lists are likely to be similar enough to current lists... but that is overkill.

Posted by robusk on 12/3/2019 5:55:00 PM (view original):
Really, a bunch of teams are all guards and a bunch are all forwards. It would have been cool to have trades to sort this out... but I thought that would ruin the spirit of the theme.

Maybe just allow the last pick to be eligible for trading with someone's else's last pick?

Posted by bds9992 on 12/3/2019 6:05:00 PM (view original):
Honestly, I think it’s very doable the way it is, provided people balance their lists by position and flexibility. I wouldn’t want to add too much to this format, seeing as it has taken this long to get started

At least there is momentum now. It won't take nearly as long to find 24 owners the 2nd time around as many will repeat. I do think that if any changes are made that it should be minimum, in keeping with the spirit of the theme, and have general agreement. We don't want to lose owners who aren't happy with the draft results if a small change would improve the theme.

A 3rd option would be to give the automated draft a little more intelligence and not allow more than 4 of one player type (Guard or Forward). If it sees you're about to draft your 5th Guard, then skip and go to the next available Forward on your list of 168. This would require the lists to have a G / F tag for each player on draft lists and for the program to keep a running count of player type on each team... so it would be more intensive for the administrators. But at least it would still be fully automated, still follow down the list of 168 submitted by each owner, and give a better draft result.

Posted by pexetera on 12/3/2019 6:43:00 PM (view original):
A 3rd option would be to give the automated draft a little more intelligence and not allow more than 4 of one player type (Guard or Forward). If it sees you're about to draft your 5th Guard, then skip and go to the next available Forward on your list of 168. This would require the lists to have a G / F tag for each player on draft lists and for the program to keep a running count of player type on each team... so it would be more intensive for the administrators. But at least it would still be fully automated, still follow down the list of 168 submitted by each owner, and give a better draft result.

I would just have to actually spend time and write thoughtful code to accomplish this... and I can't commit to the time for that.