2012 CB Historical Draft -Draft Lottery Edition - NEED VOLUNTEERS

[nickagneta]

I need a Co-GM. Either that or Nick will be helping me pick.

No problem doing that for anyone, just send me a list the night before or that morning with an ordered preference.

[indeedproceed]

Quick question, sorry if this was already covered:

When you select a player and their best season, will the panelists take into account the rest of their career as it actually played out? Or just that one season?

For example, say I drafted 1978 Bill Walton (can't be drafted I know, but a good example). Would the panelists take into account the fact that he missed the entire next season, and never became the same player again? Or is the future as it actually occured not really suppposed to exist for the purposes of this draft, and Bill Walton is a 25 year old phenom with a promising superstar career ahead of him?

I believe its the one season, in a vacuum.

[nickagneta]

Quick question, sorry if this was already covered:

When you select a player and their best season, will the panelists take into account the rest of their career as it actually played out? Or just that one season?

For example, say I drafted 1978 Bill Walton (can't be drafted I know, but a good example). Would the panelists take into account the fact that he missed the entire next season, and never became the same player again? Or is the future as it actually occured not really suppposed to exist for the purposes of this draft, and Bill Walton is a 25 year old phenom with a promising superstar career ahead of him?

Its supposed to be for just that season. For instance I took Magic and Walton last year. I took them for specific seasons. So Walton's injury couldn't be taken into consideration and I forget what Magic season I chose but I think it was one where his outside shooting started to pick up so people couldn't say he couldn't shoot from outside.

Also, there's a lot on one or two season wonders out there, guys that were dominant All-Star to All NBA type players for one or two years and then disappeared. If selected and used only the season designated can be judged.

[Celtic Fan Forever]

Quick question, sorry if this was already covered:

When you select a player and their best season, will the panelists take into account the rest of their career as it actually played out? Or just that one season?

For example, say I drafted 1978 Bill Walton (can't be drafted I know, but a good example). Would the panelists take into account the fact that he missed the entire next season, and never became the same player again? Or is the future as it actually occured not really suppposed to exist for the purposes of this draft, and Bill Walton is a 25 year old phenom with a promising superstar career ahead of him?

Its supposed to be for just that season. For instance I took Magic and Walton last year. I took them for specific seasons. So Walton's injury couldn't be taken into consideration and I forget what Magic season I chose but I think it was one where his outside shooting started to pick up so people couldn't say he couldn't shoot from outside.

Also, there's a lot on one or two season wonders out there, guys that were dominant All-Star to All NBA type players for one or two years and then disappeared. If selected and used only the season designated can be judged.

Oh ok, makes sense. Thanks Nick, TP.

[Moranis]

Quick question, sorry if this was already covered:

When you select a player and their best season, will the panelists take into account the rest of their career as it actually played out? Or just that one season?

For example, say I drafted 1978 Bill Walton (can't be drafted I know, but a good example). Would the panelists take into account the fact that he missed the entire next season, and never became the same player again? Or is the future as it actually occured not really suppposed to exist for the purposes of this draft, and Bill Walton is a 25 year old phenom with a promising superstar career ahead of him?

Its supposed to be for just that season. For instance I took Magic and Walton last year. I took them for specific seasons. So Walton's injury couldn't be taken into consideration and I forget what Magic season I chose but I think it was one where his outside shooting started to pick up so people couldn't say he couldn't shoot from outside.

Also, there's a lot on one or two season wonders out there, guys that were dominant All-Star to All NBA type players for one or two years and then disappeared. If selected and used only the season designated can be judged.

With all that said, I had a few players last time that were 1 or 2 year wonders and I think the panel held their overall careers against them.

[nickagneta]

I have an owner that came forward and requested the last pick in round one as the times best fits his schedule.

Does anyone have a problem with the last pick in the first round being assigned to a person?

[indeedproceed]

I have an owner that came forward and requested the last pick in round one as the times best hit his schedule.

Does anyone have a problem with the last pick in the first round being assigned to a person?

Naw, but it is pretty critical to my um...time constraints that I be allowed the first pick in the first three rounds. Super critical.

[StartOrien]

Quick question, sorry if this was already covered:

When you select a player and their best season, will the panelists take into account the rest of their career as it actually played out? Or just that one season?

For example, say I drafted 1978 Bill Walton (can't be drafted I know, but a good example). Would the panelists take into account the fact that he missed the entire next season, and never became the same player again? Or is the future as it actually occured not really suppposed to exist for the purposes of this draft, and Bill Walton is a 25 year old phenom with a promising superstar career ahead of him?

Its supposed to be for just that season. For instance I took Magic and Walton last year. I took them for specific seasons. So Walton's injury couldn't be taken into consideration and I forget what Magic season I chose but I think it was one where his outside shooting started to pick up so people couldn't say he couldn't shoot from outside.

Also, there's a lot on one or two season wonders out there, guys that were dominant All-Star to All NBA type players for one or two years and then disappeared. If selected and used only the season designated can be judged.

With all that said, I had a few players last time that were 1 or 2 year wonders and I think the panel held their overall careers against them.

Ya, I remember this being a point of disconnect last season. Perhaps it'd be in everyone's best interest if we could get some more clear-cut language.

As a panelist am I supposed to look at just the one year in an absolute vacuum? Or am I emphasizing a season, but using supporting seasons to consider other things like playoff experience/matchups.

[KCattheStripe]

I have an owner that came forward and requested the last pick in round one as the times best hit his schedule.

Does anyone have a problem with the last pick in the first round being assigned to a person?

Naw, but it is pretty critical to my um...time constraints that I be allowed the first pick in the first three rounds. Super critical.

[indeedproceed]

Quick question, sorry if this was already covered:

When you select a player and their best season, will the panelists take into account the rest of their career as it actually played out? Or just that one season?

For example, say I drafted 1978 Bill Walton (can't be drafted I know, but a good example). Would the panelists take into account the fact that he missed the entire next season, and never became the same player again? Or is the future as it actually occured not really suppposed to exist for the purposes of this draft, and Bill Walton is a 25 year old phenom with a promising superstar career ahead of him?

Its supposed to be for just that season. For instance I took Magic and Walton last year. I took them for specific seasons. So Walton's injury couldn't be taken into consideration and I forget what Magic season I chose but I think it was one where his outside shooting started to pick up so people couldn't say he couldn't shoot from outside.

Also, there's a lot on one or two season wonders out there, guys that were dominant All-Star to All NBA type players for one or two years and then disappeared. If selected and used only the season designated can be judged.

With all that said, I had a few players last time that were 1 or 2 year wonders and I think the panel held their overall careers against them.

Ya, I remember this being a point of disconnect last season. Perhaps it'd be in everyone's best interest if we could get some more clear-cut language.

As a panelist am I supposed to look at just the one year in an absolute vacuum? Or am I emphasizing a season, but using supporting seasons to consider other things like playoff experience/matchups.

I have a more precise question:

2 players, both outstanding NBA careers. Both HOF'ers, but one won a NBA Championship late in his career, even though he was past his time of carrying a team on his back, the other one did not ever.

Assuming their careers are extremely similar, do you rate player A (the non-ring guy) lower than player B (the ringbearer), even though a big piece of that is because of something he accomplishes later, and in large part because of better teammates?

[Moranis]

Quick question, sorry if this was already covered:

When you select a player and their best season, will the panelists take into account the rest of their career as it actually played out? Or just that one season?

For example, say I drafted 1978 Bill Walton (can't be drafted I know, but a good example). Would the panelists take into account the fact that he missed the entire next season, and never became the same player again? Or is the future as it actually occured not really suppposed to exist for the purposes of this draft, and Bill Walton is a 25 year old phenom with a promising superstar career ahead of him?

Its supposed to be for just that season. For instance I took Magic and Walton last year. I took them for specific seasons. So Walton's injury couldn't be taken into consideration and I forget what Magic season I chose but I think it was one where his outside shooting started to pick up so people couldn't say he couldn't shoot from outside.

Also, there's a lot on one or two season wonders out there, guys that were dominant All-Star to All NBA type players for one or two years and then disappeared. If selected and used only the season designated can be judged.

With all that said, I had a few players last time that were 1 or 2 year wonders and I think the panel held their overall careers against them.

Ya, I remember this being a point of disconnect last season. Perhaps it'd be in everyone's best interest if we could get some more clear-cut language.

As a panelist am I supposed to look at just the one year in an absolute vacuum? Or am I emphasizing a season, but using supporting seasons to consider other things like playoff experience/matchups.

I have a more precise question:

2 players, both outstanding NBA careers. Both HOF'ers, but one won a NBA Championship late in his career, even though he was past his time of carrying a team on his back, the other one did not ever.

Assuming their careers are extremely similar, do you rate player A (the non-ring guy) lower than player B (the ringbearer), even though a big piece of that is because of something he accomplishes later, and in large part because of better teammates?

I am of the belief that only the one year in a vacuum should be used and nothing else matters.  If say you picked Jordan, but then used his 37 ppg season, you shouldn't get credit for the MVP's and titles that came later.  If you want a MVP and title you need to pick one of those seasons.  I know it is hard to separate and I don't envy the panelists, but that is the way it should be.

Since Kevin Willis can't be picked this year, this was one of the guys I had that I was talking about.  In 91-92, Willis had his only all star season, his only All NBA appearance (3rd Team), and averaged 18.3 ppg and 15.5 rpg.  An absolutely superb season, but I really felt the panelists looked at the name and discounted the season a great deal, whereas had the name been Hakeem Olojuwan, it would have been looked at differently.  Again it is difficult to separate the two, but it really seems like the thing to do. 

I'd almost suggest that the panelists shouldn't pay attention to the draft and when the teams are presented do so only using the stats and not the names i.e. PF/C - 18.3 ppg, 15.5 rpg, All Star, 3rd Team All NBA, etc.   Probably not that realistic, but would probably yield a better result.

[nickagneta]

You know, as with everything, I think this is all personal preference. I would hope that panelists view the player as the player they were that year, but I'm not sure anything can be done to force someone away from their decision if they take over matters into consideration.

For instance, if you use Bernard King of 1983-84, well that year may have been the single most spectacular year a SF ever had. King was near unstoppable averaging 28 points on 18 shots and in the playoffs he was even more amazing. But years before that and years after that, after he hurt his leg, he was never the same. But that one year...that is what should be considered. That's what I would want to be considered. But other than two years in his career did King ever exhibit he was the type of player to be relied upon to be that leader, to shut down opposing players, to be that clutch #1 guy? Not sure he was and because of that some people may take that into consideration if comparing him to someone like Dominique Wilkins who did what he did for over a decade.

I can't stop panelists from having a different view. I can't stop people from looking at a player's whole history and letting that influence their voting decisions. I just can't.

Its one of the reasons I would like to revolve the panelists every year so that we don't get stuck with just one set of ideals of what players are.

History can be interpreted in many different ways depending upon the perspective of the individual looking back at history. For that reason, I would want the panelists to attempt to view the player on the team in the light of the year that the owner chooses but if the panelist has some perspective of the player due to their historical view of the player then I really can't stop that from coming out in how they vote or how they explain their vote.

Best I can tell you is make the best team you can and feel comfortable with it because its going to be a great team, and then let whatever happens with the panelists happen.

[StartOrien]

I have a more precise question:

2 players, both outstanding NBA careers. Both HOF'ers, but one won a NBA Championship late in his career, even though he was past his time of carrying a team on his back, the other one did not ever.

Assuming their careers are extremely similar, do you rate player A (the non-ring guy) lower than player B (the ringbearer), even though a big piece of that is because of something he accomplishes later, and in large part because of better teammates?

Personally, I don't put all that much stock into a player not winning a ring unless they've displayed an inability to perform when it matters.

So, I don't hold anything against Charles Barkley - he had the misfortune of spending a lot of years with a less than par cast, and in the Jordan era - I would consider it a blemish on the career of a modern player who consistently puts up terrific numbers, but there are some questions about his ability to perform in the clutch, also is kind of a jerk and his current mouthpiece kind of makes it look like he has oreos stuck in his braces*, though probably not nearly as much as others. I'd also be quick to point out that in a game filled w/ Hall of Famers his 'reluctance' to score in the prime wouldn't be nearly as big as it would in a normal setting.


*not naming names, you guys!

[indeedproceed]

I'd almost suggest that the panelists shouldn't pay attention to the draft and when the teams are presented do so only using the stats and not the names i.e. PF/C - 18.3 ppg, 15.5 rpg, All Star, 3rd Team All NBA, etc.   Probably not that realistic, but would probably yield a better result.

I disagree a lot with this, because of the way that basketball relates to statistics. We are just now churning out advanced box-score numbers that can accurately predict just small parts of on-the-court success and failure.

Factor in different rules for different eras, different body-types, different teammates, different contextual situations, I just don't think a stats-only no names approach would have any kind of context, or would be able to give you a comprehensive picture of a team at all.

[StartOrien]

I'd almost suggest that the panelists shouldn't pay attention to the draft and when the teams are presented do so only using the stats and not the names i.e. PF/C - 18.3 ppg, 15.5 rpg, All Star, 3rd Team All NBA, etc.   Probably not that realistic, but would probably yield a better result.

I disagree a lot with this, because of the way that basketball relates to statistics. We are just now churning out advanced box-score numbers that can accurately predict just small parts of on-the-court success and failure.

Factor in different rules for different eras, different body-types, different teammates, different contextual situations, I just don't think a stats-only no names approach would have any kind of context, or would be able to give you a comprehensive picture of a team at all.

I concur with this. More than anything, I think the funnest part of this exercise is considering the on court chemistry these players would have together.

(insert heat zing here)