The controversial vintage Top 10 Mock

[Silogical]

Agreed with the first two parts. Third part Im no fan.

How do you agree with the 2nd part and not the 3rd part? If you want to see players boom bust over years we need raw players with high upside. Relying on RNG scouts to add unpredictablness is just inferior compared to creating boom-bust players.

DDS3 is doing it nicely with the plus ratings. We have boom / bust guys without knowing anything from the start due to that.
Even though some pretend they do. I would call that unlikely though. Maybe had luck predicting some but that was pure luck.

PS: Only a very few players every were able to develop +20 in one category. If we would get flooded with busts. The 7-8 guys that would have boomed through the 1st and 2nd round still would be awesome, but all others might end up being bench end at best. That's an overreaction and would turn the draft into pure luck.

The +10 is the worst part of DDS boom-bust system. We find out in yr one with very few yr 2 bonuses. If you have a 30-90 guy in yr one they could have a bad training camp year 2 could be bad too, but maybe yr three they bust out just like in real life. The +10 is also bad because you cant draft for it, its straight RNG no skill at all. With raw/upside players its your choice if you want to draft a 50/60 guy or a 30/75 guy.

The problem today is 90% of the rookies have potentials close to their currents. That number needs to change we need more thon makers.

PS: Only a very few players ever were able to develop +20 in one category. If we would do it he way you suggested, we would get flooded with busts. The 7-8 guys that would have boomed through the 1st and 2nd round anyway still would be awesome, but all others might end up being bench end at best. That's an overreaction and would turn the draft into pure luck if it comes to getting drafted a backup/starter at least.

That's non sense if a bunch of 30/90 guys are going to bust then make it 40/90 if you think theyll stuill bust make it 50/90 at a point you are going to have a draft full of superstars so you can see why i see that point as nonsense.

Players dont fully develop or not develop at all there is an inbetween.

[Dennis]

How do you agree with the 2nd part and not the 3rd part? If you want to see players boom bust over years we need raw players with high upside. Relying on RNG scouts to add unpredictablness is just inferior compared to creating boom-bust players.

DDS3 is doing it nicely with the plus ratings. We have boom / bust guys without knowing anything from the start due to that.
Even though some pretend they do. I would call that unlikely though. Maybe had luck predicting some but that was pure luck.

PS: Only a very few players every were able to develop +20 in one category. If we would get flooded with busts. The 7-8 guys that would have boomed through the 1st and 2nd round still would be awesome, but all others might end up being bench end at best. That's an overreaction and would turn the draft into pure luck.

The +10 is the worst part of DDS boom-bust system. We find out in yr one with very few yr 2 bonuses. If you have a 30-90 guy in yr one they could have a bad training camp year 2 could be bad too, but maybe yr three they bust out just like in real life. The +10 is also bad because you cant draft for it, its straight RNG no skill at all. With raw/upside players its your choice if you want to draft a 50/60 guy or a 30/75 guy.

The problem today is 90% of the rookies have potentials close to their currents. That number needs to change we need more thon makers.

Actually the plus 10s is super smart as that way you create steals like Isaiah Taylor. Sadly development doesn't work the way you described in DDS3. No idea about DDS19, but to expect a development like in reallife if you talk about DDS3 is just beyond crazy lol. Also, it's just not the way development works in DDS3. The good thing of being a draft guy is, that you have all files and can easily track the development of players. A development you described above nearly never happend (2-3 times for like 200 prospects?). People believe it did, but that's just gutfeeling while I can track the data.

Anyhow, DDS19 is a different game. Not sure how development works there.

[Silogical]

Actually the plus 10s is super smart as that way you create steals like Isaiah Taylor. Sadly development doesn't work the way you described in DDS3. No idea about DDS19, but to expect a development like in reallife if you talk about DDS3 is just beyond crazy lol. Also, it's just not the way development works in DDS3. The good thing of being a draft guy is, that you have all files and can easily track the development of players. A development you described above nearly never happend (2-3 times for like 200 prospects?). People believe it did, but that's just gutfeeling while I can track the data.

Anyhow, DDS19 is a different game. Not sure how development works there.

200 boom-bust prospects? can you name them? bruno/thon... bruno and thon didnt even have close to 90 potentials.

If you have a 30/90 guy they are not either going to be 30 or 90 they are going to end up somewhere in between. A 40/90 guy will end up somewhere in between and so on.

[Dennis]

Actually the plus 10s is super smart as that way you create steals like Isaiah Taylor. Sadly development doesn't work the way you described in DDS3. No idea about DDS19, but to expect a development like in reallife if you talk about DDS3 is just beyond crazy lol. Also, it's just not the way development works in DDS3. The good thing of being a draft guy is, that you have all files and can easily track the development of players. A development you described above nearly never happend (2-3 times for like 200 prospects?). People believe it did, but that's just gutfeeling while I can track the data.

Anyhow, DDS19 is a different game. Not sure how development works there.

200 boom-bust prospects? can you name them? bruno/thon...

If you have a 30/90 guy they are not either going to be 30 or 90 they are going to end up somewhere in between. A 40/90 guy will end up somewhere in between and so on.

200 guys I tracked since starting creating players to have a better feeling for development as a draft guy. I was talking about development of 0 improvement TC 1 & 2 but explosion in TC 3. It happened like 2-3 times when looking at a sample size of 200. Normally development follows a steady pattern. TC improvement of year 1 = year 2 +/- 2 = year 3 + / - 2 and so on.

85% of the players follow that development pattern - if they develop.

Also, what you said is not entirely true. ~20% of the players dont develop at all but ~5-10 points across all categories (even though they have huge potentials left). Examples coming to mind without checking the file are PapaG or Trice.

On top there is a problem with your theory. What I noticed is, that players only develop up to 80-90% of the potentials left. So if you have a player with 10 points in SCR left, he will end up with +8/+9 over his career if he develops. You will rarely see a player that goes all the way to his potentials. So if you have a guy with 50 potentials left, I can ensure you, that absolute max is +40/+45 for him in one category. Yet, like said, I only saw 8-10 players that ever got >=+20 in one category at all.

Edit says: Just seen that Im not the only one knowing about that part.. bt just posted it earlier

bt: From my experience though, I've always thought the DDS line of games had too many 'cosmetic' of 'fluff' ratings. In all I've seen, most/all players developed to 2-3 points shy of their potentials unless they were a boom/bust selected player. If a player had 90 defensive potential, I'd assume they will end up as an 87 defender, maybe an 88.

okay now enough of my insides lol. good that we change, else I should keep them for me:P..

[Silogical]

ive been saying players develop in between there current and potential so that just confirms my point and i see players never fully raching their max potential as a good thing.

Trice and PapaG dont have that high potentials. im talking 90 range.

The main takeaway is if you create 60/60 players you will have no boom-bust
50/70 you have slight boom bust
40/80 even more
30/90 even more
20/100 even more

Now with all these guys in the draft we have the choice who to choose. The current draft is too full of 50/70 60/70 players.

You can do this for every tier
tier 1 could look like
70/80
60/90
50/100

Just examples as id have to have experience as to where players ratings should be set. You have that experience so you can create drafts with more variety.

PS: based on your experience are you saying Ayton is doomed? since he had a bad 1st training camp does that mean all his upcoming training camps will be bad? if that's true thats a shame but that doesnt change that we can still add variety to the draft let us choose if we want to go the safe route or take a risky route.

[Dennis]

ive been saying players develop in between there current and potential so that just confirms my point and i see players never fully raching their max potential as a good thing.

Trice and PapaG dont have that high potentials. im talking 90 range.

The main takeaway is if you create 60/60 players you will have no boom-bust
50/70 you have slight boom bust
40/80 even more
30/90 even more
20/100 even more

Now with all these guys in the draft we have the choice who to choose. The current draft is too full of 50/70 60/70 players.

You can do this for every tier
tier 1 could look like
70/80
60/90
50/100

Just examples as id have to have experience as to where players ratings should be set. You have that experience so you can create drafts with more variety.

PS: based on your experience are you saying Ayton is doomed? since he had a bad 1st training camp does that mean all his upcoming training camps will be bad? if that's true thats a shame but that doesnt change that we can still add variety to the draft let us choose if we want to go the safe route or take a risky route.

I think it makes sense to some degree. But it shouldnt be 30/90 in evrey category. But what you could do is create a player with like skills that are 50(60)/70 for most categories but 1 or 2. Like a guy that is solid in evrything (reb, hdl, scr etc) but "sucks" in defense and steal with high potential. That way you could create solid players that have the potential to be awesome all around or so.

[bt]

I assume DDS3 is similar to the older games (and maybe DDS19 also) in that playing time actually has some kind of impact.

I remember the developer mentioning that 10-15 minutes in the pro leagues were better than 35-40 minutes in the D/G League for development. 10-15 in the pro league versus 35-40 in the pro league? No idea if it makes any difference above that though and I'm just assuming it's still there now.

A guy like Bruno got 18+ in his first season with a few slightly less over his career. Maker got good minutes so maybe for a guy who is flagged as a bust, it makes zero difference as that flag overrides all. Just wonder how much impact it actually has.

I guess that could be roughly tested though by creating 5-6 or however many identical players, on the same team with the same coaches and give them varying minutes and see if there is any impact (minus the boom players of course). Could even be done with the varying 10-100, 20-100, 20-90 ranges, etc.... if anyone is keen, lol.

[Silogical]

I think it makes sense to some degree. But it shouldnt be 30/90 in evrey category. But what you could do is create a player with like skills that are 50(60)/70 for most categories but 1 or 2. Like a guy that is solid in evrything (reb, hdl, scr etc) but "sucks" in defense and steal with high potential. That way you could create solid players that have the potential to be awesome all around or so.

Yes, it wouldnt be every cat. It would be basically what is being done but way less conservative.

here is your typical csl scout

FGD: 50/51
FGI: 31/32
FGJ: 40/41
FT: 79/81
FG3: 39/41
SCR: 47/56
PAS: 48/50
HDL: 55/56
ORB: 37/55
DRB: 50/61
BLK: 35/35
STL: 64/75
DRFL: 4/4
DEF: 76/81
DIS: 78/90
IQ: 53/69

here is a scout you rarely ever see but it would be nice to have this option available to draft

FGD: 40/61
FGI: 15/40
FGJ: 40/51
FT: 69/89
FG3: 36/48
SCR: 40/85
PAS: 38/58
HDL: 40/85
ORB: 20/65
DRB: 30/60
BLK: 30/65
STL: 40/100
DRFL: 2/12
DEF: 56/100
DIS: 58/95
IQ: 53/69

The potential for different types of players far exceeds the 60 players that are created. So far we dont get much boom-bust variety. We actually get more weird players like jaylan adams than boom-bust players. Im not completely against weird players but there should be a lot less of them than boom-bust players.

[Dennis]

Yeah the bottom scouting report is a player that would never be in the league. For example shooting ratings develop ~8 points max in a career.

[Silogical]

Yeah the bottom scouting report is a player that would never be in the league. For example shooting ratings develop ~8 points max in a career.

ok look again. i based the 2nd player off the 1st player who isnt very good. With the adjusted ratings i am taking player 2 over player 1 every time and its not close. Its about variety some boom-bust players will be better prospects than others some might go pick 50 some might go pick 5

We also cant have every draft pick ending up in the league after 4 seasons.

[Dennis]

Yeah the bottom scouting report is a player that would never be in the league. For example shooting ratings develop ~8 points max in a career.

ok look again. i based the 2nd player off the 1st player who isnt very good. With the adjusted ratings i am taking player 2 over player 1 every time and its not close. Its about variety some boom-bust players will be better prospects than others some might go pick 50 some might go pick 5

We also cant have every draft pick ending up in the league after 4 seasons.

But the player will never be a 40% shooter if we are talking same +/- for scouts. As as player develops between 2-8 shooting points in his career. Who would draft a player that can't hit anything? Or are you talking about extending ranges of scouts? I dont get your point.

[Silogical]

Yeah the bottom scouting report is a player that would never be in the league. For example shooting ratings develop ~8 points max in a career.

ok look again. i based the 2nd player off the 1st player who isnt very good. With the adjusted ratings i am taking player 2 over player 1 every time and its not close. Its about variety some boom-bust players will be better prospects than others some might go pick 50 some might go pick 5

We also cant have every draft pick ending up in the league after 4 seasons.

But the player will never be a 40% shooter if we are talking same +/- for scouts. As as player develops between 2-8 shooting points in his career. Who would draft a player that can't hit anything? Or are you talking about extending ranges of scouts? I dont get your point.

I dont know what you're saying You dont think that guy would be in the league with 40/51 FGJ? 40 is his current and 51 is his pootential.

That said how good that raw high upside player is isnt important what's important is there are a bunch of them in the draft so we have that option to draft them. If you think thhe'll suck that's fine ill take them.

[Dennis]

Talking about that inside ratings and you know that. At best thst guy would be 48 23 inside shootings. That's roughly 39% around the rim. That's super awful.

[Silogical]

Talking about that inside ratings and you know that. At best thst guy would be 48 23 inside shootings. That's roughly 39% around the rim. That's super awful.

He's a perimeter player with handles steals and def. You would pass on that because he isnt that great around the rim? I would take him you can take the guy with high FGI potential but lower handles potential.

My point options and variety. We need it.

[mgtr81]

At least no one can say that my article didn't generate discussion

Addressing a few questions that have come both in this thread and via PM:

1. I'm not saying I can predict how players are going to develop (exact ratings). I'm saying that whoever has ever had to do all the work with creating players that me and others (some of them also here in the CSL) have done over the years, may have a very good idea of what the driving forces behind player development are. And of course, if you run the same universe multiple times, you may get a few where the results are different from those expected. There is a random factor there too, but it seems to have a small weight (that's because I said 90 % of the time). So in this realization of our universe, Melo and TMac could not develop, but most of the times they will.

2. I don't think there's anything wrong with our draft classes (other than that discussion that I will not start again about FGI for big men as I already accepted that), the problem lies in the engine and its development patterns, that prevents certain type of players to develop. So from that perspective our draft department does a great job (both with classes and media).

3. I would be really surprised if of all 30 GM's here, some with years and years of experience, no one had any idea about this (see first part of #1).

4. Yes, players rarely develop completely (100 %) ... that is related to the driving forces.

5. Playing time is another urban legend, like work ethic. I had a player in the old xNBA who spent a whole season injured, playing zero minutes, and had big jumps in each ratings update.

6. I hope that things are different in DDS19.

7. Despite all the things we criticize the engine is very good. As a basketball sim game it's of very high quality. I have had a lot of great moments playing this game. The thing is that we would like it to be perfect, and sometimes we just talk about those few things that can be improved and not about the many that make it a great game.

8. Last but not least ... just throwing this to Jon and Myles. When, after talking to Ryan, I tried to bring back the NLL a while ago, one of the things that was in consideration was creating an off-the-game development system to overcome the engine limitations in that regard. Of course, it didn't happen as the interest in bringing back the NLL was not high enough. Then I considered that for the GAH after the switch to DDS18, but we had to close the league. Would you be open to something like that in order to add more realism to the league? I'm willing to help.

[emplep7]

Myles and myself are always open to ideas/improvements for the league to cover some of the engines issues. I’d like to dive into DDS19 a bit to see if it’s the same as DDS3 but send Myles and myself a PM with what you’re thinking.

[mgtr81]

In case anyone is wondering: Jackson, Fultz, Porter, Brown, Harrison, Musa, Mikal Bridges, Miles Bridges, Sexton and Williams.

[drumr]

Um. Gates?!?! Dude has better D than Okobo and I swear people said the same about Cordi and his scoring and look at him. His defense looks to be legendary if he falls to 11 I could have the best 1-3 defense ratingswise ever. I'd love that. John Collins and Elie Okobo need some love. Both are top 10 talents. Especially the latter. I've got enough to narrow him down and he's Lillard-lite. Lot of smokescreening around here. Though Manu as stated has unique views of scouts. Hell Landry Shamet looks like a mirror of Trae in Charlotte and he was lotto in a "better draft".

[blackice]

I might have to grab a late 1st or two as I believe Mudiay was the last guy I drafted.

[mgtr81]

5. This is not how I think the draft should go, but how I think it will go (based on rumours and other info).