The controversial vintage Top 10 Mock

[Silogical]

From 3 to 15 you are getting decent role players so I dont really see an issue with a huge boom-bust guy going 4th. I would personally take Michael Cooper 4th, I see a lot of bender in him and Bender has played a significant role in houstons success this year. I do see why Cooper is polarizing though, if you dont score in bunches you are considered a bust and Cooper wont score in bunches.

[mgtr81]

@Gary, 8 out of 10 right.

@Marcos, thanks for your input, but see comment #2 before the Mock.

If you actually know how DDS works, you will know then that both Melo and TMac will develop. For the same reasons that Maker did and Ingram and Carter didn't. That's why I drafted Maker, because I knew he would develop despite being so raw. And the same reason why, in case Kwame is in the lower side of the intervals I have, may not develop (but in his case I cannot tell until I can narrow down one of his ratings more, he could develop if that is high enough).

Of course, it's not 100 % guaranteed as there is always some random factor ... but we can say 90 % of the time prospects with Melo and TMac rating structure develop. And that has not changed since the very first version of the series. The only thing that has changed in terms of development is the jumps structure. In the early versions it was constant: players got the same increases in the same ratings in all three ratings updates. In DDS3 it changed, giving a bigger jump in TC and small ones in the two in-season ratings updates.

Most veteran DDS users who have had to deal with creating players or running leagues, already know (that's my guess) what the driving factors for player development are. And work ethic has nothing to do with that. It's just one of those cosmetic ratings in the game. See Maker and Ingram again, for example. If you don't believe me about the cosmetic thing, you can ask other users with deep knowledge of the engine, for example bt.

So, regarding my pick, having a 90 % chance of developing, I'm taking that risk. My team does not need another role player. If then the guy I draft falls in the 10 % chance ... so be it.

[Myles]

The face when you’ve been playing in sim leagues for 9 years and have no clue how to know which players will develop:



Personally, I think it’s more fun to not game the system, but that’s just me.

[hardenwithnod]

The face when you’ve been playing in sim leagues for 9 years and have no clue how to know which players will develop:



Personally, I think it’s more fun to not game the system, but that’s just me.

Exactly how I feel, lol.

[Andrewu91]

So bucks going to Porter it sounds like.

[mgtr81]

@Myles, I completely agree with you. That's why I lost interest for some time in sim leagues. But running a retro league I had to know how players would develop. Imagine if I would have created a Jordan or Olajuwon who did not develop or a Washburn who had hit his potentials. That's the price I had to pay, not really enjoying the league I was running. And since then I've never been able to enjoy DDSPB leagues as I did before. That's no excuse for my poor performance here, though.

[Dennis]

@Gary, 8 out of 10 right.

@Marcos, thanks for your input, but see comment #2 before the Mock.

If you actually know how DDS works, you will know then that both Melo and TMac will develop. For the same reasons that Maker did and Ingram and Carter didn't. That's why I drafted Maker, because I knew he would develop despite being so raw. And the same reason why, in case Kwame is in the lower side of the intervals I have, may not develop (but in his case I cannot tell until I can narrow down one of his ratings more, he could develop if that is high enough).

Of course, it's not 100 % guaranteed as there is always some random factor ... but we can say 90 % of the time prospects with Melo and TMac rating structure develop. And that has not changed since the very first version of the series. The only thing that has changed in terms of development is the jumps structure. In the early versions it was constant: players got the same increases in the same ratings in all three ratings updates. In DDS3 it changed, giving a bigger jump in TC and small ones in the two in-season ratings updates.

Most veteran DDS users who have had to deal with creating players or running leagues, already know (that's my guess) what the driving factors for player development are. And work ethic has nothing to do with that. It's just one of those cosmetic ratings in the game. See Maker and Ingram again, for example. If you don't believe me about the cosmetic thing, you can ask other users with deep knowledge of the engine, for example bt.

So, regarding my pick, having a 90 % chance of developing, I'm taking that risk. My team does not need another role player. If then the guy I draft falls in the 10 % chance ... so be it.

Might be right if we wouldn't be looking at an excel sheet in the scouting that is not related to the game. Players are auto created prior to admins editing the players. So maybe you are right when we would know whom of the excel sheet will be which game created player. I don't know at which ratings to look but we aren't able to know them anyway..
Also, why would you draft Carter and Ingram if you know better, that doesn't make sense to me.

[Myles]

@Myles, I completely agree with you. That's why I lost interest for some time in sim leagues. But running a retro league I had to know how players would develop. Imagine if I would have created a Jordan or Olajuwon who did not develop or a Washburn who had hit his potentials. That's the price I had to pay, not really enjoying the league I was running. And since then I've never been able to enjoy DDSPB leagues as I did before. That's no excuse for my poor performance here, though.

Here I was thinking the fun of sim leagues is that you don’t know if Jordan or Olajuwon will develop. That’s the risk you take.

[Marcos_Beck]

I don't know how player development works, but given Caboclo and LaVine for example, who were extremely raw, never reached close to their full potentials, I'm torn on how T-Mac would develop here. He's two times rawer than both was at least, if not more. It's too risky at #4. Trade down and pick your guy, he'll be there, in a draft full of solid talent at the top, nobody going to risk the way you're looking to. Anyone who considers T-Mac inside the top-10 is not valuing prospects and players correctly, even if the guy has some good potential, and I think he has (even if not a franchise guy, he would be close to an all-star nod if fully developed), there are much safer players than him, players who'll 100% sure give you the same production as T-Mac would if he reaches 80% of his potentials, which is a lot, because that 80% of his development is about the same as those player's floors. It's just crazy.

Like I told you before, I've learned to respect you and your way of managing the team. I just think this goes beyond crazy. You could land some serious talent and still grab the same guy if you trade down to #10 or so. You should be more open minded for that. If you lose on your guy by trading down, somebody reached high for him and that should be amazing for you, you can get a player with a much better floor than his plus land another top asset in the process. Trading down means win-win if you have no other real target.

I don't think LA will draft Carmelo, which should be good for you, but if they do, you better look at the market for trading options.

[mgtr81]

Might be right if we wouldn't be looking at an excel sheet in the scouting that is not related to the game. Players are auto created prior to admins editing the players. So maybe you are right when we would know whom of the excel sheet will be which game created player. I don't know at which ratings to look but we aren't able to know them anyway..
Also, why would you draft Carter and Ingram if you know better, that doesn't make sense to me.

The first sentence ... are they edited before or after being drafted? That can make a difference.

Carter: because he was BPA and his rebounding was already so good he can dominate the boards even without developing.

Ingram: good question ... I thought his scoring was high enough in the right system, but wasn't. At the time I had not played DDS3 enough and was assuming shot distribution was the same than in previous versions, which was not the case. I was very close to trade down to get either Fox or Monk, who I considered #2 and #3 of that class, respectively. At least I got those two right. But yes, probably Ingram ranks third in that class now.

[mgtr81]

@Marcos ... my guess is if the Pistons scouted him, he won't be available after #5. Because they can take that risk given they're already contenders. They've got nothing to lose.

[mgtr81]

By the way, I would love to see DDS19 has changed development patterns. Does anyone have any experience with that?

[emplep7]

They are added prior to the draft but it’s literally copying from excel and pasting into access. I’m not sure there is any rhyme or reason for development personally but you guys know much more about the game then me. The game decides things like endurance etc after we paste the players in and TC occurs.

[Jestor]

Starting endurance is a function of age - the younger the player is at career start, the worse the endurance. This is all mitigated by appropriate TC allocation and aging, though - with Year 3 being where the big Endurance boost happens.

[Rizzo]

For the record I have no idea what Manu is talking about in terms of what to look for in a prospect to know that they will reach their potentials, nor do I want to know. I am enjoying creating prospects and seeing their careers’ play out while I sit back and watch who's takes off and who’s flounders.

[bt]

I like to think I know the engine fairly well (no idea on the late DDS versions though so that'll be interesting, lol) but to be honest, that's where my knowledge ends. I don't think I have much idea on what to look for when it comes to player development.

My only theory that I subscribe to when it comes to player development in these older DDS games is that is 100% the same across the board bar the randomly selected players that will boom or bust. In the older games you used to get an email indicating whether someone had boomed or busted. Now it's watching the ratings yet it seems to be boosts only in certain areas and by a set amount.

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.

I have always been a supporter of the FBB method of letter ratings or the DDS method of 10's instead of 100's. I much prefer not knowing exacts and trading for or draft a guy that is an 8 in defense and an 8 in stealing means I actually need to look at the stats as that 8 could be 80 or even 89 (does it align to the nearest?).

That's my theory anyway.

[Silogical]

I dont think anyone knows how the development patters work. if they did Taylor wouldnt have fallen to 21st even if you didnt own a top 20 pick it wouldnt have been hard to trade for one.

I hope DDS19 is just as unpredictable, i want to see players boom bust in the game over the years. As opposed to bad RNG scouts where we just find out on day 1 if we got screwed over or not.

This is why im so strongly in favor of raw players with high upside and lowering the variance on scouts from 15 to 10 or even 5 since current rating lose a lot of meaning. Id rather see players with 30-40 currents and 70-100 potentials.

[Dennis]

I dont think anyone knows how the development patters work. if they did Taylor wouldnt have fallen to 21st even if you didnt own a top 20 pick it wouldnt have been hard to trade for one.

I hope DDS19 is just as unpredictable, i want to see players boom bust in the game over the years. As opposed to bad RNG scouts where we just find out on day 1 if we got screwed over or not.

This is why im so strongly in favor of raw players with high upside and lowering the variance on scouts from 15 to 10. Id rather see players with 30-40 currents and 70-95 potentials.

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

[Silogical]

I dont think anyone knows how the development patters work. if they did Taylor wouldnt have fallen to 21st even if you didnt own a top 20 pick it wouldnt have been hard to trade for one.

I hope DDS19 is just as unpredictable, i want to see players boom bust in the game over the years. As opposed to bad RNG scouts where we just find out on day 1 if we got screwed over or not.

This is why im so strongly in favor of raw players with high upside and lowering the variance on scouts from 15 to 10. Id rather see players with 30-40 currents and 70-95 potentials.

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.

[Dennis]

I dont think anyone knows how the development patters work. if they did Taylor wouldnt have fallen to 21st even if you didnt own a top 20 pick it wouldnt have been hard to trade for one.

I hope DDS19 is just as unpredictable, i want to see players boom bust in the game over the years. As opposed to bad RNG scouts where we just find out on day 1 if we got screwed over or not.

This is why im so strongly in favor of raw players with high upside and lowering the variance on scouts from 15 to 10. Id rather see players with 30-40 currents and 70-95 potentials.

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 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.