Mentors (352 views)

[eric]

sirsa brought up the idea of mentor rewards in shout the other day, that having more experienced/distinguished players on the roster could help younger ones. Here's an implementation I thought up:

Any team with a player on the roster who received a non-rookie regular season reward and has at least A- in a given rating can get a free +10 to any player on a rookie deal in any attribute that factors into that rating. This +10 counts towards the team's yearly total and player's career total, and will not be able to exceed any position caps.

Here's how it would look for the rosters as presently constructed this year, and I would post a chart like this every year at the end of FA:

In Out Hn Df Reb team
x x Carolina Cougars
x x x Charlotte Hornets
x x x Chicago Bulls
Dallas Mavericks
x Detroit Pistons
x Harlem Globetrotters
x Miami Heat
x x New Orleans Buccaneers
Oakland Oaks
x x x Orlando Magic
x x x Portland Trail Blazers
x x Washington Bullets
In - Inside Scoring, Strength, Jumping
Out - Jump Shot, Three Point Shot
Hn - Passing, Quickness, Handling
Df - Quickness, Stealing, Shot Blocking, Post/Perimeter/Drive Defense, Strength
Reb - Defensive/Offensive Rebounding, Strength, Quickness

So the Bulls can give a rookie a free +10 in Quickness because Ray McCallum Jr. has A- Handling grade and was All League Third Team last year. His also being All Defensive Second Team is immaterial. Similarly, that Miles Bridges and McCallum both have A- Outside grade and both made All League teams doesn't matter, the Bulls can still only give a rookie a free +10 to Jump Shot or Three Point Shot and doing so means they can't use the +10 anywhere else.

.

I've intentionally made this conservative to start. I do like the idea of great players helping rookies. On the other hand, I want to be careful with the rich getting richer, inflation in general, and reducing dump buck expenditures. On the other hand, it gives bad teams more of an incentive to acquire good players (for a certain value of "good"). On the other hand, it gives good teams less of an incentive to move them.

This will definitely not be implemented this year, we're still in the exploratory phase. Feel free to discuss!

[Deleted]

Would that count against the yearly upgrade cap?

[skrouse]

Possibly, would need to let it sink in more. So the +10 would replace 10 of the 25 upgrade points we could by for Tim Pennies?

[Deleted]

Can i split up the +10 between relevant stats

[eric]

Apr 15, 2019 15:52:37 GMT @odin said:

Would that count against the yearly upgrade cap?

yes

Apr 15, 2019 16:05:08 GMT skrouse said:

Possibly, would need to let it sink in more. So the +10 would replace 10 of the 25 upgrade points we could by for Tim Pennies?

yes

Apr 15, 2019 16:29:01 GMT @odin said:

Can i split up the +10 between relevant stats

yes

[Majic]

dont see the benefit if its not some additional amount.

most teams have ample Pig Pennies to pay for this, so not a big upside.

I would vote for something that adds something additional in some way.

[eric]

Apr 15, 2019 18:19:11 GMT Majic said:

dont see the benefit if its not some additional amount.

most teams have ample Pig Pennies to pay for this, so not a big upside.

I would vote for something that adds something additional in some way.

my concern there is that as formulated almost every team would get it, and it's already a pretty strict formulation where it's only players who got an award last year AND they need A in a rating. if it's an additional upgrade that's an instant recipe for inflation, if it's merely a free one then it's more like a treat, plus it incentivizes GMs to use the lab at all which a lot don't.

it's certainly not a big upside, but it probably shouldn't be given that there's no cost to it.

[Majic]

Apr 15, 2019 18:26:43 GMT eric said:

Apr 15, 2019 18:19:11 GMT Majic said:

dont see the benefit if its not some additional amount.

most teams have ample Pig Pennies to pay for this, so not a big upside.

I would vote for something that adds something additional in some way.

my concern there is that as formulated almost every team would get it, and it's already a pretty strict formulation where it's only players who got an award last year AND they need A in a rating. if it's an additional upgrade that's an instant recipe for inflation, if it's merely a free one then it's more like a treat, plus it incentivizes GMs to use the lab at all which a lot don't.

it's certainly not a big upside, but it probably shouldn't be given that there's no cost to it.

I totally your argument and outline of the use.

I would just personally prefer we make it something harder to earn/use over taking away the cost to do something.

From reading the original posts by Sirsa, it seemed these types of benefits were aimed to help along some struggling guys and/or 2nd round/undrafted guys. A GM will always be willing to spend points on higher drafted guys, its the lower guys that dont get enough points. Even if it was a reward that allows you to use it on an undrafted or second rounder and not have it count towards your yearly amount.

Its also my opinion Labs haven't been used because the league as a whole has mostly been riding on built players with the contraction. I think once we see some of this guys aging out the Lab will have an uptick.

[Majic]

So just working out a different way to implement this.

Keep everything with how the +10 is earned and make the following changes:

The +10 can be added to the players overall allotment of points. Instead of 30 this player can receive up to 40 upgrade points.

Stipulation on eligible players:

any 2nd Round draft pick - has to be designated within the first 3 years
any undrafted rookie - has to be designated within the first 3 years


Most of these arent going to become studs, so the fear of points inflation would be lessened. But this could lead to some solid to above average 2nd rounders sticking in the league

[TimPig]

For the work, I don't really see it being utilized. The more active GMs might pay attention to their awards and then do the research to compare with attributes could be upgraded, but I don't see it making anyone else more active.

What if rather than +10, it was smaller, but free? For example, Miles Bridges has one "+3" to distribute during his career for a category in which he ranks A- or higher. The recipient has to be younger than 25 (or on a rookie contract or whatever) and can only receive it in a category in which they rank under a C or something.

Spitballing the parameters, but it seems like that's something that would get utilized more and make it worth the work to track.

[eric]

Apr 15, 2019 18:51:58 GMT TimPig said:

For the work, I don't really see it being utilized. The more active GMs might pay attention to their awards and then do the research to compare with attributes could be upgraded, but I don't see it making anyone else more active.

What if rather than +10, it was smaller, but free? For example, Miles Bridges has one "+3" to distribute during his career for a category in which he ranks A- or higher. The recipient has to be younger than 25 (or on a rookie contract or whatever) and can only receive it in a category in which they rank under a C or something.

Spitballing the parameters, but it seems like that's something that would get utilized more and make it worth the work to track.

fwiw the OP would be dramatically less work than tracking players over their careers, it's just a one button press once a season for me.

i do like your idea along with Majic of it only applying to worse players though. what if we went with...

+5 that is separate from a player's 25 point cap and team's 30 point cap
can only be used on a player not drafted in the first round
can only be used while they are on their rookie contract (i.e. in the first year for an undrafted post-TC signing)
otherwise as the OP for which attributes can be mentored

with it being separate from the lab caps, i think a single Mentor thread makes more sense than using each team's lab threads. it would have the chart posted once a year and we wouldn't get into the headache of tracking rookies who had mentor +5 and lab +20 versus rookies who had lab +25 but not mentored yet. it would also be easy to search to see if rookie X had been mentored already although i guess we don't necessarily have to limit a rookie to one mentorship per career. maybe that's worth thinking about more.

[TimPig]

Apr 15, 2019 21:02:29 GMT eric said:

it would also be easy to search to see if rookie X had been mentored already although i guess we don't necessarily have to limit a rookie to one mentorship per career. maybe that's worth thinking about more.

Perhaps one per grade/category would be safe? Someone on a rookie contract could receive +5 in inside, outside, handling, and defense (or whatever) but not +20 in inside.

You'd also limit veterans to one mentorship per career? Or per category?

[sirsativa]

Yeah maybe not +10. Just make it a way that can be easy on the inputter and not be op. I think it should only be used in first 2 ssn of rookie deal. Im sure y'all will come up with something that works

[eric]

Apr 15, 2019 21:08:38 GMT TimPig said:

Apr 15, 2019 21:02:29 GMT eric said:

it would also be easy to search to see if rookie X had been mentored already although i guess we don't necessarily have to limit a rookie to one mentorship per career. maybe that's worth thinking about more.

Perhaps one per grade/category would be safe? Someone on a rookie contract could receive +5 in inside, outside, handling, and defense (or whatever) but not +20 in inside.

You'd also limit veterans to one mentorship per career? Or per category?

i definitely wouldn't limit mentors since a team can only use one per year anyway. teachers gonna teach

since the longest non first round rookie deal is 3 years anyway it would only be +15 inside, and i'm okay with that, especially since all the usual upgrade limits would apply (85 jump shot etc.)

i'm feeling pretty good about this. pending further discussion i'll probably implement it next season

[Deleted]

Ok so what if we did the original op idea AND erics interpretation of majics idea

[Majic]

I would be ok for both

What Eric re-worked is a good idea, give a little boost to some of the lower level players.

[Deleted]

If i sign an ufa for 6 years is he eligible and for how long

[Deleted]

I am bk and I am dumb

[eric]

Apr 16, 2019 15:01:15 GMT @odin said:

If i sign an ufa for 6 years is he eligible and for how long

yes, one year