All-Time NBA Draft Round 2: Hekate vs. White Chocolate

[Ron Mexico]

I don't mind anyone else running it. The problem is with you we had a hard time getting you to make your picks in this draft.

I had one but delay it was was late at night Saturday. Sorry I don't pick from 11pm to 7am Saturday night. Almost every pick I made was on the middle of the night my time. Most my picks were within minutes. Good news is if someone like me runs it who isn't playing that won't matter...

But I won't do it if people don't want me to.

I probably won't participate if it's run this way again either.

 

[Coach Ellis]

Man you didn't even watch Rick Barry, and probably not even Pippen because of age. Why is it so laughable?

I've watched both - and drafted both. I'd still take Pippen over Barry. Scottie Pippen is one of the most underrated guys in this thing.

2017 - Scottie Pippen drafted second round #21 (by White Chocolate) - Rick Barry drafted fifth round #74 (by Hekate).

2016 - Scottie Pippen drafted in the second round #18 (by you) and it was the second year in a row that the Jordan/Pippen combo won the whole thing - Rick Barry was drafted in the tenth round #110 (by me) to be the backup SF behind Dominique Wilkins and I was criticized for having a weak bench.

2015 - Scottie Pippen was drafted second round #24 (by me) and was considered a steal at that point. The Jordan/Pippen combination won the whole thing. - Rick Barry drafted sixth round (by Hekate) #61. He wasn't even a starter for him that year. He picked Draymond Green to start at SG in the matchup vs. LogGrad.

2014 - Scottie Pippen was drafted second round #19 (by One Love). Rick Barry was drafted fifth round (by Jeffrey) #54.

Pippen - 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd
Barry - 5th, 10th, 6th, 5th

 

[Coach Ellis]

It would make OL-style vote-trading all the more potent, though. That's the major weakness with this method: it incentivizes OL-style crookedness.

That is true. Hadn't considered vote trading as an issue. Would definitely be fine with an arbitrator who has a sudden death vote to solve any and all ties.

 

[Elizah Huge]

That's exactly what I plan on doing.

Unless needed, I will not have a team.

You aren't running the competition lmao.

 

[Jazz and Utes]

We're around the same age, dude. That was a dumb thing to say. There is a reason Barry routinely goes in the 70's in these drafts and Pippen in the top-25.

How was that a dumb thing to say? I knew you hadn't watched either because I didn't. Basically the whole reason why I said it.

 

[RandyForRubio]

You aren't running the competition lmao.

You challenged me to run the current player.

I accepted.

Are you now rescinding on that offer?

Bitch made, if so.

 

[Elizah Huge]

You challenged me to run the current player.

I accepted.

Are you now rescinding on that offer?

Bitch made, if so.

It was a joke, just like the thought of you running it.

 

[Elizah Huge]

Using the tie-breaker that Spy and Ellis created who's the winner?

 

[RandyForRubio]

It was a joke, just like the thought of you running it.

So basically I called you on your bluff, and now you're scrambling. lol.

Good show mate.

 

[Coach Ellis]

According to your method, we should look at who the other participants in the competition voted for to decide the winner in this series (not including OL). If this is the method we use going forward (it seems as good a method as any), then it makes sense to use it in this instance too. It would also eliminate the post-vote drama that has been going on.

What do you have against my suggestion of a completely new vote with a beforehand agreed-on contingency for a tie?

I haven't voted. I can do so if you like.

So, after all this - I think we have three options.

#1.) Give added weight to the votes of those in the competition, which would have favored WC 8-7 (with One Love abstaining from the poll vote.) NAOS makes a valid point about vote trading, but it's a moot point if our first method of determining who advances is a poll vote in the first place. Same thing can (and likely does) happen there.

#2.) Have a re-vote like Addy and I did in the first round - but with a better tie breaking procedure in place so this doesn't happen again.

#3.) Figure out a designated tiebreaker for this contest and employ that method moving forward. That person holds off on voting for the next two contests unless there's a tie. (* see reason for editing)

I'm happy with any of those outcomes. However it's decided, we need to put in some sort of system to avoid this in the future.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I dont think the time the draft takes is a big deal. I just find trading annoying because it's dumb.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Think you can do a better job? Step up and run the current players draft!

Yup. Sounds like a joke. Looks like a joke. Mhmm.

Fine.

I'll run it. While working 60+ hours a week. It'll be great.


#spycamwillwin

Already making excuses?

Funny, after the initial acceptance, no indication you weren't being serious.

 

[Coach Ellis]

I dont think the time the draft takes is a big deal. I just find trading annoying because it's dumb.

I don't mind trades, but I think there needs to be a limit. I'd say each person can participate in 5 trades total. Makes your picks and long term strategy a little more important.

WC does the most trades, and the way he does it doesn't bother me. It's guys who get on the clock, don't like the board and start soliciting a trade at that point that irritates me. I try to work out deals in advance so I don't slow things down. I don't mind guys executing trades to position themselves diffeeentky or change strategies once the board falls a certain way.

 

[Siro]

When is round 3?

 

[RandyForRubio]

I don't mind trades, but I think there needs to be a limit. I'd say each person can participate in 5 trades total. Makes your picks and long term strategy a little more important.

Even 5 is a lot. 3 at most, preferably 1-2.

Makes you analyze trades better, it's easier, and better.

 

[♪alt13]

So, after all this - I think we have three options.

#1.) Give added weight to the votes of those in the competition, which would have favored WC 8-7 (with One Love abstaining from the poll vote.) NAOS makes a valid point about vote trading, but it's a moot point if our first method of determining who advances is a poll vote in the first place. Same thing can (and likely does) happen there.

#2.) Have a re-vote like Addy and I did in the first round - but with a better tie breaking procedure in place so this doesn't happen again.

#3.) Let hey hey be the designated tiebreaker for this contest and then any others in the semis and finals vote. Whatever he decides is binding.

I'm happy with any of those outcomes. However it's decided, we need to put in some sort of system to avoid this in the future.

I didn't offer to be the designated tie breaker. I offered to vote on this matchup.

 

[Coach Ellis]

I didn't offer to be the designated tie breaker. I offered to vote on this matchup.

I stand corrected. I'll change my post.

 

[Elizah Huge]

Even 5 is a lot. 3 at most, preferably 1-2.

Makes you analyze trades better, it's easier, and better.

Shut up lol. You are the last person who should chime in about trades.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Shut up lol. You are the last person who should chime in about trades.

My plan helps to eliminate deals such as that. Don't be so shortsighted just because you like to trade.

It's not about what's best for you or me, but for the whole group.

 

[Coach Ellis]

Even 5 is a lot. 3 at most, preferably 1-2.

Makes you analyze trades better, it's easier, and better.

I'm not much of a trader, and I still managed to burn through five of them this year. Every one was good value for me and instrumental for me getting my team to how I wanted it. I didn't waste time doing it and had most deals lined up ahead of time.

I used 4 trades to build my bench, adding Walt Frazier, Artis Gilmore, Earl Monroe and Nate Thurmond in the process. I'd prefer to not restrict it that much. I think 5 is still a good number.