[Sunsfan81]

Originally Posted by Diophantos

Like we said, it's usually clear without specifying a year.
If Player X was a 20/10 player for 3 years, then was injured and was a 5/4 player for the rest of his career, then if you pick him we'll know you meant the player in his prime (i.e., the 20/10 years). If you want to specify a year(s) to avoid confusion, then go for it, but I think it should usually be pretty obvious.

So does that mean that durability is irrelevant? If you draft a player who only had a few great seasons because of injury problems, that means you drafted an injury-prone player. That's of no importance? If it isn't I guess I have to edit my draft board because in a football all time draft that I participated in durability was taken into account.

[IceMan23and3]

Where do I find the draft order?

nevermind... 23. We all know what that means! 6 time champs!

[Seuss]

Originally Posted by Sunsfan81

So does that mean that durability is irrelevant? If you draft a player who only had a few great seasons because of injury problems, that means you drafted an injury-prone player. That's of no importance? If it isn't I guess I have to edit my draft board because in a football all time draft that I participated in durability was taken into account.

Durability is not a factor because this is a one time thing.
That means the player is going to be with your team for one playoff run.
Durability does not matter.

[Diophantos]

About durability, I think (to try and expand on what Seuss said) that peak value is really the most important thing in this sort of draft. But that said, if you are drafting a guy that had a "prime" that only lasted, say, 40 healthy games, it's questionable how much that guy is capable of helping you in one playoff run, as opposed to a guy of similar production who had a 5 year prime (and thus is probably considered by most to have been a better player).

[BadBaronRudigor]

Oh, so if we pick Wilt, we can't specify the 50 ppg/ 25 rpg Wilt of 61-62 or the 25 ppg/ 25 rpg/ 8 apg league champion Wilt of 67?

Similarly, we can't pick Bill Walton and specify his only reasonably healthy year?(though you would still have to deal with about 1/5 games injured) Or Connie Hawkins in his one full year before his knee blew out?

[Diophantos]

Originally Posted by BadBaronRudigor

Oh, so if we pick Wilt, we can't specify the 50 ppg/ 25 rpg Wilt of 61-62 or the 25 ppg/ 25 rpg/ 8 apg league champion Wilt of 67?

Similarly, we can't pick Bill Walton and specify his only reasonably healthy year?(though you would still have to deal with about 1/5 games injured) Or Connie Hawkins in his one full year before his knee blew out?

Yeah, I'm not sure, it's an interesting question. I assume you'd get the healthiest seasons for guys like Walton and Hawkins, since that is their "prime". As for the Wilt question, I assume you'd be able to specify which Wilt you wanted, but I think I'd better leave this one to Seuss's official judgment and stop talking.

[BadBaronRudigor]

As a suggestion . . . use the actual season but assume that the total minutes he played divided by the number of games in that season are his minutes per game . . . so in Walton's case, his minutes per game even in his one "healthy" 65 game season goes down by a fifth making him a 27.6 mpg player as opposed to Wilt being able to play 48+ mpg! (same goes for Bernard King's only 30 ppg "season" of 55 games; just have to use his 26 point season or Connie Hawkins's 30 ppg season of 47 games . . . Walton is really the only guy that had no full length great seasons and that's an accurate picture of his career so it is appropriate)

[Carbo04]

#2 pick, wow. I think I'm keeping that but I'll listen to an offer.

[Diophantos]

Originally Posted by BadBaronRudigor

As a suggestion . . . use the actual season but assume that the total minutes he played divided by the number of games in that season are his minutes per game . . . so in Walton's case, his minutes per game even in his one "healthy" 65 game season goes down by a fifth making him a 27.6 mpg player as opposed to Wilt being able to play 48+ mpg! (same goes for Bernard King's only 30 ppg "season" of 55 games; just have to use his 26 point season or Connie Hawkins's 30 ppg season of 47 games . . . Walton is really the only guy that had no full length great seasons and that's an accurate picture of his career so it is appropriate)

Eh. Not sure I like it. Seems like that's making a special case for Walton more than anything. I'd just as soon leave it as is, taking the Big Redhead in his prime. But it's not up to me.

[BadBaronRudigor]

Other players have limited seasons of 40-65 games where they scored their best . . . King and Hawkins being the two I thought of off the top of my head, I am sure there are a lot more. Walton is, however, the only great player I can think of that NEVER had a complete season as a starter, but he did have one and only one where he played 65 games (plus one 80 game season as a Celtic reserve) . . . I don't think you can separate him from his injury status; it defined him even more than his skills.

[Seuss]

This game isn't ran on stats. It's about people's perspective on those players.
You take Bill Walton, people WILL associate him with injuries. That's just what's going to happen. If you draft Wilt, we all know the player he was. But if you would like to specify which year you want him from, then that is fine with me. But the game will ultimately come down to the voters perspective on how good that player was.

So, lets not over complicate it.

[Kid Chocolate]

Who dares to take Chuck Nevitt this time around?

[BadBaronRudigor]

Even better, whose going to take Greg Oden and will management let him?