Fantasy Points vs. Simulated Wins: The Two Scoring Systems in This Genre
Not every game in this genre scores a drafted roster the same way — and the difference actually changes what “good strategy” means.
The Strength Rating approach
The original 82-0 format, and several games that follow its lead, use what amounts to a fantasy-points system: sum a handful of raw per-game stat categories across your five drafted players into one cumulative number, then run that number through a win-projection curve where, by the format’s own description, each additional projected win gets progressively harder to earn as the total climbs. It’s fast, transparent, and fully calculable — you can know almost exactly what a given pick is “worth” to your final total.
The game-by-game simulation approach
The alternative — and the approach this site’s own game uses — simulates every individual game in an era-accurate schedule separately. Each game has its own opponent (with real matchup tendencies, like an interior-heavy or three-point-heavy style), a home-or-away context, in-season fatigue that builds as the year goes on, and genuine random variance. Your final record is the sum of those individual, variable results, not a single number converted directly into a win-loss total.
Why this changes what “optimal” drafting looks like
Under a Strength Rating system, the mathematically direct strategy is maximizing your summed total — which is exactly why several games in this genre state plainly that there’s no positional restriction or synergy bonus built in: raw stats add up the same regardless of roster shape. Under a game-by-game simulation, a lopsided roster gets exposed differently — a team that’s all offense and no defense might still put up huge cumulative stat totals, but it will actually lose specific games against opponents built to exploit exactly that gap, the same way real mismatches decide real games.
Neither approach is “wrong” — they’re testing different things
A Strength Rating system tests how well you can identify and stack the highest raw statistical producers available each round — a genuinely different skill than roster construction. A game-by-game simulation tests whether you actually built a complete team that can win a variety of different matchups over a long season. Which one you prefer probably comes down to whether you’d rather optimize a spreadsheet or build something closer to how a real front office thinks about roster construction.
Where this site’s game lands
82-0 uses the game-by-game simulation approach specifically: real offense, defense, rebounding, and playmaking ratings feed into individual game results across an era-accurate schedule, with a transparent chemistry breakdown explaining exactly why a lopsided roster underperformed its raw talent level. Free, no account required.
Frequently asked questions
What is a Strength Rating system?+
A scoring method, used by the original 82-0 format and similar games, that sums raw statistical output — commonly points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks — across your five drafted players into a single cumulative number, then runs that number through a win-projection curve to produce a season record.
What is a game-by-game simulation system?+
A scoring method that simulates each individual game in the schedule separately — with its own opponent matchup, home/away context, fatigue, and random variance — and derives your season record from the actual accumulated results of those individual games, rather than from one lump-sum number.
Which system is more accurate to how real basketball works?+
Game-by-game simulation more closely mirrors reality, since real seasons are decided by dozens of individual, variable contests against different opponents — not a single cumulative stat total converted directly into a record.
Which system is easier to optimize?+
A Strength Rating system is more directly optimizable, since every pick's contribution to your final number is fully visible and additive — you can calculate almost exactly how much a pick is 'worth.' A game-by-game simulation is harder to min-max precisely because matchup context and variance mean the same roster can produce a range of outcomes.
Does positional balance matter more in one system than the other?+
It can matter in either, depending on the specific game's rules — but a Strength Rating system built purely on summed stats has no inherent mechanism to reward balance unless the game explicitly adds one, where a game-by-game simulation with real offense/defense/rebounding ratings more naturally exposes a lopsided roster's weaknesses over many individual games.