BuzzerBeater Forums

I dont think the rule should be so blanket. The worst 19 year old in the draft should definately NOT be better than the best 18 year old.
And someties you will get an 18 year old with better experience than a 19 year old. As with all the other skills. Maybe the 19 year old blew his knee half way through the season, and missed all those games (and as such, didnt pop as much).

I think earlier suggestions of having a cap is maybe a bit harsh? maye it should just be a 'general' rule. Because generally, an 18 year old will only ever have maximum respectable in any such skill. And generally, for 19 year olds, it should be strong. BUT i dotn think it should exlude entirely the possibility that an 18 year old can have strong in a skill.

I dont think this would require much change, its only a small scale change to reflect the generalisation that, 19 year olds are generally better than 18 year olds, which currently, is not really shown in drafted players. and if it is, it needs to be more.

if you look at the top picks of the last NBA draft, i had to agree with you the good enough player get in the professional ball as early as they can and just the dudes who still need development stay in college to reach the level.

I believe in the draft last year they was pretty surprised that a senior was picked in the lottery and that this don't happen the last years, and they are pretty few seniors who got picked in first round every year.

For sure you could argue if the BB 18 vs 19 more like sophomore vs rookie which the age difference implies, or rookie vs senior which are the extrems in real life. I go more with the extrems.

Yer i agree i treat 18 like a rookie and 19 like a senior.

But as per other suggestions here, maybe we could be scouting 20 year olds? So we could have 18 - rookie ... 19 - Sophomore ... 20 - Senior.

I dont know about drafting a 20 year old. Maybe in the lower divisions, this would be more suitable? i suppose even in higher divisions, if the skills are high enough, it still becomes a viable 'sellable' draftee.

I think it would be good.

i selled some 19 year old in the past, and in most draft there are some of them in the draft where i was more then happy to get with my late pick. usually i don't get them, but i also don't see them as targeted 1-5 picks.

I suspect what it's like, but I'm seriously interested to see the number of U21 players who were drafted 19 years old.

Is it okay that that number should be 0%?

I suspect what it's like, but I'm seriously interested to see the number of U21 players who were drafted 19 years old.

Is it okay that that number should be 0%?

Well, depends on what you mean by saying "should be 0%"
In my opinion it shouldn't be 0% (why 19yr old should be excluded?), for sure the percentage will be smaller than 18yr old.

If you meant "as it is now it should be 0%" I agree and confirm. In big countries U21 (I can speak only about Italy, but I think the same concept is true in every big country) there's no room for 19yr old.
In smaller countries (African countries, for say) it's different, of course.

I think earlier suggestions of having a cap is maybe a bit harsh? maye it should just be a 'general' rule. Because generally, an 18 year old will only ever have maximum respectable in any such skill. And generally, for 19 year olds, it should be strong. BUT i dotn think it should exlude entirely the possibility that an 18 year old can have strong in a skill.

You have to consider that an 18yr old player can reach strong in 1 or 2 training weeks, and then he has an entire season "in addition" compared to a 19yr old player. It doesn't seem harsh to me.

Your proposal of giving "the same cap" to differently aged players, if I didn't misunderstood it, is equal to the actual system, but you just push the cap to "strong" instead of "respectable". Am I wrong?

let me already react on these few posts before I forget about something while reading on.

first off, globally, I like the basic idea. 19 yr olds indeed are less valuable in the draft, especially when we talk about the interesting players, and often it sucks if you end up with a 19 year old. for a 19 yr old, to get ranked higher in the draftlist of managers, he realy needs to be very good, and have high potential, and the rest is not realy wanted. It would be nice if they change it a bit, so the 19 yr olds are more welcome in their new teams, and they get a higher spot in the draftlist.
But to make 19 yr olds better, just like that, isn't the way to go, because then, there is no point in having diffrent ages, as both age-categories will end up being equally good.
The idea has potential thoug, if they translate it into: 19 yr olds have a chance of getting higher skills. Where the 18 yr olds now stop at respectable, the 19 yr olds might get a strong skill (and maybe a rare level 9 skill if they are rated A+).
This means the 19 yr old isn't always better, but he CAN be...

then to react on specific quotes:

But over the past few seasons, my casual observations have led me to believe, that, a $4,500 salary 18 year old will probably sell for not that much more than a $5,000 19 year old. So the difference ont he transfer market I believe, is minimal, although im open to people whos experiences suggest otherwise.

this might be true for low potential players, but with the promising players, there is a huge diffrence, and people who plan to train a U21 player, simply can't start with a 19 yr old draft right now, as he will never make it.

salary

where developped players might be compared more or less by salary (but still be carefull with that!!) for draftees the wage is realy unrelyable. I noticed high JS skills mostly get high wages for drafted players, meaning a player with sucky skills but respectable JS, probably has a higher wage then a well rounded player, with decent skills, but rather low JS. This makes some 3500 to 4000 waged draftees better then some 4000 to 4500 waged draftees...
and also on wages:

About your salary comparison - how hard it is to find a 19-year-old with a 6,500-7,000 salary? Is it same as with 18-year-olds? I agree that the salary range for 19-year-old draftees should be higher, and even go above $10,000 because an average 4-5,000 18-year-old when trained through a whole season can easily achieve that salary.

this realy depends on which type of player you are training. I trained a not too bad draft, 18 yrs old, trained him every week for 100% with a level 6 trainer on a single position as far as that was possible, and he was still under 10k when he turned 19... okay he is a SF, but still. I don't think many managers will train their any more then that.
Also not every draft gets decent training, it's not possible. either the manager trains his drafts partly, or just 1 draft fully, IF he even wants to train them. So to improve every 19 yr old draft, as if he'd received part of a year's training, would be over-tuned.

EDIT: after reading the rest of the posts, I see many agree with the slight increase in possible skills reached, and I agree with most of what was said after post 3 as well. so no need to write more reaction on my part.

Last edited by Lord of Doom at 7/20/2011 2:50:04 PM

Are we talking strictly for u-21 because I see no reason why a 19 yo could not eventually make a NT in a big county with a good trainer and a dedicated manager. It's like saying there is no reason to draft a 19 yo at all and if that was the case why would it even be an option. But obviously if you have two comparable players and ones 18 and ones 19 you take the younger one.

Last edited by DWeezy at 7/20/2011 5:12:33 PM