BuzzerBeater Forums

question to the group.

I have a solid 18 yr old big man (possible NTer if I focused on him and 48 minutes) I picked up in the last draft. However, I train guards. Should I drop all of what I am doing and train the 18yr old or should I continue on the path knowing the players you have make me competitive in Div III?

Well, in line with what I've been suggesting in this thread that we start encouraging managers to do, here's my advice:

1)Consider what your long term plans are for your guard trainees: are you counting on them to carry you to the NBBA eventually and be the focus of your team so you want them 100k+, or is your goal just to get two solid D.II starters and promote out of D.III?

2) If you would be satisfied with them being just D.II players, decide whether you will be able to get them to that level in two seasons?

3) If you think you can get them there, consider training two of your guards plus the new 18yr old big man in one-position guard skills for the next two seasons, then switching to big man training at season three. That might allow you to get the guards you need to accomplish your goals and also set you up to train a unique big man who can grow with your team and maybe help you push over the hump into the NBBA.

There's a lot of if's in there but I think it's important for people to at least be thinking about this sort of approach. If you don't think training your big man fits into your team right now, just go ahead and sell him. More money is never a bad thing.

Last edited by J-Slo at 10/7/2010 7:15:55 PM

I'm saying that starting a 20 year against the top 6(or 7, I left out Venezuela) teams should cause a loss. Straight up. This is just ONE player getting ~400 minutes of playing time for possibly one experience popup. I really don't see the difference in awful experience and inept experience being worth it. I doubt that the results for season 13 would have been different if I had played all 20 year olds in Season 12 (and magically made Worlds). The only game that was close enough to possibly make a difference in was the Chile game.

Yep which is why the question was asked and I echoed it. The problem is by playing all 21's do we disinterest the US group? It's possible. Previous coaches have sacrificed wins for positioning and who is to say by the same positioning 20's could of been played.

I also want to say that just because a 20 year old is on the roster, doesn't guarantee they play. Timing and circumstance do come into play. I also helped with a U21 team a couple of years ago and I remember how difficult it was for them to prepare for the next round because they were disengaged with the next class. The easiest (may not be the best) way to engage a manager is to play their players and keep the big picture in mind.

It's funny if you think about it. When you play this game long enough - it seems the big picture is all your really playing for. If you can win, go for it and push it, but don't forget to train someone so you can stay on top.

If you can't win, train, train, train and win where you can.

I just don't understand why the U21 needs to be used to groom players for the NT. Being on the U21 is not a prerequisite for being on the NT. You can explain the benefits to managers of training PF/C in the fashion you suggest, sure. Some may choose to do that on their own anyway, and it seems as though some already have.

But there is still going to be a couple of managers with great trainees who don't want to go along with your plan, and they train up a post player to 15/15/15 before he turns 21. Would you still play your 12/12/12 guy over the superior triple-15+ just because he was trained the way you wanted him to be trained?

It looks like we have an election, with a few credible candidates. One question each to jfriske, Jelme and Bobos (I'll ask some questions to the others as well, but for now these are the ones that come to mind).

3) Bobos: while I admire you as a manager, I worry about the fact that you have not been very involved with the NTs in the past. How will you handle advising possible trainees for the future U21 generations?

I worry about my lack of involvement as well. Seeing the evolution of the NT/U21 teams from Brian, to you, to Jelme and JP to Wozz has allowed me to understand the commitment needed to push the team forward.

I think it's important to understand and ask questions from the group that has been there before. I would continue to seek advice from you all.

That said, I would encourage the manager to load the player into the NT database for tracking. I have seen over the years this is the most effective location to see where the player is compared to the rest of the US. This would also establish a baseline talking point between myself and the manager. It is really important for both myself and the manager to be realistic about the player in comparison to the managers team.

I would try to be as honest as possible. Knowing it's not always possible, I would encourage the manager to stay with the defined template of GS management (more than 48 for training, but less than 80) Then, based on position, I would identify the training rotation for the defined position based on the standards that have been established before me. After 13 seasons of BB, it's important to provide the wheel and not try to recreate the wheel.

The most important element of this will be the follow up. I can't just rely on the initial BB-mail, rather I must continue conversation with the managers. I would also like to utilize the USA forum as much as possible to try and include the US in open convo as much as our schedules allow.



Last edited by Bobos Playhouse at 10/7/2010 9:12:34 PM

The second portion of this sentence is incredibly true though and I am very uncomfortable with it. I generally tell people if the advice for U21 team is vastly different than advice I would give to help their team. I really want me or the new manager to do a better job of this. It would involve more time (probably some volunteers), but more information on their team, economy, and position needs to be gathered before doling out advice.

I think the key is really finding those managers who want to have a player make the U21 team. If I was three spots worse in my league I would've got my first draft choice who is probably worth several million, that's probably better than winning the league last year from a long term standpoint. It certainly isn't what I'd prefer however. This game is composed user defined goals. Developing the first draft pick you get, or building a roster around your favorite player, or anything else.

If a player's motivation is in having a player make the U21 team, it is basically the only way you will have a one to one match between what's best for the user and for the U21 team.

Besides that, if you want to have it match you really need to focus on the benefit of that little flag. Those players whose potential will have them cap around when they turn 22 who when trained to be as good as they can be will hit the transfer market with a little flag worth potentially millions. With better training across the board and so many high skilled players on the market for cheap it might actually be one of the better money making methods for a club. You'd just have to be kind of open about the 18 year olds so people could know if a particular player was comparatively good enough to make the team with ideal training/health.

Beyond that you just kind of question, 'you know this won't necessarily be the "optimal" thing for your club?' If the player sees enough positives to it, they might still like the idea. I think you really want to foster open discussion about the players, in these forums, where these players get noticed as they develop. If a user sees their player talked about as the fifth best point guard and not quite good enough to make the team when that player is 19, they might think "@#$% that, I'll buy a lvl 7 trainer and then we'll see who makes the team" and have that personal motivation towards getting them on the U21 team. The whole chip on the shoulder thing.

All in all, for a succinct post, that invoked a lot of thinking. Mind sharing some more thoughts? How do you justify having one or two offensive oriented players on the court when it could be easy to matchup against them? I know I use something similar with my club team, but with versatile players that I try to switch around to avoid matchup problems.

The benefit of that kind of versatility really comes down to having a cohesive team, which seems like it would be hard to do at the U21 level. One of my young guards has proficient inside defense just from a secondary effect of pressure training. Sometimes he covers the small forward and completely frees up that responsibility of having inside defense from my SF, who can defend the point instead. If I didn't have training limitations and could develop a small forward and point guard independently, where am I better served spending the training time; developing a small forward who can both score inside and defend inside, or just scoring and letting the point guard spend a few extra weeks to get near prolific inside defense? There are other issues of course, rebounding/etc, with that defensive switch, but that's the kind of thing you can do with a club team and really benefit from.

As far as the U21, in a year's crop of players there are situations like that where the players can benefit by playing off each other but trying to coordinate it between all the different owners and all the possible issues that can develop (transfers, etc) would be pretty daunting, especially as far as not having certain players be unusable when his partner has bad game shape. Having someone in charge of coordinating that for each year, or who just watches each group of 20 year olds, could solve some of the small forward issues. If the 1 or 2 (pg or sg) had started with good secondaries of inside defense and rebounding they could mitigate one of the main limitations on developing a small forward by age 21 without much, if any, direct focus. Coordinating it and getting support for it though seems like it might be a tall order.

How do you justify having one or two offensive oriented players on the court when it could be easy to matchup against them?

Personally I've tried to build my team around defense and passing. I want each player to be able to have multiple options in their decision tree. If my big man is faced with a bad inside shot he should have a better pass or jump shot option in the engine. If he has enough Experience (supposedly) he should make the right decision; while having the defense to punish any opposing players with holes in their game.

I imagine I'd have no shot at major upsets nor benefit from any high risk tactical ploys, but should do comparatively well in close games and when I use less effort than the other team.

So, in answer to that question, basically I can't answer it. If I had one great jump shooter I could bounce him around the guard positions and the like but its kind of a high risk maneuver or mind games with the opponent, and to get that rating by 21 you'd have to sacrifice something else, each of which would be against the balance I like. That said it is probably necessary for you to have that high risk play when it comes time to compete with the Spains and Italys of the U21 world. Whether the benefit of that strength is worth the weakness somewhere else is one of the tough questions, and one I'm very happy I can leave to you, or to whoever the U21 manager ends up being.

I just don't understand why the U21 needs to be used to groom players for the NT. Being on the U21 is not a prerequisite for being on the NT. You can explain the benefits to managers of training PF/C in the fashion you suggest, sure. Some may choose to do that on their own anyway, and it seems as though some already have.

There's probably three reasons I've been having cold feet about running for this and reconsidering whether I even think my own plan is the right one, and this is one of them. Why isn't it enough to just explain how I think one sort of training is both better for a manager's own club AND also creates a potentially better NT player, and then let people decide if they think it's a good plan or if they'd rather train the more traditional way? And I don't have a good answer for that.

I think what got me into this was that idea that the sort of bigs U21 requires are both:

-not sustainable for the majority of the managers training them and not particularly salary efficient for their clubs either

-not easily trained in secondaries later on, and therefore not really providing the NT with the best return on our high potential players.

So, it felt like U21 priorities were costing us a precious resource (good trainees and the managers who put in the work to train them) and I wanted to see a plan to re-align what U21 was about to something that didn't cause those conflicts. But I know it's not a perfect solution.

Maybe a better solution is something closer to what Jelme has already suggested: simply more communication to managers about the financial implications, and the possible benefits of choosing to train their player in a balanced way with a focus more on making the NT vs the U21 team.

If every initial U21 email to a potential trainee included "here's the potential draw backs to training your player this way and here are some other training possibilities" maybe that is enough to get some people to consider training for the NT instead, while still leaving U21 free to play whatever players happen to be best suited for winning any given season?

I butted in on your discussion.

Your right they don't have to be groomed and a lot happens when they go from 21 to 23, 24, 25,26. One guy who comes to mind is Buck Santos from SBCT. He didn't make the U21 team, but made the NT at a late age. U21 players are the ones who are clearly visible to the NT manager without scouring the database. I would imagine Wozz knows most of them who he would consider by name. The U21 manager in most cases needs to manage that transition.

I am hoping he is not saying that he is going to play the players who train the way he wants them. I would consider the talent level these managers have seen. I am sure I have said I would bought the 12/12/12 guy just because he fits what I want somewhere and have done something like that. The NT's are such a unique situation because you pick players other people are training and hope they are in good shape when you use them or the manager stays active.

1) jfriske: I read your speech. It seems to me that there is a natural objection you don't address in it. Your 12-12-12 guy with 9-10 secondaries is going to be smoked by the standard triple 15 guy (let alone the triple 15 guy "born" with decent secondaries). There are no two ways about this: if you know the game, you'll realize it's true. 

So, I get the impression that the U21 for you would not be a team designed to win. Now, I don't want to spin this in a negative way, so I'll be constructive: suppose I changed your idea to something like this:

instead of keeping players cheap but losers, let's make them the best they can be BUT allow the owners to make the maximum possible profit on their training investment: what would you recommend?

I think the post I was working on just before your's posted addresses the 12's vs 15's question, but basically yeah there's no getting around the disadvantage we'd be putting our U21 team at competitively. We would have to decide as a community that it's more valuable for us to go all out encouraging the training of players this way than it is to win U21 games.

As far as how to get owners maximum value on their training investment: I don't know. It's my opinion that training U21 bigs is probably not the way to get maximum value from training, so I'm not sure how you fix that.

If I train just primaries and get my center to 150k by 21yrs, then train primaries all season long and sell at the end of the year when his salary jumps to 200k+, in todays market I might not even get 1.5 mil for him.

If I train a balanced 50k center, he costs me more than $1 million less in salary over the season and he also probably sells for twice at much as the first guy. So I just don't see a way to make training the first player an equal value for the owner.

The other point I think is important to raise is that we are still training these players to be 'the best that they can be', we're just focused on making them the best they can be at point when their training is finished, instead of at the arbitrary age of 21.9 yrs.

Ultimately I just think we need to have more public discussion about the fact that a race to 21 is not always the best use of a good trainee, for either the owner or the US community.

Last edited by J-Slo at 10/7/2010 10:17:28 PM

I am personally more inclined toward the center/power forward positions; because offensive rebounds lead to second chance scoring. last years team did not have much depth at the post which led to foul trouble and lack of rebounding. we should lean toward more of a 2-3 defense unless our opposition is guard oriented.

P.S. VOTE FOR ME, Bzak

Ultimately I just think we need to have more public discussion about the fact that a race to 21 is not always the best use of a good trainee, for either the owner or the US community.

The race to 21 is by default simply because there is a defined ceiling the players can reach. Change the age, you change the race. Creating a strong player by 21 then filling out the rest of his skills as he gets older seems like a solid foundation for growth. The problem comes in with the successes or failures the teams can have.

It's ok to have a different philosophy. You can make the "jack of all trades" players and they will master at nothing. The more experienced players have tried those balanced theories and have wasted money because of various reasons. I am saying more experienced because I am sure 5-6 seasons ago, I had the same conversation with other managers in the game.

He who gets to the finish line with the most toy's wins! It's the difference between a top 10 team winning with regularity versus a top 50 team that wins when it's able to manage every aspect of the game perfectly and hope for some help by the top 10 team stumbling.