Yes, it is more interesting, but managers already drafted using different assumptions.

I would definitely prefer Josh Howard somewhat prior to the '08 playoffs.

But there are some problems with the 24YO thing that are still pretty gray imo...

1. There are lots of players who are under 24 so we have to guess how they would do and assume that none of them would get injured.

2. There are lots of other players who either entered the league later than 24 or didn't develop until a later age.

3. If ALL players on a team are the same age, the team will be awful. None of these teams would have any leadership. It will be like watching the AND 1 Mixtape tour and not a serious tournament involving the greatest players of the last 30 years.

Also, please give me an example of someone who would be hurt by this alternate idea...

1. Lakers
2. Celtics
3. Spurs
4. Pistons
5. Hornets
6. Jazz
7. Rockets (with Yao healthy)
8. Suns
9. Mavericks
10. AC Cobra (granted, with a good bench they could easily move up)

vs Dallas
32 year old Dampier < 24 Smits
29 Dirk >> 24 Webber
27 Howard obv >> 24 Howard
30 Terry < 24 Blackmon
34 Kidd = 24 Dumars

They're about even with Dallas, and I think the other 8 teams are better than Dallas

A) 34 y/o Kidd sucks
B) Your logic is very flawed, DUCY?

People who passed on players who got better as the aged?

his logic does suck, but 34 y/o Kidd isn't really bad.

But there are players who have had amazing 24 YO seasons and not much else. Nobody has cherry-picked yet. Why even bother talking about their careers? Why not just pick the players who were most complete at 24?

A) We all already agreed upon the 24 y/o thing. You can't change it now. It would've totally changed the draft.

B) Chris Paul is already a leader at 22

Why does my logic suck? This wasn't an extensive endeavor, I just threw the 9-10 teams I thought were the best this season out there. Maybe I am underrating AC's team, I dunno.

Because it's not just about age 24. And it's not like we're saying "okay, take their EXACT stats from age 24 and let's line them up side by side and see who had better stats"

Basically you can't say team x > team y because players on team x > players on team y. Look at the Nuggets for example. AI, Melo, and Camby are some of the best players at their position, but were they a top 10 team in the league? No.

Can we maybe make the 24 YO thing a guideline and not a hard and fast rules?
Don't you see the problems with all 24 YO's on a team?

Also, is there a specific post that details (or do you know them) that covers the exact plan for the league?


Also, just because we agreed on the 24 YO thing doesn't mean we weren't being short-sighted...

What a brave position to take.

If a player is younger than 22 you get him at his current age, otherwise you get him at 24 or if he entered the league at 30 you'd get him at 30.

I do recognize it as a problem and wish we had foreseen it, but considering how everything has gone, it's just how it goes. And this is coming from someone who's missing prime time from his best two players (Grant Hill and Shawn Kemp).

Also, this subject comes up every like 300-400 posts, but we're just drafting now and will discuss this later so that Kidcolin doesn't have to say "gayballs" too much (he works too hard already).

Edit- and capone got it right, but he meant to say "24" both times. Also, there's a link to the initial thread on the first page of this thread, but it links it to midway through that thread so you gotta go to that first page.

We aren't just playing one season. Player who peaked at 30 slipped, but with this you'd be penalizing teams who did not pick them on the assumption it would take a while to reach their peak.

Ok, but I did explain briefly above a couple strengths and weaknesses about AC's team, then matched his players up with roughly the 10th best team. I know its not perfect, but AC's team has no team stats obviously. And Denver is not top 10, but def top 15 ldo.

Anyone else care to give an assesment of the first starting 5 vs current NBA? Or would BigCat/Chips just pick already & get the heat off me.

His team would compete for a title. The only teams I think are definitely better from this season are Lakers, Spurs and Boston with Detroit definitely being really close and probally equal. NO I love them but would probally lose to them and Orlando, Cleveland would probally get smoked.

It's actually pretty tough to do. Smits, Webber, Howard, Blackman and Dumars. The team won't be very strong defensively, maybe even < average for the NBA currently. But they'll be able to score pretty well, probably as good as 2nd level offensive teams (worse than the Lakers, Jazz, Magic, Warriors, Hornets). They'd definitely be top 10 in the league, but I think they'd be worse than the big 3 out east (I include the Magic) and top 4 in the west (Lakers, Spurs, Hornets, Jazz). They'd probably be as good as the Mavericks, Suns (as currently composed), and other teams of that caliber.

Actually it's hard to say b/c it's just starting 5. As fanmail mentioned, after we get our benches, most teams should move up a little bit.

Ok, so when we realize the format is tedious and won't tell us much...

Maybe we can have a vote when all players have been drafted and it is quite apparent that having all players the same age doesn't make sense...

I agree that age 24 is what we drafted on so that can't be changed. BUT we didn't draft these teams soley based on a one year window so these teams can't be judged/voted on based on just how you get players at age 24.

We either have to give people a 3 year window or do multiple time period competitions.

wow, had to go to a graduation party, really disappointed since I figured I'd be able to pick when I got back. BigChips was even fricking looking at the draft thread at 5:40 so its not like he's not aware that it is his/BigCat's pick.