NBA Thread 2013-2014

[whitesoxfan99]

It looks like Adam Silver wants to raise the age limit to 20. Smart call. The NBA product is pretty awful right now.

 

Lol. This will do nothing to help the NBA product and the product in the Western Conference is just fine. The East is a joke because you have a few teams tanking for picks and some horribly run franchises. If there is a problem in the NBA it certainly isn't because kids are only staying one year in college. This rule basically f***s over kids and doesn't do anything positive. I guess it makes it slightly less likely NBA teams blow an eval but the NBA is driven by elite talent and that is cyclical and teams blow plenty of talent evaluations even when they've seen a guy for multiple years (Evan Turner?, Emeka Okafor?, Olowokandi? I could go on forever). There are plenty of drafts in the 80s and 90s where teams were drafting juniors and seniors and those drafts sucked because they didn't have enough talent.

[RockRaines]

Meh. It's not going to make a major difference for most of the guys the rule will affect. I don't see Julius Randle or Jabari Parker gaining much against guys they outclass and facing a ton of zones and junk defenses for teams to try to close the talent gap. Plus it seems like nearly every top prospect that comes back stagnates and has their stock drop (Smart, Sullinger, Noah, Barnes, sorta Zeller before Charlotte reached for him off the top of my head), and if you get hurt like Noel or McGary you're in trouble.

 

We've seen plenty of young guys come in and be productive, and even a lot of the ones that didn't still had productive careers. I think getting the high schoolers out of the draft was good, but I don't see the pressing need to up it another year.

A few of those players had their draft stock drop but it didn't make them less productive in the NBa, it just made them less "hot."

[Boogua]

Lol. This will do nothing to help the NBA product and the product in the Western Conference is just fine. The East is a joke because you have a few teams tanking for picks and some horribly run franchises. If there is a problem in the NBA it certainly isn't because kids are only staying one year in college. This rule basically f***s over kids and doesn't do anything positive. I guess it makes it slightly less likely NBA teams blow an eval but the NBA is driven by elite talent and that is cyclical and teams blow plenty of talent evaluations even when they've seen a guy for multiple years (Evan Turner?, Emeka Okafor?, Olowokandi? I could go on forever). There are plenty of drafts in the 80s and 90s where teams were drafting juniors and seniors and those drafts sucked because they didn't have enough talent.

It obviously screws the kids over, but it should help evaluations. Sure, the NBA still blows some on guys they've seen for multiple years, but it also helps them at points too (Sullinger, McRoberts). This should give a player a bit more time to physically and mentally mature a bit before entering the NBA.

 

You're obviously entitled to your opinion, but I don't see why the league would actually be considering it if they thought it would do nothing to help the product. Baseball has a minor league system (and college) and the NFL has college. The NBA is the only sport of the big 3 that doesn't really have that. How many 18 year olds can come in and dominate the NBA? How about 19 year olds? While they're developing or failing in the NBA the product is hurt.

[ZoomSlowik]

A few of those players had their draft stock drop but it didn't make them less productive in the NBa, it just made them less "hot."

 

I get what happened. The point is it cost them money, and I doubt things would have changed significantly if they came out a year earlier. Even going to the extreme case with guys coming straight out of high school and raw as hell, guys like Jermaine O'Neal and Tyson Chandler eventually turned into productive players. I'm not endorsing going back to that, but I don't think staying another year is a magic elixir for guys to develop into studs. Two more examples: Perry Jones III and Isaac Austin. Both of those guys missed a chance to be lottery picks, and they're not averaging 20-10 their first year because they stayed.

[Boogua]

Meh. It's not going to make a major difference for most of the guys the rule will affect. I don't see Julius Randle or Jabari Parker gaining much against guys they outclass and facing a ton of zones and junk defenses for teams to try to close the talent gap. Plus it seems like nearly every top prospect that comes back stagnates and has their stock drop (Smart, Sullinger, Noah, Barnes, sorta Zeller before Charlotte reached for him off the top of my head), and if you get hurt like Noel or McGary you're in trouble.

 

We've seen plenty of young guys come in and be productive, and even a lot of the ones that didn't still had productive careers. I think getting the high schoolers out of the draft was good, but I don't see the pressing need to up it another year.

Couldn't you argue that those players stock dropped because there was a better evaluation on them? I'm also fairly certain that Noah wouldn't have been drafted above 9th overall after his freshman season.

[Boogua]

I get what happened. The point is it cost them money, and I doubt things would have changed significantly if they came out a year earlier. Even going to the extreme case with guys coming straight out of high school and raw as hell, guys like Jermaine O'Neal and Tyson Chandler eventually turned into productive players. I'm not endorsing going back to that, but I don't think staying another year is a magic elixir for guys to develop into studs. Two more examples: Perry Jones III and Isaac Austin. Both of those guys missed a chance to be lottery picks, and they're not averaging 20-10 their first year because they stayed.

Yes, the rule clearly hurts the players. I don't know anyone who would argue otherwise.

[southsider2k5]

Couldn't you argue that those players stock dropped because there was a better evaluation on them? I'm also fairly certain that Noah wouldn't have been drafted above 9th overall after his freshman season.

 

That is the point exactly. In the NBA's eyes, it is good their stock dropped, because that is one less not ready player at the top of the draft, rotting on the end of a bench somewhere.

[ZoomSlowik]

Couldn't you argue that those players stock dropped because there was a better evaluation on them? I'm also fairly certain that Noah wouldn't have been drafted above 9th overall after his freshman season.

 

Their stock dropped because the NBA expects guys to make major strides when they come back, and most guys don't. They just move on to the next sexy young guy they can project for stardom. I wouldn't say their evaluations were better, they just have less hype. Sullinger has been better than a bunch of guys that went ahead of him and you can't say they were justified in taking Yi Jianlian or Brandan Wright over Noah.

 

Noah barely played his freshmen year, so he wasn't a one-and-done candidate. He stayed a year longer than he had to though based on his stock. He probably would have gone #2 or #3 in the previous draft. You should go pro when it makes sense based on your draft stock. For a lot of guys, that's after their freshman year.

[ZoomSlowik]

That is the point exactly. In the NBA's eyes, it is good their stock dropped, because that is one less not ready player at the top of the draft, rotting on the end of a bench somewhere.

 

That assumes that they're "ready" after another year, which is BS. 95% of college players are never going to be "ready" for the NBA. You never know which ones are or aren't until they hit the league either. Around draft time, you would have said Derrick Williams and Evan Turner were ready and Andre Drummond and Michael Carter-Williams weren't. Yet the last two were way more productive as rookies.

[witesoxfan]

Well this is incredibly relevant to the discussion then

 

http://deadspin.com/marcus-smart-did-the-r...t-go-1546498463

 

As Kevin Pelton has demonstrated, though, this is all nonsense. Players who leave college after one year actually develop faster in the NBA than their two-year counterparts. Pelton compared the statistical improvement between the freshman and sophomore seasons of two-year college players who were projected first-round picks after their first college season to the growth of one-and-done players see between their freshman and rookie seasons. He also compared the improvement between both groups the subsequent year.

 

What he found is that the one-and-dones develop much more in their first NBA year than the two-year guys do in their sophomore seasons. In fact, the college sophomores barely improve at all, and often regress. Notably, the second-year college guys see about the same rate of improvement as the one-and-dones do in their first year in the league.

 

All of that makes intuitive sense: Of course players improve more in a professional environment where their full focus is on basketball, rather than in a semi-professional one where they have to put a certain amount of time into struggling through their online basket-weaving courses. More than that, athletes' long-term development isn't a big concern for most college teams. They're out to win, and they make do with what's available to them. If a college coach has a big man that's a beast in the post but doesn't project to have such a physical advantage at the next level, he's a lot more likely to continue spamming that mismatch than to try and diversify his player's skillset.

[southsider2k5]

That assumes that they're "ready" after another year, which is BS. 95% of college players are never going to be "ready" for the NBA. You never know which ones are or aren't until they hit the league either. Around draft time, you would have said Derrick Williams and Evan Turner were ready and Andre Drummond and Michael Carter-Williams weren't. Yet the last two were way more productive as rookies.

 

No. You weed out more guys who might be drafted because POTENTIAL, but with another year you can better identify that potential is never going to become ability. Another year in college probably sorts out more of those kind of guys.

[Boogua]

Their stock dropped because the NBA expects guys to make major strides when they come back, and most guys don't. They just move on to the next sexy young guy they can project for stardom. I wouldn't say their evaluations were better, they just have less hype. Sullinger has been better than a bunch of guys that went ahead of him and you can't say they were justified in taking Yi Jianlian or Brandan Wright over Noah.

 

Noah barely played his freshmen year, so he wasn't a one-and-done candidate. He stayed a year longer than he had to though based on his stock. He probably would have gone #2 or #3 in the previous draft. You should go pro when it makes sense based on your draft stock. For a lot of guys, that's after their freshman year.

No doubt that a guy should go out when their draft stock is highest. I'll never disagree with that. If the rules allowed it Wiggins would have been the easy #1 pick instead of their being doubts about him today.

 

The fact is the more time a player plays in college, the more time NBA teams get to evaluate said player. Will they still miss on some? Obviously. Wright and Yi went above Noah because they thought both players had more potential than Noah. If they had more time to evaluate the player, maybe they wouldn't have thought that.

 

It's bad for the players. Clearly.

[ZoomSlowik]

No. You weed out more guys who might be drafted because POTENTIAL, but with another year you can better identify that potential is never going to become ability. Another year in college probably sorts out more of those kind of guys.

 

Except that's not what happens. They move onto the next young guy with potential because they need to find studs to win. It's also far from a guarantee that the old guy is going to be better. There's plenty of busts that were 22 year olds that were more developed and skilled and flopped when they lost that edge in the pros.

[Dick Allen]

Well this is incredibly relevant to the discussion then

 

http://deadspin.com/marcus-smart-did-the-r...t-go-1546498463

Yeah, but aren't the one and done guys usually better players to begin with than the 2 year guys? The problem with the study is they can't study the same players doing different things.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Dick Allen

[whitesoxfan99]

Well this is incredibly relevant to the discussion then

 

http://deadspin.com/marcus-smart-did-the-r...t-go-1546498463

 

I'm shocked (he says as sarcastically as possible). It has always been laughable to me that people think kids improve more at the college level than at the NBA level. The only reason to stay in school is to raise your stock because from a basketball improvement and financial standpoint staying in school is stupid.

[Boogua]

Yeah, but aren't the one and done guys usually better players to begin with than the 2 year guys? The problem with the study is they can't study the same players doing different things.

Exactly.

[ZoomSlowik]

Yeah, but aren't the one and done guys usually better players to begin with than the 2 year guys? The problem with the study is they can't study the same players doing different things.

 

That's definitely a flaw. That said, the counterpoint would be how much better guys like Durant, Beasley, Oden, Melo ect. could get in their second year of college.

 

It does make sense when you think about it. They're facing better competition, they're playing more games, there's no limits on how much you can practice, you can see coaches in the off-season without it being a violation, ect.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Except that's not what happens. They move onto the next young guy with potential because they need to find studs to win. It's also far from a guarantee that the old guy is going to be better. There's plenty of busts that were 22 year olds that were more developed and skilled and flopped when they lost that edge in the pros.

 

But if you push back everyone a year, some of the guys get weeded out. It isn't perfect, but it is a hell of a lot easier to project a 22 year old, than an 18 year old. It is easier to project with every additional year of knowledge you have about a player. Period. Some guys come on late, some guys never reach potential, etc.

[whitesoxfan99]

No. You weed out more guys who might be drafted because POTENTIAL, but with another year you can better identify that potential is never going to become ability. Another year in college probably sorts out more of those kind of guys.

 

Eh. Most guys are just never going to be good enough. If you take out the guy drafted on "potential" you replace him with a guy who doesn't have the tools necessary to be a good/great NBA player anyways. There are only a certain amount of guys with the elite talent needed to be stars in the league and just looking at drafts on year to year basis demonstrates that giving teams more years to evaluate players doesn't really help them with talent evaluations.

[Dick Allen]

That's definitely a flaw. That said, the counterpoint would be how much better guys like Durant, Beasley, Oden, Melo ect. could get in their second year of college.

 

It does make sense when you think about it. They're facing better competition, they're playing more games, there's no limits on how much you can practice, you can see coaches in the off-season without it being a violation, ect.

Some of them are. Some are riding pine, getting limited minutes and once the NBA season starts, not getting much practice time in.

 

Sticking around a couple years or more didn't hurt Hakeem or Jordan or Magic or Bird. I don't think they would have been much better had they turned pro after they were freshman.

 

Obviously this increases the chances of an NBA team not making a mistake, and that is what is all about, but there are a ton of underclassmen who make themselves eligible for the draft that never get drafted. This could ultimately help the college game as well. It will cost some players some money, but if they can play, they will eventually get paid.

[witesoxfan]

Does anyone here believe that Marcus Smart improved his stock? I'm guessing the resounding answer is no. Why?

 

His field goal percentage is up - both 2's and 3's - he's rebounding better, getting to the line more, dishing more assists, and turning it over less.

[ZoomSlowik]

But if you push back everyone a year, some of the guys get weeded out. It isn't perfect, but it is a hell of a lot easier to project a 22 year old, than an 18 year old. It is easier to project with every additional year of knowledge you have about a player. Period. Some guys come on late, some guys never reach potential, etc.

 

You're not necessarily weeding out the right guys though. When you're comparing guys that haven't been picked over yet, sometimes you end up taking Adam Morrison or Wesley Johnson in the top-5. You're tying "readiness" to age, which isn't any more reliable. In fact, it's historically been better to take younger players in the draft.

 

EVERY player needs to make improvements when you get to the league, even if you stay for 7 years. There's still a big difference between playing against college kids and against the pros. At some point, you're better off improving your competition. The guys that this rule affects are mostly the ones that should do that earlier.

[witesoxfan]

Some of them are. Some are riding pine, getting limited minutes and once the NBA season starts, not getting much practice time in.

 

Sticking around a couple years or more didn't hurt Hakeem or Jordan or Magic or Bird. I don't think they would have been much better had they turned pro after they were freshman.

 

Obviously this increases the chances of an NBA team not making a mistake, and that is what is all about, but there are a ton of underclassmen who make themselves eligible for the draft that never get drafted. This could ultimately help the college game as well. It will cost some players some money, but if they can play, they will eventually get paid.

 

But not going to college at all definitely didn't hurt LeBron or Tracy McGrady or Kobe Bryant, and sticking around 1 year didn't seem to hurt Kevin Durant, Carmelo Anthony, and Dwyane Wade. Meanwhile, Nick Collison and Kirk Hinrich both played 4 years at Kansas, so talent evaluators should have had them pegged perfectly, yet neither has been much more than a bit player throughout their careers.

[Boogua]

Does anyone here believe that Marcus Smart improved his stock? I'm guessing the resounding answer is no. Why?

 

His field goal percentage is up - both 2's and 3's - he's rebounding better, getting to the line more, dishing more assists, and turning it over less.

Does his stock determine whether or not he'll be a more successful NBA player? NBA teams have more time to evaluate him and he should be drafted accordingly. Not to mention he was supposed to go so highly last year because the draft was a joke.

[Dick Allen]

But not going to college at all definitely didn't hurt LeBron or Tracy McGrady or Kobe Bryant, and sticking around 1 year didn't seem to hurt Kevin Durant, Carmelo Anthony, and Dwyane Wade. Meanwhile, Nick Collison and Kirk Hinrich both played 4 years at Kansas, so talent evaluators should have had them pegged perfectly, yet neither has been much more than a bit player throughout their careers.

There will always be hits and misses, and some guys are ready to go early, but if a guy is ready to be a good player out of HS, or after his freshman year, he still should be ready to be a really good player after a second college season, or IMO he was a fraud to begin with. (Assuming no injury)