Draft Thread....

[dukedevilz]

Here's a list of the super super productive CBB players in recent memory:
Tyler Haws, Tyler Hansbrough, Doug McDermott, JJ Redick, Keydren Clark. As productive as that group was in college, if you rolled out that lineup in the NBA, they win maybe 3 games in an 82 game season?

You placed Tyler Haws in that group over Jimmer? I agree with the overall message, though, that teams have to reach a bit and project who might be a potential star. Might as well swing for a home-run if you're looking to get out of the doldrums of mediocrity.

Here's my college all-star team that stayed for 4 years. They would struggle mightily, but I think they could still beat the Sixers All of these players won the Senior Class Award, with the exception of Collison. But seeing how he won some of the national player of the year honors, I thought he deserved to be on the team.

Jameer Nelson, St.Joseph's
JJ Redick, Duke
Doug McDermott, Creighton
Tyler Hansbrough, UNC
David West, Xavier

Jimmer Fredette, BYU
Alando Tucker, Wisconsin
Da'Sean Butler, West Virginia
Robbie Hummel, Purdue
Nick Collison, Kansas

 

[DSouthr]

52 players in the NBA averaged 15+ ppg - only CJ McCollum and JJ Redick played 4 years of college basketball.

17 of the 24 all-stars from 2016 played 2 years or less.

Can 22 year-olds still develop into great players? Sure. But, they have a lot less time to do it than a 19-year old.

That is NOT true, matter of fact that is 100% TOTALLY FALSE!

You are trying to tell me that Lebron playing in college and entering in to the NBA when he is 22 that just because he is 22 that he could never become an all star? Oh, so had JJ Reddick gone one & done at duke he would have been an annual NBA all star? Do you understand how dumb that reads??????????????

Believe it or not, the NBA didn't just survive way back in the day that kids went to college for 3 or 4yrs before going in to the NBA. Believe it or not the NBA did not magically begin from the ether the day the one and done was put in place.

I think we all know that the better talents coming to the college game are not staying long, I think we have all known that for several years now.

 

[dukedevilz]

That is NOT true, matter of fact that is 100% TOTALLY FALSE!

Totally False? 100%? Really? How about the part with the statistics?

You are trying to tell me that Lebron playing in college and entering in to the NBA when he is 22 that just because he is 22 that he could never become an all star? Oh, so had JJ Reddick gone one & done at duke he would have been an annual NBA all star? Do you understand how dumb that reads??????????????

Yes, I understand exactly how dumb that sounds because I would never make those assumptions. I'm not trying to tell you LeBron wouldn't succeed as a 22 year-old. You interpret a bit too much from one little sentence.

Your point, though, is highly irrelevant. Everyone knows that the best players come out early. If players like LeBron and Kobe played four years of college, it would be because almost everyone else is too. They would clearly stand out against the rest of their peers. The drafts from the 60's, 70's, and 80's were largely dictated by the production and talent of college seniors. But if the top players in each class leave before graduating, it's probable that the players actually drafted as seniors would likely be rated as the 25th-40th best in their respective high school classes when you factor in the kids that already declared. If I compare the 25th best player in one class to the top 10 players in another class, well it's a no-brainer. Especially when you consider those top players from the freshman class have three more years to improve and develop before you could genuinely juxtapose their statistics and production against the seniors.

 

[Sk1310]

It's just the era we are in. There was a time where they would stay in college for multiple years and still be stars in the NBA. Everyone wants to jump straight from high school now, so they leave after 1 or 2.

 

[DSouthr]

Totally False? 100%? Really? How about the part with the statistics?



Yes, I understand exactly how dumb that sounds because I would never make those assumptions. I'm not trying to tell you LeBron wouldn't succeed as a 22 year-old. You interpret a bit too much from one little sentence.

Your point, though, is highly irrelevant. Everyone knows that the best players come out early. If players like LeBron and Kobe played four years of college, it would be because almost everyone else is too. They would clearly stand out against the rest of their peers. The drafts from the 60's, 70's, and 80's were largely dictated by the production and talent of college seniors. But if the top players in each class leave before graduating, it's probable that the players actually drafted as seniors would likely be rated as the 25th-40th best in their respective high school classes when you factor in the kids that already declared. If I compare the 25th best player in one class to the top 10 players in another class, well it's a no-brainer. Especially when you consider those top players from the freshman class have three more years to improve and develop before you could genuinely juxtapose their statistics and production against the seniors.

You said it was harder for a 22yr old to become a NBA star than it was for a 19yr old, you said that boss so excuse me for pointing out how silly it was.

 

[dukedevilz]

You said it was harder for a 22yr old to become a NBA star than it was for a 19yr old, you said that boss so excuse me for pointing out how silly it was.

I was basing statistics to show that college seniors generally don't pan out to be perennial all-stars. And how is that "100% totally false"? Draymond Green was the only all-star last year that played 4 years of college. That's statistics, not an uneducated opinion

Well all know this happens, of course, because the bulk of the talented players in a respective HS Class have already declared for the draft before their senior years. I didn't include that assumption in my original statement, but apparently I need to spell everything out for you. If the cream of the crop stayed for four years, sure, lots of 22 year-old rookies would become future superstars. But we both know that doesn't happen.

 

[DSouthr]

I was basing statistics to show that college seniors generally don't pan out to be perennial all-stars. And how is that "100% totally false"? Draymond Green was the only all-star last year that played 4 years of college. That's statistics, not merely an uneducated opinion

Well all know this happens, of course, because the bulk of the talented players in a respective HS Class have already declared for the draft before their senior years. I didn't include that assumption in my original statement, but apparently I need to spell everything out for you. If the cream of the crop stayed for four years, sure, lots of 22 year-old rookies would become future superstars. But we both know that doesn't happen.

You don't need to spell anything out for me, don't make dumb statements and you will not be challenged on them.

Stats can be manipulated to mean a lot of different things and you really worked hard to manipulate them to drive the point you are trying to make. The simple fact is a kid's age does not matter, can he play or not is all that does. It isn't age it is talent level and of course the better talents are leaving college early, you don't need to quote stats to prove that, that is widely known by any fan with a heart beat.

But kids develop at differing times and some develop once they get to the NBA in to a level player no one expected as in the case of Green (both Draymon and Danny). There were not many projecting Russel Westbrook to be the level NBA player he is and clearly few that saw it in Draymon Green.

 

[dukedevilz]

You don't need to spell anything out for me, don't make dumb statements and you will not be challenged on them.

Stats can be manipulated to mean a lot of different things and you really worked hard to manipulate them to drive the point you are trying to make. The simple fact is a kid's age does not matter, can he play or not is all that does. It isn't age it is talent level and of course the better talents are leaving college early, you don't need to quote stats to prove that, that is widely known by any fan with a heart beat.

But kids develop at differing times and some develop once they get to the NBA in to a level player no one expected as in the case of Green (both Draymon and Danny). There were not many projecting Russel Westbrook to be the level NBA player he is and clearly few that saw it in Draymon Green.

Please enlighten me as to how I manipulated the stats? I am showing a pattern that is blatantly obvious; namely that guys who stay for four years are not as likely to be superstars. Exactly zero players that had 4 years of college basketball experience in the 2000's have made 1st-team All NBA.

Your argument is semantics; mine is statistics, patterns, and correlations. Guess which argument would hold up in a debate with judges?

 

[heelbent]

Please enlighten me as to how I manipulated the stats? I am showing a pattern that is blatantly obvious; namely that guys who stay for four years are not as likely to be superstars. Exactly zero players that had 4 years of college basketball experience in the 2000's have made 1st-team All NBA.

Your argument is semantics; mine is statistics, patterns, and correlations. Guess which argument would hold up in a debate with judges?

Doesn't that all depend on who, and where, the judges are?

 

[dukedevilz]

Certainly. But it assumes that the judges would be fairly impartial, so probably not on a message board

 

[imajericho]

Not a single player who played less than 3 years in college has won the NBA MVP in the past 2 years.

 

[DSouthr]

Please enlighten me as to how I manipulated the stats? I am showing a pattern that is blatantly obvious; namely that guys who stay for four years are not as likely to be superstars. Exactly zero players that had 4 years of college basketball experience in the 2000's have made 1st-team All NBA.

Your argument is semantics; mine is statistics, patterns, and correlations. Guess which argument would hold up in a debate with judges?

Of course the greater talents are staying in the college game for shorter periods, again, you don't need to try to spin stats to make that case. That is about as silly as me saying if we go back 30yrs ago, it was impossible for a kid drafted under the age of 20 to be a NBA super star, considering how very few under the game of 20 were drafted. Age has not got anything to do with it, talent and the ability to tap that talent is what makes a player. Asa we have seen, a kid drafted right out of high school can become an NBA all star and kids that spent their entire NCAA eligibility can as well be NBA All stars no matter what age they were drafted.

So your spin of stats don't mean a darn thing, what are ya gonna share next, a stat that proves water is actually wet? How is that going to go, we have discovered that no sharks have been discovered in a drop of water so sharks much not live in the water as we have been told? It would make as much sense as trying to say a players ability to be an all star is based on the age they were drafted. And yeah, boss, that is the case you said you were making.

See all ya had to say was talent and the ability to tap in to that talent no matter at what age, is what forges NBA all stars. WE all know the better talents spend less time now days in NCAA ball, so use of a stat to say that is silly.

 

[dukedevilz]

It would make as much sense as trying to say a players ability to be an all star is based on the age they were drafted. And yeah, boss, that is the case you said you were making.

See all ya had to say was talent and the ability to tap in to that talent no matter at what age, is what forges NBA all stars. WE all know the better talents spend less time now days in NCAA ball, so use of a stat to say that is silly.

There you go on your semantics argument again. I never said, "a player's ability to be an all-star is based on the age they were drafted." Please stop trying to pretend to know my thoughts and points when you clearly misrepresent them every time. My point was to show that players that do stick around for four years are not the cream of the crop of their HS classes - meaning that the bulk of the top talents and future all-stars of a HS Class have already been taken in the draft before collegiate seniors start their NBA rookie campaign.

In the last 10 drafts, only 4 seniors have been taken in the first 10 picks (Hield, Kaminsky, McCollum, Fredette). None of those guys were top 5 picks. You have to have a really special senior season to be taken in the lottery. Again, my point was to emphasize that the four-year players that do stick around, they GENERALLY do not project to be perennial all-stars. My claim should be validated when you consider there was only 1 all-star in 2016 and 2 players in the top 50 for scoring that had four years of college.

You were wondering why Brice Johnson slid to 25. I think he deserved to be taken a little higher myself (maybe in the 12-20 range), but GM's generally think that a 19 year old with a similar skill set to a 22-year old has a higher ceiling because he has more time to develop. As a comparison, if a high school freshman is averaging 13 ppg and 6 rebounds as opposed to a senior who is averaging 17 points and 10 rebounds with similar competition, who is projected at being the better collegiate player? The freshman because he has more time to develop, and odds are, he will put up better numbers than 17-10 when he's a high school senior. I acknowledge that this probably is not the best comparison, but it helps illustrate why it's wildly obvious to GM's that the top 5-10 collegiate freshman have a much bigger ceiling than the top 5-10 collegiate seniors.

 

[DSouthr]

There you go on your semantics argument again. I never said, "a player's ability to be an all-star is based on the age they were drafted." Please stop trying to pretend to know my thoughts and points when you clearly misrepresent them every time. My point was to show that players that do stick around for four years are not the cream of the crop of their HS classes - meaning that the bulk of the top talents and future all-stars of a HS Class have already been taken in the draft before collegiate seniors start their NBA rookie campaign.

In the last 10 drafts, only 4 seniors have been taken in the first 10 picks (Hield, Kaminsky, McCollum, Fredette). None of those guys were top 5 picks. You have to have a really special senior season to be taken in the lottery. Again, my point was to emphasize that the four-year players that do stick around, they GENERALLY do not project to be perennial all-stars. My claim should be validated when you consider there was only 1 all-star in 2016 and 2 players in the top 50 for scoring that had four years of college.

You were wondering why Brice Johnson slid to 25. I think he deserved to be taken a little higher myself (maybe in the 12-20 range), but GM's generally think that a 19 year old with a similar skill set to a 22-year old has a higher ceiling because he has more time to develop. As a comparison, if a high school freshman is averaging 13 ppg and 6 rebounds as opposed to a senior who is averaging 17 points and 10 rebounds with similar competition, who is projected at being the better collegiate player? The freshman because he has more time to develop, and odds are, he will put up better numbers than 17-10 when he's a high school senior. I acknowledge that this probably is not the best comparison, but it helps illustrate why it's wildly obvious to GM's that the top 5-10 collegiate freshman have a much bigger ceiling than the top 5-10 collegiate seniors.

Just cut what I was going to say, it really isn't worth the effort on my part to try to get this guy to understand that it is not about age but about talent. If we can't at very least start at that point then any further discussion is just worth the effort on my part.

 

[dukedevilz]

I agree that this is a circuitous argument, but one of the primary reasons is because you're making assumptions about my statements which are not accurate. I mean every single post you claim I believe age is the most important criteria. You comment ad nauseam that I believe age is the ultimate determining factor in star-potential. Not true. Never said that once - you may have inferred that that was my belief, but I never explicitly said that. I will explicitly say once again, that that is not my belief.

Is talent more important than age? Yes, of course. I was never arguing that. Obviously talent trumps age, but that is mostly irrelevant with my posts because I am making the assumption that the top players don't stay for four years. My contention was that seniors that stick around like Brice Johnson and Caris Levert (guys that wouldn't be rated in the top 10 of their class), they have to have a really special senior season to stand out against freshman that are rated in the top 5-10 of their class. If Anthony Davis, Andrew Wiggins, Kyrie Irving and others stuck around for four years, obviously they would still be at the top of everyone's draft board. But those cream of the crop players don't stay for four years. GM's draft on talent as well as the potential/ceiling of an individual - and the freshman drafted in the lottery obviously are looked upon as having a higher ceiling than the majority of seniors.

 

[Steat]

52 players in the NBA averaged 15+ ppg - only CJ McCollum and JJ Redick played 4 years of college basketball.

17 of the 24 all-stars from 2016 played 2 years or less.

Can 22 year-olds still develop into great players? Sure. But, they have a lot less time to do it than a 19-year old.

You are pretty good at stats. Do you have the figures on how many OAD's over the past several years that have never made an NBA roster?

 

[dukedevilz]

Almost non-existent. Josiah Turner is the only one I've been able to find. I'm sure there are a few others, but not any that were rated as 5-stars out of High School.

And there might have been some kids from lower profiled schools - but if that's the case, they probably just wanted to be making money in Europe or wherever they could find it.

 

[dukedevilz]

Here are all of the OADs from the past four seasons that weren't drafted:

Tony Anderson - SE Missouri State
Derrick Jones - UNLV (ruled ineligible because his ACT is being thrown out)
Cliff Alexander - Kansas (he is on the Blazers Roster, though)
Josh Simmons - Spartanburg Methodist JC
William Alston - Baltimore County Dundalk

So yeah, it's essentially non-existent. A couple guys who just want to leave college and make money, one guy who was ruled ineligible, and one who probably could have used another year but found himself on a team anyway.

 

[gunslingerdick]

A couple guys who just want to leave college and make money,... .

Huh? Isn't that why all of them are doing it?

 

[dukedevilz]

Clearly. But obviously there's a difference between playing professional basketball in Chile as opposed to the NBA minimum of $525k. I'm not familiar with those 3 guys from the smaller schools, but I'd venture to say that most of us are making more money than them.

 

[trestyles]

Clearly. But obviously there's a difference between playing professional basketball in Chile as opposed to the NBA minimum of $525k. I'm not familiar with those 3 guys from the smaller schools, but I'd venture to say that most of us are making more money than them.

You can make more money internationally in some places then the NBA minimum. For example Emmanual Mudiay internal contract was 1.2 million. B Jennings contract was 2 million.

 

[dukedevilz]

I'm not disagreeing with that. But, Mudiay and Jennings were already projected to be lottery picks. Big time money is out there internationally in the premier leagues like Greece, Spain, Italy, Russia, Turkey, and a few others - not for no-name kids from Spartanburg Methodist JC or SE Missouri State. Guys like that are just hoping to make a professional team on any 3rd-rate league that will take them.

 

[DSouthr]

You can make more money internationally in some places then the NBA minimum. For example Emmanual Mudiay internal contract was 1.2 million. B Jennings contract was 2 million.

And as popularity of the sport grows in Europe the money will as well grow. And basketball is on the rise outside of the USA, as it rises you can expect what players are paid to rise strong. As the pay rises you can expect that playing in Europe for a while to become a sweeter and sweeter option.