Your Reactions to Past Drafts

[1kingzfan]

Your logic is faulty.

Situation A -- Player is 22 and not a superstar
-- we absolutely KNOW he has not become a superstar from ages 19-22

Situation B -- player is 19 and not a superstar
-- we do NOT know whether he will become a superstar between ages 19-22

Given that ANY chance is better than NO chance situation B is absolutely, 100% unarguably superior if your goal is to draft a superstar. If the Situation B player does not become a sueprstar by age 22, he is STILL no worse off than than the 22 yr old who we already KNOW has failed to do so.

Your logic is correct...for the question that you stated.

But the question on the table is whether a drafted college freshman or a college senior has more upside potential? So, why can't the 21-year old move along at the same pace or a greater pace after joining his NBA team than a college freshman and ultimately achieve a higher upside? If players typically reach their "primes" by late 20's, why should we, as fans of our team, care that an 18-year old with roughly equivalent skills to a 21-year old might be better (but not necessarily) when comparing stats at the same age level?

If we knew all players would remain with their drafting NBA teams for their entire careers, this may be more of an issue, but since that is clearly not the case, I just don't see the relevance.

 

[Bricklayer]

Once again, I am of the opinion that reaching college senior age is not a magical time in a player's life where he has mostly reached his potential versus a college freshman.

But once again, history belies such an assertion.

Players rarely -- not never, but rarely -- take big jumps forward after 25. In fact actually not many do after 22. Used to be you drafted a college senior and he would come right in largely being what he was going to be. And that's even more true for superstar type players than anybody else. Int heir own ball-bouncing way they are geniuses, and geniuses don't take a decade to slowly figure things out.

Players still improve, but its around the edges. When Tim Duncan gets drafted as a senior he comes right in and averages 21pts 12rebs and 2.5blks a game. He is who he will be. The Mailman was the Mailman by 24 (27.7pts 12.0rebs), Barkely was Barkley by 22-23 (23.0pts 14.6rebs 4.9ast), Shaq was Shaq by 21 (29.3pts 11.4rebs 2.5blk), the Admiral was the Admiral by 24 (his rookie year) (24.3pts 12.0rebs 4.0blks), Hakeem was Hakeem by 23 (23.5pts 11.5rebs 3.0blks), Jermaine O'Neal by 24 (20.8pts 10.3reb 2.0blk), Dirk by 23 (23.4pts 9.9rebs) and just etc. forever.

 

[Bricklayer]

Your logic is correct...for the question that you stated.

But the question on the table is whether a drafted college freshman or a college senior has more upside potential? So, why can't the 21-year old move along at the same pace or a greater pace after joining his NBA team than a college freshman and ultimately achieve a higher upside? If players typically reach their "primes" by late 20's, why should we, as fans of our team, care that an 18-year old with roughly equivalent skills to a 21-year old might be better (but not necessarily) when comparing stats at the same age level?

If we knew all players would remain with their drafting NBA teams for their entire careers, this may be more of an issue, but since that is clearly not the case, I just don't see the relevance.

Any SINGLE drafted player can of course be better or have more potential than any other SINGLE player. But as a group? There is no comparison. As a group one group hgas 6 years to develop and the other 3 years to develop (before hitting 25). The group with more time is going to be the clear winner.

 

[1kingzfan]

Any SINGLE drafted player can of course be better or have more potential than any other SINGLE player. But as a group? There is no comparison. As a group one group hgas 6 years to develop and the other 3 years to develop (before hitting 25). The group with more time is going to be the clear winner.

First off, you draw the line at 25 but you draw it well into into typical "prime time", perhaps 29 or 30.

Secondly, what you state is just not true, sir. Every player will reach his own potential in whatever time it takes and when that time is up and they maxxed their potential, that's it. Some drafted college freshmen will not grow very much, so despite their younger age, they are done whenever they are done...could be a year, could be three years. Some will improve (the case you are thinking governs) year after year for a lot longer, perhaps achieving superstar status. Some will take a giant leap in year one or two and then stay right there.

But none of this has to do with how a 21-year old's NBA career is going to go. Just because he is 3 years older, since he is still distant from typical prime or end-of-career years, he has no disadvantage compared to an 18-year old draftee. The older guy can progress at the same rates, good and bad, as the younger draftee. The only way your comparison works is if they progress exactly the same in their careers, develop the same skills at the same pace, and then the older guy's skills deteriorate first and his career ends 3 years before the younger draftee.

As a Kings fan, I don't care about that latter scenario. These drafted players are unlikely to be with us even in 5 years, much less into their primes, or end their careers in Sacramento.

 

[1kingzfan]

But once again, history belies such an assertion.

Players rarely -- not never, but rarely -- take big jumps forward after 25. In fact actually not many do after 22. Used to be you drafted a college senior and he would come right in largely being what he was going to be. And that's even more true for superstar type players than anybody else. Int heir own ball-bouncing way they are geniuses, and geniuses don't take a decade to slowly figure things out.

Players still improve, but its around the edges. When Tim Duncan gets drafted as a senior he comes right in and averages 21pts 12rebs and 2.5blks a game. He is who he will be. The Mailman was the Mailman by 24 (27.7pts 12.0rebs), Barkely was Barkley by 22-23 (23.0pts 14.6rebs 4.9ast), Shaq was Shaq by 21 (29.3pts 11.4rebs 2.5blk), the Admiral was the Admiral by 24 (his rookie year) (24.3pts 12.0rebs 4.0blks), Hakeem was Hakeem by 23 (23.5pts 11.5rebs 3.0blks), Jermaine O'Neal by 24 (20.8pts 10.3reb 2.0blk), Dirk by 23 (23.4pts 9.9rebs) and just etc. forever.

I cannot argue with the players you selected fitting your premise. I am sure that if you looked at the hundreds of draftees in the last decade, though, they all do not follow this same development path...and nope, sorry, I cannot do the research on that one.

The only other thing I will add is that what you have proposed here goes against the generally accepted premise that players do not typically peak until late 20's.

 

[Superman]

I haven't been excited about a Kings draft in ten years.

 

[beb0p]

Players still improve, but its around the edges. When Tim Duncan gets drafted as a senior he comes right in and averages 21pts 12rebs and 2.5blks a game. He is who he will be. The Mailman was the Mailman by 24 (27.7pts 12.0rebs), Barkely was Barkley by 22-23 (23.0pts 14.6rebs 4.9ast), Shaq was Shaq by 21 (29.3pts 11.4rebs 2.5blk), the Admiral was the Admiral by 24 (his rookie year) (24.3pts 12.0rebs 4.0blks), Hakeem was Hakeem by 23 (23.5pts 11.5rebs 3.0blks), Jermaine O'Neal by 24 (20.8pts 10.3reb 2.0blk), Dirk by 23 (23.4pts 9.9rebs) and just etc. forever.

I think if you take a few steps back and look at the whole field, you'll see that not all players follow your projectory.

Clifford Robinson and Chauncy Billups didn't figure it out until age 26. BJax was a scrub until age 27. Hedo finally becomes the player we all thought he'd be, at age 28. And Doug Christie didn't become Doug Christie until the tender age of 31.

Each player is unique unto himself. I think it's presumptuous to say that Jason Thompson is near his ceiling. It's equally possible that he has just scratched the surface. Not that I'm proposing either scenario. I'm one of the wait-n-see crowd.

 

[hrdboild]

Martin -- Didn't know much about him, but that late in the draft you're lucky if you get a player who'll stick much less a future star. Wasn't expecting much. Looked like he could be a good scorer, has good size for SG, but way too skinny. Oh, and we have the same birthday! Yay! He's definitely exceeded my expectations.

Garcia -- A lot of people predicted this one. I was happy with this pick. Seemed to fit that Doug Christie playmaker defensive roleplayer spot we just lost. I thought he would be a better passer and shooter than he has been so far, but his defense has been better than expected. Looked out of control in college too. Overall, he's performed about as I expected. I'd actually been debating between Julius Hodge and Francisco before the draft and settled on Hodge, so Petrie made the better pick here.

Douby -- Really disappointed with this pick. I thought Rondo was a star in the making and I really really wanted us to pick him. Lowry was my darkhorse pick, and then Marcus Williams ended up slipping out of the lottery too. We needed a backup for Bibby having traded away BJax, and all three of those guys looked liked perfect backup PGs. I thought optimistically that Douby could maybe learn to play the point competently for 10 minutes a game and at the very least, should be a lights out shooter off the bench. He hasn't even accomplished that. Still really mad about this pick. Petrie dropped the ball here.

Hawes -- I was furious with this pick. He was the one guy in the first round that I really didn't want. Washington went from being a competitive team the year before to a total mess that year and he was supposed to be their star player. Had a reputation as a solid post-player but I saw mostly jumpshots. Didn't look like he could even be an average defensive player at C. And on top of that his personality really rubbed me the wrong way. I wanted Al Thornton or Julian Wright. Still haven't seen much post play. A skilled 7 footer is a valuable asset, so the pick wasn't as bad as my initial reaction but I still don't see him as a starting center in this league. And Al Thornton tore it up last year for the Clippers.

Thompson -- I was really happy we didn't end up with Augustin or Bayless because I see those guys as decent starting PGs but not franchise PGs. Neither one looked particularly adept on defense so neither one should be the answer for us. Of the guys available, I thought Speights or Randolph were the best picks so I was unhappy we opted for Thompson. Just looking at the numbers, Thompson is slightly better than Speights and much better than Randolph. But in terms of long-term potential, they'd be ranked in the opposite order. Speights has been my guy for awhile and I knew it was a long-shot for Petrie to pick him. He made his choice, and it's the safer pick, but I wouldn't be all that surprised if this looks like the Douby pick in a couple years. He's got good size and skill for his position already so he'll never be a total bust, but I think Randolph and Speights will be the better pro players in a few years. Thompson should be the starting PF next season. I also think Petrie is consistently guilty of overvaluing what he sees in workouts instead of relying more on the in-game scouting reports.

 

[Kingster]

The only guy I knew anything about was Hawes, and I liked him because he played well against UCLA. If a guy plays well against UCLA, usually he has something, and Hawes does have a lot of talent, more talent than I thought he had. Hawes doesn't back down. Some guys just shrink when they play against the UCLA defense. Hawes didn't. At this point I'm on the fence whether Douby is going to be a guy who backs down, or whether he accepts the challenge...

 

[hammystyle]

Martin - I loved this pick. His scouting reports and statistics were really promising. He'd have been my pick.
Garcia - I was okay with this. Not terribly excited, but he was projected to go much higher so that was a plus. The scouting reports made it seem like his D was kind of weak, but that he was a great shooter....but his shooting percentages in college weren't very good, so I didn't know what to think. I'd have probly taken Simien or Haft....shows what I know.
Douby - I would've taken Rondo, then Williams, then Lowry then maybe Farmar. I did like Douby as a prospect though. So I quickly talked myself into it. I mean 25 PPG in the Big East...that year when the Big East was crazy? He has't shown much, but I still have solid hopes for him.
Minard - For a 2nd rounder the scouting reports and props from the draft sites had me intrigued.
Hawes - I was disgusted. His rebound numbers, shooting % and BPG were all lame and I just thought he was a dumb pick. I wanted Thad Young, then maybe Julian Wright. I'll stand by that althugh hawes rookie season gave me some hope.
Jason Thompson - I'm okay with this. I like the scouting reports and the numbers. I'd have taken Randolph though.

 

[bajaden]

That's a completely bogus argument, as I am sure you knew when you made it.

Since there was a de facto seniors only rule at the time, EVERYBODY had to draft a senior, hence no advantage to anyone.

And if Oscar Robertson were a senior this year we would not be having this conversation, because Oscar Robertson would have averaged 30-10-10 or something in college (no idea what the real numbers were) and been an obvious superstar in waiting. But the point is that today Oscar Robertson would NOT be a senior -- ever. He would be scooped up after his freshman year the same way LeBron was scooped up out of high school. And if he WERE a senior, he would be picked #1, not #12. And the further point would be that rather than Oscar averaging 30-10-10 (or whatever) as a senior, we are talking about a guy who averaged 20-12 at a small school. IF ANYBODY remaining in this draft at the time we picked was going to be Oscar, was going to be 30-10-10 as a senior, it obviously was not Jason Thompson who we already knew what he looked like at that age -- it would have had to been one of the younger guys. Unlikely of course. But that is what youth and potential buys you -- a chance to be special whereas the older guys have already proven they are not.

I think that this discussion started over whether we should have drafted someone else besides Thompson because of age. Its my feeling that its an individual thing. If you people want to take this discussion to generalities and averages, fine, yes, in general, on average, picking low in the draft, your chances of finding a superstar are better with a highschool kid who may or may not have what it takes than with someone who has already played four years and you've had a chance to get a pretty good read on him.

Thats an entirely different argument than saying that because you picked a senior, there's no growth left. That he can't improve and maybe also become a superstar. This is by no means an argument that Thompson is going to be a superstar. I think he will be a good player, and take that for what its worth. I've been wrong before and I'll admit it when I'am. I just believe that at the bottom line, you have to judge people as individuals and not as names on a chart. You have to judge their charactor and try to figure out whats between their ears. How commited are they? And after you've done all your homework, you make as good an educated opinion as you can.

I will admit Bricky that times are different today, and your probably right about Oscar, and his numbers were pretty good if I remember correctly. I'll bet you though, that most of the teams would prefer the old days, when they had a better idea of what they were getting.

 

[ZZE916]

Kevin Martin
Francisco Garcia
Quincy Douby
Ricky Minard
Spencer Hawes

Martin - Didn't know much about him, but it looks to have been a great pick.
Garcia - I liked it then, but I'm a bit uncertain now. The jury is still out for me.
Douby - Hated it then, hate it more now. This will be an interesting year for the young man.
Minard - No opinion. In fact, no opinion is needed at this point.
Hawes - Good pick. Not great, but good.

 

[uolj]

I'll give you #1 through #5, but there is no logic given to support #6. Why can't the younger drafted player be done growing at his age and the older drafted player still have big upside?

That one should be the obvious one. We're talking in general. Players in their teens and early twenties do not get worse with age, they get better (in general), right? So chances are that an older player is closer to their best than a younger player. Pick any two hundred random guys. The likely age at which they have reached their peak performance is exactly the same because we know nothing about these two hundred guys. Let's say that peak age is 29. Guys #1-100 are 19 and Guys #101-200 are 23. Now guys at either of those age are generally getting better, not worse.

So you have 200 players all getting better, all on average following an upward progression towards their peak performance at age 29:

                         X
                       X X
                     X X X
                   X X X X
                 X X X X X
               X X X X X X
             X X X X X X X
           X X X X X X X X
         X X X X X X X X X
       X X X X X X X X X X
     X X X X X X X X X X X
   X X X X X X X X X X X X
 X X X X X X X X X X X X X
    19      23          29

So on average, the 23 year old will be farther along in development than the 19 year old, right? That means that given two random players, one that is 19 and one that is 23, it is more likely that the 19 year old has room to grow.

P.S. If you disagree, at least give props for the beautiful graph.

 

[Warhawk]

That one should be the obvious one. We're talking in general. Players in their teens and early twenties do not get worse with age, they get better (in general), right? So chances are that an older player is closer to their best than a younger player. Pick any two hundred random guys. The likely age at which they have reached their peak performance is exactly the same because we know nothing about these two hundred guys. Let's say that peak age is 29. Guys #1-100 are 19 and Guys #101-200 are 23. Now guys at either of those age are generally getting better, not worse.

So you have 200 players all getting better, all on average following an upward progression towards their peak performance at age 29:

                         X
                       X X
                     X X X
                   X X X X
                 X X X X X
               X X X X X X
             X X X X X X X
           X X X X X X X X
         X X X X X X X X X
       X X X X X X X X X X
     X X X X X X X X X X X
   X X X X X X X X X X X X
 X X X X X X X X X X X X X
    19      23          29

So on average, the 23 year old will be farther along in development than the 19 year old, right? That means that given two random players, one that is 19 and one that is 23, it is more likely that the 19 year old has room to grow.

P.S. If you disagree, at least give props for the beautiful graph.

OK, but the point is, if you are drafting someone on that lovely chart of yours, why take the 19-year old if there is a 22-year old playing better or having a larger skillset? The 19-year old will have to hopefully develop into what the 22-year old already is. It's an unneccessary risk to take the younger player, all things being equal. There are no guarantees that any one player will develop along that pretty graph. Any one player can go above or below those averages. You are hoping and praying while you are paying that 19-year old rookie $1-2 mil/year that in a few years he gets to the point that the 22-year old has already achieved.

 

[1kingzfan]

It is indeed a beautiful graph!!!!

However, I do not accept that all players progress at the same pace. Your graph represents what one subset of all players will do, thus the subset you selected matches your theory. Every player does not get better after being drafted. If that were the case, all 1st round draft picks would be playing and improving well into their primes.

I could also argue, using your curve, that the typical 21-year old draftee should be well ahead of the typical 18-year old draftee in whatever skills or intangibles the graph is measuring. If such were indeed the case, then a drafting team should ALWAYS go with the OLDER player, since he will progress along that curve, getting better and reaching his prime (and best ball) sooner, and thus contribute sooner to a team's success.

The ultimate point is that age is not the sole determinant of upside and potential down the road improvement. The evaluative formula for players includes so many factors and is so complex, and we saw a little bit of that with the wildly variant mock drafts this last go 'round.

Using you graph, Randolph's "curve" might end at age 21, while Thompson's "curve" follows it to the T. Or Randolph's "curve" may exceed yours and not top out until age 32, while Thompson's levels off at age 23 and he's done We just do not know.

We can assume we know absolutely nothing at all about each player and argue that the younger guy has 3 more years, potentially rapid growth years (in your view), to blossom into a superstar. But that's not how it works. The NBA GMs, scouting teams, and other front office guys are out there looking at tape, conducting interviews, and watching in-person to assess where each player is and his upside potential to be a lot better. Then, based on what they see and project using their own experiences, they decide who has the most upside, who can achieve and sustain a desirable level of play most quickly for their team.

 

[bajaden]

One last thing I think you have to take into consideration. If you draft a player with so called upside. And you think he's three years away from being a really good contributer, remember, he's taking up space on your bench and also taking up space on your salary cap. If you draft a player that you think can contribute right away ( no guarantee's ) you get a player that at least is contributing and earning the money that he's being paid.

Now if player number one turns out to be the next Kobe, then it was worth it. But if he doesn't, then you've wasted three years and a lot of money on nothing.. If your a rebuilding team, I guess the question is, how big a risk can you afford to take. I think its much easier to take a risk when your on top like the Suns or the Spurs. We took a risk on Wallace when we were already a pretty good team. When your at the bottom looking up, every mistake you make is magnified, and possibly sets you back another year in your rebuild.

 

[VF21]

I think that this discussion started over whether we should have drafted someone else besides Thompson because of age. Its my feeling that its an individual thing. If you people want to take this discussion to generalities and averages, fine, yes, in general, on average, picking low in the draft, your chances of finding a superstar are better with a highschool kid who may or may not have what it takes than with someone who has already played four years and you've had a chance to get a pretty good read on him.

Thats an entirely different argument than saying that because you picked a senior, there's no growth left. That he can't improve and maybe also become a superstar. This is by no means an argument that Thompson is going to be a superstar. I think he will be a good player, and take that for what its worth. I've been wrong before and I'll admit it when I'am. I just believe that at the bottom line, you have to judge people as individuals and not as names on a chart. You have to judge their charactor and try to figure out whats between their ears. How commited are they? And after you've done all your homework, you make as good an educated opinion as you can.

I will admit Bricky that times are different today, and your probably right about Oscar, and his numbers were pretty good if I remember correctly. I'll bet you though, that most of the teams would prefer the old days, when they had a better idea of what they were getting.

Agree.

In these days of fingertip availability for all kinds of statistics, it's common for people to want to reduce everything to charts and graphs, generalities and averages. But the very idea of an average presupposes some above the norm and others below.

At this point, Jason Thompson could fall anywhere onto the graph. We won't know until we actually see him at work but I have to believe the scouts and paid professionals for the Kings just might have the inside track on this.

And to precipitate the question, are they always right? Of course not, but I think they have the better seat from which to judge potential.

 

[1kingzfan]

I thought I would toss this one in for good measure --- a quote from Jerry Reynolds in an interview on KHTK this afternoon:

"The so-called upside of 18 or 19-year olds is much overrated. It could be that upside is 'no side'." -- Jerry Reynolds

 

[hrdboild]

I thought I would toss this one in for good measure --- a quote from Jerry Reynolds in an interview on KHTK this afternoon:

"The so-called upside of 18 or 19-year olds is much overrated. It could be that upside is 'no side'." -- Jerry Reynolds

No offense to you personally, but having listened to my fair share of Kings TV broadcasts, I don't think the opinion of Jerry Reynolds should really be given that much attention.

 

[Bricklayer]

I thought I would toss this one in for good measure --- a quote from Jerry Reynolds in an interview on KHTK this afternoon:

"The so-called upside of 18 or 19-year olds is much overrated. It could be that upside is 'no side'." -- Jerry Reynolds

And just like that 1kingzfan loses the thread by quoting Jerry Reynolds.


Its yet to be determined whether Jerry was a worse coach, GM or color commentator. Next up I will be quoting Mike Tyson on pacifism.

 

[1kingzfan]

And just like that 1kingzfan loses the thread by quoting Jerry Reynolds.


Its yet to be determined whether Jerry was a worse coach, GM or color commentator. Next up I will be quoting Mike Tyson on pacifism.

Awww, come on, it was "just for good measure"!!!

BTW, who was the Kings' Director of Player Personnel during the Kings' glory years again???

 

[Vlade4GM]

The fact that the direction is unknown for a younger prospect is what gives him potential (that along with having unteachable abilities), you don't know if he'll max out on his potential or he'll bust or he'll end up somewhere in the middle. You can say that the younger guy is just going to be the older guy in a few years, but that's assuming that players all take the same directions; which they don't. You have to look at their indivual skillsets to determine it.

There are ways to make better guesses, like getting to know the player, their work ethic, rating their athleticism and harder to improve skills like footwork, ball handling, body control, and passing. However, the older prospect is less likely to improve on what he already is because he has had more time for his body to mature and to reach the max ability of their athleticism. That doesn't mean older prospects can't have potential to significantly improve their games, if they're quality athletes and they really just lack in teachable skills to become quality players then they have a better chance to improve than maybe like a young prospect like Love who is really about as polished as you can get skills wise.

So the debate is really about who has more chance to improve their game because it's much easier to judge how a player's game translates as it stands at the moment than it is to judge how much they're able to improve. Normally the older player is going to be more polished and contribute quicker than the younger player, but the younger player could be better in the long run depending on their abilties and disparity in age. You're right that the younger player could just end up being the same as the older one 2 or 3 years down the line, but that's where scouting comes in to determine the level of likely improvement and determine the quality of game they currently have.

So in conclusion I really don't like the black and white comparisons of younger vs. older. The ability to improve by a player should be based mostly on their abilities. However the longer a player has been playing the more certain things have been revealed about them.

 

[KingNoy]

How do you like GP's drafting?

First off, I'd like to say hello to all as this is my first post after being a long time lurker.

Looking over GP/Kings' draft history, it looks like the last time we picked someone who was actually a well known, high prospect was Corliss Williamson. I never kept up with college hoops much, but I remember going Stojakovic who? Wahad who? Turkoglu who? Douby who? Hawes who? and most recently, Thompson who?

I'll give GP the benefit of the doubt that many of these players (Peja, Hedo, JWill, Martin, Wallace, Garcia, and now Hawes) have/are turning out to be very good players in this league, but how do you think the Kings would be if they went with the grain and picked according to what is projected in consensus mock drafts?

I don't know for sure if any of our players since Corliss were high prospects or not, so maybe someone could shed some light on that, but as of late, we've always had to wait and "TRUST IN GP." Sometimes I'd like to KNOW or have more assurance that we'd be good to go with who ever we drafted instead of asking "who?"

 

[PurpleHaze]

Believe me, anyone who follows NCAA basketball knew everyone of those players you mentioned - maybe less so the foreign draft picks. Just to take a couple of them. I first heard of Spencer Hawes when he played in H.S. McDonald's all star game. That's also where I first heard of Kevin Durant. I became very aware of Jason Thompson as Rider University season went along and the senior was listed as nations second leading rebounder. Before he was picked #12 by the Kings (not terribly unexpected for me) I had noted in a run up to the draft thread about his "dominating" Michael Beasley in a tournament game last season and other interesting tid bits. But, I pretty much agree on not following European basketball enough to know much or anything about Predrag and Hidayet before they joined the Kings. Welcome!

 

[VF21]

Welcome to the board, KingNoy!

This topic parallels another discussion already underway so I'm merging the threads.

 

[uolj]

OK, but the point is, if you are drafting someone on that lovely chart of yours, why take the 19-year old if there is a 22-year old playing better or having a larger skillset? The 19-year old will have to hopefully develop into what the 22-year old already is. It's an unneccessary risk to take the younger player, all things being equal. There are no guarantees that any one player will develop along that pretty graph. Any one player can go above or below those averages. You are hoping and praying while you are paying that 19-year old rookie $1-2 mil/year that in a few years he gets to the point that the 22-year old has already achieved.

The (silly) graph though is meant to represent averages and make sure everyone understands that 22 year olds are likely to be closer to their peak than 19 year olds.

But your post brings up a separate point, though. The fact that there is no guarantee is very important. Since there is no guarantee of whether a player will end up with a higher peak or a lower peak, you have a better idea of where the actual peak will be with the 22 year old than you do with the 19 year old.

The idea is that you don't know what the 19 year old can do, and you are willing to risk the possibility that he will bust against the possibility that he will break out. It's not an unnecessary risk, it is in fact almost completely necessary. To find that superstar this is the best way to go. You're not hoping the 19-year old gets to the same point as the 22 year old, you're hoping he far exceeds it.

 

[uolj]

It is indeed a beautiful graph!!!!

However, I do not accept that all players progress at the same pace. Your graph represents what one subset of all players will do, thus the subset you selected matches your theory. Every player does not get better after being drafted. If that were the case, all 1st round draft picks would be playing and improving well into their primes.

I could also argue, using your curve, that the typical 21-year old draftee should be well ahead of the typical 18-year old draftee in whatever skills or intangibles the graph is measuring. If such were indeed the case, then a drafting team should ALWAYS go with the OLDER player, since he will progress along that curve, getting better and reaching his prime (and best ball) sooner, and thus contribute sooner to a team's success.

The ultimate point is that age is not the sole determinant of upside and potential down the road improvement. The evaluative formula for players includes so many factors and is so complex, and we saw a little bit of that with the wildly variant mock drafts this last go 'round.

Using you graph, Randolph's "curve" might end at age 21, while Thompson's "curve" follows it to the T. Or Randolph's "curve" may exceed yours and not top out until age 32, while Thompson's levels off at age 23 and he's done We just do not know.

We can assume we know absolutely nothing at all about each player and argue that the younger guy has 3 more years, potentially rapid growth years (in your view), to blossom into a superstar. But that's not how it works. The NBA GMs, scouting teams, and other front office guys are out there looking at tape, conducting interviews, and watching in-person to assess where each player is and his upside potential to be a lot better. Then, based on what they see and project using their own experiences, they decide who has the most upside, who can achieve and sustain a desirable level of play most quickly for their team.

Thanks for the compliment.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure you understood its relevance (I admit it is very misleading). The Jerry Reynolds quote brings home the confusion. Of course there could be "no side". It's (generally) worth the risk because the Kings need a great player!

I'm not saying that the Jason Thompson pick is bad, because if there is nobody with decent potential to be that superstar, then getting a solid big from the draft is a great idea. But the fact that people don't believe that drafting a 19 year old with potential when you're looking for a superstar is better (in general!!) than a 23 year old who's much more likely to be closer to his peak still confuses me.

 

[1kingzfan]

But the fact that people don't believe that drafting a 19 year old with potential when you're looking for a superstar is better (in general!!) than a 23 year old who's much more likely to be closer to his peak still confuses me.

That is the point where there is disagreement.

Here and in other threads there has been proof presented that NBA careers take all kinds of twists and turns, upside is realized, never realized, or exceeds expectations; peak performances occur later in careers and earlier in careers, some progress uniformly for a long time, some progress a little bit and top out quickly. All over the map, regardless of at what age a prospect is drafted.

As a result, concluding that an 18-year old draftee has a greater chance to be superstar than a 21-year old has still not been demonstrated.

As far as your "it's generally worth the risk" statement, then, that is obviously not true, or else the Kings would have drafted Randolph or Jordan. And Reynolds' comment drives home my point just fine.

You are trying to boil down a very complex decision into age. It just cannot be done and know that a solid draft decision will be made.

Consider too that, regardless of starting age, one player's "prime" will be playing at a much higher level than another player's "prime".

In the end, I think that folks playing the "age card" are just not that excited about the drafting of Jason Thompson. He is not an athletic freak like Randolph, although he is above average athletically. JT was not a sexy pick, since all the mocks and evaluative articles you were reading for weeks did not place him at the forefront, but that does not mean he has less upside than Randolph. It does not mean that he has less potential to develop much further and be a superstar.

The only thing it means is that, assuming both players go on to have solid NBA careers, JT is more likley to be out of the league about 3 years earlier than Randolph.

 

[uolj]

Here and in other threads there has been proof presented that NBA careers take all kinds of twists and turns, upside is realized, never realized, or exceeds expectations; peak performances occur later in careers and earlier in careers, some progress uniformly for a long time, some progress a little bit and top out quickly. All over the map, regardless of at what age a prospect is drafted.

You're talking about individuals here, which is only relevant if you are talking about all individuals. Just because some people don't follow the "average" path doesn't mean there isn't an average path and it doesn't mean that that average path doesn't give reason to prefer one choice over another.

As a result, concluding that an 18-year old draftee has a greater chance to be superstar than a 21-year old has still not been demonstrated.

I'll try harder. Maybe.

As far as your "it's generally worth the risk" statement, then, that is obviously not true, or else the Kings would have drafted Randolph or Jordan.

No, that statement can be 100% true and the Kings can still draft Thompson and be correct about it. "Generally worth the risk" applies to only that one trait. There are many other factors involved with such a decision. By "in general" I mean that one should favor young with potential over old and established, if all other factors are equal. That doesn't mean it's the only criteria, but just because there are other criteria doesn't mean you can ignore this one.

And Reynolds' comment drives home my point just fine.

It might drive home your point, but that point is conceded (and always has been). Of course people with potential fail to reach it, otherwise they wouldn't have "potential" they'd have ability.

You are trying to boil down a very complex decision into age. It just cannot be done and know that a solid draft decision will be made.

Not at all. I'm merely trying to point out that when it comes to age, you should prefer young to old. That is but one factor amongst many. Not only should you prefer young to old, but you should be willing to forgo some established skills in an older player to get potential for greater skills in a younger one.

Consider too that, regardless of starting age, one player's "prime" will be playing at a much higher level than another player's "prime".

Irrelevant unless we're talking about individuals, which we aren't.

In the end, I think that folks playing the "age card" are just not that excited about the drafting of Jason Thompson. He is not an athletic freak like Randolph, although he is above average athletically. JT was not a sexy pick, since all the mocks and evaluative articles you were reading for weeks did not place him at the forefront, but that does not mean he has less upside than Randolph. It does not mean that he has less potential to develop much further and be a superstar.

To be honest I didn't read much of the rest of the thread and don't know what started the conversation. I have little opinion on the draft pick itself. I just butted in because I thought people were arguing the wrong thing. I have no idea who has more upside because I haven't studied the players, but without any other knowledge I'd bet on the 19 year old to have greater potential over the 22 year old.

 

[Vlade4GM]

That is the point where there is disagreement.

Here and in other threads there has been proof presented that NBA careers take all kinds of twists and turns, upside is realized, never realized, or exceeds expectations; peak performances occur later in careers and earlier in careers, some progress uniformly for a long time, some progress a little bit and top out quickly. All over the map, regardless of at what age a prospect is drafted.

As a result, concluding that an 18-year old draftee has a greater chance to be superstar than a 21-year old has still not been demonstrated.

As far as your "it's generally worth the risk" statement, then, that is obviously not true, or else the Kings would have drafted Randolph or Jordan. And Reynolds' comment drives home my point just fine.

You are trying to boil down a very complex decision into age. It just cannot be done and know that a solid draft decision will be made.

Consider too that, regardless of starting age, one player's "prime" will be playing at a much higher level than another player's "prime".

In the end, I think that folks playing the "age card" are just not that excited about the drafting of Jason Thompson. He is not an athletic freak like Randolph, although he is above average athletically. JT was not a sexy pick, since all the mocks and evaluative articles you were reading for weeks did not place him at the forefront, but that does not mean he has less upside than Randolph. It does not mean that he has less potential to develop much further and be a superstar.

The only thing it means is that, assuming both players go on to have solid NBA careers, JT is more likley to be out of the league about 3 years earlier than Randolph.

No one is makng a blanket statement that the younger player has a greater chance to be a superstar than the older. It's simply the younger player has the greater chance of significantly improving their game because he has more room to grow, the older player has already gone through that time period, and it's known what happened.

Thompson isn't a typical done developing senior, he's got good athleticism, length, and guard skills to build on, but he really doesn't have that advanced of a post game at the moment and he's already physically mature so there isn't a whole lot of room to grow in regards. So while it's possible he can improve significantly, I wouldn't count on it happening. Does where he was placed on mock drafts make him have less potential than Randolph? No, not necessarily. What makes Randolph have more potential than him is that randolph has much better athleticism and perimeter skills, and with nearly the same length (probably, don't really know for sure since Thompson didn't get measured); Randolph needs to improve things like his jump shot and his strength, and just learning the game better. All these things are easily improvable with practice and experience.

I'm really not trying to take away from Thompson's potential to get better, but rather I think much more highly of Randolph's potential and that I think he would've been a much better choice because he's the homerun pick and that's the risk I felt we had to take. However, I don't claim that there isn't a chance Thompson could surprise and become a quality starter in this league. Maybe like a poor man's Amare at best.