IDK why you feel the nee to explain this to me. I’m fully aware of it. I read the preface.
And, again, it is laughable and discrediting to suggest LaMelo is above most the names on that list. All of whom clearly meet the age criteria and have shown and proven much more than LaMelo has in only 41 games.
And here I thought the Zion overhyping was ridiculous. It’s got nothing on this.
ESPN is clearly heavily pushing their next LBJ media darling. Who has barely even played in the league. And hasn’t been close to as impressive as LBJ was as an 18 year old, nor as impressive as several other players on that list.
I’m certain that in a draft held tomorrow, a vast majority of GM’s wouldn’t select LaMelo over half that list. And maybe only over 2-3 of them.
My goodness.
Let's look at how old these guys were in their 1st NBA seasons:
1) Luka Doncic (19)
2) Zion Williamson (19)
3) LaMelo Ball (19)
4) Donovan Mitchell (21)
5) Jayson Tatum (19)
6) De’Aaron Fox (20)
7) Ben Simmons (21)
8) Devin Booker (19)
9) Bam Adebayo (20)
10) Shai Gilgeous-Alexander (20)
So the first point is that only 4 other guys were also 19 in first NBA seasons (Luka, Zion, JT, and Booker) and, of those, only Luka and Zion had equally or "better" seasons, statistically. (And there's zero point using "eyeball tests" alone to compare these players.) As it happens, those are also the two guys ESPN ranks above LaMelo.
Of the guys they rank below LaMelo, I'd say that only Mitchell and Simmons had comparable or better rookie campaigns than he did and both were 21 when they did it. Tatum, Fox, Booker, Adebayo, Gilgeous-Alexander didn't have 1st years like LaMelo's.
Obviously, reasonable people can disagree about player "promise," but IMHO it's discrediting to describe ESPN's call as "laughable."