ESPN ranks Swipa 6th in top players under-25 rankings

[sactowndog]

Fwiw, I just saw an interesting stat.

Throughout NBA history only 3 players have averaged 24 ppg and 7 apg at age 23.

Tiny Archibald. Oscar Robertson. LeBron James.

End of list.

If Swipa finishes the season at his current averages — he joins that list.

Let’s keep in mind that for many players throughout NBA history.... they were in their rookie year or still in college at 23.

 

[serbiangoat]

Nobody is “spot on” when predicting future potential, but I tend to believe ESPN before I believe the guy with a bag of Cheetos in one hand and a TV remote in the other. Just sayin’.

Lucky I don't eat cheetos or have a TV remote.

 

[Gguod]

The list is supposed to create debate but its also predicting future value or the value of their careers. First of all creating that type of lists is quite hard but especially if its about predicting future value then arguments against Lamelo like this dont mean anything:

Please spare me the inevitable response of “LaMelo is legit”. He may very well be. But he’s not shown to have any more talent or future potential than Tatum, Mitchell, Fox, Simmons or Booker. Period, end of story.

The idea aparrently isnt about listing the best players atm under 25. The idea is to predict their careers and list their predicted outcomes. That means what Lamelo is doing now with his very limited experience should be a)compared to his peers in their rookie year and b) considered in the prediction on his created value over his career.

I dont know how I would list these guys but what I do know is I had Lamelo as the clear cut number 1 prospect in his draft class for certain reasons. The ability to run/create efficent offense is the most valuable skillset in this league. Being able to create 15 mid range shots in isolation with low ast% just isnt valuable. Being able to run pick n roll/iso/have an absolute elite vision to create open layups and threes for others or yourself is the most valuable thing. I believe that is accounted for in Lamelos listing as well as his so great performance as a rookie that both teams that passed on him are rightfully heavily regretting it plus also that he is so famous he will create that conversation.

All in all it doesnt really matter wether he should be 3rd or 9th or whatever but he certainly has earned to be a part of these type of lists.

 

[steelevt]

You can find it, they've been doing it for a decade or longer.

Of course it's hard to predict, but they are a sport media outlet, looking for views and clicks to sell ad revenue. Look, were talking about it. It doesn't matter if they are right. That being said, I believe that the guys who are making these rankings Pelton, Marks and Schmitz take it serious, so they believe what they are putting out there.

We’re only talking about it because the list is ridiculous and full of recency bias. I highly doubt they really believe what they are putting out there cuz they’re fools if they do. I believe it’s more of what u mentioned earlier. They are looking for views and clicks knowing they can’t be held liable for accuracy since it’s an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions...

 

[The Effort Police]

Passing on Luka doesn't bother me as much as picking someone at #2, and acting like you are so close to a playoff run that you don't need to feature that #2 pick. The Kings did themselves and Marvin a disservice in that regard. Every other team picking in the top 5 that year gave their picks all the minutes they could handle. No surprise that those other players confidence stayed high and their teams figured out very quickly how they were going to use their prized pick. The Kings didn't even give themselves a chance. That's the disappointing part.

Nah, the disappointing part is that Bagley is bad.

Don't look now but Bagley had around the same MPG as JJJ his rookie campaign, and although less so than Ayton, his usage was higher than both of them.

In fact, his minutes were higher than all of our other busts besides Ben McLemore and his usage is higher than all of them too. They spent the better part of the Bagley era molding their offense around giving him the ball when he begs for it. They finally stopped doing it because he's bad at creating for himself and others.

Not to mention, Vlade promoted this culture where he ruled the team since he and his dad whined about Joerger who then subsequently got canned.
Talk about coddled and preened.

 

[Livinthedream]

Nah, the disappointing part is that Bagley is bad.

Don't look now but Bagley had around the same MPG as JJJ his rookie campaign, and although less so than Ayton, his usage was higher than both of them.

In fact, his minutes were higher than all of our other busts besides Ben McLemore and his usage is higher than all of them too. They spent the better part of the Bagley era molding their offense around giving him the ball when he begs for it. They finally stopped doing it because he's bad at creating for himself and others.

Not to mention, Vlade promoted this culture where he ruled the team since he and his dad whined about Joerger who then subsequently got canned.
Talk about coddled and preened.

At no point was the team molded around Bagley nor did he rule the team. It's been Fox's team the whole time Bagley was here.

Not only did they not mold the team around him, they had him change his game to be more perimeter oriented so they could feature Holmes????

Injuries aside, the organization has done nothing that is directly in Bagley's interest. They are interested in that 8th seed only. Truth be told, Vlade should have traded that 2nd pick for that exact reason.

 

[Groovygreg]

Lucky I don't eat cheetos or have a TV remote.

Right. Good thing.

 

[Folsomkingsfan]

Again blaming the coaches, Bjelica/Cojo, and people saying after every bad Fox game he's "fatigued" (Kings fans not you specifically) is just copes also how is comparing two lead guard comparable to Horton-Tucker? Grizzlies without a super talent and contributor in JJJ are better than the Kings because of Morrant and yes I know Fox owns him in the match ups but 'there's another 28 teams to play against. Even SGA on a team TANKING had and resting players carried a team nearly as much as Fox.

I kind of agree with you. At first glance I’d never consider Morant to be superior to Fox but it’s hard to argue results. On paper our team is the more talented team, but Grizzlies are two games over .500 and we are, to put it mildly, not. Fox is a great player and I love the guy, which is why I choose to blame Walton for this teams shortcomings. But even with a lame duck coach this team is still underachieving.

 

[steelevt]

At no point was the team molded around Bagley nor did he rule the team. It's been Fox's team the whole time Bagley was here.

Not only did they not mold the team around him, they had him change his game to be more perimeter oriented so they could feature Holmes????

Injuries aside, the organization has done nothing that is directly in Bagley's interest. They are interested in that 8th seed only. Truth be told, Vlade should have traded that 2nd pick for that exact reason.

they brought in dedmond to stretch the floor to pair with bagley who at the time had no outside shot. I wouldnt say paying out big money for a stretch five to pair with bagley was not directly in his interest. It's not holmes' fault he outplayed both dedmon and bagley. So instead of having 2 bigs that cant stretch the floor, the options were for bagley to work on his 3s (something holmes also tried to do) or sit out and put in a 4 that could stretch the floor (why we play barnes at the 4)

 

[Livinthedream]

they brought in dedmond to stretch the floor to pair with bagley who at the time had no outside shot. I wouldnt say paying out big money for a stretch five to pair with bagley was not directly in his interest. It's not holmes' fault he outplayed both dedmon and bagley. So instead of having 2 bigs that cant stretch the floor, the options were for bagley to work on his 3s (something holmes also tried to do) or sit out and put in a 4 that could stretch the floor (why we play barnes at the 4)

This year is the first year Bagley played with Holmes. So Holmes didn't outplay him. They chose to play to Holmes strengths this year and make Bagley adapt.

Also, everything Holmes does is predicated on what Fox or Haliburton gives him. Their threat as scoreres in the paint opens up everything for Holmes. So I don't know that he's actually outplaying anyone versus playing a simple role really well.

 

[LPKingsFan]

they brought in dedmond to stretch the floor to pair with bagley who at the time had no outside shot. I wouldnt say paying out big money for a stretch five to pair with bagley was not directly in his interest. It's not holmes' fault he outplayed both dedmon and bagley. So instead of having 2 bigs that cant stretch the floor, the options were for bagley to work on his 3s (something holmes also tried to do) or sit out and put in a 4 that could stretch the floor (why we play barnes at the 4)

Right. They figured it would be easier for Bagley to make it as a 4 first, which requires shooting, rather than as a 5, which requires rim protection. If anything, the franchise has tried to accommodate Bagley’s limitations.

 

[LPKingsFan]

So I don't know that he's actually outplaying anyone versus playing a simple role really well.

And the fact that Bagley can’t even handle that simple role says... ?

 

[Livinthedream]

And the fact that Bagley can’t even handle that simple role says... ?

He's not playing that role. When he's in the pick and roll he does it well. But he's asked to do more because he's more talented and capable.

 

[Livinthedream]

Right. They figured it would be easier for Bagley to make it as a 4 first, which requires shooting, rather than as a 5, which requires rim protection. If anything, the franchise has tried to accommodate Bagley’s limitations.

Holmes isn't a rim protector either. He's a hustle guy who gets bullied by full sized bigs. Holmes is limited in his offensive capabilities, so Bagley had to make the adjustment to accommodate Holmes and space the floor for Fox.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

The list is supposed to create debate but its also predicting future value or the value of their careers..

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.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Let’s keep in mind that for many players throughout NBA history.... they were in their rookie year or still in college at 23.

Still doesn’t alter history.

Let’s also keep in mind that players were entering the NBA straight from HS somewhat routinely in the mid-90’s. And one and done has been in place for 15 years now.

So players have been entering the league between the ages 18-20 for over a quarter century now. And the likes of Moses Malone (ABA) and Daryl Dawkins did it long before that.

Yet still only 3 names on that list.

 

[sactowndog]

Still doesn’t alter history.

Let’s also keep in mind that players were entering the NBA straight from HS somewhat routinely in the mid-90’s. And one and done has been in place for 15 years now.

So players have been entering the league between the ages 18-20 for over a quarter century now. And the likes of Moses Malone (ABA) and Daryl Dawkins did it long before that.

Yet still only 3 names on that list.

I’m not arguing that DeAarron isn’t much better and doesn’t deserve his spot in the list. I would arguably take him over Tatum at this point. But I think the all time thing under 23 is a bit of a stretch given the changes in when players could enter.

 

[Woot!]

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."

 

[steelevt]

This year is the first year Bagley played with Holmes. So Holmes didn't outplay him. They chose to play to Holmes strengths this year and make Bagley adapt.

Also, everything Holmes does is predicated on what Fox or Haliburton gives him. Their threat as scoreres in the paint opens up everything for Holmes. So I don't know that he's actually outplaying anyone versus playing a simple role really well.

You seriously don’t think holmes has outplayed bagley? If you seriously believe that I don’t know what else to tell you. He’s better with the eye test and his stats are better across the board. If bagley is better why isn’t he playing 5 over a shorter holmes? If he has such a simple role, why can’t bagley play that role equally as well? The fact is at this time, holmes is better than bagley at the 5 and Barnes is playing as good if not better at the 4. Otherwise bagley wouldn’t be on the bench during the 4th. It’s not just kings fans that see this, other teams are low on him too.

 

[Livinthedream]

You seriously don’t think holmes has outplayed bagley? If you seriously believe that I don’t know what else to tell you. He’s better with the eye test and his stats are better across the board. If bagley is better why isn’t he playing 5 over a shorter holmes? If he has such a simple role, why can’t bagley play that role equally as well? The fact is at this time, holmes is better than bagley at the 5 and Barnes is playing as good if not better at the 4. Otherwise bagley wouldn’t be on the bench during the 4th. It’s not just kings fans that see this, other teams are low on him too.

I don't know how else to explain it. Bagley CAN run a pick and roll with Fox and Haliburton all day long with no problem. The issue is that Holmes can't do ANYTHING else.

At this point in time, Bagley takes half his shots from the perimeter and very few plays are run for him. So the difficulty level on the offensive side of the ball does not compare between the two. So if you're going to argue effiency numbers, remember they aren't playing the same role or even the same position. Holmes is a better help defender and shot blocker, but Bagley bodies up bigs better. Rebounding is a push. Walton favors Holmes because he's his type of guy. A role player. So he's going to cater to him.

Look, I have my issues with Bagley, but he's not the worst player in history as people like to make it out. Holmes isn't one the best 5s in the league either and he's not some defensive stud. The whole team stinks at defense. Barnes production drops off significantly when playing the 4 and he's not as good a rebounder as Holmes and Bagley. There is give and take with all of these guys.

As far as other teams being low on Bagley, I'm not so sure they are that low on his talent level. They may know that he's asked for a trade and that has put the Kings in a weak position. Could be the injury history, could be the dad.

 

[ESP47]

I don't know how else to explain it. Bagley CAN run a pick and roll with Fox and Haliburton all day long with no problem. The issue is that Holmes can't do ANYTHING else.

At this point in time, Bagley takes half his shots from the perimeter and very few plays are run for him. So the difficulty level on the offensive side of the ball does not compare between the two. So if you're going to argue effiency numbers, remember they aren't playing the same role or even the same position. Holmes is a better help defender and shot blocker, but Bagley bodies up bigs better. Rebounding is a push. Walton favors Holmes because he's his type of guy. A role player. So he's going to cater to him.

Look, I have my issues with Bagley, but he's not the worst player in history as people like to make it out. Holmes isn't one the best 5s in the league either and he's not some defensive stud. The whole team stinks at defense. Barnes production drops off significantly when playing the 4 and he's not as good a rebounder as Holmes and Bagley. There is give and take with all of these guys.

As far as other teams being low on Bagley, I'm not so sure they are that low on his talent level. They may know that he's asked for a trade and that has put the Kings in a weak position. Could be the injury history, could be the dad.

I'll give you credit for one thing, you haven't stopped believing in the kid. I think you're slowly starting to get lonely on that island these days though.

Your concerns on offense are legit but I think you're severely minimizing how horrible his defense is compared to Holmes or any big man for that matter.

 

[serbiangoat]

I’m not arguing that DeAarron isn’t much better and doesn’t deserve his spot in the list. I would arguably take him over Tatum at this point. But I think the all time thing under 23 is a bit of a stretch given the changes in when players could enter.

I really thought Kings fans would have learned from the ridiculous stats and per 36 phase the forum had and comparisons to legends would end after Cousins who apparently any team he was on would be 15 games better. Please only start making comparisons when a player is making his team a winning team or hell when they can even reach the gimmick that is a top 10 finish.

 

[Livinthedream]

I'll give you credit for one thing, you haven't stopped believing in the kid. I think you're slowly starting to get lonely on that island these days though.

Your concerns on offense are legit but I think you're severely minimizing how horrible his defense is compared to Holmes or any big man for that matter.

Fair enough. It's more that I think the Kings organization has a habit of running kids careers into the ground moreso than a belief in him specifically.

Whether Bagley is playing or not, this team still performs the same. Couldn't care less about a net rating change when the wins and losses don't change. But we need a scapegoat. I'll let the subject of Bagley go.

 

[steelevt]

Fair enough. It's more that I think the Kings organization has a habit of running kids careers into the ground moreso than a belief in him specifically.

Whether Bagley is playing or not, this team still performs the same. Couldn't care less about a net rating change when the wins and losses don't change. But we need a scapegoat. I'll let the subject of Bagley go.

I had a long drawn out response to your earlier reply but deleted it and just figured we would end up having to agree to disagree. Honestly, I was in the draft Luka camp, but once we drafted bagley, I wanted so bad for him to prove me wrong. If he could be a 20/10 all star or in some way help us get that ring, I can live with drafting Olajuwon instead of MJ. That hope is dwindling but I agree that he’s not the worst player on the kings or the scrub people make him out to be. He just hasn’t lived up to expectations. That sucks for him, the kings and us fans.

 

[Tetsujin]

People get so offended when others rave about LaMelo. Dude’s a stud.

It really sorta feels like aside from Luka, who is firmly ensconced at number 1, every single other guy on that list has an argument to be ranked at #2.

 

[Tetsujin]

What hurts me isn't so much that the Kings missed out on Luka - I'm past that - but that they missed out on SO many guys better than the guy they got. Phoenix missed out on Luka too. But in Ayton they still got a guy they're happy to see as part of their long-term future. Back in the day, the Rockets passed on Jordan. But they got Olajuwan. It's the Trailblazers, who picked Sam Bowie at #2, who felt the pain for a long time.

It's one thing to miss on a "generational talent" that was yours for the taking. It's another to have picked a guy the braintrust doesn't even consider part of the core now. Boston picked Robert Frickin' Williams at #27 in that draft and I'd flip Bags for him straight up in a second. But Ainge wouldn't.

*That* hurts.

I will say that that "generational" 2018 NBA draft wound up being less explosively awesome than initially hyped up to be. A redraft would end up looking like
1. Luka (generational)
2. Trae (All-Star+)
3. SGA (All-Star+, I honestly would take him over Trae but that's just my personal preference.
4. MPJ (Maybe an all-star type but still has a bunch of question marks)
5. Ayton (Maybe an all-star at some point in his career but not awesome and arguably less valuable than Mitchell Robinson who got taken thirty something picks later)
and then after that it's a bunch of solid good guys who probably won't end up being stars.


Now that doesn't mean that it's okay that Vlade handled the draft with the grace of an elephant on rollerblades but, all things considered, the only real options there were picking Luka or trading down.

 

[Woot!]

People get so offended when others rave about LaMelo. Dude’s a stud.

LeBron was mentioned. Let's compare their per-36 #s at age 19.

Bron: 19.1/5.0/5.4 on 42/29/75 shooting. 1.5 steals, 3.5 turns.
Melo: 20.0/7.4/7.7 on 45/38/79 shooting. 2.0 steals, 3.5 turns.

Different eras, of course. Pace, scoring, FG% - all have gone up considerably since LeBron first laced 'em up in the NBA, but.... c'mon now: LaMelo's doing alright for himself by just about any comparison of 1st-year players, including with surely the most gifted 19 y.o. EVER to enter the league.

 

[steelevt]

LeBron was mentioned. Let's compare their per-36 #s at age 19.

Bron: 19.1/5.0/5.4 on 42/29/75 shooting. 1.5 steals, 3.5 turns.
Melo: 20.0/7.4/7.7 on 45/38/79 shooting. 2.0 steals, 3.5 turns.

Different eras, of course. Pace, scoring, FG% - all have gone up considerably since LeBron first laced 'em up in the NBA, but.... c'mon now: LaMelo's doing alright for himself by just about any comparison of 1st-year players, including with surely the most gifted 19 y.o. EVER to enter the league.

Um, you can throw out those stat but I’m positive he won’t be as great as lebron.

 

[Woot!]

Um, you can throw out those stat but I’m positive he won’t be as great as lebron.

Which, as you know, wasn't remotely my point. But if LaMelo at 19 holds his own (statistically) even by comparison to perhaps the greatest talent ever to grace an NBA floor, IMO a reasonable person might believe that he might one day be even better than, say, Devin Booker. Just as a reasonable person might expect otherwise.

 

[steelevt]

Which, as you know, wasn't remotely my point. But if LaMelo at 19 holds his own (statistically) even by comparison to perhaps the greatest talent ever to grace an NBA floor, IMO a reasonable person might believe that he might one day be even better than, say, Devin Booker. Just as a reasonable person might expect otherwise.

You would think so, but I was duped by Tyreke averaging 20/5/5 his rookie year. A stat only accomplished by lebron, mj and the big O. I never thought he would be as good as those 3, but I don’t think he ended up better than booker