I think you're treating it like its some magical thing that's either there or not, and I really don't think that's how it works. I think a lot of it just comes down to good coaching, good peers and repetition. You get good lessons from coaching and they are reinforced in game play. You did it the way coach told you to, it worked better than the way you did it before...now rinse, repeat. If you see a veteran teammate who's not as gifted as you continually make plays you struggle with, learn his tricks. Ask him how he thinks as he sees the play unfolds. Simply by playing more and more you recognize situations, defenses, offensive players moves and you can antcipate. The game slows down.
Like anything there will be some who it comes naturally to, and some who it will take longer. But if you can't measure that ability, its hard to give it to much weight in evaluation. You seem to think you can decipher that just by watching a guy, but I think that's a narrow minded way to view a 19-20 year old basketball player.
Josh Smith clearly got it this year. You're behind the curve in your evaluation of him.
It used to be easier in the old days when everyone was a senior. You had a body of work to look at. You could judge the progress from his freshman year to his senior year. And if there wasn't much progress, you might look elsewhere. Were not robots. Everyone learns at their own speed. And everyone has a different way of learning. There are those gifted ones that can read how to do something in a book and just go out and do it. But others need to repeat a hands on process over and over again. If both get from point A to point B it doesn't matter how they got there. The only advantage one has, is he might get there quicker. I say might, because sometimes the one's that it comes easy to, don't put in the work to refine it, and in the end, may not be as good a player as the one that took longer to get there.
Judging todays athlete's is harder with so many underclassmen entering the draft. You have little in the way of a body of work to look at, so it becomes more of crystal ball type of thing. Granted that when a Evans or a Wall, Rose, LeBron comes along its a lot easier. They're young and they're already very good players. You know they didn't get that way by accident. But its the DeRozens and Gerold Green's of the world that make it difficult. All the natural gifts are there. But will they learn to apply them?
Another consideration is that sometimes the young player just gets recruited into a bad system which ends up being regressive for him. Gerold Wallace fell into that trap when he was forced to play center in college. It certainly didn't help him prepare for playing SF in the NBA. A kid I really like, Kenneth Faried suffered the same fate at his school, having to play Center and PF. The kid averaged 16.9 ppg, 13 rpg, 1.9 bpg, and 1.6 Spg. And yet he's buried in the middle or bottom of the second round. Despite the fact that he's a freak athlete. Reason being that he played in a small conference and he's a turnover machine. Long term though, he could be another Wallace. Or not..
Whether we like it or not, a lot of emphasis is placed on the athletic ability of players. I understand why. Its a great game for athleticism. The truth is though, that a lot of very athletic players fail and a lot of average athlete's suceed. So how do you decide which is which? And by the way, I'm talking about an average NBA athlete. Not the man on the street. Lets take two players that are both centers. They both played in a small conference, against similar competition. One is a great athlete and a tremendous shotblocker. However the rest of his game leaves something to be desired. The other is a 25pt, 12 rebound, 2 blocks a game guy, but just an average athlete. The first one is a freshman and the second one is a senior.
I'm talking about Hasson Whiteside and Art Parakhouski. My guess is that most would draft Whiteside simply because of his shotblocking ability and his upside. Parakhouski is a senior, and although he's a better all around player right now, most would consider his upside limited. But, Parakhouski has only played organized basketball for 5 years, and his game really took a giant leap forward in the last two years. So maybe he has more upside than we thought. I have no idea who will eventually be better. Probably the one that works on his game the hardest. When it comes down to it, the players that put in the most time working on their games are usually the ones that rise to the top. Chris Mullins wasn't a gifted athlete, but he was a workahaulic and made himself into a very good player. Larry Bird wasn't a great athlete, but he worked hard on his game. When you combine the hard work with great athleticism, then you have Jordan, LeBron, etc. Gerold Wallace has turned into a very good basketball player. Not because he's a great athlete, but because he applied that athleticism through hard work.
So its my opinion that every player doesn't necessarily wear the It facter on his sleeve. I didn't see the It factor in Steve Nash when he came into the league or when he was in college. But he's one of the best in the game right now and has been for quite a while. But it took him a while. It wasn't a quick study for him. If your lucky enough to get a player like Evans or Curry, consider yourself blesssed. Impact players don't grow on trees. It should be fun to watch both these guys grow and develop. Lets hope were lucky again this year.
I don't really mean that of course. It would be great for him to be drafted in the first round.
