NBA Season 2013-2014 (Sep.) FIBA World Cup

I don't know what that proves. What I'm saying is simply this. You get into a pressure situation in competition (we have to have some way to measure players beyond potential and their physical attributes) and you completely choke or disappear then I would think twice about where I draft you. I'm not saying Wiggins is a terrible player or the Parker isn't NBA material. But I can match his list with a list of legendary college basketball players who are amongst the greatest NBA players ever. Kareem, Magic, Bird, Olajuwan, Ewing, Barkley, Jordan, Worthy, Isiah Thomas, Shaquille O'Neal, just off the top of my head. Heck, even throw in Bill Walton and his amazing college career. In spite of his injuries he still won two NBA titles. These are legendary players, Hall of Famers with multiple rings who played in clutch situations in the NBA and largely acquitted themselves beyond a shadow of doubt.

I'm not saying as a GM I would base my draft on how far in the tourney a player went. You're right, Durant lost in the first round. He also went down fighting and had an amazing Freshman year. His 26ppg, 2 blocks, 2 steals and 11 rebounds make Parker and Wiggins look pretty pedestrian. And he didn't completely fold in his final game. And sure, it's harder to compare 1-and-done players to players who stayed in school longer. But Jordan hit the game winning jumper in college as a freshman. Same age as Parker and Wiggins. I compare that to Jabari Parker traveling all over the court and I just laugh. Or Wiggins completely disappearing and having no impact on the game.

I think this Freshman class could be good. It could also be absurdly overrated.

Also, most of the players you mentioned who skipped college were ridiculous in high school. Multiple titles, amazing stats, definitely NBA ready. I think this is the time where maybe the NBA takes a serious look at the D-League as a serious minor league. Those players did nothing to up their draft stock and they didn't seem to learn anything to prepare them for the NBA. They'd be better off just going to work and seeing how ready they were.

DSGamer wrote:

I don't know what that proves.

Well, here's your question:

DSGamer wrote:

Okay, who are the bad teams "riggin" for now?

The answer: probably still the same. The article I quoted (did not do that legwork myself) suggests that there's not a tight correlation between tournament success or the lack thereof and a player's NBA potential. Obviously I can't speak for the NBA teams, and they're not telling anyone, but a lot of basketball writers get paid to think and write about these things. This article has the average draft position for the top prospects based on a dozen or so mock drafts. Wiggins, Parker, Embiid, Randle, and Smart are the projected top five picks. Cleanthony Early isn't on there, but I've seen him toward the very end of a couple mock drafts. The Harrison twins are projecting as early second round picks. These mock drafts are never fully accurate, but they give you an idea. 90% of players go within five spots of their projections.

DSGamer wrote:

I think this Freshman class could be good. It could also be absurdly overrated.

It was indeed overrated going into the season, but people have been saying so since January, so it's not really so overrated now. Most people are saying there are no instant franchise saviors as was once expected.

Kind of makes the tankers who threw away their seasons look even worse eh?

LeapingGnome wrote:

Kind of makes the tankers who threw away their seasons look even worse eh?

As usual, the answer is ask again in five years

Sports be unpredictable, y'all.

Tanking has mixed results. Sometimes it really, really works. The Rockets and Bulls won by losing in 1984, eight Championships between them for their "efforts" in landing Jordan and Olajuwon. Other times it doesn't, like the Bobcats enduring the worst season in history only to barely miss out on the Anthony Davis sweepstakes (4th in the league PER ranking in his second year).

Who knows. If teams nail their picks they are usually rewarded. Or if they get really lucky.

Blind_Evil wrote:

Tanking has mixed results. Sometimes it really, really works. The Rockets and Bulls won by losing in 1984, eight Championships between them for their "efforts" in landing Jordan and Olajuwon. Other times it doesn't, like the Bobcats enduring the worst season in history only to barely miss out on the Anthony Davis sweepstakes (4th in the league PER ranking in his second year).

The 1984 Rockets are the reason the Bobcats didn't get Anthony Davis.

Also, the one-and-done rule has the same issue with the straight-to-HS practice that preceded it: How good are these players really?

Most of them need 3-4 years after high school to develop. Whether it's the NBA, the D-league or college ball, someone needs to pick one. Some combination of two or three of these things isn't really working.

I think the NBA should have a 21 years old rule like the NFL does. It would solve a lot of problems and be better for colleges as well.

Feels like the playoffs start tonight. Heat-Pacers at 8pm. Pacers win they go 3 games up with 10 to play. If Heat win they end up tied in the loss column but Pacers still up a game.

It's especially interesting because of what it means for the second round. The seeding of Chicago / Toronto isn't settled yet and I don't think the 1 seed is as important as avoiding getting bruised in 6 games by Chicago.

LeapingGnome wrote:

Kind of makes the tankers who threw away their seasons look even worse eh?

Kirk Goldsberry touches on this in his latest article on Grantland. The article is really about the Mavericks and their decision not to throw away the season, but to sign Ellis and other veterans and remain competitive. Which certainly bucks the recent trend of tanking. I think if the season ended today they'd be a 3 seed in the east. But because they are in the west, they may not make the playoffs. Over the last 20 years, three number 1 draft picks have won championships: LeBron James, Tim Duncan and Glenn Robinson.

LeapingGnome wrote:

Kind of makes the tankers who threw away their seasons look even worse eh?

Kirk Goldsberry touches on this in his latest article on Grantland. The article is really about the Mavericks and their decision not to throw away the season, but to sign Ellis and other veterans and remain competitive. Which certainly bucks the recent trend of tanking. I think if the season ended today they'd be a 3 seed in the east. But because they are in the west, they may not make the playoffs. Over the last 20 years, three number 1 draft picks have won championships: LeBron James, Tim Duncan and Glenn Robinson.

mindset.threat wrote:
LeapingGnome wrote:

Kind of makes the tankers who threw away their seasons look even worse eh?

Kirk Goldsberry touches on this in his latest article on Grantland. The article is really about the Mavericks and their decision not to throw away the season, but to sign Ellis and other veterans and remain competitive. Which certainly bucks the recent trend of tanking. I think if the season ended today they'd be a 3 seed in the east. But because they are in the west, they may not make the playoffs. Over the last 20 years, three number 1 draft picks have won championships: LeBron James, Tim Duncan and Glenn Robinson.

That's a really really good article. Partly because it touches on something I've thought about for a long time. Are players with great numbers on bad teams simply eating up possessions or would they be better players in a better system? His breakdown of how both Monta Ellis and Nowitzki benefit from each other on the pick and pop was inspiring. Caused me to go onto NBA2k14 last night and play as them online against opponents. That didn't go so well because, you know, NBA2k online, but it's a great read.

Also, I love that Glenn Robinson is the 3rd #1 pick with ring.

Yeah I read that article yesterday. Nowitzki's shot chart was eye-popping.

IMAGE(http://espngrantland.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/dirk_1152.jpg)

The only thing I don't like about that article is the spot that focuses on number one picks. Yeah, those three guys won rings. How many guys picked 2-5? You won't get those guys picking 17th every year either. The Hawks I think are a good example of why some teams choose to (not saying should) tear it down.

LeapingGnome wrote:

I think the NBA should have a 21 years old rule like the NFL does. It would solve a lot of problems and be better for colleges as well.

I think they should do the exact opposite.

I don't think it would be obviously better for colleges either. Guys can always just go to Europe and play instead.

If I'm 20 and I have an option to go play in Europe for a decent chunk of cash vs playing in college I consider Europe seriously.

What I would weigh it against is what kind of negative draft stock playing in Europe vs College has. If its $$$ positive Europe off I go.

Players that graduate from high school can already do that today. They don't, they go to college for one year. I understand what you are saying but so what, let them go play in Europe for three years, they'll come back to the NBA a better more mature player.

Europe has always been an option. So has the D-League.

Problem is (for college basketball, that is), these kids are picking Door No. 3, which is as many years of college as they have to endure before they go to the NBA. Before the current CBA, the correct answer was zero. Now it's one and sometimes two.

Enix wrote:

Europe has always been an option. So has the D-League.

Problem is (for college basketball, that is), these kids are picking Door No. 3, which is as many years of college as they have to endure before they go to the NBA. Before the current CBA, the correct answer was zero. Now it's one and sometimes two.

Just for the sake of accuracy, that was the CBA before this one, in 2005.

If you push it to 21 the point is alternative leagues become a even larger option.

As it stands 1 year college vs moving all the way to Europe and potentially alienating your draft stock.

If you start upping it to a 2-3 year requirement I think young players start taking Europe more seriously. I think the European clubs start taking it more seriously also. Court a promising player with great coaches, development, more games/minutes and.... $$$. Their perspective they get to sell their fans on seeing the next NBA star before he makes it big.

When your dealing with a 2-3 timeframe that's much easier to consider then stealing a guy away for 1 year.

So yea that doesn't do much for college who really don't need more help locking people into their free labour model.

Why doesn't the NBA just invest in the D-League? One of the things MLB has always done right is develop its young players with the farm system. It doesn't matter if you're drafted by a team with a usually sh!tty front office (KC, Houston etc) because the system is in place to let the better players rise to the top if/when they are ready. I realize it simply isn't possible for the NBA to have a farm system as extensive as MLB, but they can do something to make it better. Right now if you're not NBA ready, your choices are make $100-300k for a club in Turkey, or make $20k playing for the Erie Bayhawks (or whoever). Obviously theres more money in Europe but like Jowner said, you run the risk of never being heard from again.

Yep the D-League is where things need to change. And they can change it to 2 or 3 years in college, it doesn't matter. But having the D-League there and actually using it like a minor league to develop talent is what needs to happen.

Id assume its the defacto monopoly the NCAA has and the NBA not willing to unwind it....

I know collegiate Baseball exists but has it ever been as popular as college basketball? Havent smaller baseball leagues always been around give or take that the AA AAA teams just made sense?

Similar would be hockey. No one in Canada plays college hockey expecting to go to the NHL. Theres the exception of the larger US schools but otherwise your getting drafted from one of the development leagues or Europe.... And NHL teams have minor teams so they can draft a 18 yearold and park him.

The NBA/NCAA marriage makes for a better draft hype and TV spectacle but I think it ultimately hurts the overall development and in turn quality.

jowner wrote:

Id assume its the defacto monopoly the NCAA has and the NBA not willing to unwind it....

I know collegiate Baseball exists but has it ever been as popular as college basketball? Havent smaller baseball leagues always been around give or take that the AA AAA teams just made sense?

Similar would be hockey. No one in Canada plays college hockey expecting to go to the NHL. Theres the exception of the larger US schools but otherwise your getting drafted from one of the development leagues or Europe.... And NHL teams have minor teams so they can draft a 18 yearold and park him.

The NBA/NCAA marriage makes for a better draft hype and TV spectacle but I think it ultimately hurts the overall development and in turn quality.

In baseball, the draft is much as it was in basketball prior to 2005, but the percentages skewed differently. You could go to college or you could be drafted right out of high school, or from overseas. I don't know about now, but the numbers I remember were that about half of the draftees had college experience and half did not.

It's hard to compare the D-league to MLB farm teams, just like it's hard to compare the drafts. In the NBA, most of the players drafted play in the league at some point. The vast majority of MLB draftees do not. The minor leagues have existed in some form for over a century, the D-league was instituted in 2001.

Personally, I don't see the issue from the fan's point of view. The NBA is more exciting to me than ever. I can see the NCAA's issue, they stand to lose money if guys skip college. I can see the issue from the player's point of view, as if you have the talent to be paid like a superstar out of high school you should probably be allowed to do so.

These spoiled brat AAU kids aren't going to Yurp. Forget it. The food stinks, no one speaks English and they lose their support system (i.e. family, extended family and the hangers-on they refer to as friends). It takes a special person to work a long way from home, and most American basketball players aren't that special person.

The biggest boost to the D-League might be the Northwestern player unionization decision that just came down. Can you imagine the salaries that some of these kids at big-time D1 schools (Kentucky, Duke, UNC, etc.) would command if paid at anything approaching a fair market value? If colleges ever sober up as to what they're costing their students, they'll get out of the athletics business asap, especially if they have to add serious money to the sports payroll.

jowner wrote:

The NBA/NCAA marriage makes for a better draft hype and TV spectacle but I think it ultimately hurts the overall development and in turn quality.

Indeed. The Charlotte Bobcats have drafted some of the best college basketball players in recent years: Emeka Okafor, Raymond Felton, Sean May, Adam Morrison, Gerald Henderson, Kemba Walker and Michael Kidd-Gilchrist. Except for maybe Ray Felton, all of them have been average (at best) pros, and some of them have been absolutely awful.

Arguably the best No. 1 pick of the last decade (at least since LeBron in 2003) was Kyrie Irving, who played exactly 11 games at Duke.

NCAA basketball is a joke. The NBA has gotten to be really good in spite of college ball, not because of it.

Enix wrote:

Arguably the best No. 1 pick of the last decade (at least since LeBron in 2003) was Kyrie Irving, who played exactly 11 games at Duke.

I'd like to sign up to work on the Blake Griffin, Anthony Davis, Derrick Rose, and maybe even John Wall (I'm a sucker for defense and distribution) half of that argument

Dammit Pacers. The Wizards? :shocK:

Blind_Evil wrote:

I'd like to sign up to work on the Blake Griffin, Anthony Davis, Derrick Rose, and maybe even John Wall (I'm a sucker for defense and distribution) half of that argument ;)

Griffin, Davis, Rose and Wall played a combined total of five college basketball seasons.

Throw Irving into the mix, and that's five guys with 5.3 seasons of college ball among them.

That's a hell of a team -- a hell of a pro team (assuming Rose is ever healthy again).

Enix wrote:
Blind_Evil wrote:

I'd like to sign up to work on the Blake Griffin, Anthony Davis, Derrick Rose, and maybe even John Wall (I'm a sucker for defense and distribution) half of that argument ;)

Griffin, Davis, Rose and Wall played a combined total of five college basketball seasons.

Throw Irving into the mix, and that's five guys with 5.3 seasons of college ball among them.

That's a hell of a team -- a hell of a pro team (assuming Rose is ever healthy again).

Well yeah, I'm not arguing for the college requirement. Just disputing the idea that Irving is anywhere near the best of the bunch.

Blind_Evil wrote:

Well yeah, I'm not arguing for the college requirement. Just disputing the idea that Irving is anywhere near the best of the bunch.

Ah, gotcha.

I'd argue that Irving's the best of that group: All-Star MVP and the sole reason why Cleveland's even got a shot at the playoffs (as opposed to challenging the Bobcats for Worst Ever.)

Rose falls out because he's hurt.

Griffin gets my vote for Most Improved. He's always been able to dunk and rebound, but that mid-range jumper he has developed this season has really made a difference. (That and foul shooting that has improved from atrocious to not unreasonable.)

So that leaves Wall and Davis, and I haven't seen enough of either one to really make a case either way.

Who's your pick?

Enix wrote:
Blind_Evil wrote:

Well yeah, I'm not arguing for the college requirement. Just disputing the idea that Irving is anywhere near the best of the bunch.

Ah, gotcha.

I'd argue that Irving's the best of that group: All-Star MVP and the sole reason why Cleveland's even got a shot at the playoffs (as opposed to challenging the Bobcats for Worst Ever.)

Rose falls out because he's hurt.

Griffin gets my vote for Most Improved. He's always been able to dunk and rebound, but that mid-range jumper he has developed this season has really made a difference. (That and foul shooting that has improved from atrocious to not unreasonable.)

So that leaves Wall and Davis, and I haven't seen enough of either one to really make a case either way.

Who's your pick?

Mine would be Davis. My argument:

Davis is 4th in the league in PER, behind James, Durant, and Love. He leads the league in BPG by a healthy margin, has the second highest SPG number for a guy above 6'10". He's an amazing defensive force already and still has room to improve. He makes almost 80% of his free throws, scores 21 a game on 52.4% shooting, and averages 10 rebounds as well. The sky really is the limit as he's only 21 and still improving. NCAA freshman champion to boot! Honestly, do yourself a favor and watch this, particularly the non-oop plays:

If the Pelicans can't make noise with this guy, it'll be their own fault, just like the Timberwolves with Love (I swear I'm jumping ship to Charlotte next year!) and the Cavs with Lebron.

Griffin's stock takes a little hit because he plays with Chris Paul, but in the 18 games Paul missed from 1/4 to 2/7, Griffin led the Clips to a 13-5 mark. Rose won an MVP, and I know in my heart that if he'd been healthy this year or last the Bulls would have made the Finals. If next year doesn't go well, I think we start looking at him in the same light as Grant Hill or Penny Hardaway, but I'm not willing to ignore him in conversations like this just yet. Kyrie may have the Cavaliers in a maybe-sort-of playoff conversation, they're 3.5 out with 8 games left and he's injured... I don't think it's gonna happen. Wall and the Wizards, however, almost certainly will be making the playoffs. He's a difference maker on defense, while Kyrie is something of a matador. I just prefer his skill-set if each were to be the foundation of my team.

I guess the most concise way to say it is this: when I watch Kyrie Irving I'm reminded of prime Gilbert Arenas, but a less prolific scorer.

I'm on the Davis train too. I mean, his rate stats are great, but just watch him play. He does so many things on the floor. None of them are new things, but I've never seen them all in the same guy. He's got post moves, but unlike a guy like Big Al, he can use both hands. He can rebound. He can shoot the mid-range. He can defend on the perimeter and still get back to make noise at the rim. If you don't love watching the Brow you hate basketball and probably fun.