This year's draft was a case study in the false gospel of upside. In the past I've referred to GMs and scouts as worshipers at the altar of potential, and they did not disappoint in 2009. I said a few days before the draft that my philosophy is always to pick people who can play, and to leave the upside drafting to someone else. I've been advocating that for years, and unfortunately very few people seem to be listening. Every June we have mock draft after mock draft full of prospects who are described as having tremendous upside, unlimited potential, etc. but need to 'learn how to play'. And as I always do, I look at these projections and say 'what?' How can you stake millions of dollars and a two to five year guaranteed roster spot on a guy who 'needs to learn how to play the game' or 'needs to learn the nuances of his position' or needs to learn how to play a new position entirely? Well, even in a down economy that you'd think would limit risk taking, NBA GMs and scouts apparently don't consider it to be a bad idea.
Look at the 2009 draft class. The second pick, Hasheem Thabeet, is noted for having almost no offensive game whatsoever and for getting dominated by a someone he had an eight inch height advantage over (Dajuan Blair). Yet he goes second on the hope that he will magically develop enough of an offensive game to warrant starter's minutes in a few years. But it didn't end there. Tyreke Evans, the fourth pick, is a guy who played point guard for a year at Memphis after being moved there because he wasn't much good off the ball. Sacramento is hoping that Evans one year of point guard play at Memphis will serve as the groundwork for learning how to play the position at the pro level. Ricky Rubio managed to parlay a few good games in the Olympics into being picked fifth overall, despite having a scouting report that reads more like Steve Blake than Steve Nash. He's going to be the next Pete Maravich, according to some. Then we had Stephen Curry at number seven, whom several taking heads seem to think will either be able to switch from shooting guard to point guard or find a way to get his shot off at the shooting guard position, despite a mountain of historical evidence to the contrary. Number seventeen gave us Jrue Holiday, who played shooting guard at UCLA most of the time, and averaged 3 assists and 3 turnovers in the short time he got at the one. He's expected to learn how to be a full time NBA point guard. Wow. And I haven't even mentioned Brandon Jennings yet (more on him later).
There were ten point guards taken in the first round; wait, let me rephrase that. There were ten players taken in the first round that are expected to play point guard at the pro level. Of these ten, five are on film playing the position well for extended periods of time (Johnny Flynn, Ty Lawson, Eric Maynor, Jeff Teague, and Daren Collison). Then we have Rubio, who played well in the Olympics and has 'played professionally since he was 14', but who reportedly can't shoot or defend well and weighs about a buck seventy soaking wet. We have Curry, who hasn't' played the position at all; Holiday, who didn't play it much; Jennings, who didn't play it well; and Evans, who played it for a year. And of these ten, five of the first six point guards drafted were chosen from the second group! This my friends, is the gospel of upside. Draft the guy who has the least exposure because he's a blank canvas who you can paint any way you want. Experience, on the other hand, is bad because you already know what you're getting and can't do much to change it. And on top of that, you always want to go young because the last thing you want on your roster is an old man of 21 going on 22; better to skew younger with someone 19 going on 20. Because we all know that those years from 19 to 21 are when your abilities really start to slip.
Now look, I'm not proclaiming that the more experienced guys will all be Hall of Famers while the upside guys will all flop. There will be a bust from that pool, but overall I like the chances of the experienced ones becoming good players worthy of real minutes on good teams. Some may even become full time starters for several years. And I'm guessing that a few of the upside guys will do well. But at least two of them will be total busts, and when they bust it's more expensive. Because it's too hard to give up on them. If an experienced draftee can't play, you can dump him easy and just admit that he just isn't pro material. But you can't do that with an upside guy; you have to hang on to him as long as possible because you can't take the chance that he'll go somewhere else and finally display what you saw in him early on. This is why Tyrus Thomas is going into year number four with the Bulls even though he's a rotation guy at best, and why Josh Smith got paid to stay in Atlanta even though he hasn't improved one iota in the last four years. It's why Joe Dumars made excuse after excuse for Darko Millicic before finally giving in and trading him, and why we keep hearing every year that Amir Johnson is poised for a breakout year now. Upside guy runs through coaches like a knife through butter, and eventually may take down the GM who drafted him if he doesn't develop.
Now don't get me wrong; I'm not against drafting underclassmen or even high school players. I'm against drafting guys who don't know how to play on the hope that they'll learn the game, or how to play a new position. Kevin Garnett and Kobe Bryant knew how to play from day one; yes, they've improved on certain skills like jump shooting and defense but they were building on a foundation that was already established. Both men were able to contribute from day one and were getting major minutes in their second year. I don't see how you draft Tyreke Evans, who was lousy off the ball and only played point guard for half a season at Memphis, with the hope that he'll become a first rate professional point guard. Or why you pick Tyrus Thomas, who had no offensive game to speak of and wasn't even a great rebounder in college, instead of Brandon Roy. Or why you trade a 21 year old 20/10 guy in Elton Brand so you draft an 18 year old Tyson Chandler. Or for that matter, why you take Marvin Williams over Chris Paul, Deron Williams AND Raymond Felton when you needed a point guard. Upside guys, all of them. None of the GMs who made those choices are employed as GMs by the teams they worked for at the time; they've all been fired or demoted. And yet people continue to follow in their footsteps hoping that the guy they drafted, the 6-10 guy with the wingspan of a seven footer and the 45 inch vertical who thinks a pick and roll is something you order at a deli, will develop into the next Kevin Garnett. Or that the point guard they drafted, who can dribble real well but can't run an offense will turn into the next Jason Kidd. Good luck with that fellas!
height="100" class="mt-image-center" style="text-align: center; display:
block; margin: 0 auto 20px;" />
I cannot argue with anything you said today sir.
I was drafted based on potential and upside and look at me now! I could not shoot, dribble, play defense, make 3's or free throws. Now I am MVP.
I agree on most of the things you've written but you have to understand that most of the players that are drafted high and all they have is potential i.e. Thabeet, Evans and Rubio are not expected to be instant contributor and to point out that the team that they'll be playing with does have time to wait because that's their plan and MOST of them are still building and bulking up. most of these players are young and who can you teach more than a young player with potential. Plus they'll have at least one player on the team playing the same position to "show the ropes" to these kids. Again I don't disagree but lets look at the other side of the coin.
You guys are missing the point. We are talking in the first round lottery picks, not project second rounders. At the point guard position it's really apparent at the beginning if you are going to be a good poing. Think of all the good young point guards. CP3 DW... those guys were good from jump. You really don't grow to being a point guard, you are one. Good point guards are made in high school not in the NBA. I think robs big point is the point guards who have shown they can lead a team aren't getting the shot.
D Wade was ALL potential(He couldn't make a uncontested 10 ft jump shot in the skills test at the all star game 3 years ago. And he was not a point guard at Marquette he was a 2 guard(travis Diener was the point) and he was considered a tweener. He was ALL potential nothing more. Drafting is a double edge sword; you could draft Lebron or Kwame Brown
I disagree that DWade was all potential. He led his team to the Final Four, and clearly knew how to play. You could watch Lebron in high school and see that he knew how to play. Great players always show you something from day one. I dare anyone to name me a great player who was a total project when he arrived in the league. There just aren't any.
Teams will always draft on potential because GM's have to see talent before it actually BECOMES TALENT.
Franchise players win championships, not role players. That why teams wlll always take on a risk on potential even though half of them turn out to be Kwame Brown.
Remember when Orlando had to pick between ready Emeka Okafor or raw, high school, but lots of potential Dwight Howard? By your logic they the Magic should have drafted Dwight Howard...and they Magic wouldn't make it to the Finals without Dwight.
Mr. Bonette your logic of drafting on ready players will score you an average team at best so you look for franchise players before they become franchise players to help you win a championship. Ready made college players don't always do well or else Adam Morrison or JJ Reddick would be superstars.
Ummmm....Dwight Howard contributed from day one. It was obvious that he wasn't clueless. Yes, you always draft on potential but it's one thing to draft someone with a foundation already in place to build on, and another thing entirely to draft someone with nothing more than size or athletic ability. These players I talked about are guys that teams hope will magically become good NBA point guards even though they've shown nothing that suggests that's even possible. An earlier commenter said that point guards are made in high school, and I think that's right. Have there been any great point guards who weren't already good one coming out of high school? I don't think so.
As far as point guards go, by the time someone is playing college basketball he either knows how to pass a basketball and lead an offense or he doesn't. It's not something a player who's been playing basketball since elementary school is going to develop after getting professional coaching for a season or 2.
Rubio and Curry are going to get physically abused in the NBA and won't be able to counter that abuse when they are on offense. Nash's D may be suspect but you know what he can do on offense.
Many of those big guards that NBA GM's think are going to turn into point remind me of Larry Hughes. NBA athleticism(quick, run fast and jump) without the skill set to make a jump shot, the right pass or the ability to consistently dominate games.
2ELjfI
a81YL3
syxzly
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
I want to say - thank you for this!
Incredible site!
Incredible site!
Great site. Keep doing.
Incredible site!
Great site. Keep doing.
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right.
I want to say - thank you for this!
Great work, webmaster, nice design!