Every year, the NBA holds it's draft in which teams take turns picking the best and brightest of the NCAA and the foreign leagues in the hopes that they will become the superstars of the next generation. If only it were that simple...
Scouts and GMs are of course looking at players not only as who they are, but as who they might be. The question is: what is his potential? Then we also must ask: how do we determine potential? And this is where things get tricky.
Writer Malcolm Gladwell observed in Outliers that in general, we aren't very good at figuring out potential. We often assume that child who is the best musician at 5 is the most talented in musician. In reality, that child might just have had more training or grown faster and had more physical capacity to perform actions related to an instrument.
Obviously GMs don't simply pick the most accomplished player. They consider their physical and mental makeup, as well as age, contract situation for foreign league players, and other factors. While much simpler, I want to suggest here three aspects of players which we might consider, examples and categorizations of players based on these aspects, and some of my thoughts on prominent prospects based on this method of thinking.
The Aspects
1. Tangibles - Includes physical and athletic characteristics like size, speed, height, and vertical. These are highly valued because they can't be taught or learned. A big, tall, athletic person has an inherent advantage in the NBA.
2. Achievement - How dominant was the player relative to the field and considering the strength of the field? What skills were demonstrated in games? Skills can be learned, but if someone who has the tools to be dominant hasn't been particularly successful, it is important to ask why.
3. Mental/Ethics - Is the player a hard worker? Does he love basketball? Has he demonstrated an ability to be successful in nonbasketball or even nonathletic fields such as academics, music, or theater? Is he a head case? Most of these are straightforward, but an ability to succeed outside athletics might seem odd. However, research into learning and intelligence has suggested that there is such as thing as being good at learning and having Adaptive Expertise. This could be the kind of advantage that allows a project player to build the skills necessary to succeed or that allows a player to retool their game to adapt to a new role.
The Categories
1. "Check, Check, Check" - the guy who has it all.
Examples - Grant Hill, LeBron James
This Year - No one, which is why the draft is supposedly devoid of superstars. If Kyrie Irving were more athletic and had played a full season at the same high level as he played the few games he did, he would qualify and probably be considered a future star in the league.
Outlook - Obviously the safest type of pick since they have shown they have what it takes to succeed physically and mentally in the NBA and have translated that into success in the past.
2. "The College Player" - Poised and accomplished, but lacking the size and athleticism of an NBA player.
Examples - Stephon Curry, Adam Morrison
This Year - Jimmer Fredette is the ultimate example. This category would also include players like Ben Hansbrough and Andrew Goudelock. Kemba Walker sort of fits here, depending on if he can play point guard in the NBA and how big and issue his lack of size ends up being.
Outlook - Obviously these kinds of players have been both great and busts in the past. I tend to think they have gotten a bad rep from busts like Morrison. Many of these players will have to adapt their play significantly to the NBA, which is always a challenge. I also think, for this reason, that these types of players' successes and failures are strongly influenced by the situation they end up in. LeBron James or Blake Griffin can come in and immediately play well anywhere. Jimmer needs to go to a team that is willing to work with him to figure out how to best use his strengths and best shore up his weaknesses, either internally or externally.
3. "The Student-Athlete" - Intelligent, mature, and athletic, but has yet to demonstrate success on the court expected of his talent level.
Example - Brandon Jennings
This Year - Brandon Knight kind of fits here. The really big one is Bismack Biyombo. In addition to his ridiculous athleticism, the life story of Biyombo is one that shows maturity and adaptability.
Outlook - These guys seem to do better than the 2s, especially if they are supremely athletic and smart/mature. They can be athletic players who demonstrate the desire, maturity, and insight necessary to significantly develop their games. It's also likely easier to learn to shoot jumpers than to learn to compensate for being a slow footed guard defensively. And of course, no matter how much one learns to compensate for a lack of size or athleticism, it's still not the same as being big and athletic.
4. "The Head Case" - Great athlete, dominant player in college/abroad, serious mental/maturity issues
Example - Rasheed Wallace, DeMarcus Cousins
This year - No one really
Outlook - Could be a great value pick if the red flags cause other teams to back off. Could also be a disaster. I think the key is figure out exactly what kind of crazy the guy is. Talented players who are lazy and malcontent rarely do well on the court. Talented players who are hard workers and love basketball but can be difficult and out there have a better chance. Players like Rasheed Wallance and Ron Artest really brought a lot to their teams on the court in their primes. Of course, even if the on court results are great, an incident like the Artest melee can obviously wreck a team's season of more. But this is a risk that might be worth taking if the player is good enough.
5. "The Scholar" - Very intelligent player who is unathletic and a college roleplayer.
Example - Steve Danley
Outlook - These players don't get drafted. However, they could end up become scouts, or writers, or contribute to the league in some other way with their intelligence, work ethic, and knowledge of basketball.
6. "The Mega-Athlete" - Only real asset is incredible size/athleticism. Lacks a history of production and particular maturity
Example - Stromile Swift, maybe Latavious Williams
This Year - Perry Jones, if he had declared.
Outlook - This is my least favorite type of selection. It seems like every year, some guy gets drafted because of his incredible physical ability despite the fact that he has never yet demonstrated an ability to be a productive basketball player and despite his subpar maturity or work ethic. Athleticism isn't enough to succeed in the NBA. There are too many other athletic players for anyone to get by on athletic gifts alone. It takes skills, and absent these, the maturity, drive, and insight to acquire them as a "project" player. Most of these players don't pan out.
7. "The College Egotist" - Great player in college despite both a lack of athletic gifts and maturity issues.
Example - A crazier, better version of Greivis Vasquez
This Year - No one, unless it turns out Jimmer is actually a massive tool. These players are pretty rare.
Outlook - Similar to 2 in terms of strengths and weaknesses, but obviously the mental question marks make their chances of turning out well somewhat more dubious.
Look out for part 2 in which I look at some of the top prospects using these factors and share my feelings on them.
No comments:
Post a Comment