There are 94 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Bob Fitzgerald's NBA Draft Age Proposal

Originally posted by SacRock14:
How is it better for the NBA to not have these players in the league?

2008 Underclassmen:
1. Derrick Rose, FRESHMAN - All-rookie
2. Michael Beasley, FRESHMAN - All-rookie
3. OJ Mayo, FRESHMAN - All-rookie
4. Russell Westbrook, SOPHOMORE - All-rookie
Also. Kevin Love (FRESHMAN), Eric Gordon (FRESHMAN), Brook Lopez (SOPHOMORE), Anthony Randolph (FRESHMAN)

2008 Upperclassmen (players who would be eligible for the draft under this proposed idea):
8. Joe Alexander (JUNIOR) - Not ready to contribute
12. Jason Thompson (SENIOR) - Good rookie
13. Brandon Rush (SENIOR) - Not a big rookie season
17. Roy Hibbert (SENIOR) - Not ready to contribute


So looking at this class, I'll venture to say the best players are underclassmen. So how is the NBA hurting from that? The fact is it's a case-by-case basis: upperclassmen are no more ready for the pros than underclassmen. There are cases both ways in which one player is more ready than another. The whole draft is a risk, not just drafting freshmen. If you scout a guy and deem him to be worth your selection, go for it.

Obviously the NBA can put whatever rules they want, can't fight that -- I'm saying it's ridiculous to do so.


Well thats a great analysis of the first part of the 2008 draft but look at the bottom picks 18-30. Out of those 12 picks 10 played NCAA ball. Out of those 10, the 2 that contributed most were seniors.

22. Courtney Lee (senior)- Proved his developed scoring ability through-out season/playoffs
26. George Hill (senior) - Got significant time with Parker out the first couple of months, and fit the Spurs system well.
29. DJ White (senior)- only senior in the bottom half that did not adjust well to the NBA game.

The rest of the
23. Kosta Koufos (freshmen)- Could have developed more down low
21. Ryan Anderson (sophomore)- More Pac 10 experience would have helped
27. Darrell Arthur (sophomore) - played most out of anyone, but could have gone from role player to contributor with more development
28. Donté Greene (freshmen)- jumped to the NBA for money didnt get P.T.
18. JaVale McGee (sophomore)- Big Man that could have developed in NCAA
16. Marreese Speights (sophomore)- 7.7 ppg not bad, but could have developed more
15. Robin Lopez (sophomore) - struggled on defense, played less when Shaq got there.

I think you optimized the most significant part of the problem. People focus on the hand full of successes of under class man and don't understand the 8-14 (1/2 the draft) kids in the draft that could be more NBA ready. While I concede you the point that your top 4 did contribute from day 1, the other underclassmen on your list took an adjustment period.

I'm saying if those would have stayed in school not only would their games develop more people would know the Marreese Speights, JaVale McGee and Kosta Koufoses of the world.

[ Edited by global_nomad on Jun 28, 2009 at 19:56:52 ]
Originally posted by global_nomad:
Originally posted by SacRock14:
How is it better for the NBA to not have these players in the league?

2008 Underclassmen:
1. Derrick Rose, FRESHMAN - All-rookie
2. Michael Beasley, FRESHMAN - All-rookie
3. OJ Mayo, FRESHMAN - All-rookie
4. Russell Westbrook, SOPHOMORE - All-rookie
Also. Kevin Love (FRESHMAN), Eric Gordon (FRESHMAN), Brook Lopez (SOPHOMORE), Anthony Randolph (FRESHMAN)

2008 Upperclassmen (players who would be eligible for the draft under this proposed idea):
8. Joe Alexander (JUNIOR) - Not ready to contribute
12. Jason Thompson (SENIOR) - Good rookie
13. Brandon Rush (SENIOR) - Not a big rookie season
17. Roy Hibbert (SENIOR) - Not ready to contribute


So looking at this class, I'll venture to say the best players are underclassmen. So how is the NBA hurting from that? The fact is it's a case-by-case basis: upperclassmen are no more ready for the pros than underclassmen. There are cases both ways in which one player is more ready than another. The whole draft is a risk, not just drafting freshmen. If you scout a guy and deem him to be worth your selection, go for it.

Obviously the NBA can put whatever rules they want, can't fight that -- I'm saying it's ridiculous to do so.


Well thats a great analysis of the first part of the 2008 draft but look at the bottom picks 18-30. Out of those 12 picks 10 played NCAA ball. Out of those 10, the 2 that contributed most were seniors.

22. Courtney Lee (senior)- Proved his developed scoring ability through-out season/playoffs
26. George Hill (senior) - Got significant time with Parker out the first couple of months, and fit the Spurs system well.
29. DJ White (senior)- only senior in the bottom half that did not adjust well to the NBA game.

The rest of the
23. Kosta Koufos (freshmen)- Could have developed more down low
21. Ryan Anderson (sophomore)- More Pac 10 experience would have helped
27. Darrell Arthur (sophomore) - played most out of anyone, but could have gone from role player to contributor with more development
28. Donté Greene (freshmen)- jumped to the NBA for money didnt get P.T.
18. JaVale McGee (sophomore)- Big Man that could have developed in NCAA
16. Marreese Speights (sophomore)- 7.7 ppg not bad, but could have developed more
15. Robin Lopez (sophomore) - struggled on defense, played less when Shaq got there.

I think you optimized the most significant part of the problem. People focus on the hand full of successes of under class man and don't understand the 8-14 (1/2 the draft) kids in the draft that could be more NBA ready. While I concede you the point that your top 4 did contribute from day 1, the other underclassmen on your list took an adjustment period.

I'm saying if those would have stayed in school not only would their games develop more people would know the Marreese Speights, JaVale McGee and Kosta Koufoses of the world.

Wow, that's a very slanted interpretation. Both Speights & McGee had better rookie seasons than George Hill. (who I like)

Please explain to me how a 30 game season, with college facilities, college coaching staffs, academic requirements, and inferior opponents helps a player develop better than an 82 game season that is completely devoted to basketball, NBA facilities, NBA coaching staffs, and most of all, playing against players that are usually better than you currently are.

Lemme put it this way. If you want to get better at something, do you seek to participate with those who are more competent than you are, or less? Are you suggesting that Javale McGee's basketball skills would have been developed better @ The University of Nevada, under the tutelage of David Carter, while playing against Boise State University and battling against Malik Cook in practice?

[ Edited by LA9erFan on Jun 28, 2009 at 21:49:58 ]
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by global_nomad:
Originally posted by SacRock14:
How is it better for the NBA to not have these players in the league?

2008 Underclassmen:
1. Derrick Rose, FRESHMAN - All-rookie
2. Michael Beasley, FRESHMAN - All-rookie
3. OJ Mayo, FRESHMAN - All-rookie
4. Russell Westbrook, SOPHOMORE - All-rookie
Also. Kevin Love (FRESHMAN), Eric Gordon (FRESHMAN), Brook Lopez (SOPHOMORE), Anthony Randolph (FRESHMAN)

2008 Upperclassmen (players who would be eligible for the draft under this proposed idea):
8. Joe Alexander (JUNIOR) - Not ready to contribute
12. Jason Thompson (SENIOR) - Good rookie
13. Brandon Rush (SENIOR) - Not a big rookie season
17. Roy Hibbert (SENIOR) - Not ready to contribute


So looking at this class, I'll venture to say the best players are underclassmen. So how is the NBA hurting from that? The fact is it's a case-by-case basis: upperclassmen are no more ready for the pros than underclassmen. There are cases both ways in which one player is more ready than another. The whole draft is a risk, not just drafting freshmen. If you scout a guy and deem him to be worth your selection, go for it.

Obviously the NBA can put whatever rules they want, can't fight that -- I'm saying it's ridiculous to do so.


Well thats a great analysis of the first part of the 2008 draft but look at the bottom picks 18-30. Out of those 12 picks 10 played NCAA ball. Out of those 10, the 2 that contributed most were seniors.

22. Courtney Lee (senior)- Proved his developed scoring ability through-out season/playoffs
26. George Hill (senior) - Got significant time with Parker out the first couple of months, and fit the Spurs system well.
29. DJ White (senior)- only senior in the bottom half that did not adjust well to the NBA game.

The rest of the
23. Kosta Koufos (freshmen)- Could have developed more down low
21. Ryan Anderson (sophomore)- More Pac 10 experience would have helped
27. Darrell Arthur (sophomore) - played most out of anyone, but could have gone from role player to contributor with more development
28. Donté Greene (freshmen)- jumped to the NBA for money didnt get P.T.
18. JaVale McGee (sophomore)- Big Man that could have developed in NCAA
16. Marreese Speights (sophomore)- 7.7 ppg not bad, but could have developed more
15. Robin Lopez (sophomore) - struggled on defense, played less when Shaq got there.

I think you optimized the most significant part of the problem. People focus on the hand full of successes of under class man and don't understand the 8-14 (1/2 the draft) kids in the draft that could be more NBA ready. While I concede you the point that your top 4 did contribute from day 1, the other underclassmen on your list took an adjustment period.

I'm saying if those would have stayed in school not only would their games develop more people would know the Marreese Speights, JaVale McGee and Kosta Koufoses of the world.

Wow, that's a very slanted interpretation. Both Speights & McGee had better rookie seasons than George Hill. (who I like)

Please explain to me how a 30 game season, with college facilities, college coaching staffs, academic requirements, and inferior opponents helps a player develop better than an 82 game season that is completely devoted to basketball, NBA facilities, NBA coaching staffs, and most of all, playing against players that are usually better than you currently are.

Lemme put it this way. If you want to get better at something, do you seek to participate with those who are more competent than you are, or less? Are you suggesting that Javale McGee's basketball skills would have been developed better @ The University of Nevada, under the tutelage of David Carter, while playing against Boise State University and battling against Malik Cook in practice?

I'm just into the idea of polished products coming straight into the NBA, instead of drafting "projects" for their "potential". The number one criticism of the Pacers for drafting Hansbrough was that they drafted someone that was too close to his ceiling in potential. Why does the NBA we have today have to be that way. I mean you don't think its rediculous that Randolph didn't know pick and rolls, pick and pops his first few months in the NBA? He was so athletic he was able to dominate on the high school and college level, but never learned the nuances of the game.

I'm just saying Beesley, Rose, Mayo, they would have been kids that would have been in the top 10 picks out of high school. Everyone else has the ability to become a 3 year Super Star in NCAA instead of a one year media star we have today. I like that marketing aspect. If you dont like the development of NCAA programs in Nevada or WAC then picks a school that will get you NBA polished for 3 years.
I dont mind the proposal...except I think instead of waiting till after their junior year, they should only have to wait till the end of their sophomore year...that way, they get that great college experience and their networking game on, would hopefully complete their GEs and at least if they decided to go back to college later on, they would have had a decent background of it all, they give their schools a 2 year commitment and they themselves gain 2 years of experience on the collegiate level (which true isnt the NBA level, but it'll be a step above what their used to) and kinda get warmed up to possible "stardom" with publicity and media as well as a full on coaching staff with the works...

If a kid is a LeBot type of kid, then yeah, let him go straight to the pros...and you'll have that ability to with this kind of proposal...

I dont know who Bob Fitzgerald is...but Sir Fitz, you my friend, are onto something...
Originally posted by global_nomad:
I'm just into the idea of polished products coming straight into the NBA, instead of drafting "projects" for their "potential". The number one criticism of the Pacers for drafting Hansbrough was that they drafted someone that was too close to his ceiling in potential. Why does the NBA we have today have to be that way. I mean you don't think its rediculous that Randolph didn't know pick and rolls, pick and pops his first few months in the NBA? He was so athletic he was able to dominate on the high school and college level, but never learned the nuances of the game.

I'm just saying Beesley, Rose, Mayo, they would have been kids that would have been in the top 10 picks out of high school. Everyone else has the ability to become a 3 year Super Star in NCAA instead of a one year media star we have today. I like that marketing aspect. If you dont like the development of NCAA programs in Nevada or WAC then picks a school that will get you NBA polished for 3 years.

And who is better equipped to teach the nuances of the game? I guarantee you that if you put one 18 year old in the best college program that you can think of, and the same kid on an NBA team, 4 years later the kid that's been in the NBA is going to be better by a large margin. Vastly superior competition, vastly superior coaching/facilities, and complete focus on basketball for a significantly longer period of time.

Now, of course the longer a team gets to see a player, the less of a risk they're taking by drafting him. First of all, if you don't want to draft an 18 year old....don't! Is it really more complicated than that? Back in 1996, the Lakers traded their starting center, and one of the Top centers in the game, for a 17 year old. That could have ended VERY badly. Twelve other teams didn't take him. And he turned out to be Kobe Bryant.

If a team is willing to assume the risk, why shouldn't they reap the benefits or suffer the consequences? Frankly, I think it's flat out un-American to deny employment to someone who desires employment AND has an employer that wants to give them a job.

And if that player has potential but isn't there yet, the NBA franchise has the option of assigning them to the Developmental League and retaining their rights. What is the problem here?
Originally posted by global_nomad:

I'm just into the idea of polished products coming straight into the NBA, instead of drafting "projects" for their "potential".

I respect your opinion, and I'm not trying to fight you on it -- just a friendly debate. Still, I don't understand this statement. It's a nice idea to think people who play more college ball are more polished, but that is not always the case. Pete already touched on that...I don't think using George Hill benefits your argument.

Quote:
I mean you don't think its rediculous that Randolph didn't know pick and rolls, pick and pops his first few months in the NBA? He was so athletic he was able to dominate on the high school and college level, but never learned the nuances of the game.

Now Randolph has a year of pro experience under his belt. Warriors fans are gushing over him, and refuse to deal him for Amare. He learned the game and contributed at the pro level, earned money, and carved out a more significant role for next season. You even said it...he was athletic enough to dominate at the college level. How come in his first season at LSU he didn't learn about pick and rolls? Is that something they teach only to sophomores or juniors or seniors? He thought he was ready, the Warriors were willing to pick him, and now both are happy.

Quote:
I'm just saying Beesley, Rose, Mayo, they would have been kids that would have been in the top 10 picks out of high school. Everyone else has the ability to become a 3 year Super Star in NCAA instead of a one year media star we have today. I like that marketing aspect. If you dont like the development of NCAA programs in Nevada or WAC then picks a school that will get you NBA polished for 3 years.

But from what I understand of this idea, if Beasley, Rose, and Mayo didn't go pro from high school, they would have to wait 3 years. What if they just want to go to college for a year as a stepping stone to the NBA? Are they allowed to do that? I don't follow your 3 year superstar/1 year media star. Carmelo was a college superstar in one year. Kevin Durant was as well. Staying in college longer would probably have only hindered them.
Originally posted by SacRock14:
Originally posted by global_nomad:

I'm just into the idea of polished products coming straight into the NBA, instead of drafting "projects" for their "potential".

I respect your opinion, and I'm not trying to fight you on it -- just a friendly debate. Still, I don't understand this statement. It's a nice idea to think people who play more college ball are more polished, but that is not always the case. Pete already touched on that...I don't think using George Hill benefits your argument.

Quote:
I mean you don't think its rediculous that Randolph didn't know pick and rolls, pick and pops his first few months in the NBA? He was so athletic he was able to dominate on the high school and college level, but never learned the nuances of the game.

Now Randolph has a year of pro experience under his belt. Warriors fans are gushing over him, and refuse to deal him for Amare. He learned the game and contributed at the pro level, earned money, and carved out a more significant role for next season. You even said it...he was athletic enough to dominate at the college level. How come in his first season at LSU he didn't learn about pick and rolls? Is that something they teach only to sophomores or juniors or seniors? He thought he was ready, the Warriors were willing to pick him, and now both are happy.

Quote:
I'm just saying Beesley, Rose, Mayo, they would have been kids that would have been in the top 10 picks out of high school. Everyone else has the ability to become a 3 year Super Star in NCAA instead of a one year media star we have today. I like that marketing aspect. If you dont like the development of NCAA programs in Nevada or WAC then picks a school that will get you NBA polished for 3 years.

But from what I understand of this idea, if Beasley, Rose, and Mayo didn't go pro from high school, they would have to wait 3 years. What if they just want to go to college for a year as a stepping stone to the NBA? Are they allowed to do that? I don't follow your 3 year superstar/1 year media star. Carmelo was a college superstar in one year. Kevin Durant was as well. Staying in college longer would probably have only hindered them.

Warriors fans are gushing over Randolph because he has grown with one year of the NBA under his belt. Think about how much better he would be next summer? Approaching All-Star status correct? Well thats how old he would have been if he spent 3 years in college.

My 3 years vs 1 is an example of everything you talked about. Melo and Durant were faces of college basketball, so think about it if you represent that face for 2 more years! You would be a mega star before you even get to the NBA. But the fact is Melo could have made the jump, and Durant would have been a top 10 pick out of high school. I'm talking about guys getting better and better. I would have seen the NCAA tournament with Rose, Durant, Love, Bealsey, Lawson, Lucas, Flynn, and keep these elite players in the NCAA system for a few years.

Like I said in my opening post David B. Falk has done a study that shows the NBA and players would create more revenue for the whole sport if star players stayed in school for 3 years. One and done ruins that because the NCAA doesn't market players, and any player that receives hype, or becomes a household name enters in the NBA draft (good example is Joe Alexander).
...