Hypothetical regarding an NBA Superstar

[CuhGetsBucks]

In a thread someone (can't remember who, don't feel like citing it's not that serious) mentioned how in the 70s and 80s players would spend 2-4 years in college and be able to join a team through the draft and have MVP type impact such as Bird, Johnson, Hakeem and Jordan. There is an obvious relationship in the maturity of players, duration of college career and impact on their new team in respect to the 80's vs. the 2010's.

In the 2010's players are drafted based of potential and staying in college is usually given as more of a reason to keep a player on the draft boards. The 19 year old with extreme potential will most likely be drafted ahead of the 22 year old with a decorated college career. And as this method has paid off with the selections of All-Star talent such as Drummond, Wiggins, and Embiid.

With this mindset of potential and age effecting draft position I have a hypothetical that I'd like to know what you guys think.




Let's say there's a quote on quote once in a lifetime talent who signs with a blue blood school such as Duke. This player checks all the boxes, is a 6'7 wing, with elite playmaking ability, elite scoring ability and defends well.

His freshman year he puts up numbers that mirrors something close to Beasley's sole season at K-State (26.2/7.4/4.4 on 58% TS) but his team gets the 3 seed in the NCAA tournament but is upset in the first round. He immediately announces he will return the next season.

His Sophomore season he will turn 20 in January but his scoring goes up slightly less efficient and his assists numbers drop. He averages 30 PPG and but goes down with a gruesome leg injury that knocks him out the NCAA tournament. His team is eliminated in the Sweet 16 so he announces he will return for his Junior season.


His Junior season his team is the clear cut favorite to win the whole tournament. He returns to his playmaking style and averages 23/4/7, he maintains something near these averages throughout the whole tournament including a 40 point performance in the elite eight, DESPITE his team's loss in the elite eight. He contemplates going to the league but after a month of anticipation he announces he will return for his senior season because he cannot leave college without a championship

Meanwhile...., Player B, the number one recruit in the high school class has chosen his school and all eyes are on him this season. He puts up Durant like #s (26/11/1) and they are eliminated in the round of 32 despite his 30 point performance.

Player A, goes back to his elite scoring and averages 32 PPG and leads his team to the #1 overall seed in the tournament. They thrash everyone in their way leading to his sole championship in college.


My question is, with the first pick in the draft, would a team draft player A and player B? I think about this often when one and done players have very mediocre careers and their college careers are just pit stops in their overall careers. I don't have an idea so I'd like my ISH peers to inform me. :rockon: :rockon: :rockon:

[warriorfan]

Stop making such long posts

-The Playboy

[CuhGetsBucks]

Stop making such long posts

-The Playboy
Pull up

[Milbuck]

If they're similar level talents, Player B imo. Player A's path is admirable but player B being like 3-4 years younger and giving you 3-4 more years of pro development is much nicer for team building. You're picking 1st, so your team sucks and will suck for 2-3+ years. If player A is like 22-23 years old coming in, when you're done building through the draft, your player is already a prime 25-26 but you're waiting on your other prospects to develop. Much less efficient window of team building.

If you get an elite 18-19 year old prospect..suck for a couple years and pick up 2 more, when you start filling out your roster you still have like a decade in front of you before your top guys hit 30. Look at Minnesota...they have an elite core of 20-21 year olds, with a MASSIVE margin for error.

[NBAGOAT]

I would go B too. It depends on how Player A's game has developed however since the numbers don't tell me everything. Is he roughly the same player or has his game really developed where he's clearly pro ready.

[BigKAT]

It depends on his playstyle.

To me, Point guards who were good in college are more reliable. Since big men can bully ball their way in College and flounder when the size equation evens up.

But then again you can't really pass up a 7 footer whose as talented as you mention.

If my team is really, really horrible? Going with player B.
If I think I already got a few pieces (LMA- they took Lillard, an older PG who spent some years in college.) Then I can go with Player A and get the help I need.

People are really hot on Lillard, and he's been amazing, but people forget the dude was drafted a year after Kyrie, but he is actually -older-. Shit, the guy was drafted in 2012 and he's already 26. Know who else went in that 2012 draft? 23 years old Anthony Davis. Not a slight against Dame, awesome, awesome player, but people forgot he was so good so early because the guy had years of experience in college.

[antonAC]

really, you didn't need to make such a long post about hypotheticals, there are pros and cons with the draft system the way it is.

It would be better if players came out NBA ready, that way a bad team does get an instant upgrade instead of having to gamble on a number of projects. whilst guessing who is going to be a steal and who is going to be a bust is intriguing the league is better if the draft more closely mirrors the abilities of the player.

the other problem it creates is if even if a team does get it right and pick the right project they end up potentially getting another generational talent the next year while waiting to develop. this is kinda what's happening to the wolves, if they continue as they are they could end up with another top 5 pick, a team that has KAT and Wiggins to build round should not need more high lottery picks.

I almost wonder if draft positions should take in to account previous draft positions from the years before to stop teams getting 3 high picks in a row. the clippers, the spurs and the heat are actually teams that could do with getting a good rookie or two now rather than philly, the wolves or the suns, who are already stacked with young talent. otherwise the draft is really just mixing up who's gonna win all the time rather than keeping the league competitive.

all this would be solved if the players stayed in college longer, made the NCAA more competitive and more useful in judging player development and made the players more NBA ready.

where I sympathise that this can't happen is these guys are amatuers, and 3-4 years is a long time to play with a risk of injury meaning you could end up with nothing despite pouring your life into making it as a professional athlete.

[CuhGetsBucks]

really, you didn't need to make such a long post about hypotheticals, there are pros and cons with the draft system the way it is.

It would be better if players came out NBA ready, that way a bad team does get an instant upgrade instead of having to gamble on a number of projects. whilst guessing who is going to be a steal and who is going to be a bust is intriguing the league is better if the draft more closely mirrors the abilities of the player.

the other problem it creates is if even if a team does get it right and pick the rigeht project they end up potentially getting another generational talent the next year while waiting to develop. this is kinda what's happening to the wolves, if they continue as they are they could end up with another top 5 pick, a team that has KAT and Wiggins to build round should not need more high lottery picks.

I almost wonder if draft positions should take in to account previous draft positions from the years before to stop teams getting 3 high picks in a row. the clippers, the spurs and the heat are actually teams that could do with getting a good rookie or two now rather than philly, the wolves or the suns, who are already stacked with young talent. otherwise the draft is really just mixing up who's gonna win all the time rather than keeping the league competitive.

all this would be solved if the players stayed in college longer, made the NCAA more competitive and more useful in judging player development and made the players more NBA ready.

where I sympathise that this can't happen is these guys are amatuers, and 3-4 years is a long time to play with a risk of injury meaning you could end up with nothing despite pouring your life into making it as a professional athlete.
Aye brah just answer the question and keep it moving, we understand how the draft works it was a question I had and asked for it to be answered.

[Jasper]

Player A with long career as a college player , honed his skills to the best of his coached ability, and natural talent.

Problem with Player A is that he had an injury , and no matter what numbers he puts up , you stated it was a horrible injury he bounced back at.
Point on - THE NBA is a tough career , and once a player has a college injury, red flags go up in the pro level scouting.
The NBA franchises do not want a player that is serviceable for 6-8 years.
All teams would like a player to stay for a whole career with their franchise.

Fast forward to a player like Milwaukee Bucks Parker.... Came out early , but his rook year had a knee injury..... ohhh hoooo.....
Money ,scouting , rehab, all invested by the franchise.
Advantages : He has probably at 21 developed all of his skeletal and ligament potential as an adult.... so once the rehab was finished , the knee is possibly stronger than it was.
Liabilities : He might be like Alonzo Mourning and it could come back , because a PF or Center are tougher on their legs , than a running wing man.
---------------
So to answer your question -
Player B , even though he has less of a completed skill set , and development of his game , most franchises will take him first. (he was healthy , and teams can hone his skills as well as tailor his minutes until he is fully developed physically as well as mentally.

[Showtime80']

I was the poster that made the initial point in another thread.

The wrinkle of the injury tilts in favor of player B of course and even then how many freshmen have put up Kevin Durant type numbers in the last 6 years? For example how many one and done players in the last 10 years would you take over a Shaq coming out as a Junior? Or David Robinson as a senior? It really depends.

AntonAC made a very good point about the Timberwolves and the overall raw undeveloped games the current crop of rookies are displaying in their first few years in the league. It makes building teams harder because even with multiple lottery picks like the Sixers and Wolves have had in the last few years you still don't know what kind of teams and players you have because the culture of LOOSING still rules the day. Even when they increase their production they still don't have the slightest idea what winning basketball at the pro level looks like.

When you get a rookie that immediately turns around your franchise like Magic, Hakeem, Bird, Michael, Isiah, David Robinson, Shaq, Mourning and Duncan to name a few the effect is not just seen on the win column, the ENTIRE TEAM CULTURE changes!!! The team takes on a new outlook of optimism being led by a stable and developed young superstar. Once you have that, the job of team building becomes much easier for the front office and you can focus and getting lower draft picks and getting veterans through free agency and trades instead of drowning in a never ending cycle of developing ray lottery picks.

The NBA before the mid 90's WAS NOT A DEVELOPMENTAL LEAGUE!!! And in my opinion it should NEVER BE!!! It screws up the quality of the league as it has in the last 20 years. High draft picks in the past were expected to produce at an all-star level by their first or second years and start to make a significant impact on the win column as well.

To me the model for team building were the Lakers of the mid 90's before Shaq got there in 1996. After Magic left here were the Lakers key acquisitions between 1992 and 1995, when they only missed the playoffs one year in 1994 and were already in the second round of the playoffs in 1995:

Draft Picks:

Anthony Peeler
George Lynch
Nick Van Excel
Eddie Jones

Free agents:

Cedric Ceballos

You don't see a lot of lottery picks and high priced free agents in that list do you? The important part of that rebuilding process is how RECORD SHORT it was and it made it infinitely more appealing to Shaq in the summer of 1996 to leave an already established Orlando Magic team.

It was easier and quicker to build teams when players came in more developed, that was just a fact. However I really don't know how the NBA could get back to that system.

[Prime_Shaq]

Based on the stars these days, Player B would be the choice.

[HurricaneKid]

The problem with a lot of theoreticals is that they cannot occur. What NBA ready prospect, sure fire #1 pick has ever returned to college?

If you have a winning Powerball ticket you cash it in. You don't wait for the jackpot to go up and win a bigger prize.