The draft and its uncertainties

http://bkref.com/tiny/G0rMf

 Above is a complete list of players,  who by age 21, were NBA all stars at least once - only 18 players.
 
    With the Celts likely drafting no worse than 4th with the Nets #1 pick next year I researched their potential for landing a player that could develop into an all star by age 21 - relatively instant help for a team that is quite competitive right now.

Per the above list.

   In the last 37 years there have only been 18 players that made all star by age 21.
   The # 1 through#4 pick has made all star 14 times in 37 years
   Made all star
     # 1 pick ,,, 9 times in 37 years,,, 24.3%
     # 2 pick ,,, 2 times in 37 years,,, 05.4%
     # 3 pick ,,, 2 times in 37 years,,, 05.4%
     # 4 pick ,,, 1 time  in 37 years,,, 02.7%

    I think that many fans place very high expectations on these high draft picks. These 19 and 20 year old kids are far from being all stars - especially over there 1st 3 years.
Those Nets picks look great -  but,but, but  

  swish

Swish,

Correct me if I am wrong but starting in 1979 (37 years) for a good part of that period most future NBA players stayed in college longer and entered the league at 21 or 22 years old.  

In the latter part of that period many college players oped out and went for the $$$money and entered the NBA draft prior to age 21, thus allowing them at least several years to develop their game before they reached 21 years of age.

Just an observation/opinion.

112288

Swish

Few young players are stars from day 1.  Teams make mistakes even when they are drafting at the top.  But there is a better chance to get a player that will become a star if you are drafting at the top.

I see no but but buts with the Nets picks.  The ROI may take a few years but that is the way you can build a young championship level team.

The Celtics are uniquely positioned to build through the draft.

dboss

dboss wrote:Swish

Few young players are stars from day 1.  Teams make mistakes even when they are drafting at the top.  But there is a better chance to get a player that will become a star if you are drafting at the top.

I see no but but buts with the Nets picks.  The ROI may take a few years but that is the way you can build a young championship level team.

The Celtics are uniquely positioned to build through the draft.

dboss

The higher the pick - the better the chance for a star - I agree - but still lousy odds.

swish

112288 wrote:Swish,

Correct me if I am wrong but starting in 1979 (37 years) for a good part of that period most future NBA players stayed in college longer and entered the league at 21 or 22 years old.  

In the latter part of that period many college players oped out and went for the $$$money and entered the NBA draft prior to age 21, thus allowing them at least several years to develop their game before they reached 21 years of age.

Just an observation/opinion.

112288

Your right 112288. Players now enter the draft at a a much earlier age than the early 80's - making it much more difficult to predict future success.
swish

Hey Swish, hope all is well with you!

Cannot wait for spring!

112288

I think, more than anything, Swish's always insightful research shows the need to keep kids in college longer.  112288's observation on players declaring for the draft earlier since 1979 is spot on.  Teams are simply dealing with an unfinished, raw talent.

I'm always on record as one who does not believe the draft is a crapshoot; far from it.  I think, especially since '79, the draft is a solid test of an NBA franchise's ability to evaluate and develop talent.

Because so many of the players coming from the NCAA ranks are in the 19-20 year old range, I believe patience and a strong skills training plan are essential. Yes, there are outliers, who shine as a star or are obvious flops from day one.  Those are few, however, as some develop by leaps and bounds even within their first season.  Buddy Hield, may be a prime example this year.  Fans and press jumped all over him in the early going, claiming he was just another over-rated pick that may have been selected too high in the draft order.  Instead, he's staking a claim to perhaps having been the steal of the draft, getting scooped up as a bargain.  Paul Pierce ring a bell; anyone?  How about Marcus Smart?  Quickly moving up the ranks as one of the leagues top defensive players.  Would anyone have put him there two years ago?  Of course not.

To be sure, there are some huge gambles taken in the draft, and I think that leads to the perception of a crapshoot.  But there are reasons for those gambles. Take another look closer to home, at an example we've all seen first hand...how in the world do you take Yabusele where we did?  Crapshoot, heck yes.  But a voluntary one at that.  With the league-wide style of play rapidly changing, you take the closest thing you can find to a Draymond Green clone and stash him somewhere just in case.  Then you cover your overly exposed backside and take Zizic, another raw player, but one in the traditional center role. You could call him a gamble too, given other centers we passed on, his geographical location, experience, and age.  But wait a minute.  What made those two risky picks possible?  A more disciplined approach in taking Brown, a widely acknowledged NBA-ready player, first.  Was Brown a crapshoot?  Not in the slightest.  Will he be an All-Star in the next year or two?  Maybe not.  A valuable contributor?  He's there now.

So while I acknowledge Swish's always in-depth statistical view, I think it's just one aspect of the picture, and helps point out that some NBA teams are better in identifying talent, or creating a game plan to balance risk.  I hope The Celtics are going to prove to be among those with clear vision.

I also agree that the college players should stay in college longer, but the NBA is lucky to be able to keep them there for even one year as they are the only profession that seems to be able to dictate when a guy can actually begin a career in his chosen profession.

A kid who wants to be a baseball player, hockey player, plumber, carpenter, police officer, etc, etc, etc is fully capable of signing on in his field without having to wait a year to expire after high school. In fact, some professions do not even require finishing high school.

wideclyde wrote:I also agree that the college players should stay in college longer, but the NBA is lucky to be able to keep them there for even one year as they are the only profession that seems to be able to dictate when a guy can actually begin a career in his chosen profession.

A kid who wants to be a baseball player, hockey player, plumber, carpenter, police officer, etc, etc, etc is fully capable of signing on in his field without having to wait a year to expire after high school.  In fact, some professions do not even require finishing high school.

wideclyde

WELL STATED

swish

Wide,

I get your point, but there is absolutely no comparison to be made between an 18 or 19 year old swinging a hammer, and posting up LeBron James. James himself was a rare exception. Take a look at a skinny KG his first few years in the league. It took a while.

College isn't needed for everyone, but a 19-year old player in the NBA, against a more physically mature 22 - 26 year old established player, is dead meat.  Pure and simple.

BTW, police academies now normally require at least an associates degree and passing a civil servants exam.  Baseball and hockey have an established minor league system with levels specifically designed for young players.  The NBA D-League is not an equivalent to those.

Regards

NYCelt wrote:I think, more than anything, Swish's always insightful research shows the need to keep kids in college longer.  112288's observation on players declaring for the draft earlier since 1979 is spot on.  Teams are simply dealing with an unfinished, raw talent.

I'm always on record as one who does not believe the draft is a crapshoot; far from it.  I think, especially since '79, the draft is a solid test of an NBA franchise's ability to evaluate and develop talent.

Because so many of the players coming from the NCAA ranks are in the 19-20 year old range, I believe patience and a strong skills training plan are essential. Yes, there are outliers, who shine as a star or are obvious flops from day one.  Those are few, however, as some develop by leaps and bounds even within their first season.  Buddy Hield, may be a prime example this year.  Fans and press jumped all over him in the early going, claiming he was just another over-rated pick that may have been selected too high in the draft order.  Instead, he's staking a claim to perhaps having been the steal of the draft, getting scooped up as a bargain.  Paul Pierce ring a bell; anyone?  How about Marcus Smart?  Quickly moving up the ranks as one of the leagues top defensive players.  Would anyone have put him there two years ago?  Of course not.

To be sure, there are some huge gambles taken in the draft, and I think that leads to the perception of a crapshoot.  But there are reasons for those gambles. Take another look closer to home, at an example we've all seen first hand...how in the world do you take Yabusele where we did?  Crapshoot, heck yes.  But a voluntary one at that.  With the league-wide style of play rapidly changing, you take the closest thing you can find to a Draymond Green clone and stash him somewhere just in case.  Then you cover your overly exposed backside and take Zizic, another raw player, but one in the traditional center role. You could call him a gamble too, given other centers we passed on, his geographical location, experience, and age.  But wait a minute.  What made those two risky picks possible?  A more disciplined approach in taking Brown, a widely acknowledged NBA-ready player, first.  Was Brown a crapshoot?  Not in the slightest.  Will he be an All-Star in the next year or two?  Maybe not.  A valuable contributor?  He's there now.

So while I acknowledge Swish's always in-depth statistical view, I think it's just one aspect of the picture, and helps point out that some NBA teams are better in identifying talent, or creating a game plan to balance risk.  I hope The Celtics are going to prove to be among those with clear vision.

NYCelt

Great job of expressing your viewpoint.
As A follow-up to my statistical data on high draft picks I want to make it clear that I do not consider draft picks to be a crap shoot - when weighted against its intent which is to reward the worst teams with the best chance to improve their roster. On the other hand I do not look favorably on the the draft when compared to the other 2 methods of improving a team roster - FREE AGENCY AND TRADES.
Fortunately for we Celtic fans Danny has provided us with the luxury to be in a position to be active in all 3 roster building areas - ( draft picks, free agency and trades )
I've already discussed high draft picks - Now some thoughts on free agency.
Chance to add players without any losses from current roster.
Proven NBA record to scrutinize
Thoughts on trades
High draft picks very tradable
Instant reward vs future hopes
Proven NBA record to review

Recent history of free agency and trades of players like Horford, Aldridge, James, Durant, P Gasol,Love, Bosh, Garnett, and Allen - have me hoping that Danny can land a player that he would consider to be an upgrade over high draft picks.

My thoughts only - now i'll sit back and wait to see what the Master (Danny) decides to do over the next several weeks.

swish

NYCelt wrote:I think, more than anything, Swish's always insightful research shows the need to keep kids in college longer.  112288's observation on players declaring for the draft earlier since 1979 is spot on.  Teams are simply dealing with an unfinished, raw talent.

I'm always on record as one who does not believe the draft is a crapshoot; far from it.  I think, especially since '79, the draft is a solid test of an NBA franchise's ability to evaluate and develop talent.

Because so many of the players coming from the NCAA ranks are in the 19-20 year old range, I believe patience and a strong skills training plan are essential. Yes, there are outliers, who shine as a star or are obvious flops from day one.  Those are few, however, as some develop by leaps and bounds even within their first season.  Buddy Hield, may be a prime example this year.  Fans and press jumped all over him in the early going, claiming he was just another over-rated pick that may have been selected too high in the draft order.  Instead, he's staking a claim to perhaps having been the steal of the draft, getting scooped up as a bargain.  Paul Pierce ring a bell; anyone?  How about Marcus Smart?  Quickly moving up the ranks as one of the leagues top defensive players.  Would anyone have put him there two years ago?  Of course not.

To be sure, there are some huge gambles taken in the draft, and I think that leads to the perception of a crapshoot.  But there are reasons for those gambles. Take another look closer to home, at an example we've all seen first hand...how in the world do you take Yabusele where we did?  Crapshoot, heck yes.  But a voluntary one at that.  With the league-wide style of play rapidly changing, you take the closest thing you can find to a Draymond Green clone and stash him somewhere just in case.  Then you cover your overly exposed backside and take Zizic, another raw player, but one in the traditional center role. You could call him a gamble too, given other centers we passed on, his geographical location, experience, and age.  But wait a minute.  What made those two risky picks possible?  A more disciplined approach in taking Brown, a widely acknowledged NBA-ready player, first.  Was Brown a crapshoot?  Not in the slightest.  Will he be an All-Star in the next year or two?  Maybe not.  A valuable contributor?  He's there now.

So while I acknowledge Swish's always in-depth statistical view, I think it's just one aspect of the picture, and helps point out that some NBA teams are better in identifying talent, or creating a game plan to balance risk.  I hope The Celtics are going to prove to be among those with clear vision.

NYCelt,

Nice post.

I think last year was an anomaly.  In the case of Yabusele and Zizic, perhaps some of the thinking by Danny was that we had too many 1st round picks already?

3.  Jaylen Brown
16. Guerschon Yabusele
23. Ante Zizic
28.  RJ Hunter

That's a lot of damn picks and if Danny wasn't getting nibbles on them he liked then stashing 2 of them made sense.  Picking Hunter with with #23, instead of Zizic, would have been the bigger risk since you weren't going to stash him, you'd have to pay him and pay him more than #28 and he was marginal NBA talent.  Was that "taking a risk" or avoiding a salary cap and roster space logjam by picking players in the first round you can own the rights to and take your sweet time making space for (or trading their rights) and not have to use those picks on players you didn't really like and want but would have to keep on the roster anyway?

In the end, Danny added one young quality player, high draft pick Jaylen Brown, to a team that was already pretty young, and was able to stash or trade-with-intent-to-waive the other 3.

Zizic just turned 20 in January.  Yabu turned 21 in December.  Not only is another year of seasoning in professional leagues good for them but, as I have been told by my friend and healthcare professional Worcester, the bones of big athletes of these sizes outgrow their soft tissue when they are in their teens and that it is better for them to NOT play big minutes for 82 games when they are only 19-20 years old (I hope I'm citing him accurately.  Paging Dr. Worcester, Dr. Fine, Dr. Worcester!).

Yabusele's Shanghai Sharks have a 37 game season (tomorrow, 2/19, is their last regular season game, then the playoffs.  Shanghai is #2 seed with a 30-7 record).  That's less than half a regular NBA season and, with a smaller league, probably fewer playoff series.  Not a brutal schedule, good for young bodies.

It's hard to tell how many games Zizic will play this year, especially since he switched teams and leagues, but it looks like his current team plays a 48 game regular season.  That's still not much more than 1/2 an NBA season.  Once again, not a brutal schedule on a player who is 2 1/2 months younger than one-and-done Jaylen Brown.  This is NBA All-Star Weekend and the Celtics have already played 57 games. That's more than Zizic might play in an entire season in Europe, including playoffs. NCAA seasons are maybe 40-45 games including March Madness, so he's playing a heavy college schedule (but not much more) but against grown men and not boys.  Good seasoning.

The competition in the Zizic's Adriatic league is tougher than the Chinese league.  Let's face it, any league where the marquis matchups between the Shanghai Sharks and the Beijing Ducks are NBA wannabe Jimmer Fredette (34 points) and 39 year old NBA has-been Stephon Marbury (34 points) is not going to impress me.  I don't know what Danny was thinking when he moved Yabusele to China from France, maybe he was thinking that the Chinese league finishes early enough for Yabusele to join the team by playoff time (I doubt it, but possible), but I would rather have had him playing somewhere in Europe this year.  Every game I have watched of Yabusele this year, and I have watched the highlights of most of them, feature Shanghai playing teams playing matador defense that would make an NBA coaching staff's heads explode.


bob


.

bob I think Hunter was in the previous draft

cowens/oldschool wrote:bob I think Hunter was in the previous draft

Cowens,

Quite correct, thanks for the correction.

Still, we had 3 #1 picks last year instead of the 4 I claimed. That's at least one, if not two, more than a team usually adds in a single year.


bob


.

NYCelt,

In no way was I implying that an 18 year older is ready to play in the NBA, but rather just to emphasize the fact that most professions have no restrictions on age.

Drafting kids right out of high school has already proven not to work in most cases. As you mentioned, Lebron was an exception and so were the few other guys (Garnett and ????) who actually made it in the NBA without first attending college.

The only good thing that could possibly come of having to draft the 18 year olds would be that the NBA would be forced to further develop the D League so that it did rival the much better organized minor league programs found in hockey and baseball.

But, still, I would much prefer the NBA being able to keep kids in college longer than the one year that is currently the rule.

wideclyde wrote:NYCelt,

In no way was I implying that an 18 year older is ready to play in the NBA, but rather just to emphasize the fact that most professions have no restrictions on age.

Drafting kids right out of high school has already proven not to work in most cases.  As you mentioned, Lebron was an exception and so were the few other guys (Garnett and ????) who actually made it in the NBA without first attending college.

The only good thing that could possibly come of having to draft the 18 year olds would be that the NBA would be forced to further develop the D League so that it did rival the much better organized minor league programs found in hockey and baseball.  

But, still, I would much prefer the NBA being able to keep kids in college longer than the one year that is currently the rule.

Wide,

Got it and agree.

Regards