share

Is age really a better indicator of more upside?

JoeWolf1
JoeWolf1's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/28/2009
Posts: 8253
Points: 16702
Offline
Is age really a better indicator of more upside?

Just a question to throw out there. Now that we have seen 15 years of players coming out of high school and the effects of NBA seasons on the bodies of players that come into the league at 18 as opposed to 22 does a player who is 18 really have anymore upside than a player of equal talent who is 22?

To me, it seems that a player's body starts to break down not at a specific age, but after a certain amount of years or games played. No doubt, some of the best players of the past two decades came straight out of high school, but was their upside really any higher or did they just smartly take advantage of an opportunity?

If Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, or Kevin Garnett played two years of college would their upside be any less?

I don't think so, I just think they were opportunistic and could have had the same caliber of careers if they had played a year or two of college.

Yeah, no one is wanting to draft a 25 year old, but really, what is the difference between a 19 year old and a 21 year old as far as upside? It's the NBA's 82 game season + a potential 2 months of a playoff run that puts wear and tear on their bodies, not the 25-35 game game season of high school or college.


TdotWave11
Registered User
Joined: 04/14/2011
Posts: 5
Points: 0
Offline
True

i've always felt that age isn't as big a factor to judge a player's upside as some make it out to be. The average college season is between say 35 and 40 games or so(considering the team goes to the tournament). So it would take between 2 and 3 college seasons to equal the length of one Nba regular season.

Biggysmalls
Registered User
Joined: 12/20/2009
Posts: 736
Points: 1205
Offline
I absolutely agree and I hate

I absolutely agree and I hate when people say that player x who is 21 has less upside than player y who is 19.

I judge upside by a players capacity to improve, not how athletic they are, not how big they are. If a 22 year old player has played 4 years of college and has displayed a competent basketball IQ, toughness and an improvement of skills, and a 19 year old player has played 1 and has shown alot of athleticism, alot of physical potential, but no skill, and no feel for the game, I'm taking the 22 year old in a heartbeat.

Players always can improve. Kobe Bryant is a classic example. He has gotten older, and his athleticism isnt what it used to be, but he is still just as effective because he improved other parts of his game.

I dont think my post has much to do with your post, but they run hand in hand in my opinion on the case of potential and how it is measured by a flawed system.

OhCanada-
OhCanada-'s picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/08/2010
Posts: 6095
Points: 6108
Offline
College seasons can still be

College seasons can still be very ewearing but I agree to an extent. If you are absolutely ready to skip out Highschool and play pro ball then fine, but the problem with that is everyone thinks they are ready That type of player comes along once every ten years so Im happy that they are not aloud too jump straight to the pros. I bet Barnes, Favors, maybe Jones and many other not ready players would have stunted their growth as players by not going to college.

How much better would a guylike JR Smith be with some college maturity. Or my favourite 2 of all Chandler and Kwame. Big men like them really could use the polishing of a college program.

I would say staying in college/going to college will never completly ruin a players game unless they et injured which can happen in the NBA as well, it only has a chance of ruining their stock. Although staying in college/going to college should make any prospect better with more time developing. Especially young, and./or immature, and/or unpolished prospects such as Jereme Richmond, Tristan Thompson, Cory Joseph, Greg Smith, Josh Selby, and many more.

OhCanada-
OhCanada-'s picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/08/2010
Posts: 6095
Points: 6108
Offline
I think what age tries to

I think what age tries to indicate is how far along the player has come. If one player is 18, and another is 21 you say well hopefully in 3 years the 18 year old can have what the 21 has in regards to that part of his game in 3 years, Then he will be a better all around player because he already has so many other good tools. Like what people always say when they say Favors is a better prospect then Davis.

Steroid
Steroid's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/13/2010
Posts: 842
Points: 1052
Offline
In general, the difference is

In general, the difference is if you have a player who is just as good as a player who is 2-3 years older than him, then that player has more upside. Lets face it, most of these players who get drafted because of upside usually pan out. Busts are always going to happen regardless of whether player stays in school longer. They might not become the next LeBron or Kobe, but they are legitimate players in the league even more so than the college veteran who might have had a better senior year than the one and done's freshman year. There is a reason why these guys stay in school longer, and it's usually because they weren't good enough and the D-League sucks. We can't expect every highly touted prospect to be great because at one point, the guys in the NBA well highly touted hs prospects as well. I believe the main reason people are against one and dones is if they don't live up to their projected, unrealistic potential, but reality is they end up becoming a good role player in their own right.

FastAndFurious
FastAndFurious's picture
Registered User
Joined: 08/05/2009
Posts: 3585
Points: 9051
Offline
Yea the only upside argument

Yea the only upside argument I agree with is if x player is 21 and y player is 18 and they are equal, then its obvious the 18 year old has a chance to become the better player, but that's the only case.

Lol the thing I used to hate was when I was growing up playing basketball and someone would always use age as an excuse, like he beat me but he 2 years older than me I always that the age thing was a bunch of crap.

If you can play you can play...that's what I think.

JNixon
JNixon's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/14/2009
Posts: 12962
Points: 11537
Offline
I feel that you have to

I feel that you have to really just look at the different aspects of someones game to tell their upside. I have never been a believer that age really is all that great an indicator of upside. Sure, it holds some weight, but I've debated about prospects on here and even if I can tell that prospect really isn't that good sure enough someone will say something like "he will be really good he's only 21 years old." I feel that if that was the case you could be saying anyone that's an alright college player that's 21 will be an NBA player and that's not true. To me, I look at the parts of a players game, and if they are good at things that cannot be taught or are hard to teach (athleticism, basketball IQ, willingness to learn and improve) then it helps them reach their potential. Also, if a player is unpolished at things that are easy to improve and show a willingness to work at it (shooting, getting stronger, and defense for example), then I think that they have good upside. Being young has advantages, but having talent and work ethic are more important in my eyes.

OhCanada-
OhCanada-'s picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/08/2010
Posts: 6095
Points: 6108
Offline
Great point Iggy. Sort of

Great point Iggy. Sort of like Thaddeus Young, I remember people saying he is only 22, in a couple of years he will be doing things at a star level. Yet that 22 year olds improvement on the offensive end of the court relies on gaining a reliable jumpshot. He has not shown mmuch progress in those regards so his potential is limited despite his age.

JNixon
JNixon's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/14/2009
Posts: 12962
Points: 11537
Offline
Exactly! There were people on

Exactly! There were people on this site that said Thaddeus Young would overtake Andre Iguodala as the best player on the 76ers. He has been better in the playoffs (dont get me started on that....-__-) but Young has never shown the upside to be the best player on the team. People saw the 15 ppg he put up in 08-09 and got googly-eyed.

sheltwon3
sheltwon3's picture
Registered User
Joined: 03/30/2009
Posts: 6364
Points: 2606
Offline
Young has been playing pretty

Young has been playing pretty good but I do think if he stayed another year in college, he may have more to his game because for a while he was not playing much. I think sometimes player development is kind of slowed by not playing. Look at Jordan Crawford. He was not getting the minutes to show he was they type of player that Washington got. I will say he was a chunker but I am sure next season with the experience of playing this year, he should be a much better player.

OhCanada-
OhCanada-'s picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/08/2010
Posts: 6095
Points: 6108
Offline
Im pretty sure he is playing

Im pretty sure he is playing alot more then he would have in college especially with the 82 plus games and 25-30 mpg he gets. He just needs a jumper couldve learned that in highschool, college, or the NBA yet hasnt.

Rico
Registered User
Joined: 05/28/2009
Posts: 101
Points: 34
Offline
Personally

Personally I'm weary of using high draft picks on older guys. I mean, how many of these guys actually become stars? Just look at last years lottery. How did the upperclassmen do vs the underclassmen. (Turner, W. Johnson, Udoh, Aldrich, and Patterson vs Wall, Favors, Cousins, Monroe, Aminu, Hayward, George, Henry, and E. Davis)

Turner and Johnson were drafted in the top 4, were expected to be more NBA ready because they are older, but were clearly outperformed by younger players.

Go back to old drafts and you will see busts like Thabeet and Joe Alexander. Yes, there are exceptions like Steph Curry and Brandon Roy. But those seem to be very rare.

andxxx
andxxx's picture
Registered User
Joined: 12/05/2008
Posts: 846
Points: 1197
Offline
Why do ppl think that staying

Why do ppl think that staying in college improves maturity? Have you seen some of the wannabe thugs in the NFL and guys who get in trouble with the law and those players have to stay 3 years in college doesn't seem to help their maturity that much.

JoeWolf1
JoeWolf1's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/28/2009
Posts: 8253
Points: 16702
Offline
@Rico, they are rare because

@Rico, they are rare because upper classmen are often over looked because they are deemed to have less upside and not chosen until the middle or end of the 1st round. Look at guys like DeJuan Blair, Paul Millsap, Aaron Affalo, Aaron Brooks, Taj Gibson, Landry Fields, Glen Davis and others that have out performed "high upside" youngsters chosen before them.

5 of the top 10 rookie scorers were upper classmen 4 of the top 10 rookie rebounders were upper classmen, 5 of the top 10 rookie assist leaders were upper classmen so it's not like underclassmen vastly out performed rookies this year and with Blake Griffin sitting out last season, he is a 21 year old rookie, I don't see him as having any less potential now than he did at 19.

OhCanada-
OhCanada-'s picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/08/2010
Posts: 6095
Points: 6108
Offline
Personally I'm weary of using

Personally I'm weary of using high draft picks on older guys. I mean, how many of these guys actually become stars? Just look at last years lottery. How did the upperclassmen do vs the underclassmen. (Turner, W. Johnson, Udoh, Aldrich, and Patterson vs Wall, Favors, Cousins, Monroe, Aminu, Hayward, George, Henry, and E. Davis)

Turner and Johnson were drafted in the top 4, were expected to be more NBA ready because they are older, but were clearly outperformed by younger players.

Go back to old drafts and you will see busts like Thabeet and Joe Alexander. Yes, there are exceptions like Steph Curry and Brandon Roy. But those seem to be very rare.

Thats just because the better players were NBA ready earlier. This year will be a much better example with Kemba, Jimmer, Jackson, Cole, Mack, Smith, Lee vs Irving, Knight, Joseph, Selby, Morris.

cward23
Registered User
Joined: 04/16/2011
Posts: 617
Points: 170
Offline
There is no exact science

There is no exact science just like trying to figure out potential. There have been players who people said didn't have much up side but they ended up being much better than anyone though. Nash was said to not have much upside and thought to be a career back up and that was when he was in his mid 20's. Rodman,Stockton were said not to have much up side as well. Its all a kinda educated guess at best

thecity2
Registered User
Joined: 05/27/2010
Posts: 12
Points: 2
Offline
It's important to factor in

It's important to factor in the selection effect here. The so-called "one and done" players come out earlier because they are typically more talented and have a better chance of being drafted in the lottery than older players. In other words, those four-year seniors may have come out sooner, if they were better at that earlier age. When we see a 22 or 23 year old who played all four years, it's likely that he wasn't as talented coming out of high school as his peers who (in another era) might have been drafted straight out of high school. This selection effect is conflated with aging curves, but I think it may be more important actually.

FastAndFurious
FastAndFurious's picture
Registered User
Joined: 08/05/2009
Posts: 3585
Points: 9051
Offline
Ha, yea you think the guy who

Ha, yea you think the guy who cut Michael Jordan in highschool and probably picked up a couple guards around his age and put them on the team, thought he had potential to be the best player EVER? NOPE!

It's all about how hard you work! Age doesn't matter, if you put the time in you will get results!

cward23
Registered User
Joined: 04/16/2011
Posts: 617
Points: 170
Offline
Jordan still holds that

Jordan still holds that grudge lol. even thought he was only cut from varsity as a H.S soph because he just wasn't good enough at that point. He got much better by his Sr year

aamir543
aamir543's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/11/2009
Posts: 5062
Points: 5541
Offline
I agree that there should not

I agree that there should not be all the talk about there being a dramatic difference in upside between a 21year old and 19 year old, but my team the warriors just drafted a 23 year old in Epke Udoh, and while I ehink he has the potential to be a solid rotation player, I would have much rather had Cousins and hsi headcase, because imagine it takes him 3 more years to be a 12 and 10 guy, he is already 27. But if Udoh was 19, he would be 23 after 4 years of devoloping, with twice the years in his prime. So it does matter to some extent, but if Shaq was 23 and Dwight was 19, I would take Shaq. (Although i do like Dwight)

RSS: Syndicate content