STOP SAYING THIS DRAFT IS BETTER THAN PEOPLE THINK!
There is a good article on the home page about this draft being bad, but maybe not all-time bad. I am not in anyway trying to pick on people but I noticed that a lot of people disagree. They very well could be right, but I don't think that they are looking at the draft as a whole properly.
Now, one of the comments has someone listing 33 guys that he thinks will be significant NBA rotation players. I know that there are disclaimers about needing to be put into the right situation, no injury, etc. but that is a given with each and every draft pick. The right situation is needed for a player to reach his full potential during most drafts. I am going to say this a bunch of times but I am not trying to pick on any one person, not by a long shot.
He lists 7 that he thinks will make a immediate significant impact on their team (if used correctly)
Griffin, Thabeet, Rubio, Harden, DeRozan, Evans, and Jennings
Then he lists another 26 guys who he thinks will be rotation guys throughout their careers:
DaJuan Blair, Jeff Teague, Johnny Flynn, Jrue Holiday, Gerald Henderson, Tyler Hansbrough, Ty Lawson, Taj Gibson, Darren Collison, James Johnson, Derrick Brown, DaJuan Summers, Eric Maynor, Victor Claver, Toney Douglas, Marcus Thornton, John Brockman, Curtis Jerrells, AJ Price, Jeff Adrien, Jerel McNeal, Josh Heytvelt, Robert Vaden, Patty Mills, Dionte Christmas, Goran Suton
Now, I am not trying to call someone in particular out because he could very well be right. None of us know how this draft will work out. But, what I do think is that EVERY SINGLE TEAM has some statistician in their draft "war room" though who thinks with his head and not his gut. I am going to do a VERY crude statistical analysis here.
I just listed the 33 guys (26 on the bottom, 7 on the top). Let's do some math. If good NBA players stick around for...I don't know 12 seasons. Age 21 - Age 33. Also, to be conservative, most teams have an 8 man rotation on average.
There are 30 teams. 30 X 8 = 240
That's 240 guys who play significant rotation minutes right now in the NBA. Players that aren't journeymen practice players, NBDL, CBA, fringe guys and play a large role on decent teams.
If we ignore the 2nd round completely, which is stupid but just for the sake of arguement let's do it, that gives 30 players (1st round) X 12 seasons = 360
That means that if the draft was only 1 round, which it's clearly not, there would still be about 1/3, or 10 guys a year who don't make a significant difference during their tenure in the NBA. These guys would probably be considered BUSTS. I think that the term would be bust if we look back on someone 5 years from now and they aren't in the NBA. If you actually take into account the second round, that means that MORE than 1/3 of the first round picks will not see a long, contributing NBA career. The number 10 would be more like 12 or 13 on an average draft, since there are usually 2 or 3 second round picks who seem to catch on somewhere.
That makes about 20 guys a year, though who have a good NBA career. I am not making a distinction here between a 12-year hall of fame career or a 12-year 7th man career, just a 12-year career. The guy who's comment got me thinking listed 33. Once again, I am not picking on just one person (this guy seems to be smarter than I am in his knowledge of prospects, so I am definitely not making fun at all) but it seems that a lot of people are overvaluing this draft in my opinion and I am just talking about the 2009 NBA Draft being able to hold up statistically with past drafts. If 33 guys were to have good, long NBA careers that would mean that the 2009 NBA Draft was 65% more productive in producing NBA talent than an average draft.
Doesn't that seem silly to anyone else? I mean, let's be honest here. I am not talking about how many superstars or allstars that are going to be present. I am just simply talking about the talent level in this draft being able to sustain the league's rosters for a little over a decade.
I think that the problem is that guys are ranking these prospects on their PREVIOUS peers, which for some like Blake Griffin or DeJuan Blair would be college players. What's even more crazy is that for some people (Jrue, Mullens) we are basing our assessments on how well they played against High School basketball players. The NBA has some freaks of nature in it. There are people (Shaq, Yao, Durant, Rose) who can do things that NOBODY else on the entire planet can do. I don't know if the world has ever created a man who had the physical attributes to guard Shaq with the current NBA rules. He is that unique. I think that ranking prospects against their new, current peers is a really hard thing to do. But, I think that some of us need a reality check and just look at simple numbers to determine that if there are 10 maybe fringe guys, it would be against statistical sense to assume that 8 or 9 of them will catch on somewhere and have a long and successful NBA career. The right situation is harder to find than it sounds like because it's not just the basketball talent taken into account, it's marketing, contracts, future contracts, other player's future contracts, trends and rule changes.
Instead of 33, this draft will probably have 15 guys who stick in the NBA for 10-12 years. That seems to be how most people are rating this draft out. That isn't all necessarily 1st rounders either, making for a strong likely hood of there being more 1st round busts than 1st round success stories. That's a little different than 33.
What do you guys think?
Wow 33 players from this draft playing in the league for over a decade is a stretch however...I do think this draft is being underrated. The media & most scouts are saying this is the worst draft in decades. I think that is a ridiculous statement. I'm not saying this draft is the best ever what I am saying is this is an average draft that doesn't deserve to be called a terrible group of prospects outside of Griffin.
...it's not like there weren't contributing NBA players. Heck, Marcus Fizer did alright for a few years. Darius Miles looked to be a pretty damn good player, too. When you look back on it 5 years, or 7 years, or 9 years later a lot of players have been phased out of the league by better players from better drafts. That's the sign of a weak draft. If you look at the middle of 2008 and the middle of 2009, I don't think that there is a question about quality. A lot of people from the 2009 draft will be in the NBA for the next couple of years, it's just that 5 years from now the number of players will probably dwindle down a lot.
Curry? Ellington? T-Will? lost credibility
I think the 10 year number skews things a little. I could see a lot of guys from this draft developing into solid role players, but that doesn't mean they stick for 10 years necessarily. On most every team, there are the guys that play and the guys that don't. The guys that don't are usually either veterans waiting for their contract to expire or young guys trying to work their way into the rotation. It's a continuous cycle & the guys from this draft will fill in the spots left by the former up-and-comers who became out-of-the-leaguers for one reason or another.
Some guys contribute early filling a specific role, but then may be bumped out for a player with better all around talent or a cheaper option who does the same thing - guys like Fizer (example in Scott's post) or Yogi Stewart for the Kings, who was a nice shot-blocker & rebounder for a couple years, come in and play because they fill a need, but then exit early because their game doesn't develop & there are younger guys with more long-term potential to replace them.
Others develop & become key cogs on their teams, until they too fade away. There is the raw talent obviously, but injuries, work-ethic, coaching, support, situation, dumb luck, and lots of other things go into determining who makes it, who doesn't, and for how long. My point is that I don't think a boatload of guys from this draft will become 10-12 year players, but if the number that did hit double digits, it wouldn't surprise me. But I could see an equal or greater number giving teams quality minutes for a few (up to several) years, filling a specific role before ultimately being fazed out for younger talent.
When I say there will be productive players coming out of the draft, that is what I mean - can't really speak for anyone else. I do concede that the lack of star-power makes this a dimmer draft than some (last year for example), but just because this draft is more about adding role-players than stars doesn't make it any less critical of a draft for teams. I'll bet Lebron wouldn't mind having a few more solid role players around him for example & young rebuilding teams like the Kings & Grizz certainly could use an infusion of young, raw talent (hoping to find that diamond in the rough).
There is no bad draft, only bad drafters. Or something like that anyway.
You know, I don't know about the "no bad draft, only bad drafters" idea (I think I am picking up what you mean). For example, you could have a team like the Bulls who had a #7, #3, #7, #4 (although really a #2 with Tyrus Thomas), a #9, and a #1 (Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Thomas, Noah, and Rose). Those are all Top 10 picks and I don't think that any were drafted with the intentions of being role players, with the possible exception of Noah who I think could be a just a bit more than that. These guys aren't All-Stars, at least not yet (although I think that Rose is going to be one as early as 2009-2010). They were all drafted to be starters, all-star caliber players. They haven't gotten to that point yet, if they ever will, but I think that they would be considered "role players" right now. They have been good enough to make the playoffs and have a lot of potential, but they are all Top 10 picks who would probably be role players in the future if they don't turn the page (if you know what I mean) on their careers. You know, take the next step. If you take a guy at SG who is a role player at best, what happens to the possible All-Star SG from 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 who doesn't quite take the next step. Or what about those from 2008, 2007, and 2006? Guys like Rashad McCants? He didn't start in Minny or Sacramento, 2 of the worst teams in the league last year, and gatorheels will tell you I love the guy, but don't you think that he can give a team role player minutes for now but still has more proven potential than a T-Will or Jerel McNeal? It's just one example and I don't think that he will cost that much and he'll be available but he was a highly thought of draft pick who put up 15 a game his rookie year yet finds himself getting role player minutes. The NBA is littered with role players who had the potential to be stars, it makes it that much harder for guys who have the potential to just be role players.
That being said, I could be way off base. Maybe the NBA is just aching for a draft where there are guys who are already excellent in their roles. Maybe the league needs to sandwich a draft like this between star-laden drafts. I don't think that it has worked that way in the past, but the NBA seems to be trending a little differently as of late. Plus, with the "preps to pros" situation that happened the last decade (1995-2005?) maybe the league is sick of taking projects and tweeners. Maybe having a guys who could come with a ready-made business card like, "DeJuan Blair, Rebounder" or "Tyler Hansbrough: The Hustler", or "Hasheem Thabeet: Fly-Swatter" is something GM's are begging for. I don't think so, I think that it will be like it always has been. A weak draft will see it's average players get bumped out of the league after or maybe even before their rookie contracts are out.
I'll make up a saying too (not making fun of yours, it was pretty good)
"This year's (2009) rising star is next year's role player" and "This year's (2009) role player is next year's European citizen"
Ha. That's funny, unless you aren't joking. If you aren't, read it again. I'm not listing those guys, someone else did. I would cut that list in half and change a few names. Plus, I didn't list everyone that was mentioned I just cut and pasted a couple of groups.
You know, now that you mention it I would add Curry, probably T-Will, but Ellington might not be around in 10 years let alone 5. He isn't lighting the world on fire during his workouts. He can shoot, but so can a lot of guys in the NBA. If they can't, it seems to be something people can improve the fastest out of any of the core skills, too. T-Will? He'll probably be good but if he was a D-Leaguer I wouldn't be shocked. I mean, the question marks on players aren't just something put there so guys can aim for their goals. It's not like a 7th grade report card, "Scott needs to work on being on time, getting his homework done, not being an idiot...etc." Most times guys are unable to change the majority of their weaknesses. If there are a lot of question marks, like T-Will's "Out of control, lack of offensive polish, ability to create own shot, basketball IQ, free throw shooting, ability to play at different speeds,...etc." there is a very good chance that those negatives could outweigh the positives and significantly reduce playing time or end an NBA career. There is a reason that 20 NBA teams pass on certain guys and it's not ALWAYS because there is someone else who is leaps and bounds better, maybe they see something that cannot and will not be possible to overcome. I mean, not everyone is John Bryant.
I agree that GMs would rather have the star or at least the all-around player, but those are fairly rare; which is why the role-players are so important.
A guy like McCants was probably on his way out of the league, to redeem himself in Europe or whereever, but he put up decent numbers late in the season for the Kings & I expect someone to make him an offer now. That's not unheard of - sometimes a guy just needs a change of scenery. All I'm saying is that every year there are guys that fade out of the league because everyone has gotten a good enough look to know they probably aren't good enough & probably won't be getting any better.
Every player's situation is unique, but the rookies from this year's class will get a shot & I'm betting a higher number than expected manage to find a role.
Good slogan. :)
Thanks. I liked how that European citizen one turned out. I might use that one again. Ha!
I like it a lot.
Saying this draft is the worst draft ever is crazy but I will say this there are not bigs and Gms bail themselves a lot out when there are bigs to take and say hey he is developing plus outside of point guards most of the nice players do not fit a specific teams need unless they have star potential. shooting guards and small forwards are plentiful. There are not many post players outside of Griffin. Thabeet is probably a ways away because i can see him becoming a Camby like player in maybe 3 years.
i just had an apple sausage, it was good. its like a mix of apple and sausage.
I think it is one of the worst and have felt that way for awhile. Outside of Griffin, there are too many question marks in the lottery and too many guys in the mid to late first round that have very little upside. Just look at Memphis, they have the #2 pick and have no idea who to take. Just the thought of thabeet going second makes think this is a bad draft because I think he will be little more then just a solid player.
sorry that was my brother when i leave the computer sometimes i leave it on and he finds it and posts something stupid.
I just figured you were peppering comments like that in to help you get more negative points. It made me LOL though - totally random.
hes done that before.
Obviously you have to look at how good or bad a draft was at least 5 years past the fact. What i was saying by throwing those names out there is that those guy have every chance to be as good as the players of previous drafts. I would say if you managed to stay in the league for 8 years having minimal to average production and you where drafted late in the first or in the second round of the draft than you can say you have a successful NBA career. Out of the 26 players i named say if 3-5 make themselves a fringe all-star player, and out the 7 top of the draft players 4 have make all-star teams regularly and maybe Blake Griffin makes an all NBA first or second team in his career you can say thats a successful draft. All i was saying is that is well in the realm of possibility.
The 2008 draft is to fresh to compare and looks to be miles ahead of this draft but lets look at 2005 as an example.
Out of the 14 lottery picks it safe to say Fran Vasquez, Yaroslav Korolev, Sean May, Ike Diogu, Martell Webster, Channing Frye could be considered busts. Frye, Webster and Diogu can still find a role on a NBA team. There aren't going to be any Fran Vasquez's or Korolev's in this draft. International lottery picks that don't play an NBA game. And you can safely safe 6 players drafted in the top of the draft are far better than the rest (Granger should have been drafted higher) Andrew Bogut, Marvin Williams, Deron Williams, Chris Paul, Raymond Felton, Andrew Bynum. All those players could play a role on a championship team. Out of those 6 two are all NBA performers Paul, Williams.
Out of the next 16 picks only Wayne Simien, Julius Hodge and Ian Mahinmi are barley in the league. That leaves 13 picks that are good rotational NBA players. Out of that 13 David Lee, Danny Granger, Nate Robinson are fringe all-star players( Danny Granger is gonna be a perennial all-star)
so that leaves 9 out of 14 picks being good picks for the top of the first and 13 other players keeping themselves contributing in some way to a NBA team
22 players! and another 10 in the second round still contributing to a NBA team. 32 players not far of from my 33. Now this was the last year high school players could come out but without them none of which have been great NBA players the 2005 draft compares well to the 2009 draft. One or two great players, about six extremely valuable contributers and about 23 other players still actively involved in a team of 12 players.
And also like someone said its only takes a couple Chris Wallace's to make a good lottery a bad lottery
Good analysis. I agree with most of your points, but I guess a couple of the points I think are VERY important that you only touched on.
1) The fact that there are NO high school players allowed in the draft has led to certain players, Mullens, Jennings, Holiday, and others to be rated a lot differently. If those 3 specifically would have been able to go in the 2008 draft, they ironically might have gone HIGHER, which would have pushed some amazing talent even deeper into the draft (although I guess it would probably be a wash with Rose, Beasley, Mayo, etc. going in 2007, Durant and Oden in 2006, etc.)
My point is that these were 3 of the top high school players in the 2008 draft and they actually hurt their value. Beasley, Mayo, and Rose did just the opposite last year. That is one strong indication that this draft isn't as good (in my opinion though). Not allowing high school players to enter directly into the draft has been a Godsend for the league for just this reason. Giving guys a chance to prove themselves in the next level a little bit helps GM's (yes, especially Chris Wallace) dramatically. I think that BJ Mullens was listed as the #1 pick in the 2009 NBA Draft just a year ago. Instead, guys like Griffin, Thabeet, and possibly Hill or Harden are top picks.
(To be continued...)
its definitely obvious the one year players in this draft are far worse than the one year players in last years draft. And I agree the age rule has benefited the NBA, general managers, coaches and other players but I still don't like the rule just based on theory. I didn't really get Mullens, and Holiday coming out and think both will struggle for at least 2 years, especially Mullens. The players with the best shot at the ROY award are proven college players. The best part about the draft is the depth of proven college players so in that respect I like the draft even though it doesn't have the stars of past drafts. There is a lot of teams who have a good chance to improve there roster, especially the better teams in the league. If you look at last years second round there are maybe 9 players who have a shot to do anything in the NBA just after one year. Lastly just going back to your last sentence those players probably would have gone high if they declared in 2008, instead they got another year to improve there games.