05-30-2022, 09:03 PM
(05-30-2022, 08:01 PM)Dirknows Wrote: If you try and do any research, you won’t have much to quantify. The NBA draft, along with every amateur draft, isn’t an exact science and there are so many factors that determine which players succeed and which ones don’t.
I understand that.
But I think a lot of that stuff is just noise.
I think, for the most part, you can tell if a player is lazy, not into it or is counter reactive to structure or authority which lead to low success rates long term. Does the organization get hypnotized by measurements/talent over red flags?
I think thats what most refer to as being "factors" that are hard to predict. Of course there are a few players with family issues or extreme upbringings that lead to failure(current Cowboys cornerback involved in drive-by because his lifelong friends are thugs)
IMO, again...MY OPINION...if you target guys with high floors or very fundamentally sound players....those players have shown and put forth the effort to establish bball skills because they are interested in basketball. Identify those guys and then weed out the "ugly" factors that could make some of them unsuccessful.
Im sure there is an argument that those guys just "arent good enough" for the NBA and that you HAVE to go by talent or potential talent.
I just dont think I believe in some "Alpha" gene where some of these guys are just lazy until there is true competition(NBA) and then they show what they can do and succeed. I know thats a personality type that exists...I just think its rare and not worth making arguments for when talking about NBA prospects and how many there are.
And maybe its not about quantifying...but about the eye test. I get that at the level of NBA you have to have strict guidelines because of the level of competition...but maybe its more than spreadsheets and percentages and measurements.
For an easier explanation of what Im trying to say here...go for the sound bball skilled player that is 6'5 over the potential in another player that is 6'9. But youre going to say that the 6'5 guy is going to have to work his ass off on the court like Brunson to get around the 6'9 guys length. Dont get me wrong...length kills in bball....but so does wasting a bunch of draft picks on 6'9 guys with potential that really had no sound bball fundamentals.
Has bball reached a point where its about length and not skill? Length has the stronger resume in winning over skill now?