Drummond, Rudy Gay, etc.. should have stayed in college

[Reno]

There's a fairly extensive body of research on this topic. You should take a look at some of it, and I think you might be a little less strident in your blowhardiness after you do.

Delusional people will always be delusional. Ain't enough research in the world to help him.

 

[champs99and04]

Reno you've done a good job putting words in his mouth throughout this thread.

Look, there is a big difference between "telling somebody how do live their life" and voicing an opinion about what a player should or shouldn't do on a message board. What you're failing to understand, is that the NBA would be a BETTER PRODUCT AS A WHOLE, if there was a 20 year old age limit in place. And spare me the "Why should a kid who wants to make a living not be able to" rhetoric, because a company has every right to place age restrictions on their employees.

As is the case with every rule, there are going to be individual exceptions where the rule does not work out. Kobe, LeBron, and KG, to name just a few, would not have been better served by going to college, because they were ready to contribute from day one. The problem is that far too many talented, but extremely raw players are showing just enough potential that a team is willing to select them in the draft even if they are not ready to contribute from day one, because there hope is that 3 or 4 years down the line said player will begin to display that potential on a more regular basis.

At this point, the team has two options: 1) Play a raw, undevloped player at the expense of a less talented but more productive veteran, or 2) Sit the raw, undeveloped player on the bench and risk hindering his development.

Teams throughout the NBA are in a bind because of this, and as a result, the league is more top heavy than ever. Ideally, there should be a place where these potentially good, but not there yet players can harness their skills without diminshing the product of the NBA. For most, that place has been college. For others, it could be overseas or the D-League. I don't think by raising the age limit, players are being "forced into college" as another poster put it. There are certainly alternative options available, though admittedly not as appealing as making bank in the NBA.

Andre Drummond is a great example. As much as I love the kid, there is a pretty good chance he'll become a bust, simply due to the fact that he has close to zero skill around the basket. Nobody is sure if his skill will ever become sufficient enough to warrant giving him a spot (and likely major minutes) in the NBA. But despite the fact that it's greatly possible he becomes a bust, there is a 99% chance some team is going to draft him in the top five, placing the future of the franchise at stake and all of their fans hopes in one, unreliable basket.

So what happens if Drummond comes in and stinks up the joint, hurts his team offensively, can't make a free throw, etc. etc.? Clearly a more reliable veteran would be helping the team out more, but because Drummond was a top five pick, and because Drummond has a much higher ceiling than veteran X, this lottery team is forced to give him starters minutes while they pray he gets better.

Basically, whichever team drafts Drummond is placing player development over winning, and that makes for a much less competitive league. The NBA is great during the playoffs, but have you ever been to a Raptors-Wizards game in February? Me neither. Doesn't it make sense for these raw players to experience their growing pains in the college or the D-League rather than in the NBA? Forget the players best interests for a moment--this is a decision in the best interest of the league, and the players will have to comply.

Whether Drummond should/shouldn't have declared for the draft is another discussion.

 

[Reno]

The NBA has placed the age restriction on the league first and foremost to avoid having to create a minor league. If you truly believe the college game has improved with that restriction then you're either an idiot or 16 years old.

 

[Reno]

And as far as the NBA being a better product I'm not buying that Stop either.

Rookies rarely contribute as more than role players for any top team regardless of their background. Even college players often take a season or two to develop into true impact players. Plus there was a very high percentage of success from the few high school players that went pro before the restriction was in place. Most of those guys ended up being solid NBA players at worst because *gasp* NBA scouts aren't that dumb. Sure they'll overdraft a Kwame Brown chasing size and athleticism, but then again they do the same thing for a Hasheem Thabeet. Neither mistake hurts the NBA product one bit.

Like I said this is all about the NBA getting a free minor league.

 

[champs99and04]

And as far as the NBA being a better product I'm not buying that bull**** either.

Rookies rarely contribute as more than role players for any top team regardless of their background. Even college players often take a season or two to develop into true impact players. Plus there was a very high percentage of success from the few high school players that went pro before the restriction was in place. Most of those guys ended up being solid NBA players at worst because *gasp* NBA scouts aren't that dumb. Sure they'll overdraft a Kwame Brown chasing size and athleticism, but then again they do the same thing for a Hasheem Thabeet. Neither mistake hurts the NBA product one bit.

Like I said this is all about the NBA getting a free minor league.

I really don't see how you can argue with the fact that the NBA would be better off with raw, unready players getting their reps in college and not the NBA.

Did you read the article? Compare Jordan/Bird/Magic's numbers in their rookie seasons compared to Dwight/Kobe/LeBron. There is a clear correlation between how many years you spend in college and your production as a rookie.

Do you know why the Kwame Brown fiasco went down like it did? Because he didn't go to college, didn't have a chance to get his weaknesses exposed. If he had gone to college, posted some pedestrian numbers, and came out after two years, there is zero percent chance he would have been selected #1 overall, and zero percent chance he would have gotten the minutes he got.

You're always going to have your "can't miss" talents who excel right out of high school. On the other hand, you decrease your margin of error in drafting these kids when you force them to attend college for a year or two. If you can't see how players coming to the NBA more prepared and developed would help the overall product than I don't know what to tell you.

 

[sledog]

If not a better product, then a Premium product, based on pricing.

 

[Reno]

I really don't see how you can argue with the fact that the NBA would be better off with raw, unready players getting their reps in college and not the NBA.

Did you read the article? Compare Jordan/Bird/Magic's numbers in their rookie seasons compared to Dwight/Kobe/LeBron. There is a clear correlation between how many years you spend in college and your production as a rookie.

Do you know why the Kwame Brown fiasco went down like it did? Because he didn't go to college, didn't have a chance to get his weaknesses exposed. If he had gone to college, posted some pedestrian numbers, and came out after two years, there is zero percent chance he would have been selected #1 overall, and zero percent chance he would have gotten the minutes he got.

You're always going to have your "can't miss" talents who excel right out of high school. On the other hand, you decrease your margin of error in drafting these kids when you force them to attend college for a year or two. If you can't see how players coming to the NBA more prepared and developed would help the overall product than I don't know what to tell you.

Hasheem Thabeet spent 3 years in college. He must be averaging 20 and 10 in the NBA, right? How about Michael Olowokandi? Kwame Brown is a bust, but he still played in the league for a decade.

The fact is players miss from high school and they miss from college. Players are ready from high school and they're ready from college. The NBA draft is always a crap shoot and GMs will always make bad picks because *shockingly* not every player in the draft will be a star. The age limit doesn't change any of that and it doesn't improve the end product in any significant way.

By the way, I realize you never saw Bird or Magic play, but you do understand the NBA is a very, very different game today. The rules have changed, the players have changed, the game has changed. Hell, in the late-90s teams averaged almost 15 points less a game than in the mid-80s. To compare raw numbers and try to draw anything about "readiness" is foolish. Not to mention you cherry picked 3 Hall of Famers that had extraordinary rookie seasons. Scottie Pippen averaged 7 points a game as a rookie. Kevin McHale 10 ppg, The Chief 9 ppg. I suppose these guys should have tried to play 5 years in college because they were clearly not ready for the NBA and the product was suffering.

 

[Ronpatz11]

Hate to jump in the fray on this, but this argument is absurd.

There is clear data that suggests that the younger a player enters the league, the better the chances are he will have a succesful career. That is irrefutable. Any personal feelings you have on the subject aren't relevant when looking at this data.

The success rate of high school to pro players is significantly higher than the rate of college players drafted into the NBA. Again, this isn't opinion, it is a fact.

The argument that KG, Kobe, etc.. weren't as succesful at 18 as college players as rookies is also a flawed argument. The entire premise of the article Kerr wrote is tied to this (false) notion that college does a better job preparing players for a NBA career than time on a NBA team. If that were the case, KG, Kobe and other high school to college pros would still be struggling with the challenges many rookies face in their 3rd season, correct? We should be comparing how rookies (average age of 20-21) compare to third year HS players. Both had two years to "prepare", either in college or the NBA. For the record, Kobe average 19.9, 5.3 and 3.8 his 3rd year. KG averaged 18.5, 9.6 and 4.2 in HIS third year. Heck, Kwame Brown, everyone's prime example of a bust, averaged 10.9 and 7.4 rpg his third year. Seems to me that two years in the NBA did a great job preparing these players.

Look at the Boston Celtics this year. JaJuan Johnson and E'Tuan Moore were both 4-year college players at Purdue. They haven't contributed a bit all season. Avery Bradley on the other hand? He played one year in college (where he completely underwhelmed) and then rode the pine, hard, his rookie season, including a stint in the D League. Funny, one year playing behind future Hall of Famers like Ray Allen and Paul Pierce prepared Bradley for a breakout season. You really think another year with Rick Barnes would have left Bradley contributing to a conference semi-finalist team? Find that VERY hard to believe.

NBA teams have resources college programs can only dream of. Expansive coaching staffs, private chefs, nutritionists, huge training staffs. With no classes to worry about or NCAA restrictions on practice time (or girls volleyball limitations on practice time), young players have the ability to focus solely on their JOB; basketball. The ability to spend all day, every day, focused only on getting better (with all of the appropriate resources around them) allows for players to do just that, get better. Throw in the ability to learn from experienced veterans who know what it takes to be succesful and I'm not sure how anyone could suggest college is a better learning environment from a basketball standpoint. Would you rather spend two years in a locker room learning from Hasheem Thabeet and AJ Price on how to succeed in the NBA or from NBA veterans who have actually done it for a decade? You can cherry pick high school players who struggled dealing with the NBA lifestyle, but I can find many more who went to college who had those same struggles.

You are obviously entitled to your own opinions on this topic. However, the data suggests that Kerr's argument (and yours, to a point) is backed up not by statistics, but rather, personal feelings. I'll take data and history.

 

[uconnfan68]

You are really slow, FOR THE SECOND AND LAST TIME you can't suggest I'd make arguments like Gates, Zuckerberg and then refute them to prove your bizarre assumptions. I'm not telling anyone to do anything or making them go to school, merely voicing my opinion. And guess what the NBA is doing exactly what I merely suggest (not 'tell someone how to live their life' - spare me the drama) because they have the 19yr old age limit and/or requirement to be 1yr post high school graduation. And the NFL does a similar thing.

Here's a simulated example of how inane your arguments are. Reno think's that talented young medical prodigies should not be required to get doctorates and licenses before they can practice medicine. Is he willing to insure these unlicensed doctors or let them operate on a loved one?

Current system absolutely benefitted Kentucy, John Calipari, Anthony Davis and Kidd-Gilchrist all of whom are infinitiely more popular and have much greater projected earnings as a result of the current system. Its debatable not delusional whether another year would rise all boats, but its delusional and not debatable to want to go back to the old drafting high schoolers system that was terminated because it didn't work. Do you think your message board posts will change it back? Maybe you should publish a rebuttal to Kerr's article?

You are the one making dumb statements. No one suggested bypassing licensing requirements for doctors. For ALL other areas that don't require strict governance, like SPORTS, business, or even representing yourself in court, it's your life. The NBA rule is an example of a business model that has completely failed everyone but the NBA. Does nothing for kids or schools.

 

[Dogdeacon]

Hate to jump in the fray on this, but this argument is absurd.

There is clear data that suggests that the younger a player enters the league, the better the chances are he will have a succesful career. That is irrefutable. Any personal feelings you have on the subject aren't relevant when looking at this data.

The success rate of high school to pro players is significantly higher than the rate of college players drafted into the NBA. Again, this isn't opinion, it is a fact.

The argument that KG, Kobe, etc.. weren't as succesful at 18 as college players as rookies is also a flawed argument. The entire premise of the article Kerr wrote is tied to this (false) notion that college does a better job preparing players for a NBA career than time on a NBA team. If that were the case, KG, Kobe and other high school to college pros would still be struggling with the challenges many rookies face in their 3rd season, correct? We should be comparing how rookies (average age of 20-21) compare to third year HS players. Both had two years to "prepare", either in college or the NBA. For the record, Kobe average 19.9, 5.3 and 3.8 his 3rd year. KG averaged 18.5, 9.6 and 4.2 in HIS third year. Heck, Kwame Brown, everyone's prime example of a bust, averaged 10.9 and 7.4 rpg his third year. Seems to me that two years in the NBA did a great job preparing these players.

Look at the Boston Celtics this year. JaJuan Johnson and E'Tuan Moore were both 4-year college players at Purdue. They haven't contributed a bit all season. Avery Bradley on the other hand? He played one year in college (where he completely underwhelmed) and then rode the pine, hard, his rookie season, including a stint in the D League. Funny, one year playing behind future Hall of Famers like Ray Allen and Paul Pierce prepared Bradley for a breakout season. You really think another year with Rick Barnes would have left Bradley contributing to a conference semi-finalist team? Find that VERY hard to believe.

NBA teams have resources college programs can only dream of. Expansive coaching staffs, private chefs, nutritionists, huge training staffs. With no classes to worry about or NCAA restrictions on practice time (or girls volleyball limitations on practice time), young players have the ability to focus solely on their JOB; basketball. The ability to spend all day, every day, focused only on getting better (with all of the appropriate resources around them) allows for players to do just that, get better. Throw in the ability to learn from experienced veterans who know what it takes to be succesful and I'm not sure how anyone could suggest college is a better learning environment from a basketball standpoint. Would you rather spend two years in a locker room learning from Hasheem Thabeet and AJ Price on how to succeed in the NBA or from NBA veterans who have actually done it for a decade? You can cherry pick high school players who struggled dealing with the NBA lifestyle, but I can find many more who went to college who had those same struggles.

You are obviously entitled to your own opinions on this topic. However, the data suggests that Kerr's argument (and yours, to a point) is backed up not by statistics, but rather, personal feelings. I'll take data and history.

Simple response, please show me this data? I don't think there is any.

 

[Waquoit]

The idea that Gay made a mistake by leaving when he did is madness. He signed his second pro contract for max money one year before the system changed, you can't do better than that. His "development" would not have been affected for the greater one iota if he stayed in college for a third year. His wallet could have only been affected for the worse.

 

[Dogdeacon]

You are the one making dumb statements. No one suggested bypassing licensing requirements for doctors. For ALL other areas that don't require strict governance, like SPORTS, business, or even representing yourself in court, it's your life. The NBA rule is an example of a business model that has completely failed everyone but the NBA. Does nothing for kids or schools.

Sorry - I used the Dr thing as an example of how certain posters were posing straw man arguments as if they were mine and then refuting. Please catchup, I don't believe this nor do I suggest this proves my point. Not sure how the NBA has completely failed 'everyone'? What should the NBA do for schools?

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

Simple response, please show me this data? I don't think there is any.

Are you serious? There's an article in this thread that provides citations for you. No one's going to drive to your house and hold it in front of you while you read it.

 

[Dogdeacon]

The idea that Gay made a mistake by leaving when he did is madness. He signed his second pro contract for max money one year before the system changed, you can't do better than that. His "development" would not have been affected for the greater one iota if he stayed in college for a third year. His wallet could have only been affected for the worse.

Its madness in terms of $ earned by Rudy Gay, but that's not the only measure and does it really matter if he earns 150M or 159M?!

How can a UConn fan intimate that there'd be nothing gained to have him back for one more year?! If he came back at a minimum UConn fans would have a lot more great memories of Rudy and therefore be bigger fans. Arguably he hones his skills. No question his teams underachieved at UConn and have underachieved in the NBA (Rudy had a pretty good game 7/15, 19pts & 9 boards, but didn't score in 4thQ of game 7 loss at home, LeBron would get CRUCIFIED for this). I think it is at least possible that Rudy would have learned basketball skills, leadership and clutch performing lessons in his junior year at UConn and this would help him in the NBA. Does Rudy's basketball IQ go up with one more year under JC, I say yes and I think it helps him achieve success ($ + wins + maximize potential) in the long run.

 

[Dogdeacon]

Are you serious? There's an article in this thread that provides citations for you. No one's going to drive to your house and hold it in front of you while you read it.

The Deadspin article that you linked to mainly referenced FORTHCOMING research but the data but is not yet available. I think until we see that it ain't data or fact, just an opinion peice like Kerr's but from someone who was never an NBA player or GM.

That Deadspin article (weird Grantland hate going on there, I guess a competitor?) does quote facts from one study link that works (other did not), but go read that thing...
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1869144
it is VERY subjective and doesn't detail the actual players used. Looking at those drafts, there were 9 players, not exactly the stuff of statistically significant findings. The data for high schoolers was just 1995 - 2000, it is not enough and it is biased;
1995 - Garnett, no other high schoolers say success = 1/1
1996 - Kobe, Jermaine O'Neal 2/2
1997 - McGrady, 1/1
1998 - Al Harrington 1/1
Here's where the wheels started to come off...
1999 - Jonathan Bender, Leon Smith (not sure he was included last pick of first round, incidentally last news on him was jail) 0/2
2000 - Darius Miles, DeSean Stevenson - 0/2, Stevenson is a capable reserve but was expected to be an all-star
Excluded
2001 - Kwame Brown, Chandler, Curry, DeSagna Diop (1/4 NBA success)
2002 - Amare Stoudemire (1/1)
2003 - LeBron, Travis Outlaw (2/2 I guess)
2004 - Dwight Howard, Shawn Livingston, Robert Swift, Telfair, Al Jefferson, Josh Smith, JR Smith, Dorrell Wright (4/8 including JR as success which is debatable)
2005 - Martell Webster, Andrew Bynum, Gerald Green (1/3)
Then they changed the rules and no more high schoolers

Total: 27 high schoolers drafted, 14 successes. So subjectively a 52% success rate. I think this is too low if you are running an NBA team/league so you'd push for more years to judge talent like they did.

 

[Waquoit]

Its madness in terms of $ earned by Rudy Gay, but that's not the only measure and does it really matter if he earns 150M or 159M?!

How can a UConn fan intimate that there'd be nothing gained to have him back for one more year?! If he came back at a minimum UConn fans would have a lot more great memories of Rudy and therefore be bigger fans. Arguably he hones his skills. No question his teams underachieved at UConn and have underachieved in the NBA (Rudy had a pretty good game 7/15, 19pts & 9 boards, but didn't score in 4thQ of game 7 loss at home, LeBron would get CRUCIFIED for this). I think it is at least possible that Rudy would have learned basketball skills, leadership and clutch performing lessons in his junior year at UConn and this would help him in the NBA. Does Rudy's basketball IQ go up with one more year under JC, I say yes and I think it helps him achieve success ($ + wins + maximize potential) in the long run.

One more year at UConn wouldn't have changed anything about Rudy. In fact, it could have hurt if "The Yawn" became part of his legend. It's no accident IMHO that the Grizz overachieved in the post-season last year and underachieved this year.

 

[champs99and04]

Hasheem Thabeet spent 3 years in college. He must be averaging 20 and 10 in the NBA, right? How about Michael Olowokandi? Kwame Brown is a bust, but he still played in the league for a decade.

The fact is players miss from high school and they miss from college. Players are ready from high school and they're ready from college. The NBA draft is always a crap shoot and GMs will always make bad picks because *shockingly* not every player in the draft will be a star. The age limit doesn't change any of that and it doesn't improve the end product in any significant way.

By the way, I realize you never saw Bird or Magic play, but you do understand the NBA is a very, very different game today. The rules have changed, the players have changed, the game has changed. Hell, in the late-90s teams averaged almost 15 points less a game than in the mid-80s. To compare raw numbers and try to draw anything about "readiness" is foolish. Not to mention you cherry picked 3 Hall of Famers that had extraordinary rookie seasons. Scottie Pippen averaged 7 points a game as a rookie. Kevin McHale 10 ppg, The Chief 9 ppg. I suppose these guys should have tried to play 5 years in college because they were clearly not ready for the NBA and the product was suffering.

I realize not every player who stays in college for three years is going to be a stud, just as not every kid who leaves early is going to be a bust. The problem is that you're comparing players with broad spectrums of talent. Comparing KG to Hasheem Thabeet and using that to support your argument isn't really valid, because one of those players is obviously 10X more talented than the other.

I'll conceed to you the fact that LeBron James, Dwight Howard, etc. would NOT have been better served attending college. But what I'll ask is this:

If Ray Allen (to use just one example) had gone to the NBA after one season, would he be the same sure fire HOFer he is today? Of course, there is no way to know for sure, but I strongly doubt it.

Conversley, if LeBron James had attended college for two years, would he be an worse off than he is today? Possibly he might have missed out on a few million, but he likely would have entered the league more mature, and with a better head on his shoulders when a difficult decision arises (no pun intended). I'm certainly not here to argue that LeBron needed college, but I don't think it could have hurt as much as it would have hurt a guy like Allen or Duncan if he had lept straight to the NBA.

My point is this: You need one rule that extends throughout the spectrum so that your product is as flawless as possible. LeBron James and Kobe Bryant were going to be great if they went to college or not. The age limit wouldn't be raised to help guys like them, it would be raised to help the future Tim Duncan's and Ray Allen's of the world. The guys with exceptional talent who need a place to harness and develop it before taking the next step.

For every LeBron James, there is a misguided teenager who is bound to make the jump due to a variety of factors, the biggsest likely being a shortage of money and people without his best interests in mind pulling him in one direction. The NBA swallows those kids and spits them back out with lost confidence and a greatly reduced chance that they'll ever amount to anything in the NBA. By raising the age limit, you eliminate the chance of a team giving away minutes to an umprepared rookie, and you increase the chances that they will one day meet their potential as a contributor to the NBA.

So in conclusion, would you rather miss out on LeBron's rookie and sophmore years in the NBA, or a spectacular career from a Dwyane Wade, Ray Allen, or Tim Duncan? Obviously we'll never know for sure how those guys would have translated to the NBA had they not spent multiple years in college, but I have a strong feeling they wouldn't have been the same players. You may say, "Well, nobody is forcing those guys to go directly to the NBA". That's true, but outside voices and temptations often force players into a decision they'll later regret. When you were in high school did you move on to algebra 3 before you had figured out algebra 2? While certain players can contribute in the NBA as rookies, there is clearly value in not skipping steps.

And I didn't "cherry pick" three Hall of Famers at all. I compared three of the best players of one generation (Magic, Bird, Jordan) to four of the best players of another generation (Howard, Garnett, Kobe, LeBron). I think it's fair to see how their rookie seasons stack up against one another, considering three went to college for multpile years and four didn't go to college at all. Also, if you don't trust the raw numbers, I'll use player efficiency rating (PER).

LeBron--18.3 PER
Howard--17.2 PER
Kobe--14.4 PER
Garnett-15.8 PER

Now for the guys who stayed in school and entered the NBA at a more advanced age:

Magic--20.6 PER
Bird--20.5 PER
Jordan--25.8 PER

Granted, it's a small sample size. But clearly rookies who enter the league at 20, 21, and 22 are more productive (assuming the talent level is similar) than rookies who enter the league at 18 and 19. Comaring Kevin Garnett and Hasheem Thabeet skews the argument a little bit because the talent gap is so wide.

For the guys who exceled in the league right away, going to college couldn't have hurt. But for guys who may be forced into the league prematurely because of factors other than talent level, it could potentially cost them an excellent career.

Don't look at LeBron, Kobe, Howard, etc. and think that's where the raised age limit comes in handy. Obviously, I'm more concerned about how it will effect guys like Andre Drummond, who will be tossed into the beast before they are ready to accept the mental and physical challenges that comes with it.

 

[champs99and04]

Hate to jump in the fray on this, but this argument is absurd.

There is clear data that suggests that the younger a player enters the league, the better the chances are he will have a succesful career. That is irrefutable. Any personal feelings you have on the subject aren't relevant when looking at this data.

The success rate of high school to pro players is significantly higher than the rate of college players drafted into the NBA. Again, this isn't opinion, it is a fact.

The argument that KG, Kobe, etc.. weren't as succesful at 18 as college players as rookies is also a flawed argument. The entire premise of the article Kerr wrote is tied to this (false) notion that college does a better job preparing players for a NBA career than time on a NBA team. If that were the case, KG, Kobe and other high school to college pros would still be struggling with the challenges many rookies face in their 3rd season, correct? We should be comparing how rookies (average age of 20-21) compare to third year HS players. Both had two years to "prepare", either in college or the NBA. For the record, Kobe average 19.9, 5.3 and 3.8 his 3rd year. KG averaged 18.5, 9.6 and 4.2 in HIS third year. Heck, Kwame Brown, everyone's prime example of a bust, averaged 10.9 and 7.4 rpg his third year. Seems to me that two years in the NBA did a great job preparing these players.

Look at the Boston Celtics this year. JaJuan Johnson and E'Tuan Moore were both 4-year college players at Purdue. They haven't contributed a bit all season. Avery Bradley on the other hand? He played one year in college (where he completely underwhelmed) and then rode the pine, hard, his rookie season, including a stint in the D League. Funny, one year playing behind future Hall of Famers like Ray Allen and Paul Pierce prepared Bradley for a breakout season. You really think another year with Rick Barnes would have left Bradley contributing to a conference semi-finalist team? Find that VERY hard to believe.

NBA teams have resources college programs can only dream of. Expansive coaching staffs, private chefs, nutritionists, huge training staffs. With no classes to worry about or NCAA restrictions on practice time (or girls volleyball limitations on practice time), young players have the ability to focus solely on their JOB; basketball. The ability to spend all day, every day, focused only on getting better (with all of the appropriate resources around them) allows for players to do just that, get better. Throw in the ability to learn from experienced veterans who know what it takes to be succesful and I'm not sure how anyone could suggest college is a better learning environment from a basketball standpoint. Would you rather spend two years in a locker room learning from Hasheem Thabeet and AJ Price on how to succeed in the NBA or from NBA veterans who have actually done it for a decade? You can cherry pick high school players who struggled dealing with the NBA lifestyle, but I can find many more who went to college who had those same struggles.

You are obviously entitled to your own opinions on this topic. However, the data suggests that Kerr's argument (and yours, to a point) is backed up not by statistics, but rather, personal feelings. I'll take data and history.

There is a gaping hole in your argument.

Players entering the league at a younger age, may, in fact, be more successful. In fact, I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case. Unfortunately, you seem to be caught up in the raw numbers and at the same time, overlooking the context in which this argument is being made.

What you're missing is that players entering the league at a young age are more successful because, 99% of the time, a 18 year old entering the league is more TALENTED than a 22 year old entering the league. Did the 18 year old have a better career because he was younger, or because he was more talented? Your logic, IMO, misses the point of the argument completely.

Let's break this down simply:

Player A: 18 years old, a projected lottery pick, and decides to jump to the NBA straight from high school.

Player B: 22 years old, projected second round pick, enters the NBA draft after four years in college.

Now let's say player A is Kevin Garnett and player B is Josh Harrelson. Garnett had the better career, but it had zero to do with the fact that he didn't go to college and Harrelson did.

I'll ask this. If every great player played four years in school and every scrub went straight to the NBA, would you be here arguing that the reason those players were great is because they went to college? No, of course you wouldn't.

I think you're just looking at the raw data and overlooking the variables that may be playing a role.

 

[aceboon]

The idea that Gay made a mistake by leaving when he did is madness. He signed his second pro contract for max money one year before the system changed, you can't do better than that. His "development" would not have been affected for the greater one iota if he stayed in college for a third year. His wallet could have only been affected for the worse.

This is a pretty simplistic view but I'm not surprised at this coming from you because I'd be shocked if you watched more than 20 minutes of the entire series. The Grizzlies made a surprising playoff push last year off the strength of their frontcourt of Randolph/Gasol/Arthur. Randolph was probably 70% of what he was last year because of a torn MCL that he suffered earlier in the year, and an injured Arthur was replaced in the lineup by Speights who was a downgrade defensively. Also, they pretty much got nothing offensively from their SG position for the entire series as Mayo played terribly for most of the series and Allen is mostly a defensive player to begin with. Lastly, Mayo/Conley/Allen combined to shoot 6-32 in a deciding Game 7, what team is going to win with their backcourt shooting that kind of a % in a must win game? But according to you, that's Rudy's fault...

 

[Reno]

The Deadspin article that you linked to mainly referenced FORTHCOMING research but the data but is not yet available. I think until we see that it ain't data or fact, just an opinion peice like Kerr's but from someone who was never an NBA player or GM.

That Deadspin article (weird Grantland hate going on there, I guess a competitor?) does quote facts from one study link that works (other did not), but go read that thing...
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1869144
it is VERY subjective and doesn't detail the actual players used. Looking at those drafts, there were 9 players, not exactly the stuff of statistically significant findings. The data for high schoolers was just 1995 - 2000, it is not enough and it is biased;
1995 - Garnett, no other high schoolers say success = 1/1
1996 - Kobe, Jermaine O'Neal 2/2
1997 - McGrady, 1/1
1998 - Al Harrington 1/1
Here's where the wheels started to come off...
1999 - Jonathan Bender, Leon Smith (not sure he was included last pick of first round, incidentally last news on him was jail) 0/2
2000 - Darius Miles, DeSean Stevenson - 0/2, Stevenson is a capable reserve but was expected to be an all-star
Excluded
2001 - Kwame Brown, Chandler, Curry, DeSagna Diop (1/4 NBA success)
2002 - Amare Stoudemire (1/1)
2003 - LeBron, Travis Outlaw (2/2 I guess)
2004 - Dwight Howard, Shawn Livingston, Robert Swift, Telfair, Al Jefferson, Josh Smith, JR Smith, Dorrell Wright (4/8 including JR as success which is debatable)
2005 - Martell Webster, Andrew Bynum, Gerald Green (1/3)
Then they changed the rules and no more high schoolers

Total: 27 high schoolers drafted, 14 successes. So subjectively a 52% success rate. I think this is too low if you are running an NBA team/league so you'd push for more years to judge talent like they did.

So NBA success is becoming an All-Star? Then like 97% of every draft is a failure especially because DeShawn Stevenson was apparently supposed to be an All-Star after going 23rd overall. If you have played in the NBA long enough to get a second contract then your career hasn't been a dismal failure even if you failed to live up to your draft position. Plenty of draftees don't last that long. Plus you ignore context like Bender, Swift, Livingston, and Miles having serious knee injuries that essentially ended any chance of having long NBA careers. Curry's heart condition and Leon Smith's pyschological issues also could be factored in.

Also you missed quite a few players (No Perkins, for one) and you're just looking at first round picks there are quite a few 2nd rounders who have had successful carreers out of high school (Monta Ellis, Lou Williams, CJ Miles, Rashard Lewis, etc).

You basically have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Dogdeacon]

So NBA success is becoming an All-Star? Then like 97% of every draft is a failure especially because DeShawn Stevenson was apparently supposed to be an All-Star after going 23rd overall. If you have played in the NBA long enough to get a second contract then your career hasn't been a dismal failure even if you failed to live up to your draft position. Plenty of draftees don't last that long. Plus you ignore context like Bender, Swift, Livingston, and Miles having serious knee injuries that essentially ended any chance of having long NBA careers. Curry's heart condition and Leon Smith's pyschological issues also could be factored in.

Also you missed quite a few players (No Perkins, for one) and you're just looking at first round picks there are quite a few 2nd rounders who have had successful carreers out of high school (Monta Ellis, Lou Williams, CJ Miles, Rashard Lewis, etc).

You basically have no idea what you're talking about.

Dear Genius - The studies that ya'll site used only first round picks for their data so I did exactly what they did and DID NOT ignore this 'extensive body of research' as you & McCraken accuse me of but once again YOU just did.

Also Harrington, JR Smith, Josh Smith and Travis Outlaw never made all-star teams yet they are 4/14 or 28.6% of my successes. I might have missed one or two (Perkins) but I also did not include high schoolers undrafted which was a big problem and would highlight the detrimental effects.
I.E. in 2004 undrafted & never heard from again Jermaine Bell, Jackie Butler, Robert Rothbart, Maurice Shaw.
Undrafted went onto 2yrs of college and successful pro career: LaMarcus Aldridge.

http://www.nba.com/bobcats/news/draft_central_early_candidates.html

 

[Dogdeacon]

There is a gaping hole in your argument.

Players entering the league at a younger age, may, in fact, be more successful. In fact, I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case. Unfortunately, you seem to be caught up in the raw numbers and at the same time, overlooking the context in which this argument is being made.

What you're missing is that players entering the league at a young age are more successful because, 99% of the time, a 18 year old entering the league is more TALENTED than a 22 year old entering the league. Did the 18 year old have a better career because he was younger, or because he was more talented? Your logic, IMO, misses the point of the argument completely.

Let's break this down simply:

Player A: 18 years old, a projected lottery pick, and decides to jump to the NBA straight from high school.

Player B: 22 years old, projected second round pick, enters the NBA draft after four years in college.

Now let's say player A is Kevin Garnett and player B is Josh Harrelson. Garnett had the better career, but it had zero to do with the fact that he didn't go to college and Harrelson did.

I'll ask this. If every great player played four years in school and every scrub went straight to the NBA, would you be here arguing that the reason those players were great is because they went to college? No, of course you wouldn't.

I think you're just looking at the raw data and overlooking the variables that may be playing a role.

This is a reasoned point, happy to debate with someone taking an intelligent look. I agree 100% that guys like Kevin Garnett and LeBron James are going to be successful pro's 95% of the time whether they play no college/minor league or 2-4yrs. That's why you have to evaluate each draft and player based on what # he was drafted, as pick order is actually the single best predictor of performance.

However I do think some of the criticism and flaws of LeBron, Dwight Howard, McGrady, Garnett (once revered now viewed as an a, clashed mightily with Marbury in early years although I'd say that was 99.99% Marbury's fault), Amare and even Kobe are from immaturity, too much too soon and that they'd possibly be more successful players or people if they had more time to develop out of the spotlight and learned to dominate at an intermediate level. Kobe and Garnett are the only champions in that group of superduperstars.

The benefit to college ball is obvious and the benefit to the player and league is they garner a loyal fanbase with college team fans that will always root for their guys regardless of NBA team.

It is very hard and entirely subjective to say what impact a year in college would have on such players. For example Carmelo Anthony is the antithesis of what I espouse. He had 1 perfect college year, has been a very successful pro but he has not exhibited the winning maturity that I (or Kerr) might hope comes from the college experience. In contrast its TBD but had Kemba Walker gone pro after his sophomore year I think his NBA upside (in terms of play not $, obviously he made himself millions more by timing his NBA draft entry correctly) would be nowhere near as high if he did not have the experience of leadership and winning in his junior year at UConn. I think this will continue to give Kemba confidence and help him find his place and ultimately be a multi-year success and winner in the NBA.

I guess my overall counter to your point is that there is might be on average 1 guy every year that has the raw talent to jump right to the NBA and a lot more people are disadvantaged if players can jump right to pro's vs the few elite that are 'forced' into college. Most recent examples of Durant, Derrick Rose and Anthony Davis seem to have no regrets over their 1 year in college. Why are other posters so outraged when the players themselves are cool with the system?

 

[Waquoit]

This is a pretty simplistic view but I'm not surprised at this coming from you because I'd be shocked if you watched more than 20 minutes of the entire series. ... But according to you, that's Rudy's fault...

I didn't say all his fault. And I didn't watch a lot of the series. But it sure didn't sound like Rudy played like a franchise player. But it's true, I've never been a big Gay guy.

 

[aceboon]

I didn't say all his fault. And I didn't watch a lot of the series. But it sure didn't sound like Rudy played like a franchise player. But it's true, I've never been a big Gay guy.

Why would you expect a player who isn't a franchise player to play like one? People toss that word around way too loosely, there are less than 10 guys in the entire league who are franchise players, and besides huskymagic who 99% of the board agrees is an idiot, nobody considers Rudy to be one of them. There isn't one on the entire Grizzlies roster. They have alot of very good pieces in Zbo, Gasol, Rudy and a very steady PG in Conley who improves every year(but sucked majorly in Game 7), but they're also a flawed team in that they don't have consistent outside shooting and they're somewhat weak at SG. They're an inside out team that struggled to play that way because the guy who dominated last year couldn't do that on one leg and was incapable of scoring on Reggie Evans in 4th quarters. Rudy definitely could've played better than he did, but the reasons I listed for them losing, less than 100% ZBo, lack of production from the SG spot, and their entire backcourt tting the bed in Game 7, far outweigh Rudy's play.

 

[UConn990411]

I didn't say all his fault. And I didn't watch a lot of the series. But it sure didn't sound like Rudy played like a franchise player. But it's true, I've never been a big Gay guy.

Understandable.

I mean, why would anyone be a fan of the best current UConn alum who's also a model citizen? After all, he didn't meet our expectations of what he'd be as a sophomore.