Article: NBA Wakes to find 2014 Draft Not All That

[BballTim]

Griffin, Irving, and Wall weren't as highly regarded #1 overall picks as the article makes them out to be. It's revisionist history to suggest otherwise.

   Gtiffin was highly regarded.

[saltlover]

Was reading a random article, a Q&A with Mitch Kupchak, and this is what he had to say:

MT: Is the coming NBA Draft as deep and good as has been reported?
Kupchak: Right now, I would say one through 10 is as good as I've seen in a long time.

MT: Like going back to the LeBron-Anthony-Bosh-Wade 2003 Draft?
Kupchak: Yeah, that’s the first draft that comes to mind. Going into that draft, I’m not sure everyone knew that would be such a great draft, but looking back on it, it really was. We'll have to wait and see how this one turns out, but I think it has the potential to be a heck of a draft from one through 10.

Kupchak is a good GM.  Take it for what it's worth; personally, I'll take his draft quality assessment over a sports writer any day.

So, that means that the 6th through 10th best players in this draft will be on par with the likes of Kyle Korver, Boris Diaw, Mo Williams, Luke Ridnour, and Nick Collison.  Nice.

Elaborate.

The guys I mentioned arguably round out the top ten players from the 2003 draft.

David West, Chris Kaman, and the first 5-6 years of Josh Howard's career before his knees gave out would certainly argue with you.

[csfansince60s]

This article is garbage.

The title of this article by Heisler is incredibly misleading, smacking of hyperbole (which ironically is what he is accusing the media of who have been allegedly overhyping this draft).

"The NBA Wakes" to me implies a broad sea change in the way GMs/Ownership view this draft. But Heisler's article is sorely lacking in evidence backing up his self-serving premise.

Heisler proceeds to reference twice the same "eastern conference personel guy" saying Parker will be picked #1 and that Embiid will be picked before Wiggins. Well la-di-da!

While I don't dispute the veracity of either the assertion or its validity, he still only references "one eastern conference personnel guy"  as making both statements.

That's not a GM, because he would have said that. So, is it a scout, a front office guy in the decision making loop for a franchise, or a secretary in someone's office? (Don't get me wrong, as secretaries know more about what's going on than most at times.)

He does the same with a "Western Conference personnel guy" saying that the personnel guy says to ask the GMs of the Pelicans, Cavs, Bulls, Clipps and Wiz if they would give any of those guys for this years #1 and they'll fall over laughing." Well, no fecal matter!!! Who in their right mind would?

Just not sure how attributing 3 quotes to unknown  "personnel guys" (whatever the hell "personnel guys" means) indicates the sea change  is coming, or has already taken place about how GMs and owners view this draft.

No evidence at all does he present except for banging those who have over-hyped Wiggins (and I agree that this has taken place)and then faultily, with no evidence, extrapolates that overhype to the whole rest of the draft class.

Also, about Kupchak and Ainge: I like Ainge, and think he does a great job, but he puts out as much if not more disinformation than any other GM, and he has a motive to undervalue the draft publicly.

I guess conversely, one could argue that Kupchak is pumping the draft so his current lottery choice has more value, but if I had to bet on one or the other giving his real opinion in this, it's gotta be Kupchak.

[aporel#18]

Nobody knows what will happen with those kids, but if they stay healthy and don't get drafted by Cleveland, they will be great players. I don't know about Smart and Exum, but Parker, Wiggins, Randle and Embiid will be All Stars if they stay healthy and away from the Cavaliers.

Then you have Aaron Gordon, James Young, Dario Saric, Cauley-Stein... I bet they'll be above-average starters. McDermott, Gary Harris, Vonleh, McGary, Isiah Austin, Dinwiddie, all good potential players. Then, some dark horses like Nurkic, TJ Warren, Jerami Grant, Montrezl Harrell and well-regarded players like Rodney Hood, Glenn Robinson, Dekker, Selden, Semaj Christon.

I think this year's first round is full of solid picks, and this Draft is very good from 1 to 10. I think we won't be picking in the top 5, but if the Celtics had the #1 pick, they should take Embiid. Parker and Randle will struggle to adapt to NBA game and defenses, but they're too talented to not succeed. Embiid and Wiggins will thrive in the well-spaced NBA settings, their athleticism will help them to develop if they're willing to put the time and effort to improve their skills.

[Smutzy#9]

Just putting out there;

1: I agree the draft has had alot more hype and comparing these kids to the best players in the world is a far stretch.

2: Not sure if it will be better than 2003, but who knows. The benefit of hindsight is a fabulous thing.

3: as far as solid drafts go, 2008 was better than 03. Yes 03 produced some amazing franchise players. Compare the 2 draft classes though

All stars from 2003
Lebron
Wade
Melo
Bosh
Kaman
David West
Josh Howard
Mo williams

All stars from 2008
Rose
Westbrook
Love
Lopez
Hibbert

Then you go and look at other solid NBA players from each draft

2003
Hinrich
Nick COllison
Ridinour
Delfino
Perk
Barbosa
steve Blake
Zaza
Korver

2008
Beasley
OJ Mayo
Gallinari
Eric Gordon
Bayless
Jason Thompson
Robin Lopez
Mcgee
Hickson
Ryan Anderson
Courtney Lee
Koufos
Ibaka
batum
George Hill
Pekovic
Chalmers
Deandre Jordan
asik
Dragic

In terms of 'Superstar talent' 03 was up there. But 2008 was bar far one of the best and deepest drafts in recent years for players taken over both rounds.

Like i said hindsight is a marvelous thing.

[Tr1boy]

Parker is like melo and im sure without the attitude. But unfortunately be is still like him, for the good(offense) and bad (defense). No matter how hard he tries to guard lebron,george,batum,durant he will likely fail to contain them.

I want a good overall sf, especially good defensively. If not rather choose for another position like smart,embiid,exum and draft someone like gordon, walker later

[JBcat]

I'm not a draft expert by any means, but the more I read about this year's draft picking in the range from 10 to 20 is still going to be really good, and even possibly a star or 2.  I wouldn't mind picking up another draft pick in that range. 

[Moranis]

And let's not kid ourselves here Julius Randle's stats thus far far exceed Tim Duncan's freshman year.  Andrew Wiggin's is pretty much on par with Dwyane Wade's freshman year and better than Paul George's.  Jabari Parker is better than Wiggins statistically right now.  Embiid is certainly raw, but his per minute numbers compare well with some of the great centers freshman numbers (and far exceed the Dream's who he is often compared to).

Now sure these guys would be lucky to have a NBA career like any of those players, but people always tend to forget what many of the greats looked like as freshman.  Sure Durant and Anthony would studs as freshman, but those are the rare players, not the other way around.

Comparing stats of today's college basketball and years back is a irrelevant thing to do.

It was illegal to play freshmen on a varsity level until the mid to late 70's. Even then, most coaches did play or were tremendously reluctant to play freshmen for years and years after that. Through the 80's, 90's and 00's kids stayed in college longer and the quality of upperclassmen were so much better than today.

Today, college basketball is all about freshmen one and dones. Freshmen today should being outperforming the freshmen of years past by a wide wide margin. If they weren't, then people wouldn't think much of these players.

Besides, I have said it a bunch before, you don't judge draftable talent by stats. You just don't. You judge them on their skills, mentality, physicality and talent.

There are like 25-30 less players in college today that would have been in school 20 years ago.  It isn't like 100 players leave every year.  And of those players they are spread around a bit more today, but not that much.  The reality is 30 years ago there were 40ish players that were worthy of being drafted, today there are still 40ish players that are worthy of being drafted, they just tend to be younger and not quite as polished, but that is about the only real difference.  This notion that the talent level is so diminished in college ball is just silly.

Also, Hakeem played 18.2 minutes as a freshman.  He averaged 8.3 points, 6.5 rebounds, and 2.5 blocks.  It isn't like he was playing 5 minutes a night in mop up.  Joel Embiid is playing 21.4 minutes a game and is averaging 10.5 points, 7.4 rebounds, and 2.4 blocks.  Given they have similar playing time, you can reasonably compare their numbers and in that Hakeem is a better shot blocker and steal generator, but was worse at everything else (including shooting) on a per minute basis.  Again that certainly doesn't mean Embiid will have anything close to the career of the Dream, I just think it is silly to act like he is somehow diminished because he isn't a 20/10 player his freshman year.

Surprised by this post. I always figured you more keen on college sports than you are showing here. If you can't see the difference in quality between college ball now and back in the early 80's, then I don't know what to tell you.

40-60 underclassmen declare for the draft just about every year since the one and done went into effect. Most never make it to the NBA. If instead those people had stayed in school, you are talking 60-100 or more better players playing Division I basketball each year making the competition tougher and the ability to put up stats tougher. Most kids who declare come from teams that make the tourney. Keeping those kids in college for years afterward like they did back in Hakeem's time makes a massive difference in the competition at that level.

BTW, Hakeem red shirted his freshman year. He was a red shirt freshman with the basketball knowledge of a high school sophomore when he sparingly played his freshman year because he just wasn't that good or highly trained at basketball. Most freshman college players nowadays have more basketball taught to them before finishing AAU ball than Hakeem had seen his sophomore year of college.

But Nick it is the same 40ish players, they are just a few years ahead.  Instead of a Kevin Durant staying 3 or 4 years, he is out after one, but it is that way for all the players that declare.  The thousands of other players are the same.  The quality is thus the same, the reason it appears so much lower is because the talent it spread out all over the place now.  Wichita State is ranked 5th.  Butler made back to back championships.  Sure you had the occasional Indiana State with a guy like Larry Bird, but that was rare back then, it isn't now.

[BballTim]

And let's not kid ourselves here Julius Randle's stats thus far far exceed Tim Duncan's freshman year.  Andrew Wiggin's is pretty much on par with Dwyane Wade's freshman year and better than Paul George's.  Jabari Parker is better than Wiggins statistically right now.  Embiid is certainly raw, but his per minute numbers compare well with some of the great centers freshman numbers (and far exceed the Dream's who he is often compared to).

Now sure these guys would be lucky to have a NBA career like any of those players, but people always tend to forget what many of the greats looked like as freshman.  Sure Durant and Anthony would studs as freshman, but those are the rare players, not the other way around.

Comparing stats of today's college basketball and years back is a irrelevant thing to do.

It was illegal to play freshmen on a varsity level until the mid to late 70's. Even then, most coaches did play or were tremendously reluctant to play freshmen for years and years after that. Through the 80's, 90's and 00's kids stayed in college longer and the quality of upperclassmen were so much better than today.

Today, college basketball is all about freshmen one and dones. Freshmen today should being outperforming the freshmen of years past by a wide wide margin. If they weren't, then people wouldn't think much of these players.

Besides, I have said it a bunch before, you don't judge draftable talent by stats. You just don't. You judge them on their skills, mentality, physicality and talent.

There are like 25-30 less players in college today that would have been in school 20 years ago.  It isn't like 100 players leave every year.  And of those players they are spread around a bit more today, but not that much.  The reality is 30 years ago there were 40ish players that were worthy of being drafted, today there are still 40ish players that are worthy of being drafted, they just tend to be younger and not quite as polished, but that is about the only real difference.  This notion that the talent level is so diminished in college ball is just silly.

  You seem to realize that the best players aren't as good while they're in college (younger and not as polished) yet you don't think the talent level's decreased. I wouldn't necessarily agree. There are a couple of related factors. One, when you're a top level freshman you're generally the best player on your team. In the 80s there would be an older player on your team because the previous year's star was more likely to stay in school. That increases the stats of younger players.

  Also, the coaches are under pressure to get as much production from young players as possible instead of developing them over time. First of all you need to get what you can from players before you lose them, . Secondly if you don't feature them you won't be able to recruit players in the future.

[saltlover]

And let's not kid ourselves here Julius Randle's stats thus far far exceed Tim Duncan's freshman year.  Andrew Wiggin's is pretty much on par with Dwyane Wade's freshman year and better than Paul George's.  Jabari Parker is better than Wiggins statistically right now.  Embiid is certainly raw, but his per minute numbers compare well with some of the great centers freshman numbers (and far exceed the Dream's who he is often compared to).

Now sure these guys would be lucky to have a NBA career like any of those players, but people always tend to forget what many of the greats looked like as freshman.  Sure Durant and Anthony would studs as freshman, but those are the rare players, not the other way around.

Comparing stats of today's college basketball and years back is a irrelevant thing to do.

It was illegal to play freshmen on a varsity level until the mid to late 70's. Even then, most coaches did play or were tremendously reluctant to play freshmen for years and years after that. Through the 80's, 90's and 00's kids stayed in college longer and the quality of upperclassmen were so much better than today.

Today, college basketball is all about freshmen one and dones. Freshmen today should being outperforming the freshmen of years past by a wide wide margin. If they weren't, then people wouldn't think much of these players.

Besides, I have said it a bunch before, you don't judge draftable talent by stats. You just don't. You judge them on their skills, mentality, physicality and talent.

There are like 25-30 less players in college today that would have been in school 20 years ago.  It isn't like 100 players leave every year.  And of those players they are spread around a bit more today, but not that much.  The reality is 30 years ago there were 40ish players that were worthy of being drafted, today there are still 40ish players that are worthy of being drafted, they just tend to be younger and not quite as polished, but that is about the only real difference.  This notion that the talent level is so diminished in college ball is just silly.

  You seem to realize that the best players aren't as good while they're in college (younger and not as polished) yet you don't think the talent level's decreased. I wouldn't necessarily agree. There are a couple of related factors. One, when you're a top level freshman you're generally the best player on your team. In the 80s there would be an older player on your team because the previous year's star was more likely to stay in school. That increases the stats of younger players.

  Also, the coaches are under pressure to get as much production from young players as possible instead of developing them over time. First of all you need to get what you can from players before you lose them, . Secondly if you don't feature them you won't be able to recruit players in the future.

I can think of few teams where the top freshman is the best player on the team, this year or any year.  A couple a year at most.  Parker's been great this year for a freshman, but it's not hard to argue that Rodney Hood has been Duke's best player.  Kentucky for the past few years, but that's as much due to the fact they're replacing 5-6 freshmen a year.  Talented freshmen are not normally the best players on their team.  They might have the best future, but that's not the same thing.  Arizona's the best team in the country, but T.J McConnell is a junior transfer who's probably their best player, and not Aaron Gordon who's the hyped frosh.  Same is true with a lot of the other teams at the top.  Michigan State regularly has top teams and recruiting classes, but normally is led by upper classmen.  Kansas is younger this year than normal, but still has non-freshmen as good as any of their first-year players.

Freshmen may have larger roles than they did in the past, but they aren't the best players, except for Kevin Durant (and I guess Anthony Davis).  It's not something that's common.

[letsgoblue86]

Media does this.  Every time Wiggins or Parker miss a shot they are scrutinized.  So what Parker has a couple bad games...he's a young cat.  I have faith in him.

[Moranis]

And let's not kid ourselves here Julius Randle's stats thus far far exceed Tim Duncan's freshman year.  Andrew Wiggin's is pretty much on par with Dwyane Wade's freshman year and better than Paul George's.  Jabari Parker is better than Wiggins statistically right now.  Embiid is certainly raw, but his per minute numbers compare well with some of the great centers freshman numbers (and far exceed the Dream's who he is often compared to).

Now sure these guys would be lucky to have a NBA career like any of those players, but people always tend to forget what many of the greats looked like as freshman.  Sure Durant and Anthony would studs as freshman, but those are the rare players, not the other way around.

Comparing stats of today's college basketball and years back is a irrelevant thing to do.

It was illegal to play freshmen on a varsity level until the mid to late 70's. Even then, most coaches did play or were tremendously reluctant to play freshmen for years and years after that. Through the 80's, 90's and 00's kids stayed in college longer and the quality of upperclassmen were so much better than today.

Today, college basketball is all about freshmen one and dones. Freshmen today should being outperforming the freshmen of years past by a wide wide margin. If they weren't, then people wouldn't think much of these players.

Besides, I have said it a bunch before, you don't judge draftable talent by stats. You just don't. You judge them on their skills, mentality, physicality and talent.

There are like 25-30 less players in college today that would have been in school 20 years ago.  It isn't like 100 players leave every year.  And of those players they are spread around a bit more today, but not that much.  The reality is 30 years ago there were 40ish players that were worthy of being drafted, today there are still 40ish players that are worthy of being drafted, they just tend to be younger and not quite as polished, but that is about the only real difference.  This notion that the talent level is so diminished in college ball is just silly.

  You seem to realize that the best players aren't as good while they're in college (younger and not as polished) yet you don't think the talent level's decreased. I wouldn't necessarily agree. There are a couple of related factors. One, when you're a top level freshman you're generally the best player on your team. In the 80s there would be an older player on your team because the previous year's star was more likely to stay in school. That increases the stats of younger players.

  Also, the coaches are under pressure to get as much production from young players as possible instead of developing them over time. First of all you need to get what you can from players before you lose them, . Secondly if you don't feature them you won't be able to recruit players in the future.

basketball quality across the board is better today than it was even 25 years ago.  The kids, especially the top kids, get way more games and training now.  They have better nutrition, better equipment, and there is a wider pool to pull from (it isn't just the NBA that gets foreigners).  With the increase television exposure, basketball is a more popular sport among the young and more and more people are playing it (as opposed to say baseball).  More schools, more exposure, more scholarship restrictions, etc. means a lot more talent spread out a lot more.  The overall quality of college basketball is quite simply a lot better today.