Adam Silver favors raising the age limit

[D.o.s.]

Agreed on all points.


Take it away, John Henson:

http://instagram.com/p/h0MXVTiLtK/#

[Moranis]

I am not worried about guys losing out on money because they are exposed as not being good enough.  That money will just go to someone else who is.


I feel bad for a guy that could get hurt, but that can happen to them just as easily in high school. 



I still believe raising the age and forcing players to improve their game more before entering the league is the best thing the NBA can do for their game.

Is it really?  Would Lebron James' have really improved his game more in college than he did in the NBA?  I'm sure there are some players that would benefit more from college, but I'm also sure there are some players that would in fact benefit more from playing in the NBA.

And how many Lebron James are there? 



He is the exception.  How many of the other young guys have the star level abilities, but huge holes in their games.  Imagine Dwight Howard had spent two years in college (or the d-league) developing a post game?  (something Barkley says you can not develop once you are in the NBA)

You mean the Dwight Howard that is a career 18/13 player and who has only averaged less than 12.3 rebounds a game his rookie year.  He didn't need college to develop at all.  In fact, if you look at some of the big centers, like Oden, they don't develop in college because they don't consistently play real top level competition that has the size to give them trouble.  Dwight Howard would have brutalized college centers (even at 18) and thus would not have developed anything in college because no one in college would force him to develop anything. 

If you actually look at the list of the high school to pro players, the vast majority of them are highly successful players in the league and most of them were above average immediately.  The success rate for the high school players is in fact larger than the success rate of every level of people with college experience that are drafted at similar draft spots i.e. lottery vs. lottery, first vs. first, etc. and are far more successful than international.  The simple truth is, there are no statistical factors that support any of this nonsense being spouted by guys like Silver.  It is just pure nonsense.

When was Oden healthy?  And he was only there for one year.  This is to increase the amount of time to train.


And that tidbit was from Barkley, a NBA all time great who did have a low post game. 


And Howard does not have a good low post offense.  Never had.  If he did, he could be averaging closer to 25 a game.

Howard shoots 58% for his career, which is right on par with Shaq.  Shaq's USG% was a full 6 points higher than Howard.  Howard's low post game is fine, he just isn't aggressive enough and doesn't shoot enough.

Cousins didn't develop one at Kentucky either.  Those guys just aren't challenged in college except in rare circumstances.

That is why this is nonsense.  Barkley at 6'4" had plenty of similar sized people that could challenge him in college, thus he actually had to learn how to use his frame.  Guys like Cousins, Oden, Howard, etc. find no real competition in college and thus do not develop those type of skills.

[wdleehi]

I am not worried about guys losing out on money because they are exposed as not being good enough.  That money will just go to someone else who is.


I feel bad for a guy that could get hurt, but that can happen to them just as easily in high school. 



I still believe raising the age and forcing players to improve their game more before entering the league is the best thing the NBA can do for their game.

Is it really?  Would Lebron James' have really improved his game more in college than he did in the NBA?  I'm sure there are some players that would benefit more from college, but I'm also sure there are some players that would in fact benefit more from playing in the NBA.

And how many Lebron James are there? 



He is the exception.  How many of the other young guys have the star level abilities, but huge holes in their games.  Imagine Dwight Howard had spent two years in college (or the d-league) developing a post game?  (something Barkley says you can not develop once you are in the NBA)

You mean the Dwight Howard that is a career 18/13 player and who has only averaged less than 12.3 rebounds a game his rookie year.  He didn't need college to develop at all.  In fact, if you look at some of the big centers, like Oden, they don't develop in college because they don't consistently play real top level competition that has the size to give them trouble.  Dwight Howard would have brutalized college centers (even at 18) and thus would not have developed anything in college because no one in college would force him to develop anything. 

If you actually look at the list of the high school to pro players, the vast majority of them are highly successful players in the league and most of them were above average immediately.  The success rate for the high school players is in fact larger than the success rate of every level of people with college experience that are drafted at similar draft spots i.e. lottery vs. lottery, first vs. first, etc. and are far more successful than international.  The simple truth is, there are no statistical factors that support any of this nonsense being spouted by guys like Silver.  It is just pure nonsense.

When was Oden healthy?  And he was only there for one year.  This is to increase the amount of time to train.


And that tidbit was from Barkley, a NBA all time great who did have a low post game. 


And Howard does not have a good low post offense.  Never had.  If he did, he could be averaging closer to 25 a game.

Howard shoots 58% for his career, which is right on par with Shaq.  Shaq's USG% was a full 6 points higher than Howard.  Howard's low post game is fine, he just isn't aggressive enough and doesn't shoot enough.

Cousins didn't develop one at Kentucky either.  Those guys just aren't challenged in college except in rare circumstances.

That is why this is nonsense.  Barkley at 6'4" had plenty of similar sized people that could challenge him in college, thus he actually had to learn how to use his frame.  Guys like Cousins, Oden, Howard, etc. find no real competition in college and thus do not develop those type of skills.

So where are all the low post offensive games in the NBA today?  How many big men have actually developed them?


And somehow players like Shaq, ZO, Duncan, Robinson, The Dream and Ewing all developed low post games in college despite being bigger then most of the other players.

[wdleehi]

Here is my question, how does letting in players out of high school help the NBA and their teams?



It is not like the best players will not be drafter two or more years later. 

[bdm860]

I am not worried about guys losing out on money because they are exposed as not being good enough.  That money will just go to someone else who is.


I feel bad for a guy that could get hurt, but that can happen to them just as easily in high school. 



I still believe raising the age and forcing players to improve their game more before entering the league is the best thing the NBA can do for their game.

Is it really?  Would Lebron James' have really improved his game more in college than he did in the NBA?  I'm sure there are some players that would benefit more from college, but I'm also sure there are some players that would in fact benefit more from playing in the NBA.

And how many Lebron James are there? 



He is the exception.  How many of the other young guys have the star level abilities, but huge holes in their games.  Imagine Dwight Howard had spent two years in college (or the d-league) developing a post game?  (something Barkley says you can not develop once you are in the NBA)

You mean the Dwight Howard that is a career 18/13 player and who has only averaged less than 12.3 rebounds a game his rookie year.  He didn't need college to develop at all.  In fact, if you look at some of the big centers, like Oden, they don't develop in college because they don't consistently play real top level competition that has the size to give them trouble.  Dwight Howard would have brutalized college centers (even at 18) and thus would not have developed anything in college because no one in college would force him to develop anything. 

If you actually look at the list of the high school to pro players, the vast majority of them are highly successful players in the league and most of them were above average immediately.  The success rate for the high school players is in fact larger than the success rate of every level of people with college experience that are drafted at similar draft spots i.e. lottery vs. lottery, first vs. first, etc. and are far more successful than international.  The simple truth is, there are no statistical factors that support any of this nonsense being spouted by guys like Silver.  It is just pure nonsense.

I would argue the vast majority were not above average immediately.  I would say like only 10% were.

Garnett, Kobe, Amare, LeBron, and Dwight out of 45 or so.

And Garnett was 19, Dwight was a month away from 19, and LeBron was 2 months away from 19, and Amare was 2 weeks away from 20.

I'm curious as to who you think are the above average high school to pros in that first year?

Also I think using the high-school-to-pros is more successful than college-to-oros is kind of flawed because that's apples to oranges.  The best guys went high school to pros, so of course they will have a higher success rate than college to pros or look better.  Also the worst players stay in college longer.  You're not comparing similar talent pools with that comparison.  Stats can't really compare because it's more of a hypothetical.  Would more players be better off had they waited longer to enter the NBA?  LeBron probably not, but Al Harrington, Gerald Green, DeShawn Stevenson, Ndudi Ebi, Andray Blatche, Josh Smith, JR Smith, etc. maybe they would be.

[Moranis]

I am not worried about guys losing out on money because they are exposed as not being good enough.  That money will just go to someone else who is.


I feel bad for a guy that could get hurt, but that can happen to them just as easily in high school. 



I still believe raising the age and forcing players to improve their game more before entering the league is the best thing the NBA can do for their game.

Is it really?  Would Lebron James' have really improved his game more in college than he did in the NBA?  I'm sure there are some players that would benefit more from college, but I'm also sure there are some players that would in fact benefit more from playing in the NBA.

And how many Lebron James are there? 



He is the exception.  How many of the other young guys have the star level abilities, but huge holes in their games.  Imagine Dwight Howard had spent two years in college (or the d-league) developing a post game?  (something Barkley says you can not develop once you are in the NBA)

You mean the Dwight Howard that is a career 18/13 player and who has only averaged less than 12.3 rebounds a game his rookie year.  He didn't need college to develop at all.  In fact, if you look at some of the big centers, like Oden, they don't develop in college because they don't consistently play real top level competition that has the size to give them trouble.  Dwight Howard would have brutalized college centers (even at 18) and thus would not have developed anything in college because no one in college would force him to develop anything. 

If you actually look at the list of the high school to pro players, the vast majority of them are highly successful players in the league and most of them were above average immediately.  The success rate for the high school players is in fact larger than the success rate of every level of people with college experience that are drafted at similar draft spots i.e. lottery vs. lottery, first vs. first, etc. and are far more successful than international.  The simple truth is, there are no statistical factors that support any of this nonsense being spouted by guys like Silver.  It is just pure nonsense.

I would argue the vast majority were not above average immediately.  I would say like only 10% were.

Garnett, Kobe, Amare, LeBron, and Dwight out of 45 or so.

And Garnett was 19, Dwight was a month away from 19, and LeBron was 2 months away from 19, and Amare was 2 weeks away from 20.

I'm curious as to who you think are the above average high school to pros in that first year?

Also I think using the high-school-to-pros is more successful than college-to-oros is kind of flawed because that's apples to oranges.  The best guys went high school to pros, so of course they will have a higher success rate than college to pros or look better.  Also the worst players stay in college longer.  You're not comparing similar talent pools with that comparison.  Stats can't really compare because it's more of a hypothetical.  Would more players be better off had they waited longer to enter the NBA?  LeBron probably not, but Al Harrington, Gerald Green, DeShawn Stevenson, Ndudi Ebi, Andray Blatche, Josh Smith, JR Smith, etc. maybe they would be.

Or maybe those guys turn into Kenny Satterfield or countless other players that hurt draft stock by going to or staying in college (which is probably better for the NBA, but is not better for the player).

[Bankshot]

Here is my question, how does letting in players out of high school help the NBA and their teams?



It is not like the best players will not be drafter two or more years later.

They may not be drafted if they get injured in college, thus missing out on a huge payday.

[Moranis]

I am not worried about guys losing out on money because they are exposed as not being good enough.  That money will just go to someone else who is.


I feel bad for a guy that could get hurt, but that can happen to them just as easily in high school. 



I still believe raising the age and forcing players to improve their game more before entering the league is the best thing the NBA can do for their game.

Is it really?  Would Lebron James' have really improved his game more in college than he did in the NBA?  I'm sure there are some players that would benefit more from college, but I'm also sure there are some players that would in fact benefit more from playing in the NBA.

And how many Lebron James are there? 



He is the exception.  How many of the other young guys have the star level abilities, but huge holes in their games.  Imagine Dwight Howard had spent two years in college (or the d-league) developing a post game?  (something Barkley says you can not develop once you are in the NBA)

You mean the Dwight Howard that is a career 18/13 player and who has only averaged less than 12.3 rebounds a game his rookie year.  He didn't need college to develop at all.  In fact, if you look at some of the big centers, like Oden, they don't develop in college because they don't consistently play real top level competition that has the size to give them trouble.  Dwight Howard would have brutalized college centers (even at 18) and thus would not have developed anything in college because no one in college would force him to develop anything. 

If you actually look at the list of the high school to pro players, the vast majority of them are highly successful players in the league and most of them were above average immediately.  The success rate for the high school players is in fact larger than the success rate of every level of people with college experience that are drafted at similar draft spots i.e. lottery vs. lottery, first vs. first, etc. and are far more successful than international.  The simple truth is, there are no statistical factors that support any of this nonsense being spouted by guys like Silver.  It is just pure nonsense.

When was Oden healthy?  And he was only there for one year.  This is to increase the amount of time to train.


And that tidbit was from Barkley, a NBA all time great who did have a low post game. 


And Howard does not have a good low post offense.  Never had.  If he did, he could be averaging closer to 25 a game.

Howard shoots 58% for his career, which is right on par with Shaq.  Shaq's USG% was a full 6 points higher than Howard.  Howard's low post game is fine, he just isn't aggressive enough and doesn't shoot enough.

Cousins didn't develop one at Kentucky either.  Those guys just aren't challenged in college except in rare circumstances.

That is why this is nonsense.  Barkley at 6'4" had plenty of similar sized people that could challenge him in college, thus he actually had to learn how to use his frame.  Guys like Cousins, Oden, Howard, etc. find no real competition in college and thus do not develop those type of skills.

So where are all the low post offensive games in the NBA today?  How many big men have actually developed them?


And somehow players like Shaq, ZO, Duncan, Robinson, The Dream and Ewing all developed low post games in college despite being bigger then most of the other players.

How many big men are actually in the NBA though?  How many of those guys would not have developed a low post game in the NBA?

You are making the giant leap that somehow the gifted players aren't going to develop in the NBA.  I mean look at Lebron James.  Vastly different player now than when he entered the league, including a fairly respectable low post game.  Where did he learn that if not in the NBA?  The great players that work hard will learn whatever they need to learn where-ever they play, but they will develop it better playing against better players.  You don't get better faster playing weaker competition, you get better faster playing better competition.

[wdleehi]

Here is my question, how does letting in players out of high school help the NBA and their teams?



It is not like the best players will not be drafter two or more years later.

They may not be drafted if they get injured in college, thus missing out on a huge payday.

Which could happen in high school.  Should the NBA draft players out of the 8th grade?

[Moranis]

Here is my question, how does letting in players out of high school help the NBA and their teams?



It is not like the best players will not be drafter two or more years later.

They may not be drafted if they get injured in college, thus missing out on a huge payday.

Which could happen in high school.  Should the NBA draft players out of the 8th grade?

Happens in soccer, baseball, and other sports.  Some of the best tennis players and golfers in the world are under 18 (especially women).  I can at least see an argument for an age limit of 18, but if the kid is good enough I see no reason for an age limit at all. 

[D.o.s.]

Happens in the Euroleagues too - Remember Ricky Rubio in the 2008 Olympics? He was 17 then.

[wdleehi]

Here is my question, how does letting in players out of high school help the NBA and their teams?



It is not like the best players will not be drafter two or more years later.

They may not be drafted if they get injured in college, thus missing out on a huge payday.

Which could happen in high school.  Should the NBA draft players out of the 8th grade?

Happens in soccer, baseball, and other sports.  Some of the best tennis players and golfers in the world are under 18 (especially women).  I can at least see an argument for an age limit of 18, but if the kid is good enough I see no reason for an age limit at all.

Baseball has a real minor league system.  How many of those young player make it to the big league?


I have no idea how soccer is set up.


In tennis and golf, it is one player and one coach. 

[cman88]

for every Lebron james or kobe bryant or Garnett there are HUNDREDS of players who leave college early to go for the $$ too soon...and end up flaming out in the NBA.

heck, for a more local prospect look at Ricky Ledo...was supposed to be a top prospect. Never played in college and left without ever playing...now he's in the D-league

look at Austin rivers...alot of these guys could benefit from staying in college longer and learning the game.

[Birdman]

I always said 3 years in college..

[Fred Roberts]

I think higher age limits are all around a better deal for the game, and often for the player. This is the highest level of the sport, and having raw kids that need to be incubated for a few years does not help the quality of the sport. More mature, more proven and seasoned players will be better for the game.