Adam Silver favors raising the age limit

[D.o.s.]

Can we stop tossing names out there as though they prove a point? Larry Bird, Kevin Garnett, LeBron James, Freddy Adu. Maybe Freddy Adu's high school coach would have molded him to become the next Pele. Maybe his college coach would have shot him in the chest. If you're really interested in whether things would have been better or worse for that guy, you don't have any way of knowing. You can't point to a successful player and infer that he would have been more or less successful the other way around.

You have a 100-year-old uncle who smoked a pack a day. That doesn't mean smoking is a good system.

Jordan played three years of college and became the greatest that ever lived. That doesn't mean college is a good system.

The fact of the matter is, this is an argument about principle, not about quality of play. NBA GMs will make the most entertaining product they can with the pool of personnel available. The quality of that product can only go down when you restrict the pool.

The pool is only down for a season or two as the player age catch back up.


After that, the pool is the same except for more training before they start. 


Same talents.  More training before they enter the league.  More time to scout. 


I still don't see the drawback for the NBA.

For the league, there isn't a drawback. It makes perfect sense why they would want to champion it.

As a fan of the athletes first and foremost, though, I can't support that idea on it's face without some of the adjustments that we've been bandying about.

I am sure the player union will negotiate this.  I can see players being able to get their first contract after the rookie deal sooner.

I hope so, but my feeling on the players union is that they're still recovering from Billy Hunter & Derek Fisher.

[LooseCannon]

In any given year, there are about 30 rookies under the age of 20 who are deemed worthy of a roster spot.

By my count, the 30th-youngest player in the NBA is 21-year-old Rudy Gobert.

[sofutomygaha]

In any given year, there are about 30 rookies under the age of 20 who are deemed worthy of a roster spot.

By my count, the 30th-youngest player in the NBA is 21-year-old Rudy Gobert.

are you telling me that you need an exact number?

[LooseCannon]

In any given year, there are about 30 rookies under the age of 20 who are deemed worthy of a roster spot.

By my count, the 30th-youngest player in the NBA is 21-year-old Rudy Gobert.

are you telling me that you need an exact number?

I could have mentioned that there are currently two NBA rookies under the age of 20.

[fairweatherfan]

Can we stop tossing names out there as though they prove a point? Larry Bird, Kevin Garnett, LeBron James, Freddy Adu. Maybe Freddy Adu's high school coach would have molded him to become the next Pele. Maybe his college coach would have shot him in the chest. If you're really interested in whether things would have been better or worse for that guy, you don't have any way of knowing. You can't point to a successful player and infer that he would have been more or less successful the other way around.

You have a 100-year-old uncle who smoked a pack a day. That doesn't mean smoking is a good system.

Jordan played three years of college and became the greatest that ever lived. That doesn't mean college is a good system.

The fact of the matter is, this is an argument about principle, not about quality of play. NBA GMs will make the most entertaining product they can with the pool of personnel available. The quality of that product can only go down when you restrict the pool.

The pool is only down for a season or two as the player age catch back up.


After that, the pool is the same except for more training before they start. 


Same talents.  More training before they enter the league.  More time to scout. 


I still don't see the drawback for the NBA.

For the league, there isn't a drawback. It makes perfect sense why they would want to champion it.

That's not entirely true.  Ask the Cavs if they'd be happy about missing out on their first two years' worth of the revenue LeBron brought them. 

If you assume adjustments to the rookie contract would mean he'd've stayed there two years longer, ask the same question of the Heat.

And you can do the same math to a lesser degree for guys like Kobe, Howard, KG, the one-and-done guys who'd have to stay an extra year now, etc.  The best players make their teams, and the league, money basically from Day 1.

[sofutomygaha]

In any given year, there are about 30 rookies under the age of 20 who are deemed worthy of a roster spot.

By my count, the 30th-youngest player in the NBA is 21-year-old Rudy Gobert.

are you telling me that you need an exact number?

I could have mentioned that there are currently two NBA rookies under the age of 20.

Help me out, then. What's the average age of a college sophomore? How many would-be-sophomores are in the NBA? The number only needs to be nonzero to support my argument.

[D.o.s.]

Can we stop tossing names out there as though they prove a point? Larry Bird, Kevin Garnett, LeBron James, Freddy Adu. Maybe Freddy Adu's high school coach would have molded him to become the next Pele. Maybe his college coach would have shot him in the chest. If you're really interested in whether things would have been better or worse for that guy, you don't have any way of knowing. You can't point to a successful player and infer that he would have been more or less successful the other way around.

You have a 100-year-old uncle who smoked a pack a day. That doesn't mean smoking is a good system.

Jordan played three years of college and became the greatest that ever lived. That doesn't mean college is a good system.

The fact of the matter is, this is an argument about principle, not about quality of play. NBA GMs will make the most entertaining product they can with the pool of personnel available. The quality of that product can only go down when you restrict the pool.

The pool is only down for a season or two as the player age catch back up.


After that, the pool is the same except for more training before they start. 


Same talents.  More training before they enter the league.  More time to scout. 


I still don't see the drawback for the NBA.

For the league, there isn't a drawback. It makes perfect sense why they would want to champion it.

That's not entirely true.  Ask the Cavs if they'd be happy about missing out on their first two years' worth of the revenue LeBron brought them. 

If you assume adjustments to the rookie contract would mean he'd've stayed there two years longer, ask the same question of the Heat.

And you can do the same math to a lesser degree for guys like Kobe, Howard, KG, the one-and-done guys who'd have to stay an extra year now, etc.  The best players make their teams, and the league, money basically from Day 1.

The best players do. But these are the same owners who locked their players out because they were giving massive contracts to guys who didn't deserve it. Because their talent evaluation is, apparently, so bad that they need to save themselves from the contracts they give out (Hi, Amnesty Clause!, what's up, mandating shorter contracts?) and they even manage to screw that up (Looking at you, NYK).

The longer players stay in college, the more obvious the "cant-miss" guys become. That's what the NBA teams want - players they're sure will be stars.

[LooseCannon]

In any given year, there are about 30 rookies under the age of 20 who are deemed worthy of a roster spot.

By my count, the 30th-youngest player in the NBA is 21-year-old Rudy Gobert.

are you telling me that you need an exact number?

I could have mentioned that there are currently two NBA rookies under the age of 20.

Help me out, then. What's the average age of a college sophomore? How many would-be-sophomores are in the NBA? The number only needs to be nonzero to support my argument.

You were pulling a made-up number out of your rear to create the perception that raising the age would rob the NBA of a massive amount of talent.

[sofutomygaha]

In any given year, there are about 30 rookies under the age of 20 who are deemed worthy of a roster spot.

By my count, the 30th-youngest player in the NBA is 21-year-old Rudy Gobert.

are you telling me that you need an exact number?

I could have mentioned that there are currently two NBA rookies under the age of 20.

Help me out, then. What's the average age of a college sophomore? How many would-be-sophomores are in the NBA? The number only needs to be nonzero to support my argument.

You were pulling a made-up number out of your rear to create the perception that raising the age would rob the NBA of a massive amount of talent.

And your whistle-blowing completely misses the point.

If I've done it right, the answer is nine, which is 2.5% of the NBA, if anyone is curious. According to Chad Ford the projection is 8 next year.

[fairweatherfan]

I still don't see the drawback for the NBA.

For the league, there isn't a drawback. It makes perfect sense why they would want to champion it.

That's not entirely true.  Ask the Cavs if they'd be happy about missing out on their first two years' worth of the revenue LeBron brought them. 

If you assume adjustments to the rookie contract would mean he'd've stayed there two years longer, ask the same question of the Heat.

And you can do the same math to a lesser degree for guys like Kobe, Howard, KG, the one-and-done guys who'd have to stay an extra year now, etc.  The best players make their teams, and the league, money basically from Day 1.

The best players do. But these are the same owners who locked their players out because they were giving massive contracts to guys who didn't deserve it. Because their talent evaluation is, apparently, so bad that they need to save themselves from the contracts they give out (Hi, Amnesty Clause!, what's up, mandating shorter contracts?) and they even manage to screw that up (Looking at you, NYK).

The longer players stay in college, the more obvious the "cant-miss" guys become. That's what the NBA teams want - players they're sure will be stars.

To me, there's three major issues that arise with letting guys come out early, from a franchise/league perspective:

- Overpaying guys who don't realize their potential.  This is largely controlled by the rookie salary structure.  Owners didn't lock the players out because rookie contracts were too high, it was guys on their second, third, and fourth contracts.  Maybe players get to those contracts at an earlier age without an age limit, but it wasn't the ultra-young guys who were getting massive overpays, it was guys who teams had years of NBA data on.  And as teams like NY are proving there's no way to idiot-proof the system anyway. It's not a valid reason for an age limit in my eyes.

- Spending draft picks on guys who don't pan out.  I don't have much sympathy for this one either, because I don't believe the bust rate on HS or one-and-done guys is meaningfully different from players who have spent 3-4 years in college.  It may even be lower.  There have been highly drafted busts in every era under every draft system the league has ever had.  Teams should evaluate better instead of blaming the system for their screwups.

- Having to waste roster spots on guys who aren't ready to contribute but could be someday.  This is to me the only valid concern but could easily be fixed with a viable minor league system, instead of a half-baked D-League and the unofficial (and effectively costless to the league) NCAA system.  I think this is the real driving force behind this - the NCAA benefits from an age system, and the NBA gets national exposure for its future stars without having to sink money into a proper minor league.  This screws the players out of years of earning potential from a short career, but the organizations get paid, so of course they're all for it.

[kozlodoev]

If I've done it right, the answer is nine, which is 2.5% of the NBA, if anyone is curious. According to Chad Ford the projection is 8 next year.

9 and 30, virtually the same thing. 9 is 2% of the NBA, by the way (there are a total of 450 players on all rosters).

And "the number only needs to be nonzero" is a heck of an argument, given that if the number were zero, the rule would be unnecessary.

[sofutomygaha]

And "the number only needs to be nonzero" is a heck of an argument, given that if the number were zero, the rule would be unnecessary.

...yes, that's exactly right.

and good job nailing those numbers down?

[D.o.s.]

http://bkref.com/tiny/OPGfV

20 players who played this year were 20 or younger, according to my search (but it was done quickly while distracting me from deadline, so feel free to correct it)

[Moranis]

Can we stop tossing names out there as though they prove a point? Larry Bird, Kevin Garnett, LeBron James, Freddy Adu. Maybe Freddy Adu's high school coach would have molded him to become the next Pele. Maybe his college coach would have shot him in the chest. If you're really interested in whether things would have been better or worse for that guy, you don't have any way of knowing. You can't point to a successful player and infer that he would have been more or less successful the other way around.

You have a 100-year-old uncle who smoked a pack a day. That doesn't mean smoking is a good system.

Jordan played three years of college and became the greatest that ever lived. That doesn't mean college is a good system.

The fact of the matter is, this is an argument about principle, not about quality of play. NBA GMs will make the most entertaining product they can with the pool of personnel available. The quality of that product can only go down when you restrict the pool.

The pool is only down for a season or two as the player age catch back up.


After that, the pool is the same except for more training before they start. 


Same talents.  More training before they enter the league.  More time to scout. 


I still don't see the drawback for the NBA.

For the league, there isn't a drawback. It makes perfect sense why they would want to champion it.

That's not entirely true.  Ask the Cavs if they'd be happy about missing out on their first two years' worth of the revenue LeBron brought them. 

If you assume adjustments to the rookie contract would mean he'd've stayed there two years longer, ask the same question of the Heat.

And you can do the same math to a lesser degree for guys like Kobe, Howard, KG, the one-and-done guys who'd have to stay an extra year now, etc.  The best players make their teams, and the league, money basically from Day 1.

The best players do. But these are the same owners who locked their players out because they were giving massive contracts to guys who didn't deserve it. Because their talent evaluation is, apparently, so bad that they need to save themselves from the contracts they give out (Hi, Amnesty Clause!, what's up, mandating shorter contracts?) and they even manage to screw that up (Looking at you, NYK).

The longer players stay in college, the more obvious the "cant-miss" guys become. That's what the NBA teams want - players they're sure will be stars.

As foul pointed out they miss on 4 year players all of the time.  Below is the list of #1 picks from 1987 to 2008.  There are 3 all time greats (Lebron, Shaq, Duncan), Lebron was a high schooler, Duncan graduated, and Shaq was 3 years (though he started college at 17 and was thus 19 when drafted).  There were/are 5 other MVP or surefire HOFers (Robinson, Webber, Iverson, Howard, Rose).  Webber and Iverson were sophomores, Howard was a high schooler, Robinson graduated (and then went military), and Rose was a one and done.  Two were foreign players, Ming was fairly successful, Bargnani not so much.  Of the remaining players there are a number of 3 and 4 year college players that were what you would call busts like the Kandi man, Manning, etc. and plenty of others with only moderate careers like Joe Smith and Kenyon Martin.  Kwame Brown was clearly a bust as a high school player as well, but he was the only one.  The reality is, no amount of college is going to stop NBA gm's from making poor selections in the draft and the reality is, the NBA gm's generally got it right with the high school kids.  The ones that weren't ready dropped (like Gerald Green) and the ones that were were generally taken at or below where they should have been.  Sure there are exceptions, but by and large they did a much better job with the high school players than they did with the guys that went to college.

2008     Derrick Rose    Chicago    Memphis
2007    Greg Oden    Portland    Ohio State
2006    Andrea Bargnani Toronto    Italy
2005     Andrew Bogut    Milwaukee    Utah
2004    Dwight Howard    Orlando    SW Atlanta Christian Academy (GA)
2003    LeBron James    Cleveland    St. Vincent-St. Mary HS (OH)
2002    Yao Ming    Houston    China
2001    Kwame Brown    Washington    Glynn Academy
2000    Kenyon Martin    New Jersey Nets Cincinnati
1999    Elton Brand    Chicago Bulls    Duke
1998    Michael Olowokandi LA Clippers    Pacific (Cal.)
1997    Tim Duncan    San Antonio    Wake Forest
1996    Allen Iverson    Philadelphia    Georgetown
1995    Joe Smith    Golden State    Maryland
1994    Glenn Robinson    Milwaukee    Purdue
1993    Chris Webber    Orlando    Michigan
1992    Shaquille O'Neal Orlando    Louisiana State
1991    Larry Johnson    Charlotte    Nevada-Las Vegas
1990    Derrick Coleman New Jersey    Syracuse
1989    Pervis Ellison    Sacramento    Louisville
1988    Danny Manning    L.A. Clippers    Kansas
1987    David Robinson    San Antonio    Navy

[SHAQATTACK]

I believe in freedom of choice.   

If a kid is an Adult and subject to adult taxes, punishment , etc.....why would NBA want to remove a persons chance for a better life.