KO lack of progress - body

[PhoSita]

I thought I made the presence of 'obvious high end talent' criteria pretty explicit already when I was talking about Irving, Davis and Wall, etc. Maybe not, my bad.

I thought the point was "guys who are obviously franchise cornerstones" not just because of their hype but because they were very productive from the moment they entered the league.

[Celtics18]

C18 Like I said, if you're changing the meaning of what a "weak draft class means", since it is pretty explicitly a draft-night phenomenon and phrase, then sure. You can say whatever you want about it, but you can't legitimately rage against the prior definition when you're holding it to a different standard.


Pho, where do you think the hype comes from? I assure you it's not a manufactured thing, otherwise every single draft would be BIGGER AND BETTER than the draft before, because that would lead to more money for the league which would allow them to angle for better TV deals, etc. Clearly this is not what happens.

Also 2013 is still looking kind of crappy.  The class's 'best' player to this point is GA, a guy who is basically the ultimate question mark. Hardly a strong draft class.

I never knew that.  I never really thought of it as such.  I was always under the impression that drafts were evaluated many years later to determine how strong or weak a given draft actually ended up being.

As purely a draft night phrase, sure, in that case Chad Ford is always right.

[D.o.s.]

Worth noting here that Chad Ford edits his draft rankings after the fact, which we all recognize as disingenuous, but somehow reevaluating a "weak" draft class is not. Who knew.

Again, it doesn't make sense to hold static assessments against how the professional developments play out.

[D.o.s.]

I thought I made the presence of 'obvious high end talent' criteria pretty explicit already when I was talking about Irving, Davis and Wall, etc. Maybe not, my bad.

I thought the point was "guys who are obviously franchise cornerstones" not just because of their hype but because they were very productive from the moment they entered the league.

They seem pretty inextricable, no?

[D.o.s.]

GUYS TURNS OUT GEORGE W. BUSH WAS GOING TO BE A REALLY BAD PRESIDENT I CANT BELIEVE ALL THOSE STUPID HEADS WHO THOUGHT HE'D BE BETTER THAN JOHN MCCAIN.

etc.

edit: what the.... this turned into two posts instead of one edited post. apologies my wifi is bugging out.

[Celtics18]

Worth noting here that Chad Ford edits his draft rankings after the fact, which we all recognize as disingenuous, but somehow reevaluating a "weak" draft class is not. Who knew.

Again, it doesn't make sense to hold static assessments against how the professional developments play out.

I'm not re-evaluating anything, though.  Rather, I'm waiting until all the facts are in to make my evaluation in the first place.

Ford, et al. are of course paid to make bold evaluations leading up to the draft.  It doesn't mean they are always going to be right.

I have no idea what your second paragraph means. 

[Celtics18]

GUYS TURNS OUT GEORGE W. BUSH WAS GOING TO BE A REALLY BAD PRESIDENT I CANT BELIEVE ALL THOSE STUPID HEADS WHO THOUGHT HE'D BE BETTER THAN JOHN MCCAIN.

etc.

edit: what the.... this turned into two posts instead of one edited post. apologies my wifi is bugging out.

I think it's a little more than your wifi that's bugging out. 

[D.o.s.]

Clever. The example stands, I think. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the all caps internet styling, but typically it's used to illustrate the absurdity of a logical methodology. 

I also believe that you don't understand, which may explain why you're struggling with the idea that 2013 was a weak draft class. Which it was, according to the most common definition (or at least what I assumed was the most common definition, it appears I might have overestimated) -- a thing that we've gone over ad nauseum at this point.

[PhoSita]

I thought I made the presence of 'obvious high end talent' criteria pretty explicit already when I was talking about Irving, Davis and Wall, etc. Maybe not, my bad.

I thought the point was "guys who are obviously franchise cornerstones" not just because of their hype but because they were very productive from the moment they entered the league.

They seem pretty inextricable, no?

I'd say it's inextricable in the sense that when expectations and production align, people are more willing to believe that what they're seeing on the floor will carry over into the future.

Example: Anthony Davis puts up 13 pts 8 reb per game in his rookie year, he's on track to superstardom.  Damian Lillard puts up 19 points and 6 ast in his rookie year and we wonder if he's just another Tyreke Evans.

Likewise, when the production falls a bit short of expectations, people are more willing to explain it away or keep giving the player chances to finally realize their "star potential."

Example: Michael Beasley, Evan Turner, Jeff Green

[D.o.s.]

But, again, it's not as if it's coming out of nowhere. Michael Beasley was 'supposed' to be a better NBA player than Oladipo. All things coming together right for both players, Beasley would be a better NBA player. Controversial? Not particularly. This is an example of the same logic used in evaluating various strengths, which doesn't factor in the pro career at all -- at least not to my mind.

[tarheelsxxiii]

Hahah re: Wifi. I initially read that as "wife" bugging out.

I agree with D.o.s., just get the sense he's being lead down a rabbit hole here.

The value of waiting until a draft class has actually developed (say, to the end of rookie contracts, as suggested) is a point well-taken. But the issue that I think D.o.s. was pointing out (if I'm misreading, my bad) with that is there are far too many variables that will go unaccounted for there.

Hindsight bias and injuries were two factors... what about immediate playing time? Opportunity to create a role for oneself on the team? Quality of teammates? If discussing salaries, other league and team factors would need to be taken into account as well. Messy stuff...

For that reason, I do agree that it is really difficult to talk about "draft class strength" in a way that is not speculative -- maybe it is best discussed as draft-night phenomena?

Edit: Apparently in after "ad naseum"

[crimson_stallion]

https://instagram.com/p/5qFjNWgcll/

Recent photo at the Olynyk Klynyk camp.   Does not look like his body has improved at all from last season. 

I'm a fan of KO but this upcoming season will be highly critical of his play.  After 2 seasons, you would think one would learn.  He got pushed around the 1st 2 seasons, and really needs to come to camp at the best shape of his life. Especially in the strength department

He comes to training camp with the body we see from his KO  Klynyk camp, and I will be the 1st one to start a thread to trade him.   

i honestly don't see what the problem is here.

I understand the argument for Sully, who is 6'9" and open admitted to reaching near 300 pounds at times last season. 

Kelly Olynyk is 7 foot and 238 pounds - conditioning is not a problem for him.  Last season I felt like he was very effective running the floor in transition, I felt his mobility in general was very good for a 7 footer, and I never noticed him getting winded (or his game starting to drop off) after being on the court for long stretches. 

The only real argument for Olynyk changing his body is for him to bulk up, but that would be like arguing that Dirk or Andrea Bargnani aren't beefy enough and need to bulk up.  Olynyk is not a 'power' player, that's just not his game.  He's a stretch 4/5 with a game focused on finesse (mobility, passing, ball handling, jump shot, getting to the basket).

Again I completely understand the concern when it comes to Sully since you can clearly see that every aspect of his game suffers when he plays extended minutes as a result of his body type.

For Olynyk there may be one or two aspects of his game that might benefit from added bulk strength (post defense, and maybe post scoring) but all of his strengths as a player remain without that, and there's some risk that if he adds weight (even through muscle mass) it could affect his ability to play his finesse style. 

I'm completely happy with Kelly's body looking exactly the same as it did last year - my only real wish for KO is for him to get better ad playing defense without fouling so that he can stay on the court for longer.  If he can manage to get down to around 3 fouls per 36 minutes (as opposed to 5.5 that he averages now) then there's a good chance he'll have a break out year.



He was already in good shape last season and had solid conditioning - I never felt like Kelly's game was held back by fitness issues the way Sully's clearly has been.

[D.o.s.]

Holy on topic post, batman.

[Celtics18]

Clever. The example stands, I think. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the all caps internet styling, but typically it's used to illustrate the absurdity of a logical methodology. 

I also believe that you don't understand, which may explain why you're struggling with the idea that 2013 was a weak draft class. Which it was, according to the most common definition (or at least what I assumed was the most common definition, it appears I might have overestimated) -- a thing that we've gone over ad nauseum at this point.

Nice.

I like the phrase "illustrate the absurdity of a logical methodology" in place of the more pedestrian "mock someone that you disagree with."

Well done, Sir. 

[D.o.s.]

Those are two different things. If I wanted to mock you, I'd mock you -- although I have no particular desire to do so, since you're generally a nice person despite your oft. documented ability to take everything to heart and see nefariousness in every corner. However I will explain it, without the caps lock (although it will take much more time):

Using, say, the Bush administration of the 2000's to illustrate that McCain would have been a better choice during the Republican primaries would ignore the fact that the voters, whatever their intelligence, did not have access to that wealth of information at the time they were making their decisions (obviously). Therefore it would be fairly silly to go back and view their votes and opinions in that light -- it should be fairly uncontroversial that GWB was a fairly terrible POTUS, as well as being obvious that his strengths as a candidate were not measured against the horrible president that he became. I assumed the analogy would be fairly plain. Perhaps not.