KO lack of progress - body

[Celtics18]

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 -- and much like the 2013 draft class being weak, it should be fairly uncontroversial that GWB was a fairly terrible POTUS, thus the analogy should be fairly plain.

That's not what I'm doing, though.  The terms (to continue the metaphor) for Andrew Wiggins, Jabari Parker, Giannis, Gobert, Oladipi, Randle, Embiid or anyone else from the 2013 or 2014 draft class are far from being over.

As a matter of fact, many of them have barely even been sworn in yet.  I'm not going back and saying, it was clear then, that we should have picked a different candidate.

Really, it's more like me sitting there on Election night saying, "geez, you know what, I think McCain may end up being better."

By your logic, GW was always the better candidate, because he won. 

[D.o.s.]

Applying my own example to what I'm saying from would yield something like  GWB in 2000 was a stronger candidate than Bob Dole in 1996 because one won and the other did not.

Seems to check out to me (although ew).

Also, full disclosure the GWB thing isn't coming from left field, it's prompted by this article someone emailed me this morning:
http://www.theonion.com/article/george-w-bush-chuckles-to-self-upon-thinking-about-2811

[PhoSita]

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.

I suppose it turns on how you think the "all things coming together" thing operates.

Was Beasley a bust because it just so happens that "everything didn't come together" for him, or was he a bust because the evaluation of his strengths and weakness at draft time placed too much emphasis on his potential as a scorer and not enough on his lack of a position defensively, mental makeup, and off-court question marks?


Or do we say that evaluating Beasley as a draft prospect is entirely independent on how he turned out because draft picks carry inherent risk?  But if that's the way we look at this, are we entirely giving up the right to question the evaluation process that goes into draft selections?

I tend to think a player like Beasley ended up a bust because of a combination of inherent factors -- things that probably could have been analyzed and prioritized better at the time -- and things that happened after he was drafted (e.g. how Miami handled his development, getting traded to the Timberwolves, and so on).

[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.

I suppose it turns on how you think the "all things coming together" thing operates.

Was Beasley a bust because it just so happens that "everything didn't come together" for him, or was he a bust because the evaluation of his strengths and weakness at draft time placed too much emphasis on his potential as a scorer and not enough on his lack of a position defensively, mental makeup, and off-court question marks?

Slightly off topic, but I'd go with the former. Not taking Beasley at 2 would have been as dumb for Miami as us not taking Embiid at 6 had he fallen. Dodged a bullet in hindsight (we did, Chicago did, Miami didn't even though it wouldn't end up hurting them), but it would have been the wrong decision at the time.

[PhoSita]

Applying my own example to what I'm saying from would yield something like  GWB in 2000 was a stronger candidate than Bob Dole in 1996 because one won and the other did not.

Seems to check out to me (although ew).

Also, full disclosure the GWB thing isn't coming from left field, it's prompted by this article someone emailed me this morning:
http://www.theonion.com/article/george-w-bush-chuckles-to-self-upon-thinking-about-2811

Well, strong candidate and strong president and completely different things.


But I guess that's your point, right? 

Joel Embiid was a really awesome draft prospect, despite the medical red flags.  So was Greg Oden for that matter.


I guess the question is what makes a guy a bad draft prospect despite being drafted high?  Hasheem Thabeet seems like he was a bad prospect from the beginning (never a good sign if your #2 overall pick is compared to Sam Dalembert at the time he's drafted), but for whatever reason he got drafted #2 in a draft that had a lot of talented players in it.

[D.o.s.]

Right that's exactly my point. A bad prospect despite a high draft position would indicate, wait for it... a weak draft. 

And a bad prospect I feel is fairly self-evident: it's a person who is less likely to make an impact relative to the draft position at an NBA level than another.

Anyway I need to not look at a computer screen for a while. Good talk!

[PhoSita]

Right that's exactly my point. A bad prospect despite a high draft position would indicate, wait for it... a weak draft. 

And a bad prospect I feel is fairly self-evident: it's a person who is less likely to make an impact relative to the draft position at an NBA level than another.

So I guess my question is, what do you call a draft that was "weak" by your terms but ended up yielding plenty of star talent?  E.g. 2009: Griffin, Curry, Harden, along with Derozan, Holiday, Lawson, and Teague.

[crimson_stallion]

Right that's exactly my point. A bad prospect despite a high draft position would indicate, wait for it... a weak draft. 

And a bad prospect I feel is fairly self-evident: it's a person who is less likely to make an impact relative to the draft position at an NBA level than another.

Anyway I need to not look at a computer screen for a while. Good talk!

Sorry, jumping a bit ramdomly into this debate haha

But I wouldn't necessarily agree with the above at all. If you look at historical drafts, there is almost ALWAYS a guy or two taken high in the draft who (after all is said and done) end up busts.  That's true of even the greatest drafts.

Perfect example?  Darko Milicic getting taken at #2 in 2003/04 - in what is considered by many to be the greatest draft class in history.

At the end of the day EVERYBODY in that draft wanted Milicic.  Pretty much every team believed he has superstar written all over him, and I think pretty much every mock draft had him going in the top 3.   

In fact, the way Milicic was viewed on draft day in 2003 was not unlike the way Embiid was viewed on draft day exactly 10 years later in 2013 - exception being Milicic to my knowledge had no health concerns.

Detroit gets mocked now, in hindsight, for choosing him so high.  Reality is though that if they didn't choose him at #2 then he would have been chosen at #3 by Denver, at #4 by Toronto, or at #5 by Miami.  All of those teams wanted him.

I mean geez, Pat Riley at the time of the draft had a very hard time choosing between Dwyane Wade and Chris Kaman - everybody was telling him Kaman was the safer bet and more likely to become a good player because Wade couldn't shoot and couldn't dribble.  He really like Wade though, so he followed his gut instinct and went with him - maybe the best decision he's made in his highly illustrious NBA career haha

Right now though, you have to ask yourself - why did Milicic not work out if so many teams considered him to be a top 3 prospect in one of the greatest drafts ever? 

Personally, I refuse to accept the "team situation" argument that many take when blaming Detroit for not approaching his development well.  If you're talking about a #9 pick in a weak draft than fine, but anybody projected to go top 2 or 3 in a stacked draft has got to be absolutely stuffed with talent...and that leaves me thinking that once Detroit actually got him they realised he wasn't the player they thought he was.   If he was that great then they would have:

1) invested more into him
2) Traded him to another team for a king's random

Personally, I think that in his case it was mostly mental.  He seemed to have attitude issues, there were question marks about his work ethic, and maybe on top of all that he just wasn't as straight-up skilled as scouts had thought he was.

I think Attitude / Personality is a much underrated aspect for draft prospects.  I honestly feel like there have been just as many elite prospects who have failed due to attitude issues as there have been from health/injury issues. 

Honestly, I think we can see a great example of this right now in our very own proverbial backyard - look at James Young.  Seen as having so much potential, and so many teams said he was a huge steal at his draft position - but he seems to have personality question marks (confidence, work ethic, desire to be great) and from what I'm seeing that appears to be hurting his career in a huge way right now.  I haven't given up on him just yet, but if he hasn't made some pretty huge strides by the end of this season I will be confident enough to call him a bust.

I think Danny recognizes all of this, and I think that's why he tends to go for what appears to be high character players with his higher picks, then taken changes on 'questionable' character guys with his later picks.   

Sully and Fab Melo was one example - Sully had a reputation for being a hard working, high IQ guy coming out of college (don't know what happened) and Fab was known for being a low IQ, poor motor guy. 

Taking olynyk the following year, another example.

Smart and Young, another example.

This year everybody he drafted...all high character guys.

I mean honestly, if you look at a guy like Avery Bradley - I think he's done pretty well for himself considering his relative lack of skills / versatility.  He earned a starting role on a team with three future hall of famers and I believe the only reason he got that far is because of his character - working his proverbial butt off and playing with 150% effort every time on the court.  If Avery Bradley had the attitude of say, Nick Young or Jordan Crawford, then I very seriously doubt he'd have ever made it even as just a rotation NBA player.

A big part of player development is having the confidence to believe you can be great, and being self-motivated enough to push yourself to your limits in the name of self improvement.  Guys with poor attitudes, even if they have all the talent in the world, often fail to see their potential for that reason - they simple can't stay motivated and don't have a desire to in the work to become better.

Anyway this is starting to get a bit off topic now, but getting back to the discussion I think the reason for busts getting drafted high isn't because of weak drafts necessarily, I think it has more to do with either the teams not scouting a player properly, teams drafting for need rather than best talent available (and there may be lack of depth at that position), or teams taking gambles on high risk players (i.e. players with health / attitude concerns) for the sake of 'upside'. 

Then there are cases where the team is just plain dumb and make draft decisions which ultimately make no sense at all (e.g. Cleveland taking Bennett).

[Beat LA]

Applying my own example to what I'm saying from would yield something like  GWB in 2000 was a stronger candidate than Bob Dole in 1996 because one won and the other did not.

Seems to check out to me (although ew).

Also, full disclosure the GWB thing isn't coming from left field, it's prompted by this article someone emailed me this morning:
http://www.theonion.com/article/george-w-bush-chuckles-to-self-upon-thinking-about-2811

Shouldn't it technically be coming out of right field ?

[guava_wrench]

  What in the world worst thread ever!  What are you supposed to see in those pics.  He looks just fine.

No offense but you might need new glasses.  Does he look defined/muscular to you in any way?

Brandon Bass, Jason Smith are example of guys with pro bodies.  Not KO at the moment.

Really? Comparing to Bass? Are you comparing Zeller to Bass? Lee to Bass? Johnson to Bass? Bass is a tank. You are waaaaay off base if Bass is your point of comparison. smh

What about Bosh? Would his lack of progress on his body concern you?

And how about we get a decent pic first?

[crimson_stallion]

  What in the world worst thread ever!  What are you supposed to see in those pics.  He looks just fine.

No offense but you might need new glasses.  Does he look defined/muscular to you in any way?

Brandon Bass, Jason Smith are example of guys with pro bodies.  Not KO at the moment.

Really? Comparing to Bass? Are you comparing Zeller to Bass? Lee to Bass? Johnson to Bass? Bass is a tank. You are waaaaay off base if Bass is your point of comparison. smh

What about Bosh? Would his lack of progress on his body concern you?

And how about we get a decent pic first?

This.

It's basically like saying Tim Duncan never made progress on his body, because he never got his body to look like Karl Malone's.

Or like pointing out Paul Pierce for lack of progress because he never developed his body to look like Larry Johnson.

Different guys have different bodies, and not everybody is capable of looking like Andre Iguodala or Dwight Howard.  All guys also have different styles of play, so not all guys need to. 

At the end of the day, as a GM I would be selecting players based on their skill set and how it fits the team, rather than their ability to entertain the crowd by ripping off their shirts and doing bouncing-nipple Terry Crews impressions lol

I, for one, would be be perfectly happy with a prime Duncan or Pierce on my team!

[Tr1boy]

  What in the world worst thread ever!  What are you supposed to see in those pics.  He looks just fine.

No offense but you might need new glasses.  Does he look defined/muscular to you in any way?

Brandon Bass, Jason Smith are example of guys with pro bodies.  Not KO at the moment.

Really? Comparing to Bass? Are you comparing Zeller to Bass? Lee to Bass? Johnson to Bass? Bass is a tank. You are waaaaay off base if Bass is your point of comparison. smh

What about Bosh? Would his lack of progress on his body concern you?

And how about we get a decent pic first?

This.

It's basically like saying Tim Duncan never made progress on his body, because he never got his body to look like Karl Malone's.

Or like pointing out Paul Pierce for lack of progress because he never developed his body to look like Larry Johnson.

Different guys have different bodies, and not everybody is capable of looking like Andre Iguodala or Dwight Howard.  All guys also have different styles of play, so not all guys need to. 

At the end of the day, as a GM I would be selecting players based on their skill set and how it fits the team, rather than their ability to entertain the crowd by ripping off their shirts and doing bouncing-nipple Terry Crews impressions lol

I, for one, would be be perfectly happy with a prime Duncan or Pierce on my team!

Pierce was a lazy bum in his last 3 seasons as a Celtic. Look at his body last season in comparison. This said, the guy was extremely skilled, smart and confident to get by and still be one of the better SFs in the league.

add: Not a fan of his "shortcut" teachings, that influenced Rondo the wrong way.

KO is no Pierce.  He especially lacks the confidence.  He may never play with confidence as a frontcourt player due to his "pass first/pg" mentality

He needs the boost = elite body, to take his game to the next level.  Then he can do things like hold his position to grab rebounds or be able to finish through contact without much fuss. 

[Tr1boy]

Tim Duncan is no Dwight Howard in terms having a chiselled body, but he has really wide shoulders, wide base and a generous 7'6 wingspan.   

KO has narrow shoulders and base on the narrow side plus trex arms .   KO can't get wide enough, to hold his ground, so this is a reason why he needs to bulk up as much as possible.  In addition, with his trex wingspan needs to explode up quicker than some guys to grab rebounds.  Decreasing fat/getting ripped can help

Joakim Noah is a good example of a guy with narrow shoulders/base and avg wingspan , that put in time at the gym to become a good rebounder at the nba level

[D.o.s.]

Applying my own example to what I'm saying from would yield something like  GWB in 2000 was a stronger candidate than Bob Dole in 1996 because one won and the other did not.

Seems to check out to me (although ew).

Also, full disclosure the GWB thing isn't coming from left field, it's prompted by this article someone emailed me this morning:
http://www.theonion.com/article/george-w-bush-chuckles-to-self-upon-thinking-about-2811

Shouldn't it technically be coming out of right field ?

Ayyyyyyyy.

Right that's exactly my point. A bad prospect despite a high draft position would indicate, wait for it... a weak draft. 

And a bad prospect I feel is fairly self-evident: it's a person who is less likely to make an impact relative to the draft position at an NBA level than another.

So I guess my question is, what do you call a draft that was "weak" by your terms but ended up yielding plenty of star talent?  E.g. 2009: Griffin, Curry, Harden, along with Derozan, Holiday, Lawson, and Teague.

So I would say that those players overachieved what was expected, but as a draft class it was middle of the road, IIRC. Lots of rotation caliber guards who blossomed, one obvious star (blake) who was also the only good big at the time of the draft. Obviously 2009 is special in that it overachieved, but you wouldn't confuse that with 2003, which was obviously a very special draft -- and everyone knew it going in.

Sorry, jumping a bit ramdomly into this debate haha

But I wouldn't necessarily agree with the above at all. If you look at historical drafts, there is almost ALWAYS a guy or two taken high in the draft who (after all is said and done) end up busts.  That's true of even the greatest drafts.

Perfect example?  Darko Milicic getting taken at #2 in 2003/04 - in what is considered by many to be the greatest draft class in history.

At the end of the day EVERYBODY in that draft wanted Milicic.  Pretty much every team believed he has superstar written all over him, and I think pretty much every mock draft had him going in the top 3.   

In fact, the way Milicic was viewed on draft day in 2003 was not unlike the way Embiid was viewed on draft day exactly 10 years later in 2013 - exception being Milicic to my knowledge had no health concerns.

Detroit gets mocked now, in hindsight, for choosing him so high.  Reality is though that if they didn't choose him at #2 then he would have been chosen at #3 by Denver, at #4 by Toronto, or at #5 by Miami.  All of those teams wanted him.

This is largely tangential to my point though. For example, even though Embiid is/was a bust because of injuries, he's still miles ahead of anyone drafted in 2013 assuming he stays healthy.

Which, again, goes back to the Bilas thing I mentioned earlier: if 2013 had started with a 5th or 6th pick, it would have been considered a deep draft. I have yet to see anyone comment on that?

Anyway good talk so far, TP's all around.

[chambers]

As someone who had longer hair than olynyk's for a very long period of time and who's second favorite Celtic ever is Bill Walton, I would like to point out that those phrases about the hair and the token-whiteness are made and should be taken as tongue in cheek, despite DarkAzcura's obvious lust for them to be non-ironic.

Larry Bird isn't your 2nd favorite Celtics player ever?
Token white guy hater!