NBA Draft & Age

[sagegrouse]

The reason age 21 works against Hood is because of "upside." If you have a 19-year-old and a 21-year-old with the exact same production, the 19-year-old has more upside (due to strength development expected over the next few years). The 21-year-old is considered 2 years closer to his ceiling as a player. Now, that doesn't mean that Hood won't still go in the lottery. But it does tend to bump his draft ceiling down from top-3 to top-10.

The natural comparison would be Wiggins. Same position, similar height. Hood's offensive game is more advanced at this point. But it should be: he's had 2 more years of strength and skill development at the college level. So Wiggins is universally preferred as a prospect because his ceiling is higher than Hood's, even though Hood is performing at or above Wiggins at the moment.

It's enough of a consideration that Shabazz Muhammad and his father, Ron Holmes, falsified Shabazz's age to make him one year younger than he actually was.

sage

[JasonEvans]

The difference in being the #1 pick and the #3 pick is about a million dollars a year in salary ($4.5 mil vs $3.6 mil) in the first year of the contract. If you were pretty much assured that you would be #1 the next season the difference in your contract as a #3 (going a year early) and #1 the next year is probably fairly small once you get to the end of your rookie contracts. Over the course of a decent-good 10 year career, it likely is nothing.

Of course, pretty much no one is assured of being the #1 pick the following season and then there is that injury risk. I think injury risk factors into these decisions more than you might imagine. Grab the guaranteed money -- the money that changes your life and your family's life -- before something terrible happens.

As for the age thing, it is really about potential and played development. NBA execs see younger guys as having more potential to get even better. They think that once you get to be about 21, your potential may be almost reached. You aren't likely to develop the freakish abilities that are needed to be a big star in the NBA once you have pretty much reached maturity. It may seem silly and it certainly makes the draft more of a guessing game than it probably should be, but it is the reality of the league right now and the past half-dozen or so drafts have largely borne out the reality that drafting young guys is the way to go.

-Jason "Ask Sacto how they did drafting an older guy (Thomas Robinson) early in the lottery" Evans

[flyingdutchdevil]

-Jason "Ask Sacto how they did drafting an older guy (Thomas Robinson) early in the lottery" Evans

There was, unfortunately, so many examples of this. Our very own Shelden Williams is another good example. Jimmer Fredette, Joe Alexander, Hasheem Thabeet, Wesley Johnson, and Ekpe Udoh are good, recent examples.

As a GM, it's better to draft potential rather than experience and Proof of Concept. Owners aren't going to fault you for taking a gamble on the next big thing, but they will if you draft proven players too high who won't pan out.

[sagegrouse]

As for the age thing, it is really about potential and played development. NBA execs see younger guys as having more potential to get even better. They think that once you get to be about 21, your potential may be almost reached. You aren't likely to develop the freakish abilities that are needed to be a big star in the NBA once you have pretty much reached maturity. It may seem silly and it certainly makes the draft more of a guessing game than it probably should be, but it is the reality of the league right now and the past half-dozen or so drafts have largely borne out the reality that drafting young guys is the way to go.

-Jason "Ask Sacto how they did drafting an older guy (Thomas Robinson) early in the lottery" Evans

Except, of course, for 23YO Miles Plumlee (now 25).

sage

[Kedsy]

Except, of course, for 23YO Miles Plumlee (now 25).

sage

Late first round pick. That's where the older guys generally go.

[Billy Dat]

Late first round pick. That's where the older guys generally go.

That comment, which is true, made me wonder if Shane was the last top-five-Senior draft pick, but I had forgotten about Shelden who went #5 and was followed by fellow seniors Brandon Roy and Randy Foye in that same draft. CJ McCollum at #10 last year was an anomaly. In recent years, its hard to argue that any Seniors, in retrospect, should have been lottery picks. Jimmy Butler was picked #30 in 2011. Otherwise, sadly, most of the low Senior picks have been justified based on their play. There are a lot of Seniors picked in the second round who have made rosters, but they shouldn't have been lottery picks. In fact, review the drafts of the past 10 years and a minority of seniors drafted were able to stick in the league.

[Kedsy]

That comment, which is true, made me wonder if Shane was the last top-five-Senior draft pick...

And technically, Shane wasn't even a top 5 pick, as I believe he went #6.

[flyingdutchdevil]

That comment, which is true, made me wonder if Shane was the last top-five-Senior draft pick, but I had forgotten about Shelden who went #5 and was followed by fellow seniors Brandon Roy and Randy Foye in that same draft. CJ McCollum at #10 last year was an anomaly. In recent years, its hard to argue that any Seniors, in retrospect, should have been lottery picks. Jimmy Butler was picked #30 in 2011. Otherwise, sadly, most of the low Senior picks have been justified based on their play. There are a lot of Seniors picked in the second round who have made rosters, but they shouldn't have been lottery picks. In fact, review the drafts of the past 10 years and a minority of seniors drafted were able to stick in the league.

Our very own JJ Redick fits that bill. As does MP1 and, given how the Nets desperate for young talent, MP2. Yay Duke!

[Indoor66]

Our very own JJ Redick fits that bill. As does MP1 and, given how the Nets desperate for young talent, MP2. Yay Duke!

Speaking of MP2, the Nets vs NY are on TNT at 7:00 P.M. tonight.

[freshmanjs]

That comment, which is true, made me wonder if Shane was the last top-five-Senior draft pick, but I had forgotten about Shelden who went #5 and was followed by fellow seniors Brandon Roy and Randy Foye in that same draft. CJ McCollum at #10 last year was an anomaly. In recent years, its hard to argue that any Seniors, in retrospect, should have been lottery picks. Jimmy Butler was picked #30 in 2011. Otherwise, sadly, most of the low Senior picks have been justified based on their play. There are a lot of Seniors picked in the second round who have made rosters, but they shouldn't have been lottery picks. In fact, review the drafts of the past 10 years and a minority of seniors drafted were able to stick in the league.

Singler could be in the "should have been a lottery pick" category. He's not as good as the elite picks, but is performing better than many lottery picks of the last few years.

[dukelifer]

As others have pointed out, from a financial standpoint it's absolutely in Jabari's interest to go out as quickly as possible. Any argument for him staying in school would have to be based on non-financial concerns.



The age thing has nothing to do with him being too old to play or where he'll be in 10+ years. The team that drafts him will only control him for a few years anyway before having to compete to retain him as a free agent.

The issue in the NBA is upside. Everyone wants the next superstar. The idea is that at 21, he is what he is, especially physically but basketball-wise too. While an 18 year old will grow stronger (maybe even taller) and might bust out with new skills.

We can debate whether a 21-year-old is what he is, or not, but that appears to be the NBA mindset. As far as teams wanting a player who can "help me win now," those teams pick later in the draft. The guys picking early in the lottery have very little chance to compete in the short term, that's why they're early in the lottery. The best "NBA ready" guys tend to be taken mid- to late-first round.

Unless you are Paul George- then it may come a couple years later. The NBA gurus get it wrong - a lot. Charles Barkley thinks the NBA has gotten bad of late because kids are coming out way to early and never getting much better. I also think the NBA players were better way back when most went to college for two or three years. There are just a few exceptions to this. Even Shaq went to school for 3 years!

[Kedsy]

Unless you are Paul George- then it may come a couple years later. The NBA gurus get it wrong - a lot. Charles Barkley thinks the NBA has gotten bad of late because kids are coming out way to early and never getting much better. I also think the NBA players were better way back when most went to college for two or three years. There are just a few exceptions to this. Even Shaq went to school for 3 years!

I don't understand your point. This is how NBA GMs think, so this is why the article says Rodney's age is against him. It's not really relevant whether we agree with the GMs or like their mindset. This is how it is.

[dukelifer]

I don't understand your point. This is how NBA GMs think, so this is why the article says Rodney's age is against him. It's not really relevant whether we agree with the GMs or like their mindset. This is how it is.

No real point other than GMs should rethink their mindset. It would help to evaluate the league and change the rule. Both the college and pro game has suffered and the NBA needs to rethink their approach if they are going to survive. The college game has a loyal fan base and they are less likely to care about following the career of a kid that played a year unless they bring a championship. Not sure there are a lot of Kris Humphries, Shabazz Muhammed, Xavier Henry, JJ Hickson, Tristan Thompson, Kostas Koufos fans out there.

[sagegrouse]

I don't understand your point. This is how NBA GMs think, so this is why the article says Rodney's age is against him. It's not really relevant whether we agree with the GMs or like their mindset. This is how it is.

I dunno, Kedsy. It seems to me that whether GM perceptions are, in fact, supported by evidence is a fair topic on a thread entitled NBA Draft and Age.

[vick]

No real point other than GMs should rethink their mindset. It would help to evaluate the league and change the rule. Both the college and pro game has suffered and the NBA needs to rethink their approach if they are going to survive. The college game has a loyal fan base and they are less likely to care about following the career of a kid that played a year unless they bring a championship. Not sure there are a lot of Kris Humphries, Shabazz Muhammed, Xavier Henry, JJ Hickson, Tristan Thompson, Kostas Koufos fans out there.

The problem is, I don't think there's very much evidence that the NBA should be drafting older players higher. Go through and look at the drafts from 2005 on (after the one and done rule came into effect), and over and over, the real whiffs are disproportionately NOT one or two year college players. From the 2005 draft, the least productive lottery players were probably Diogu (3 years), Korolev (foreign), May (3 years), and McCants (3 years). For 2006, an horrible draft, you have at the bottom Morrison (3 years), O'Bryant (2 years), Sene (foreign), and Armstrong (4 years). For 2007, you have poor Greg Oden (1 year, but come on), Jianlian (foreign), Law (4 years), and Wright (2 years). It gets trickier when you move closer to the present because players might have not yet reached his potential, but by and large, I don't think NBA executives are wrong to favor younger players.

I also reject the notion that the quality of play has declined in the NBA. The objective reality is that current players shoot more accurately, turn the ball over less frequently, foul less frequently, and are more disciplined in rebounding than in the years before early entry was common.

[Kedsy]

I dunno, Kedsy. It seems to me that whether GM perceptions are, in fact, supported by evidence is a fair topic on a thread entitled NBA Draft and Age.

OK, I'll retreat on that point. I was focusing on the language about Rodney in the article and why they said his age was against him.

[Matches]

The problem is, I don't think there's very much evidence that the NBA should be drafting older players higher. Go through and look at the drafts from 2005 on (after the one and done rule came into effect), and over and over, the real whiffs are disproportionately NOT one or two year college players. From the 2005 draft, the least productive lottery players were probably Diogu (3 years), Korolev (foreign), May (3 years), and McCants (3 years). For 2006, an horrible draft, you have at the bottom Morrison (3 years), O'Bryant (2 years), Sene (foreign), and Armstrong (4 years). For 2007, you have poor Greg Oden (1 year, but come on), Jianlian (foreign), Law (4 years), and Wright (2 years). It gets trickier when you move closer to the present because players might have not yet reached his potential, but by and large, I don't think NBA executives are wrong to favor younger players.

I also reject the notion that the quality of play has declined in the NBA. The objective reality is that current players shoot more accurately, turn the ball over less frequently, foul less frequently, and are more disciplined in rebounding than in the years before early entry was common.

Wright was a one-and-done'r at UNC but otherwise I totally agree. Listing guys who left early and then bombed is all well and good but it doesn't prove the NBA shouldn't draft on potential. There are plenty of guys who were drafted as "finished products" who weren't good NBA players too. And if you look at a laundry list of the NBA's superstars, very few of them played more than two years of college ball. Many played one or none.

The simple fact is that the college and NBA games are very different from one another, and have become moreso in the last 8-10 years. Success at the college level isn't as strong an indicator of professional success as it used to be.

[vick]

Wright was a one-and-done'r at UNC but otherwise I totally agree. Listing guys who left early and then bombed is all well and good but it doesn't prove the NBA shouldn't draft on potential. There are plenty of guys who were drafted as "finished products" who weren't good NBA players too. And if you look at a laundry list of the NBA's superstars, very few of them played more than two years of college ball. Many played one or none.

The simple fact is that the college and NBA games are very different from one another, and have become moreso in the last 8-10 years. Success at the college level isn't as strong an indicator of professional success as it used to be.

Julian Wright (KU) not Brandan Wright (UNC), sorry I should have specified. Though certainly Brandan hasn't wound up having any sort of stellar career either (though he was reasonably productive in the limited minutes he played).

[dukelifer]

The problem is, I don't think there's very much evidence that the NBA should be drafting older players higher. Go through and look at the drafts from 2005 on (after the one and done rule came into effect), and over and over, the real whiffs are disproportionately NOT one or two year college players. From the 2005 draft, the least productive lottery players were probably Diogu (3 years), Korolev (foreign), May (3 years), and McCants (3 years). For 2006, an horrible draft, you have at the bottom Morrison (3 years), O'Bryant (2 years), Sene (foreign), and Armstrong (4 years). For 2007, you have poor Greg Oden (1 year, but come on), Jianlian (foreign), Law (4 years), and Wright (2 years). It gets trickier when you move closer to the present because players might have not yet reached his potential, but by and large, I don't think NBA executives are wrong to favor younger players.

I also reject the notion that the quality of play has declined in the NBA. The objective reality is that current players shoot more accurately, turn the ball over less frequently, foul less frequently, and are more disciplined in rebounding than in the years before early entry was common.

I suppose it is all about perception. I still think the NBA of the 80's was more compelling than the current NBA- not exactly sure why- and most of those players all stayed 3-4 years in college. I think there is something to maturing in college. I think in the current era - there is a difference between the guys who leave early and those who stay four years- but if those kids stayed longer- I think they would be even better still. The real argument is whether a gifted college player like Xavier Henry would have been a much better pro if he had stayed three years in college. We cannot know the answer to that, unfortunately.

[MChambers]

I suppose it is all about perception. I still think the NBA of the 80's was more compelling than the current NBA- not exactly sure why- and most of those players all stayed 3-4 years in college. I think there is something to maturing in college. I think in the current era - there is a difference between the guys who leave early and those who stay four years- but if those kids stayed longer- I think they would be even better still. The real argument is whether a gifted college player like Xavier Henry would have been a much better pro if he had stayed three years in college. We cannot know the answer to that, unfortunately.

I also found the NCAA of the 80's more compellling. To me, early entry has greatly hurt both the college game and the pro game. But it is what it is and I don't think there's any going back.