NBA Draft & Age

[Reisen]

So, in SI's latest draft predictions, Parker is now third, and Hood 14th:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba...ker/?eref=sihp

Reading this, I had two questions / thoughts, one for each:

For Parker - Getting to watch him play often, I have a hard time imagining him not taken #1. Granted, I've only seen Randle & Wiggins play twice each, but to me, Parker looks the better player. Let's say everyone believes these draft rankings will hold true, though, and this is just a crazy class at the top (as everyone has claimed). Ignoring time-value-of-money, would it be in Parker's interest to stay one more year to move from 3rd to 1st? Or is the difference pretty marginal as long as you're a high lottery pick?

For Hood - This sentence caught my eye: "At 21, Hood’s age works against him with NBA executives obsessed with teenagers." I can easily see why an NBA exec would prefer a 21 y/o to a 31 y/o. At some point, a combination of an aging body and an accumulation of injuries starts to make players a step slower. But certainly not at 21. I'd argue the opposite, in fact. At that age, he has 2 more years of high level strength training, so he should be better, physically. Ignore the extra coaching he's gotten around things like defense, free throw technique, practice competing against high level players (like Jabari), etc.

The only reason I can think this could be true would be if NBA execs were evaluating where a player was going to be in 10+ years when drafting him. I'm sorry, but I find this laughable. In this day of free agents and multiple contracts, does anyone really believe execs assume a player will be on their squad a decade later? If not, I suppose you could make the argument that a younger player would be more valuable in a trade scenario, but now we're really reaching.

It seems to me that, given the same level of raw talent, I'd take the player that someone else has invested an extra two years of work into, so that he can help me win now.

[jjasper0729]

I saw the same article and I just keep shaking my head when the first upperclassman (junior or senior) comes in at #17 (McDermmott). I certainly get why these kids want to go ahead and leave and if I had someone throwing money at me like that, I would too, but I know I enjoyed being in college and I don't understand why they'd want to skip out on that and just enjoy still being a kid. That's the old fogey i me I guess.

[MChambers]

So, in SI's latest draft predictions, Parker is now third, and Hood 14th:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba...ker/?eref=sihp

Reading this, I had two questions / thoughts, one for each:

For Parker - Getting to watch him play often, I have a hard time imagining him not taken #1. Granted, I've only seen Randle & Wiggins play twice each, but to me, Parker looks the better player. Let's say everyone believes these draft rankings will hold true, though, and this is just a crazy class at the top (as everyone has claimed). Ignoring time-value-of-money, would it be in Parker's interest to stay one more year to move from 3rd to 1st? Or is the difference pretty marginal as long as you're a high lottery pick?

For Hood - This sentence caught my eye: "At 21, Hood’s age works against him with NBA executives obsessed with teenagers." I can easily see why an NBA exec would prefer a 21 y/o to a 31 y/o. At some point, a combination of an aging body and an accumulation of injuries starts to make players a step slower. But certainly not at 21. I'd argue the opposite, in fact. At that age, he has 2 more years of high level strength training, so he should be better, physically. Ignore the extra coaching he's gotten around things like defense, free throw technique, practice competing against high level players (like Jabari), etc.

The only reason I can think this could be true would be if NBA execs were evaluating where a player was going to be in 10+ years when drafting him. I'm sorry, but I find this laughable. In this day of free agents and multiple contracts, does anyone really believe execs assume a player will be on their squad a decade later? If not, I suppose you could make the argument that a younger player would be more valuable in a trade scenario, but now we're really reaching.

It seems to me that, given the same level of raw talent, I'd take the player that someone else has invested an extra two years of work into, so that he can help me win now.

I see two problems with your analysis:

First, you're thinking rationally, not like an NBA GM.

Second, and more seriously, I believe the NBA free agency rules make it easier for a team to keep a John Wall or Kyrie Irving than it used to be, so it is more likely that the premium players will play for the team that drafted them for quite a while after their initial contract. So that means it may really be rational to look for the players with greater "upside".

[BlueDevilBrowns]

So, in SI's latest draft predictions, Parker is now third, and Hood 14th:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba...ker/?eref=sihp

Reading this, I had two questions / thoughts, one for each:

For Parker - Getting to watch him play often, I have a hard time imagining him not taken #1. Granted, I've only seen Randle & Wiggins play twice each, but to me, Parker looks the better player. Let's say everyone believes these draft rankings will hold true, though, and this is just a crazy class at the top (as everyone has claimed). Ignoring time-value-of-money, would it be in Parker's interest to stay one more year to move from 3rd to 1st? Or is the difference pretty marginal as long as you're a high lottery pick?.

There isn't a huge difference between 1 and 3. About 1 million per year.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/2013-14-nb...e-salary-scale

It's in Parker's financial interest to leave after this year because it get's him out of the Rookie Wage Scale one year sooner. Parker, most likely, will be a "Max Contract" player so the earlier he can get to that 2nd contract the better. Looking even further down the road, it would also put him in line for a 2nd Max deal sometime in his late 20's.

The flip side to that is the old "HB" argument of "building your brand" by staying in college at a prominent school for 2 years, making him more marketable when he enters the league. I don't think it did Ol' Harry alot of good, though.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I saw the same article and I just keep shaking my head when the first upperclassman (junior or senior) comes in at #17 (McDermmott). I certainly get why these kids want to go ahead and leave and if I had someone throwing money at me like that, I would too, but I know I enjoyed being in college and I don't understand why they'd want to skip out on that and just enjoy still being a kid. That's the old fogey i me I guess.

Because the college experience of a prime time college athlete is different than the rest of us. Most (and by that, I mean 98%) see college as a stepping stone to greener basketball pastures (ie, paycheck!).

If someone guaranteed me $5 million for 3 years (and it's usually way more) with the opportunity to make over $100 million across 12 years, I'd say, "Hell yeah! Screw college!" too.

[johnb]

I'd think the difference between Jabari's being an all-star and Jabari being all-NBA will be his defense. Right now, he's a good shot blocker but fairly average when it comes to positioning and overall defense. NBA teams would love to have him since he's so talented offensively, but, as with Kyrie, his defense is nowhere near Jordanesque. Would an additional year of seasoning with excellent coaching and moderate competition provide more of a grounding to become a standout defender? Or would he be a better defender in 2018 if he spends that additional year in the NBA, where there is obviously more competition but probably less coaching of the fundamentals.

Rodney's situation is different. Including his red shirt year, he's now in his third year of major college basketball. Coach generally encourages upperclassmen to go pro early if they're slated for the lottery. Assuming he's been accumulating credits, he could still graduate in a few Duke summers. Of course, he may want to stay an additional year and be the backbone of the team and graduate on time, but I wouldn't count on it.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I'd think the difference between Jabari's being an all-star and Jabari being all-NBA will be his defense. Right now, he's a good shot blocker but fairly average when it comes to positioning and overall defense. NBA teams would love to have him since he's so talented offensively, but, as with Kyrie, his defense is nowhere near Jordanesque. Would an additional year of seasoning with excellent coaching and moderate competition provide more of a grounding to become a standout defender? Or would he be a better defender in 2018 if he spends that additional year in the NBA, where there is obviously more competition but probably less coaching of the fundamentals.

Rodney's situation is different. Including his red shirt year, he's now in his third year of major college basketball. Coach generally encourages upperclassmen to go pro early if they're slated for the lottery. Assuming he's been accumulating credits, he could still graduate in a few Duke summers. Of course, he may want to stay an additional year and be the backbone of the team and graduate on time, but I wouldn't count on it.

Kyrie's D isn't even middle-of-the-NBA-esque. Kyrie's offense is sweet, but his D is just pitiful. I thought it would improve under a defensive coach, but it has barely gotten better. He needs to work at it, and hard.

[BlueDevilBrowns]

Because the college experience of a prime time college athlete is different than the rest of us. Most (and by that, I mean 98%) see college as a stepping stone to greener basketball pastures (ie, paycheck!).

If someone guaranteed me $5 million for 3 years (and it's usually way more) with the opportunity to make over $100 million across 12 years, I'd say, "Hell yeah! Screw college!" too.

Yes. You can go to college at 45, you can't play NBA basketball at 45. If I had the choice of being a 1st round pick(instant millionare) or college for 3 more years and run the risk of my game being exposed or, even worse, getting seriously injured, I'd take the $$$ every time.

Heck, my Grandfather went back to college at 66 and finished the last two years he needed for his bachelor's at South Carolina, so it can, and does, happen.

[vick]

I'd think the difference between Jabari's being an all-star and Jabari being all-NBA will be his defense. Right now, he's a good shot blocker but fairly average when it comes to positioning and overall defense. NBA teams would love to have him since he's so talented offensively, but, as with Kyrie, his defense is nowhere near Jordanesque. Would an additional year of seasoning with excellent coaching and moderate competition provide more of a grounding to become a standout defender? Or would he be a better defender in 2018 if he spends that additional year in the NBA, where there is obviously more competition but probably less coaching of the fundamentals.

Rodney's situation is different. Including his red shirt year, he's now in his third year of major college basketball. Coach generally encourages upperclassmen to go pro early if they're slated for the lottery. Assuming he's been accumulating credits, he could still graduate in a few Duke summers. Of course, he may want to stay an additional year and be the backbone of the team and graduate on time, but I wouldn't count on it.

I think the idea that Jabari will better learn the fundamentals of NBA defense in college basketball rather than the NBA is not right. NBA defenses are very sophisticated (and, with the development of video tracking and analytics, significantly more so than in decades past), and it's not at all clear to me why a year in Duke's system is better training for it than actually being in the NBA.

[johnb]

I think the idea that Jabari will better learn the fundamentals of NBA defense in college basketball rather than the NBA is not right. NBA defenses are very sophisticated (and, with the development of video tracking and analytics, significantly more so than in decades past), and it's not at all clear to me why a year in Duke's system is better training for it than actually being in the NBA.

That's my question. The defenses are more sophisticated in the NBA, and the quality of the competition is much higher. As with Kyrie, Jabari's defense has been subpar at Duke, though both can generate a sportscenter offensive highlight reel every game. My concern is that Jabari would likely be a defensive liability in the NBA without quite a lot of work. At the same time, because he's so good offensively and will be drafted so high by a presumably bad team, he'll be playing 30 minutes per night, 4 nights a week. When is he supposed to learn high-level fundamentals if he doesn't learn them at a place that specializes in high-level defensive fundamentals (ie, Duke)?

If his goal is to lock $5 million in the bank regardless of his future performance, going pro at the end of the year makes sense. My question is whether he is might enhance his chances of being the next Lebron (and getting a spot in the rafters) with an additional year of seasoning.

[sagegrouse]

Yes. You can go to college at 45, you can't play NBA basketball at 45. If I had the choice of being a 1st round pick(instant millionare) or college for 3 more years and run the risk of my game being exposed or, even worse, getting seriously injured, I'd take the $$$ every time.

Heck, my Grandfather went back to college at 66 and finished the last two years he needed for his bachelor's at South Carolina, so it can, and does, happen.

It must be in the water supply in Columbia, SC. My aunt, who just passed away at the age of 97, started college at USC in her 60's. She graduated from South Carolina in about 1984, at age 68, in the same class as her GRANDDAUGHTER.

sagegrouse

[Ichabod Drain]

Yes. You can go to college at 45, you can't play NBA basketball at 45. If I had the choice of being a 1st round pick(instant millionare) or college for 3 more years and run the risk of my game being exposed or, even worse, getting seriously injured, I'd take the $$$ every time.

Heck, my Grandfather went back to college at 66 and finished the last two years he needed for his bachelor's at South Carolina, so it can, and does, happen.

I agree you can definitely go back to college anytime... but going to college when you're 45 is a completely different experience than when you're 19-20.

Serious injuries can be bad but they don't have to affect draft position that much. Kyrie Irving was still drafted #1 after playing only 11 games in college. Nerlens Noel may not even play at all his rookie season and he was still taken #6 overall. Heck Kevin Ware is already playing again.

All in all I agree you should probably take the money. Just wanted to throw a little counter argument in there.

[Ichabod Drain]

I think the idea that Jabari will better learn the fundamentals of NBA defense in college basketball rather than the NBA is not right. NBA defenses are very sophisticated (and, with the development of video tracking and analytics, significantly more so than in decades past), and it's not at all clear to me why a year in Duke's system is better training for it than actually being in the NBA.

Hey Duke has that same technology!

[flyingdutchdevil]

That's my question. The defenses are more sophisticated in the NBA, and the quality of the competition is much higher. As with Kyrie, Jabari's defense has been subpar at Duke, though both can generate a sportscenter offensive highlight reel every game. My concern is that Jabari would likely be a defensive liability in the NBA without quite a lot of work. At the same time, because he's so good offensively and will be drafted so high by a presumably bad team, he'll be playing 30 minutes per night, 4 nights a week. When is he supposed to learn high-level fundamentals if he doesn't learn them at a place that specializes in high-level defensive fundamentals (ie, Duke)?

If his goal is to lock $5 million in the bank regardless of his future performance, going pro at the end of the year makes sense. My question is whether he is might enhance his chances of being the next Lebron (and getting a spot in the rafters) with an additional year of seasoning.

College basketball, rightfully so, has restrictions to how much players can practice. Yes, they can easily train outside of practices (and they do a lot), but many don't really have the money to get additional coaching outside of the season.

In the NBA, as a lottery pick, teams will invest heavily in you. The resources exponentially increase compared to college. The hours you have to sit down and learn increase, during both the season and off-season. You have one responsibility in the NBA - play basketball. Collectively, the best basketball minds in the world are in the NBA. This makes sense as the NBA has, collectively, the most money. I know that Coach K is one of the greatest basketball minds, but he is one man in college ball and makes $9-$10M a year, significantly more than most NBA coaches. But to think that, collectively, Duke has better resources than the average NBA team is not correct.

If Jabari wants to develop better as a basketball player, I think going to the NBA just makes too much sense. But if he wants to learn in the classroom, spend more time with his fun-loving teammates (especially Quinn Cook, he must be a blast), and learn a few unique skills from Coach K that he may or may not learn in the NBA, then stay at Duke for another year.

[Reisen]

There isn't a huge difference between 1 and 3. About 1 million per year.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/2013-14-nb...e-salary-scale

It's in Parker's financial interest to leave after this year because it get's him out of the Rookie Wage Scale one year sooner. Parker, most likely, will be a "Max Contract" player so the earlier he can get to that 2nd contract the better. Looking even further down the road, it would also put him in line for a 2nd Max deal sometime in his late 20's.

Thanks, this is exactly what I was looking for. I'd actually argue it is a big difference (nearly 30% more), but your point about getting out of the rookie wage scale dwarfs that difference. From a pure long-run financial perspective, Parker would clearly be better off coming out in 2014 as a #3 pick, than 2015 as a #1 pick.

[jjasper0729]

I'm definitely not begrudging these guys that leave school after one year. I know I wouldn't turn down that opportunity were it offered to me. i just think, like someone else has said that it's different being in college 18-21 as opposed to 38-41. The experience is completely different if you're going back ~40 as opposed to enjoying it when you can still be a kid (even if some of us ~40 year olds still are kids at heart). That was my point.

[vick]

Hey Duke has that same technology!

I know. As a lover of analytics, it's why I'm rooting for this team probably harder than for any since my graduation.

That's my question. The defenses are more sophisticated in the NBA, and the quality of the competition is much higher. As with Kyrie, Jabari's defense has been subpar at Duke, though both can generate a sportscenter offensive highlight reel every game. My concern is that Jabari would likely be a defensive liability in the NBA without quite a lot of work. At the same time, because he's so good offensively and will be drafted so high by a presumably bad team, he'll be playing 30 minutes per night, 4 nights a week. When is he supposed to learn high-level fundamentals if he doesn't learn them at a place that specializes in high-level defensive fundamentals (ie, Duke)?

Those are reasonable points, but I think a few responses. First, Jabari is spending way more time guarding post players than I think he will in the NBA (though I'll let the recruiting experts speculate on what would happen if he comes back next year with Okafor), so in some sense he's learning different fundamentals. Secondarily, a lot of what "fundamentals" in the modern NBA are learning and reacting to detailed scouting reports, which is clearly a skill better learned in the NBA.

[Kedsy]

Ignoring time-value-of-money, would it be in Parker's interest to stay one more year to move from 3rd to 1st?

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.

For Hood - This sentence caught my eye: "At 21, Hood’s age works against him with NBA executives obsessed with teenagers." I can easily see why an NBA exec would prefer a 21 y/o to a 31 y/o. At some point, a combination of an aging body and an accumulation of injuries starts to make players a step slower. But certainly not at 21. I'd argue the opposite, in fact. At that age, he has 2 more years of high level strength training, so he should be better, physically. Ignore the extra coaching he's gotten around things like defense, free throw technique, practice competing against high level players (like Jabari), etc.

The only reason I can think this could be true would be if NBA execs were evaluating where a player was going to be in 10+ years when drafting him. I'm sorry, but I find this laughable. In this day of free agents and multiple contracts, does anyone really believe execs assume a player will be on their squad a decade later? If not, I suppose you could make the argument that a younger player would be more valuable in a trade scenario, but now we're really reaching.

It seems to me that, given the same level of raw talent, I'd take the player that someone else has invested an extra two years of work into, so that he can help me win now.

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.

[duke96]

There isn't a huge difference between 1 and 3. About 1 million per year.

A mere pittance!

[CDu]

So, in SI's latest draft predictions, Parker is now third, and Hood 14th:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba...ker/?eref=sihp

Reading this, I had two questions / thoughts, one for each:

For Parker - Getting to watch him play often, I have a hard time imagining him not taken #1. Granted, I've only seen Randle & Wiggins play twice each, but to me, Parker looks the better player. Let's say everyone believes these draft rankings will hold true, though, and this is just a crazy class at the top (as everyone has claimed). Ignoring time-value-of-money, would it be in Parker's interest to stay one more year to move from 3rd to 1st? Or is the difference pretty marginal as long as you're a high lottery pick?

For Hood - This sentence caught my eye: "At 21, Hood’s age works against him with NBA executives obsessed with teenagers." I can easily see why an NBA exec would prefer a 21 y/o to a 31 y/o. At some point, a combination of an aging body and an accumulation of injuries starts to make players a step slower. But certainly not at 21. I'd argue the opposite, in fact. At that age, he has 2 more years of high level strength training, so he should be better, physically. Ignore the extra coaching he's gotten around things like defense, free throw technique, practice competing against high level players (like Jabari), etc.

The only reason I can think this could be true would be if NBA execs were evaluating where a player was going to be in 10+ years when drafting him. I'm sorry, but I find this laughable. In this day of free agents and multiple contracts, does anyone really believe execs assume a player will be on their squad a decade later? If not, I suppose you could make the argument that a younger player would be more valuable in a trade scenario, but now we're really reaching.

It seems to me that, given the same level of raw talent, I'd take the player that someone else has invested an extra two years of work into, so that he can help me win now.

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.