2022 NBA Summer League

[tommy]

I mean, Wendell Moore (who has progressed and grown massively the past couple years) and Cassisus Stanley (who may not be in the league at the same age as Wendell) would seem to be proof, right?

The simple anatomy and maturation of the human body tells us that the further you are from your physical peak, the more room you have to grow into a peak specimen. NBA teams, which invest tens of millions of dollars into young players, have spent a lot of time studying this. They tell you that an 18 year old player who is similarly skilled as a 20 year old player will almost certainly end up being better -- probably significantly better -- than the 20 year old at some point in the new few years. We see this happen again and again and again in draft picks as they age and mature.

I truthfully did not know this was controversial.

And I am sure you can cite examples of guys who developed late. No rule is an absolute. But, more often than not, a younger player has a better chance of being better than a similarly skilled older player.

I don't think that's "proof," no. I think it's one example where a player improved between the ages of 18 and 20 by staying in school and another player may or may not have improved between ages 20 and 22 by playing against pro's. You're right that there are tons of examples and counterexamples of guys who improve early, and other guys who improve later, for all sorts of different reasons.

But here's the thing: it's really easy to forget that these guys who many write off as "old" or that their upside is limited or even expired due to their age are, like, 20 years old! That is not an old basketball player. In most cases, that is not a fully developed basketball player. It wasn't all that long ago that all 20 year olds were still college juniors and several years away from being ready to contribute meaningfully in the NBA, and it's still true that many aren't close to ready at 20. Sure the top players are, but many aren't.


I think about it this way. The average NBA player is at his peak performance, the height of his powers at what, 24-25 years old? Give or take a year or two depending on the player. Some might say even older than that. So an 18 year old has, say, 7 years until he reaches his peak and a 20 year old has 5 years until that point. Again, on average. Is there really THAT much of a difference in a team "only" getting a guy for five years pre-peak as opposed to seven? I don't think so. How many guys even stay with their first team for more years than that?


Seems to me there should be value in the 20 year old -- like Wendell Moore -- who a franchise can see already HAS shown the ability to improve and to develop, which often indicates that there is room for more development and the willingness to put in the work to do so, as opposed to a guy like Keels who, while younger, it's mostly hope and prayer that he can develop his game. Yes Keels (again, just an example) theoretically has more time until the typical peak of 25, but he may not have the ability to improve at all no matter if he has two years to do it, four, six, or the rest of his life. I think about a guy like Trevon Duval. Tons of natural, athletic talent and ball skills. He had lots of "upside," meaning at age 18 or 19 coming out of Duke, if he could develop a shot and develop better playmaking and decisionmaking skills, he could be a star. At least some thought so. But he didn't (apparently) develop any of that, and he's nowhere in the NBA right now.


So I guess that's all a long way of saying that I'm not convinced that the conventional wisdom is right. In some cases it is, sure, but I don't see a consistent evidentiary basis for what for some are blanket statements about this 20 or 21 or 22 year old being too old or having his "upside" limited while this 18 year old has "huge upside." The whole thing is much more complicated, and much more individualized than that. Of course, I'm not running an NBA franchise, but I wonder if there is some groupthink going on among a lot of these guys -- that's another way of establishing a conventional wisdom. Doesn't mean the reasoning behind it is sound.

The Undoing Project Michael Lewis book on Kahneman and Tveresky and behavioral economics in general has a chapter on Darryl Morley where among other things he says the strongest indicator he found in studying years of previous draft picks was the negative correlation between a players age and his future success. In other words all things equal the 22 year old that produced xyz was overvalued vs the 19 year old that produced xyz. The data set was draft picks up through the early aughts and the NBA has since taken this into account across the league is my understanding.

Right but the issue is comparing the 22 year old who has produced xyz to the 19 year old who hasn't produced xzy and many times hasn't produced close to xyz. The NBA valuing the 19 year old in that situation, based solely on his perceived "upside", while sometimes it's going to work out, seems like a pretty risky bet in a lot of situations.

[Bluedog]

It isn't either/or. Wendell because of his youth could afford to return to college without unduly sacrificing his upside. He was still young enough to return to school but still retain the upside of being a younger player. Had Wendell been 1-2 years older which lots of frosh are today then he'd have had very little upside remaining after 3 years.

It isn't an argument for returning to college. Wendell is an argument for going to college at a younger age. Bates did that. If he'd been smart enough to stick with msu then he'd be getting ready for year 2 with tons of upside left.

Ironically, many parents of top athletes historically have held their sons back in school because of the perceived advantage of being older than the competition and thus standing out. This is still probably the case for those that ascribe to get an athletic scholarhip, which is still quite hard to get. I guess for the super super elite (NBA prospects), the opposite now seems to hold true (you want to go early to show your "potential" as long as you can still produce some -- but you'll get more time to produce in the eyes of NBA scouts in college because you are younger).

[Phredd3]

I don't think that's "proof," no. ...

I think about it this way. The average NBA player is at his peak performance, the height of his powers at what, 24-25 years old? Give or take a year or two depending on the player. Some might say even older than that. So an 18 year old has, say, 7 years until he reaches his peak and a 20 year old has 5 years until that point. Again, on average. Is there really THAT much of a difference in a team "only" getting a guy for five years pre-peak as opposed to seven? I don't think so. How many guys even stay with their first team for more years than that? ...

Right but the issue is comparing the 22 year old who has produced xyz to the 19 year old who hasn't produced xzy and many times hasn't produced close to xyz. The NBA valuing the 19 year old in that situation, based solely on his perceived "upside", while sometimes it's going to work out, seems like a pretty risky bet in a lot of situations.

I wonder if you would be convinced by this article in BleacherReport, which was written back in 2011. It seems pretty convincing to me, but YMMV.

[HayYou]

Ironically, many parents of top athletes historically have held their sons back in school because of the perceived advantage of being older than the competition and thus standing out. This is still probably the case for those that ascribe to get an athletic scholarhip, which is still quite hard to get. I guess for the super super elite (NBA prospects), the opposite now seems to hold true (you want to go early to show your "potential" as long as you can still produce some -- but you'll get more time to produce in the eyes of NBA scouts in college because you are younger).

And I think this is why the NBA is "talking" about lowering the age requirement to enter the NBA (but not talking about doing away with the 1 year removed from HS rule). Once players realize that they are NBA lottery type players which doesn't typically happen until mid Jr year in HS at the earliest (save a few extreme outliers) then the NBA wants these guys to reclass and get to the L ASAP. The lower age rule would encourage the stars to hit college earlier and maybe stay a few years then go pro. The lesser players more concerned about getting a scholly than making the NBA won't be affected.

Take Paolo. With a younger age rule he might have reclassed after his Jr year and entered HS and been a year earlier into the NBA where he'd be making everyone more money earlier.

They have taken Zion at Christmas if they could have.

[dukelifer]

I wonder if you would be convinced by this article in BleacherReport, which was written back in 2011. It seems pretty convincing to me, but YMMV.

Given that the ave length of time in the NBA is 4.5 y- this is not too surprising. Injuries contribute in a big way. We have seen a number of Duke players only make it a few years after being drafted. The younger player tend to be the better players- but those are the top 5-10% of the population. With these relatively low numbers one could look at each case and determine what actually led to the decline he notes.

[luvdahops]

The Undoing Project Michael Lewis book on Kahneman and Tveresky and behavioral economics in general has a chapter on Darryl Morley where among other things he says the strongest indicator he found in studying years of previous draft picks was the negative correlation between a players age and his future success. In other words all things equal the 22 year old that produced xyz was overvalued vs the 19 year old that produced xyz. The data set was draft picks up through the early aughts and the NBA has since taken this into account across the league is my understanding.

Produced xyz in the NBA or in college/HS? If the latter, Morey's observation hardly seems revelatory. I'd much more interested in the outcomes when teams draft the 19 year old who produced x in college over the 20 or 21 year old who produced xyz, presumably based on "potential", which seems to happen frequently these days.

As an aside, I'd be curious to know if Morey remains as slavishly devoted to analytics these days after overplaying that hand and crashing and burning in Houston.

[HayYou]

Produced xyz in the NBA or in college/HS? If the latter, Morey's observation hardly seems revelatory. I'd much more interested in the outcomes when teams draft the 19 year old who produced x in college over the 20 or 21 year old who produced xyz, presumably based on "potential", which seems to happen frequently these days.

As an aside, I'd be curious to know if Morey remains as slavishly devoted to analytics these days after overplaying that hand and crashing and burning in Houston.

Gane theory negates this some. Take Paolo. There was serious debate about who should go first. A part of that was that Paolo did not dominate to the level he should have based on his body/athleticism/skill. And he was weak on D. I questioned his drive/motor. I also was not alone in this as such questions were the driving force behind the discussion of his weaknesses pre-draft. I was parroting the talking points of NBA experts and insiders.

But a closer look showed that Paolo played big in big games against top opponents. And he tore it up in the Tourney in our run to the FF. But that always begs the question of how much a kid wants it. OR it could mean that the kid was keeping his powder dry until he needed it. And that seems to be the case with Paolo.

It can be hard to tell if a kid who only does Y is ONLY doing that because it is all he is capable of or if he's not giving it his all until he's being paid to do so. I don't envy NBA scouts their task.

[mdj]

Produced xyz in the NBA or in college/HS? If the latter, Morey's observation hardly seems revelatory. I'd much more interested in the outcomes when teams draft the 19 year old who produced x in college over the 20 or 21 year old who produced xyz, presumably based on "potential", which seems to happen frequently these days.

As an aside, I'd be curious to know if Morey remains as slavishly devoted to analytics these days after overplaying that hand and crashing and burning in Houston.

As I read it Morey felt at the time the Langdons and Battiers were overvalued vs the 18 year old kid who may not have done as much in large part because he was playing against kids 1-3 years older. Like I said his research was done on picks 15+ years ago and it’s certainly possible the NBA has swung too far in the other direction. It’s hard to argue they don’t currently value potential over production.

He may have very well changed his opinion. The Warriors have done pretty well drafting a bunch of multi year college players. That said their last 2 early picks seem to have been an attempt to get lucky with the next Giannis, drafting two 18 year olds who had yet to do even X never mind Y and Z (Kuminga and Wiseman)

[luvdahops]

As I read it Morey felt at the time the Langdons and Battiers were overvalued vs the 18 year old kid who may not have done as much in large part because he was playing against kids 1-3 years older. Like I said his research was done on picks 15+ years ago and it’s certainly possible the NBA has swung too far in the other direction. It’s hard to argue they don’t currently value potential over production.

He may have very well changed his opinion. The Warriors have done pretty well drafting a bunch of multi year college players. That said their last 2 early picks seem to have been an attempt to get lucky with the next Giannis, drafting two 18 year olds who had yet to do even X never mind Y and Z (Kuminga and Wiseman)

My question on Morey was more in terms of roster construction and strategy. The full-time, extreme small ball experiment (trading Clint Capela and relying on PJ Tucker and Robert Covington as the primary 5s) and the 3s and layups only, nothing in-between, offensive philosophy ultimately hit their natural limits in Houston. Though both could be defended, or at least rationalized, from a purely analytics standpoint, in hindsight they sure look like Morey outsmarting himself. There is clearly still a role for true bigs in the NBA today, though maybe not across a full 48 minutes each game. And the midrange game sure seems to have made a comeback of sorts, given the success of Butler, Tatum, Jaylen Brown, among others.

[JimSouthie]

Produced xyz in the NBA or in college/HS? If the latter, Morey's observation hardly seems revelatory. I'd much more interested in the outcomes when teams draft the 19 year old who produced x in college over the 20 or 21 year old who produced xyz, presumably based on "potential", which seems to happen frequently these days.

As an aside, I'd be curious to know if Morey remains as slavishly devoted to analytics these days after overplaying that hand and crashing and burning in Houston.

idk if you overplay analytics.

its like science, you can not really overplay science. you need more science to correct science.

i think he was smart to build a team around a guy. the guy left. he went to a team that underachieved building around a guy. now he has 2 guys.

[bundabergdevil]

i think he was smart to build a team around a guy. the guy left. he went to a team that underachieved building around a guy. now he has 2 guys.

And one of those two guys is the first guy.

[JasonEvans]

And one of those two guys is the first guy.

I'm not so sure that the guy is still the guy any longer. Luckily the other guy seems to certainly be the guy. The club seems like a formidable team because the guy took a pay cut that allowed the GM to get more lesser guys to play with the guy and the other guy.

[bundabergdevil]

I'm not so sure that the guy is still the guy any longer. Luckily the other guy seems to certainly be the guy. The club seems like a formidable team because the guy took a pay cut that allowed the GM to get more lesser guys to play with the guy and the other guy.

Well said!

[flyingdutchdevil]

I'm not so sure that the guy is still the guy any longer. Luckily the other guy seems to certainly be the guy. The club seems like a formidable team because the guy took a pay cut that allowed the GM to get more lesser guys to play with the guy and the other guy.

Which guy are we talking about? Fieri, Ritchie, or Lafleur?

[brevity]

I haven't posted in this thread since Summer League ended, but maybe this is a good time to look at the contract situations of the second round picks in the NBA Draft. (As of last week, all of the first round picks have been signed to standard contracts, per Spotrac.)

Standard Contract
Two-Way Contract
Overseas Stash

31. Andrew Nembhard, Pacers: 4 years, $8.6M
32. Caleb Houstan, Magic: 4 years, $8.2M
33. Christian Koloko, Raptors: (rumored as part of a trade package for Kevin Durant or Donovan Mitchell)
34. Jaylin Williams, Thunder: 4 years, $8.2M
35. Max Christie, Lakers: 2 years, $2.7M
36. Gabriele Procida, Pistons: 3 years, Alba Berlin, Germany (link)
37. Jaden Hardy, Mavericks: 3 years, $4.7M
38. Kennedy Chandler, Grizzlies: 4 years, $7.1M
39. Khalifa Diop, Cavaliers: 3 years, Gran Canaria, Spain (link)
40. Bryce McGowens, Hornets: Two-way, $502K, Greensboro Swarm
41. EJ Liddell, Pelicans: (injured, and the roster is currently full; maybe a two-way?)
42. Trevor Keels, Knicks: Two-way, $502K, Westchester Knicks
43. Moussa Diabate, Clippers: (rumored to get a two-way contract -- link)
44. Ryan Rollins, Warriors: (injured, and the roster may be full if Andre Iguodala returns)
45. Josh Minott, Timberwolves: 4 years, $6.9M
46. Ismael Kamagate, Nuggets: (no news; likely stays overseas)
47. Vince Williams Jr, Grizzlies: Two-way, $502K, Memphis Hustle
48. Kendall Brown, Pacers: Two-way, $502K, Fort Wayne Mad Ants (link)
49. Isaiah Mobley, Cavaliers: Two-way, $502K, Cleveland Charge
50. Matteo Spagnolo, Timberwolves: (staying overseas, but yet to select a team)
51. Tyrese Martin, Hawks: 2 years, $2.7M
52. Karlo Matković, Pelicans: 1 year, Cedevita Olimpija, Slovenia (link)
53. JD Davison, Celtics: Two-way, $502K, Maine Celtics
54. Yannick Nzosa, Wizards: 1 year, Unicaja Malaga, Spain (link)
55. Gui Santos, Warriors: (see Ryan Rollins above; may stay in Brazil -- link)
56. Luke Travers, Cavaliers: 1 year, Perth Wildcats, Australia (link)
57. Jabari Walker, Blazers: 3 years, $4.7M
58. Hugo Besson, Bucks: (no news; likely stays overseas)

Spotrac has most of this information -- it's a page worth visiting, if only to see that Paolo Banchero's rookie contract is almost $10 million more by virtue of being picked 1st instead of 3rd. I've added links where I was able to fill in any blanks.

[accfanfrom1970]

I haven't posted in this thread since Summer League ended, but maybe this is a good time to look at the contract situations of the second round picks in the NBA Draft. (As of last week, all of the first round picks have been signed to standard contracts, per Spotrac.)

Standard Contract
Two-Way Contract
Overseas Stash


56. Luke Travers, Cavaliers: 1 year, Perth Wildcats, Australia (link)
57. Jabari Walker, Blazers: 3 years, $4.7M
58. Hugo Besson, Bucks: (no news; likely stays overseas)

Spotrac has most of this information -- it's a page worth visiting, if only to see that Paolo Banchero's rookie contract is almost $10 million more by virtue of being picked 1st instead of 3rd. I've added links where I was able to fill in any blanks.

Blazers must really like Jabari Walker. Why does the 57th pick get 3 years and $4.7 million and picks in the 40's get two way deals?

[brevity]

Blazers must really like Jabari Walker. Why does the 57th pick get 3 years and $4.7 million and picks in the 40's get two way deals?

That's a good question. The short answer is "I don't know for sure, but I guess he was both lucky and good."

Jabari Walker was a solid sleeper pick going into the draft, but one of many such picks, equally likely to be an early second rounder as to be undrafted. (DBR mock drafted him at #40, by CameronBlue for Minnesota.)

The attention shifted to him when the Blazers' other draft pick, Shaedon Sharpe, got injured early in their first game. Walker responded well:

Over five Summer League games in Sin City, Walker was extremely efficient. He shot 62.9 percent from the field, 42.9 percent from three-point range, and 80 percent from the free throw line while averaging 12.4 points, 9.0 rebounds, 1.4 assists, 1.0 blocks, 1.0 steals, and 2.6 fouls in 22.0 minutes per game.

Unlike #45 pick Josh Minott, who clearly benefited from a Timberwolves roster purge in the Rudy Gobert trade, Jabari Walker didn't have a wide-open Portland roster situation. They waived Eric Bledsoe, but added Gary Payton II. They acquired Jerami Grant on draft night and re-signed or extended who they had. And of course they signed Shaedon Sharpe. When it was done they had 14 of 15 roster spots taken, and finished with Walker.

[subzero02]

That's a good question. The short answer is "I don't know for sure, but I guess he was both lucky and good."

Jabari Walker was a solid sleeper pick going into the draft, but one of many such picks, equally likely to be an early second rounder as to be undrafted. (DBR mock drafted him at #40, by CameronBlue for Minnesota.)

The attention shifted to him when the Blazers' other draft pick, Shaedon Sharpe, got injured early in their first game. Walker responded well:



Unlike #45 pick Josh Minott, who clearly benefited from a Timberwolves roster purge in the Rudy Gobert trade, Jabari Walker didn't have a wide-open Portland roster situation. They waived Eric Bledsoe, but added Gary Payton II. They acquired Jerami Grant on draft night and re-signed or extended who they had. And of course they signed Shaedon Sharpe. When it was done they had 14 of 15 roster spots taken, and finished with Walker.

They used to say the same thing about Tom Brady. All joking aside, if Walker is able to validate the hype around his summer league debut, Portland will likely have gotten the better end of this 3 year deal. Despite being a sophomore last season, Walker won't turn 20 until later this month.

[brevity]

The perils of having a bad Summer League, and a cautionary tale for 2nd rounders: Sharife Cooper, the #48 pick in the 2021 NBA Draft, was waived by the Atlanta Hawks today.

Cooper (RSCI #19 in 2020) was one and done at Auburn and was projected to be a late first rounder. (At the time, he was perceived as just missing one of 20 invites to the green room. Mike Schmitz ranked him #21 among Best Players Available. Also, if it matters, DBR mock drafted him at #23, by kAzE for the Houston Rockets.)

He slipped to the second round and was grabbed by the Hawks, no doubt thrilled to get him at #48 and a predicted lottery pick (Jalen Johnson) at #20. In the 2021 NBA Summer League, Cooper did well, averaging 14.8 points and 7.3 assists.

According to Peachtree Hoops, he spent his rookie season on a two-way contract and averaged 17.4 points, 6.4 assists and 3.6 rebounds in the G League. Then the article added:

"Sharife Cooper joined the Hawks’ 2022 Las Vegas Summer League team for the second summer in a row, but he found considerably less success this time around. Hampered by a hurt thumb on his shooting hand, Cooper averaged just 4.4 points, 4.2 assists and 1.2 rebounds as well as below 20% shooting from the field across five games, which seems to have contributed to the decision by the organization to move on from the 21-year-old."

sharifecooper.jpg

He had just signed a renewal of the two-way contract a few days ago, which means that this isn't even about a roster spot. The Hawks are ready to move on with someone else to play in their G League affiliate.

[JasonEvans]

The perils of having a bad Summer League, and a cautionary tale for 2nd rounders: Sharife Cooper, the #48 pick in the 2021 NBA Draft, was waived by the Atlanta Hawks today.

In summer league, Cooper averaged 4.4 points, 1.2 rebounds and 4.2 assists in five games. His shooting percentages were quite poor too.

Seems strange to cut the guy only 2 days after re-upping his 2-way, but those contracts are not at all guaranteed so it really does not affect the Hawks at all to drop him.