Dalek wrote:REJECTEDBYCLARK wrote:Yallbecrazy wrote:OG had a BPM of 8.9, Pascal of 8.2
Go back and look how dominant they were in college as per the stats. These comparisons are bad.
This draft is really bad, there are like 8 guys who have a decent chance to be good NBA players and everyone else has to hit their 90th+ percentile.
I would take the under on 3.5 all star players from this draft.
That's why you want to see efficiency no matter the FGA, OG with a .620 efg in college.
Meanwhile people want to convince you that every big name in college like Kyle Filipowski who had a .481 efg as a center could be the next kristaps porzingis
I see what you are saying about the stats, but I wonder if that also has to do with the time when people played. This is college ball before kids were incentivized to stay. OG and Pascal are both great college players, but maybe the talent level was also a bit lower.
One area that I think isn't discussed enough is the impact of the NIL since is was brought in, because my theory is that it has in part increased parity in the NCAA.
There are fewer bad teams to build up your numbers on and overall there are better defenses because of the roster consistency. NIL plays a part because it incentivizes players to stay in college longer and that helps programs become more competitive.
Miami had a senior program and they nearly won a title. San Diego State is another example. Just look at the whole tournament and you see how much parity there is in the NCAA.
Teams with one and done stars often struggled because it is a lot to get players to learn the system and perform well. Not saying that this draft doesn't have flaws, but the numbers don't always tell the whole story about the player.
True but numbers not being telling of ability only applies to very few cases. You generally want to use them as guidelines and give preference to the players who actually can put the ball in the bucket and fill up the stat sheets.
*INGRAM*ALLSTARSEASON* Wemby is HIM
