Potential

[M-Town's Finest]

This is an open-ended question. What makes up what people so often call potential? The ability and room to improve. It seems that most media types think that age, athleticism, height, and build give one player an advantage over another person even if that player is not the better player on the court. What do you think are the main factors and in what order?

[SD2042]

Good question. To be a player with potential to either become someone good or great depends on what position you play along with the skills you demonstrate on the court. Someone with the "potential tag" as we all seem either have a 50% chance of achieving their potential to become great or have a 50% chance of failing to reach their potential. Here's a short list of success and failures on potentials.

Players that reached their potential

Tracy McGrady
Tony Parker
Dirk Nowitzki
Josh Howard
Richard Jefferson
Joe Johnson
Gilbert Arenas
Dwight Howard



Players that failed to reached their potential

Kwame Brown
Michael Olowokandi
Stromile Swift
Sean May
Raef LaFrentz
Joey Graham
Darko Milicic
JJ Redick


Players like T-Mac, Dirk, and TP really struggled early on in their careers before they managed to find solid ground to get to where they are today. Which means they reached their potential to become all stars. Then you have players like Kwame Brown, Michael Olowokandi, and Darko Milicic who were not only selected in the top five in their respective drafts. They had the "potential tag" to become good players. However, they failed to reached their potential in the league. There are plenty of reasons why players fail to reach their potential. Overhyped from the media, playing in a system that can disguise their weaknesses, but play up to their strengths, level of confidence and determination, the system doesn't match the player's style of play and so on.

Depending on the position a player plays at determines his level of "potential"

Does he have the b-ball skills neccessary to help his teammates win games.
Does he have the mental ability to stay strong in the game.
Does he have the versitility and athleticism to endure many games per season.
Does he have the ability to adapt to the way his team plays the style of game whether it's half court or run and gun.
Will the player continue to work hard to better his game to have a successful career in the pros.

IMO, the list above should determine whether or not the player with the potential will be able to do what's neccessary to achieve his goals on being a successful player in the future.

[GrizzledGrizzFan]

Stromile Swift lead to the term "strotential" in Grizz land.

[Downtown]

One thing that is always funny is how young players coming into the league get compared to established NBA players and once the comparison gets kind of locked in people think that is the level that player could someday reach and that the actual number they get selected at in the draft should determine if they will become a good NBA player or not.

Here in Vancouver I remember when we drafted Stromile Swift. He was compared to Antonio McDyess in his prime when he was a 20 and 10 guy. He had all the physical attributes that lead Stu Jackson to pick him at #2 out of LSU as a sophmore. I still find it amusing how teams say they put these young kids through a battery of mental questioning and then talk about the character of the player and think they know how he will turn out.

As mentioned, the absolute classic case was the year the three highschoolers Brown, Chandler and Curry were drafted. The potential of what was projected for them somewhere down the line was too much to resist. And we know that two of the three never did mature and grow into the players they were projected to become.

I suppose that potential can be defined as the level that one is projected to reach given the aspects of the skill level that a player has in varying areas at the present time, and assuming those skills will progress over time with the right coaching.

One of the many problems that is run into is that the professional level demands winning now as a benchmark and few teams actually take the time to give players the proper coaching that college can provide. Perhaps that is why freshmen and sophmores get picked ahead of seniors in most cases. Teams feel that after four years of college if they haven't reached a certain level they never will, where as first and second year players still have room to improve. The lifestyle of basically living out of a suitcase, having so many new distractions(money, fame, etc.) and having the burden of fans instant gratification and expectations all heaped on their shoulders at a still young age where they have been sheltered within the college system can throw most players off track to ever reach their own individual goals.

So it seems the younger a player is the more "potential" he has. But some Gm's like Bryan Colangelo have gone a different route and brought in older players like Anthony Parker, Jorge Garbajosa, Jose Calderon, and Jamario Moon. I think it all depend on the philosophy of ownership with regards to where they see their team. How many years did we watch the Clippers go down the potential road and stick with all young players? At a certain point a team has to stop going with young players that have that potential label stuck to them and either sign free agents or trade one or two of those young guys with potential for established players if they want to get to the next level of competitiveness.

I'll use the Hornets as a good example. They hit a couple good drafts and got their young stars in West and Paul. They then decided to go after a still young player that had been around a while in Chandler. Stojakovic had played in the playoffs and knew what it took to win so they bring him in as an established player. They tried it again last year with Mo Peterson, but it didn't really turn out great for them. But instead of looking to draft a youngster to fill that spot they signed James Posey, who just came off of winning the championship.

They have gone from the potential mode into the win now mode. The question should be asked "at what point do the Grizzlies look to make that switch"? They have both the cap space and some young assets with "potential" to trade to bring in those established players that they need if they hope to get to the level of playoff contender.

[Downtown]

Sorry for such a longwinded post. I promise to make this one shorter.

The Grizzlies have all the potential they need. Mayo has loads of it. Conley and Gasol possibly have it. Gay now is established as a young star. That's possibly four key areas covered. So if Heisley truly wants to win he needs to tell his GM to go in a different direction. With both cap space and young assets that could still have potential in Warrick and Crittenton they have the ability for a trade or two for a solid player.

I'm still of the belief that they should go into this season with what they now have, evaluate, and at the trade deadline make a serious run at a good player who may be in the wrong situation on a team. Next summer make sure to get the right free agent that will be an impact player. That would make at the least two established impact players that takes the pressure off the potential players and would accomplish a couple of goals by allowing Mayo and Conley to grow into their potential without as much pressure on them, and give the Grizzlies that missing ingredient of leadership that would elevate them to playoff status.

Sorry I got off track some but I tried to tie in the potential question with how I see the Grizzlies and their young players with potential.

[jefe]

Downtown:

I agree with your general idea - I just don't think it's likely because (1) we just began a youth movement in earnest with the Gasol trade 2/1/08 (although arguably it began with the Battier-Gay trade) and (2) we've had opportunities in the past to move young players (when we had two at every position for Hubie) or large expirings (Eddie Jones for AI could have been a very real possibility) for impact veterans and opted not to. Granted the opportunities of (2) occured on West's watch, so it's not exactly fair to say Wallace would make the same non-moves - but Heisley is still the one to give the ultimate yey or ney on such a move.

[Downtown]

No arguement from me jefe. Like I said it's about what direction the owner wants to go, and even when we had the Grizzlies here in Vancouver it was obvious that Heisley was a bottom line guy. He wants to get paying customers first instead of following that movie saying that build it and they will come.

But I'll use the Clippers as an example. They signed veteran Baron Davis. They got veteran Marcus Camby for practically nothing. They signed veteran scorer Ricky Davis as insurance off the bench. When you add those veterans to Mobley and Tim Thomas you have leadership and experience. Then factor in Kaman, who has playoff experience and is still young, along with great draft pick Al Thornton, who moves into the spot vacated by Corey Magette, plus two decent rookies in Eric Gordon and project Deandre Jordan you have a nice mix. Plus they are still going to have the third lowest payroll in the league in the second or third largest market.

It can be done.

And once again my apology for writing such a long post. I had three cups of coffee and once I got rolling I couldn't wrap it up.

[SD2042]

One thing that is always funny is how young players coming into the league get compared to established NBA players and once the comparison gets kind of locked in people think that is the level that player could someday reach and that the actual number they get selected at in the draft should determine if they will become a good NBA player or not.

Here in Vancouver I remember when we drafted Stromile Swift. He was compared to Antonio McDyess in his prime when he was a 20 and 10 guy. He had all the physical attributes that lead Stu Jackson to pick him at #2 out of LSU as a sophmore. I still find it amusing how teams say they put these young kids through a battery of mental questioning and then talk about the character of the player and think they know how he will turn out.

As mentioned, the absolute classic case was the year the three highschoolers Brown, Chandler and Curry were drafted. The potential of what was projected for them somewhere down the line was too much to resist. And we know that two of the three never did mature and grow into the players they were projected to become.

I suppose that potential can be defined as the level that one is projected to reach given the aspects of the skill level that a player has in varying areas at the present time, and assuming those skills will progress over time with the right coaching.

One of the many problems that is run into is that the professional level demands winning now as a benchmark and few teams actually take the time to give players the proper coaching that college can provide. Perhaps that is why freshmen and sophmores get picked ahead of seniors in most cases. Teams feel that after four years of college if they haven't reached a certain level they never will, where as first and second year players still have room to improve. The lifestyle of basically living out of a suitcase, having so many new distractions(money, fame, etc.) and having the burden of fans instant gratification and expectations all heaped on their shoulders at a still young age where they have been sheltered within the college system can throw most players off track to ever reach their own individual goals.

So it seems the younger a player is the more "potential" he has. But some Gm's like Bryan Colangelo have gone a different route and brought in older players like Anthony Parker, Jorge Garbajosa, Jose Calderon, and Jamario Moon. I think it all depend on the philosophy of ownership with regards to where they see their team. How many years did we watch the Clippers go down the potential road and stick with all young players? At a certain point a team has to stop going with young players that have that potential label stuck to them and either sign free agents or trade one or two of those young guys with potential for established players if they want to get to the next level of competitiveness.

I'll use the Hornets as a good example. They hit a couple good drafts and got their young stars in West and Paul. They then decided to go after a still young player that had been around a while in Chandler. Stojakovic had played in the playoffs and knew what it took to win so they bring him in as an established player. They tried it again last year with Mo Peterson, but it didn't really turn out great for them. But instead of looking to draft a youngster to fill that spot they signed James Posey, who just came off of winning the championship.

They have gone from the potential mode into the win now mode. The question should be asked "at what point do the Grizzlies look to make that switch"? They have both the cap space and some young assets with "potential" to trade to bring in those established players that they need if they hope to get to the level of playoff contender.

Whoever stated that Stro comparison was to Antonio McDyess clearly missed the boat. Two completely different players on different levels of bball. Sure Stro has more athleticism, but Dice had the whole package early on before injuries took it's tole on his body. Also good call on Curry, DT. Curry has been up and down in terms of playing to his potential. And the guy has been in the league 5 or 6 yrs. If this is the best Curry will do. Then it's safe to say he has failed to play to his potential.

[GO GRIZZ]

I don't think Sean May deserves to be in that spot just yet. I don't think you can measure potential during his little time on the court. Once, he has a complete season, then you could say that he didn't reach it after a poor season. I didn't see Bynum on either list. Perhaps before he got hurt you could say that he reached it but he could regress since his off time from his injury. To make a long story short, it's really difficult to measure potential in a player unless the player is a stud allah Lebron James.

[ray ray]

I'm a huge Suns fan, since my observation is kind of blinded by my homerism, I would like to get your input in a couple of Suns players.

1) Amare Stoudimare
2) Boris Diaw
3) Leandro Barbosa

Be honest, I think that all these three players still have potential to becomse better but I don't know if its just me being a Suns fan..

[csean_benetton]

I'll use the Hornets as a good example. They hit a couple good drafts and got their young stars in West and Paul. They then decided to go after a still young player that had been around a while in Chandler. Stojakovic had played in the playoffs and knew what it took to win so they bring him in as an established player. They tried it again last year with Mo Peterson, but it didn't really turn out great for them. But instead of looking to draft a youngster to fill that spot they signed James Posey, who just came off of winning the championship.

Lotta luck involved too, and not just re. the players themselves, i.e. avoiding injury, getting drafted into the "right" situation (coach, system, vets ahead of you, etc.).

Take the aforementioned Hornets situation. Their top 2 players, both young and both Allstars, apparently were almost traded to Atlanta before the 2005 draft: i.e., the rumors had it that New Orleans management offered Atlanta both David West and the #4 pick (used to draft Paul) in exchange for Atlanta's #2 pick, as New Orleans (and a lot of other teams) were very high on Marvin Williams, who had shown little in college but was considered to have "unlimited potential". Of course, Atlanta turned down the offer.

[SD2042]

I'm a huge Suns fan, since my observation is kind of blinded by my homerism, I would like to get your input in a couple of Suns players.

1) Amare Stoudimare
2) Boris Diaw
3) Leandro Barbosa

Be honest, I think that all these three players still have potential to becomse better but I don't know if its just me being a Suns fan..

Stoudimire- When Amare had the knee injury which force him to sit out the majority of the 2005-06 season. I thought "Antonio McDyess" because of the athleticism that he posess during the early part of his career b4 knee injuries took his explosiveness away from him. Luckily for Amare and his fans, that he was able to march forward to play better than he did before. Although his defense leaves a lot to desire, his offensive explosiveness is what makes his game work for the Suns. I would say he has reached his potential and expectations that most ppl expected out of him.

Diaw- See Diaw is a utility player. He is capable of doing the little things that allow the Suns to win games. He's not known to be good at a specific area of bball. He's just good at multi-tasking. From playing the PG, SG, SF, PF, and a little of C(depending on the matchup). Potential wise, he's a solid player, but I believe he has already has gone as far as the ceiling can go.

Barbosa- I like Barbosa's explosiveness on the floor when Dantoni was around.(pre-Shaq era) He would vary from either slashing to the post or his fav, shooting from the perimeter. However, I think the run and gun system has spoiled Barbosa in terms of him justing known for shooting the ball. How is he on defense really? According to draft reports on him 5yrs ago, defense was a part of his skills from his days on the Brazil team. Also is he really capable of getting teammates involve in games if he was put on another team? More likely, that's a no considering that he played more of a SG type of game. And with new coach Terry Porter holdin down the reins, who knows how will things play out for players like Barbosa. There maybe room for Barbosa to grow as a player if he's able to show that he's more than just offense on the court.