Official 2013 Draft Thread - Part III

[pancakes3]

Everyone matures at different rates, and it's typically incremental maturation after puberty.

We're not talking about someone going through puberty here, or a child that's developing rapidly. We're talking about someone several years past puberty, who's more than likely done growing (height-wise).

I'm pretty sure these are arguments for "my" side of the argument, especially the bolded.

[DCZards]

That's a crazy comment to anyone who has kids. Kids develop, emotionally, physically and mentally. One year definitely makes a difference.

So are you suggesting that every 16 year old is more developed emotionally, physically and mentally than a 14 or 15 year old simply because they are older? Do you really believe that age is the sole determinant in a young person's development?

[sfam]

That's a crazy comment to anyone who has kids. Kids develop, emotionally, physically and mentally. One year definitely makes a difference.

So are you suggesting that every 16 year old is more developed emotionally, physically and mentally than a 14 or 15 year old simply because they are older? Do you really believe that age is the sole determinant in a young person's development?

What's clear, is in a given body of student atheletes, with everything else being equal, a 17 year old competing with a room full of 16 year olds will have an advantage. Think of any sports league you want growing up - soccer, baseball, whatever. On a team of 10-12 year olds, the 12 year olds are almost always the stud players, with the exception of that one awesome kid. If all the kids are all awesome, which they would be on a travel team made up of 16 year-olds, if one kid is a year older, he clearly has an advantage on the rest. It becomes ethically problematic when everyone there thinks the 17 year-old is 16, just like the rest of the kids.

So no, clearly age isn't the sole determinant. That's a straw man response. But on average, being older gives the kid an advantage.

[nate33]

That's a crazy comment to anyone who has kids. Kids develop, emotionally, physically and mentally. One year definitely makes a difference.

So are you suggesting that every 16 year old is more developed emotionally, physically and mentally than a 14 or 15 year old simply because they are older? Do you really believe that age is the sole determinant in a young person's development?

Who said anything about "every" 16 year old developing at the same rate. That's a red herring. The bottom line is that Shabazz was playing against people who were, on average, a year behind in development mentally, physically, emotionally, etc. That's going to give him an advantage. It's just flat out silly to argue otherwise. I can't believe this argument has lasted this long.

[DCZards]

Who said anything about "every" 16 year old developing at the same rate. That's a red herring. The bottom line is that Shabazz was playing against people who were, on average, a year behind in development mentally, physically, emotionally, etc. That's going to give him an advantage. It's just flat out silly to argue otherwise. I can't believe this argument has lasted this long.

I totally disagree with this notion that there's some "average" 16 year old in terms of mental, physical and emotional development. 16 year olds are all over the place...some look and act like 14 or 15 year olds and some look and act like 19 year olds. A visit to a classroom full of 16 years olds would prove that.

And is one year of physical and mental development at that age really that big of an "advantage"? Of course not. But I do agree with you on one thing...this silly argument has gone on too long.

[SUPERBALLMAN]

I don't want Zeller, and if it comes down to Zeller and Muhammad being the 2 available to us I would take Zeller without question.

[pancakes3]

I totally disagree with this notion that there's some "average" 16 year old in terms of mental, physical and emotional development. 16 year olds are all over the place...some look and act like 14 or 15 year olds and some look and act like 19 year olds. A visit to a classroom full of 16 years olds would prove that.

And is one year of physical and mental development at that age really that big of an "advantage"? Of course not. But I do agree with you on one thing...this silly argument has gone on too long.

16 year olds on a whole, I'll agree with you. However when it comes to top-of-the-line athletes, I vehemently disagree with you.

[Nivek]

The idea that small differences in age can make a BIG difference has been researched and well-established. Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers" includes a section in which he synthesizes studies done showing that even small differences in age can make a significant difference in outcomes decades later. He used the example of hockey players in Canada where the birthday cutoff for youth hockey registrations is January 1. In other words, a kid born January 1 of 1980 plays with all the other kids born in 1980 -- just like a kid born December 31 of the same year.

What the research shows is that those kids with a birth date earlier in the year tend to be identified at a young age as "better" and therefore end up getting chosen for select teams, special coaching, training, etc. So they continue to do better at the sport into the teens/late teens, in large part because of the extra attention and resources they receive earlier.

Why do kids a few months older tend to out-perform their competitors who were born later in the same year? Because those older kids have a few months head start in physical and mental development.

The same factor shows up in classrooms where relatively older children typically "out-perform" kids a few months younger in the same class. This reality has led some parents to try holding their kids out of school before the start of kindergarten so that when they do enter the classroom, they'll be among the oldest in their class.

To the issue of Shabazz Muhammad, his dad lying about his age so that he was in effect a year older than his competitors throughout the youth sports/development process almost certainly gave him a significant advantage. How much difference that advantage ends up making is a matter for debate. His college performance wasn't all that special despite the chicanery.

But being a year older most certainly was an advantage for Muhammad.

[Dat2U]

I also think small differences in ages make a huge difference among the potential NBA draftees. There's a huge difference b/w what Beal did as an 18 yr old freshman and what McLemore & Shabazz are doing as 20 yr old freshman. The amount of development that can occur in a short amount of time makes a huge difference. You have to hold those older players to different standards. The only way you consider either McLemore or Shabazz an elite is if they are absolutely dominating their competition. McLemore had his moments, Shabazz didn't measure up. They should be light years better than the typical freshman because they have almost 2 years on most of them.

[The Consiglieri]

How is an entire season a small sample size? He was a decent player for his entire freshman year - at age 20. If not for being hyped in HS and people assuming he was a year younger, probably nobody would be talking about him as a lottery pick.

He was suspended for the season right before it started, the disruptions to his training, and the resulting issues from the team as well helped to compromise much of his early season fitness and routine. 1 college season can be a 3 month snap shot of a players potential. Should that define him rather than his previous 4 year resume? Small sample size is relevant as it was with beal and Drummond.

I just happen to think that his situation with the NCAA, and the situation in UCLA with a coach who was operating the wrong system, was under fire, and going to be canned was anything but ideal. Just as Drummond's freshman year at UConn was derailed by problems with the team, I feel that Shabazz was partially derailed by the NCAA and instability in the UCLA program.

I don't expect him to turn into a franchise player, but I actually think he represents massive value, having dropped from a consenus #2 player, to the #8-#12 range, much like Drummond and to a lesser extent maybe Barnes last year (going from a top 3 prospect in the '11 and '12 drafts, to being drafted 7th by the Warriors.

I definitely could be wrong about him, there are red flags, plenty of concerns, but I think he represents great value, especially if Bennett and Len aren't available at that point, and none of the other guys generally ranked in the top 5 fall. I think he represents a far wiser choice than one of the second rate bigs that keeps repeatedly getting mentioned. But yes, I definitely understand why you have issues with him, just in the end, i think his situation was bad, 1 season of college ball is inherently small sample size, especially when your work out routine and training regimen are sabotaged by the NCAA for multiple weeks as the season is getting started. It's hard to imagine any player rated in the top 8 who had a worse situation this year, much like Drummond last year.

[Dat2U]

The one thing Shabazz showed this year is that he could get shots up. That in itself is considered a skill in the league. It gets guys like Monta Ellis big money. It meant Juan Dixon could stick around the league for 5-6 years. Probably the same will be said for Jordan Crawford. It doesn't mean he's going to be an asset on the court. I didn't see anything special in Shabazz's game the makes me say he'll be a significantly better pro player than a college one.

Andre Drummond was unique physical specimen at 7-0. Shabazz is your classic 6-6 tweener stuck between a SF skillset & foot speed with guard height. Drummond had an immediate impact defensively and on the offensive boards, Shabazz only impacted the game when he made shots. And it's not like Shabazz is an elite athlete. There's nothing I see that makes him qualified to be discussed as a lottery pick.

If I remember correctly, Samardo Samuels was the 2nd rated HS prospect in the class of 2007. He's now a backup/3rd string PF toiling in obscurity for the lowly Cavs. The HS recruiting agencies get it wrong too every once in a while.

[SUPERBALLMAN]

If we don't move up and stay at 8, our chances of getting the most bang for the buck IMO is to use the pick on a center.

Center is the value position of this draft. Overall, it is a weak draft. But not for centers, this draft is loaded with them! Noel, Len, Dieng, Zeller, Olynyk, Withey, Adams, Austin, Gobert, Plumlee, Muscala. It is a hard position to otherwise fill, and at 8 the Wizards will have a deep group of prospects to work through and find a good fit.

Center is what this draft will be remembered for. Like the '83 NFL draft for QBs. All this talk about Muhammad, I think I would take ANY of these centers over Shabazz.

At 37 we can find a stretch 4 off the bench from the likes of McDermott, Murphy, Payne, Deshaun Thomas, Bojan Dubljevic. Just looking at the needs of the Wizards and what players and positions look to be available where, Center and 8 and stretch 4 at 37 are the value picks of this draft and would make a logical strategy for the draft.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I think Jamaal Franklin will be a better pro than Shabazz Muhammed. So will Jordan Adams in a few years.

There are quite a few players I like more for Washington at #8 than Muhammed.

[Ruzious]

Just fwiw, any excuse-making for a prospect that uses Andre Drummond as the prime example, I'm ignoring. Anyone watching him at UConn should have been able to tell that he'd be an outstanding defensive center in the NBA. Offensively, people are overrating him - though he deserves credit for not trying to do things he can't do.

[nate33]

I totally disagree with this notion that there's some "average" 16 year old in terms of mental, physical and emotional development. 16 year olds are all over the place...some look and act like 14 or 15 year olds and some look and act like 19 year olds. A visit to a classroom full of 16 years olds would prove that.

Then you disagree with the notion of math and logic.

Yes, 16 years olds are all over the place. But this large group of all-over-the-place 16 year-olds are going to average out to the average capability of an average 16-year-old (or average 16-year old in an elite HS basketball program, that is). That's what the term "average" means. Shabazz, as a 19-year-old high school senior, was playing against a bunch of other kids who were 17 and 18-year-old high school seniors. That extra 1-1/2 years are going to make a difference. Maybe not necessarily for every single opponent, but for the collective average of all the opponents, it sure will.

[DCZards]

Then you disagree with the notion of math and logic.

Yes, 16 years olds are all over the place. But this large group of all-over-the-place 16 year-olds are going to average out to the average capability of an average 16-year-old (or average 16-year old in an elite HS basketball program, that is). That's what the term "average" means. Shabazz, as a 19-year-old high school senior, was playing against a bunch of other kids who were 17 and 18-year-old high school seniors. That extra 1-1/2 years are going to make a difference. Maybe not necessarily for every single opponent, but for the collective average of all the opponents, it sure will.

I thought we had agreed that this is a silly argument that has gone on far too long....jeez.

[hands11]

I don't get the big deal about his age. So what if he's a year older? There's no magic physical maturation bullet that hits you on your 20th birthday. As long as he's got the same amount of basketball development as a 19 year-old, it makes absolutely no difference, IMO. I don't know the full details of his early life history, but I'm guessing he was just started in school a year late.

You want to drop him due to video analysis of his game? Fine. You want to drop him due to unimpressive peripheral stats? Fine. Both are perfectly valid reasons.

Dropping him due to age is just silly.

I think age is relevant because of the style of his game. He's not really a highly skilled, fundamental player. His one refined skill is that he's a pretty good shooter. Mostly, he is just a very physical, slashing type of player who takes advantage of his strength advantage against his competition. When we're talking about 18, 19 and 20 year-olds, that one extra year gives him an advantage in the strength department. Take that strength advantage away and I don't think he's got much game.

And he can only drive one direction and he doesn't pass enough.

He is just a bad fit for this team. He needs to go some place he can be a primary shooter. On this team, that is going to be Beal and Wall, Trevor, Web and Nene.

What this team needs is...

1) A back up guard that is a great ball handler and who can shoot, pass, rebound. Thats why I like CJM
2) They need big that can shoot from range... stretch 4
3) And a legit tall defensive center to compliments what Nene and Okafor do.

Which is most important. For next year, probably the first one. If Wall or Beal get hurt, they need a legit back up. And Beal worries me more then Wall at this point. Price is ok, but they need better. And I'm not even sure it one player they need. I think it may be two. A back up PG ala Pierre or Wolters and someone like CJM. And that why people mention J Jack.

For longer term, probably #3 which is why I like Len. Dieng, Withey and Muscala can also help.

#2 they can find in the 2nd round.

Or they can find any of these things in a FA or trade. But they need all three.

[The Consiglieri]

The idea that small differences in age can make a BIG difference has been researched and well-established. Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers" includes a section in which he synthesizes studies done showing that even small differences in age can make a significant difference in outcomes decades later. He used the example of hockey players in Canada where the birthday cutoff for youth hockey registrations is January 1. In other words, a kid born January 1 of 1980 plays with all the other kids born in 1980 -- just like a kid born December 31 of the same year.

What the research shows is that those kids with a birth date earlier in the year tend to be identified at a young age as "better" and therefore end up getting chosen for select teams, special coaching, training, etc. So they continue to do better at the sport into the teens/late teens, in large part because of the extra attention and resources they receive earlier.

Why do kids a few months older tend to out-perform their competitors who were born later in the same year? Because those older kids have a few months head start in physical and mental development.

The same factor shows up in classrooms where relatively older children typically "out-perform" kids a few months younger in the same class. This reality has led some parents to try holding their kids out of school before the start of kindergarten so that when they do enter the classroom, they'll be among the oldest in their class.

To the issue of Shabazz Muhammad, his dad lying about his age so that he was in effect a year older than his competitors throughout the youth sports/development process almost certainly gave him a significant advantage. How much difference that advantage ends up making is a matter for debate. His college performance wasn't all that special despite the chicanery.

But being a year older most certainly was an advantage for Muhammad.

You missed important element in this analysis, though, and that's that the advantages these players receive is a product of how juniors hockey, and internatonal soccer determine access to major tournament and related age cut offs. American Basketball doesn't work the same way. Access to youth tournaments every other year isn't a huge prerogative in picking and choosing who we want to develop. We have the NBA and college hoops, and before that high school, AAU circuit etc. Not exactly, or even remotely like the set up used in international soccer and hockey, where the month of the year can dictate not only whether or not your noticed, by scouts, but also whether scouts are even interested in looking at you (the every other year set up for junior and youth world cups, can leave nations that prioritize these events for development, uninterested in players whose birthdays leave them too young to compete in their desired tournaments, and too old to compete in the following tourney-none of these issues prevail in American youth basketball development.).

[hands11]

That's a crazy comment to anyone who has kids. Kids develop, emotionally, physically and mentally. One year definitely makes a difference.

So are you suggesting that every 16 year old is more developed emotionally, physically and mentally than a 14 or 15 year old simply because they are older? Do you really believe that age is the sole determinant in a young person's development?

What's clear, is in a given body of student atheletes, with everything else being equal, a 17 year old competing with a room full of 16 year olds will have an advantage. Think of any sports league you want growing up - soccer, baseball, whatever. On a team of 10-12 year olds, the 12 year olds are almost always the stud players, with the exception of that one awesome kid. If all the kids are all awesome, which they would be on a travel team made up of 16 year-olds, if one kid is a year older, he clearly has an advantage on the rest. It becomes ethically problematic when everyone there thinks the 17 year-old is 16, just like the rest of the kids.

So no, clearly age isn't the sole determinant. That's a straw man response. But on average, being older gives the kid an advantage.

Only thing that is amazing me is the idea that what you wrote is even in question. I think this stuff has been know fact since ... ah... caveman roamed the earth.

Of course there are exceptions. But for the vast majority, this is true.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I think Akron's Zeke Marshall will impact games the same way Chris "Birdmam" Anderson does.