The Notic wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Paul having the better season doesn't make the Jazz regret the pick, nor does it make picking the guys who are consistently high in all mocks a better pick over guys with surprise seasons any more reasonable.
Every comparison between prospect should be treated as an individual case. That's basically what I'm getting at, and I don't think any sort of rule of thumb exists when considering which prospect to pick, A (consistently productive prospect year-round) vs B(Surprise prospect, unexpected productivity).
I would say this: The longer term projections are usually the result of more solid aspects of a player's potential, largely physical ability.
Whereas a good run, especially a good playoff/tourney run, can be affected by so many more variables which won't be sustained: matchups, teammates, health, getting 'hot', etc.
But the other aspect I find happens is that the Top Guys will have unrealistic TEAM expectations put on them. Precious few of the best NBA players won NCAA Championships. Many, like Duncan, were considered to belong to disappointing teams in that respect. But imo that is an almost insane standard to hold them to. There are SO many NCAA teams, and SO many factors which affect how a team plays, most of them having nothing to do with the individual player himself.
More, as the talent pool in college has gotten younger, imo it's a LESS accurate measuring stick. The degree to which a 19 pr 20 year old should be expected to dominate all the way down the line, and drag his team with him, is significantly less then when many of the top players were playing 4 years and much more matured.
More, I think people will apply that standard to the TOP player and, as will happen most times, their teams don't manage to be the top 1 or 2% or whatever, will contrast that will Player X, who is leading another team farther, forgetting that there ALWAYS HAS TO BE SUCH A PLAYER/TEAM. Most of those players turn out to be Mateen Cleaves. Some become Mike Bibby. But it's still an insane standard.
And yet Paul Pierce, Chris Paul, Rudy Gay and countless others have seen their stocks drop because of it. And the odd thing is that in some cases, Paul in particular, it is in SPITE of their play in the tourney. If you watched Paul in the NCAA's, he was playing out of his mind. Just that his teammates weren't, and the team that beat them had like 2 or 3 guys go off. I don't know how Paul was supposed to have done more, and yet to some it counted.
I think this is largely a residue of people who got accustomed to reading intangibles into that when teams were older and therefore less fluid. The great teams tended to win then, and as such the great players 'lived up to' advance billing, and this was seen as confirmation of the immeasurable.
And the other factor is that NBA talent and NCAA talent are not exactly the same thing, and more, those factors which help more in the NCAA's will usually greatly favor the older, less talented players, and undermine the effectiveness of the more talented, less experienced players.
So especially with the talent pool so young and undeveloped come draft time, I stress physical, observable talent more than the other factors which tend to be those which cause most late inflations. Sometimes, and in this case I would say a Tyrus Thomas does fit the bill, they will coincide with an obviously exceptional physical talent, but in most cases, imo, those late bloomers are guys like Wally and Ammo and to a lesser degree, Deron vs. Paul.
SS: Bargnani is one of the worst rebounding centers ever!
WD-40: Shocking
