Nice article at RealGM.com

[kevin from singapore <bostonceltics17@yahoo.com>]

http://www.realgm.com/src_prev_la_clippers_column.php?column_date=20010418.php
Author:   John Porter <clipperstuff@yahoo.com> 

(MIS)JUDGING HIGH SCHOOL BIG MEN


Editor's Note: RealGM.com is proud to introduce John Porter as the new L.A.
Clippers columnist

There has been a lot of excitement about this year's draft in terms of how many
big men are going to be available. Many of the names mentioned--Tyson Chandler,
Kwame Brown, Eddy Curry, Desagana Diop--are high school players. In the past few
weeks, here are some of the comments I've seen about Centers and PFs coming out
in this year's draft.

"Loren Woods is too small to play C in the NBA. He'll never be a factor unless
he bulks up."

"Eddy Curry is Baby Shaq! An overpowering inside game!"

"Desagana Diop probably has more upside than any other big man this year."

"Michael Bradley doesn't have the size and skill to be a good NBA PF."

"Tyson Chandler can run, slam and handle the ball. What more can you ask?"

There's a pattern here. High school players are dominant and have upside.
College players lack certain traits or skills to be great pros.

This sort of reasoning is fundamentally flawed. I know that Curry and Diop and
Chandler (and Kwame Brown and Cisse) play against very good high school
competition. But stop and think about that for a minute. Good high school
competition. How many games a year do they play against centers who will
eventually start at a Division 1 school? Four? Six? Probably not much more than
that, and that's reaching. What that means is these players, besides being
unused to the length and difficulty of an NCAA--let alone NBA--schedule, only
play against decent competition a few times a year. Of course they're
dominating. In a way, this may even hurt these high school Cs. They get used to
overpowering smaller competitors, which may hurt the development of important
fundamental skills. Why focus on blocking out when you're bigger and stronger
than anyone else? If you can push your way to the hoop every time you have the
ball, how important is a multi-faceted offensive game and learning low post
moves?


Here's my NFL analogy. There are a lot of 6'6" 300 pound high school linemen.
Even if they could draft them, no pro team would be interested. The high
schoolers aren't used to being that big. They don't know how to use their size
and strength properly. They lack fundamental skills. These aren't things you can
learn in a few weeks or months. These are things you work on over a period of
time, usually by playing against solid competition. You could coach those high
schoolers for six months, put them through training drills, and they'd still be
crushed by the worst NFL line, or even many Division I college lines.

Unlike guards and small forwards, who often put a premium on speed and jumping
ability, power forwards and (especially) centers are about size and strength.
High school guards and small forwards have an advantage, because you tend to
slow down and lose quickness and hops as you get older. Young players have an
advantage at positions that are geared more toward quickness and jumping
ability. But NBA players, like most people, tend to get bigger and stronger as
they get older (between 18 and 28, even longer). So young power players are at a
disadvantage at positions focusing on size and strength. Garnett started out at
SF, then moved to PF as he learned how to use his skills and built up strength
and stamina.

Yet we judge these 17 and 18-year olds on appearance and numbers alone, without
taking into account competition and the built-in disadvantages of lack of
experience and strength. Because of this, inside high school players often look
more impressive than college standouts. Let's look at those comments one by one.

"Eddy Curry is Baby Shaq! An overpowering inside game!"

Really? Curry has shrunk from 7'0" to about 6'10 or even 6'9". He's a big,
strong guy who has become used to using his size and strength advantage in his
games. But he won't have those advantages (or will have them at a greatly
reduced scale) in the NBA. Is Eddy Curry going to "overpower" Jahidi White or
Dale Davis, much less Shaq? How will he react to an old guy like David Robinson
batting his shots all over the place? Against a higher caliber of competition at
the college level, he'd learn how to use his size rather than depend on it.

"Loren Woods is too small to play C in the NBA. He'll never be a factor unless
he bulks up."

Leaving questions about Loren Woods mental discipline aside, this is obviously
wrong. Loren Woods has been a three year starter at a Pac-12 school, and has
played in the NCAA every year. He's played against a pretty high caliber of
competition on a pretty regular basis, and has shown himself capable in every
way (at least when he feels like it). When Woods came into college, his sheet
looked a lot like Chandler's--good ballhandler for a big man, can run the floor,
great shot blocker. It took him a while to adjust those skills to the college
game where centers over 6'9" are the rule rather than the exception, and the
level of ability and athleticism is much higher. But he has made the adjustment,
something no high school player has done…yet. Will they be able to? How long
will it take?

"Desagana Diop probably has more upside than any other big man this year."

Well, you could argue this. But upside is theoretical. It doesn't always
arrive…or it arrives too late to help your team, as with Theo Ratliff and
Detroit. Diop may or may not be a great player. What is certain is that he has
great size, good footwork, and little formal basketball experience. Like Curry,
he excels because of his physical skills in relation to his competition. How
will he react to bigger better players in college? Oops--Diop is thinking about
coming out. Let's put it this way. Diop has similar size, skills and background
to Michael Olowokandi…except Kandi played Division I for two years, so he was
farther along when the Clippers got him. It doesn't mean he will end up exactly
like Kandi, but it does mean there is some precedent for how he will develop and
play.
 
"Michael Bradley doesn't have the size and skill to be a good NBA PF."

I'm not exactly sure what skills Michael Bradley lacks, except maybe free throw
shooting, but I know he's had a chance to try them out against good teams and
players. Let's face it, Villanova wasn't much without Bradley. It's safe to say
that other reams focused on him. They played 10 games against Boston College,
Providence, UCLA, Georgetown, Seton Hall, Temple and Duke this year--all very
good teams. Bradley shot close to 70 percent and averaged 21.5 pts, 10 boards, 3
assists and 2 blocks against them--pretty much identical to his season averages.
He had great games against Eddie Griffin and Carlos Boozer.

Saying that Eddy Curry played well at the McDonalds game, which is kind of a
free-for-all, is one thing. Putting up good regular season numbers against 6'5"
centers is one thing. But I don't have any idea how Curry will fare against good
players on a semi-regular basis, while I do know that Bradley came through
pretty big last year. Upside is theoretical. Bradley's performance is fact.

"Tyson Chandler can run, slam and handle the ball. What more can you ask?"

I can ask how much that will help him if he plans to play at C, where those
skills are very nice, but are more than offset by light weight, inability to box
out against equally sized and larger opponents, and lack of experience. Loren
Woods is bigger than Chandler, and he has had to learn to adapt to play against
solid 6'9" 250 pound centers, of which there are plenty in the NCAA, not to
mention the NBA. Chandler hasn't done that, and while he can probably learn to
play that way, it will take time and there are no guarantees. What more can I
ask? Show me commitment to your game. Spend at least a year of two in college
and learn from it.

I've seen people say, with a straight face, "Well, Chandler would give a team 13
and 9 next year." "Curry could easily be a double double guy his rookie year"
and so on. It's possible, but it's extremely unlikely. I think Chris Mihm would
have been near the top of this year's crop of centers--at least as good as
Haywood or Woods. He averages 7 and 4 in 20 minutes and fouls a lot--and he's a
four year college player. What can you really expect out of an 18 year old who
doesn't have anything like that much experience against good players?

This is a two-fold argument. First, that almost all players need to go to
college. Second, we need to be more realistic in assessing how a Desagana Diop
will perform in his first year or two. Top 5 picks are usually meant to be
saviors for franchises in trouble. It isn't fair or realistic to expect an 18
year old who has played most of his game against 6'6" or under centers to step
up and fill that gap immediately. And until we realize that, there will be a lot
of disappointed teams next year. Because, seriously, it will be really
surprising if more than one C among the first five this year (Curry, Chandler,
Diop, Woods, Haywood) averages 9 and 7 next year. I bet a lot of them average a
foul every seven or eight minutes, though.

This isn't carved in stone. You know, Eddy Curry may show up and just be
fantastic next year and get 15 and 8. Tyson Chandler might be a clone of Kevin
Garnett. Michael Bradley could be a real bust. Those things could happen. But
I'm looking at this realistically, and what I think more than anything else is
that Curry, Chandler and Diop should go to college. Then we will see if we have
Baby Shaq, or if knees become a problem, or if weight becomes an issue, or if a
million other things that can and do become apparent in college affect each of
these players.

All of a sudden, Michael Olowokandi doesn't look so bad, does he?