[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

The Fallacies Of High School Big Men


The one high school big man, I would go after is
Kwame Brown. The rest, I'd be leery of....

http://www.realgm.com/src_prev_la_clippers_column.php?column_date=20010418.php

(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?


Desagana Diop

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 Olowokandi

"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?
Warning
Could not process part with given Content-Type: message/delivery-status;name="nsmailJ8.TMP"

-- BEGIN included message

The one high school big man, I would go after is
Kwame Brown. The rest, I'd be leery of....

http://www.realgm.com/src_prev_la_clippers_column.php?column_date=20010418.php

(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?


Desagana Diop

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 Olowokandi

"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?

-- END included message