Re: musings

[Kestutis.Kveraga@dartmouth.edu (Kestutis Kveraga)]

--- You wrote:
Interesting Kestas! Personally I would factor in productivity as a third and
equal
criterion, since (as hard as it may be to believe) 
<snip>
Gimmeabuh-rake, I don't want to here about how some guy "has the raw tools to
project as a scorer/shotblocker at the next level", I want to see a statistical
pattern of production backing this up.
--- end of quote ---

I was talking about kids projected to be first round picks. Presumably, these
kids have already demonstrated a high level of basketball-related skills (or at
least the ability to quickly acquire them) for their developmental stage.
However, one can be very successful in HS, and even college, basketball by
having much better *basketball* skills than your peers, but not much physical
talent (length, athleticism). You know, the "coach's son syndrome".  One could
also dominate by being more physically mature than his peers, something that
won't be true in the NBA. Larry Johnson had both the skills, and the physical
maturity advantage at UNLV, but his lack of length (for his position) made him
only an OK player in the NBA. The stats, while nice if they're there, are no 
guarantee of production at the next  level, nor does their absence ensure that
the player will be a bust in the NBA. Of course, if the lack of stats indicates
an unwillingness to work hard, or inability to learn - rather than being
situational or due to the player's being new to the game - then that's a
problem. That's what GMs have to figure out by talking to the player, his
coaches, teachers etc., in addition to watching game tapes.  
Kestas