This is missing the point of the article. The article isn't about just HS kids. It says that you cannot say "it is about the quality of play in the NBA" and only apply that to 17yr olds in the US. You must include all 17/18 yr olds. An NBA fact still remains: that fact is that no 18-19yr old European has showed up any more prepared than US high schoolers. That is a fact. Euro teens don't have some special preparation that makes them more prepared. There are plenty of 18/19yr olds from the states who performed. There are some who busted. And then there are the most who needed experience in the NBA. The Euros who were drafted as teen: Nowitzki, Kirilenko, Parker, Hilario and Tsiki do not show a growth trend different than Kobe, McGrady, Marbury, Garnett, O'Neal and Amare. I say, it improves the nba to let the kids come to the pros faster. How can we say (incorrectly) that the Euro teens have more pro experience (even thought they don't) that gives them an advantage, then deny our teens that opportunity by saying it's not good for them or the game. It's just hypocrasy. It is better for all Euro sports to get hold of the players faster, and it is better for bball and baseball here. How can it not be? I don't understand....I really don't. What it *is* is bad for is guaranteeing good lottery picks, but more from the Amare side of (damn, I should have drafted him) that the Kwama side (oh, he might bust). The fact you have to spend that draft capital early is the deal that triggered these complaints about it, imo. But it makes the players better, faster, so it is better for them or at least it is arguable if you want to deny that. It surely is not proven that going early is bad for all players who do it...so how can it be bad for the NBA.
Tariq Abdul-Wahad, Dallas France John Amaechi, Utah England Raja Bell, Dallas U.S. Virgin Islands Vlade Divac, Sacramento Serbia and Montenegro Tim Duncan, San Antonio U.S. Virgin Islands Rick Fox*, L.A. Lakers Canada Adonal Foyle, Golden State Grenadines Pau Gasol, Memphis Spain Emanuel Ginobili, San Antonio Argentina Gordan Giricek, Orlando Croatia Nene Hilario, Denver Brazil Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Cleveland Lithuania Marko Jaric, L.A. Clippers Serbia and Montenegro Andrei Kirilenko, Utah Russia Toni Kukoc, Milwaukee Croatia Felipe Lopez, Minnesota Dominican Republic Todd MacCulloch, Philadelphia Canada Jamaal Magloire, New Orleans Canada Stanislav Medvedenko, L.A. Lakers Ukraine Dikembe Mutombo, New Jersey Congo Eduardo Najera, Dallas Mexico Steve Nash, Dallas Canada Rasho Nesterovic, Minnesota Slovenia Dirk Nowitzki, Dallas Germany Mehmet Okur, Detroit Turkey Hakeem Olajuwon**, Toronto Nigeria Michael Olowokandi***, L.A. Clippers Nigeria Tony Parker, San Antonio France Vitaly Potapenko, Seattle Ukraine Vladimir Radmanovic, Seattle Serbia and Montenegro Arvydas Sabonis, Portland Lithuania Juan "Pepe" Sanchez, Detroit Argentina Peja Stojakovic, Sacramento Serbia and Montenegro Jake Tsakalidis, Phoenix Greece Hedo Turkoglu, Sacramento Turkey Yao Ming, Houston China
DavidS, when people say "international players," they are usually not referring to guys who were groomed in the NCAA. Also, not all those players are what I'd call "impact players." Now trim that down a little, take out anyone who wasn't drafted in the 1st round before age 20, then compare it to the NBA's list of sub 20yr old 1st rounders from the states, and see what you get. That's what this article is talking about.
ummm, well, i dont know about our idea of the word college, but he did attend and became an honorary student at the shanghai foreign language institute.
Actually I'd prefer "groomed NCAA" players. The sub-20 issue is not a main point for me. It's the 21,22,23,24 year olds that concerns me. Those International guys can put up good numbers. The 18, 19, 20 year old H.S. American kids to me didn't produce until past those ages (Kobe, McGrady, O'Neil). To me, it's not about pro competition for the Euro players, either. It's about what they are being taught. It's about what is important for them to learn from the trainers and coaches. That's what is being stressed. By the way, the sub-20 years old in the states are always athletic freak of natures; run fast, jump high, dunk hard. Ok...imagine this.... Lebron James, four years at University of North Carolina. What's the result? A 22,23 year old, four year grad, with all the fundaments a player could have coming out of college. Oh, and the guy can jump, run and dunk to boot. He's ready... P.S. Parker will never average 29 ppg. He's limited. He not athletically gifted like Garnett or Kobe (or Francis!). That's why he relies on his smarts and skill. Why not have the best of both worlds? That's what Magic had. P.S.S. I removed the "icehouse" name, and changed the quote to suit my point.
so Nowitski, Tsiki, Milicic, Hilario are athletic 7ers or have 7'6 wingspans. Go look it up. List the sub-20 players who have ever been drafted high in the NBA. They are either 7', freakishly athletic, or both, no matter where they are from. Kobe and McGrady surely got better training. How can you argue with that? Your only point is that James would be a more for sure deal at age 22. It is a draft-sureness thing, is all you are saying. This has nothing to do with Milicic coming out at age 18 as the clear #2 pick and the young stereotypes not applying. good post rimbaud. they do leave HS. Beckham was a HS drop out. A lot of them are.
Not on a team scale. They got the "express elevator" to the 100th floor, and were overwhelmed. The "training" they received was "here's the ball, go one-on-one" and sell more ticktes. They were forced fed the "team game." Kobe didn't buy it until Phil came on board. This is something that they could have taken their time with (mentorship) in the NCAA. That's a teaching arena. Use it. The NBA. No. It's a winning arena; profit, ratings. There's no time for that (except year and years). It's learn the system as best possible, get ready for the game, play it, and then get ready for the next game. They learn the plays in the NBA. There's too many games scheduled to learn the game on a micro-level. Just not enough time. The players can make their own time if they want. But they prefer not to. As far as Lebron being a sure-thing. He's a sure thing now. But he's not going to be as sound as if he had 3 or 4 years at an ACC college. To me, learning slowly is better than beeing force fed. It allows you to absorb the game little by little so the rudiments become 2nd nature. I want Lebron to excel! Why? Because he can pass, shoot, handle and dunk. The first two being two skills that have been lacking in recent H.S. players. He will be an example to the younger kids. "Be like Lebron! Learn to pass and shoot too!"
That just your opinion. Phil Jackson's opinion was that he didn't go to the Laker's "until Kobe was ready." Force fed with no skills is bogus. Even if true, it worked. Kobe learned to shoot faster than Jordan, and he had excellent skills and 21 no matter how you slice it. Besides, how was he forced fed the ball more than Nowitzki, at similar age, and how did Nowitzki now the "team game" better. Nowitzki was just a pure shooter at first and quickly learned to make one on one moves, who is still learning to pass and play defense. imo, you are stereotyping. Griffin, Kwama, Chandler, Curry, Rashard, McGrady and O'Neal were definitely not force fed the ball, at first. If anything, they were held back wrt PT.
I would love it if the NBA had a minor league or farm system!!! Well....the NBDL isn't doing too great. They have a grand total of four teams. But it would still be cool!
You misunderstand what I'm saying. "Force fed" does not mean give them the ball. That's not what I meant. I'm talking about being forced to learn the team game and not go on an iso-jig every play. That was Kobe early. Kobe and McGrady? You don't have to "force" them to get the ball. They welcomed that. Nevermind...forget I used that phrase. I should have explained it another way. And please, no Kobe/Jordan comparisons. It's not about that. It's about the individual's mind-set, early training, future training and whether or not they are willing to learn the game, not just the iso game. There are three parts to this: One: The individuals mind-set. How much does a particular player listens to the coaches and trainers when young (Lebron). Two: The fundamentals you learn in H.S., NCAA, summer camps, and then the NBA. It's a progression (Duncan). Three: A players natural athletic ablity. High, mid-level, or low? Some guys just have better athletic genes. And that's an advantage. It all depends on how much of the fomer two parts above that they use that determines their potential. Lebron, although 18, seems to take his total training very seriously! That's a personal mind-set that HE has. That's why I support him. He seem to be the exception to the rule. Duncan took the long road, but came out of college immediately ready. He could have done the H.S. to NBA thing, and struggled for 2 or 3 years and came out less knowledgeable. To tell you the truth. I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I'd figure that since you are such an old time Celtic fan, you'd understand this.
euros who are 18 and 19 have proved no more ready that americans who are 18 and 19 imo. for every nba ready young euro, he has a counterpart in america. and the non-nba ready ones have their counterparts, too. the main problem people seem to have is the main way in which they differ aside from their skill sets. an american of 18 and 19 who enters the draft is selected and joins the team and affects nba play directly. a euro of 18 or 19 sometimes will be held over in europe b/c of a contract (or simply choose to stay) for a few years. he then enters the league at 21 and people say, look the euro was more ready when he entered than the 18 or 19 year old american and he has helped the nba's level of play. of course he hurt it indirectly in the interim. just think of a standard 9 man rotation and assume one of the guys is getting old or is no longer useful and it would be better for the team if he no longer played in the rotation. the american kid is right in front of us. we say, look he isn't really ready but since he has potential and it should be nurtured to one day produce a quality player, we must play him in our 9 man rotation. he has replaced the exiting player and is also blocking the tenth man from assuming the spot. now b/c he isn't good enough for that rotation but must be played, he has brought down the level of that team. were we not essentially forced to select guys so young, and had we gotten the 3 years older version of the same kid, he could have entered as our 5th or 6th best player, the 9th man would be pushed out as planned, and we have a stronger team. with the euro 18 or 19 year old, he waits in europe for a few years. he isn't right in front of us bringing down the team. but because we spent a pick on him, the 9th man who probably should've left, we now keep him on. the rotation has deteriorated. or the 10th man is moved up. again it has deteriorated b/c our draft pick has not arrived. the level of the team is brought down. were we picking a 3 years older version of the euro, he could have come in just as before and strengthened the rotation. no unready talent is infused into the league with this option but no new talent is infused either. eventually they will both arrive at the same place. the 21 year old american now a veteran of the nba experience and all the better for his nba education. the 21 year old euro a more complete product than before and all the better for his euro education. they will both put their skills into use at this point and the nba will be better for it. i don't think there's any evidence that euro's have provided the nba any more talent any earlier than american's.
Back in the 80s, guys who got drafted high came with several years of college experience and had an immediate impact on the league. Olajuwon averaged more than 20 and 11 in his rookie year. The high school kids getting taken early nowadays can't get close to that. But, really, neither can 4-year college guys. The last guy to have an impressive 20-10 debut is probably Tim Duncan. We just don't get any rookies that well prepared anymore. I think the league talent has improved to the point that newcomers cannot make a big splash in their first season no matter how good they are. Look at #1 pick Kenyon Martin who averaged 12+ and 7+ in his rookie season. Compare that to Amare's 14+ and 7+. Martin came in a weak draft, but considering that you can see good year-over-year growth in his game after he gets to the NBA indicates that he still had plenty of maturation into the NBA game to do.
This will always go back and forth , but the truth is and the thinking is, the quicker you get your hands on these players, the better. Some players because of their size, if they went to college would haveto change positions and their game. Imagine Rahsard Lewis goes to college. If he went to most schools, he would either be a center or pf, then he would have to make the transition back to sf. On top of a couple of yrs in college and the 2 yrs transition for the pro, Lewis wouldn't be the player he is now. I don't think its a black,white or blur issue with these players, its prep time. I've been saying it way before homeboy wrote that article about the nba having a farm system. If guys like Kobe,McGrady,O'Neal and Harrington could have been in the teams farm system for a yr or even half the yr playing against men and working on shooting and ball handling drills like they do in Europe, they would have been ready before they were. More teams would take a chance on a talented player like Lenny Cook or DeAngelo Collins if they had that farm team to where they could help the player understand the game better and really see where his heart is at. Guys like Grizzard,Stevenson and to some extent Eddie Griffin could have really benefitted from playing at least half the season in the farm. There , a team with their coaches could work on strength, conditioning, and basic fundementals.
The reason it's applied only to US kids is that the Euro kids are new to the NBA. The US kids would have ended up in the NBA in time. I think you are seeing backlash against the Euro's. Usually it's phrased as "why don't we see backlash against the Euro's." I expect we'll see a lot more of this when the 2003 draft class struggles. Just as we did in 2001 when the HS players were the rage.
DavidS, we are starting to say the same things in different ways, I guess. My belief is that early training in the pro leagues in the states and Europe better prepare players for the pro leauges. It is good for both leagues to take guys as soon as possible, and get them acclimated to playing against men, especially now in the era where the best in the NCAA do not stay for 4yrs. Juan, first off, Brand was a 20/10, and he came after Duncan. But more importantly, saying 21-22yr draft picks can't have an impact because the league is tougher is not entirely a valid point in an era where the best prospect enter the league early (especially the big men). The best big men prospects just don't go to college or don't stay long anymore. But to point to just Duncan and Hakeem is unfair to the 90. The 90s had several high performing 21-22yr old ROYs, like other eras. What makes us forget that is a few of them fell off real quick or got injured, Coleman, Mourning, Larry Johnson, Hardaway and Hill all got injured or dropped...otherwise, I don't think you'd be saying what you are. On top of that, Webber, Kidd, AI, Vince Carter, Shareef, Francis and Brand all performed very well. Restricted the list to 20/10s is merely restricting the list to the very, very best, or counting the '70s when defense wasn't played.out the '90s, just like every era. Mourning and Brand were 20/10s. Coleman, Johnson were 19/10s first year. A young Webber was ~18/9, and a young Shareef was not far behind What we are seeing now is the draft is more of an investment on big men more than a proven commodity. We don't see the NCAA ROYs we did since Francis and Brand. I don't think it is a valid point to include only Duncan and none of the other great performing rookies.
It's perception vs. reality. The perception is that the high school kids declaring are immature emotionally and intellectually, when in most cases they are quite the opposite. Most of the high school players drafted have been successful. Kobe, McGrady, KG, J'Oneal... these guys were ready physically and mentally for the NBA, or had the roots to be able to adjust and adapt mentally to the rigors of life in the NBA. They were not the average 18 year olds... basketball-wise it's obvious, but all of them also had a maturity level beyond their years, and more importantly, the built in desire to be successful that cannot be taught at any age, and the NBA player personnel people could see that. If I take a look at their stable family lives and how they take care of their families, how they are model citizens, I can see that the perception is not accurate. If we're talking strictly about drafted high school players, the number that has flamed out is very small. The NBA's track record is pretty good. Leon Smith would have flamed out even if he had gone to college. He was very troubled. A kid like Korleone Young, a border line 2nd round talent (who was told by people surrounding him he was a first), should have gone to college because it wasn't a slam dunk that he had what it took to make it in the NBA. Without a true minor league system, maybe there should be the rule that high school kids can only be drafted in the 1st round, and any high school kid that declares but is not drafted in the 1st maintains his college eligibility. I have no qualms at all with a high school player with 1st round talent jumping to the pro level. I like to think of these players as prodigies along the same lines as a young virtuoso violinist or a young genius who goes to college at the age of 13. Could they haved benefited from a more "normal" growth path? Maybe, but looking back would I be able to look Kobe or KG in the face and tell him that he should have gone to college? Hell no. Of course good coaching helps, but you improve by playing against players better than you, whether it be physically or mentally. And for the KGs and Kobes of the world, those players were in the NBA, not college.
My guess is American players entering the draft out of high school is depriving the the college programs of talent. This then deprives the colleges of $$$. As for European players, they aren't going to our universities so no one cares.
