Jalen Johnson may be better than De'Andre Hunter and Cam Reddish

[JayBirdHawk]

Welcome to the Off-season!

Good discussions.

 

[Wretch]

This thread is fantastic. lol

[AHF]

6 hours ago, RandomFan said:

I didn't think I'd ever be participating in a debate about what I thought was a well known and accepted axiom that big men, generally, take longer to develop than other positions in the NBA, but here we are I guess. 

 

I don't think you read the posts to get here if you think that is what we are discussing particularly since my last post noted that centers and point guards are considered the two positions that have the most to learn coming out of college.

The original statement was this:

21 hours ago, thecampster said:

The bigger the player, the longer they take to reach their potential

My issue with this statement is that I don't think it is true.  Saying that centers take longer to develop isn't in conflict with it.  Centers can be the most difficult position to transition to the NBA and this statement is still false if 6'7'' wings have an easier time transitioning than shorter point guards who have responsibility for running a team's offense.  

Statements like "Nash had to earn his way because of the era" doesn't fly.  Nash had a lot to learn and needed that developmental time to become what he became.  The development curve for any of these players is very individual dependent.  John Stockton took 4 years before he became a starter, 4 years before he averaged double digits in anything (usually points is the first category).  Doc Rivers was drafted much later the year before him and was a starter in year 2.  It isn't a function of "earning" or draft slot.  

It also isn't a function of how big the player is because bigger players reach their potential faster all the time relative to point guards.  You see SGs, SFs, PFs as the fastest to reach their potential historically but all of this varies so much by individual.

Looking at Stockton's draft class and looking at the top 10 in WS here they are by development sorting by year they became a starter, year became double digit contributors in any category, and WS: 

Fastest

#1 - MJ - 6'6'' - SG - Immediate starter and impact player.

#1 - Barkely - 6'6'' - PF - Immediate starter and impact player.

#1 - Hakeem - 7'0'' - C - Immediate starter and impact player.

--

#2 - Perkins - 6'9'' - PF/C - Starter in year 2

#2 - Willis - 7'0'' - PF/C - Starter in year 2

#2 - Alvin Robertson - 6'3'' - SG - Starter in year 2

--

#3 - Thorpe - 6'9'' - PF - Starter in year 3

#4 - Michael Cage - 6'9'' - PF/C - Starter in year 3

--

#4 - Stockton  - 6'1'' - PG - Starter in year 4

#4 - Kersey - 6'7'' - SF - Starter in year 4  

Slowest

 

I'll post some numbers about when the most successful players from recent classes hit milestones in a second and you can tell me if you think the wings and forwards are at a big disadvantage relative to point guards because of their size.  

My position is not that centers develop quickly.  It is that the idea that there is some correlation between size and development track doesn't make sense since PGs and Cs are the two toughest positions to which to adjust in the league.

 

[thecampster]

33 minutes ago, AHF said:

I don't think you read the posts to get here if you think that is what we are discussing particularly since my last post noted that centers and point guards are considered the two positions that have the most to learn coming out of college.

The original statement was this:

My issue with this statement is that I don't think it is true.  Saying that centers take longer to develop isn't in conflict with it.  Centers can be the most difficult position to transition to the NBA and this statement is still false if 6'7'' wings have an easier time transitioning than shorter point guards who have responsibility for running a team's offense.  

Statements like "Nash had to earn his way because of the era" doesn't fly.  Nash had a lot to learn and needed that developmental time to become what he became.  The development curve for any of these players is very individual dependent.  John Stockton took 4 years before he became a starter, 4 years before he averaged double digits in anything (usually points is the first category).  Doc Rivers was drafted much later the year before him and was a starter in year 2.  It isn't a function of "earning" or draft slot.  

It also isn't a function of how big the player is because bigger players reach their potential faster all the time relative to point guards.  You see SGs, SFs, PFs as the fastest to reach their potential historically but all of this varies so much by individual.

Looking at Stockton's draft class and looking at the top 10 in WS here they are by development sorting by year they became a starter, year became double digit contributors in any category, and WS: 

Fastest

#1 - MJ - 6'6'' - SG - Immediate starter and impact player.

#1 - Barkely - 6'6'' - PF - Immediate starter and impact player.

#1 - Hakeem - 7'0'' - C - Immediate starter and impact player.

--

#2 - Perkins - 6'9'' - PF/C - Starter in year 2

#2 - Willis - 7'0'' - PF/C - Starter in year 2

#2 - Alvin Robertson - 6'3'' - SG - Starter in year 2

--

#3 - Thorpe - 6'9'' - PF - Starter in year 3

#4 - Michael Cage - 6'9'' - PF/C - Starter in year 3

--

#4 - Stockton  - 6'1'' - PG - Starter in year 4

#4 - Kersey - 6'7'' - SF - Starter in year 4  

Slowest

 

I'll post some numbers about when the most successful players from recent classes hit milestones in a second and you can tell me if you think the wings and forwards are at a big disadvantage relative to point guards because of their size.  

My position is not that centers develop quickly.  It is that the idea that there is some correlation between size and development track doesn't make sense since PGs and Cs are the two toughest positions to which to adjust in the league.

 

Individual 1 offs does not make your point. FYI, MJ multiple years of college experience when he came up. Although he wasn't bad when he first came up, he was a much better player year 3 than 1.  

I really think you're missing something important.  There are over 450 players in the NBA this year. There have been thousands through the league over the last 30 years. I'm making a generalization that is widely accepted and would be provable with tons of research that I am not willing to go through for you.  

There are many hills in the world. Choose the one you want to die on carefully. That this is the thing you want to argue about says more about you than the arguments you make. I mean Randomfan posted a great article about it in the middle of this exchange. If you want to argue the assertions further, I recommend you write the authors.

[Spud2nique]

Each player is different you f&ckers. 

Just now, Spud2nique said:

Each player is different you f&ckers. 

I mean, good morning squawk! 

[AHF]

5 minutes ago, thecampster said:

Individual 1 offs does not make your point. FYI, MJ multiple years of college experience when he came up. Although he wasn't bad when he first came up, he was a much better player year 3 than 1.  

I really think you're missing something important.  There are over 450 players in the NBA this year. There have been thousands through the league over the last 30 years. I'm making a generalization that is widely accepted and would be provable with tons of research that I am not willing to go through for you.  

There are many hills in the world. Choose the one you want to die on carefully. That this is the thing you want to argue about says more about you than the arguments you make. I mean Randomfan posted a great article about it in the middle of this exchange. If you want to argue the assertions further, I recommend you write the authors.

I'm still waiting to see anything supporting the idea that a 6'7'' player has a tougher time adjust to playing a wing role than a point guard.  Again, I'm not arguing that center isn't one of the positions that can take a while to develop.  I am arguing that development curves can vary significantly by individual but that the baseline is that center and PG are the ones that take the longest and that the idea that size is the factor that determines how long it will take is inaccurate and grossly oversimplistic because wings and forwards tend to have the easiest transition and they are all bigger than PGs.

More to the point, the article Randomfan cited says NOTHING about what we are discussing - it only discusses centers.  It doesn't discuss the supposed link between height and development curves which is the claim being discussed. 

I will note that this statement below is fairly common place.

Quote

Point guards tend to take more time to develop in today's NBA. As offenses create more space and become more prolific from three-point territory, defenses grow more complicated. 

Breaking down complex coverages off pick and rolls and initiating actions to create open lanes and corner threes typically falls squarely on the point guard. And believe it or not, 19-to-22-year-olds need time to learn the intricacies of the game. 

https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/wizards/grizzlies-g-ja-morant-accomplishes-feat-no-rookie-has-john-wall

You can find this idea in dozens of articles.  Again, I am not arguing that center is an easy position to learn and a real quick development curve.  I am saying that there is not the purported connection between height and development and that you actually see smaller players who must learn to run offenses take more time to develop on average than their taller brethren much like I'd expect to see faster results from Jalen Johnson than I do from Sharife Cooper.

Here are the numbers from the 2016 and 2017 draft classes (which each have 4 or 5 years in the league):

So you see, as I said above, this small data set would support the idea I've articulated in prior posts that PGs and Cs take the longest to become starters. 

Note that among these two draft classes, we have 8 total All-Stars in this group with only one of them standing less than 6'6'' and that player is a wing not a point guard.  Clearly this would benefit from an even larger data set but I'm not doing that today.

So I'm just not seeing the purported direct relationship between height and development curve here.  I do acknowledge (and did above) the general trend for centers (in addition to points) to take longer to develop than wings and forwards.

[AHF]

36 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Each player is different you f&ckers. 

 

Totally agree with that.

 

1 hour ago, AHF said:

The development curve for any of these players is very individual dependent. 
 

 

2 minutes ago, AHF said:

 I am arguing that development curves can vary significantly by individual

 

[thecampster]

2 minutes ago, AHF said:

I'm still waiting to see anything supporting the idea that a 6'7'' player has a tougher time adjust to playing a wing role than a point guard.  Again, I'm not arguing that center isn't one of the positions that can take a while to develop.  I am arguing that development curves can vary significantly by individual but that the baseline is that center and PG are the ones that take the longest and that the idea that size is the factor that determines how long it will take is inaccurate and grossly oversimplistic because wings and forwards tend to have the easiest transition and they are all bigger than PGs.

More to the point, the article Randomfan cited says NOTHING about what we are discussing - it only discusses centers.  It doesn't discuss the supposed link between height and development curves which is the claim being discussed. 

I will note that this statement below is fairly common place.

https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/wizards/grizzlies-g-ja-morant-accomplishes-feat-no-rookie-has-john-wall

You can find this idea in dozens of articles.  Again, I am not arguing that center is an easy position to learn and a real quick development curve.  I am saying that there is not the purported connection between height and development and that you actually see smaller players who must learn to run offenses take more time to develop on average than their taller brethren much like I'd expect to see faster results from Jalen Johnson than I do from Sharife Cooper.

Here are the numbers from the 2016 and 2017 draft classes (which each have 4 or 5 years in the league):

So you see, as I said above, this small data set would support the idea I've articulated in prior posts that PGs and Cs take the longest to become starters. 

Note that among these two draft classes, we have 8 total All-Stars in this group with only one of them standing less than 6'6'' and that player is a wing not a point guard.  Clearly this would benefit from an even larger data set but I'm not doing that today.

So I'm just not seeing the purported direct relationship between height and development curve here.  I do acknowledge (and did above) the general trend for centers (in addition to points) to take longer to develop than wings and forwards.

Please stop! Nobody is siding with you on this. No one sees any reason for the line of inquiry. You are effectively arguing with yourself and trying to draw others in to it.

[AHF]

6 minutes ago, thecampster said:

Please stop! Nobody is siding with you on this. No one sees any reason for the line of inquiry. You are effectively arguing with yourself and trying to draw others in to it.

Are you saying now that you no longer believe that the bigger the player the longer the development curve?  If so, let's happily agree that centers take longer to develop than wings and forwards and that height is not the important characteristic and move on.

[thecampster]

4 minutes ago, AHF said:

Are you saying now that you no longer believe that the bigger the player the longer the development curve?  If so, let's happily agree that centers take longer to develop than wings and forwards and that height is not the important characteristic and move on.

You are one more troll movement away from a personal ignore list. You already drove me off the politics forum with this nonsense. Do you want me to leave the board permanently?

[AHF]

Just now, thecampster said:

You are one more troll movement away from a personal ignore list. You already drove me off the politics forum with this nonsense. Do you want me to leave the board permanently?

It is your statement.  If you think I've misread your quote, please explain it.  You wrote:

Quote

The bigger the player, the longer they take to reach their potential

I don't believe that is true.  If that isn't what you meant and you were just talking about centers then say you misspoke!

I've not taken any personal shots, I've stuck to the exact topic you raised and I've brought data and my thoughts to it including pointing out that I concur about the development time of centers but disagree with the larger idea that bigger players take longer to reach their potential.

I'm not going to stop sharing data and my views on a topic just because you've decided that you either don't want to clarify something you said (in the case where we actually aren't disagreeing and I'm simply reading your post to mean something you didn't intend) or you just don't want to engage on the subject.

I like you as a poster and have zero intention to drive you away from the board but I also have the right to post my thoughts like any other poster and when I took up moderating duties I didn't give that up.   My posts are and will always be subject to moderation from the other on this board so if you think what I've posted is in violation of the site rules and/or constitute some kind of bad faith trolling then please let me know why you think that or feel free to reach out to them to take action.

I didn't manually pull the data from the two most recent draft classes to pass their rookie contracts just because I want to troll you.  I did it because I don't believe that bigger player = longer development curve (particularly as it relates to wings and forwards) and I'm trying to give you something more than just my opinion to back that up.

[thecampster]

23 minutes ago, AHF said:

It is your statement.  If you think I've misread your quote, please explain it.  You wrote:

I don't believe that is true.  If that isn't what you meant and you were just talking about centers then say you misspoke!

I've not taken any personal shots, I've stuck to the exact topic you raised and I've brought data and my thoughts to it including pointing out that I concur about the development time of centers but disagree with the larger idea that bigger players take longer to reach their potential.

I'm not going to stop sharing data and my views on a topic just because you've decided that you either don't want to clarify something you said (in the case where we actually aren't disagreeing and I'm simply reading your post to mean something you didn't intend) or you just don't want to engage on the subject.

I like you as a poster and have zero intention to drive you away from the board but I also have the right to post my thoughts like any other poster and when I took up moderating duties I didn't give that up.   My posts are and will always be subject to moderation from the other on this board so if you think what I've posted is in violation of the site rules and/or constitute some kind of bad faith trolling then please let me know why you think that or feel free to reach out to them to take action.

I didn't manually pull the data from the two most recent draft classes to pass their rookie contracts just because I want to troll you.  I did it because I don't believe that bigger player = longer development curve (particularly as it relates to wings and forwards) and I'm trying to give you something more than just my opinion to back that up.

Nobody but you is having a problem understanding that generalities have exceptions. Stop it. Just stop it. You are going to keep pushing because you love to win. There is nothing to win here. Just stop it. All generalities have exceptions but as a rule, size plays a significant role in development timeline. This isn't my assertion but generally accepted principal. If you disagree, I suggest you take it up with development staffs of pretty much every NBA team. But quit trying to play coy like you don't know what you're doing. You are much smarter than that.

[thecampster]

https://towardsdatascience.com/the-asset-of-age-e4b45599ea94

https://www.basketballnews.com/stories/why-big-men-take-more-time-to-develop-in-the-nba-than-guards-and-wings (courtesy of RandomFan).

http://www.82games.com/wong1.htm

 

[AHF]

14 minutes ago, thecampster said:

Nobody but you is having a problem understanding that generalities have exceptions. Stop it. Just stop it. You are going to keep pushing because you love to win. There is nothing to win here. Just stop it. All generalities have exceptions but as a rule, size plays a significant role in development timeline. This isn't my assertion but generally accepted principal. If you disagree, I suggest you take it up with development staffs of pretty much every NBA team. But quit trying to play coy like you don't know what you're doing. You are much smarter than that.

I am not critiquing whether generalities have exceptions.  I fully agree with you on that.  So that represents common ground.  

I am saying that there is no generality that a point guard has an easier and shorter developmental path than bigger wings and forwards.  I am arguing that the opposite is true.  For that reason, there is no "the bigger the player, the longer developmental curve" being a generality that applies all the way up and down the height spectrum irrespective of the player's role.  

Instead, the generality is that centers and point guards tend to take longer to reach their potential than other players.

I've already said it but the issue is that saying that "centers take longer to develop" is very different from saying "he bigger the player, the longer they take to reach their potential."  My view is that a wing player like Jayson Tatum or Brandon Ingram or any of the many "bigger" wings and forwards has a shorter developmental curve (in aggregate, in general) to reaching their potential than a shorter point guard because point guards have offensive responsibilities that stretch far beyond what someone like Buddy Heild or John Collins will ever be asked to do on that end of the floor.

https://towardsdatascience.com/the-asset-of-age-e4b45599ea94

This article is data driven and has some interesting information on development curves for NBA players.  All of what is in the article is applicable to all players regardless of height or position.  This article says nothing about size, height, position or their relationship to developmental curves.  I appreciate the read but fail to see the connection between the idea that there is a generality that bigger players take longer to develop.

https://www.basketballnews.com/stories/why-big-men-take-more-time-to-develop-in-the-nba-than-guards-and-wings

This one we already talked about.  It focuses on centers and DeAndre Ayton in particular.  It contains no aggregate data and is not data driven.  Much of the analysis focuses on how these big men need to learn to give consistent effort and to make decisions.  That rationale offered in there for what these centers must learn to do is interesting in the context of our discussion here:  

Quote

“There's a reason why -- and this goes for all players -- people tend to say, 'The best part about a rookie is he becomes a second-year player or third-year player.' You [use] that term, 'The game slows down for them,’” Toppert said. “But we know that the game isn't slowing down; what's happening is they're becoming familiar with the million scenarios that they're gonna see... A lot of times it's being successful, or being unsuccessful in those moments. It's actually what helps in development.”

What decision has to be made? Is it a pop or a roll? Is it switching the angle of a screen? Is it the right time to make a dribble handoff? Is the defender going under the pick? Is there any opportunity to dive to the rim or catch in the short roll? Is the weak side open for a kick-out? Those answers come with time and experience.

Quote

“The big guys are the trigger guys; they've gotta trigger the action. So they're really like the playmaking initiators,” Toppert said. “The best big men in the drag screens, they're not waiting for the guard to call for the ball screen; they're just going to the ball screen. They're initiating that action...

“The majority of NBA big men are designated screeners, or they're like delayed playmakers. Those are really like the two big-man roles. So either they're playmaking through the trail, where you hit 'em in the trail and they're gonna go dribble-handoff to the weak side, or they're screener, roller, divers, lob catchers, etc.”

You know who else is a playmaker who needs time develop those playmaking skills in an NBA environment?  Point guards.  All of this applies to them as well.

The article further points out that for wings (who are generally bigger than point guards) the transition can be the easiest of all:

Quote

Some backcourt players actually see their role even simplified; you could have high usage in college and be the go-to guy who’s making all the plays for your team, then get to the NBA and have your main responsibility trimmed down to being a slasher, a spot-up guy in a corner and/or guarding your position.

Going from a more comprehensive role on offense to being "a slasher, a spot-up guy in a corner," etc. is what wings and forwards do, not point guards.  Again, this echoes why I am saying that height is not the proxy that applies to all NBA players and with wings and forwards in particular relative to point guards.

http://www.82games.com/wong1.htm

This older article is again focused on centers and uses a self-described "simplistic" approach but has some interesting data.  What it doesn't do is differentiate between point guards and other guards and wings.  Given the limitations in methodolgy, I'm not sure what this adds to the discussion.

I think that you and I agree that centers do tend to generally take longer to develop.

The issues that we may not agree on are:

• Is there a uniform general* relationship showing that as player size increases the development curves lengthen for non-centers?  (Again, not focusing on exceptions here - just the generality).
• Do point guards reach their potential faster than larger wings and non-center forwards?  If not, should we limit the generality about slower development specifically to centers?

[Gray Mule]

Such a huge discussion in which, more or less, we all agree.

There is more to learn as a quarterback as opposed to a running back.  Lots and lots of different plays to learn.  Same with a PG in the NBA.  So much mental stuff that others don't have to know and do.

Big men must grow into their bodies.  Take it from one who knows.  I'm small, really.  But, one summer I grew from 5' 7" to 6'3".  And, it was almost all legs!  I weighed a whopping 155 lbs.  These players who are close to 7' have usually grown a lot just before they get drafted,  Now, those that have been that tall for a while, it's different.  Remember, old time players many times came to the NBA after 4 years in college.

Are there any exceptions?  You bet.  None of us are exactly alike.  Aren't you glad.  Think of how boring life would be.  Some tall men can play PG!  But, short men can't play center in the NBA!

[AHF]

30 minutes ago, Gray Mule said:

But, short men can't play center in the NBA!

Nobody in today's NBA is short from my perspective  and guys like Spud, Mugsey, etc. have been far and few in between.  So I think this applies to just about every position in the NBA.  

It is worth throwing some praise at centers who were shorter than many guards and wings like HOFer 6'7'' Wes Unseld and 6'6'' All-NBA Draymond Green and lesser known guys like 6'6'' Chuck Hayes.  As with just about every NBA player, to me those guys are big but wings like Cam Reddish and Paul George also look down on them (literally) so it is a bit relative.  You have to be tough to thrive among the trees at that height.

[RandomFan]

[AHF]

13 minutes ago, RandomFan said:

My view with respect to points and centers taking longer is one reason I love TS having drafted OO with plenty of frontcourt depth ahead of him (giving him time to develop last year and continued support this year even pre-2021-injury) and with him having drafted Cooper with veteran backups ahead of him on the depth chart.  At this point, we have a year of vet support before we need to decide whether Cooper is ready to fill that 15 mpg spot behind Trae for 2022-23 (or whether we need to resign Wright or get another vet via trade or FA) and a year before it is likely that Gallo will be gone and two before Cap will be an UFA.  This represents a great plan for the present and future with our youngsters.  Clearly, it is a common element of the approach that he has taken across the board but I do think it is essential for these roles.

[Hawkmoor]

@AHF All Summer League First Team.  Out the gate winning awards.  Cade Cunningham didn't make that squad.

 

 

Edited August 19, 2021 by Hawkmoor

[Spud2nique]

3 hours ago, AHF said:

Spud, Mugsey,

Greg Grant..Earl baby Boykins.. Keith Mr. Jennings.. I’m sorry go on.