Reply With Quote
Jokic was 19 on draft night.
The FRPs since Duncan retired:
2016 19 YO
2017 22 YO
2018 19 YO
2019 19 YO X 2
2020 19 YO
2021 18 YO
If we pick and keep #9, it will be a player who is 18 or 19 YO. Just a hunch.
Jokic was 19 on draft night.
Sengun is only 5 months older than Primo. It's not like the choice between the two came down to a huge age gap.
Sengun is still younger than Chet, Ivey, Keegan (by like 23 months), Johnny Davis, Mark Williams, Benedict Mathurin, Tari Eason, Josh Minott, Gabriele Procida and loads of other guys in this coming draft.
Ex, me saying you were misusing win-shares for a different context doesn't negate me saying you are misusing a completely separate graph. It just expands the throughline of you not knowing how to support your points. Go back and actually read what I said back then, and then come back and tell me why that would apply to this situation.
https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/sho...8#post10667438
The reason why that list didn't show the Spurs were superlative at developing is because they tended to target high-floor players with specific skills. It turns out that many of those players are older. It therefore stands to reason that a team that can get value out of older drafted players will see more success relative to their draft spot when compared to teams that focused on younger players, because those older players didn't need to develop as much in order to give their teams production.
To put it another way: The list you made those months ago was supposed to show how the Spurs were boosting the upsides of their players, but the list didn't fit, because it only showed production and not improvement. I brought up a similar list now to show production tends to be spread out among different age groups. There's no contradiction there. Your suggestion that upside and youth should drive the draft has never been well supported. It wasn't back when we had the Samanic/Clarke debate. It wasn't when talking about drafting Pokusevski. It wasn't when talking about developing Primo. And it's not now. Age is a legit metric to use when evaluating prospects. But it's only one, and not clearly a dominant metric.
To let you in one a secret: Primo's age is not why they draft him. People keep misunderstanding that. The Spurs have and will continue to bypass on young players. Primo's intelligence and maturity despite his age is why they wanted him. They think he's going to get better, yes. But they drafted him because they think he's already good at the intangibles that often take prospects years to develop. More than age, it's much more of a throughline for the Spurs to value anticipation, vision, BBIQ and instinct when they see it, regardless of age. THAT's the thing the Spurs believe can generate production for rookie contracts. That tends to be something they find in older players, but it's not something they find there exclusively, as Anderson showed.
Ages on my list were taken from going to basketballref and looking at what age they were in their first season as that was the easiest website to pull using my phone. Needless to say, there are still enough HOF players to make a case to not put blinders on towards older prospects.
the ages from basketballref are obviously at the start of the season as opposed to the draft age. Should we even say that those five months since being drafted matter between success or failure? If the player has a birthday right after draft night, then he still counted as a 19 year old thus he will be successful? This premise is pretty ridiculous.
Last edited by Dejounte; 05-30-2022 at 03:49 AM.
That wasn’t my point. Spurs bet on Primo’s star potential instead of the sure-bet role player on Sengun and Duarte. Sengun just happens to be young.
Other than White, nope. Hard nope. You and Dejounte are both fond of using outliers to support you positions.
Let’s see. I shared a list of players older than 19 that were successful
you shared a graph about the number of teams drafting players 19 or younger
a graph irrelevant to my point as it shows nothing about 20 year old players or older not being unsuccessful
who is cherry picking what here? You tend to bring up points irrelevant to the topic and then never go into detail
Last edited by Dejounte; 05-30-2022 at 08:23 AM.
19 is a magic number yall
Some voodoo where buddha farted gold blessings tenfold onto that number. Its the year of the giraffe. If you add the number of letters in the word of giraffe, you get the number 19. Oh and there are 19 candles that were lit on martin luther king day and guess what? Martin luther said that on draft day in 2022, that 19 year olds have special aroma with magnificent vibes all around. Lets smoke this ganja baby
I’m surprised you crawled back in here after i shot holes in your now Swiss cheese looking list.
Over the duration of the draft discussion, there has been a contention that almost all of the talent in the draft is at the top. In a ST rarity, that hasn’t been challenged or debated.
Look at the ages of the top 3 picks in the last 5 drafts on the graph.
You also chided me for wanting only players in the 18 or 19 age range, and I obliterated you again with the list of the spurs FRPs for the last 6 drafts, all of one who were 18 or 19. You keep wishing for that 22 YO Keegan Murray, though. (See, I can round up, too)
Non-point drama, and attempted distraction.
Love the self-patting in the back for made-up victories in your headwho the does that? “Obliterated” oh man, this is classic cringe from the guy who had the audacity to on someone for losing their daughter. This heartless, delusional needs to stay away from his keyboard and go hike mt everest or something and find more purpose in life
More non points, drama, and attempted distractions from the fool trying to sneak 19 YOs onto his 20 and up list. Busted.Love the self-patting in the back for made-up victories in your head
I think that's the first Martin Luther reference I've seen on ST...kudos lol
You have to understand that ex looks at things like he's looking through a straw. He takes a data point and extrapolates what he wants out of it without a proper amount of breadth or nuance. When I kinda blew my top with him I called him the autistic one...(yes, I probably shouldn't have gone there) I did that because his arguments sometimes remind me of conversations I've had with a few autistic people...very intelligent and able to quickly recall data...crunching numbers etc but without enough breadth to use that data to make the data relevant.. I find that he brings alot to the discussion and brings up data I didn't know existed or hadn't thought about but having a discussion about that data is sometimes frustrating because his vision doesn't let him contrast it against other data (especially if that data is more subjective/philosophical and not as quantifiable). I'm not sure I even have a point in this post other than to tell you how I look at his approach to things here..
You post a lot of nonsense, but that's good stuff tbh
It doesn't take a degree in accounting to figure out that a player who can come out at a young age and stick around for a few years is going to make a potful of money more than one who stays in school , earns a degree while polishing his skills, and incidentally lets his body mature. Since most players with NBA dreams don't give a rat's ass about completing a degree that will be totally useless to them in their future, there is no incentive to stay in school any longer than absolutely necessary to get that DD (Draft Degree) instead of a B.A. That's why the average age of players entering the draft and the NBA is dropping--and why our draft picks are shifting to younger players. We've been talking about this shift for ages. Nothing new here.
On the other hand, there is no reason to treat a draft prospect like a leper if he is over 20. (OMG, he's so OLD!) He might even be more ready for the NBA than some 18 year old who "has the potential to gain some muscle to handle the bigger faster players in the league."
Let's just take a step back and look at most draft picks realistically for what they bring to the table NOW. I'm sick of players with potential who still need two or three years of G league experience before they are useful. By the time we train them to NBA level players and they begin to realize their potential as great players, many of them will leave us in free agency. There are simply too many lures out there such as better team, super All-star teammates, big cities with bright lights and flashy women for young players on the cusp of greatness.
Suppose we use all of our draft picks so well that we get three or four absolutely great players who show All-star play in two or three years. What are the chances we keep them all? Zero in my opinion. So if we find a player(s) who can step in to the starting lineup sooner rather than later, let's take those two or three years of production on an initial contract and then see what happens in extending their contract. We may never see a Big Three again.
We need an All NBA player, not a starter. We have those. We certainly won’t EVER have another big three if we’re bunting or choking up on the bat for singles. Slide back into the batters box, eradicate the back chalk line, and swing from your heels for the fence.
In your scenario of all four players hitting the jackpot, we can’t keep them all, because we can’t PAY them all.
The reality is that more finished products are dead ends, and the Spurs know that. They could have drafted Clarke. They could have drafted Duarte. They didn’t. In the past 6 drafts, they’ve drafted 6 FRPs that were 19 or younger, and one 22 year old, who is no longer on the team.
They had exactly one FRP development project walk out on them, and that was because they were so stealth, and not wanting him poached, that they didn’t even interview or test hm. It bit them in the ass the one time they didn’t follow their rules. I don’t see them ever walking that Kawhi path again, not knowing anything about who a player is before drafting him.
Yes, there will be busts, maybe a lot of them. Sammich is already gone, and Lonnie looks to follow him out the door. You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. That’s likeLy why SA is collecting FRPs. More chances, better odds of hitting a winner.
I don't know why you think listing players the Spurs have drafted negates the greater trends anyone is talking about. First, passing off sop res who are going to turn 20 before their first season as fundamentally the same as freshman is dumb. The reason why older players are thought to have less upside is not literally because 21- or 22-year-old bodies calcify at a high rate or whatever. It's because those players are thought have a physical advantage in school and have had additional years of coaching. When a guy has multiple years of NCAA coaching, he's going to have improved more than the same guy with less mid-level coaching. It's the same reason why one shouldn't think that Lonnie Walker at 23 is fundamentally the same as Alondes Williams, who's less than a year younger.
More importantly, unless you're a Spurs nationalist who thinks every pick the Spurs make is necessarily the right pick, you need to do more to prove your point than to say the Spurs may agree with you. The Spurs have drafted a few players in their first year of eligibility. Murray, Walker, Samanic and Johnson. It took Murray five seasons to become a positive player. Keldon is still a negative player. Walker is a strongly negative player. Samanic is out of the league. Primo is to be decided, and but he's also a negative. If they've had a post-Duncan trend of drafting young players, then that might as much as anything explain why they've missed the playoffs almost all of those years. Their efficiency has plummeted. The hope is that in year four, Johnson is a positive player, and Primo finds a way to make it there sooner while Walker gets there if he's retained.
But compare that to White, who was positive his entire career with the Spurs. The Spurs got back their investment in him immediately and were able to flip him for more assets. You need to be able to do that with picks. Some picks you can totally afford to take the hit on developmental years, but it's more than arguable that the Spurs have had that balance skewed since 2018. With three first-rounders, they definitely shouldn't try that plan for every pick. Do you want to take a guy at 9 you think might need a couple of years to become a positive player? Okay, but then at least one of 20 or 25 needs to be a player who can give you value. You want to take a complete lotto ticket? Okay, then do that with one of the extra firsts. But the dream of drafting a couple of 18-year-olds and letting Pop and Wright spray their Spurs secret sauce on them in Austin for a year so that they'll magically perform like second-year DeJounte is optimistic, to put it kindly.
When you start calling Leonard and 19-year-old developmental project and trying to lump him with Primo and Pokusevski, you aren't even trying to be honest.
Much is made of that 2019 draft. I personally think it's too early to post the numbers, since the point of using total win-shares over time is to allow projects to catch up and see if they can overcome the head start the older players got. But here is what it looks like after three years: https://www.basketball-reference.com.../NBA_2019.html
As you can see, it's once again a mix of older and younger players. Four players in the top 10 were upperclassmen, two were sop res and four were freshmen. Does it matter if someone like Keldon eventually starts getting more win-shares per year than Clarke? Does it matter if that comeback is strong enough to where Johnson eventually gets more in his career than Clarke has? It might. Or, it might already be time to call it, if you think the most important thing in the modern NBA is to get bang for your buck with picks. That's a legit philosophical debate, and I don't think the answer is the same in every situation. I am saying that age and upside are actually nuanced concepts that can't be explained with one random chart, and that no intelligent organization is going to cleave to a single standard to measure players.
bro did you really have to word it that way
Have culty views, get culty imagery. I think that's the saying.
It’s actually a pretty simple concept: I watch what the Spurs have done to figure out what they’re going to do. People on this forum hare off after the flavor of the month, the guy who jumps high, or shoots, but does nothing else. Here's what the Spurs are going to do with any keeper picks. They’ll draft 18 or19 year olds who are smart, who can defend or have the tools to do so, and who can create in at least a secondary role. They might be shooters, but they should at least be teachable/fixable if they’re not. That’s it.
You don't know what they will do.
We’ll see. After the draft is over, and all trades have been announced and finalized, come back and see how my post has aged.
Second round rules are more lax. Mostly the same, but they’ll draft older players like Q or Tre.
Pretty sure basically no one is arguing over what the Spurs WILL do. They'll do what they'll do, and we won't affect that. We are talking about what they SHOULD do. Unless you believe that everything the Spurs end up doing was the best choice, then those are two very different things. A lot of us fear that they will draft some 18- or 19-year-old 6-5 wing whom they stick in the d-league for a year for some reason and then have him come into the league his second year as a ball-dominant midrange-shooting combo-guard who struggles to fit into a team concept and posts a negative net-rating. I mean, yeah, the Spurs fan in me wakes up in cold sweats about that. That's because if they keep following that trend, it would be a bad decision in my eyes. I'll be desperately hoping they win free agency to cover up for a bad draft. I'll still root for all of the players in the summer league and all that, but I'll be even more disillusioned about the direction of the team.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
