My rebuttal to this is that looking at it from that point of view is irrelevant because we’re fortunate enough to be rooting for the team that arguably is the best at developing players, and that is why they absolutely should choose the guy they see with GOAT potential if they see one projected early OR late and not risk it by trading down. Your point would be valid for most teams that couldn’t trust their development staff like we do. They are so complementary to the Spurs that the scouting team has a bigger pool to choose from.
I will say, if the Spurs are really high on the Thompsons, it gives me less stress about potentially falling all the way down to 6. Picks 1-6, you are guaranteed one of Wemby, Scoot, Miller, Cam, Amen or Ausar. It's in that 3.5% chance of falling to 7 (50% chance we fall to the 3 slot, which results in a 7% chance of falling to 7) where things start to really suck.
We've historically been the best at developing players, but we've never tried to develop one in an environment like this one in regards to the talent around them. Even in 1989, there was more talent around DRob and Sean than anyone we draft will come into today. That makes a huge difference. Even Keldon and Devin had the benefit of starting out on teams that were play-in teams.
That doesn't mean I don't believe the Spurs are still the best (or one of) suited to do this - but we can't look at our history with Kawhi, Derrick or Dejounte and directly apply it to whomever we draft this year, especially since this year's rookie will arguably have more pressure on them than any rookie since DRob. The expectations for Duncan were justifiably high (and he exceeded them) but he still had the luxury of coming into a team that was already a WCF contender. Because we never pick this high, there will be pressure on him from fans and the media to live up to the only other Spurs picked this high (assuming we pick Top 4): Tim Duncan, David Robinson and Sean Elliott.
That's cool, then, because you're paying less for the same or better chances at a beneficial player.
I’m with you, man. It’s a trust or no trust thing. Kinda like the trust fall challenge with friends. Do we trust our team to make the right pick? I can’t honestly say they’ve disappointed me too much to lose that trust in their draft selections, personally.
For sure. And oddly it's why timvp's report of the Spurs interest in the Thompson's gives me a little bit of comfort though I really did not want to end up with one of them. They're way better at talent eval than myself or anyone on this message board, so if we are are 96.5% assured to land one of Wemby, Scoot, Miller, Cam, Amen or Ausar (or whomever else the Spurs FO deems to be at the same level), then I'm good just rolling with the punches. It's a scenario where there really isn't an option they like that concerns me. I don't want this ty tank season to have been for nothing.
I believe a prospect with great potential will reach it no matter the team he's ending up tbh, if he simply have the mentality and professionalism for that... Spurs have a nice program but so do most NBA teams and players have personal coaches they're working with during the RS and the offseason.
Giannis would have been Giannis in Orlando or Charlotte, and Nephew would have been Nephew somewhere else (Nephew may have issues but he had the mentality to succeed). Sure, they may have different team success depending on where they land but that's not on them, assuming they do their part.
So yeah, it's more about players mentality than anythnig else as far as reaching your potential. I'd be curious to know a potential star player these last few years who failed but would have succeeded in another team (which is kind of impossible to really know ofc).
If a player is talented and has the will to be the best he can, he will no matter where he is. Collective success and trophies are something else, at least until he can become a UFA and decide where he wanna go.
Last edited by JPB; 04-15-2023 at 03:10 PM.
Seventyniner
by the way, in your hypothetical player A should absolutely be the pick. That is not the picture I’m painting though. The scenario I’m describing is if the Spurs are in that 3-7 range and there is no player A but there is a player B whom they see as better than the player who is the “Player A” in other teams’ minds.
MKG was a better prospect than Kawhi. Probably Aaron Gordon, too. They were both similar fierce defenders, good rebounders, and below average shooters.
Your premise that it’s the player is no more valid than posters who say it’s the team. It’s BOTH. The Spurs just have requirements that will cement the development process. They get to pick the player. They want dawgs and workoholics.
Unfortunately, players don’t get to pick the team, so you get guys like MKG or Gordon who go to those teams, or most of the current Houston contingent.
Oh, definitely. That scenario is written as if the final outcome were completely deterministic and the deciding variables known beforehand. Neither is true and you can't use hindsight to pretend otherwise. You're picking with limited knowledge between alternatives probabilistic in nature, and at most you can come up with a few scenarios per prospect, rate their likelihood and assign a given value as a result, hoping it was as accurate as possible. Then yes, you can favor players with a wider distribution (high star/bust potential) if you prefer, but always with an honest assessment of the risks involved.
In the example above, I'd argue that Kawhi and Jokic actually WEREN'T the right picks with the information available at the time, because there was no way of telling just how incredible a leap Kawhi would take offensively, or whether Jokic would even end up a viable NBA player or a Sweetney / Oliver Miller clone. On the other hand, you had guys with huge potential like Kyrie and Embiid, who actually were much more proven commodities than them, and were the smart choice at the time. 2013 was a crapshoot, but I have to add that Oladipo was on his path to being a multiple times all star when injuries derailed his career, which reinforces the notion that you can't cherry pick outcomes in hindsight.
I'm probably more risk averse than most, so I prefer players I'm confident have good chances of being high level starters at least with an outside chance at being more than that (Mikhal Bridges would be a good example), than a complete gamble that may have a somewhat higher chance to hit jackpot, with more likely than not ends up a complete bust. I think in the long run that's the better strategy, with the caveat that if you're really convinced in a player's ceiling, sure you can take upside (ej.: Giannis), but that's the (very) rare exception.
In this draft, I'm really wary of guys I have nothing to judge them on but cherry picked highlights on YouTube by someone with a vested interest, and very glaring holes in their game that could render them almost unplayable (*cough* Westbrook/Simmons *cough*). That's why the Thompsons at the very high pick that comes our way once every couple decades seems to me like playing Russian roulette. But I will concede that some random dude from Argentina watching clips on the Internet does not have the same information that the Spurs FO does, so if they're our pick, I'll be hoping they got it right... only scared less until it's proven on the court.
I've come to believe this is absolutely not true. Landing on the right team or group of teams is so incredibly vital to a player's development and future, it's one of the most fascinating and untold story about the NBA. Kawhi would NOT have become what he is today if he landed on a Washington Wizards. I can see a lot of teams where Stephen Curry does not become who he is.
It requires space to grow, opportunities, the right staff, mix of players. There is very little I'm more confident about in this league that good players have been throttled by bad situations.
It's pretty incredible, when you think about it, how the Spurs have been a very good developmental team over the years when a lot of those coaches come and go.
We no longer have the Forcier's and the Chip's and the Bud's who had been so instrumental in making players better and yet here we are, with our team still getting drafted players to be better.
Not all, but that's every team and I think we can all agree that the Spurs are better than most.
What is the connective tissue to all of this over time?
Pop? Someone else? It's a curious thing as the NBA poaches the Spurs' staff left and right almost every year.
It's Pop.
SpursTalk loooooves to on Popovich, but they don't realize how huge he's been.
I have to say I agree with you. There's no other evidence saying otherwise that I know of. How does he do it? It's pretty amazing.
When he retires he could make millions upon millions doing coaching and team-building seminars.
a hall of fame point guard? Uh, yea?
rascal was one in the 90’s who’d refer to Alonzo mourning as a great defense cause “bs avg!”
People thought Camby was,too.
oh yeah. 1. Played in NY. 2. Blocked shots. Defensive genius!
Just my two cents, but Wemby, Scoot, Miller, and Amen will be picks 1-4. 5-9 could be all over the place but it’ll be one of Jarace, Cam, Taylor, Black, and Gradey imo.
You forgot Ausar
I'm not talking evaluation or prospect here, wich are subject to interpretation and personal opinion, but about actual potential that manifests throughout the years in the NBA... MKG and Gordon were maybe projected as better players with bigger potential but ultimately they were not, that's was not true. They didn't underperform comparing to Kawhi because of where they landed, they just had less potential and talent than Kawhi, and maybe less fire, professionalism or determination I don't know. But Nor MKG or Gordon would have been better players would they have landed somewhere else. they ended up as the players they did because of their actual potential and what they did with it.
Trade these young Houston players somewhere else, and they'll play up to their potential if given the chance and if they give themselves the chance.
I'm only interested in
Wemby
Scoot Henderson / Brandon Miller
Cam Whitmore / Taylor Hendricks
Anthony Black / Jarace Walker
Pass on the brick twins... too much we don't know, and enough warning signs in what we do know.
Potentially, I could see him falling through the cracks a bit just because I think team will be more interested in those guys I mentioned
I thought so, too.
I worked for Wake Forest and saw all four years of Duncan. Only two players looked good defensively against Duncan: Marcus Camby and Bryant Reeves. Just one game apiece, but really good defensive games.
This coin flip is happening soon right?. HThe final coin flip that matters to Indiana is between the Spurs and Rockets. If the Spurs win the flip, the Pacers get to keep the extremely good Rockets second round pick. If not, they fall substantially in the second round..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote