Reply With Quote
Maybe we should start posting high school tape in each of the prospect threads we have on this board, eh? It would be weird to just have it for Poku. Anyone have links to full games?
Not discounting high school all the way, read my post above.
Not saying I don't believe you, but if you or anyone could post a link where the Spurs are on record for dismissing Murray's year at UW, that would be appreciated.
Maybe we should start posting high school tape in each of the prospect threads we have on this board, eh? It would be weird to just have it for Poku. Anyone have links to full games?
I may have misremembered how it happened. This is what I found that Buford said about Murray's scouting:
https://www.poundingtherock.com/2016...ejounte-murrayWhen did you first see him play?
RC: Some of our scouts had seen him prior to when he first went to the University of Washington, but over the course of the year we saw him several times. In the Bahamas, during one of the early-season tournaments, one of our scouts went there, I saw him play a couple of times in the [Pac-12], we had people around that group all the time.
I think what may have happened is that there was a thread talking about that quote on ST, saying that the Spurs were able to project more onto Murray's developmental curve because they didn't just base it on college tape. Maybe that's not true, and there is another quote from RC going more into that. But I wouldn't know how to find it at this point.
This is true. And I agree with the substance of what you're saying. Remember though that Blossom was drafted five years after this video was made. There was a ton of college tape on him, in a lot of different situations, by the time he was picked. I doubt RC and the rest of the staff looked at what he did in high school. I imagine that same thing was true for White. But with Murray, Walker and Johnson, high school/AAU was just the year before. And for multiple reasons, none of those guys got to see as many opportunities as you'd like to evaluate a player.
But yes, that does highlight the reasons for caution. Blossom showing a more complete game versus lesser compe ion isn't close to rare. He's a fringe-NBA player and would probably be an upper-tier guy in Europe.
So you meant the D-league had a lot of the 700/1000 top players in the World, not the NCAA?
Why would Giannis be a lazy example? It's the prefect example to understand that players should be targeted on their skillsets, instead of being close-minded and afraid because of the level of compe ion they play in. American high-schools are a pretty much the tiest level of compe ion NBA players can get drafted from, but you would have been re ed not to take Lebron James despite of it.
All I'm saying is, focus on the player and his strengths and weaknesses and how would those translate and/or develop in the NBA. Not taking a guy because of the level of compe ion he plays in is pretty much the worst mistake a GM could make.
Yes, and just to clarify, that's what I actually said in my post. I think you thought I said most college teams were better, when I specifically said the opposite. I do think the NCAA has a lot of top-1000 players in the world, and if you took them and put them into 30 teams, it'd be a more talented league than many other domestic teams, but good domestic leagues and especially the Euroleague would be ahead.
Because he's the exception to so many rules that citing him doesn't disprove anything but absolute statements.
Nah, what it is is a bad attempt to negate the idea that demonstrated skill-sets are often a function of compe ion level. Literally no one said the level of compe ion was a reason not to draft him, so you're arguing against no one by citing Giannis.It's the prefect example to understand that players should be targeted on their skillsets, instead of being close-minded and afraid because of the level of compe ion they play in.
Once one-and-done stops being a thing, high schools will become a much better drafting ground. Even now guys like Bazley and the Makers are showing it's not the worst thing in the world, but back when James was drafted, it was definitely a better pool than Europe or anywhere else in the world outside the NCAA.American high-schools are a pretty much the tiest level of compe ion NBA players can get drafted from, but you would have been re ed not to take Lebron James despite of it.
You're missing the point though. James was drafted because he projected to translate. He was safe, just like Tim was. Plenty of dominant high-school players don't project well, even though they often have good floor games and what not, and they don't get drafted high. That's really true now, but it was true back then too.
You're not doing that, though. You're specifically trying to not do that and instead arguing that the chances they magically do are worth picking him. You're trying to dismiss the effect of lesser compe ion while pinning on others the idea that they think it's the most important thing. Truth is there's a relationship between the two concepts, and folks like you should consider that relationship when talking about Poke's developmental curve.All I'm saying is, focus on the player and his strengths and weaknesses and how would those translate and/or develop in the NBA.
In fact, I would argue that, given the history of these players that gather attention from very low level places of play, the smart thing would be to pay even more attention to them. Players like Kobe, Garnett and Giannis probably weren't selected number 1 overall because of people's skepticism about their level of compe ion. If folks would have cared more about their actual skill levels, instead of focusing on their compe ion, they would have selected the best player in the draft.
Not too long ago I was arguing with Spurtacular about the relative importance of college for young promising players. I checked the list of all the players that made it from high school straight to the NBA, and the vast majority had a long career in the league. Meaning that, despite their poor level of compe ion, they were still able to make it in the league because of the talent that made them stand out in the first place.
This is speculation. Especially in Giannis' case, people just didn't really know much about him. He'd've probably been a top-10 pick had he been on teams' radars more. The push then was to find the next Durant, so long athletic forwards from all over the world had their stocks really high.
For KG, he was in a pool of PFs who all had good NBA careers. Garnett ended up being the best of them, but the three guys before him were legit All-Stars in their primes. The same thing happened with Kobe, though not to the same concentration of elite players.
This is a lot of major hindsight. Teams passed over Leonard for some reason too. Doesn't mean it's some systematic flaw that has to be correct.
Again, you're talking about blue chips. I'm talking aggregate. Multiple years of lower level basketball is best for most players.
As for Kobe, that's always been a curious case to me. There was some sort underground dealing going on or something. It was written in stone that he had to go to the Lakers.
How many other players drafted from the second division Greek league do you know?
You are clearly showing skepticism regarding Poku's actual level of play because of his level of compe ion. What better way to counter that idea than by citing the other player from the Greek second division that gathered this type of attention from NBA scouts?Nah, what it is is a bad attempt to negate the idea that demonstrated skill-sets are often a function of compe ion level. Literally no one said the level of compe ion was a reason not to draft him, so you're arguing against no one by citing Giannis.
Sorry, but this is just pure US self-centered ignorance at its finest. The idea of teams composed of high-school kids being more compe ive than the best professionals in Europe is just mind numbing laughable.Once one-and-done stops being a thing, high schools will become a much better drafting ground. Even now guys like Bazley and the Makers are showing it's not the worst thing in the world, but back when James was drafted, it was definitely a better pool than Europe or anywhere else in the world outside the NCAA.
You're missing the point though. James was drafted because he projected to translate. He was safe, just like Tim was. Plenty of dominant high-school players don't project well, even though they often have good floor games and what not, and they don't get drafted high. That's really true now, but it was true back then too.
Then talk about how you think Poku's game doesn't seem to be projected to translate, not the level of compe ion, tbh.
No, I'm not. You are the one over-fixating about the compe ion instead of analyzing each skillset on its own.You're not doing that, though. You're specifically trying to not do that and instead arguing that the chances they magically do are worth picking him. You're trying to dismiss the effect of lesser compe ion while pinning on others the idea that they think it's the most important thing. Truth is there's a relationship between the two concepts, and folks like you should consider that relationship when talking about Poke's developmental curve.
If prime Shaq was put on the A2 right now, he wouldn't suddenly start bringing the ball up the court, crossing people over and start making step back 3's. He would dominate but in the same way he dominated the NBA, most likely with more pedestrian stats since NBA basketball tends to inflate stats compared to Europe.
Just this morning I saw a story on youtube about Kawhi playing in high-school, he was doing exactly the same things and moves he does right now but against high-school kids. A Chinook somewhere would have probably said "yeah, well, but let's see if he can translate that to the NBA". Yeah, no , that's what you have to see with everybody.
Seriously, I don't even know why this is an argument. Are you saying that Poku's game won't translate because he plays against ty compe ion, or that we have to see if his game translates? If it's the latter then that's true for every drafted player, no matter where they come from. A2, Euroleague, NCAA, high school. Everybody has to prove themselves and no previous compe ion guarantees anything, in fact, the players drafted from the lower compe ions (high school and Europe's lesser leagues) have a higher degree of success than the players drafted from the more conventional places (NCAA and Europe's top leagues), you know why? Because the players that draw the attention of NBA scouts in the lower level leagues do it so because they are special, they are out of the norm. And those type of players will succeed more often than not.
Last edited by DAF86; 08-26-2020 at 12:09 PM.
Corona madness has set in on Spurs Talk
I can't imagine very many. That's why it's weird that you're laughing.How many other players drafted from the second division Greek league do you know?
First, Giannis DIDN'T gather this type of attention. His agent was literally sending out tapes of his play to NBA scouts hoping someone would notice him. The truth is that this is not a way to counter the skepticism. It's warranted, and you just have to hope it's not true. You can't dismiss it, and unless you factor it into what you're seeing, you're not evaluating him fairly.You are clearly showing skepticism regarding Poku's actual level of play because of his level of compe ion. What better way to counter that idea than by citing the other player from the Greek second division that gathered this type of attention from NBA scouts?
I didn't say that. I said it was a better pool for evaluating NBA talent. That's for a lot of reasons, including ease of access and the relationships teams had built with high-school clubs. You're showing how new you are to scouting by ignoring the history of its development in the NBA. Stop trying to score anti-US points; it's boring.Sorry, but this is just pure US self-centered ignorance at its finest. The idea of teams composed of high-school kids being more compe ive than the best professionals in Europe is just mind numbing laughable.
No. The level of compe ion matters. You don't seem to get that. No one is saying it's the most important thing. You are saying it's irrelevant, and that's just objectively wrong.Then talk about how you think Poku's game doesn't seem to be projected to translate, not the level of compe ion, tbh.
No matter how many times you try to say I'm fixating on level of compe ion, it won't be true. It just makes it seem like you aren't reading what I'm saying and instead turtling into "I know what I see."No, I'm not. You are the one over-fixating about the compe ion instead of analyzing each skillset on its own.
He'd definitely be the guy running their offense. He wouldn't bring the ball up the court because that's not an essential skill. And he would probably just post up because he doesn't need to attack the defense from the high post. But would he have numerous coast-to-coast moments when he did dribble up the court and dunk it? Of course he would.If prime Shaq was put on the A2 right now, he wouldn't suddenly start bringing the ball up the court, crossing people over and start making step back 3's. He would dominate but in the same way he dominated the NBA, most likely with more pedestrian stats since NBA basketball tends to inflate stats compared to Europe.
Do you realize how bad this looks for your point? He wasn't even doing the stuff he does in the NBA now in the first years he was in the NBA or in college. It's like you don't even remember his developmental curve at all.Just this morning I saw a story on youtube about Kawhi playing in high-school, he was doing exactly the same things and moves he does right now but against high-school kids. A Chinook somewhere would have probably said "yeah, well, but let's see if he can translate that to the NBA". Yeah, no , that's what you have to see with everybody.
The point is that the NBA is so good that basically very few skills translate. You're looking at him in some generalist/superstar light without considering what he can already do at the NBA level. Because there will be guys who can dribble better than him, pass better than him, shoot better than him. There'll be guys who can rebound better and defend better. Those guys might not be able to do everything better than him, but they don't have to, because the NBA is about specialists more than generalists. That's why positional striation exists. So the question isn't "Will his game translate". It's "What can he do at an NBA level, and what can he be projected to do at an NBA level as he goes through his curve."Seriously, I don't even know why this is an argument. Are you saying that Poku's game won't translate because he plays against ty compe ion, or that we have to see if his game translates? If it's the latter then that's true for every drafted player, no matter where they come from. A2, Euroleague, NCAA, high school. Everybody has to prove themselves and no previous compe ion guarantees anything, in fact, the players drafted from the lower compe ions (high school and Europe's lesser leagues) have a higher degree of success than the players drafted from the more conventional places (NCAA and Europe's top leagues)?
Is that actually true? I think it depends on how you cut the data.you know why? Because the players that draw the attention of NBA scouts in the lower level leagues do it so because they are special, they are out of the norm. And those type of players will succeed more often than not.
If there aren't many, then how can Giannis be the "exception to many rules"? Do you even keep up with what you say?
However it was that he gathered the attention, he did it. That's why he was drafted in the middle of the first draft despite coming from an unkown league.First, Giannis DIDN'T gather this type of attention. His agent was literally sending out tapes of his play to NBA scouts hoping someone would notice him. The truth is that this is not a way to counter the skepticism. It's warranted, and you just have to hope it's not true. You can't dismiss it, and unless you factor it into what you're seeing, you're not evaluating him fairly.
This whole argument started because you are questioning Poku's level of compe ion. I brought Lebron and high school to make you realize that his level of compe ion also sucked. So, now, you turning the argument from "level of compe ion" to "talent pool" is irrelevant.I didn't say that. I said it was a better pool for evaluating NBA talent. That's for a lot of reasons, including ease of access and the relationships teams had built with high-school clubs. You're showing how new you are to scouting by ignoring the history of its development in the NBA. Stop trying to score anti-US points; it's boring.
It's pretty irrelevant, given the fact that history shows that prospects from the lower levels of compe ion have had a much greater level of success in the NBA than prospects from higher levels of compe ion. If anything, the fact that Poku gathers this type of attention despite playing in such a poor league should make GMs even more confident about his chances of making it at the NBA level.No. The level of compe ion matters. You don't seem to get that. No one is saying it's the most important thing. You are saying it's irrelevant, and that's just objectively wrong.
Well, you brought it up, and here we are, a day later, still discussing it, despite years and years of evidence proving that the level of compe ion actually works the other way around, not because the level of compe ion itself, but because the players that make themselves stand out on these lower leagues are usually pretty special talents.No matter how many times you try to say I'm fixating on level of compe ion, it won't be true. It just makes it seem like you aren't reading what I'm saying and instead turtling into "I know what I see."
Why?He'd definitely be the guy running their offense. He wouldn't bring the ball up the court because that's not an essential skill. And he would probably just post up because he doesn't need to attack the defense from the high post. But would he have numerous coast-to-coast moments when he did dribble up the court and dunk it? Of course he would.
On a related note, did you know that offense comes a lot easier in the NBA than in Europe? Every FIBA born player knows this fact. Even non-NBA players like Laprovittola are on record saying that the extra space and more offense oriented rules makes for the NBA a much easier league to attack the basket and offense in general than FIBA leagues. That's why FIBA players usually tend to struggle more with defense than offense when getting to the NBA.
Do you realize how bad this looks for your point? He wasn't even doing the stuff he does in the NBA now in the first years he was in the NBA or in college. It's like you don't even remember his developmental curve at all.
Go ahead son, lose all credibility and tell me these moves aren't exactly the same ones he pulls today in the NBA.
It's not about what a player does on the lower levels but how he does it. For example, Sadidiq Bey and Devin Vassell are guys that put the ball on the floor and try to playmake a bit right now, but looking at their handles anyone with a bit of understanding knows that their handles and dribbling skills aren't enough to translate what they are doing to the next level. That's why everybody has them as 3 and D players. Saddiq Bey will never be a 20+ ppg primary offensive option on the NBA like he is in NCAA. And this is something any trained pair of eyes can realize just by watching him dribble the ball alone on a basketball court. His level of compe ion doesn't matter. Pokusevski, on the other hand, is a natural with the ball in his hands and, no, the level of compe ion isn't the reason why he can dribble the ball behind his back and between his legs on a tigh space and then laser a no-look pass on the money cross court. He can do that because he has was born with the talent to do that.The point is that the NBA is so good that basically very few skills translate. You're looking at him in some generalist/superstar light without considering what he can already do at the NBA level. Because there will be guys who can dribble better than him, pass better than him, shoot better than him. There'll be guys who can rebound better and defend better. Those guys might not be able to do everything better than him, but they don't have to, because the NBA is about specialists more than generalists. That's why positional striation exists. So the question isn't "Will his game translate". It's "What can he do at an NBA level, and what can he be projected to do at an NBA level as he goes through his curve."
Just take all the players that were drafted straight from high school and from Europe's second division leagues and check how many managed to be at least rotation players with extended careers on the NBA.Is that actually true? I think it depends on how you cut the data.
Last edited by DAF86; 08-26-2020 at 05:31 PM.
Don't attack me, I'm just sharing what's the latest on my feed.
Yeah, the NBADraft.net guy.
Scouts questioned Jokićs desire. Scouts questioned Samanics desire.
Rebounding IS desire. A skinny assed 7 foot, 18 YO put up good rebounding numbers in a league playing against bulkier bigger grown men.
And I’m sure you’re just trying to keep us all informed from your feed...
Let'S get him imo
I don't ing have anything against Poku. It's irritating about people like you that you can't accept criticism about players whose balls are in your mouth. Jesus. I hate when people turn it against others because their just blind to their own POV. Take off that dog cone, man.
Devin Vassell
Yeah? I'm the one throwing criticism at Devin so your post makes no sense just like your logic about prospects.
And you’re throwing criticism at Poku, and any other damn player who isn’t precious enough for you.
Yes, because idiots like you like to crown prospects as the next big thing. Even I have my own criticism towards Precious, Nesmith, and all the other players I like because I have the ability to temper my expectations. You don't. That's the difference. , at one point I was all-in on Isaiah Stewart but I knew when to step back.
We’re coming at this from two different angles, too. You’re trying to figure out who you want for the Spurs to pick. I’m trying to figure out who they want to pick. Considering the outrage here after the Samanic pick last year, most of fandom struggles with what I’m attempting.
Honest question, why then would you think the Spurs are so high (since you're so high on him) on Pokusevski? There have been no reports that they're interested in him, Spurs haven't scouted him as far as we know (like they did and openly admitted to doing with Samanic and other prospects), they've already taken on a project PF in last years' draft which, while obviously not completely throwing out the possibility, does make it unlikely that they'd select yet another project PF; and lastly, they probably see taking Poku at #11 as a reach, and will be trying to get a more "safe" prospect with their highest pick in years. This isn't like swinging for the fences with a #19 or #29 pick, where you can live with failure since the stakes weren't so high.
To me, and from what I've read and heard so far, there's no indicators whatsoever that the Spurs are particularly interested in Poku, beyond the fact that he's European and Spurs are clichéd as always picking Euros over American prospects. So, unless you have certain information I haven't read, you're looking like you're trying to play off your interest in Poku, as the Spurs' interest in Poku... Which is weird. And I'm not saying this because I want them to pick other prospects (if I had to say, even though I like Precious, I think they're most likely to take PatWill, tbh).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
