Reply With Quote
:
Goes to show you never can tell.
Is Andre your nephew, ace? You’ve been pumping up this guy since day 1.
nah, just passes my eye test, always appreciate swiss army knife type players.
Maybe the Spurs second round pick
You have to take those NCAA stats with a mountain of salt.
Yeah, an 57-52 NCAA game with my young cousins playing each others coached by my uncles for 10 air balls and 12 missed lay ups is so much better than a compe ion where half of the pro grown men there have or will have an NBA experience.... Sine hey, the arena is full to watch these lost teens, nevermind if most of them will never sniff the NBA.
Is NCAA better for a kid to play BB and a few of them reach the NBA? As of now yes, although this is a new thing and few young guys picked the G league. Put more prospects in the G league and more would be drafted, which could happen soon.
But is NCAA more compe ive than the G league? No, obviously.
Last edited by JPB; 03-30-2023 at 04:13 AM.
The current #9 on Tankathon could be the Primo replacement we need.
https://tankathon.com/mock_draft
Somehow related: & Primo
https://stats.gleague.nba.com/players/
Luka Samanic is putting 22 points on 48/33/76 and 8.1 rebounds
Alize Johnson is putting 15.5 points on over 60% shooting, along with 12.1 rebounds and 4 assists.
Leandro Bolmaro was putting 12.1 points shooting 48% overall and 38% from 3, along with 6.6 assists and 6.1 rebounds. He was cut by the Jazz recently.
Carlik Jones is putting up 26.1 points on 48/36/79, along with 7 assists, 4.4 rebounds and 1.7 steals. Went undrafted and doesn't draw interest from NBA teams.
Zavier Simpson is putting up 16.7 points on 52% FG and 47% 3pt, along with 8.8 assists, 4.4 rebounds and 1.6 steals. Went undrafted and doesn't draw interest from NBA teams.
If the G League was an accurate indication of anything, all of them would be receiving significant attention from NBA teams. Why aren't they? Because teams obviously know the context they're playing in, where virtually every player not on Ignite is either an NBA scrub, filler, or rattling through for a few games.
The G League's main development program (Ignite) doesn't properly set up prospects for the big stage. Just look at Jalen Green, Kuminga, Hardy, etc. None of them are exactly known for fundamentals of playing the right way, they're mostly selfish guys looking to pad their stats.
Now does that mean every College game is good? No, there are plenty embarrassing ones, where guards seem like plumbers that were picked up 5 minutes ahead of the game to fill up for someone missing. But, there are also some (admittedly not most) very compe ive games, that you'd be hard pressed to find in the G League.
For instance, last year I fell in love with Sochan watching Baylor North Carolina. He didn't shoot it particularly well, but the compe iveness of the game allowed him to show his versatility, defense, playmaking, and leadership. Right then and there I knew he was a guy I wanted on the Spurs.
When was the last time a G League game had the same effect? The only one I can come up with is Ignite vs Metropolitans, Scoot vs Wemby, and as great as those games were, they aren't representative of the G-League. Most games played by Ignite are against scrubs, not top international talent.
So while there may be some worthwhile players coming from either avenue, and the average G Leaguer may rank higher than the average College player, top College teams have on average more NBA viable prospects than G League teams, and it's not close.
Very real chance Orlando is rolling out the Magic Black lineup next year
Black Bol... size & length. Need to trade for the Kum Bucket.
Black Ball ( Bol) Call me ( Cole) Franz
lol Magic Suggs Black would get an announcer fired
I’m going to make this post as short and straight to the point as possible.
Saying that great stats in the g-league isn’t an indicator of success in the NBA (or not being picked up by NBA teams) can easily be turned around by pointing to college players with great stats who go undrafted. Saying that those stats correlate to poor compe ion is not a good argument because of my above statement.
Pointing to gleague veterans who put up great stats and asking why they don’t get picked up by NBA teams is the same thing as asking why Peter Kiss or Darius Mghee wasn’t picked up by NBA teams last year. Both were top offensive players in college.
JPB’s point is being missed about how the Ignite is a relatively new program. It has only been two? years since it has been introduced and there have been only a handful of players to come out of it with a couple of years on their belt. I think if we’re being honest their careers so far have surpassed many players who have come out of college and it’s only year 2.
This gleague vs college debate reminds me of way back then when people were debating international vs college. Like, in the end, it doesn’t matter. Talent supersedes whatever environment a prospect is in. You have Giddey last year who didn’t really come from a spectacular league, and he put up mediocre stats. And then on the other side, you have Jokic’s team where no worthwhile player has been picked up from there ever since even though his league before produced one of the GOATs.
It’s an outdated idea to say that the best of the best prospects should be picked from certain leagues, especially if you consider the fact they spend one year there for most prospects.
The point about G-League/college really has nothing or very little to do with talent level. That's not really the point. The point is this: where is this player learning how to get better in a team environment, learning how to succeed against difficult environments, take coaching, understand basketball as a holistic thing with complex, moving parts instead of an endless series of spammed individual maneuvers?
Not in G-League. That hasn't happened yet, and the reason why is its basic format: older players working on their own skills in a range of games that do not matter to anybody other than individual success.
No one is disputing that in college you generally get less talented players. The point is that those players are actually organized into effective units on both sides of the ball and the NBA hopefuls among them are forced to process the game at a level that never happens in G-League. Those foundations are important and a player who just plays G-League never gets them there. Once he gets to the NBA, he's not getting them there, either, or much slower, because he does not get game time or does so only slowly.
It's like learning a new language without understanding grammar.
To me, it’s less about these gleague players seeing success in the NBA and more the kind of product you guys want to see on the basketball floor. Everybody has their own tastes and what’s appealing to your basketball eye is what’s appealing. I wholly disagree that college is the place to learn basketball “grammar” because you get raw deer-in-headlights players all the time from college and it’s easy to point them out from a Spurs perspective: See Lonnie & Wesley. That argument isn’t as bullet proof as you put it. There’s too much amount of weight placed into this one year of basketball “school” before a prospect goes to the NBA. Like I said pages before, there have been team-centric players who have come straight from high school and had no issues.
I ranted all year in years we had dumb or selfish players like Eubanks, Gay, Patty, etc. Smart, team basketball is what I want to see on the floor. I just don’t believe you can only get those (or not get those) types of players from specific leagues. I don’t limit myself to that.
I'm kinda middle of the road with the NCAA or G League discussion. I was researching the Thompson twins and these tapes from Overtime games were so amateurish. The gameplay was so basic, the coaches looked like clueless bums, the venue was empty, fans were disengaged, nothing big going down at all. I feel like the NCAA is way more manufacturing for a young player. You have real coaches, real staff, data supported gameplans, probably better training and medical staff, there is just so much more support and systems behind the manufacture of young athletes into professionals in the NCAA.
Compe ion in the NCAA would bring so much more diversity and experience. Those Overtime tapes showed nothing on that same level. Just dead gameplay.
At the same time, how many NCAA games are against programs like Louisiana A&M or some , playing against Colgate or like Long Island U.
Go look at UCONN, in the Final Four, but their season is peppered with 85-54 wins over like Stonehill (who tf?) you think UNC Wilmington is so different from some G League teams in terms of compe ion? This is a glorified high School JV team imho and the score reflects that.
I think going up against say a Coach K type or a sterling prestigious program like say UCLA or UNC, that is basically a NBA game in terms of talent, coaching exp, system ran on court, medical team, and data analysis staffers. You are def getting a little NBA test run with facing that level of compe ion. But so much of these seasons and what the seeding is based on is just wallopings of like Delaware St 95-60 or something. And what future fruits does that bear for young players? Also the NCAA has existed a lot longer than Overtime type stuff, maybe the talent gap will narrow as we go along.
But yes, right now, and depending on who you faced, an NCAA season probably drastically better tests and prepares a young athlete for pro ball considerably moreso than G league.
I give up on explaining we're talking about level of compe ion. College teams may have on average more NBA viable prospects than G League teams, which make since the G league is motly made for NBA teams to develop rooks or fringe NBA players) but they're still College players without pro experience and still not NBA players... And first of all, they're spread out all over the NCAA, not all in a few teams. It's not NCAA vs G League, it's NCAA teams vs. G league teams, as far as level of compe ion is concerned.
G league teams rosters are filled with older, more experienced players and NBA rooks, half of them ultimately with an NBA experience.. They may be mediocre, but that's somehow a coherent BB team... NCAA teams are one or a couple NBA prospects + bunch of scrubs who won't even turn pro... Put them on the floor and the G League mostly win.. There are huge holes in any NCAA team with amateur kids who shoudn't even be there. That's like playing street ball with one team of mediocre to decent guys vs. one team with one or two nice players + kids... The first team is better and always win, like a G League team vs. NCAA one.
heyheymymy just fyi OTE isn’t part of the gleague
Thanks DJ good call yeah I got the terminology mixed up there for sure. Just subs ute G League for OTE not sure what I was thinking
There's gotta be a lot of guys with stats in both leagues (college and G). That was, and still is, a normal path.
Using those guys as a control group might provide a nice comparison -- the same player's stats in both venues could help evaluate the two leagues and the players coming out of them.
(In other words, this debate may not be as abstract and unknowable as we think.)
In a seven year stretch, Manute Bol played 80, 82, 77, 80, 75, 82, & 71 games, playing about 20 mpg, and Shawn Bradley had two seasons where he played all 82 games, plus seasons of 81, 79, 79, 77, 77, and 73 games.
Both of them were thin, not unlike Wemby. It's mostly the hulking brutes that have the health problems.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
