This topic contains 36 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by AvatarAvatar midwestbbscout 13 years, 6 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #21438
    AvatarAvatar
    knicksfan7
    Participant

    I have been wondering lately why myself and many others always view a guy’s age stigmatizing towards their upside. While it is easier to agree that an 18 year has a greater amount of upside than a 21 year old, is that really the case? I don’t think so. I am starting to believe that upside and age have nothing to do with each other, but many of us make it that way. Rather I think what is more important is the skills they have, and much they can improve upon them to determine their upside rather than how old they are to give an arbitrary answer on how far their talents will take them. As an example; if a guy lacks in a skill that can be improved with age such as ball handling, but is 25 year old 2nd year player, I don’t think his upside is limited, rather that he is a high upside player if that is his strongest weakness.

    What are everyone’s thoughts on this???

    0
  • #397689
    AvatarAvatar
    Mr.Knick 32
    Participant

    As an example; if a guy lacks in a skill that can be improved with age such as ball handling, but is 25 year old 2nd year player, I don’t think his upside is limited, rather that he is a high upside player if that is his strongest weakness.

    I like the example because I was a little confused. Here’s the thing IMO, your not going on the certain topic. There are 1000 of players who never hit there true potential or upside. The thing is I feel is that your’e using ball handing and honestly, I think that focusing on the wrong thing. To me the upside term goes with frame and offensive tools. Ball Handing is a big tool but at 25, if you don’t have the ball handling the odds are lower then say a 18 year old learning to handle the ball.

    0
  • #397699
    AvatarAvatar
    Mr.Knick 32
    Participant

    As an example; if a guy lacks in a skill that can be improved with age such as ball handling, but is 25 year old 2nd year player, I don’t think his upside is limited, rather that he is a high upside player if that is his strongest weakness.

    I like the example because I was a little confused. Here’s the thing IMO, your not going on the certain topic. There are 1000 of players who never hit there true potential or upside. The thing is I feel is that your’e using ball handing and honestly, I think that focusing on the wrong thing. To me the upside term goes with frame and offensive tools. Ball Handing is a big tool but at 25, if you don’t have the ball handling the odds are lower then say a 18 year old learning to handle the ball.

    0
  • #397698
    AvatarAvatar
    ilike.panochas
    Participant

    Age is important when it comes to prospects in any sport (specially football because they have a shorter career span). Basically if a college junior is 22 years old, has great athletecism, but is still raw offensively then his potential isnt as great as someone who is 19 years old, same athletecism and has same raw skills. The younger player has more time to develop than an older prospect.

    0
  • #397707
    AvatarAvatar
    ilike.panochas
    Participant

    Age is important when it comes to prospects in any sport (specially football because they have a shorter career span). Basically if a college junior is 22 years old, has great athletecism, but is still raw offensively then his potential isnt as great as someone who is 19 years old, same athletecism and has same raw skills. The younger player has more time to develop than an older prospect.

    0
  • #397714
    AvatarAvatar
    knicksfan7
    Participant

    mess.eee that is exactly what I am getting at, why does age have such a big part in development. It could simply mean he is a late bloomer. Some players have not started playing until they were sophomores or juniors in high school, and later became very good as they aged, but I would say when they are 22 they still have a lot of potential to grow. Wouldn’t you??

    0
  • #397723
    AvatarAvatar
    knicksfan7
    Participant

    mess.eee that is exactly what I am getting at, why does age have such a big part in development. It could simply mean he is a late bloomer. Some players have not started playing until they were sophomores or juniors in high school, and later became very good as they aged, but I would say when they are 22 they still have a lot of potential to grow. Wouldn’t you??

    0
  • #397740
    AvatarAvatar
    Malik-Universal
    Participant

    age plays a part cuz the younger player has more time to mature his game than an older player

    0
  • #397749
    AvatarAvatar
    Malik-Universal
    Participant

    age plays a part cuz the younger player has more time to mature his game than an older player

    0
  • #397754
    AvatarAvatar
    HotSnot
    Participant

    I couldn’t disagree more with “mess.eee”. Athleticism is the only aspect which can boost an otherwise ordinary prospect early on but result in early retirement later if additional skills are not realized.

    How long does it take to master a particular skill? If you spent 4 days a week working on ball handling for a year or two, you would be a pretty fantastic dribbler. No reason why a 25 year old couldn’t become a dominant ball handler by 27 if he puts in the work. This can be the same for shooting, footwork, passing, play recognition etc.

    Basketball always reminds me of chess. Anyone can learn the basics in an afternoon… but it takes many years to master and understand all the elements involved and then be able to efficiently put it all together. Ex. Even if you became the leagues best shooter, if your shot selection is awful then you won’t be helping your team all that much. There’s a time and a place for everything in basketball and skills can always be improved no matter what age you are.

    The overwhelming thinking from scouts is that if you haven’t by “X” age then you likely won’t. Thats probably true but it all depends on the players work ethic.

    Most players only limit themselves.

    0
  • #397763
    AvatarAvatar
    HotSnot
    Participant

    I couldn’t disagree more with “mess.eee”. Athleticism is the only aspect which can boost an otherwise ordinary prospect early on but result in early retirement later if additional skills are not realized.

    How long does it take to master a particular skill? If you spent 4 days a week working on ball handling for a year or two, you would be a pretty fantastic dribbler. No reason why a 25 year old couldn’t become a dominant ball handler by 27 if he puts in the work. This can be the same for shooting, footwork, passing, play recognition etc.

    Basketball always reminds me of chess. Anyone can learn the basics in an afternoon… but it takes many years to master and understand all the elements involved and then be able to efficiently put it all together. Ex. Even if you became the leagues best shooter, if your shot selection is awful then you won’t be helping your team all that much. There’s a time and a place for everything in basketball and skills can always be improved no matter what age you are.

    The overwhelming thinking from scouts is that if you haven’t by “X” age then you likely won’t. Thats probably true but it all depends on the players work ethic.

    Most players only limit themselves.

    0
  • #397758
    AvatarAvatar
    NorthernLights666
    Participant

    Al-Farouq Aminu or Wesley Johnson?

    0
  • #397767
    AvatarAvatar
    NorthernLights666
    Participant

    Al-Farouq Aminu or Wesley Johnson?

    0
  • #397794
    AvatarAvatar
    thparadox
    Participant

    Interesting question.

    If you want to win a championship, realistically you need at least one top 5 / mvp candidate type player on your team. Lebron, Wade, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, etc…

    Most often, those players become top 5 players by the time they’re 25.

    of course, players can make improvements, but it seems that a players ceiling gets lower and lower as he ages.

    Obviously, a 23 year old should be a lot closer to what they’ll be at 25 than they are at 18.

    But that’s just in general. There are many other factors I look for when analyzing potential.

    1) How athletic are they?

    A phenomenal athlete may have a long way to go in the skills department. But if they have the raw athleticism, that gives them a chance to make a HUGE improvemt. e.g. T-mac. Whereas, a player like Brandon Roy was a pretty polished player when he entered the league and didn’t have a lot of raw athleticism. Roy may be extremely effective (I love him personally), but he’ll probably never turn into T-mac at his peak.

    2) How good is their feel for various aspects of the game?

    A player may be young and very talented, but specifically WHICH areas they’re talented in make a big difference.

    For example, a pure scorer who doesn’t pass much and appears to be selfish, could turn into a good passer if he is put in the right situation. The big question from an “upside” perspective is: Is he ABLE to make the pass?

    Perhaps the player lacks vision. Perhaps they have bad timing for throwing passes to teammates. There are some players who have natural ability to be multidimensional players, and there are some who don’t.

    3) Does the player show flashes of brilliance?

    Great players make great plays. A young player with potential should be making great plays… perhaps with a lot of inconsistency. The consistency, polish, and poise are something can improve with experience.

    0
  • #397803
    AvatarAvatar
    thparadox
    Participant

    Interesting question.

    If you want to win a championship, realistically you need at least one top 5 / mvp candidate type player on your team. Lebron, Wade, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, etc…

    Most often, those players become top 5 players by the time they’re 25.

    of course, players can make improvements, but it seems that a players ceiling gets lower and lower as he ages.

    Obviously, a 23 year old should be a lot closer to what they’ll be at 25 than they are at 18.

    But that’s just in general. There are many other factors I look for when analyzing potential.

    1) How athletic are they?

    A phenomenal athlete may have a long way to go in the skills department. But if they have the raw athleticism, that gives them a chance to make a HUGE improvemt. e.g. T-mac. Whereas, a player like Brandon Roy was a pretty polished player when he entered the league and didn’t have a lot of raw athleticism. Roy may be extremely effective (I love him personally), but he’ll probably never turn into T-mac at his peak.

    2) How good is their feel for various aspects of the game?

    A player may be young and very talented, but specifically WHICH areas they’re talented in make a big difference.

    For example, a pure scorer who doesn’t pass much and appears to be selfish, could turn into a good passer if he is put in the right situation. The big question from an “upside” perspective is: Is he ABLE to make the pass?

    Perhaps the player lacks vision. Perhaps they have bad timing for throwing passes to teammates. There are some players who have natural ability to be multidimensional players, and there are some who don’t.

    3) Does the player show flashes of brilliance?

    Great players make great plays. A young player with potential should be making great plays… perhaps with a lot of inconsistency. The consistency, polish, and poise are something can improve with experience.

    0
  • #397808
    AvatarAvatar
    stanford hoops

    This is one of the best most interesting topics in the past month

    0
  • #397817
    AvatarAvatar
    stanford hoops

    This is one of the best most interesting topics in the past month

    0
  • #397839
    AvatarAvatar
    knicksfan7
    Participant

    Thanks Quincey it was really on my mind lately. I was talking to a friend about it, and it came to my mind through baseball.

    I was saying if you have a pitcher who throw 95+ and is struggling you don’t give up on him b/c he has all the physical talents, but come game day he messes up. You keep trying with them until they get it, and start being the player that there talents are. You don’t give up on them b/c say you do, trade them away for nothing and later they get the right coach who taps into them shortly after trading the player and they do very well.

    Same situation, but with a basketball player with very good athleticism who struggles in the game. You don’t give up on them b/c it takes time and patience in order to get them to where they can be, and it shouldn’t matter if they are 18 or 23. The biggest problem with professional sports development is that owners and coaches want results now in order to win. That’s why a lot more players should stay in college longer to develop the skills they have as well as develop what they are weak in.

    I wish an economist would figure out what is more economically more beneficial;
    A player who leaves college too soon to get that big check and flames out only getting vet minimum checks or below the mid-level exception
    Or
    A player who stays in college a year or two longer gets medium-sized to small check, but later gets a big check.

    0
  • #397849
    AvatarAvatar
    knicksfan7
    Participant

    Thanks Quincey it was really on my mind lately. I was talking to a friend about it, and it came to my mind through baseball.

    I was saying if you have a pitcher who throw 95+ and is struggling you don’t give up on him b/c he has all the physical talents, but come game day he messes up. You keep trying with them until they get it, and start being the player that there talents are. You don’t give up on them b/c say you do, trade them away for nothing and later they get the right coach who taps into them shortly after trading the player and they do very well.

    Same situation, but with a basketball player with very good athleticism who struggles in the game. You don’t give up on them b/c it takes time and patience in order to get them to where they can be, and it shouldn’t matter if they are 18 or 23. The biggest problem with professional sports development is that owners and coaches want results now in order to win. That’s why a lot more players should stay in college longer to develop the skills they have as well as develop what they are weak in.

    I wish an economist would figure out what is more economically more beneficial;
    A player who leaves college too soon to get that big check and flames out only getting vet minimum checks or below the mid-level exception
    Or
    A player who stays in college a year or two longer gets medium-sized to small check, but later gets a big check.

    0
  • #397850
    AvatarAvatar
    McDunkin

    Knickfan i know you changed my opinion on this topic

    0
  • #397859
    AvatarAvatar
    McDunkin

    Knickfan i know you changed my opinion on this topic

    0
  • #397858
    AvatarAvatar
    knicksfan7
    Participant

    Thanks McDunkin. Is that a picture of your current gf?? I must say she is smokin hot.

    Sorry to get off topic.

    0
  • #397867
    AvatarAvatar
    knicksfan7
    Participant

    Thanks McDunkin. Is that a picture of your current gf?? I must say she is smokin hot.

    Sorry to get off topic.

    0
  • #397874
    AvatarAvatar
    ilike.panochas
    Participant

    Ok let me give a good example, although its a different sport. If you guys are familiar with NFL, im pretty sure you know who Terence Newman is (CB for the Cowboys). When he came in the league he was drafted 5th overall, as a 24 year old rookie. He had elite speed and elite athleticism but his skills were a bit raw for a cornerback. The Cowboys and the scouts knew that but his athleticism made his upside pretty high, high enough to be choosen 5th overall.

    For the early part of his career he was a mediocre CB, but after a few years of polish he is now a perennial Pro-Bowl CB, but he is now 32 years old and his speed is starting to deminish. Now what if he came in the league as a 20-21 year old rookie instead of 24 years old? He would have been 29 years old, in his prime with a couple of more years left, instead hes 32 years old and on his way down.

    So basically Newman has had 3-4 prime years because he came in the league older, if he came in as a younger prospect, he would have had 5-7 prime years. Hope this example makes sense to you guys.

    0
  • #397883
    AvatarAvatar
    ilike.panochas
    Participant

    Ok let me give a good example, although its a different sport. If you guys are familiar with NFL, im pretty sure you know who Terence Newman is (CB for the Cowboys). When he came in the league he was drafted 5th overall, as a 24 year old rookie. He had elite speed and elite athleticism but his skills were a bit raw for a cornerback. The Cowboys and the scouts knew that but his athleticism made his upside pretty high, high enough to be choosen 5th overall.

    For the early part of his career he was a mediocre CB, but after a few years of polish he is now a perennial Pro-Bowl CB, but he is now 32 years old and his speed is starting to deminish. Now what if he came in the league as a 20-21 year old rookie instead of 24 years old? He would have been 29 years old, in his prime with a couple of more years left, instead hes 32 years old and on his way down.

    So basically Newman has had 3-4 prime years because he came in the league older, if he came in as a younger prospect, he would have had 5-7 prime years. Hope this example makes sense to you guys.

    0
  • #397878
    AvatarAvatar
    knicksfan7
    Participant

    That’s a very good example. That is definitely the greatest con of having a guy who is raw at an older age because they have less prime years, and father time kicks in when they are in the league shorter than their counterparts.

    0
  • #397887
    AvatarAvatar
    knicksfan7
    Participant

    That’s a very good example. That is definitely the greatest con of having a guy who is raw at an older age because they have less prime years, and father time kicks in when they are in the league shorter than their counterparts.

    0
  • #397884
    AvatarAvatar
    McDunkin

    yes it is one of my many lovers …i dont mean to brag(yes i do!)

    but i think, the reason its a big deal in peoples minds, is that when reading scouting reports, and sometimes even when listening to announcers during games,they stress a players ages alot. Even if a player is one year older then he should be or 3 years some scouts are really bothered by it *cough* Draftex***** *cough*

    0
  • #397893
    AvatarAvatar
    McDunkin

    yes it is one of my many lovers …i dont mean to brag(yes i do!)

    but i think, the reason its a big deal in peoples minds, is that when reading scouting reports, and sometimes even when listening to announcers during games,they stress a players ages alot. Even if a player is one year older then he should be or 3 years some scouts are really bothered by it *cough* Draftex***** *cough*

    0
  • #397894
    AvatarAvatar
    knicksfan7
    Participant

    The position definitely matters to me most with age. Like before Fab Melo being 2 years older than his class really bothered me, but now that I think about it, if he stays in school for 2-3 years that means he will be 22 or 23 his rookie season which isn’t bad. Though if it was a guard, I would definitely question b/c guards stop growing at an earlier age than do Forwards and Centers which means a 22 or 23 year old guard has much less upside than a forward or center at the same age. I really don’t know how I feel about this and age, but one thing I do believe is to never give up on a player throughout there late teens up until there mid 20s b/c until then they still have upside.

    0
  • #397903
    AvatarAvatar
    knicksfan7
    Participant

    The position definitely matters to me most with age. Like before Fab Melo being 2 years older than his class really bothered me, but now that I think about it, if he stays in school for 2-3 years that means he will be 22 or 23 his rookie season which isn’t bad. Though if it was a guard, I would definitely question b/c guards stop growing at an earlier age than do Forwards and Centers which means a 22 or 23 year old guard has much less upside than a forward or center at the same age. I really don’t know how I feel about this and age, but one thing I do believe is to never give up on a player throughout there late teens up until there mid 20s b/c until then they still have upside.

    0
  • #398365
    AvatarAvatar
    knicksfan7
    Participant

    Bumping this up b/c I feel the thread needs more discussion.

    0
  • #398376
    AvatarAvatar
    knicksfan7
    Participant

    Bumping this up b/c I feel the thread needs more discussion.

    0
  • #399116
    AvatarAvatar
    scoutguru
    Participant

    What I find interesting is that its always the players who are least skilled, and most athletic are the ones who people are so hyped about when it comes to upside. There’s a ton of examples I could use… but I’ll go with one which is fresh in the minds of everyone. The whole Cousins-Favors debate for the Nets, but not necessarily the Nets, just people in the NBA circles and us fans etc… Cousins is way more skilled and polished then Favors right now, that is just fact, but I feel like 4 w/e reason, people seem to minimize Cousins potential like he still have a considerable amount left. From what I heard he hasn’t been playin ball all that long either so his ceiling his real high too. But in regards to Favors, he’s an athletic specimen at his size, but this shouldn’t mean we should get all crazy about him, as he may never get his skills to improve to the point people think it will. I guess its one of those things that tough to call, and be definitely right on, but I just hate when more relatively polished players, (and older for that matter, see B-Roy) are penalized or undervalued for not being “raw projects”.

    0
  • #399125
    AvatarAvatar
    scoutguru
    Participant

    What I find interesting is that its always the players who are least skilled, and most athletic are the ones who people are so hyped about when it comes to upside. There’s a ton of examples I could use… but I’ll go with one which is fresh in the minds of everyone. The whole Cousins-Favors debate for the Nets, but not necessarily the Nets, just people in the NBA circles and us fans etc… Cousins is way more skilled and polished then Favors right now, that is just fact, but I feel like 4 w/e reason, people seem to minimize Cousins potential like he still have a considerable amount left. From what I heard he hasn’t been playin ball all that long either so his ceiling his real high too. But in regards to Favors, he’s an athletic specimen at his size, but this shouldn’t mean we should get all crazy about him, as he may never get his skills to improve to the point people think it will. I guess its one of those things that tough to call, and be definitely right on, but I just hate when more relatively polished players, (and older for that matter, see B-Roy) are penalized or undervalued for not being “raw projects”.

    0
  • #399177
    AvatarAvatar
    midwestbbscout
    Participant

    its just the timeless give and take that will never end as long as general mangers are picking up players…..its the question us “draft gurus” ask ourselves almost every time we evaluate……

    0
  • #399187
    AvatarAvatar
    midwestbbscout
    Participant

    its just the timeless give and take that will never end as long as general mangers are picking up players…..its the question us “draft gurus” ask ourselves almost every time we evaluate……

    0

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login