At what point does a prospect generated from a pick lose his lustre?

[mcHAPPY]

It is draft time again.

Lots of hope and optimism about players and all us arm chair GMs spouting who is the best the draft has to offer at "X" position. What I was wondering is: when does a pick or prospect lose his lustre?


I know this time last year people would have been willing to offer quite a bit of Tristan Thompson, likely even more 2 years ago, and 3 years ago (at draft time) who knows what would have been given up to get the Cavs #4 pick.

Derrick Williams is another player who, when drafted at #2, had a lot of hope and potential attached to him. Then it was a position issue, then a coach issue, then a medical issue (nasal cavity), then a confidence issue..... and then a trade was made and, well, there are still issues.


Based on these two examples from the 2011 draft (#2 and #4 pick) I'm going to go with somewhere under 3 years. What say ye?

[Joey]

It is draft time again.

Lots of hope and optimism about players and all us arm chair GMs spouting who is the best the draft has to offer at "X" position. What I was wondering is: when does a pick or prospect lose his lustre?


I know this time last year people would have been willing to offer quite a bit of Tristan Thompson, likely even more 2 years ago, and 3 years ago (at draft time) who knows what would have been given up to get the Cavs #4 pick.

Derrick Williams is another player who, when drafted at #2, had a lot of hope and potential attached to him. Then it was a position issue, then a coach issue, then a medical issue (nasal cavity), then a confidence issue..... and then a trade was made and, well, there are still issues.


Based on these two examples from the 2011 draft (#2 and #4 pick) I'm going to go with somewhere under 3 years. What say ye?

I'm not sure if its a "time" thing, versus a "circumstance" thing.

Anthony Randolph being the prime example. To some people, he still has "lustre", and just hasn't been placed in the proper situation to succeed. I just don't think he's very good.

Both TT and DW have been in decent situations where it was reasonable to expect decent things out of them.
TT has been.. well ... decent. DW, not so much.

I think TT still likely has quite a bit of value out there, because he's shown to be relatively productive in short bursts.

DW, having seen 2 good situations pass him by without even slightly taking advantage of them, is another story. Though I was never sold on DW. He just had a good tournament, from what I remember.

So to the actual question, I'd say its definitely a 'case by case' basis, and one that must be considered from multiple angles. But 3 years is long enough for the lustre to die away from most things, so that sounds about right. LOL

[Scraptor]

I've read research that said the average player hits his peak at roughly 10,000 minutes. For a player who gets 30 minutes a game for 80 games a season, that's just over 4 years. That's why I said this past year was Demar's last chance to really show us he could put it all together, and he did.

Point guards and centres typically take longer to develop because there's more to learn about running an offense or anchoring a defense. Older rookies with longer college careers are also going to hit their ceilings much sooner, which is why Tyler Zeller probably isn't going to suddenly show you something new anytime soon.

And some players just show you they flat out can't play. Or they show you their ceiling. Tristan Thompson is probably getting pretty close to his ceiling. Derrick Williams gets the benefit of the doubt for one more year, I think, but that's only because he's on a rookie-scale deal and the downside is very limited.

Malcolm Gladwell and Bill Simmons had an excellent exchange about this several years ago, discussing how GMs liked to go for the home-run pick of young, athletic, all-upside picks. But after guys like Marvin Williams, Tyrus Thomas, Michael Beasley, Derrick Williams, etc all underwhelmed, I think the pendulum swung the other way, which is why so many teams passed on Andre Drummond. I mean Drummond was tied for the top spot in the DX mock for a long, long time, and it was only when the "maybe he can't play" label got snagged on him that he began to drop. (Giannis was also the type of pick who I think would have been selected much higher in the early 2000s, though part of the concern was a lack of a track record.)

Even Wiggins has drawn that kind of skepticism: "Maybe he's all athleticism." But I think if a top team passes on Wiggins and he becomes the next McGrady we're going to see far less risk-aversion and way more risk-taking once again going forward.

[MACK11]

It is draft time again.

Lots of hope and optimism about players and all us arm chair GMs spouting who is the best the draft has to offer at "X" position. What I was wondering is: when does a pick or prospect lose his lustre?


I know this time last year people would have been willing to offer quite a bit of Tristan Thompson, likely even more 2 years ago, and 3 years ago (at draft time) who knows what would have been given up to get the Cavs #4 pick.

Derrick Williams is another player who, when drafted at #2, had a lot of hope and potential attached to him. Then it was a position issue, then a coach issue, then a medical issue (nasal cavity), then a confidence issue..... and then a trade was made and, well, there are still issues.


Based on these two examples from the 2011 draft (#2 and #4 pick) I'm going to go with somewhere under 3 years. What say ye?

I think it matters a lot on the situation player "X" is in
I mean like 2 years ago who would of thought Eric Bledsoe would be this good? He was stuck on the LAC bench and wasn't getting starter minutes.

[Scraptor]

The other thing I want to note is that the farther down in the draft you are, the better off you are just taking a wild swing and going for the home run. Bench players are cheap and easily acquired. Far better to take a risk on a Giannis or Nikola Mirotic, because even if he busts, the risk-reward is much more favorable for gambling, given the scarcity of true impact players in the league.

[yabadabayolo]

The other thing I want to note is that the farther down in the draft you are, the better off you are just taking a wild swing and going for the home run. Bench players are cheap and easily acquired. Far better to take a risk on a Giannis or Nikola Mirotic, because even if he busts, the risk-reward is much more favorable for gambling, given the scarcity of true impact players in the league.

I've heard so much about this mirotic guy. I feel like he's mad overrated. Does anyone know if he's actually that good? People who have actually watched him play rather than highlights

[Raptorsnz]

I've read research that said the average player hits his peak at roughly 10,000 minutes. For a player who gets 30 minutes a game for 80 games a season, that's just over 4 years. That's why I said this past year was Demar's last chance to really show us he could put it all together, and he did.

Point guards and centres typically take longer to develop because there's more to learn about running an offense or anchoring a defense. Older rookies with longer college careers are also going to hit their ceilings much sooner, which is why Tyler Zeller probably isn't going to suddenly show you something new anytime soon.

And some players just show you they flat out can't play. Or they show you their ceiling. Tristan Thompson is probably getting pretty close to his ceiling. Derrick Williams gets the benefit of the doubt for one more year, I think, but that's only because he's on a rookie-scale deal and the downside is very limited.

Malcolm Gladwell and Bill Simmons had an excellent exchange about this several years ago, discussing how GMs liked to go for the home-run pick of young, athletic, all-upside picks. But after guys like Marvin Williams, Tyrus Thomas, Michael Beasley, Derrick Williams, etc all underwhelmed, I think the pendulum swung the other way, which is why so many teams passed on Andre Drummond. I mean Drummond was tied for the top spot in the DX mock for a long, long time, and it was only when the "maybe he can't play" label got snagged on him that he began to drop. (Giannis was also the type of pick who I think would have been selected much higher in the early 2000s, though part of the concern was a lack of a track record.)

Even Wiggins has drawn that kind of skepticism: "Maybe he's all athleticism." But I think if a top team passes on Wiggins and he becomes the next McGrady we're going to see far less risk-aversion and way more risk-taking once again going forward.

Funnily enough I'd say PG is the position that takes the least time to dominate at. Yes it takes a while to learn all the nuances, and defence especially, but most of the best PGs now were dominant in their first or second seasons; CP3, Deron Williams, Irving, Westbrook, Lillard, John Wall. Of course some take longer (Tony Parker, Lowry, Dragic and Conley come to mind) but it's not uncommon to see rookie PGs putting up 15+ PPG. A lot of that is probably having the ball in their hands a lot on bad teams (Michael Carter Williams this season) but that also accelerates their progression I feel.

I agree about centers though, the majority of them take years to become great players, especially defensive (Hibbert, Marc Gasol, Tyson Chandler). SG/SF take longer I feel also because, in terms of wing superstars, they need the ball in their hands a lot and quite often they don't get that as a rookie or sophomore.

[Primer]

There isn't a hard and fast rule as the situations rookies are put into vary wildly. I'd say your 3 year estimate is fair for rookies who were put into the starting lineup right away and given major minutes. If a player is not showing anything new after 3 years of starting and playing heavy minutes, you probably are seeing the finished product.

[007]

when does a pick or prospect lose his lustre?

A lot of people saying a few or couple of years.

Anthony Bennet anyone?

[Joey]

A lot of people saying a few or couple of years.

Anthony Bennet anyone?

I'd say, for anyone who realizes that AB was facing some pretty extenuating circumstances, he still holds some lustre.

Also have to keep in mind that Cleveland were the only ones who saw him as a #1 pick. If you are realistic about him, you'd see he can still have a solid career.

[007]

I would be decently interested in him.

[Scraptor]

Funnily enough I'd say PG is the position that takes the least time to dominate at. Yes it takes a while to learn all the nuances, and defence especially, but most of the best PGs now were dominant in their first or second seasons; CP3, Deron Williams, Irving, Westbrook, Lillard, John Wall. Of course some take longer (Tony Parker, Lowry, Dragic and Conley come to mind) but it's not uncommon to see rookie PGs putting up 15+ PPG. A lot of that is probably having the ball in their hands a lot on bad teams (Michael Carter Williams this season) but that also accelerates their progression I feel.

I agree about centers though, the majority of them take years to become great players, especially defensive (Hibbert, Marc Gasol, Tyson Chandler). SG/SF take longer I feel also because, in terms of wing superstars, they need the ball in their hands a lot and quite often they don't get that as a rookie or sophomore.

Hmmm... I'm not sure any of those guys were dominant in their first year. They showed glimpses of greatness, but it still took time to really learn how to run a team.

CP3 took the Leap in year 3. PER jumped 6 points, TS% jumped 4%. That's after two years of college.

DWill was definitely not dominant in year 1. Sloan didn't even have him starting. He took the Leap in year 3, with his PER going up 6 points and his TS% jumping 6%. That's after three years of college too.

I would argue that Kyrie Irving still doesn't know how to effectively run a team yet.

Westbrook took the leap in year 3.

Lillard, maybe, but he also had four years of school.

Wall was considered disappointing until the second half of last year. And this, his fourth year was his breakout/all-star season.

Guys like Nash, Billups, Conley, Dragic, hell even Lowry... all took longer to develop. Interestingly, I'd argue that these guys are more traditional point guards (maybe not Dragic) as opposed to scoring guards. DRose might be another test case for that theory, given that he's a scoring guard as opposed to a traditional point.

Like you said, having the ball in their hands all the time probably accelerates development, but I do think it takes a while to figure out how to make the best decisions. And that's just a matter of a lot of reps. Same with a defensive anchor. It takes time for the game to slow down. That's why I get annoyed when people crap on Jonas's rotations. It takes time.

[caccia]

I think it matters a lot on the situation player "X" is in...2 years ago who would have thought Eric Bledsoe would be this good?

One year ago, who would have thought Patrick Patterson would be this good?

[007]

One year ago, who would have thought Patrick Patterson would be this good?

Of course he would be good, he's PATMAN!!!!

[BigCamB]

One year ago, who would have thought Patrick Patterson would be this good?

Me...he was good in Houston a couple of years ago.

I've heard so much about this mirotic guy. I feel like he's mad overrated. Does anyone know if he's actually that good? People who have actually watched him play rather than highlights

How can you tell if you haven't even seen him play? The fact that he dominates in the Spanish league at a young age is a pretty good indicator. No one is saying he's the next Dirk, but I hear a Ryan Anderson comparison quite a bit, and he's a very valuable and good player in the league today.