July 4, 2008
The educated guessing of scouting
We, the critics sitting in the peanut gallery, are ever so quick to offer that this prep baller can’t do this or doesn’t do that. The missing elements usually get our focus more than anything else. The ‘holes’ are duly noted, probably because there are so many more of them than actual demonstrated skills. But such an assessment is generally congruent with the early stages of the development process for any player.
It’s not that we come to criticize or make it personal...well, at least most don’t. It’s what we perceive, right or wrong, and more emphasis gets put on needed upgrades because the player is just starting out and has time to correct deficiencies and make improvements in the skills set as the body also matures.
But we do forget something that should always be remembered when it comes to assessment.
LSU’s Anthony Randolph was taken 12th in the draft by Golden St. based on his upside
Now Bob Dylan didn’t exactly have basketball or its professional or amateur player evaluators in mind when he sang "come writers and critics who prophesize with your pen, and keep your eyes wide the chance won’t come again, and don’t speak too soon for the wheel’s still in spin..." -- but he could have.
Yes, the following baskettball ‘truth’ should serve as a mantra to all who evaluate: there are thousands of NBA basketball players who have enjoyed lengthy careers despite their games containing some rather large gaps and voids.
Such as:
Bill Russell was a poor shooter and a very limited scorer
Charles Barkley and defense were never mistaken as partners
Calvin Murphy was 5-8 tops and shot .139 percent from three point range over his career
Dave Cowens was a 6-8 center who shot .460 percent from floor and had more steals than blocks during his career
Allen Iverson’s marvelous creativity never accentuated team symmetry
Dirk Nowitzki is a fantasy league fave due to his numbers but has yet to lead his team to a league championship
Michael Jordan’s shooting percentages from long distance in his first four seasons were 17, 17, 18 and 13 respectively
Granted, each of the above all stars obviously has demonstrated certain skills and abilities that put to bed any real or perceived shortcomings. But there is compelling documentation that players possessing a much lower talent level can also carve out a professional niche:
Steve Kerr was never a physical presence on the court and a very limited defender yet played in the NBA from 1988 to 2003
Jason Collins has averaged 4.3 points a game and shot .414 percent from the floor but will be heading into his tenth NBA season next go-around.
Plus just a week ago, the first round of the NBA draft was sprinkled with draftees whose skills arsenals contained voids:
Russell Westbrook heard his name called out by Seattle as the fourth selection despite limited proficiency in a half court offense and an inconsistent shooting range alongside the inability to create his own shot
Rider’s 7-foot Jason Thompson went 12th to the Kings as a lottery pick after one prominent web site questioned his athleticism and feel for the game
Anthony Randolph of LSU went to Golden State with the 14th choice and these caveats: minus the necessary strength, lacking basic fundamentals, displaying an off-and-on motor
JaVale McGee was selected 18th by the Washington Wizards based on enormous upside potential although he presently has more holes in his game than a couple of slices of swiss cheese.
Welch joins a plethora of guards at UC Davis
Ryan Anderson became the 21st pick in this year’s NBA draft despite solemn qualms expressed about his athleticism and ability to defend.
So despite questions following players from their genesis in the prep ranks through retirement from the NBA, there are a number of talents who have, are and will be profiting handsomely despite skills gaps.
A critique made way back when could very well be correct and substantial. However, the truth is that every player has holes in his game, up to and including those who have achieved tremendous success.
That is actually the norm.
So writing or saying that so-and-so must do this in order to be a factor on the next level can be found correct or may end up being wildly off base. It’s a basketball Rubik’s cube -- the weighing of what that player does well and has the potential to do even better, plus to what degree weaknesses will or can be lessened and finally a guess regarding how much effort will actually be performed in order to reach a greater proficiency.
But hey, even the best and the brightest can fail despite in-person interviews, personality testing, exhaustive analysis and millions of dollars spent in the process.
The 1972 drafting of Loyola’s LaRue Martin by Portland is indisputable evidence of this.
Golden State’s calling Joe Smith the top player in 1995 solidifies the illustration.
Michael Olowokandi’s selection as the top pick by the Clippers in 1998 is further documentation.
Was there anyone saying at the time of his drafting that Michael Jordan would turn out to be the best player of all time? More than likely there were concerns expressed about various aspects of his game.
The bottom line: nobody really knows.
But that doesn’t stop us.