I think his point is to consider Rubio a superstar does he have to average those numbers. And I think he's right. If Rubio wants is to be considered an auto all star and a superstar in this league averaging in the 13 point a game and under ballpark, the only way he could be considered that is if he was averaging a ridiculous amount of assists. So the bar is set high if we assume Rubio's scoring skills don't improve a lot. If he gets up to 15 a game and combines that with incredible leadership and passing? Then the assists are set too high.

For some reason, I thought he was Australian. Not where that came from at all and I know it's incorrect.

SI

Hm. Might just be semantics, or the level of expectations, but I thought we were talking about whether he was bust or not. I do agree with what you're saying.

His Bulls championship buddy Luc "Your Job Is To Stand There And Go 'Roar!'" Longley was.

:lol:

I think my opinion of Rubio comes mostly from reading/listening to Bill Simmons. And he paints a picture that Rubio is a special player. If so, and I'm seeing on FOFC now that he's not a scorer at all... he'll need to average a lot of assists and help his teammates a lot to be considered special.

So TroyF interpreted me correctly.

Yeah, sorry, maybe I've changed the topic at hand. I was just trying to indicate what I expect from Rubio. Otherwise he'd be a disappointment to me.

No, Croatian. He holds a special place in my heart since it was one of the only times me and my dad had similar interests when I was young.

Bill Simmons is rarely right about NBA prospects. He knows the game well, but reread his draft diaries.

All-star appearances is a somewhat flawed measure of success, but it is an easy one to measure. You either made the game, or you did not.

I supppose that we could also set the over/under on his points/rebounds/assists/wins over the next five or six years. That would be a better measure of success, but also harder to set up.

Basically, I find it interesting that we have such a variance of opinions on the guy. Would be neat to come back here in five years and see if we can measure who was right and who was wrong. And I'm trying to think of the best way to do that.

Yeah, Simmons is pretty bad at judging prospects. I'm pretty sure he jizzed in his pants a few times when writing about Adam Morrison during his draft year.

We are, but I think we are now trying to define bust.

Was Antonio Daniels a bust? He's played 12 years in the league, and would be a valuable reserve on any team in the league.

But, he was picked 4th, and never came close to being a superstar. Or any sort of star.

He's not a complete washout, but fell fall short of expectations. And he'll help you win - 12 years later. Was he a bust?

If Rubio is one of the top 15 PGs in the league for a 10 year period, I'd not consider him to be a bust, but the 15th best PG rarely makes the all star game.

A better indicator than the all star game is probably the All-NBA team. Its official, and black and white, but only has 15 people each year. Its the elitist of the elite, so might be a bit too high of a standard to expect from anyone.

why not define bust by looking strictly at the production during the rookie contract versus other players with similar contracts (rookie or not)?

that's how you'd do it if he was an employee and you were looking at like revenue per employee.

"production per dollar" or something...hmm


i only say per dollar because so much of the NBA is involved with value per dollar - it's why you see guys who aren't great have their rookie options picked up and all, because they're better than replacement value given their affordable salaries

I'd say Joe Smith also meets that type of criteria as well. Not a #1 overall type of player, but still a very nice player for a long period of time.

There's an easy way to see if he's a bust - look at the amount of his second contract (if he gets one).

Breaking news from the D...

Pistons fired Michael Curry! Finally a good move by Joe - it was a terrible experiment to give a rookie coach a playoff calibur team with strong veterans. Why we went through coaches like Carlisle, Brown and Flip to end up with Michael Curry is beyond me but hopefully we can hire a guy with some experience who can help turn this around.

dola - just please don't hire Laimbeer for the job, Joe

Dallas? :confused: When did the Pistons move to....ohhhhhh. Yeah....I think that nickname doesn't belong to The Motor City.

It does if you're from around here :)

hehe

some of my family is.

I think another factor has to be thrown into the "bust" arguement.

Who was picked after the guy? I'm not talking about one guy either. It's easy to say "John Doe" is a bust because he was picked ahead of a guy who became a superstar. To me it really needs to be about the overall quality of the guys out there.

Example:

Let's take Antonio Daniels with the 4th pick in the '97 draft. Guys picked after him who became stars would be: Tracy McGrady.

That's it. Other names of note are Tim Thomas, Scott Pollard, Bobby Jackson, Stephen Jackson and Anthony Johnson (second round picks)

In short, it was a terrible draft. Daniels wasn't picked a lot over what you'd do now.

Now let's look at the '04 draft. The Clippers take Livingston. Guys drafted after him? How about Devin Harris, Deng, Iguadala, Biedrins, Josh Smith, Al Jefferson, JR Smith, Delonte West, Kevin Martin. Even if you say Livingston would have been Daniels (and he may have been much better), you still have to say the Clippers missed on that one.

I like that Troy, I was looking for some way to get draft strength into the argument. With this year's draft being undoubtedly bad, it doesn't seem fair to say Rubio was picked 4th and compare him to other 4s, particularly from a strong draft like 2003.

The Luke Jackson pick makes me sick to my stomach. I can't believe the cavs went for him over one of the high upside high school guys.

Awful example. Livingston had to ahve complete knee reconstruction, had maybe the worst on court knee injury seen in the past decade, and he is clearly not the same player. Not saying he would have been better than any or all of those guys in the long run, but his crapping out wasn't necessarily about talent.

Try again, Troy. Pick someone who stayed healthy and played.

It seems this Rubio is quite possibly the most unique player that has ever been drafted. This is probably why their are so many varied opinions on him.

As he is now he doesnt seem like he will be more than a marginal NBA player however he is only 18 and has shown some development in some of the areas you guys talk about. Its really hard to say one way or another at this point as most people are playing high school level at his age while he was playing professional. The next 2-3 years are going to crucial for Rubio.

I only wonder if Lebron James wouldnt have stuggled playing professional ball in Europe at age 15 as well. Lebron is an athletic freak and that would seperate him somewhat however he wasnt blessed with a great shot either.

Keep in mind Kobe Bryant shot .417 his first year out of high school and really didnt come into the Kobe we know until his 3rd year out. Lebron James also shot .417 his first year out athough was still one of the best rookies we've ever seen. Kevin Garnett shot .491 starting half way through his rookie year athough his numbers werent even comparable to what they would become a couple years later.

Its a bit premature to say that Rubio cant develop a shot. I am more concerned about his seemingly lack of quickness.

he was injured at the beginning of the season where his teams´s Euroleague games were, is that so hard to grasp ?

It is not a minor league, you simply don´t get how European Basketball works it seems.
Let me try it different : It is like the NCAA tournament (actually it isn´t, but it comes close enough to make my point), only that it is played paralell to league play and based on last season´s national standings. Which is huge as a lot of european teams change their roster. So they might have a great team, qualify for the euroleague but then finish 12th out of 18 in their home league next season. Imagine the NCAA tournament being determined by last season´s standings and played with a new batch of players and last years stars off to the NBA.
Do you also think that the Big East is a minor league ? No, it is a regional league where the bottom half (that won´t make the tournament) would propably beat 20 other NCAA torunament teams 9 out of 10 times and had a fighting chance against all but the Top 10 or 15 from the other major leagues.
It is the same in Europe : Every National League sends a certain number of teams to the Euroleague depending on last season´s league position and for those reason and the ones above there´s not the 32 strongest European teams there, just like the NCAA tournament does not field the 64 best College Teams.

Almost any spanish team could play competititvely in the Euroleague, just like almost every Big East Team could be competitive in the Tournament.



But what has being "draft eligible" to do with quality of play or the quality of the teams ? That is the whole point i am making here, that there are players aged 23+ in Europe, which is a factor you just can´t ignore if you watch European basketball games. I mean, i see tons of games from all levels (NBA, College, Europe), how many European club games did you guys see last year ? Or ever ?
The level of play and the difficulty for young players to excel is much higher than in College. Again, Jennings wasn´t a surprise to anyone following European basketball. And he might just become a very good NBA player.
On a star system of 1-5, a fully developed 2 star talent player is better than a 18 year old 4 star level talent every time.
I mean, just look at College again. Unless players are budding superstars, the average junior or senior is a way better performer (not talent, performer) and thus gets way more minutes than the average Freshman or Sophomore because he has more experience and is further developed. That doesn´t say anything about talent, but if every team would play only their seniors and juniors the level of play would be better than if every team only played their freshmen and sophomores (that is if everyone stayed in school for 4 years, but even without that it would be way different than you´d assume going by "talent" )
A class of seniors would beat an equally talented class of juniors (in an ideal world) 9 out of 10 times, the Juniors would beat the sophs 9 out of 10 times, and those would beat the freshmen 9 out of 10 times.

I am not claiming Rubio will be a super star or anything, all i am saying is that him coming from Europe won´t have anything to do with it. He would have been a star in College. Thus him suposedly facing weak competition and therefore automatically being doomed is just plain wrong.

Some people havent been watching the Olympics lately if they think the US talent pool is sooooo much greater than Europe. Until the redeem team it looked like the US had lost its stranglehold on the sport.

Finally some good news for DePaul!

I am not a big fan of labelling guys whose careers were clearly ended/hampered by injury as busts. Their grades have to remain forever incomplete. Livingston started very slowly, then was starting to show real promise before having his career effectively ended by injury.

You are clinging to the idea that because someone disagrees with you they must not have understood you. I understand, yet respectfully disagree with your assessment of the relative strength of European national leagues vs top level NCAA basketball.

Thanks for the wonderful explanation on how European basketball works. I already knew that. Object to the term minor league if you want - and while I acknowledge the term is not strictly accurate, I still think that Euroleague would represent the highest level competition over there, and the best national league represents AAA competition to that Major league level.


This shows you know absolutely nothing about college hoops. This could not be more wrong. Yes, a fully developed 4 star player is almost invariably better than the freshman 4 star. But, the fully developed 2 star is almost never better. The way it works here is, those 4 star guys go to the NBA after 1 or 2 years. So, you never have the situation of senior 4 star guys playing junior 4 star guys - the senior 4 star rarely happens.

However, what you do have, is freshman and sophomore 4 stars kicking the crap out of senior 2 star guys on a regular basis. The best (I don't mean most talented, I mean best) players are almost invariably freshman and sophomores. The coach with senior 2 stars gets fired and is an assistant for the coach with the freshman 4 stars the next season.

You use Jennings as an example of how good the leagues are over there. I maintain that the reasons he did not play had far more to do with team politics than ability. Jennings was the best player on his team, preiod. I guarantee that if you brought his whole team to the NBA right now, Jennings would be the only one to make an impact.


I don't think he is doomed because he played in Europe, or is from Europe. Obviously you can succeed coming from there. I have been maintaining that he has proven nothing (and shown very little) against high quality competition. I still think that's huge red flag for Rubio, and that he belongs in the highly talented project category (and worthy of a late first round pick) than in the sure fire star category that his top 5 selection should warrant.

Unfortunately, Rubio basically had to be a top 3-5 pick in order to afford his buyout this year. Or had to drop into the 2nd round. Unless a lot has changed, he could be drafted in the 20s and would never see the NBA.

I think whomario has a point, let me try and rephrase. I "solid" 29-year old Europe player is going to be much better than your average 19-year US college player. Now, the top 10-15% of US college ball is a much higher talent level than the top 10-15% of European leagues, but it's also very raw. By and large, European basketball has a lot of well-disciplined, good fundamentals and mature players that make it a much more tougher league to play against game in and game out.

Take someone like Curry and Rubio. Curry played *maybe* 5 teams comparable to Pro Europe teams (OK, Duke, Purdue, Butler and St. Marys). And those teams all had very young (ie, under 20) stars. Rubio faces teams with 28-32 year old stars on a daily basis and has to not only deal with a fair amount of talent, but also fully developed/mature players. Curry would play 5 teams he should dominate, then get one similarly aged team with raw talent. Then back to another 5 stiffs. So, I would say that a team of fully developed/mature 2 and 3 stars who are 28 years old is tougher for a 17-20 year old than a group of 4 star 18-19 year olds.

Now, when it comes to the NBA, I think Rubio needs more physical maturity than basketball development. European leagues are just as good as a "Davidson" or "St Marys" when it comes to basketball competition for 17-19 year olds. The only difference is a top kid may get 40 MPG on Davidson while a top European youngster rarely gets more than 25.

Yay!!!! Curry's gone!!!!

Michael Curry fired as Detroit Pistons coach - ESPN

I don't get it.

I don't think he follows college or the European game much at all. But he does have very good connections with management from various teams and I think his opinion is shaped by them in a way.

I will give him credit for being the only NBA writer I can think of who was saying that Portland should take Durant over Oden.

Guys,

I didn't have time this morning to go through 25 drafts and find the thing I was looking for. I only used Livingston because he was a high pick that didn't pan out in a class full of solid picks. I understand he didn't pan out due to injuries and that he had shown promise. (heck, the Nuggets wanted him last year but he signed in OKC and still yet make something of his career)

My only point was that the strength of the draft class AFTER a player gets picked is important in me deciding if someone is a bust or not, no matter how their careers play out. I guess I should have went with something like "Assume you move Daniels to the #4 pick in the Livingston draft. He would go from a decent pick to an absolute bust because of the quality of the guys picked after him."

I didn't mean to pick on poor Sean or the Clippers.

------------------------------------------------

A couple of more things about Euro leagues:

1) There was a comment made about how the US has been getting beaten by Euro league, teams, thus they have more talent. Well, not so much. Spain and Argentina, the toughest teams for the US to face are littered with NBA talent. The US team finally played together with a system in place and destroyed everyone but Spain this year. Spain had 9 guys on it's roster who had NBA experience or would be drafted in this years draft. Argentina had 5 guys with NBA experience.

2) I understand. Rubio was a 17 year old kid going against grown men. Thus he didn't play a lot. He also battled injury. I get it. I also get that the kid has no jump shot. That he's never scored at a high level on either his club team or his national team. (he has in under 18 and 16 tournies, but we'd all agree that's a different level, right?)

3) I have watched Euro basketball when it's been on NBA tv. I actually like it. But I'm sorry, I don't see the level of athleticism I see in college basketball arenas at the higher levels. I see experience, good systems, a lot of team play, good fundamentals, etc. I don't see a ton of athetes. Sorry, I just won't agree with you that the pro leagues in Europe would dominate college basketball. I don't see it.

I don't think anyone says that pro league would dominate the top 25 in college basketball. My point was that Europe is atleast comparable to a mid-major (a la Davidson) and more challenging for younger (ie, weaker strength-wise) players to cope with. If I am a 6-4, 175-pound 18-year old, I would much rather play against similar 18-20 year olds (with a little more talent) for 30 games than a bunch of bruising/experienced/fundamentally sound 29-year old fully developed adults. The combination of the pounding and the discipline needed to play 30 games in that environment is much more mentally (and physically) exhausting than playing against similar 19-year old gazelles that play the same fast and somewhat undisciplined game.

Rubio may face less talent from the top 15-20% as a Curry did, but he takes a heck of a lot more of a pounding and can't take nights off and stay competitive.

To be fair, the Clippers have plenty of picks that easily qualify for what I think you were going for. Olowakandi, Korolev, Bo Kimble, Lamond Murray, etc. I would have to look at the draft classes they entered the league in, but you might even be able to make a case for Lamar Odom and Chris Kaman.

Shawn's one of my favorite players in the league, from a personal standpoint. Just an honest to God great kid, from all reports. It was awful what happened to him. If there's someone in the league to root for, he's the one. I'm afraid that knee injury may be nearly impossible to come back from, though.

You shouldn't be surprised Shawn didn't make much of an impact with OKC. He's still just about two years and some months removed from his injury, and even a normal knee injury takes two years to really get back from, from what I understand, and Livingston pretty much tore every ligament in his knee. This was definitely a transition year for him--he was almost certainly not going to do anything this year.

Now next season, we'll see, if the knee ends up doing in his career or if he can forge ahead to become at least a competent backup.

I don't think Kaman is a bust at all. He was actually one of the best Centers in the league in 07-08 and I think could be a borderline All-Star on the right team and right system. He's a solid #6 pick who unfortunately was picked by the Clippers.

I was talking bust from the perspective Troy's coming from, comparing him to players picked after him. I think Kaman was LeBron's draft, and I would be surprised if someone better than him wasn't drafted behind him.

Kaman is a very good center in a largely center-less league, and as a Clips fan, I have always liked him. Two seasons ago, when he was filling in for Brand, he was excellent and got jobbed for an All Star nod.

The problem is, Kaman has proven to be too fragile and take too long to get back into playing shape once he comes back. Your value diminishes a ton when you play 40 games a year, and each time you get hurt, it takes 5-7 games for you to get back to even 80% of your prior production (and usually by then he's picked up another nagging injury that puts him out for another stretch).

I have watched NBA basketball when its been on NBA.tv. I actually like it. But Im sorry, I dont see the level of athleticism I see in Track&Field arenas at higher levels. I see experience, good systems, a ton of team play, good fundamentals, etc. I dont see a ton of athletes. Sorry I wont agree that the NBA wouldnt dominate Track & Field. I dont see it.

Basketball has become purely a sport built on athleticism apparently.

What do you think the major difference between mid major and major college basketball is?

Defense

And about 3 inches of height and a bunch of speed at almost every position...

SI

Yup this too. Athough Memphis the previous couple of years have had the best athletes in college basketball and have yet to win the Natl Championship.

And comparing the Europeans best to mid majors is a little ridiculous IMO.

The results dont really lie. There is a reason the European teams can play with the USA since 1992 and we probably would all agree the USA has better athletes as far as basketball is concerned.

To be fair, when we (Kansas) beat Memphis in 2008, we had a hell of an athletic team too. Arguably, we were more skilled and more mature and that made a difference.*

*Tho, realistically, we won because we got really lucky and they bricked a bunch of FTs and we got a miracle pair of threes down the stretch.

SI

If you don't think athleticism is a critical reason the NBA is the top league, you are crazy.

How many guys with the athleticism of a Rajon Rondo has young Ricky faced? Guess what, every team in this league has freakish athletes. You are talking about a league full of 6'9" and above PF/C who can make PG's lives miserable when they penetrate. Especially guys who take SET SHOTS from beyond 15 feet. (Yeah, I'm talking about Rubio, see how quickly that set shot works in this league. . . I'd have loved to have seen him try it at the college level too)

Lastly, when are people going to understand what went wrong with USA basketball from '92 til this year? Is it really that tough to figure out? We had a bunch of all-stars playing selfishly, coaches who mailed it in (I'm looking at you Larry Brown and George Karl), no familiarity with each other, and everyone tried to play the NBA game on an international level.

A few years ago we decided to get smart. Get a coach who took it seriously, force players to make commitments, got leadership from the best players, put in a system that could excel in international competition,

From that point on, we started blitzing teams again. Not just beating them, but pounding them. Look at the results:

2008 FIBA qualifying:

US played Argentina twice, beating them 91-76 and then 118-81 in the championship game. They didn't lose a game in the tourney and scored 112 points in 9 of their 10 games. (no other team in the tourney scored over 108 points and there were only 7 games where a non USA team scored 100 points)

2008 Olympics:

The US crushed every team they played by over 20 points until the final. Spain put up a fight and the US still won by 11. Rubio hit one shot in 29 minutes in that game by the way.

Again, if you want to pretend athleticism in basketball doesn't matter, be my guest. I can assure you that you are wrong in that assessment.

Thanks SI, I forgot to add this. Chalmers, Rush - starting players in the NBA. Arthur, 1st round NBA pick. Kaun was also drafted and now plays overseas.

That Kansas roster was pretty damned talented.

I am not sure Memphis had better athletes than Kansas at all. Derrick Rose was obviously the best player on the court, but Kansas might have had the next 6 or 7 after that. A big deal was made out of Dorsey, but I think had he been on Kansas' roster, he would have been behind Cole Aldrich.

Kansas won in 2008 because they had the most talent, as did UNC in 2009.