I believe this concept has taken hold largely because of an idiosynrcacy in regards to when collegiate players tend to decide to turn pro. In recent years, many of the can't miss type prospects (but some busts) have come out of school early, confident that they can hack it in the NBA right away. Conversely, many of the more role player types (but some stars) have tended to stay in school, I suppose to continue working on their games and ensure a regular rotation spot/ PT in the early years of their NBA careers.

Two things to notice here. One, the trend is artificial to the extent that it's a function of player decisions rather than true player talent and upside. There is no genuine, direct causal link between when a player comes out of college, in and of itself, of how good / how much upside a player is / has. The two are only linked nowadays, it seems, by an evaluative decision making process that occurs in the context of a time period when it is acceptable or even encouraged for players to come out early.

Two, the trend is just that: a trend. Particularly because of the loose / indirect causal links between coming out of school early and player talent, we should not expect the trend to hold for all, or perhaps even a high majority of, individual cases. Even if we can say that on average, players who come out early in recent years tend to be or become better than those that stay longer at school, this does not imply anything about individual cases. IOW, just because it's true of most guys doesn't imply that a guy can't come out early and have comparatively little talent / upside, or that a guy can't stay in school long and have comparatively good talent/upside.

[Edited by - tomverve on 11-22-2005 7:23 PM]

Posted by jdub003:

I have been completely perplexed by some peoples opinion that guys who played 3 or 4 years in college have a limited upside. Can someone explain this to me? So the total growth and development of a player starts to dry up by age 21?

Yeah, I don't get it either. I mean, we've got a bunch of self proclaimed basketball geniuses who're basically saying they can predict the future. Y has a "high ceiling" and X has a "low ceiling". Usually, Y is a player right out of high school, and X played four years of college ball. Presumably if X were any good he'd have skipped collge and gone right to the pros. Also, X has a history of games against decent competition - more video tape - that people can look at to judge him.



[Edited by - BASKETBALLJONES on 11-22-2005 7:52 PM]

A lot of the time 'upside' is code for "He's not very good, but we think he can be" . It's just being overused of late in general, not just in this forum.

oohah

Posted by gunsnewing:

yeah the fact that Frye spent 4yrs in college has nothing to do with what is ceiling is going to be. You have to look deeper into it than that. You have to compare his college career to what he has done so far. He showed he can score in the tournament and so far he's been excellent at it in the nba. But he also showed a propensity for not rebounding in college and the pros. So its pretty crazy to expect him to become a top rebounder. Defensively as he matures and gets stronger he should be fine but like rebounding its very unlikely that he'll ever become a shutdown defender

upside in younger guys just means that you can mold them more - but this rarely happens.

Listen everyone can have upside.....

Personally I know a guy that I grew up with that never played sports in his life. One day we were playing some ball on the block and we needed an extra man....He was a 6'3" awkward, and couldn't do anything but by the end of the summer he didn't get picked last anymore.....we taught him defense and how to shoot....as time went on he learned to put it on the floor too. He was 24 at the time. Dude is like 32 now and plays when he gets the chance.

As far as my game....I used to be all dribble and driver like most guys from brooklyn. The form on my jumper was all elbows. Once I hit 21 I was a working guy that didn't play as much so I had to change my game. The quickness wasn't there and my handle lost it's speed and timing......so my elbows tucked theirselves in and I learned how to shoot it way better. No more clapping the boards and more floaters in the lane.......

Point being anyone can improve regardless if you are a college, pro, or just a weekend warrior....



[Edited by - enyspree on 11-23-2005 01:51 AM]

[Edited by - enyspree on 11-23-2005 01:52 AM]

And look, he really isn't a good rebounder. He has a lot to do in that area. I've been just as critical as anyone in that category, but he's showing that there's no reason not to expect he can average 8 a game down the road. He has the ability to do it, and 6 a game is not so far distant from doing so.

It still isn't guaranteed though, and you're risking more by going after him by giving up the pipeline. That's my whole point.

The kid, Frye, has played 10 games!!! Defense and rebounding are things that are learned as well. Give it some time. The kid is big and strong. He can block shots. He can be a Camby in time with a better offensive game!

Would I trade him to get Garnett? You'd have to but, I would root for him in Minnesota!

Posted by DarkKnicks:

I totally agree with this topic.

I dont
I think upside is legit. Its usually given to players that are very young and elite athletes. The upside for Bynum is higher than Frye because of his body. Frye will never be a 7'1 280lbs agile beast in the low post. Bynum can.

Players are given higher ceilings and great upside based on physical gifts that other players dont have.

Now if you want to argue the value of that upside or high ceiling there's something I agree 100% on, because just because a guy can doesnt mean he will.

Curry and Bynum have a higher upside and ceiling than Sweetney and Frye, but thats not to say that Sweetney and Frye wont be the better basketball players.

If Ariza wasnt an elite athlete he would be playing at some community college. But we say he's got great upside despite lacking a jumper, handle or ability to create a shot.

Eddie Robinson and Deshawn Stevenson had great upside. So did TMac, Jermaine Oneil and Rashard Lewis.