The success of older rookies belies the recent tendency to overreach by drafting NCAA freshmen ahead of more experienced prospects.
What do the following NBA Rookies from the 2017 draft class all have in common? Each is in the top 10 of NBA rookies in scoring and, rebounding and/or assists. Yet none of these players were top 10 selections in 2017. And – most importantly – all of them played MORE than one season in college or an international league. They are part of an obvious pattern that shows the fixation of NBA General Managers on drafting freshmen out of college is extremely misguided, once the handful of “can’t miss” players are drafted.
Top statistical 2017-18 NBA Rookies who weren't one and done
Player |
years in
college or
international
|
Pick in
nba draft
|
scoring or
rebounding
average
|
rookie
ranking
|
donovan mitchell |
3 years |
13th |
18.0 ppg |
1st |
Kyle Kuzma |
2 years |
29th |
17.7 ppg
6.9 rgp
|
2nd
5th
|
john collins |
2 years |
19th |
11.7 ppg
7.1 rpg
|
7th
3rd
|
bogdan bogdanovic |
3 years |
27th
(2014)
|
10.1 ppg
2.3 apg
|
9th
9th
|
Compare the four players above to five one-and-done lottery picks selected above all of them.
ONe and done 2017-18 NBA Rookies who are under-performing
Player |
time in
college
|
Pick in
nba draft
|
scoring
average
|
rookie
ranking
|
de’aaron fox |
1 year |
4th |
9.4 ppg |
T11th |
josh jackson |
1 year |
5th |
9.4 ppg
|
T11th
|
johnathan isaac |
1 year |
6th |
5.6 ppg
|
22nd
|
zach collins |
1 year |
10th
|
3.3 ppg
|
32nd
|
malik monk |
1 year |
11th |
5.6 ppg |
18th |
(Note: i left Lonzo Ball off the “under-performer list” because his assists and rebounding make him a triple double threat on any given night — but he is being outscored by the players above as well.)
Thus far in the season for the 2017-18 vaunted rookie class, there is no comparison between one-and-done players vs. others when it comes to productivity.
- One and done players make up 14 of the top 20 picks (70%) and all of the top 11 except one.
- Yet only 8 of the top 20 scorers come from this group, and only 5 of the top 11.
Seeing non one-and-done players outshine their younger counterparts is not just a 2017-18 phenomenon. Three of the last five NBA Rookies of Year were multi-year players chosen behind a lot of one-and-dones):
RECENT Rookies of year who were not one and done
Player |
time in
college
|
Pick in
nba draft
|
ROOKIE OF YR
WInner in
|
malcolm brogdon |
4 years |
36th |
2016-17 |
michael carter-williams |
2 years |
11th |
2013-14
|
damian lillard |
3 years |
6th |
2012-13
|
If Mitchell or Kuzma win ROY this year, it’ll be four of the past 6 years that a non-top Ten pick with multiple years of college has won. The main competition this year isn’t even a 2017 pick, it’s 2016 #1 Ben Simmons, who is really a “redshirt Rookie”.
The bottom line is, other than the half dozen or so exclusive players (guys who have obvious, transcendent talents), teams would be much better off drafting older, more experienced players in the late lottery and rest of the first round.
- They get much more NBA ready players – in terms of physical and emotional maturity, plus players with more high level competition under their belts
- Plus, There is no need to gamble on upside, as teams do with one and dones. Mitchell, Kuzma and Collins all showed tremendous statistical improvement between their freshmen and sophomore seasons. What does that say? They have an upside talent-wise AND they are willing to work to get better. What more does a team want?
But NBA general managers are fixated on one-and-done players. Why? A lot has to do with deflecting risk. If you draft a kid with just one year of college ball, a GM can claim that they are choosing a player with a “high upside” who simply requires time. That way the GM can avoid drafting a player who is labeled a “bust” when he doesn’t produce for the first couple of years.
Another explanation for this obsession is the egocentric nature which tells GMs that their coaching staffs will do a better job “developing” young talent than a college or international coach. But is that really true? Look at coaches like Doc Rivers and Rick Carlisle, who have to be pushed to play younger players due to the “mistakes” they make.
How stupid is that? Why would a team invest millions of dollars in a first round draft choice who signs a guaranteed 3 year deal, with a one year team option – if that player won’t be productive for the first few years? Even if they are right about upside, by then it will be time for free agency. Why not get production NOW, as soon as a player is drafted. And don’t tell me it’s better to have a younger kid. What’s the difference physically between a player who will be 20 to 24 year old in his first four years – vs. one who’ll be 22 to 26 years old in those same years? You could even make the case that the older player is more ready to play from day one.
In addition, in the NBA, there is little time for practice. So a strong case can be made that late lottery, lower first round one-and-done players, who project as out-of-the-rotation rookies, would have benefitted much more from another year of serious NCAA or international playing time and more practice time. Just look at the numbers:
- NCAA or International starter (32 minutes per game x 32 games = 900 minutes of action + lots more practice time
- NBA end of bench player (8 minutes per game, usually at garbage time – factoring in DNP/CD x 81 games = 648 minutes of game action) + little meaningful practice
It’s ironic that in the NBA — while advanced metrics are all the rage (and have helped focus on the stupidity of the mid-range jumper + the importance of live ball turnovers and offensive rebounds) — general managers are so paranoid about draft failures that they’ll take flyers on one and done players who aren’t NBA ready.
The numbers don’t lie. Perhaps this foolishness will all go away if Lavar Ball actually gets his “young professional” league off the ground.