Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

3-18-2004

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 3-18-2004

    Okafor and Childress dominate the West

    By Chad Ford
    Thursday, March 18

    Head West young men! Thar's gold in them thar hills!

    Readers may think ESPN has an East-coast bias, but when it comes to the NCAA tournament, for the third straight year, the NCAA has absolutely packed much of the potential NBA talent in the elusive NCAA West region, or, as they're calling it this year, the Phoenix bracket.

    This year you can check out the only consensus anything in the draft, Emeka Okafor, or see a pretty impressive group of small forwards and guards whom NBA scouts are in love with. Even the lower seeds have players NBA scouts are keeping their eye on.

    Insider talked to multiple NBA scouts and GMs to give you a look at the Top 5 NBA prospects they'll be watching in each NCAA region. Today, we finish our look with the West.

    West Region NBA Prospects

    1. Emeka Okafor, PF, UConn

    The Skinny: 6-foot-10, 250 lbs, Junior. 18.5 ppg, 11.6 rpg, 4.5 bpg, 60 percent shooting from the field.

    The Good: Just about everything. Okafor is physical specimen. He's strong, athletic, quick, and a very good leaper. Okafor's bread and butter is his defense. He's a big-time shot blocker and a very aggressive rebounder. In the past he's struggled some on the offensive end, but this year he's been dominant there, too. He's developed a nice 10-foot jumper and has been looking for his shot more. To top it off, he's extremely smart and a very hard worker. Most scouts consider him the most NBA-ready prospect in the draft. The comparisons to a young Alonzo Mourning don't seem that far off.

    The Bad: Very little. Height is a small issue. Scouts are praying he's a true 6-10. Some believe he's closer to 6-8, but I can't see that. I've stood next to him on several occasions, and he looks like he's the full 6-10 to me. The back is a bigger concern. Okafor has a hairline fracture in his back right now that's causing him enormous pain. Scouts and GMs are always very wary of bad backs. Once you get them, they rarely go away. His free-throw shooting is pretty bad, and his perimeter game still needs some work.

    The Ugly: Unless there is something seriously wrong with his back, Okafor will be either the first or second pick in this year's draft. It just depends on the team. Several lottery teams no longer have the patience to wait on Okafor's only real rival, prep star Dwight Howard. A team like the Bulls or Suns would definitely grab him with the first pick.

    2. Ben Gordon, PG/SG, UConn

    The Skinny: 6-3, 200; Junior. 18.4 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 4.8 apg, 44 percent shooting from the field.

    The Good: Gordon is a big-time scorer who knows instinctively how to put the ball in the basket. He's an excellent shooter, especially from 3-point range and is a top-tier athlete with great lift and lateral quickness. He also has good strength for his position. Gordon is a good, but not great, passer with pretty good court vision. He knows how to find open teammates but dominates the ball a little more than some scouts would like. The fact he almost always plays under control also helps his cause. He's a good rebounder for his size.

    The Bad: Is he a point guard or isn't he? That's still the big question on everyone's mind. He seems to have the skill set, but does he have the mentality? Reminds some scouts of the Pistons' Chauncey Billups. He really had an up-and-down year, which concerns some scouts.

    The Ugly: Gordon's draft stock has taken a small hit the past few months. It could just be the product of over-analysis or unrealistic expectations. He can't answer the point guard question on his own, because his coach won't let him. Gordon is one guy who could gain a lot through an awesome tournament. If he can lead UConn to a national title, especially with Okafor ailing, he'll immediately stop the slide. Right now he's looking like a late-lottery to mid-first rounder, but there's room for him to move up.

    3. Josh Childress, SF, Stanford

    The Skinny: 6-8, 205; Junior. 15.3 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 49 percent shooting from the field.

    The Good: He's an outstanding pro prospects because of his long arms, athleticism, and guard-like skills at his size. He reminds some scouts of former NBA great George "The Ice Man" Gervin. He's a pretty complete package. He can shoot both the mid-range J and the 3-pointer. He has excellent ball-handling skills and can play the point-forward position. He's an excellent rebounder and good shot blocker for his position. He's an amazing defender because of his combination of lateral quickness and huge wingspan. When he's guarding players on the perimeter, it's like having a 7-footer on them. He has shut down several of the best players in the nation. He possess very good athleticism and is a heady type of player.

    The Bad: He's very thin and looks a little fragile at times, both physically and emotionally. He's a bit of a finesse player. Can get down on himself and lose his confidence. He could be more aggressive. At times he'll take over a game, at other times he'll fade into the background a bit. However, recently that's started to change, and Childress has begun dominating games.

    The Ugly: He's one of the hottest names in the draft right now. He got off to a slow start because of injuries, but he's been great lately. Had a big 36-point, 11-rebound performance against USC and a 29-point, 12-rebound game against Oregon in the past month. Scouts believe he'll test the waters, and if he does, don't be surprised to see him crack the lottery. There are very few people in college basketball or the NBA with his full complement of skills. Strength and aggressiveness are the only things holding him back at this point. If Childress goes off and leads Stanford to a national championship, he could theoretically be the first small forward taken in the draft, especially if Duke's Luol Deng doesn't declare.

    4. Hakim Warrick, PF, Syracuse

    The Skinny: 6-8, 215; Junior. 19.6 ppg, 8.8 rpg, 51 percent shooting from the field.


    The Good: He's probably the most athletic big man in the draft. Warrick can jump out of the gym. He improved in almost every aspect of his game this year. He added a nice mid range jumper to his repitoire. He put on some weight and muscle and found ways to score down low. He's very, very quick, posing matchup problems at both the small forward and power forward positions. He gets to the line a lot.

    The Bad: No one is sure exactly what position he would play in the NBA. He doesn't have the perimeter or ball-handling skills to really be a three. He doesn't have the strength or low-post moves to excel at the four. Despite being so long and having great hops, he doesn't really block shots. Scouts wonder if he's the second coming of Darius Miles, an athletic big man without a go-to skill.

    The Ugly: He's all over the board. Some scouts think he could be a very good four, because of his length and quickness. They believe he'll get stronger once he gets on an NBA strength training regiment and be just fine in the post. Very few of them see him having much future at the three. Warrick will be very hard to project, because he's really an "eye of the beholder" type kid. Someone like Isiah Thomas will love him. Someone like Larry Bird probably won't. He could go anywhere between the late lottery to early 20s.

    5. Julius Hodge, SG, North Carolina State

    The Skinny: 6-6, 191; Junior. 18.6 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 3.8 apg, 51 percent shooting from the field.

    The Good: Don't let his wiry frame fool you. He's a great, tough athlete who can be absolutely fearless taking the ball to the hole. His passing skills are above average, leading some scouts to believe he could make the transition to the point in the pros. He's shooting an impressive 51 percent from the field this season and has a knack for drawing fouls.

    The Bad: His perimeter shot, heavy turnovers and his defense are the biggest question marks.

    The Ugly: Hodge is one of the most improved players in the country and has watched his stock skyrocket over the past few months. Expect Hodge to go in the late teens or early 20s if he declares.

    Sleeper: Rafael Araujo, C, BYU

    The Skinny: 6-11, 280; Senior. 18.2 ppg, 10 rpg, 57 percent shooting from the field.

    The Good: Araujo has been one of the most dominant college centers on the offensive end in the country this year. Physically he's huge and very, very strong. He uses his strength to bulldoze opponents in the paint. He's an aggressive rebounder, sometimes a little too aggressive. His solid frame allows him to hold his position in the post. He runs pretty well for a big man. A pretty good free-throw shooter. Plays with a passion that we rarely see in big men.

    The Bad: He's just an average athlete. His lateral quickness, leaping ability and overall agility leave something to be desired. His aggressiveness often gets him into early foul trouble. He's not a great shot blocker for his size. Was destroyed by Okafor in the tournament last year, leading some to question how well he'd fare in the league.

    The Ugly: Some considered the native of Brazil a late first-round sleeper last season, and he's improved in all facets of the game this year. A recent fight in the Mountain West tournament in front of a host of scouts actually helped his cause. Teams are desperate for big men with a little fire in their belly. Expect him to go somewhere in the second half of the first round.

    Others to watch: Charlie Villanueva, SF, UConn; Kennedy Winston, SF, Alabama; John Gilchrist, PG, Maryland; Matt Freije, F, Vanderbilt; Denham Brown, SG, UConn; Gerry McNamara, PG, Syracuse; Delonte Holland, SG, DePaul; Andre Brown, F/C, DePaul; Ramod Marshall, PG, Dayton;Darren Brooks, G, Southern Illinois; Mike Williams, F, Western Michigan

  • #2
    Re: 3-18-2004

    Draft Talk
    We've had a pretty solid discussion this week about the NBA's youth movement, it's effect on college basketball, the NBA draft and the direction the league is headed.

    I typically get between 150 to 250 reader e-mails a day. This week I've easily averaged 500-750 a day. Many of them that I didn't quote were insightful and interesting ... I just couldn't publish them all.

    There are a few more e-mails I want to get to as we wrap this subject up for the time being. Let's start with Matthew who thinks reconfiguring the rookie scale (less experience, more years under contract) could actually open the floodgates even more to teenagers.

    The idea of tying rookie-scale contract length to age is an interesting one. However, I fear it will only provide an incentive, in this salary-cap conscious world, for GMs to draft younger players. Having a high school or young international prospect locked up at rookie wages for six years can be a boon under the salary cap; drafting an established senior who could be lost to free agency after two years is risky. So I think your plan cuts both ways. It provides a mild incentive for players to stay in school (although it presumes a lot of farsightedness; even a rookie contract looks good to a kid who isn't even allowed to have a paper route under NCAA rules), but a HUGE incentive for teams to draft younger players. And for my money, the No. 1 incentive for a young player to come out is the likelihood that he'll be drafted early on. I vote no.
    --Matthew Schwartz, New York

    It's a great point Matthew. In the interest of full disclosure, the idea is not mine, but the brainchild of several GMs that I interviewed for a David Stern story in December. So, it makes sense that the plan clearly has other benefits for them.

    The truth is, many GMs, especially those in the lottery, are afraid to take a project. Fans have an attention span of about two to three years. If a player hasn't developed by then, he's basically written off as a bust, and the GMs job is on the line.

    GMs have a real fear that young projects like Pavel Podkolzine and Andris Biedrins will take too long to develop, and the team will have to make a long-term financial commitment before they really know what they have. Indiana was stuck in this scenario last fall, when it gave Jonathan Bender a $40 million extension based on ... well, nothing on the court.

    So, sure, the move is a win-win situation for the GMs. It gets some of the young players out of the draft and provides extra safeguards should they enter the draft. Now you know why they think it's a winner.

    Here's another interesting idea that may have some merit. Jordan claims the NBA should take a page out of the NHL's handbook.

    How about this idea for the NBA? Establish a relationship with the NCAA like the NHL has with colleges and minor leagues. Have the players come out in high school (or after their first, second, or third year or even after college) and be drafted. Have the NBA teams pay the scholarships (even add some living money) and let the kids play for Coach K, Roy Williams, Tommy Amaker, whoever, for 3-4 years (whenever that kid feels he's ready to go). That way, you solve three problems: The roster space on clubs could still go to veterans, not projects; college basketball would be enriched by these players staying in college (for example, does anyone think Ndudi Ebi should be in the NBA, riding the pine, or, say, getting ready for the NCAA tournament?); and third, it would allow universities to save other sports by taking the money tied up by basketball scholarships and use them to preserve, say, wrestling or field hockey. This seems to be a win-win situation for all sides.
    Jordan Acker, Ann Arbor, Mich.

    Hmmmm ... I know some old school GMs who would love this idea. There are definitely two camps in the NBA right now: Those who are invigorated by the new trends and have set up state-of-the-art scouting operations to get a handle on everyone on the globe; and those who liked how things used to be. The NBA used to have a very comfortable relationship with the NCAA, and more than one of the older league executives still refers to the NCAA as the NBA's minor league.

    The league has been quietly pushing the NCAA for years to change its eligibility requirements on players that leave school early for the NBA. If a player was allowed to return to school, drafted or undrafted, the need for a minor league would go away.

    The NCAA would get to keep many of its stars. College players would get security early on that, if drafted in the NBA first round, their money was guaranteed when they decided, along with the team that drafted them, that it was time to come and play in the league. Drafted players would get a stipend to help them get through the lean years. Both NBA and college rosters would include more veteran players if the league and NCAA could agree to the system.

    It's an interesting idea. I think the NBA Players Association would have a few issues with it. Who decides if a drafted player goes to the NBA or stays in college? The union would want the players to have the final word. The NBA would surely want teams to make the call.

    Your proposal doesn't address international players, but I think there's a much easier answer for them. Teams should just quit promising young Euros that they'll draft them in the first round. International players are allowed to hire agents, and most agents won't keep a player in the draft unless they get guarantees their client will be taken in a certain range. If teams would stop that nonsense, I think most young Euros wouldn't risk slipping.

    Ga'ash in Philly thinks players are better off getting out of the college system.

    I think you forget to mention what I feel is the main reason scouts want to pull kids out of college, or before college, into the NBA -- players develop faster and better in the pros. The NBA's competition, facilities, top-notch trainers, and the amount of time players get to focus on their game pales in comparison to anything college has to offer. Look at the facts: Half of the league's superstars were drafted out of high school, and practically any player worth anything was drafted before his senior season. The real stars with the real potential would be wasting their time in college, and both the players and scouts know it.
    -- Ga'ash Soffer, Philadelphia

    There are a lot of NBA coaches who agree with you, Ga'ash. Despite their complaints about a steady diet of unproven, inexperienced kids in the draft, they also recognize the college game is not the NBA game.

    Some college programs discourage players from lifting weights or playing a certain style of basketball that works well in the pros. A college coach isn't trying to turn his players into pro prospects. He's trying to turn his players into a team.

    While coaches may gripe about the flood of teenagers into the NBA, almost all concede that a young talented player with a good work ethic will progress much faster in the NBA than he would in the NCAA or Europe.

    There's an old theory that playing against the best makes you the best. I think even Larry Brown would agree Darko Milicic is better off not playing in games and going up against Ben Wallace in practice every day than playing in Europe's pro league or in college.

    Reader James thinks NBA teams are drafting the big kids early out of necessity.

    Ever notice one problem with basketball today is the disappearance of the great low-post center? I always had a theory on it. I notice great center prospects come out of high school every year and go to the McDonald's All-Star game, but none of them do anything in college. I think college has committed a fundamental breakdown, since none of the big men who come into college ever develop. How many McDonald's All-American centers, or any American centers, have developed in college and made it to the NBA with good skills? The names that pop into my head are slim and none. Joel Pryzbilla? Fringe player. Dan Gadzuric? Fringe player. I remember when those two guys played at the McDonald's High School All-Star game. They have not changed a thing in their games or ever even improved. Something is wrong.
    James Houston, Ocala, Fla.

    There's a definite trend to what kind of young players get taken in the lottery. With very few exceptions, they are young, athletic players who are 6-foot-10 or taller.

    Why do they come at such a premium? Because they are almost non-existent in the college draft, and you're right, James, many college coaches don't have great résumés when it comes to developing bigs.

    If you look at the 29 starting centers in the NBA today, only one, Shaquille O'Neal, was a dominant college player. The best of the rest got their start internationally or came straight to the pros.

    College coaches will respond to the argument by claiming the league cherry-picks all the good big men before they have a chance to play in college. And both sides will concede that the truth is, America just isn't growing big kids with great basketball skills right now.

    But still, it's a point well taken.

    To wrap things up, Biff's take on things gets pretty close to what I believe.

    Personally, as a rabid NBA fan, I'm enjoying this period in the league's history. To watch Stern do his thing and reshape the NBA into a product with an international fan base is fun. To me, the real problem would be NOT sending dozens of scouts to countries like Yugoslavia and missing out on some great players. International competition is only going to get better, and that is something basketball fans will have to get used to. Plus, it's kind of fun to imagine that someone has 'discovered' a 7-foot-5 Russian playing in a small town in Italy.
    --Biff Jones, Washington D.C.

    Of all the things I do in my job as NBA Insider, there's nothing I love more than the draft. Maybe it's the mystery ... the blank slate that every team works from each year.

    Isn't it amazing that the Cavs and Nuggets were the two worst teams in the league last year, and now they're playoff teams based, in large part, on two great draft success stories -- LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony? By conventional standards, both kids were really too young to play in the league, but both had special qualities that allowed them to transcend the status quo.

    There's no question a scout's job in the NBA is 10 times harder now than a decade ago. That's OK. They're well paid, stay in the finest hotels in the world and have amazing per diems. Trust me.

    As far as the fans' distaste for the whole thing -- that's partly the media's fault. Many media outlets have been slow to get on the bandwagon and give fans accurate and meaningful information about high school and international players. When I left for Italy on my first trip to scout Euros almost three years ago, I went because I had a deep curiosity about all of these names I would hear on draft night.

    Hubie Brown's TNT draft night commentary of, "He's an interesting kid with a lot of upside," wasn't enough for me, and it shouldn't be for you. Hopefully, for those of you who feel the same way, you've found a home on Insider.

    Comment

    Working...
    X