NBA Season 2020 - RIP Mamba

[Proudfeet]

9 hours ago, Jaime L said:

It's the very fact that he eluded other teams that is the lucky part. 14 separate teams passed on him. 15 if you count Indiana being willing to trade his potential for the sure thing of George Hill. Not saying there's not a massive skill component in recognizing his raw potential and then maximizing it once you got him, but you can't separate out the luck component either. 

I mean were the Warriors lucky or skilled to end up with an MVP in Steph Curry at #7? It's both, right? They had no control over another team being dumb enough to draft two PGs who weren't Steph Curry ahead of him (cc: @Tywin et al.). 

And if you look back at 2011 mock drafts they all had Kawhi going higher than 15. The Spurs deserve credit for locking in on their guy and making the rare move into the lottery to go and get him but the magic doesn't happen if other teams aren't drafting the Jimmers or Jan Veselys ( @Jaime L) of the world first.

At that point you're basically saying that every pick that pans out is luck. Top lottery pick? Takes luck to get the pick when a potential star comes out. Every pick after that? Takes luck to fall that far. Is there any scenario that doesn't involve luck? If there isn't, why single any team out? Also, its not like a players development is predetermined. There are only so many LeBrons. For every Kyrie Irving, you might get another Michael Carter-Williams. 

The Curry thing is revisionist as well. Is it even an issue if KAHN! didn't pick two PGs but picked players in other positions? All the early worries about Curry also panned out, its just that he exceeded expectations. The Warriors had more luck than Curry was injured so often early and opted in to a lower value contract allowing them to build their deep roster. Or that injury forced Draymond Green into the lineup. 

I looked back at the 2011 draft and noticed that Jimmy Butler was taken 30th. Maybe the Spurs would have got him instead. 

Separately, we are talking about 2014 Kawhi. Not 2017 Kawhi. Still a rare commodity but more widely available, ranging from Ariza to Corvington (sp?) and all the other defense first players. If the Sixers win with Matisse Thybulle without/before him developing an all-star offensive game, you wouldn't call it a lucky pick would you?

[Jaime L]

19 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

At that point you're basically saying that every pick that pans out is luck. Top lottery pick? Takes luck to get the pick when a potential star comes out. Every pick after that? Takes luck to fall that far. Is there any scenario that doesn't involve luck? If there isn't, why single any team out? Also, its not like a players development is predetermined. There are only so many LeBrons. For every Kyrie Irving, you might get another Michael Carter-Williams. 

The Curry thing is revisionist as well. Is it even an issue if KAHN! didn't pick two PGs but picked players in other positions? All the early worries about Curry also panned out, its just that he exceeded expectations. The Warriors had more luck than Curry was injured so often early and opted in to a lower value contract allowing them to build their deep roster. Or that injury forced Draymond Green into the lineup. 

I looked back at the 2011 draft and noticed that Jimmy Butler was taken 30th. Maybe the Spurs would have got him instead. 

Separately, we are talking about 2014 Kawhi. Not 2017 Kawhi. Still a rare commodity but more widely available, ranging from Ariza to Corvington (sp?) and all the other defense first players. If the Sixers win with Matisse Thybulle without/before him developing an all-star offensive game, you wouldn't call it a lucky pick would you?

No, I'm saying players of Kawhi's caliber simply aren't available at the point in the draft the Spurs were able to get him...basically ever. Look at any era in the history of the NBA. Guys who have the natural ability to be the best player in the NBA almost all go in the top 5. Top 3 really. The exceptions always have a specific reason. Yeah Giannis went 15th but that's because teams were trying to judge him based on grainy video footage of him playing in the Greek YMCA. And he grew 3 inches after joining the league. Kobe went #13 but he came up in an era where no one trusted high schoolers yet. But the true elite talents almost always go at the top of the draft, Lebron, Duncan, Shaq, MJ, Durant etc. etc.

There's no excuse in Kawhi's case. He played a couple years at a U.S. university. Anyone could've scouted him and come to see the potential the Spurs did. Sure he was raw and sure the Spurs did an amazing job developing him into a stud. But the core fact remains that 99% of the league doesn't have the natural ability to become what Kawhi came. Get out of here, with these weak comparisons of young Kawhi to the Robert Covingtons and Trevor Arizas of the world. Durant and Lebron would've eaten those guys alive in the playoffs 1 on 1. Kawhi even early on was a significantly better defender than either and of course he'd become a once-in-a-generation destroyer of worlds level defender. Why? Because he has elite athleticism, reaction skills and strength. And clearly the type of athleticism that allowed him to become elite offensively too with the proper development. These are not things you can ever realistically hope to find outside the top 5.

The fact is by the 2010-2011 seasons the Spurs looked to be done as serious contenders. Miami and OKC, athletically, could both run circles around the aging Spurs. And the Spurs were able to flip all that on its head with one silver bullet pick in the middle of the first round. You couldn't design in a lab a better counter to Lebron and Durant than Kawhi and judging by his personality he very well might've been.  Almost every dynasty is done within a decade. The Spurs got to extend theirs 6 more years because of this pick.

The Spurs were lucky that a player of Kwahi's caliber entered the league when he did. They were lucky he was the perfect natural fit with their big 3 and filled their two biggest needs at once (athleticism and defense) while taking nothing off the table. They were lucky the rest of the league didn't see it. And were skilled enough as an organization to maximize everything about him and allow Kawhi to become his very best self. It's that confluence of skill and luck that build title teams. Same exact thing happened in Golden State. And not sure the same thing will ever happen with my team, The Wizards, who have had plenty of luck over the years and never the skill to do anything with it. 

[Proudfeet]

5 hours ago, Jaime L said:

No, I'm saying players of Kawhi's caliber simply aren't available at the point in the draft the Spurs were able to get him...basically ever. Look at any era in the history of the NBA. Guys who have the natural ability to be the best player in the NBA almost all go in the top 5. Top 3 really. The exceptions always have a specific reason. Yeah Giannis went 15th but that's because teams were trying to judge him based on grainy video footage of him playing in the Greek YMCA. And he grew 3 inches after joining the league. Kobe went #13 but he came up in an era where no one trusted high schoolers yet. But the true elite talents almost always go at the top of the draft, Lebron, Duncan, Shaq, MJ, Durant etc. etc.

There's no excuse in Kawhi's case. He played a couple years at a U.S. university. Anyone could've scouted him and come to see the potential the Spurs did. Sure he was raw and sure the Spurs did an amazing job developing him into a stud. But the core fact remains that 99% of the league doesn't have the natural ability to become what Kawhi came. Get out of here, with these weak comparisons of young Kawhi to the Robert Covingtons and Trevor Arizas of the world. Durant and Lebron would've eaten those guys alive in the playoffs 1 on 1. Kawhi even early on was a significantly better defender than either and of course he'd become a once-in-a-generation destroyer of worlds level defender. Why? Because he has elite athleticism, reaction skills and strength. And clearly the type of athleticism that allowed him to become elite offensively too with the proper development. These are not things you can ever realistically hope to find outside the top 5.

The fact is by the 2010-2011 seasons the Spurs looked to be done as serious contenders. Miami and OKC, athletically, could both run circles around the aging Spurs. And the Spurs were able to flip all that on its head with one silver bullet pick in the middle of the first round. You couldn't design in a lab a better counter to Lebron and Durant than Kawhi and judging by his personality he very well might've been.  Almost every dynasty is done within a decade. The Spurs got to extend theirs 6 more years because of this pick.

The Spurs were lucky that a player of Kwahi's caliber entered the league when he did. They were lucky he was the perfect natural fit with their big 3 and filled their two biggest needs at once (athleticism and defense) while taking nothing off the table. They were lucky the rest of the league didn't see it. And were skilled enough as an organization to maximize everything about him and allow Kawhi to become his very best self. It's that confluence of skill and luck that build title teams. Same exact thing happened in Golden State. And not sure the same thing will ever happen with my team, The Wizards, who have had plenty of luck over the years and never the skill to do anything with it. 

So, can you come up with a scenario that there is any successful player that isn't luck? Kobe and Giannis seem pretty lucky to me by your definition as well. There are a lot of coulds and shoulds. Growing 3 inches seems pretty lucky, you can't reasonably predict that can you? Why is that "a specific reason" rather than luck? There is a lot of inconsistent post fact justification going on. In fact, I get the impression that the only scenarios you consider doesn't involve luck is when you get a homerun top three pick. Which is plainly ridiculous. 

I mean sure, even 2013 Kawhi was a better defender than the comparisons. But if Iguodala was able to do it I don't see why other players can't. Not saying that Iguodala isn't a good defender, but he didn't have elite athleticism at the point he won finals MVP. Also, I haven't actually seen Matisse Thybulle play, but he is supposedly an elite level defender as a rookie at the number 20 pick. Pascal Siakam is the number 27th pick for what its worth.

OKC destroyed themselves and the Spurs won 60 games that year. What about Boris Diaw? Also, that is besides the point. Its still the same argument. Because you succeeded, you were lucky. So why single this team out? Over GSW? Because of how the last major piece was added?

Edit - I want to emphasise that the Spurs traded a starter for him. He's not just your annual obligatory pick. Surely that counts for more than the fact that he exists and was available. 

[baxus]

On 5/5/2020 at 8:06 PM, Tywin et al. said:

Jordan denied a lot of great players rings, true, but Jordan did also have basically the best team in every Finals he was in. LeBron wasn't even favored in half of his appearances. 

Not saying LeBron is better, but let's not pretend like Jordan carried a bag of beans to championships. He did have a lot of help. 

Jordan definitely had a great team behind him, made up of some Hall of Fame level players and some great role players. Denying that is insane. The same way it would be insane to deny that LeBron had the same. Saying that Jordan had Pippen and Rodman and ignoring that LeBron had Wade and Bosh or Irving and Love would be as silly as doing it the other way around.

About Jordan's team being favourites in the finals, a big reason for that is that they had Michael Jordan on the team. Sure, Warriors made underdogs out of every other team for a couple of seasons there, but saying that Miami were underdogs in the finals against Dallas is just not true. Anyway,  Miami did the same with Wade-LeBron-Bosh as Warriors did with Curry-Durant-Thompson, didn't they?

[Jaime L]

7 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

So, can you come up with a scenario that there is any successful player that isn't luck? Kobe and Giannis seem pretty lucky to me by your definition as well. There are a lot of coulds and shoulds. Growing 3 inches seems pretty lucky, you can't reasonably predict that can you? Why is that "a specific reason" rather than luck? There is a lot of inconsistent post fact justification going on. In fact, I get the impression that the only scenarios you consider doesn't involve luck is when you get a homerun top three pick. Which is plainly ridiculous. 

No that's not what I'm saying. Milwaukee had a ton of luck with Giannis. Same with Kobe and the Lakers. Kobe is actually the exact same situation as Kawhi in that the Lakers traded a decent starter for him as another poor shmuck team thought a pretty good starter was more valuable than a guy with best in the NBA upside. I'm just saying that I understand the misguided thought process of why teams missed on Giannis and Kobe...I don't with Kawhi. 

Virtually every successful pick in the NBA draft involves varying degrees of luck. The whole thing is literally built on a lottery. The only exceptions in my mind are like the Draymond Greens of the world. A 2nd rounder tweener who is not some all-world athlete that only the Warriors saw his potential. I only used the phrase "lucked into Kawhi" because of the serendipitous timing of his availability. I can't think of another dynasty that had a second act and he provided them that. Maybe Len Bias would've done the same with the '86 Celtics...of course that luck didn't hold

[Maithanet]

39 minutes ago, Jaime L said:

I only used the phrase "lucked into Kawhi" because of the serendipitous timing of his availability. I can't think of another dynasty that had a second act and he provided them that.

A lesser example would be Rondo with the Celtics.  That team would have aged out of relevance much faster without him, instead they made it to game 7 of the Finals in 2010 and game 7 of the ECF in 2012. 

[Proudfeet]

5 minutes ago, Jaime L said:

No that's not what I'm saying. Milwaukee had a ton of luck with Giannis. Same with Kobe and the Lakers. Kobe is actually the exact same situation as Kawhi in that the Lakers traded a decent starter for him as another poor shmuck team thought a pretty good starter was more valuable than a guy with best in the NBA upside. I'm just saying that I understand the misguided thought process of why teams missed on Giannis and Kobe...I don't with Kawhi. 

Virtually every successful pick in the NBA draft involves varying degrees of luck. The whole thing is literally built on a lottery. The only exceptions in my mind are like the Draymond Greens of the world. A 2nd rounder tweener who is not some all-world athlete that only the Warriors saw his potential. I only used the phrase "lucked into Kawhi" because of the serendipitous timing. I can't think of another dynasty that had a second act and he provided them that. Maybe Len Bias would've done the same with the '86 Celtics...of course that luck didn't hold

Eh, I don't follow the NCAA, but I'm guessing its just because Kawhi didn't go to a more established school and also because he was comparably raw then. What if he didn't develop a jump shot? In that respect he was a reversed Markelle Fultz.

And Green might have washed out of the league had the Warriors not been injured then or if he had other teammates and coaches. This is where I fundamentally disagree with you. The Spurs went for Kawhi, sacrificing a starter. Green was a throw away second round pick and their third pick that year. Granted one of them was Harrison Barnes who managed to be a max contract player, but I think that is more luck than skill. 

If you're using the Spurs second wind for justification of luck, I think that is a massive shift of goal posts from your previous posts. I'd take that.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

On 5/6/2020 at 12:54 AM, Proudfeet said:

The Curry thing is revisionist as well. Is it even an issue if KAHN! didn't pick two PGs but picked players in other positions? All the early worries about Curry also panned out, its just that he exceeded expectations. The Warriors had more luck than Curry was injured so often early and opted in to a lower value contract allowing them to build their deep roster. Or that injury forced Draymond Green into the lineup. 

This is just an old running joke with @Jaime L and myself.

He loves to give me shit about it (and I did want Curry, I was cool with Rubio at 5, but Flynn at 6? WTF? I always thought we should have take Curry there and had our back court of the future). 

As far as top picks go, it really is just a crap shoot, outside of the obvious general players, and they only come around every few years. Outside of that, who knows who will actually be good. The greatest player ever, maybe not just in basketball, but in all of sports, didn't go number one, after all. 

In fact, of the best athletes in each major sport in the U.S. in my lifetime, Brady, Jordan, Gretzky and Bond, none was a top pick. 
 

Oh, and obligatory:

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 hours ago, baxus said:

Jordan definitely had a great team behind him, made up of some Hall of Fame level players and some great role players. Denying that is insane. The same way it would be insane to deny that LeBron had the same. Saying that Jordan had Pippen and Rodman and ignoring that LeBron had Wade and Bosh or Irving and Love would be as silly as doing it the other way around.

I actually think Wade is better than anyone Jordan ever played with, but it's insane how well Pippen fit with him. And in the era they played, the two could double team the other team's best player at half court and do them dirty. And that was before they added arguably the best rebounder ever in Rodman. 

One thing I've always found weird about the Jordan and LeBron comparisons, and I do think they're the two best ever, is that Jordan passed a lot at the end of games too, but I don't recall him ever getting a ton of shit about it like LeBron does. You make the right play, be it in the middle of the second quarter or at the end of the game.

But then again, as a short white guy who was good at the game, I was just taught to control the offense, pass, hit open jump shots, make my free throws and play scrappy defense. I did usually get best defensive player at the end of the season though. I loved ripping the ball from dudes and demoralizing over and over and over again. Probably why I love this clip so much:
 

 

Quote

About Jordan's team being favourites in the finals, a big reason for that is that they had Michael Jordan on the team. Sure, Warriors made underdogs out of every other team for a couple of seasons there, but saying that Miami were underdogs in the finals against Dallas is just not true. Anyway,  Miami did the same with Wade-LeBron-Bosh as Warriors did with Curry-Durant-Thompson, didn't they?

Not really. I haven't looked in a while, but I think LeBron's team's were only favored against Dallas in 2011. He was a heavy underdog in 07, but that team shouldn't have made the Finals anyways, I think he was basically a push against the Thunder, dog both times against the Spurs and a dog every time against the Warriors. I may be off on one or two of them, but no, LeBron was not seen as the same kind of overwhelming force that Jordan's Bulls were. And that's before we made Jordan some mystical figure.

[Jaime L]

12 hours ago, Maithanet said:

A lesser example would be Rondo with the Celtics.  That team would have aged out of relevance much faster without him, instead they made it to game 7 of the Finals in 2010 and game 7 of the ECF in 2012. 

Yes, Rondo was amazing in the early 2010s. He was still ascending while the Celtics big 3 were aging out of relevance. I thought he was incredible back in the day.

Will never not be disappointing to me that he faded so fast in the years he should've been in his prime. He was going toe to toe against Lebron as the two transcendent stars in that 2012 series. But after then he wasn't the same guy. Had that one season semi-resurgence in New Orleans. But I thought he'd have 5 more years from then as an elite player with his basketball IQ but that didn't happen. The game changed. No team could thrive from that point on with a guard who couldn't shoot. CC: David Kahn. 

12 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

Eh, I don't follow the NCAA, but I'm guessing its just because Kawhi didn't go to a more established school and also because he was comparably raw then. What if he didn't develop a jump shot? In that respect he was a reversed Markelle Fultz.

And Green might have washed out of the league had the Warriors not been injured then or if he had other teammates and coaches. This is where I fundamentally disagree with you. The Spurs went for Kawhi, sacrificing a starter. Green was a throw away second round pick and their third pick that year. Granted one of them was Harrison Barnes who managed to be a max contract player, but I think that is more luck than skill. 

If you're using the Spurs second wind for justification of luck, I think that is a massive shift of goal posts from your previous posts. I'd take that.

Kawhi was raw as hell. And teams underestimated the extent he was a sponge in terms of picking up concepts and the extent he would work at it until he became great. To a certain extent I get it. But at the same time, he's proven to be freakishly athletic and strong. And teams reach for killer athletes all the time and fail at it. No one but the Spurs saw his intangibles that complimented it. 

In a sense, he's in the same vein as Pippen and Rodman. And like those guys he must have been a late bloomer. But Pippen and Rodman both went to obsucre juco schools I still couldn't name to this day. Kawhi went to a D-I university. It's almost like because the fact he was in college for 2 years, teams just assumed he sucked and didn't do their due diligence. Again this is the difference between great organizations like the Spurs and everyone else. 

Regardless, really don't think I shifted goal posts. Saying the Spurs lucked into Kawhi was an offhand comment but in one key sense, still completely believe it. The more I think about it, the more it's insane he fell to #15. The guys who fall in the draft, even the great ones, aren't great athletes. Curry, Nash, Jokic etc. These guys are incredibly skilled but they're not close to Kawhi level athletes. Spurs were so good for so long they were always drafting in the late 20s and never had a shot at the kind of athletes that allowed the Heat and Thunder to briefly surpass them. These were two teams each built on each having 3 top 5 overall picks that became stars that allowed them to dominate less talented teams. But then Kawhi arrives and he's good enough from the start and makes up the athletic gap such that the Spurs superior skills can now overcome the athleticism edge of those teams.

That said, that offhand comment short-changed the deliberate actions of the Spurs to go and get him. And that part I agree with you on completely. Only a great organization makes that trade. I think him falling to that point is pure luck. But everything the Spurs did from that point on is absolute skill.

11 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

This is just an old running joke with @Jaime L and myself

He loves to give me shit about it (and I did want Curry, I was cool with Rubio at 5, but Flynn at 6? WTF? I always thought we should have take Curry there and had our back court of the future). 

Absolutely! But also keep in mind I'm not just giving you shit, I'm giving my team shit. We had that #5 pick that somehow David Kahn fleeced out of the Wiz in a trade for Randy fucking Foye in a misguided attempt at contention in 2010. When you're losing trades to David Kahn, it's time to retire immediately....but Grunfeld carried for a decade after that somehow like Rasputin. And if the Timberwolves had turned that pick into Steph Curry I'd be reading Don't Kill Myself books right now.

Instead they took Rubio who was ok and Flynn who was unspeakably terrible and the Wiz were so bad with Randy Foye they won the lottery the next year and had a mini resurgence with Wall and Beal that was briefly entertaining.

But there's no clearer evidence that both of our teams are dumb as shit than how that all unfolded. And clearly nothing has changed since then. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, Jaime L said:

Instead they took Rubio who was ok and Flynn who was unspeakably terrible and the Wiz were so bad with Randy Foye they won the lottery the next year and had a mini resurgence with Wall and Beal that was briefly entertaining.

But there's no clearer evidence that both of our teams are dumb as shit than how that all unfolded. And clearly nothing has changed since then. 

I've always argued Rubio is really good if you don't need a scoring PG, but that of course is a huge flaw.

Flynn just got hurt a lot and his career was done early. He was a nice college player, for whatever that's worth. 

[Proudfeet]

2 hours ago, Jaime L said:

Kawhi was raw as hell. And teams underestimated the extent he was a sponge in terms of picking up concepts and the extent he would work at it until he became great. To a certain extent I get it. But at the same time, he's proven to be freakishly athletic and strong. And teams reach for killer athletes all the time and fail at it. No one but the Spurs saw his intangibles that complimented it. 

In a sense, he's in the same vein as Pippen and Rodman. And like those guys he must have been a late bloomer. But Pippen and Rodman both went to obsucre juco schools I still couldn't name to this day. Kawhi went to a D-I university. It's almost like because the fact he was in college for 2 years, teams just assumed he sucked and didn't do their due diligence. Again this is the difference between great organizations like the Spurs and everyone else. 

Regardless, really don't think I shifted goal posts. Saying the Spurs lucked into Kawhi was an offhand comment but in one key sense, still completely believe it. The more I think about it, the more it's insane he fell to #15. The guys who fall in the draft, even the great ones, aren't great athletes. Curry, Nash, Jokic etc. These guys are incredibly skilled but they're not close to Kawhi level athletes. Spurs were so good for so long they were always drafting in the late 20s and never had a shot at the kind of athletes that allowed the Heat and Thunder to briefly surpass them. These were two teams each built on each having 3 top 5 overall picks that became stars that allowed them to dominate less talented teams. But then Kawhi arrives and he's good enough from the start and makes up the athletic gap such that the Spurs superior skills can now overcome the athleticism edge of those teams.

That said, that offhand comment short-changed the deliberate actions of the Spurs to go and get him. And that part I agree with you on completely. Only a great organization makes that trade. I think him falling to that point is pure luck. But everything the Spurs did from that point on is absolute skill. 

Not sure what a D-I university is, but when I was looking up the draft, practically everyone went to a bigger school other than Klay, Kanter and Fredette. Fredette had a cult following, Kanter should maybe be grouped with the foreigners but Klay went really high. His school didn't even make it to the tournament while Kawhi managed to place in the top 16. I guess this is where Kawhi should really have went higher because he helped his school breakthrough. I think that teams just didn't want to gamble on him developing a jump shot. 

I mean, you were basically saying that the Spurs lucked into Kawhi because he exists and was available. Just changing it to exists is a pretty big shift as it is not remarkable. That is practically every player. If you're banking on available, maybe. But I can't help but feel that you are applying a retroactive filter / bias. For whats its worth, the first google result for draft grades (from bleacher report) at that time rated it as B+ but they rated Kyrie C+ and Fredette A+. 

Also, give Boris Diaw some respect would you? Its not just Kawhi. Besides, the previous year they won 60 games and lost to the Grizzlies and the Heat lost to the Mavs. Those aren't athletic teams.

I don't think its just the Spurs. You have to give credit to the player himself. And sometimes you need the right mix of teammates and coaches. But just going by track record, its good to be going to teams like Portland, Indiana and San Antonio.

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I've always argued Rubio is really good if you don't need a scoring PG, but that of course is a huge flaw.

Flynn just got hurt a lot and his career was done early. He was a nice college player, for whatever that's worth. 

Wasn't Rubio injured as well? I think he wiped his first two seasons and was even less healthy than Curry in general.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

Not sure what a D-I university is,

Division 1 universities. It's the highest level of collegiate sports, but it doesn't perfectly overlap across all sports. 

Some schools hang their hats on athletics. Others try to be Research 1 universities.

My alma mater is both. 
 

Quote

Wasn't Rubio injured as well? I think he wiped his first two seasons and was even less healthy than Curry in general.

Rubio did, but I don't recall his injuries as being anything as threatening to his career as Curry's. The more complicating issue with Ricky is he just really didn't want to play here for a few years, but I can't blame a kid not be comfortable with leaving his country to frankly move to the middle of nowhere, relatively speaking.

[Proudfeet]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Division 1 universities. It's the highest level of collegiate sports, but it doesn't perfectly overlap across all sports. 

Some schools hang their hats on athletics. Others try to be Research 1 universities.

My alma mater is both. 

Rubio did, but I don't recall his injuries as being anything as threatening to his career as Curry's. The more complicating issue with Ricky is he just really didn't want to play here for a few years, but I can't blame a kid not be comfortable with leaving his country to frankly move to the middle of nowhere, relatively speaking.

Ah. I looked it up and there are about 300 teams. That's quite a lot of teams. 

I don't know about career threatening, but I looked it up and he played 41, 57, 82, 22, 76, 75 games with the team. His career just never got off the ground from the injuries. He actually managed 34% on his 3 pointers his rookie year.

Curry played more than 70 games his first few years except his third season where he played 26 games. But I guess that injury was significant enough to discount his contract.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

Ah. I looked it up and there are about 300 teams. That's quite a lot of teams. 

That's a bit misleading though. In football, for example, only the power five schools matter, really. However, their are schools that barely have football programs and yet are dominate at basketball. Duke, Kansas and Kentucky, for example are doormats in football, but blue chips in basketball. My school, Minnesota, is just kind of average at everything other than wrestling, though we had a huge year in football.

You also have to consider just how many sports are played. Sadly many will be going away permanently, though. 

Quote

I don't know about career threatening, but I looked it up and he played 41, 57, 82, 22, 76, 75 games with the team. His career just never got off the ground from the injuries. He actually managed 34% on his 3 pointers his rookie year.

Curry played more than 70 games his first few years except his third season where he played 26 games. But I guess that injury was significant enough to discount his contract.

Like I said, he didn't want to be here at first, and if you don't want to be somewhere, but you have complete job security, it's pretty easy to call in sick. Once he bought in he was reliable, bad injury season aside.

Curry is different though. Even before the Warriors went flying through the sky, there was talk of his career longevity and how he needed special ankles braces because he was so slim and weak. But to his credit Curry did really rebuild himself and got a lot stronger.

[Proudfeet]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's a bit misleading though. In football, for example, only the power five schools matter, really. However, their are schools that barely have football programs and yet are dominate at basketball. Duke, Kansas and Kentucky, for example are doormats in football, but blue chips in basketball. My school, Minnesota, is just kind of average at everything other than wrestling, though we had a huge year in football.

You also have to consider just how many sports are played. Sadly many will be going away permanently, though. 

Like I said, he didn't want to be here at first, and if you don't want to be somewhere, but you have complete job security, it's pretty easy to call in sick. Once he bought in he was reliable, bad injury season aside.

Curry is different though. Even before the Warriors went flying through the sky, there was talk of his career longevity and how he needed special ankles braces because he was so slim and weak. But to his credit Curry did really rebuild himself and got a lot stronger.

How many "good" teams are there in basketball outside of the top 64? Kawhi's team was D-I but wasn't a regular at the march tournament. 

I don't know if you can call in sick for 9 months straight from March to December. Looks like an injury to me.

[Maithanet]

1 minute ago, Proudfeet said:

How many "good" teams are there in basketball outside of the top 64? Kawhi's team was D-I but wasn't a regular at the march tournament.

Let's not go crazy on dismissing San Diego State.  They made the tournament both years Kawhi was there, and his second year, they were a #2 seed that made the sweet 16.  Kawhi was clearly the best player on that team.  The idea that teams would have simply missed Kawhi because of his low profile is ridiculous.  Teams scouted him, they just decided he wasn't the player they wanted.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

How many "good" teams are there in basketball outside of the top 64? Kawhi's team was D-I but wasn't a regular at the march tournament. 

I don't know if you can call in sick for 9 months straight from March to December. Looks like an injury to me.

There are only a handful of teams that matter, not even close to 64. That's why Cinderella runs are so fascinating. 

And I'm sure he was hurt, but the desire to comeback quickly fades if you don't want to be there in the first place. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Let's not go crazy on dismissing San Diego State.  They made the tournament both years Kawhi was there, and his second year, they were a #2 seed that made the sweet 16.  Kawhi was clearly the best player on that team.  The idea that teams would have simply missed Kawhi because of his low profile is ridiculous.  Teams scouted him, they just decided he wasn't the player they wanted.

Two of the three best players on the planet (KD doesn't count due to injury) were taken 15, one from a smaller state school and one from overseas. 

Drafting is random, like I said, when a LeBron doesn't fall into your lap.

[Proudfeet]

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Let's not go crazy on dismissing San Diego State.  They made the tournament both years Kawhi was there, and his second year, they were a #2 seed that made the sweet 16.  Kawhi was clearly the best player on that team.  The idea that teams would have simply missed Kawhi because of his low profile is ridiculous.  Teams scouted him, they just decided he wasn't the player they wanted.

I don't think that teams missed Kawhi. I just thought that maybe he didn't have the prestige boost of being from an established school. Like if you're from Kentucky, even if you don't look great, you still get a chance at the second round at worst. Maybe. I'm not into the NCAA. Just trying to work things out. I'm not the one who thinks he should really have gone much higher. 

Klay though. His school looked like it sucked and he got picked higher. I guess being able to shoot counts for more.