If CP3 was "elite," MWill must've been "elite-er"

[sturt]

Quote:

---

It is not theoretically impossible for Marvin to become a star but the odds sure don't favor him surpassing Paul.

True. Not impossible. Odds do not favor currently. But let me add some more support information to my "history isn't yet written" mantra... that is, in favor of not placing too much of your bet based on the first 3 seasons for these guys.

By now, it should be self-evident that I like to actually do some research and bring some numbers to discussions instead of just letting them ping-pong according to which poster has the most clever insults. So, humor me, and let's look at the players in this past year's All-Star Game, and generally how they developed to become among the league's best.....

Kidd: Consistent w/ assists, but averaged more than 12 points only once in first 4 years; emerged at 25.

Billups: Inconsistent for first four years in the league; didn't really show much until he was 25.

Iverson: Came into the league at 21 and the impact was immediate, and decisively so... the most productive first few seasons of any All-Star guard, period.

Nash: Nothing spectacular in his first four seasons, but emerged at age 26.

Paul: Young career only surpassed by that of Iverson, who most would argue was never a true point guard anyhow; began good, and has steadily increased production each season.

Wade: Immediate impact, though his production jumped significantly in his 2nd season, at age 23

Pierce: Similar to Wade, except top production began in 3rd season, at age 23

Allen: Good first season, but began to emerge as high caliber in his 2nd season, at age 22.

Roy: Similar track to Wade, Pierce, and Allen, now having his 22nd and 23rd birthdays behind him.

Anthony: Immediate impact and consistently excellent

Bryant: Began to have an impact in 2nd year (age 19), then built upon each year's success and became one of the league's best players by age 22.

Hamilton: Needed to get a season under his belt, and emerged when he was 22.

Johnson: Needed a couple of seasons, and emerged when he was 22.

Jamison: Needed a season, and emerged when he was 23.

James: Immediate high impact out of high school

Bosh: Took a year, began to emerge at age 20

Nowitzki: Took a year, began to emerge at age 21.

Boozer: Solid, though not all that notable rookie season, then accelerated to being very good in 2nd year (age 22), then accelerated to the top at age 25.

West: Nothing special in his first two seasons, then turned it on at age 25.

Howard: Good first season, but each year saw important progress, and he's at the top of the league now at age 22.

Wallace: Looked to be a 15/5 guy for his first four seasons, then began to assert himself as a force at age 25

Stoudamire: Respectable first year, but really accelerated to the top in his 2nd, at age 21.

Duncan: Immediate and incredibly consistent.

Ming: Solid first year, good 2nd and 3rd years, then truly arrived in 4th (age 25)

When you read through those, don't you get the sense that the fat lady has sung and it's all over for Marvin... or, at least, that the deck is very much stacked against him?

Now c'mon.... you can't actually believe that. Dont' let pig-headedness rule the day.

For some of the best players, their careers are like a light switch--they flip on practically immediately. For several others, their careers are like a dimmer switch--they increase production a little more with each passing year until they get over the top. And, too, there's the faulty light switch types--don't come on immediately, but then suddenly they separate themselves from the mediocre.

Paul's a light switch. Marvin's a dimmer switch. How brightly either will have burned and how long they've burned as they end their careers positively will not be determined for awhile longer. We should have a much, much, much more conclusive idea when they're 25 or so. But... in fact... given the larger picture, with so much data yet to be fed into the calculation, it is more reasonable to resist the urge to reach a judgment so early.

[bronnt]

Don't you think there's a chance that Marvin has already maxed out? You're really pushing this idea that he'll actually grow into a great player in the next couple of years. He just might be what he is now, a guy who tries hard but has a limited offensive repertoire and isn't that great of a defender.

1) Yes, I believe he tries hard. I can't say anything about his offseason regimine, but then again, none of you can either. He looks like he's working hard on the floor, and I'll give him credit for it.

2) Up until January (an admittedly short time-frame) he was probably the second most significant contributor for the Hawks last year. He was really good early, and then "eh" after that, and sometimes just bad.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

By now, it should be self-evident that I like to actually do some research and bring some numbers to discussions

Here is a number you probably aren't familiar with....889. That is the number of MVP votes that Paul got, second only to Kobe's 1105.

[sturt]

Bronnt, (1) there's always a chance that a player has maxed out, sure. But I think I'm on safe ground to say that most 21 year-olds in the NBA continue to progress, at least incrementally, until they're 23, 24, or 25.... (2a) I don't actually mean to "push" the idea that MWill will grow into a great player, but I'm sure it comes off that way since essentially there's some counterbalancing going on here--ie, trying to prevent the Eeyores from prohibitively having their doom-and-gloom way as-if their basketball knowledge is somehow superior by virtue of their demonstration that they know how to be negative... (2b) I re-iterate that the basketball talking heads told us from the beginning to take a long-term view of him, and that's just what I plan to do, regardless of the more immediate success of anyone drafted immediately before or after him. Go to the "Plan" thread, and you'll find recorded there some admittedly very basic comparisons to some other SFs at age 21 who have since distinguished themselves... MWill may not turn out to be as-good or better, but if he doesn't, it would mean he got off-track b/c right now, his age-21 numbers put him competitive almost everyone in that pack.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Bronnt, (1) there's always a chance that a player has maxed out, sure. But I think I'm on safe ground to say that most 21 year-olds in the NBA continue to progress, at least incrementally, until they're 23, 24, or 25.... (2a) I don't actually mean to "push" the idea that MWill will grow into a great player, but I'm sure it comes off that way since essentially there's some counterbalancing going on here--ie, trying to prevent the Eeyores from prohibitively having their doom-and-gloom way as-if their basketball knowledge is somehow superior by virtue of their demonstration that they know how to be negative... (2b) I re-iterate that the basketball talking heads told us from the beginning to take a long-term view of him, and that's just what I plan to do, regardless of the more immediate success of anyone drafted immediately before or after him. Go to the "Plan" thread, and you'll find recorded there some admittedly very basic comparisons to some other SFs at age 21 who have since distinguished themselves... MWill may not turn out to be as-good or better, but if he doesn't, it would mean he got off-track b/c right now, his age-21 numbers put him competitive almost everyone in that pack.

I agree that MWill hasn't maxed out. There is no reason to believe that given that he has not refined his skills or totally finished maturing physically (he will have to get stronger).

That said,virtually every player on the list emerged within their first three seasons.

The only ones that didn't are:

Rasheed Wallace - who has never been as good as Paul

Chauncey Billups - Never been as good as Paul last year and statistically was better than Marvin his first three years (CB PER: 13.6; 13.6; 15.1; MW PER: 12.2; 12.2; 14.5)

Joe Johnson - Didn't emerge first three years

Steve Nash - Didn't emerge, although played behind a HOF

Notably, Steve Nash is the only one that can be considered a superstar (and even his best year is not as good as Paul's last season). He is the only one that has made an All-NBA team in his career. The others are All-Stars.

I just don't buy any reason to be optimistic Marvin will be as good as Paul and I see plenty of reason to believe he won't. That doesn't mean he can't and shouldn't improve, it just means that bar is too high to realistically expect him to cross it.

[Admin]

Is anyone actually arguing that Marvin will be as good as Paul? Maybe I missed that in Sturt's posts but that's not the impression that I got. Marvin should be a good to very good player for many years but he'll never be as dominant as Paul, but that shouldn't take anything away from what Marvin will become.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Is anyone actually arguing that Marvin will be as good as Paul? Maybe I missed that in Sturt's posts but that's not the impression that I got. Marvin should be a good to very good player for many years but he'll never be as dominant as Paul, but that shouldn't take anything away from what Marvin will become.

How long will it take for you to decide whether or not Marvin was the wrong pick?

Quote:

---

That "it was a mistake to pass on him" is not unlike saying that it was a mistake to go to war in Iraq.... it will be a good 10-15 years before we can look back and see if something good for our cause was planted in that desert, and there's just too many what-ifs to write history when you're talking about 21 and 22 year old players... as suggested in my original post in this thread.

[Admin]

Is that what this is about? Second guessing damn never every single person that said Marvin was the best player in the draft and should be the Hawks pick?

It's funny that nobody seems to remember saying that Felton would be the better of the PGs or that Paul was too small, Deron would be too slow, etc. Now everyone makes it seem like they were all screaming for Paul, but a simple search on here back to 05 shows that is complete BS.

We should change the tag line for this place to "The Essential Messageboard for Select Memory Fans of the Atlanta Hawks".

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Is that what this is about? Second guessing damn never every single person that said Marvin was the best player in the draft and should be the Hawks pick?

It's funny that nobody seems to remember saying that Felton would be the better of the PGs or that Paul was too small, Deron would be too slow, etc. Now everyone makes it seem like they were all screaming for Paul, but a simple search on here back to 05 shows that is complete BS.

We should change the tag line for this place to "The Essential Messageboard for Select Memory Fans of the Atlanta Hawks".

First of all you didn't answer the question.

Secondly the idea that Marvin should have been the Hawks pick just because he was rated higher at the time was a source of a lot of debate during that draft from the pundits and fans alike. We already had several forwards and needed a pg and the pg is a more important position.

It is ridiculous to say it is hindsight given that the exact arguments people are making now were being made at that time.

[Packfill]

Quote:

---

Is that what this is about? Second guessing damn never every single person that said Marvin was the best player in the draft and should be the Hawks pick?

It's funny that nobody seems to remember saying that Felton would be the better of the PGs or that Paul was too small, Deron would be too slow, etc. Now everyone makes it seem like they were all screaming for Paul, but a simple search on here back to 05 shows that is complete BS.

We should change the tag line for this place to "The Essential Messageboard for Select Memory Fans of the Atlanta Hawks".

I disagree.

[frosgrim]

My two cents on this debate:

I was out of the country for MW's and Paul's last year in college; therefore, I did not see them play, except one game of Paul's when I briefly came back to the States in January 2005.

Thus, my perspective of the 2005 draft was formed from reading message boards.

The debate was went along the lines of:

Bogut-

Pros:could be the best big man to come out for years and its always worth gambling on bigs

Cons: he's just another "Euro" big (even though Bogut is Aussie)

Paul-

Pros: is NBA ready, increadibly fast, is smart and has a good head on his shoulders. Can make shots and is fearless going into the lane

Cons: Too small and will be injured too much in the NBA. Hasn't won anything of note in college, and for a PG that is a bad thing

Deron-

Pros: big, smart pg. Took his team to the Final Four

Cons: not much of a shooter, is fat, did nothing until the tourney.

MW-

Pros: potential, potential, potential

Cons: seems too timid, hasn't shown much in college, didn't play well in the NCAAs

The debates raged until the draft amongs those 4 players and who should the Hawks pick.

I was in front of a TV for the draft and that may have been in a Sheraton in Quito (can't remember). What I do remember is that when the Hawks selected MW the pundits generally cheered the selection with the exception of d*ck Vitele who killed the Hawks. DV said that the Hawks made a mistake drafting MW and should have taken Paul to run the franchise. I remember DV making the statement that the Hawks should give Woodson a 3 year extension because it would take that long for MW to develop.

The point is that there was considerable debate across the boards about who to draft and who was the best fit. MW was in the mix for most Hawks fans and seemed to almost always be #2 or 3 on most people's lists.

In terms of blowing the #2 pick- eh, depends on how you want to frame the debate. If you take the pick in the context of the time of the draft, then you can see the thought process into taking MW. The Hawks needed a superstar and it was believed by many that MW could be that superstar. In the context of the past 2 seasons, it is obvious that Paul is the better player.

MW still can grow and improve. Looking at MW's frame the kid should be destroying the NBA, but he isn't. FWIW, after this season, I just don't see MW as being that much more than he is now. He may top out at 18-20 ppg and ~7 boards, which is good, but nothing in the realm of what Paul is doing. For MW to reach what Paul is doing from the SF position, Marvin needs to go 26/9/5 and put his will onto the game. I just don't see this happening, unfortunately, with Marvin.

[Admin]

No, I believe it was the wrong pick unless Marvin was the best player available. I believe now, just as I did then, that you draft the best player available and then you make trades to balance the roster. However, at the time, I believed that Deron was the best player and I thought he would be by far the best pro. I had no idea that Paul would become a great player, but I always thought that Deron would be great.

Of course that was only if Bogut wasn't available. If he was available to us then he would have been my pick without a doubt because he could defend and he was a great passer and played the 5.

[Admin]

What do you disagree about?

[Admin]

There was some debate about Marvin being the best, but for the most part he was generally considered the best player from that draft when it's all said and done. Everyone said it would take him some time to become that player, usually 3-5 years, but very few were saying Paul would be the best and at the time NOBODY wanted to have another Bowie/Jordan problem where we passed on the best player in the draft (from UNC ironically) to draft for need. People brought up how Jarrett Jack abused Paul and shut him down and that the same would happen in the pros. That he was so small that he could be the next TJ Ford. That he wouldn't be able to defend at this level. Etc. He was far from without question. Looking back obviously he was the best player in that draft but at the time he wasn't the right pick.

[exodus]

There were many people here who wanted either Paul or Deron (including obviously Walter and Diesel) as evidenced by all the bumped posts since that time.

So who was right about the pick, the people who wanted Marvin or the people who wanted Paul/Deron?

[Admin]

In my mind you can't be hypocritical about drafting. You either believe in taking the best player available, which Marvin was generally considered to be, and not risk losing the next big thing from UNC, or you draft for need. Drafting for need is what caused us to take Shelden, which was a MUCH bigger mistake than not drafting Paul or Deron. At least Marvin looks like he will be a 20/7 SF for his career, whereas Shelden will likely never develop into anything useful.

The problem I have is when people cry about the Marvin AND Shelden pick. You can't cry about them BOTH because they employed polar opposite strategies and it turns out that both ended up being the wrong decision.

So you tell me Ex, do you draft for best player available or for need?

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Is anyone actually arguing that Marvin will be as good as Paul? Maybe I missed that in Sturt's posts but that's not the impression that I got.

Sturt raised exactly that point (whether Marvin would eventually close the gap on Paul) as an issue of disagreement. I don't think anyone disagrees about that unless it is sturt, though:

Quote:

---

To be clear, where there is disagreement is....

(A) the assertion that Paul will necessarily ALWAYS be a significantly better player... taking nothing away from Paul, there's still a LOT of history yet to be written, and those who are paid for a living to know, generally told us to expect that it may take Marvin longer to develop... and...

My point was that while it is theoretically possible that Marvin could do it, the probability is too low to be worth mentioning.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

In my mind you can't be hypocritical about drafting. You either believe in taking the best player available, which Marvin was generally considered to be, and not risk losing the next big thing from UNC, or you draft for need. Drafting for need is what caused us to take Shelden, which was a MUCH bigger mistake than not drafting Paul or Deron. At least Marvin looks like he will be a 20/7 SF for his career, whereas Shelden will likely never develop into anything useful.

The problem I have is when people cry about the Marvin AND Shelden pick. You can't cry about them BOTH because they employed polar opposite strategies and it turns out that both ended up being the wrong decision.

So you tell me Ex, do you draft for best player available or for need?

Again you failed to answer the question yet you expect me to answer your question. I see you are employing sturt's dodgeball tactics.

Marvin will be a 20/7 player FOR HIS CAREER? Please lay off the crack. He would have to become a 25/8-9 player for years for his career average to be 20/7. He will be lucky to have one year at that level.

When you answer my question i will answer yours. Were Walter and Diesel right or wrong?

[Admin]

Quote:

---

My point was that while it is theoretically possible that Marvin could do it, the probability is too low to be worth mentioning.

I agree with this. I don't remember anyone saying that at the time of the draft, but now that seems pretty logical.

[Admin]

I didn't say Marvin would average that for his career. You have a long history of trying to twist my words so I will explain more what I meant so that it won't be so confusing to you. When Marvin is at his peak he will be a 20/7 (or better) player. Then again, Marvin could end up averaging 20/7 for his career. All he needs is 3.5-4 years of averaging 25/8 and then 20/7 from that point on to manage that. He was a 17/7 guy or close to it this year until he got injured and then fell off from there a bit. It's not illogical to think that he will increase his scoring by 8-10ppg during his peak years for a few years.

How can I answer what Walter and Diesel were wrong or right about? What am I answering? What statement did they make that I am judging?