Tag Archives: Dwyane Wade

The End of “Upside”?

As the speculation about a trade involving Carmelo Anthony continues to swirl (in case you happen to have missed it, click here or here for recent examples), one of the things that amazes me is the continued mention of Derrick Favors as a centerpiece of the deal.  Yes, he of the 6.5 ppg and 5 rpg.  I guess the theory is that he has tremendous “upside.”

Well, yeah… if by “upside” you mean the amount of miraculous improvement we’d have to see for the guy to become an impact player.

For years, I’ve been unable to understand how so many NBA GM’s get intrigued by false “upside” so regularly.  To be clear, when I’m talking about players who were highly valued because of their “upside,” I’m talking about guys who went to college and didn’t perform at a star’s level.  Sorry for being all lawyerly, but, when I say “perform at a star’s level” I mean that the guy either started on a Final Four team, or was named to at least one of (i) his all-conference team or (ii) the All-American team.  That’s a relatively simple way to separate the guys who distinguished themselves in college from the guys who didn’t; only the first group contains guys with real achievements.

For all the talk of “upside” that we hear around the NBA Draft and the trade deadline, I can’t think of a single star who represents an example of someone with no track record of success but lots of “upside” who turned that “upside” into consistent performance.  Literally, not one.

Think of the top 15 players in the league today.  We could argue about who’s in that group, but it’s generally safe to say that it looks something like this (in no particular order)

1. Kobe

2. LeBron

3. Wade

4. CP3

5. Deron Williams

6. Amar’e

7. Howard

8. Dirk

9. Derrick Rose

10. Carmelo

11.  Durant

12. Pierce

13. Ginobili

14. Westbrook

15. Pao Gasol

When testing my statement that nobody who went to college and failed to distinguish himself wound up becoming a star, the guys who never went to college do not weigh on the analysis.  (I guess some might say that it’s a copout for me to make an argument about how young players get analyzed without addressing the stars who didn’t play in college.  But I’m not arguing that untested young guys never amount to anything — I’m arguing that the guys who played in college but didn’t do much don’t deserve to be treated like valuable assets.)

Working from that list of 15, let’s see what the data tells us:

1. Kobe – No college.

2. LeBron – No college.

3. Wade – Carried Marquette to the Final Four

4. CP3 – First Team All-American as a sophomore at Wake Forest

5. Deron Williams – Led Illinois to the Finals

6. Amar’e – No college.

7. Howard – No college.

8. Dirk – No college.

9. Derrick Rose – Led Memphis to the Finals

10. Carmelo – Led Syracuse to a championship

11.  Durant – AP player of the year as a freshman at Texas

12. Pierce – First Team All-American as a junior at Kansas

13. Ginobili – No college.

14. Westbrook – Played on a UCLA team that went to the Final Four

15. Pao Gasol – No college.

In sum, each of the guys on this list who went to college did some BALLIN’ when he was there.  There isn’t a single guy on the list who went to college and failed to assert himself.

Against that backdrop, let’s return to Derrick Favors.  A “power forward,” he was only the second-leading rebounder on his Georgia Tech team during his only year there.  (And it’s not like he was part of a dominating front-court tag-team with the next Moses Malone — the guy had fewer rebounds than someone named Gani Lawal.  Then again, maybe it’s possible that Lawal has tremendous “upside,” too, and that this was actually the most talented big-man tandem in the history of college hoops.  Ahem.)  That Georgia Tech team, a #10 seed, lost in the second round of the NCAA tournament.

Some guys look at that track record and, because of something about Favors (his height?  his jumping ability? his carefully trimmed goatee?) see reason to get excited about his “upside.”  I look at Favors, and see a guy who hasn’t done much to get excited about.  (Though I must admit that his goatee is well-maintained.)

The Nets were wrong to draft him at #3.  The Nuggets would be wrong to accept him as the main piece in a trade involving Carmelo Anthony.  All he’s got is “upside,” and history suggests that “upside” is nothing more than a wish that a guy who hasn’t accomplished much will miraculously get much better.

Leave a Comment:

As all 3 of my devoted readers know, I have blogged frequently about how LeBron’s teammates in Cleveland were good enough to win a title with, and a bit less frequently about the flaws with the current Miami Heat roster (give me time, we’re only 25% through the season).  After all that blogging, I knew, as I watched the Heat put a beating on the Cavs last week, that I had some ‘splanin’ to do.  So, let me ‘splain…

In this posting, I talked about the importance of having players in the appropriate “slot” on their rosters, and said that the fortunes of a few teams in today’s NBA make more sense when seen through that prism.  (Apologies to those who were eagerly awaiting this follow-up; I said I’d elaborate on the point in my “next posting,” and then my next posting wound up being about Jim Boeheim.  Sorry.)

The Heat and the Cavs are two clear illustrations of what I’m trying to say.  I’ll start with the Cavs, who looked dreadful — not because they don’t have good players on the team, but because each player is playing one or two “slots” ahead of where he belongs.

To quickly go down the roster: Mo Williams is not capable of being the best player on a good NBA team.  But he’s perfectly adequate to be the second best player on a contender.  (Some people scoff at this, I know.  But they’re wrong.  Mo Williams is comparable to Jason Richardson, Vince Carter, and Roy Hibbert, each of whom is the second-best player on a playoff contending team.)  If Antawn Jamison is your second-best player, you’re in bad shape, but you could scrape by with him as your third-best.  Anderson Varejao was one of the best fourth-best-players in the league, and J.J. Hickson is a capable fifth-best player.  But, as the third and fourth best guys on a team, they are average at best.  Guys on the Cavs’ bench, like Daniel Gibson and Ramon Sessions, can play quality minutes on a good team, but can’t be expected to get an otherwise-deficient team over the hump.

Basically, the Cavs are one superstar away from having the pieces in place to be a competitor.  In other words, they were good enough to win with LeBron.  To be fair, I think they needed an upgrade in the third-best player slot, bumping Jamison to fourth and Varejao to fifth, in order to be dominant.  But, as far as holes on a roster go, a team that only needs an upgrade in the 3rd slot to be dominant is right in the mix of things.  So… just because they got pounded by the Heat, and looked hapless in the process, doesn’t prove that LeBron’s supporting cast in Cleveland wasn’t good enough to win with.

Then there’s the Heat, one of the most interesting experiments with an NBA roster that I can remember.  It’s not clear who the #1 guy is, because they have two #1 guys. Having LeBron and Wade in the top two “slots” on your roster has a chance to work simply because of the combined talent; they might  just be talented enough to overcome the fact that neither of them is really suited to be a “second” guy on any team.  And Bosh might one day become a capable “third” guy, but he has no track record of doing that.  All he’s ever been is the best guy on a terrible team.

After that, it gets ugly, especially with their current injuries.  Mario Chalmers is not good enough to be the fourth best guy on a championship team.  Joel Anthony, well, he’s not even a rotation player on a championship team!

The key here is Mike Miller.  In terms of talent, he’s clearly good enough to be the “fourth” guy on a championship team.  And, because he’s such a good spot-up shooter — capable of making a big impact while having the ball in his hands for only one or two seconds per possession if his teammates are creating good looks for him — his game is suited to be the fourth best guy on a very good team.

But there’s no guarantee that Miller will make this team much better.  For starters, he can’t do anything to change the fact that only one of the “top 3” guys on the team is in the “slot” where he belongs.  And, getting back to the earlier point about having guys on the floor who fill traditional roles on a basketball team (which I blogged about here), it’s not clear to me that a lineup of James, Wade, Bosh, and Miller is capable of greatness.  Sure, they’re talented enough to consistently beat about 85% of the teams in the league.  But what about teams with an excellent point guard and big man?  I just don’t see how that lineup stops Parker and Duncan, CP3 and West, Rose and Boozer, or Rondo and KG with any regularity.

More on that over the next few weeks, I’m sure.

2 Comments:

  • your momma

    The knicks beat down reminded me of another NY beat down – when the Jets talked trash to the Patriots and got their butts handed to them – similar to the Knicks and the Heat. Did people forget that Lebron is the best regular season player in the NBA – I know Knicks fans will know that after the game. The knicks put up a good fight for the first half but the cream always rises to the top. I think Big Z had at least three blocks and D. Wade who is maybe 6’4″ got a big block on your premiere big man. Landry fields is a letter shy of what Cubans refer to as ropa vieja. Keep balling and keep your heads up Knicks fans – hopefully as much as all of you don’t want to admit it – you need Melo to become a top tier team.

  • TeesteBon

    Just popping in to say nice site.

1 Trackback or Pingback for this entry:

Leave a Comment: