Every draft, it appears that too many player legends are created based on the “P” word – the “P” word that has GMs and scouts (and fans for that matter) dreaming during the off-season – the “P” word that too often gets GMs and scouts ripped and possibly fired once the season begins. That 
“P” word is none other than potential.
Chad Ford wrote a piece about certain players that have been drafted late whose games were more geared towards the pros than they were for the college level. One player he mentioned was Russell Westbrook, who went from being a piece of a guard triumvirate at UCLA to being one of the best young guards in the NBA. Westbrook, taken as the 4th overall pick in the 2008 draft, was drafted well above where his production would have suggested, but GMs and scouts (and plenty of fans, including the TKB gang) understood that with his athleticism, motor, and length, Westbrook was primed to become a strong NBA player. In that case, Westbrook’s potential got him drafted ahead of more established players in his class, and now two years later, Westbrook has proven GM Sam Presti to be a genius.
However, for each Russell Westbrook, there are plenty of players that have flopped who were described by the wrong “P” word coming into the draft. If you scroll over the history of the draft, you will see just how many players drafted based on potential have flopped and how many players taken on production have shined. In recent draft history, names like Carlos Boozer, Gil Arenas, David West, DeJuan Blair, Darren Collison, and our very own Toney Douglas led productive college careers and proved to be capable of playing at the NBA level. Players in that mold for this year’s draft are guys like Patrick Patterson, Craig Brackins, Trevor Booker, Damion James, Quincy Pondexter, Sherron Collins, among others. With that all said, a guy like Adam Morrison is the poster child for guys that prove to be great college players and no so great pros.
That is not to say that I am against drafting players with potential, i.e. players who I believe will be better as pros than they were as collegiates. We all know that the pro game and the college game differ. The pro game is faster and has better athletes, but the college game is more organized and mechanical in my opinion. The pro game is looser in my opinion and it allows for individuals to shine moreso than the team oriented game in the NCAA. Because of that, there are certain players who I feel are more suited for the pro game. One guy that I felt strongly about who was in that category was Rudy Gay. When he was at UConn, there was no denying his talent – he was always the most talented player on the floor. Despite that, his production did not always reflect that talent. His style and skills were perfect for the NBA. A few years after being drafted, Gay’s career is on the upswing and he is in line for a fat payday.
This crop of players is more interesting because of that dirty potential word. The guys that I feel can be better pros than college players include: Willie Warren, Dexter Pittman (because of his strength and size), John Wall, Derrick Favors, Greg Monroe, Jerome Jordan, Brian Zoubek, Cole Aldrich, Wes Johnson, Paul George, and Lance Stephenson (just to name a few).
The bottom line is that potential is something to look for in players, but sometimes it overshadows what a player is actually capable of doing. Championships are not won on potential. They never have been and never will be. Potential is good until the player takes the floor. If at that point the player is not productive, then what was that potential really worth in the first place?
Great post Chris. Very interesting stuff. It’s always an interesting debate for any team Im sure as to what kind of player to take, Potential or Production?
I read this somewhere,Whaddaya think?…Wilson Chandler for Mike Connely and their 28 pick
conley isn’t very good and hes making 5 mil a year next year so we would be taking 3 mil more in salary. if the trade involved curry and other salaries that matched and maybe picks 25 and 28 i would consider it but there’s no reason to give up someone like chandler for a pg thats slightly better than duhon while taking away cap space
From the article i read,it says Conely has improved alot every season and hes only 22
That’s a pretty decent trade Bob. I don’t think Conley is great, but he’s a solid pg and to get a 1st round draft pick too is nice. Its not a great trade imo, but it’s pretty solid. I would seriously consider that.
I like that trade from a Knicks perspective. Don’t love it.
Warren has amazing “potential”. He had a rough season last year but still put up 16 points, 4 assists, and a steal a game, which isn’t bad at all production wise when your getting double teamed the entire game. 2nd best shooter at the combine, and his athleticism all point to him being a potential steal if he slips past the 20′s. DraftExpress has him at the highest fg% in half court situations, the highest fg% in one on one scenarios, the highest adjusted field goal percentage in pick and roll situations and top finisher in their sg situational analysis.
jerome jordan is awesome he’s a steal in the 2nd round, and might end up being better than whiteside or alabi in the future.
if we are able to somehow trade/buy up in the draft and materialized our picks into warren, jordan, and brackins that would be the perfect draft for us. Great balance between drafting team needs, talent/potential, and actual past production.
zoubek is pretty bad though i think i’d take any of the projected second round centers over him
Most college players has the potential to be great in the right setting. It’s a crap-shoot! Therefore, I do agree that a good college player doesn’t mean they can excel at the next level as well as an alright college player becoming a star!
So, does that make a great GM for selecting a player that excels? Absolutely Not! Its a crap-shoot!
I will write more about it later this week, but Willie Warren is one of the players that I want coming out of this draft. I think he has the potential (oops) to explode in the NBA. I think he will be better in the pros than he was at Okl.
Zoubek is pretty bad, but he is a good rebounder and I think he will clog the interior on defense. I think he can find a niche at the next level. You can’t teach size, especially that kind of size.
And for the record, I am not a Zoubek fan.
Nice piece Chris.
I agree with you on Warren. Knicks need a PG like him, which usually means we won’t get him.
Good article man. This is why Gm’s have to make educated decisions on where they decide to take someone rather than whether the player has enough potential or enough production. For example if you taking a guy like Eric Bledsoe at lets say between the 20th and 25th pick is a great call. His potential is unlimited and he does seem like the type of player who skill set will translate better in the pros than it did in college. However, his experience and production is down do to not playing enough point guard. Therefore taking a gamble, as all picks are, on Bledsoe in the top 10 is stupid. To me its more about where a Gm decides to take a player rather than the question of whether to pick based on potential or production. This is a good reason why I am one of the few it seems on this site who believes the better move would have been for the knicks to select Lopez at 6 rather then Gallo. Gallo is still running on potential when we talk about him now. Lopez had potential and production to me that makes you a top 10 pick and Gallo not so much. Now if the Knicks traded down and picked up Gallo at 20 now that a good selection. I believe in order to be a top 10 pick you have to have not only production but potential to me thats a top 10 pick. John Wall represents both.
understood
proven production and high potential = lottery pick
It’s unfair not mention the role that organizations and coaches play in developing the P word, potential. Yes, Russell Westbrook has flourished as has Kevin Durant and others in OKC. They seem to have a knack for picking people to fit their system and bring them along. Yes, it’s largely on the players shoulders, but unless you have an organization to bring it out, potential can be a dirty word.
San Antonio is also a franchise that can find and develop players. The Knicks despite tanking the last few seasons have brought along N8, Lee, Chandler, and now Walker and Douglas. Hope that we get the right potential players for our team. I was disappointed that Jordan Hill didn’t get more of a shot as we will be hard pressed to find someone that athletic at the 4 in the draft.
You can find player that have production in college that will flop in the pros. You see them drafted all time. Adam Morrison is a classic example. So you really needt both science (production) and art (potential) to find players.
Chris,
Good write up but you REALLY should remove Cole Aldrich and Wesley Johnson from your list of “potential” guys.
The general consensus is that Aldrich has already reached his peak – a good defender/shotblocker/rebounder who can score around the basket, but w/o the mobility/athleticism/low-post moves to be a dominant big. He’s Joel Pryzbilla/Kendrick Perkins 2.0. Not that that’s a bad thing. They’re both solid role players on playoff teams.
Same goes for Johnson. He’s a 23 yr. old Junior (and will be 24 his rookie year, much like DWTDD) who’s a plus athlete/defender/finisher w/a subpar jumper & ballhandling skills. His range looks to be somewhere between RIchard Jefferson at his peak and Stacey Augmon/Corey Brewer on the low end of the scale. But again, he really put up numbers at Syracuse and shouldn’t be called a ‘potential guy.
In that category, you should have mentioned Daniel Orton, who averaged 3pts and 3 rpg & couldn’t get any pt behind Patterson/Cousins, yet is expected to go somewhere between 12-20.
Ed Davis of UNC is another big who was expected to dominate and everyone has going top-10 even though he had a rather pedestrian season.
The big “Production” draftee has to be Greivis Vasquez. He averaged 20 pts 6 dimes and 4 rebounds and pretty much carried a weak Maryland squad every night. Even though he’s a 6’6″ true PG, he’s an early 2nd rounder at best, b/c of his limited athleticism/speed/jumper.
Same goes for Jon Scheyer – the leading scorer (18 ppg 4 rpg 4 apg) for the nat’l champs, he’s a late 2nd/undrafted b/c it’s assumed that he won’t be able ‘to find a position to defend in the pros.
And b/c he’s Jewish (KIDDING!)
He shouldn’t go to Italy then
Aldrich and Wes Johnson are guys that I think can be better in the pros than they were in college. However, they were both productive in college as well.
Also, I love Jon Scheyer. I am surprised I left him off my list because I talk about him all the time.
Scheyer’s an interesting player. Hoopsanalyst.com (an underrated site for draft evaluation) has an interesting write-up on him
http://hoopsanalyst.com/blog/?p=504#more-504
“The reason I find Scheyer intriguing as a prospect is he seems like the type of player who would work well with a superstar. He’s smart, team-oriented, low-mistake, high-efficiency, etc. He possesses a lot of the qualities that teams are looking for in supporting players now, including the ability to drill the 3-pointer. The low RSB40 suggests he’s a little weak athletically and that won’t help his case. I do feel Scheyer is worth a 2nd-round draft pick. He does a lot of things well and he was one of the main players on an NCAA championship team that was devoid of great prospects. While he doesn’t look like a traditional prospect, he has flashed enough promise to make him worth a look.”
I hate falling into the trap of only comparing white players to other white players, Euros to Euros, etc., but Steve Kerr is probably the best-case scenario for what Scheyer might be in the pros – a good shooting backup PG/SG w/solid court vision & the ability to knock down open shots when the ball is rotated to him after LeBron/MJ/Kobe/Duncan gets double-teamed. But w/o the athleticism/speed to start or defend consistently.