There used to be an expression for the NFL Draft that the difference between a very strong Draft and a weak one was just two players. A thin margin. That reflected how relatively few players in the first round worked out as planned along with a super high bust rate. That wasn't the case for the NBA historically...but it is now.
Impact players are today limited in number and rarely are found outside the top 10. Compare the 1984 Draft (or any in the 80s for that matter) - a ton of talent and some really good players later in the picks.
I suspect that the one-and-done paradigm has dramatically reduced the very large sample size for American collegiate players that previously existed and made transitions and projections easier. Three years after the 84 Draft, the story wasn't Jordan, Barkley, Olajuwon or Stockton, it was how disappointing Sam Bowie was. In other words, the upside projections were far more accurate and less surprising then. The rare early busts were the focus. Today, on the other hand, only a few will make a material impact with many not working out.
I wonder if the market response is to now look to Europe to reduce risk. It used to be said that the Europeans were more skilled than their American collegiate counterparts e.g. Tony Kukoc. However, that faded a great deal - seemingly a lot after Darko was taken after LeBron. It seemed to change again with Doncic.
I remember driving home from work as the ESPN radio team was critical of Dallas trading the very popular Trae Young for Doncic...saying Dallas was robbed. That sort of thinking lasted for a couple of years as the media incessantly tracked and compared the two. No more.
Europe is back in fashion in a big way. Although, it now seems to be more about being NBA ready than a deep skill palette. A fascinating trend in any event.
There used to be an expression for the NFL Draft that the difference between a very strong Draft and a weak one was just two players. A thin margin. That reflected how relatively few players in the first round worked out as planned along with a super high bust rate. That wasn't the case for the NBA historically...but it is now.
Impact players are today limited in number and rarely are found outside the top 10. Compare the 1984 Draft (or any in the 80s for that matter) - a ton of talent and some really good players later in the picks.
I suspect that the one-and-done paradigm has dramatically reduced the very large sample size for American collegiate players that previously existed and made transitions and projections easier. Three years after the 84 Draft, the story wasn't Jordan, Barkley, Olajuwon or Stockton, it was how disappointing Sam Bowie was. In other words, the upside projections were far more accurate and less surprising then. The rare early busts were the focus. Today, on the other hand, only a few will make a material impact with many not working out.
I wonder if the market response is to now look to Europe to reduce risk. It used to be said that the Europeans were more skilled than their American collegiate counterparts e.g. Tony Kukoc. However, that faded a great deal - seemingly a lot after Darko was taken after LeBron. It seemed to change again with Doncic.
I remember driving home from work as the ESPN radio team was critical of Dallas trading the very popular Trae Young for Doncic...saying Dallas was robbed. That sort of thinking lasted for a couple of years as the media incessantly tracked and compared the two. No more.
Europe is back in fashion in a big way. Although, it now seems to be more about being NBA ready than a deep skill palette. A fascinating trend in any event.