Matthew Yglesias (February 07, 2007) - Player of the Year (Sports)

The fact that "legit franchise players" don't spend much time in college basketball anymore has some relevance here.

Posted by ploeg | February 7, 2007 12:32 PM

The fact that "legit franchise players" don't spend much time in college basketball anymore has some relevance here.

True. Clearly, the new ban on high schoolers is relevant. Kevin Durant is the leading POY candidate as a freshman. In earlier times, Greg Oden would be starting in Toronto right now and Durant would be in Portland or Charlotte or somewhere.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | February 7, 2007 12:35 PM

The list is certainly damning, but further back the recipient list also includes Bill Walton, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, and Patrick Ewing.

Posted by JackSC | February 7, 2007 12:37 PM

If you exclude a player the caliber of Brand as a elgit franchise player, that leaves maybe Wade, Dirk, Duncan, KG, Kobe, Nash, Arenas, Lebron, Amare, Yao, Carmelo, and maybe Bosh as franchise guys. I count 16 college seasons between them, most of them as freshmen and sophmores, who are very unlikely to win a POY award, even on merits.

Posted by Daniel | February 7, 2007 12:40 PM

The list of ACC players of the year is even worse. Given the caliber of the league, the ACC POY is always among the top few college players, but look at the last few years - Juan Dixon, Joe Forte, Chris Carrawell.

Posted by ptm | February 7, 2007 12:41 PM

I'd say the relationship between being a great NBA player and having been a great college player is still pretty strong. TJ Ford may have won that award in '03, but Dwyane Wade was a first-team All-American and led his team to the Final Four, while Carmelo Anthony led his team to the national title. Aside from the straight-from-HS guys like Lebron, Kobe, McGrady, etc., and the foreign players who didn't go to college, most NBA stars were big-time players in college. Of course, being a great college player often doesn't lead to greatness in the NBA, but I think the correlation in the other direction is still quite strong. Shaq might not have beaten out LJ and Laettner for player of the year, but he was already a megastar in college.

Posted by Haggai | February 7, 2007 12:42 PM

Let me just say that Lionel Simmons was a very fine player who was unfortunately crippled by injury.

Posted by Mark | February 7, 2007 12:49 PM

The Big Dog (Glenn Robinson) was a franchise player for a very good Bucks team for a good 6-7 years. Larry Johnson also had a successful career. Remember that Jamison, not Carter, was thought to be the better player coming out of UNC that year.

I think there is tremendous bias in these awards to give them to upperclassmen. And there are very few franchise players who stayed until even their junior year these days.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | February 7, 2007 12:53 PM

If you exclude a player the caliber of Brand as a elgit franchise player, that leaves maybe Wade, Dirk, Duncan, KG, Kobe, Nash, Arenas, Lebron, Amare, Yao, Carmelo, and maybe Bosh as franchise guys. I count 16 college seasons between them, most of them as freshmen and sophmores, who are very unlikely to win a POY award, even on merits.

And

Aside from the straight-from-HS guys like Lebron, Kobe, McGrady, etc., and the foreign players who didn't go to college, most NBA stars were big-time players in college.

Sure, sure, it's not that there aren't reasons why so few of the top NBA stars never won POY. Many top stars are foreign. Many top stars entered the league straight from HS. Many top stars who did go to college leave school early.

Nevertheless, the basic point stands here. It's rarely the case that being the most successful college player is indicative of being an extremely promising professional.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | February 7, 2007 12:53 PM

Perhaps the issue is that "Player of the Year" means something more like "top player on the best (or most surprisingly good) team". It's not "best college player overall".

Posted by Al | February 7, 2007 12:59 PM

the college game is a different game than the pros, although i think matthew's 12:53 might overstate the case a touch (a lot depends upon how much weight matthew intended to give the word "extremely"). very few of these players were absolute failures after all.

but actually, this gave me a chance to look up the AP player of the year (which predated the naismith) and refresh myself that if you want to see guys who were horrendous pros named college player of the year, you should look at 1963 (art heyman) and 1964 (gary bradds):

http://www.hickoksports.com/history/collbaskpoy.shtml#ap

PS. ralph sampson, who won the ap award 3 years running, wasn't exactly a monster pro either, but he was certainly better than heyman (whom my knicks idiotically chose when nate thurmond was available! not to mention gus johnson) or bradds.

Posted by howard | February 7, 2007 1:05 PM

Well, if your standard is merely "extremely promising" and not "future MVP or franchise player", then I disagree. Look at the past 10. Duncan, 'Twan, Brand, and Battier are legit stars. K-Mart and Non-Felon Jason Williams were stopped by injuries, T.J. Ford is a borderline star after missing time from injuries. The last three are the only ones that haven't either become stars or gotten injured, and I sure don't see any of them becoming stars.

Also, in 2005 Redick won one of the POY awards.

Posted by ptm | February 7, 2007 1:10 PM

Really, the question is what best predicts future NBA success. As between college success, high school ranking, and some measure of athleticism and size, I'd personally rank them high school ranking, athleticism/size, and college success.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 7, 2007 1:18 PM

It's worth noting (if obvious) that the college game is vastly different than the pro game. All of the differences are magnified - skills vary wildly, defenses vary wildly, parity is non-existent past the top 20 schools, etc. College rarely rewards the 'franchise' player the way the NBA does. Think Hank Gathers or Hersey Hawkins. With 300 schools there's not enough talent to go around for Loyola Marymount or Bradley to mount a winning campaign against the likes of Duke. The NBA is different. You can assemble a team more easily. And that player of the years comes from one of the top 5 teams and those players fill particular niches that the NBA's wide open game doesn't resemble.

Posted by Pat | February 7, 2007 1:24 PM

Yeah, there's a surprising amount of injury hard luck on that list. Manning, Simmons, LJ, Joe Smith, Camby, Martin, Williams and Ford have all had pretty severe injury setbacks. Laettner was a pretty good player for a few years in the middle of his career before he too had some bad injuries.

I think you are forgetting what a beast LJ in particular was before he had back problems in his Hornets days. He was a legit comparison to Barkley.

Big Dog was an AS/bordeline for many years (and is probably the main reason that Sammy C. only made one team is that those Bucks teams weren't going to get all three of Ray-Ray, Dog, and SamIAm on the squad)

Posted by Pooh | February 7, 2007 1:50 PM

The biggest difference between college and nba is the size of the players and the length of the season. If you look at that list of players, mostly the failed to become stars in the NBA because they were either too small to play the position in the NBA that they played in college (eg, LJ, Ferry, the Big Dog (not so big for the nba)), or they weren't durable enough to survive the nba season (manning & camby for example).

Posted by Lee | February 7, 2007 1:53 PM

I would say there are two types of players who thrive in college and struggle in the pros: shoot-first point guards and undersized or slow swingmen. Shoot-first PG's like Jameer Nelson, Juan Dixon, and (probably) Jason Williams often dominate in college, but are exposed in the NBA, since they can't score as easily and never possessed true PG skills. Some, like Nelson, become pretty solid pros. Others, like Chauncey Billups, even become stars - but it generally takes quite a while and more often then not, they end up as backups or lower tier starters, despite their college stardom.

Same with underdized SG/SF's like Joe Forte, Calbert Cheney, and Reddick. They can't create their shot in the NBA and they tend to be serious defensive liabilities.

Big guys tend to hold up the best. In fact, I recall ex-Celts GM Chris Wallace once saying that the statistic that transfers best from the college to pro game is rebounding. Of course, I believe he made this comment while talking up the sure fire success of Brandon Hunter in the NBA (Hunter was an undersized PF taken #56 in the 2003 draft...he's in Italy these days).

Posted by owenz | February 7, 2007 1:55 PM

Skilled centers/mobile power forwards are the franchise players first. There are very few of them. Duncan, Dirk, Stoudemire, young Shaq, Bird, and the franchise player of all time, Kareem. Now a true point guard can control a game but only if he has the tools to work with, ie Steve Nash (and freakish Magic, a power forward sized super skilled guard, and near freakish LeBron James). Phil is trying to recreate the Bulls in Los Angeles with Kobe playing the role of Jordan. But if he is able to develop Bynum, then Bynum will become the franchise and Kobe will be shipped off because I assume he won't pass to him either once he figures out that he really isn't the here and now or the future. All these other guys, the Melos, the AIs, Michael Redds etc are just drawing salaries. Gilbert Arenas would be perfect for San Antonio.

Posted by Cal | February 7, 2007 1:56 PM

Even more than Lionel Simmons, Larry Johnson and Danny Manning lost a big part of their careers to injury. Not just games or seasons played, but quality of play when they were on the court. Johnson, by the time he was with the Knicks, was a shadow of his former self. I think those two guys would have earned the "franchise" tag.

A quibble: putting up big numbers in college has only a vague relationship to *being elected College POY*. For one thing, there's media bias so that Wade at Marquette and Nash at Santa Clara were at big disadvantages because they weren't in the "right conference." Also, and I guess you can read this as a slam on the college game, the NCAA individual leaders in scoring, assists, rebounds are very often on mediocre teams.

Posted by Dix Hill | February 7, 2007 2:01 PM

I don't see J.J. Redick being any more than role player. But the reason a great college player can simply be a role player in the NBA is that he was a go-to guy for his team, and because of that his numbers were terrific. But, in the NBA, he'll be nothing more than a guard whose almost sole purpose is to shoot the ball (if he ever gets beyond 12 minutes per game). He won't be expected to make amazing plays a la Nash or, going further back, Magic Johnson. If he ever gets more playing time, he'll be there to back up Hill, Howard, and Nelson. More accurately, he'll probably be a drifter for teams looking for consistent perimeter shooting and not much else. The problem is not in the players, but in the difference between college and pro ball, the former allowing would-be role players to put up huge numbers because, hey, the vast majority of their opponents won't play in the NBA.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | February 7, 2007 2:04 PM

PS. ralph sampson, who won the ap award 3 years running, wasn't exactly a monster pro either

Look at what he did before his knees fell apart: he averaged a double-double in his first three seasons in the league, and over 20 PPG his first two. That's pretty damn good.

Posted by Josh | February 7, 2007 2:23 PM

I think the key factors have both been cited already. The top college player is usually a senior who has stuck around long enough to master the college game, whereas the top NBA prospects nowadays leave school early if they go at all. Guys like Steve Nash are penalized for playing at smaller schools.

But the size factor is truly crucial, and needs to be emphasized. I saw Calbert Cheaney play regularly, and he really was a franchise player against collegiate competition... he was a true swingman, could create off the dribble or hit a runner off a screen, play lockdown man-to-man defense, you name it. He could hit a (20-foot) three-pointer on the fast break, hardly breaking stride. Great decision making skills. But he was about 6'5" and his speed and athleticism were one step below what you need in the NBA.

The NBA game is scaled up, and the Darwinian selection pressures are much stronger.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | February 7, 2007 2:29 PM

Josh, I was going to defend Sampson but you beat me to it. He was Rookie of the year, and let the post-Malone Rockets (along with Olajuwaon - Twin Towers!) to the Finals vs. Bird and the Celtics. Seriously, he was 7-4 dude who could dribble the court before his knees went out. Of course, I went to UVa, so I have an admitted bias.

Posted by Chaz | February 7, 2007 2:31 PM

In the previous basketball thread, I mentioned that the only two "sure-fire" prospects to come into the NBA in the past 15 years were Shaq and LeBron, with Yao and Duncan a notch below that.

There was outrage voiced by others about Duncan, with the explanation given that Duncan had been dominant against the competition he'd faced prior to the NBA draft.

But, of course, this thread kinda speaks to my point. What defines an exceptional prospect isn't how they've performed against weak pre-NBA players. Instead, it's having a mutant-like NBA body.

It's not at all unusual for a player to be incredibly successful at the pre-NBA level, but to then be just mediocre once the competition level takes its quantum leap into the pros. See Morrison, Adam for further information.

Posted by Petey | February 7, 2007 2:42 PM

"Of course, I went to UVa, so I have an admitted bias."

You went to UVa, and yet you can seeming read and write? You must have really thrown the grading curve off down there.

Posted by Petey | February 7, 2007 2:43 PM

i don't want to get caught up in semantics on a side issue, here, but that ralph sampson had a couple of nice years doesn't make him a "monster pro." if we were going to look for a comparable, it would be kevin garnett: a really tall 3. would anyone seriously take a healthy ralph sampson over kevin garnett?

as for ralph "leading," no, my friends, that was olajuwon "leading."

Posted by howard | February 7, 2007 2:49 PM

Remember that Jamison, not Carter, was thought to be the better player coming out of UNC that year.

Debatable. True, Toronto selected Jamison one spot before Golden State selected Carter. But then Toronto and Golden State immediately traded, bizarrely.

Posted by Antid Oto | February 7, 2007 2:53 PM

Perhaps if the Celtics acquire Danny Ferry they can continue their hot streak('89)!

Posted by theCoach | February 7, 2007 3:00 PM

If you think college basketball POY awards poorly predict dominance in the NBA, check out the list of Naismith high school POY:

2001 Dajuan Wagner Camden High School, Camden, NJ
2000 Gerald Wallace Childersburg High School, Childersburg, AL
1999 Donnell Harvey Randolph Clay High School, Cuthbert, GA
1998 Al Harrington St. Patrick High School, Elizabeth, NJ
1997 Shane Battier Detroit Country Day School, Beverly Hills, MI
1996 Kobe Bryant Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA
1995 Ron Mercer Oak Hill Academy, Mount of Wilson, VA
1994 Jerod Ward Clinton High School, Clinton, MS
1993 Randy Livingston Isidore Newman School, New Orleans, LA
1992 Jason Kidd St. Joseph Notre Dame High School, Alameda, CA
1991 Chris Webber Detroit Country Day School, Birmingham, MI
1990 Damon Bailey North Lawrence High School, Bedford, IN
1989 Kenny Anderson Archbishop Molloy High School, Jamaica, NY
1988 Alonzo Mourning Indian River High School, Chesapeake, VA
1987 Dennis Scott Flint Hill Prep, Oakton, VA

Posted by brayden | February 7, 2007 3:25 PM

Cal says: Skilled centers/mobile power forwards are the franchise players first. There are very few of them. Duncan, Dirk, Stoudemire, young Shaq, Bird, and the franchise player of all time, Kareem. Now a true point guard can control a game but only if he has the tools to work with, ie Steve Nash (and freakish Magic, a power forward sized super skilled guard, and near freakish LeBron James). .... All these other guys, the Melos, the AIs, Michael Redds etc are just drawing salaries.

Let me first express the totally non-gay man crush I have on Cal. I could not agree more with the above. This is precisely the reason I said teams would be crazy to take Durant over Oden in the last hoops thread. High scoring wingmen not named Jordan are never as valuable as big guys. Heck, Kobe can average 40 ppg and still be less valuable than Dirk or Duncan. That's not a knock on Kobe - it's just a reality of the NBA. I also agree that a dominant PG is the next best thing after a big guy, but is even harder to find. Cal rules, obviously.

Posted by owenz | February 7, 2007 3:50 PM

Heck, Kobe can average 40 ppg and still be less valuable than Dirk or Duncan. That's not a knock on Kobe - it's just a reality of the NBA.

I think that concedes way too much, but I'd take Oden over Durant, too, and on the basis of roughly the same justification.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 7, 2007 4:02 PM

SomeCallMeTim says: I think that concedes way too much

I realize you're a Kobe fan, but...really? Kobe averaged 35 ppg last year and is average 28 ppg this year. Was he really that much more valuable last year? Would another 5 ppg over last year's average make him that much more valuable? Therein lies the problem with wingmen: their scoring just isn't that valuable from a team wins perspective. I would argue that all things being equal, an additional 2 or 3 assists or rebounds per game from Kobe would impact the Lakers a lot more than a bump up to 40 ppg.

Perhaps this is oversimplifying it, but the difference between big guys and wingmen is that big guys score, rebound, and guard the rim. Wingmen just score and guard the perimeter. Without a truly extraordinary auxillary skill (like Lebron's passing), the dominant SG's scoring is not as valuable as the dominant big guy's package of skills.

Posted by owenz | February 7, 2007 4:13 PM

i don't want to get caught up in semantics on a side issue, here, but that ralph sampson had a couple of nice years doesn't make him a "monster pro." if we were going to look for a comparable, it would be kevin garnett: a really tall 3. would anyone seriously take a healthy ralph sampson over kevin garnett?

What? His stats for his first three years in the league are at least equal to Ewing's *his* first three years in the league, if not better. (Sampson trails Ewing by ~2 PPG in their third years, but then again he's got a ~2 RPG lead.) Olajuwon was substantially better than either of them, but I'd say Sampson's got a pretty good claim to "monster pro if his knees don't collapse".

Posted by Josh | February 7, 2007 4:16 PM

well, i guess i'm going to get caught up in a semantics issue for at least another couple of minutes.

as a side note, let me say that ewing had terrible knees, too, all right? and they were particularly problematic his first two years in the league before he bulked up and gritted his teeth.

but that is a side note: can it really be that we are spending time determining whether a pretty good 3 was a "monster pro?" please. are you really saying, josh, that you consider ralph sampson to be kevin garnett's peer?

ralph was neither a great shotblocker nor an intense defender (since you bring ewing up, those were two of his attributes); he was a very good player within his capabilities, averaging a double-double does not make you a "monster" pro. indeed, the general consensus about ralph (go ask the celts who beat him) was that he was a pretty soft player.

the whole reason i bring this up is that sampson was declared the college player of the year 3 years running by the AP; how many mvp votes did ralph ever get?

Posted by howard | February 7, 2007 5:35 PM

josh, you sent me looking for quotes from bill fitch about ralph, and i found this one:

"Ralph was who Ralph was, and that's just the way he wanted to play basketball," said his Rockets coach, Bill Fitch. "Because of his build, he wasn't gonna be able to do a lot of dominant things against the real pros inside.

"But he could take the ball off the board and start the fast break as well as anybody I've ever coached. You take Dave Cowens, Nate Thurmond, Jim Chones and Olajuwon — none of them ever got the ball and cleared it for the break like Ralph."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/bk/bkn/rox/3665930.html

in other words, he was a very nice player, but not a monster pro....

Posted by howard | February 7, 2007 5:48 PM

but that is a side note: can it really be that we are spending time determining whether a pretty good 3 was a "monster pro?" please. are you really saying, josh, that you consider ralph sampson to be kevin garnett's peer?

Over the course of their respective careers? Of course not; Sampson was done after his third year in the league. But based on his performance before he started having massive knee problems? Yes.

ralph was neither a great shotblocker nor an intense defender (since you bring ewing up, those were two of his attributes);

Sampson was almost as good a shotblocker his first two years in the league as Ewing was his first two (Sampson was third in the league in his rookie season). After that, Sampson's shotblocking tailed off, but then again Olajuwon was on the team by then, and he was a better shotblocker than either Sampson *or* Ewing.

he was a very good player within his capabilities, averaging a double-double does not make you a "monster" pro.

He wasn't just averaging a double-double, he was a 20/10 guy as soon as he joined the league. He was a top-5 rebounder in his rookie season. That's more than just "very good player within his capabilities".

indeed, the general consensus about ralph (go ask the celts who beat him) was that he was a pretty soft player.

I don't care about "soft". I care about "good".

Posted by Josh | February 7, 2007 5:49 PM

Hell, look at the NBA rookie of the year awards over the same time period. Only three of your current list of franchise players - Duncan, LeBron and Amare - won that award. Picking one award as a barometer for future performance is never going to work very well.

Posted by Craig | February 7, 2007 7:12 PM

well, josh, de gustibus non est disputandum: i honestly never thought i would see the claim that 20/10 makes you a "monster," or the claim that ralph sampson with no knee problems was kevin garnett's peer, but there you have it.

for the record, the year sampson was rookie-of-the-year, he got zero MVP votes.

the next year, when he was still, in your estimation, a "monster," he got 26 points, finishing tenth, behind such other "monsters" as terry cummings and sidney moncrief (hell, bernard king, who only played 55 games that season, got 70 points).

the next year, when he was still, in your estimation, a "monster" (and his team went to the finals), he got 0 points, behind such "monsters" as buck williams, paul pressey, terry cummings, and alex english.

conceivably, of course, the voters were idiots....

Posted by howard | February 7, 2007 7:54 PM

I'm not arguing that he was a monster pro in his first three years, I'm arguing that he probably would have developed into one if he hadn't had the injury problems he did. There are exceedingly few players who are monsters their first couple of years in the league.

Posted by Josh | February 7, 2007 8:05 PM

I realize you're a Kobe fan, but...really?

I take Duncan's teammates to be widely considered much better than Kobe's, and Dirk's to be widely considered much, much, much better. I think the Lakers have an even chance to beat the Spurs in a five or seven game series, so --subtracting teammates--I think Kobe's more valuable than Duncan this year. I think the Mavs are better than the Lakers, but that a series would still go to the limit or close to it. Subtracting out teammates, I think Kobe's more valuable than Dirk.

It's going to be a fun, fun playoff season.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 7, 2007 8:10 PM

I'd say Larry Johnson was kinda-sorta a franchise player before his injuries, no? Grand-ma-ma?

Posted by Gregory Scoblete | February 7, 2007 8:50 PM

Ralph Sampson was a pussy, knee problems or no knee problems.

It had to be said.

Posted by Pooh | February 7, 2007 9:21 PM

Some thoughts:

- As someone pointed out, the start date is cherry-picked. The preceding seven winners were (reverse chronological order) David Robinson, Johnny Dawkins, Patrick Ewing, Michael Jordan, Ralph Sampson, Mark Aguirre, and Larry Bird. That includes four of the biggest franchise-changers in NBA history.

- The nature of the award is that it has as much to do with the team as the player. That said, this is far better than the Heisman Trophy, which has honored players like Eric Crouch and Jason White, who not only did absolutely nothing as professionals, but weren't even in the top 100 college players when they were in college.

- It's way too early to evaluate Bogut or Ford (because of his injuries). Jason WIlliams also got hurt, but the specific nature of his play as a rookie was a strong indicator that he'd never be a real star in the NBA.

- Elton Brand is awesome; if he doesn't make your cut, then that's a standard so high that it would be absurd to expect more than a quarter of your "franchise players" to make the list. He was the number 1 pick overall in 99, and in fact is the best player in the NBA from the 1999 draft. Does everyone have to be Larry Bird or David Robinson?

- Basketball is in fact the _easiest_ of the three major sports to accurately predict greatness for. It's not even close.

Posted by Yo | February 7, 2007 11:09 PM

I take Duncan's teammates to be widely considered much better than Kobe's, and Dirk's to be widely considered much, much, much better. I think the Lakers have an even chance to beat the Spurs in a five or seven game series, so --subtracting teammates--I think Kobe's more valuable than Duncan this year. I think the Mavs are better than the Lakers, but that a series would still go to the limit or close to it. Subtracting out teammates, I think Kobe's more valuable than Dirk.

Well, I think it's fair to say it's one of those "prove it" situations...but you could be right, I guess. One of Kobe's main problems, in my mind, is that most of his teammates haven't liked him very much over his caree. He's got a good coach and some promising talent around him these days, but Bynum is a long way off and I'm still not sure about Kobe's leadership ability. His refusal take shots the Lakers absolutely needed in Game 7 against Phoenix last year was almost surreal to watch. Kobe seemed a lot more interested in proving a point than actually winning. How can that be more valuable than what Duncan provides? He's a head case until he proves otherwise, I'm afraid.

Posted by owenz | February 8, 2007 12:46 AM

7 Dukies won the Naismith and 4 took home the Wooden over the past 20 years. The problem with the college awards is that blue devils are overrepresented.

Posted by Carolina Blue | February 8, 2007 3:17 AM

Could we put the Ralph Sampson thing to rest? By his third season he wasn't even the best center on his own team. He was never a monster in the NBA and never was headed in that path.

If you want to look at a center who only had a few years in the NBA before injuries killed him, but was already a monster, take a look at Bill Walton.

Posted by RickD | February 8, 2007 4:53 AM

Could we put the Ralph Sampson thing to rest? By his third season he wasn't even the best center on his own team. He was never a monster in the NBA and never was headed in that path.

An All-Star his first three seasons in the league, All-NBA his second season in the league and he was never headed towards being a monster? You and I have different standards of "monster". (I don't blame him for having the "misfortune" of playing next to one of the all-time great centers, either.)

Posted by Josh | February 8, 2007 3:12 PM

Player of the Year

Comments (47)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories