I see your High Schoolers and raise you Karl Malone, Duncan, David West, John Stockton, Al Horford, Grant Hill, Your Boy Noah, Cylde Drexler, Brad Daughtery, Terry Porter, and countless other superstars that made a huge impact in this league.
This is spot on. College develops the mental side of the game, that's why I have always liked taking "complete" players out of college. Of course I wouldn't pass on an elite athlete who can play at the same level right away.
Surprised it hasn't been brought up yet, but Stephen Curry is an interesting comparison. He also came out as a 4 year college player, posted a 16.3 PER his rookie year (Lillard posted a 16.4). He jumped up to 19.4 PER the following season and then hes been at 21 and change the last two seasons. Curry had to defer to Monta most of his career though so the jump in PER might not be as sure of a thing for Lillard, but he'll get better and he'll play with better teammates in the future.
Kareem had a per of 22.5 his rookie season. He played 3 years of college (he couldn't play varsity being a freshman). He jumped to a 29 PER the following season, then kept that average for another 2 years. Dropped to 26 average for another 8 years; then dropped to a 23 per; still better than his rookie per. I don't see how coming out from high school suddenly makes a player better?
Roy thought about going into the NBA right out of high school, even had a workout for the Blazers. The feedback he got from those workouts convinced him to go to college.
Nah. More like of all the HS to pro guys, 1/3 were at least as good as Jermaine O'Neal. If you look at the guys who went to college for 4 years, you won't find 33% were as good as Jermaine O'Neal. Not even close.
For a geek that believes in mathematics; you really gone off the deep end Denny. There are many variables that completely destroys your argument. 1.) the ratio of nba players that played a full tenure of college is much larger than that of high schoolers. Therefor there is a likelier chance of mediocre talent numbers. 2.) a high schooler that gets drafted is because that player is more talented than most in his class; therefor the chance of them succeeding is greater 3.) there are more total superstars that are clearly better than the majority of the high schoolers; like I've already posted off the top of my head. Clearly your hyperbole is losing its footing. Maybe you need to back up, relax and find another argument you have a higher qualification of debating?
How do you argue with this awesome logic. It's a perfect example of a strawman. I never argued you couldn't go to college and be an all-time great. Yet you stand up that argument and raise me what? Facepalm. My IQ goes down like 75 points when I read this kind of shit.
Face palm x2. This was a discussion of a 4 year player reaching their peak and you butt in saying that high schoolers have good careers. Obviously if you were paying attention; you'd understand why this was posted. And if you assumed something different; then maybe you should have made a new thread on just high schoolers being successful. It seems you need to slap your face a little harder.
40 some high schoolers in the history of basketball, compared to the thousands of 4 year college players won't skew your %? Lmao Denny has completely lost his mind!
Another strawman. You don't give up. I'll be the bigger man and let you "win." You may want to read about strawman again and maybe look at why you keep making those faulty logic arguments.
