In a hypothetical scenario where both Ivey and Sharpe were to play in NBA games tomorrow, and where Sharpe’s functional athleticism translates more or less at the same level as Iveys, but Sharpe is also a 40% three point shooter, and a better playmaker for others. In that scenario, which player has a higher risk of being a bust?
To be clear, your entire argument is based on the belief that even in a scenario where Sharpe is greater than or equal to Ivey at every relevant part of being a basketball player, in a scenario where Sharpe is clearly an objectively better basketball player than Ivey, that he is still more likely to be a bust than Ivey.
That was 2009, not 2004. I don’t know what the cap was in 2009 but we’re talking at most less than an extra mil a year than what the Bulls reportedly were offering, and likely less than that.
You’re not making sense because what you’re proposing is theoretical. We don’t know if Sharpe can shoot in the NBA level much less against D1 level. Theoretical = higher risk of bust where Ivey has actual skills to compare to where Sharpe is unknown. We don’t know if Sharpe’s athleticism is functional, we don’t know if he can shoot, we don’t know if he can operates as a creator/playmaker. He’s literally a mystery box.
A lot of us thought that Nik would be a sniper in the NBA bc he shot the ball well at Michigan, but he shot 35% in his career which is not what you want out of a below average athlete.
Sharpe’s abilities are only theoretical because we haven’t seen him play in the NBA yet. They are not, in fact, theoritical in reality, they are real. We will see and know his abilities when he plays in the NBA, and not until then. That applies to everybody, including Ivey and Kuminga
I’ll simplify the entire logical basis of your argument:
“If thing A is not proven to be definitively true, then thing A is proven to be definitively false.”
It’s just a fact that that is an incorrect statement.
When I say it’s theoretical, it means we don’t know if Sharpe can do it in a higher level where we saw it with Kuminga and Ivey.
Your logic to me is: Sharpe is exactly who I think he is despite zero shred of evidence that he can do it in a high level in D1 or G-League which makes his projection volatile. This is a big reason why he’s firmly in a tier below Paolo, JSJ, Ivey and Chet. The top tier has proven that they can do it in a high level and has things that can translate into the next level whereas Sharpe doesn’t have anything to go by except theoretical skills. Ivey is a safer pick whereas Sharpe is not.
I’ve been consistent in my position that I would be okay if the Pistons aren’t at top 4 and Sharpe might make sense where he could be a potential star but chances of him being a bust is higher for the reasons I stated above.
Well the logic you’re applying to me is incorrect, because I would not pick Sharpe with a top 4 pick. I have not once commented on what I think of Sharpe as a prospect.
It’s just really stupid to suggest we have absolute certainty what any prospects floor/ceiling/bust rate is until after they’ve actually played.
Jokic was the 41st pick and he had the lowest floor/bust rate in his draft class, it’s just that nobody knew so at the time.
Yet so many evaluator use prospects floor/ceiling based on what they see from the prospect. Once they play, the floor/ceiling goes out of the window because you know who they are as a player.
A good example is JSJ. He has a high floor because what he can do that translate in the NBA. He’s 6’10" who can make jump shot from everywhere whether if it’s catch and shoot, off the dribble, on the move, etc. This is why evaluator include floor/ceiling, potential, bust rate in their scouting report.
If a player succeed even with a report that he has a highest bust rate coming out of college, that means that players flipped the odd of not being a bust. You’re playing the percentage based on what they can do at that time while projecting their floor to ceiling in the next level.
It doesn’t mean the player flipped the odds, it means they were misevaluted lol.
Playing the odds is a good strategy over the long haul. Playing the odds means that you will be right more often than not, but it does not mean that you made the right choice every single time.
I understand that you feel more comfortable projecting a player who has more data against high level of competition, especially projecting such a players floor. It is perfectly reasonable to say you think Sharpe has the highest bust rate and comes with the most risk. He is the least known quantity and has the largest project able range of outcomes. It’s just incorrect to state that those projections are infallible.
It should be fairly obvious that if Sharpe turns out to be a better NBA player than Chet, or Smith, or Banchero, or Ivey, that he was actually a better prospect at the time.
I can’t imagine arguing that Kevin Garnett had a higher bust risk than Joe Smith given what we know now, but that’s basically what you’re arguing.
Ivey
Chet
Smith
Paolo
Sharpe
Mathurin
Duren
Murray
After that I lose interest
My player archetypes if they succeed:
Ivey - Wade
Chet - difficult, but a less dynamic Durant
Smith - I like the Bosh
Paolo - also hard. I see like a Julius Randle? That one year of Grant?
Sharpe - Vince Carter? Anthony Edwards?
Mathurin - a short Middleton
Duren - Ayton
Murray - Mikal Bridges