Frank Kaminsky: Age and the NBA draft

[SoonerTraveler]

Interesting comments by Frank Kaminsky about age and the NBA draft.

The Oklahoman / OKC Thunder
Age is nothing but a number to National College Player of the Year
potential Thunder draft target Frank Kaminsky

Full article at: http://newsok.com/age-is-nothing-bu...r-draft-target-frank-kaminsky/article/5428679

Frank Kaminsky enjoyed remarkable improvement over the past two seasons, going from a seldom-used reserve who averaged 1.8 points as a freshman to the National College Player of the Year as a senior.
...

Do you think there are any misconceptions about your game?

Not necessarily about my game. I think it’s how much the age factor plays a difference. I said it before, I’m 22 years old and I get treated like I’m 65 going into the NBA. It’s not necessarily that I’m young or old. It’s just I don’t think that age plays as big of a deal as some people think it does.

 

[Eielson]

The fact that Kaminsky is older means that he's closer to his ceiling. A lot of improvement can happen between 19 and 22 (ex: Kaminsky himself). Not nearly as much from 22 to 25, and even less from 25 to 28.

The biggest road block for Kaminsky isn't his age, though; it's his lack of strength and athleticism. If he had Anthony Davis' athleticism, he'd the #1 pick even if he was 27.

I wouldn't hesitate to pick Kaminsky in the 10-15 range.

 

[dahldennsull]

Yeah, except analytics show that age is one of the BIGGEST determining factors of how much you contribute in the NBA. Sure he could have a good career, but he would be the exception, not the norm.

As Eielson mentioned, it does put you closer to your ceiling, but what analytics have come to find out, it simply shows a disparity in your college stats, as the overall game gets younger as you get older, you are dominating kids compared to you. So your stats get 'skewed' essentially, while a 19 year old who puts up a good stat line against older competition, shows how he would absolutely dominate if he was even the median age for the level.

 

[DenverSooner]

Do you have the data? I would love to see it. I have always had a difficult time understanding this age argument when it comes to the draft. The average NBA career is so short, I find it very hard to believe that a couple of years makes any notable difference.

 

[dahldennsull]

Do you have the data? I would love to see it. I have always had a difficult time understanding this age argument when it comes to the draft. The average NBA career is so short, I find it very hard to believe that a couple of years makes any notable difference.

no sorry, it's just been over the years of guys like 538 on ESPN or analytics articles over the years.

As for you saying a couple years doesn't make a difference, you're taking it the wrong way. It's not that one guy has an extra year or two in the NBA to develop, it's more about how you look at their college stats. Think about it this way:

Player A - Age 22 : 20 pts, 12 rebounds, 2 blocks/game
Player B - Age 19 : 18 pts, 9 rebounds, 1 block/game

Avg college player age - 20.5

Player A is a year or two older, on average, than the guy guarding him every night. He has had 2 or 3 more years than a freshman to get bigger, stronger, and more mentally sharp to take on younger players. To overcome this age descrepency, he should DOMINATE.

Player B is younger by 1 year or 2 than the guy guarding him. He should be at the basement of his college stats. However, he is only 2 points, 3 reounds and 1 block/game less than the senior. If you give him 3 years to mature, grow and get smarter, at his current skill rate, he would dominate the younger kids.

Now we know numbers don't always do that as you have different teams with the player and such, but when you add age as a variable in the analytics projecting a players pro potential, it comes out as one of the best normalizing factors, due to the ability to essentially 'keep up' with older players, or as an older player, how much you can 'dominate' younger ones.

So yes, while the younger player does have an extra year or two to get better, and get NBA coaching and training time at that over college, analytics are just looking at the numbers and digging through the weeds to figure out whats really in there.

 

[usedtobe1]

Kaminsky may be older and not bulked up, but I think he will be a decent player. He's smart and knows how to use his body for leverage. It wouldn't surprise me for him to average 10 points and 6-7 boards.

 

[Zimwillett]

Kaminsky may be older and not bulked up, but I think he will be a decent player. He's smart and knows how to use his body for leverage. It wouldn't surprise me for him to average 10 points and 6-7 boards.

The biggest question to me is whether Kaminsky can rebound and/or defend against NBA bigs. I'm skeptical, but if he can, he'll be a whale of a draft pick for someone.

 

[Eielson]

Kaminsky may be older and not bulked up, but I think he will be a decent player. He's smart and knows how to use his body for leverage. It wouldn't surprise me for him to average 10 points and 6-7 boards.

Yup. Mid-first rounder written all over him.

 

[campbest]

Frank Kaminsky = Channing Frye

He is going to get bullied to the perimeter, will be a solid pick & pop guy.

 

[Smash Williams]

Frank Kaminsky = Channing Frye

He is going to get bullied to the perimeter, will be a solid pick & pop guy.

That's a really good comparison. Despite their liabilities, guys like that are more valuable than ever. I wouldn't be surprised if Kaminsky is an NBA rotation player for the next decade.

He's worth a late lottery pick, but for maximum entertainment value I'm really hoping he goes to the Knicks at #4.

 

[sperry]

Agree with everyone who says Kaminsky will have a long, solid NBA career, but never anything close to a star.

If the Thunder didn't already have McGary I'd love for them to take Kaminsky. As is, between Adams, Kanter, Ibaka, Collison, and McGary, Kaminsky would be redundant on this roster.

 

[WTSooner]

Kaminsky and Dekker scare me as NBA prospects.

Too many tall, thin, white dudes over the last decade that simply haven't amounted to much. Maybe one or both of these guys are different, but it'd be a difficult trend for me to ignore if I were doing the drafting.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

How thin is dekker. I didn't he think he was thin

 

[WTSooner]

6'9, 220

Maybe not overly thin, but I'm mostly referencing 3's, 4's, and 5's that aren't inside post presence. The guys in that range that do a lot of their damage from outside or by putting the ball on the ground. I just think back to Van Horn. Morrison. Probably a lot of Euro guys that fit that description too. Probably just a small sample side, just something that sticks out to me. And I feel like I'm missing a name or two, but can't think of who it is I'm thinking about.

 

[Smash Williams]

6'9, 220

Maybe not overly thin, but I'm mostly referencing 3's, 4's, and 5's that aren't inside post presence. The guys in that range that do a lot of their damage from outside or by putting the ball on the ground. I just think back to Van Horn. Morrison. Probably a lot of Euro guys that fit that description too. Probably just a small sample side, just something that sticks out to me. And I feel like I'm missing a name or two, but can't think of who it is I'm thinking about.

Bargnani, Dunleavy Jr. (he's had a good career, but not #3 overall pick good)?

Van Horn was a really good offensive player. He was an above-average shooter who averaged 16 PPG for his career. Van Horn never lived up to the hype that came with being the #2 overall pick behind Duncan, but he was far from a bust. Van Horn's failure to become a star had less to do with physical talent (he had the length and athleticism to play better defense than he did) than with his personality. Teammates and coaches openly questioned his heart and toughness, but I don't see how that would be intrinsic to being a tall, thin, white dude.

There are enough examples of productive tall, thin, perimeter-oriented white guys in the league (i.e. Parsons, Hayward, Gallinari) that at this point it'd be imprudent to dismiss a prospect based on skin color and frame. I wouldn't touch Dekker or Kaminsky with a Top 5 pick, but they're legitimate late lottery prospects. At that point in the draft, you're realistically looking for quality rotation players, not superstars.

As you suggested, it's most likely a matter of small sample size, along with the lack of a superstar that fits the mold.

 

[HoHum]

6'9, 220

Maybe not overly thin, but I'm mostly referencing 3's, 4's, and 5's that aren't inside post presence. The guys in that range that do a lot of their damage from outside or by putting the ball on the ground. I just think back to Van Horn. Morrison. Probably a lot of Euro guys that fit that description too. Probably just a small sample side, just something that sticks out to me. And I feel like I'm missing a name or two, but can't think of who it is I'm thinking about.

Van Horn had a pretty darn good career. Injuries hampered him, but he put up some big time numbers for He doesn't deserve to be lumped in with Adam Morrison.

He might not have been the best #2 pick, but he certainly wasn't a bust.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/v/vanhoke01.html

 

[MNsooner]

Van Horn was a proper NBA player. Obviously he wasn't a star, but Frank Kaminsky should be happy to have a career like his. He played pretty well on some playoff teams and had a decade long career or so.

 

[sperry]

Dekker worries me. I think Kaminsky is going to be a nice second unit big that provides an offensive threat when he comes in. I think there is very little chance he is better than that, and very little chance he is worse than that.


Dekker on the other hand, I could see being a star, and I could also see him looking like he flat out can't play and washing out of the league in 3 years.