Yet strangely you felt compelled to post such without any evidence that you have any thoughts of your own.

People mean different things when they say ‘potential’, but as unknown futures go, some are good bets, some not so good. Talent evaluation isn’t necessarily a science, but there’s a whole lot of tools to use that most people don’t use. There are a few things that are much better predictors of success than others. Science? Depends on what you mean by science, but there’s quite a bit of real analysis that can aid in deciding what’s a good bet and what isn’t. It’s not so much when to give up, but recognizing what’s a good bet to depend on and what isn’t and, beyond that, what things actually make big impacts on wins and what, no matter how spectacular and impressive it looks, make less of a difference.

Every draftee is drafted on ‘potential’ in the sense that we don’t have some precognitive ability to tell what will happen. There are surprises, guys who slip into the second round and turn into stars and guys labeled as “can’t miss” drafted at the top of the draft who turn out to be busts. It’s common for guys to fail after doing well in college. It’s less common for guys who had big problems with their game in college turn it around in the pros. Maybe Randolph’s the exception, given that he really didn’t have much time in college, but that takes a whole lot of hope in face of some glaring problems to believe that. Does he have superstar potential? He has many of the natural athletic abilities that seem to be a prerequisite for most superstardom. He also seems to lack some of the qualities that are found in superstars, qualities that are every bit as important though require more than simply watching him move on the court to get a good grasp on.

I think where many go wrong is in accessing real potential, factoring in the probability of success and figuring out what really helps create wins vs. the elusive but enticing qualities but without others that have historically more often than not failed to pay off. Some things seem to be good indicators (FG%, rebouding, taking care of the ball). Some things are not such good indicators. Taking a guy who has the stats of good indicators can fail. Taking a guy who has the stats that don’t indicate success is even more likely to fail.

College statistics are a helpful tool, though there’s no certainty that what someone does in college will translate to the pros. Relying on them entirely is not a good strategy. Many guys can bring it against college competition but can’t keep up in the pros. However, it appears to be far less often the case that someone who cannot get it done in college puts it all together in the pros. While the stats aren’t a necessary predictor of success, they’re a pretty damn good prerequisite. It’s a poor gamble to ignore them, but that’s exactly what drafting on athleticism with little regard for results is and it’s a good way to find yourself with bust after bust and no recourse but to keep trying while you keep losing, never opening up other possibilities.

You need superstars to win championships (generally speaking). But that’s not all you need. Garnett won very little in Minn because the rest of his team stunk. You need good, productive players as well around the stars to be competitive though, and consistently putting everything into longshot bets in the draft means you’re not likely to have either. If your goal in every draft is to hit a home run, get a Kevin Garnett type, you’re a) not going to do it that often if ever especially if you’re not drafting at the top of the draft and b) means you’re not likely to be a competitive team either, the sort that might be an attractive destination for other players because those players you miss on are going to be the one’s you’ll be left with.

Right now the Warriors have one option for getting a superstar: the draft. If they continue to bring in guys who cannot play, that will continue to be the case. Looking at past champions we’ve seen the Celtics, Pistons, Heat and Lakers all win anchored by guys who were not drafted by them. Pair that with the Spurs who were lucky to the get the top pick and the Bulls, who were anchored by a guy who, while not predicted to be the best player ever, wasn’t exactly a gamble pick after winning multiple college player of the year awards. I agree that the Warriors cannot currently attract the free agents to make a winner and don’t have the trading chips to swing a deal for the superstar, but this doesn’t mean that the strategy of swinging for the fences, regardless of draft position is a good idea. The ‘try for a superstar’ when there’s very, very little to indicate that he’s likely to be a superstar and quite a bit to indicate that he may be a major bust. Much in his game, things that have been rather good indicators in many cases, suggested that he wasn’t going to be a star. Far less indicates that he will. I would love to be wrong about this, but I wouldn’t put money on it.

One other stat. John Hollinger lists a stat called “usage”, which measures how often a player shoots, assists, or commits a turnover when their team has the ball. It essentially measures how involved a player is in their team’s offense, whether for good or for ill.

Thus far, Randolph rates third in usage, behind only Westbrook and Beasley. When Anthony Randolph is on the floor, he makes himself a more central figure in our offense than either O.J. Mayo or Derrick Rose do in theirs. On some level that’s not a surprise — whenever he’s in, it kind of becomes the Anthony Randolph Show — but still, that’s a pretty crazy number. Nellie’s just been letting this guy go hog-wild.

To fill out the picture, DeMarcus Nelson actually rates 14th in this category, thanks partly to his high turnover rate. Morrow, on the other hand, ranks 18th, and has the second-lowest turnover rate of any qualifier. There are some peripheral numbers that still make me intrigued by Anthony Morrow. Seems like a limited player — not much of a passer or a defender, not very good at creating his own shot — but he rebounds well for a guard and almost never makes mistakes. If he can just get halfway back towards the stroke he showed initially — say 47% from the field, 39% from three — he’d be a really effective role player for us.

I’ve heard lots of people talk about potential for lots of players in lots of venues. It’s generally a bunch of hope without much probability of success. CJ Watson? A third stringer on a good team. He’s a point guard who isn’t really a scorer and can’t create for others. He can shoot a good percentage on open shots, he can protect the ball, he can shoot free throws, and he puts in defensive effort. But he’s overmatched physically on the defensive end, is easily shut down offensively with attention, and doesn’t have great vision of the court. Kurtz? He is what he is, an end of bench player at best. Morrow? Beautiful shot. Poor handles. Can’t create for himself. He’s a spot us shooter and a guy best used coming off screens. And I haven’t seen anything that would lead me to believe he’ll ever be anything more. He’s a very situational player who could be good coming off the bench on a team with a dominating post presence. All 3 need to play with a (young) Shaq to have any real value to a team. That is their potential.

Ellis has potential. He has potential to be more than a 6’2" 165lb shooting guard. He has the potential to be a scoring point guard. He hasn’t reached that potential and I’m interested to see if he can. Otherwise, he’ll always need to be paired with a big point guard so that can switch defensively.

Biedrins has potential. He has potential to be a defensive player who can rebound and score around the basket. He hasn’t reached that potential. Right now he gets overwhelmed by true, big, centers. Z, Bynum, and the first tier guys like Yao eat him alive. He needs to learn how to be effective because it seems that many of the better teams have full sized centers. Otherwise, he’ll always need to be in a gimmicky system to overcome his flaws.

In other words, both Ellis and Biedrins benefit greatly from Nelson’s quirky system and both need to improve to be able to play at a high level in a normal system. Think about that before we run Nelson out of town. But both have ability and have proven they can develop, so I think the potential label still fits.

Wright? He has gotten better, he’s young, he has the right size and athletic ability and he has a decent skill set for his position. It seems he takes coaching, too, so I think we can safely assume he’ll be more than he is today. I think he has a good probability of being a lot better than he is today. Ability and probability, I think that counts as worthy of talking about his potential. Though to me his upside is somewhere between Drew Gooden and Lamarcus Aldridge. That is to say, at 28, a solid starter but not all-star. Downside is a servicable backup who can rebound, block shots, and catch a pass.

Randolph? I disagree with jae’s assessment. Shot selection is one of the most common problems for scorers coming into the league. Turnovers are another common problem for rookies. Those are issues almost all players need to deal with and usually they do. The bigger problem for players is that they don’t have the size, athleticism, quickness, skill set, feel, coachability, maturity, or fundamentals. So when looking at Randolph, the real question, to me, is will his skill set translate and how will he develop. Because the rest is in place.

Right now he has a face up game that is on pace to develop into the requisite threat for a low post big. In other words, he should be able to shoot the 18 footer well enough to keep defenders honest and handle the ball well enough to be a threat to go to the hoop. He looks like he’ll rebound, block shots, and be able to guard athletic 4’s. One question is whether he’ll be able to add enough bulk to guard the stronger 4’s. He seems strong for his size, but still needs to add 30lbs. But the huge whole in his game is that he hasn’t shown any low post offense. My biggest problem with Nelson right now is that he allows Randolph to handle and think he’s a 3. Nelson needs to not let him take shots unless he’s 12ft or closer. Randolph needs to develop a low post game and right now I question his ability and willingness. Simply because Nelson hasn’t allowed us to see where Randolph stands on those two issues.

So I get jae’s point, there is a lot that can go wrong still. And I agree that “potential” is thrown out way too often in place of “blind hope”. Randolph is on the lower, rawer end of the hope spectrum, as it is, for me. But because of his youth and inexperience coupled with his fantastic current phsycial, mental, and skill levels, I think it’s fair to say the probability of him developing into a very good player is high enough to warrant real discussions about his potential. So here goes, I think his upside is that of a Chris Bosh, downside of Blatche.

I agree with your view on Monta, I think he’s very good and has some room to grow but has probably reached his ceiling in the major categories. I’ll take 22 per game from anyone, especially if they can guard 1’s, like I think he should. But I don’t see him becoming a great point guard and as a 2 he will always require a big point as his companion. Still, he has “potential” to develop into a 1.

Biedrins I think has improved his ft% dramatically, which was key. He’s more nuanced and intelligent, too. His offensive game has improved over the past couple of years, IMO, as he can score by putting the ball on the floor or making a couple of low post moves. But I agree, getting a right hand is key and I haven’t seen any improvement there. Still, with his ability to average a double double I think the key piece of his game that is missing is ability to guard big 5’s. With those two things, he’s got All Star ability, without them, he’s not well rounded. Again, “potential”.

I agree that Belinelli will likely never develop under Nellie. His confidence seems shot. He gets looks and doesn’t take them. I like his ability to shoot and I’ve seen good passing ability. He’s even shown a desire to go to the basket in limited minutes this year. But pulling him for defensive reasons, in the first 5 minutes when the team goes on to give up 80 points in a half, is just hypocritical. Don’t know what he’s got against Marco, but Nelson clearly doesn’t like him right now.

But I’ll still disagree with your CJ points. He looks good because he’s the only guy who seems to play within himself on this team lately. He takes the shots he should, and not the ones he shouldn’t. But CJ doesn’t do the things you need a starting 1 to do: stretch a defense, create for teammates, and defend. A good stater will do 2 of those things, create and defend. A great one can do all three. A role player will do one of those things. But I don’t see CJ doing any of them. Steve Blake is a much better distributor, IMHO.

I’m a big Watson fan, and I’m glad that he’s still getting minutes with the arrival of Crawford. That being said, CJ is a very bad defender so far, bad enough to make him something less than starter-level. 25-minutes-a-night change-of-pace guy is actually a pretty good role for him… CJ’s one of the few guys that I think Nellie has used smartly this year.

Will CJ get better on defense? Probably a bit — most young players do, to some degree or another — but I’m not sure that he’ll ever get good. He gets beat a lot, and has trouble getting through screens, and since he’s a guy who’s fighting to establish himself in the league, you can’t simply chalk that up to lack of effort. He is undersized and not that fast, which is a tough combo for a point guard defensively.

As good as he’s been, CJ is perhaps not the ideal backup PG for this team going forward. Watson is pretty much worthless on defense, other than a propensity to pick off passes. That pretty sums up Monta on defense thus far, and Crawford’s the same except that he doesn’t even pick off many passes. It’d be nice if we had one guy who could defend point guards well… that, plus another talented swing defender, would do a lot for this team.

Why do you think that Brandan can’t sustain his current PER? His FG% is high, but it’s not out of line with what he did last year. It’s not out of line with what he did in his lone season of college where he hit nearly 2/3rds of his shots. High FG% seems to be the rule for him.