Yesterday a YouTuber uploaded a video, "How Justise Winslow Failed in the NBA." If you wanted an idiot telling you things I have been saying how Justise Winslow would fail in the NBA since the day Miami drafted him. I watched maybe five minutes of Justise's highlights at Duke and concluded he could not play. I didn't like his height, his build, or his shot. If you want a non-idiot, this guy, AndyHoops, made the video. Andy concludes, surprising even himself, that it is reasonably conceivable that Justise, once considered the next NBA "superstar" will be out of the Association in his late '20's, which I wrote months ago too. Anyway.

Andy explains that Miami was considered a perfect fit for Justise. But, it was not, Erik Spoelstra's precise half-court offense was not right for Justise's free-flowing, full-court skill set. Air Winslow? I never saw it and don't think it was there to be seen. Justise needed a faster pace? Okay, the NBA shot clock is 45.8% faster than what Justise had in college. Then Justise got injured. Boy, did he get injured. Over and over again. It's the only thing Justise had in common to another NBA player he was compared to: Jimmy Butler. Justise was injured even when the "Heat" doctors said he wasn't injured.

I learned two things from Andy's video. The less important was that Justise really did have quick feet; his lateral movement on defense was exceptional. Dwayne Wade and Paul George said it was like watching a 19-year old Kawhi Leonard. (?) Good grief. 

Be that as it is, the most important thing I learned was insight into how NBA teams judge, and in Justise's case, misjudge talent in the NBA draft. How many times have you heard a GM, in any professional sport really say, "He's got the whole package: He can defend, he can pass, he's got size, he can shoot, he's young, he has tremendous upside."?  Andy said that although Devin Booker was considered the better shooter, Justise was considered far, far the superior athlete with much greater potential. 

So this is what I learned: It is better--far, far better--to draft a player who already does one thing exceedingly well rather than a jack-of-all-trades with "upside". Look: Trying to project a future NBA player from one or two years in college, even at a basketball finishing school like Duke, is like trying to see in your mind's eye what a baby will look like as a young adult, or what a teenager will look like as an old person. If you look at "the whole package" it is extremely hard to do that. If, on the other hand, you focus on some outstanding feature, red hair, or being a dead-eye shooter, then when you see the person fully formed in the prime of his life you give yourself a chance. If I were a GM and one of my scouts used bullshit jargon like "the whole package" or "upside," I'd strangle him. "What does this guy do right now that is at professional level?" That is what I would want the answer to. If you choose based on the answer to that question at least you guarantee yourself a guy with one skill.