Sorry for the delay in responding, gentlemen - dental appointment this morning.
I'm going to do this a bit differently - rather than basing things on raw numbers, I'm going to give you what I consider a "general feel" for how players have done. Accurate? Not in the slightest. But it's what I would call a "flavor of expectation."
Let's start with the college seniors. I feel that when they come in, they are expected to be developed, and produce immediately. Their ability to "hit the ground running" is almost always the key selling point with these guys. When they DO hit the ground running, they do well, but if they struggle, they're more apt to be replaced quickly.
College underclassmen are expected to get up to speed quickly, although a team will give them a bit more opportunity - especially if you're talking a freshman or sophomore.
High schoolers are regarded as "projects" - barring the unusual cases like Stoudemire or James. Teams want to see progress along the way, along with physical development. They'll wait a little longer.
International players are regarded as "gambles" - you grab someone reasonably big, and hope they turn into what you think they'll be. Some of the "gambles" are also "projects" - e.g. Darko Milicic - and they'll get a bit of the time that high schoolers get. International players aren't expected to produce as quickly as college kids are, but they're expected to produce a lot faster than the high-school kids. They're also expected to produce beyond the level of the college kids. The reason? They're a gamble - a cheap, easy-to-buy-out-and-get-rid-of gamble. High school kids and college kids aren't so easy to get rid of - what are you going to tell them, "You're not working out here, but you can make good money over in Europe?" It's not like you're sending someone home.
The question is the level of success.
When you look at the three players who are the most critical players in the league, you're looking at Tim Duncan, Shaquille O'Neal, and Kevin Garnett. That's a college senior, a college junior, and a high schooler. Add in MVPs and First Team All-NBA players, and you're still talking U.S. or U.S. college players - Kobe Bryant, Allen Iverson, Steve Nash, Tracy McGrady.
When you look at the league, position by position, and find the top three or so players at a position - what do you find?
Center - O'Neal, Stoudemire and - who? Wallace? Yao? Ilgauskus? Miller? Magliore?
PF - Duncan, Garnett, O'Neal, Nowitzki
SF - Marion, Stojakovic, Kirilenko
SG - Bryant, Iverson, Wade, McGrady
PG - Kidd, Nash, Davis
Look at the international players: players at center - the most shallow position in the league. Mobile forwards - big forwards who can play small forward. BUT NO GUARDS. Why? Skander said it best: "I think American style puts so much emphasis on isolations, cross-overs and dunks, that useful things such as 'the perimeter shot' are thrown by the wayside." Foreign guards are taught to play a more team-oriented game, and that's not the NBA's game. It's tougher for an international guard to make the transition.
Let me throw out a stat line for you:
16.0 minutes per game, 72 games and 31 starts, .501 FG% .656 FT%, 3.8 RPG, .3 APG, .74 BPG, 6.7 PPG. I'll tell you that this is a rookie center.
If that's a rookie center that's a high schooler, you'll say, "Wow. There's some potential there."
If that's an underclassman, you'll say, "He might get to be something with a little work in the weight room and some seasoning."
If that's a college senior, you'll say, "At best, this guy will just be a journeyman. Nothing special here."
And if it's a foreigner, you say, "If he's young, we'll give him a little time. Otherwise, let's just get someone else."
Compare that with the following statline for a rookie center:
82 Games, 81 Starts, 29.0 minutes, .518 FG%, .762 FT%, 8.8 RPG, .9 APG, 1.65 BPG, 13.9 PPG.
If I told you that was a high school center, you'd call me a liar. If it were, the guy would be the best thing since sliced bread.
If I said it were an underclassman, you'd be thrilled! This guy is only going to get better.
If I said it were a college senior, you'd say, "Well, we've got ourselves a solid center - not quite an All-Star, but close."
If I said it were a foreigner, you'd say, "Our gamble paid off. He'll be fine."
Anyone recognize the stat lines? Think you know who they are?
I believe that the level of achievement is set lowest for high schoolers. Any progress, and we still think they're "going to be really good." Underclassmen also get a bit of time to "improve." But seniors hit the ground running, or they're gone. And the foreign player is the wildcard.
In short - if I'm going to pick who I think will be best, I'll do it BY POSITION.
At center - I'd want a college senior or a proven foreigner.
At power forward - I'll gamble on a big high school kid.
At small forward - a good place to gamble on a foreigner who has played.
At 2 guard - young underclassman, or high school kid.
At point guard - an older underclassman, or a college senior.
It all has to do with the SKILL SET I EXPECT. At the center, I want BIG. I want VERY BIG. And I want their skill set to be reasonably ready.
At the 4, I want the ability to mold them into what I need.
At the 3, I'm looking entirely on variety of skills.
At the 2, I'm looking at ATHLETICISM. We'll teach them how to shoot and how to play.
And at the point, I want ABSOLUTELY NO SURPRISES - solid, steady, stable.
I believe that evaluating how good a player will be is as much of a function of evaluating where he plays versus evaluating where you got him from.
That's not a direct answer to the question posed, but it's my overall impression.
