At KSU Michael Beasley wasnt hungry?
Do you guys smoke crack? this seems like borderline junkie type-of logic to me.
the guy grabbed 12.4 rebounds per game. 3rd in the nation in scoring as a freshman, 26.2ppg
Did he coast to those #'s?
I demand an explanation. Michael Beasley at KSU was a ****ing monster, wtf do you have to say bad about his college season?
Hunger alone doesn't equate success. You have to factor in the knucklehead rating along with talent. Derrick Coleman is a prime example. Talent wise off the charts, however his hunger rating along with knucklehead rating led to him underachieving over his career.
While Beasley looked as though he was "hungry", his overall talent in college won out but when he got to the pros his lack of hunger and knucklehead factor keeps him from achieving a consistent success.
So when evaluating a player you must consider talent + hunger - knucklehead factor. The difficulty arises because anyone of these three factors can affect the other. Hunger can overcome a lack of talent, talent can hide some hunger issues and people will over look the knucklehead factor if a player has talent. All three of these factors can result in GMs making bad decisions. Usually superstars have high talent and a ton of hunger and low knucklehead number.
I don't think KKK was insinuating that hunger is the deciding factor but it is a factor that could be the difference when deciding between two players. If the talent is equal and there is little or no known knucklehead factor than you have to look at hunger. Hunger is subjective in many ways and not always easy to determine but at the heart of it is doing all that is possible to get better, to be a player who wants the big moments and a player that doesn't back down from adversity or challenges. It is a necessary quality to have if you want to have success in the NBA.
Pretty much every elite player has it along with talent. Hunger can make good players very good and a lack of it can make very good players marginal (i.e. Andrew Bynum). For some marginal players it is the only way they survive. For others it is what keeps them from realizing their full potential. Some people include hunger as intangibles. Yes it is sometimes hard to predict but I think you can observe it easily if you are around a team. Take AK for an example, a guy with all the talent in the world but was known to be the first guy out the door. Overall, he had a great basketball mind and his knucklehead rating is low but his lack of hunger prevented him from being the top 10 player people thought he might become. People blame the coaches but I think it had more to do with the fact he didn't love basketball and he didn't have the drive to become great. He just performed based on his talent.
I don't think screaming or acting like a badass is necessarily an indication of hunger. Some people measure it that way but I don't. I think working hard in the offseason, working on your body and game. Putting in the hours of practice is where it starts. Looking at your weaknesses and improving them. When the games start stepping up and giving it your all despite your talent. Making plays and playing hard. Being upset when you lose and wanting to compete against anyone even if they are better than you.
Look at Bruce Bowen, a guy with average ability but having the hunger to be in the league and to play as hard as possible. Mario Ellie is another guy. Lebron James is a superstar because he was born with natural talent but also because he has the desire (hunger to be one of the greats). I saw it in Kobe, kid is air-balling shots against the Jazz when he is 17 years old and he didn't let it bother him. It was all part of his learning process. If you watch enough basketball, you become better at seeing this type of behavior. It is a mindset and I am sure that some people are better at evaluating it than others. However, just to discount it as not important or hard to quantify can lead to making the wrong decision when drafting.
When I look at players, I look at talent and the desire to get better and then add in my knucklehead factor. Is it an exact science? No, because the one thing that is not always 100 percent predictable is human behavior. Humans are complex creatures. They don't always behave the way we think they will and life doesn't always go the way we plan. I guess what I am trying to say is that evaluating players is difficult and all GMs make mistakes but when I pick a guy I want to be sure the player has talent, wants to get better and shows that he is actually working to get better and has a low knucklehead factor (is he constantly getting into trouble/doesn't learn from his mistakes). If I feel confident with these factors I will draft him even if the player has obvious flaws. The history of the league is filled with stories of players with all the talent in the world who didn't work hard and had obvious high knucklehead factor who end up being bust while guys who work hard AND have enough talent usually have some success in the league.
