But that doesn't make sense. We don't know what Foxs' draft position would be now if we did the draft several years into the future because he hasn't played any NBA games several years into the future. Here we have a draft without knowledge of Foxs' NBA future performance, as it is prior to his NBA career. Similarly, in the Parker and Schroeder drafts we had no knowledge of what their careers would be. We did not have access to their future performance at the time of their respective drafts, just as we do not have access to Foxs' future performance in this draft. Parker went #28 and Schroder went #17. So why, without being privy to Foxs' future performance, is he warranted the #5 or higher draft position?
This boggles my mind. We have no way of predicting the future of any player in the draft. We hope we can project his talents to the next level, but there are no guarantee's. However, if you do your homework, which good teams do, you can cut down on the risk significantly. Parker and Schroeder were both young European players, and the younger the player in Europe, the smaller the body of work you have to go on. The older the player, like Bogdanovic for instance, the more certain you are of how his game will translate.
Some very talented young players in Europe might get only 6 to 8 minutes a game. They sort of have a seniority system over there, and you have to earn your spurs. You join one of the big clubs and your 18 or 19 years old, you probably have a couple of much older players at your position ahead of you. So, if your scouting that player, it's much more difficult to pass judgement than it is on a young college player like a Fox, who will play in around 32 games and get somewhere around 32 minutes a game. You simply know more about that player. And in all likelyhood, your team has been following this kid since he got into grade school.
Fox came out of highschool ranked as one of the top PG's and he did nothing at Kentucky to make anyone change their mind. If anything, he exceeded expectations, and that's why he ranked as high as he is. He went to a major school in a major conference and played against the best in college basketball. And in one of the biggest games of his career, he went up against another PG that was supposed to be better than him, and outplayed him for the second time. The ranking isn't just some arbitrary number that's pulled out of hat. It's bassed on all the information that scouts and GM's have on a player. They may disagree slightly on the exact spot he should be drafted, but it more about team needs, than his talent level.
Fox, in my opinion, has that IT factor. I can't describe it, it just leaps out at you. A confidenc, an attitude, the way he carries himself. The way he never panics or seems to lose control. He looks and acts like a leader, and at Kentucky, his teammates followed. I could say those same things about Frank Mason, and you could say, well then, why isn't he ranked that high. Because he's a senior, not as athletic, and is only around 5'11". But you know what, it wouldn't surprise me to see Mason starting for an NBA team someday. Will Fox be better than Parker or even Schroeder? Don't know, but he has all the tools to be better.