05/29 Woelfel: Skiles, Workouts, Deals, etc.

[Rockmaninoff]

Find out his win score prior to his injury.

His Position Adjusted Win Score per Minute was .76 when calculated on 1/20. A prior post states that the injury occuried on 1/29, if I remember correctly.

Which is about average for a scoring guard.

But, his score verses the Ken Pomeroy Top 100 teams was -.079 and .252 against Non-KP Top 100.

The thing about win scores and using them to project amatuers to professionals, is that they have to be weighed by the role the player projects to play, based upon the physical and emotional evidence.

Just an aside for anybody that likes win scores and likes to think of how to rebuild the team, and is open to using them as a tool - our most effective players last year were Sessions, Redd, Storey, Ruffin, and Bogut.

[LUKE23]

-= original quote snipped =-

Isn't that like a male pornstar who's got the personality and ability to memorize his lines, but has a tiny... on second thought I better not finish that.

Pretty funny how you ignored the question I asked previously about stats vs. watching people play, but then come back with this garbage. But I've had you pegged for a while, you'd rather antagonize people than say what you actually think.

[LUKE23]

I'm probably in Adamcz's camp here. I watched tall SG's like Rip, Stephen Jackson, Reggie Miller, Marko Jaric, etc. tear up our backcourt for years.

Notice that our two primary models for successful teams that don't have a super-duperstar (Detroit and the Pacers the last 12 years) both have/had tall and lanky SG's in Miller (and then Stephen Jackson) and Rip.

Gordon might be a fascinating prospect and maybe end up being a decent NBA player. But his talent doesn't overwhelm me that I want to deal with a short SG.

His talent and athletic ability are top notch, up until the late season swoon he was being talked about as a top 3 pick. There has already been a pretty heady list of undersized players with key roles in the playoffs. Gordon is AN INCH undersized, it's not like he's a 6-2 SG.

[Simulack]

I disagree with Adam here because I think his standard ("Could this player be an important player on a good/championship type team?") isn't applicable to an #8 pick or to a team in the Bucks situation.

Realistically the #8 pick rarely lands even a starter on a "decent" NBA team. Since 2000:

2000: Jamal Crawfrod
2001: Diop
2002: Chris Wilcox
2003: TJ Ford
2004: Araujo
2005: Channing Frye
2006: Rudy Gay
2007: Brandan Wright

Too early to say much about Wright but looking at that list, Rudy Gay is the only one that stands out as a guy who could obviously be a important starter on a contending team. Of course any of them could be a starter on a championship team if the rest of the teams rosters was full of Paul, Kobe and Duncan type players.

Aiming too high and having unrealistic expectations which make you foreclose certain more realistic/less profitable payoffs can obviously be a mistake. To take an NBA example, think of a player who stands adamant demanding a 12 year a million contract but the best any team offers is 10. Then the market changes and 6 million ends up being the most any team can pay. Trying to get too much can cause you to end up with less than you would have got if you were more pessimistic/realistic about the possible outcome.

Just getting a complimentary type player with the 8 pick wouldn't be a disaster; looking at that above list, it would be a real steal! Even if Eric Gordon only ends up as a a Ben Gordon 6th man/occasional starter (or worse, a Barbosa), that is not bad for where we are picking. Its also something that would be a valuable trade asset in the future - lots of teams wanted Ben Gordon a few years back when he was the next Andrew Toney (incidentally, another key undersized contributer on a very good team and one that was never considered a top 10 player).

Better to end up with "just a Ben Gordon or Barbosa" than to draft a Haislip/Pryzbilla/whatever just because they have the size to theoretically be starters on a good team. That's part of why I'd strongly consider Gordon as a pick - even his floor is probably a player that has decent value at least while he is on his rookie contract.

The questions about his leadership, ball-handling, passing etc to me are more important than the size ones.

[paulpressey25]

lots of teams wanted Ben Gordon a few years back when he was the next Andrew Toney .

Ok....there you've nailed it. Toney was a great, great small shooting guard. But going to your last point in the post, Toney appeared to me to have better ballhandling skills, which allowed him in the NBA to thrive despite his size.

[Simulack]

I guess what I am saying boils down to: you try to get the best value for where you are picking and who is left on the board. At the #8 spot, that might be a undersized SG who is just a Ben Gordon/Barbosa type player. Who cares if he isn't good enough to be a starter on a very good team because that isn't an option.

Even if the guy doesn't fit long term, you still have the best asset for where you were picking. That is important for a team talent/prospect starved like the Bucks.

[paulpressey25]

At the #8 spot, that might be a undersized SG who is just a Ben Gordon/Barbosa type player. Who cares if he isn't good enough to be a starter on a very good team because that isn't an option.

Even if the guy doesn't fit long term, you still have the best asset for where you were picking. That is important for a team talent/prospect starved like the Bucks.

I agree with that in this particular draft which is filled with crapshoots. That's why in this draft, if I could send out pick #8 along with Gadz for David Lee or Haslem, I'd do that. Because we'd get help and dump a terrible contract.

I don't see us getting an all-star player at #8 in this draft, but I realize others disagree. I guess I'd like to know how many guys picked #8 in the last 25-years went on to make one or two all-star teams.

[LUKE23]

-= original quote snipped =-



I agree with that in this particular draft which is filled with crapshoots. That's why in this draft, if I could send out pick #8 along with Gadz for David Lee or Haslem, I'd do that. Because we'd get help and dump a terrible contract.

I don't see us getting an all-star player at #8 in this draft, but I realize others disagree. I guess I'd like to know how many guys picked #8 in the last 25-years went on to make one or two all-star teams.

I'm baffled that you would still do that PP. This team does not need stop gap players, I mean what is the rush? We need the most talent possible. #8 will no question have more ceiling than Lee or Haslem, even if the draft is perceived as weak.

We are not a role player away. Keep amassing the talent and see where it takes you. You can always make moves down the line if the players don't "fit".

And the player doesn't have to be an all-star to make it worth it. Keep in mind Haslem or Lee are nowhere near all-star players.

[ReasonablySober]

pp, your disdain for this draft is incredible to me. It's not worth arguing over; it's your opinion after all. But most are calling this draft incredibly deep and unlike the picks in '07 between #5 and #13 that were loaded with question marks, there aren't a lot with these guys when you factor their on court production. Gordon led the Big 10 in scoring as a Freshman. Love and Lopez were All-Americans. Gallinari was the best player on one of the best teams in the second best league in the world. Westbrook is everything you can hope for in an athlete and he's the best defender in the country.

These guys produced.

But regardless, this remark needs clarification:

I don't see us getting an all-star player at #8 in this draft, but I realize others disagree.

In what draft could you ever see getting an All-Star at #8? Every draft you see guys passed on that become All-Star caliber, but it's not like we've seen a draft where anyone has said, "Well, at #8 we should be getting an All-Star player".

[worthlessBucks]

I'd rather roll the dice on a player like Randolph in the hopes that he (or whomever) becomes a superstar. Not sure that trading our lottery pick for a role player is a smart thing to do in our situation, basically what Luke's point has been. The known isn't as fun as the unknown, especially with our backcourt still in tact.

[Bernman]

Every year you'll get a sizable group of people who assert it's a down year for the draft. They're the ones who don't watch college basketball much, and aren't really adept at evaluating prospects, so if players aren't 100 percent obvious studs everyone will suck. I see a few real impact players (Rose, Beasley, Love, and Mayo) with a bunch more players who can be keys to winning (Lopez, Westbrook, CDR, Gordon, etc.). A few more have immense potential who could explode if they realize it (Jordan, Speights, Hickson, Ajinca, etc.). And finally several underrated college vets who have been forgotten but may end up starting (Rush, Dorsey, White, J. Gordon, etc.). There's nothing wrong with this draft. It's not 2000 or 2006.

By the way, I watched the replay of the Big Ten Tournament, to refresh my memory about Eric Gordon's wrist. He couldn't remotely follow through by the end of the season. His finish was basically always at a 90 degree angle. His entire shooting stats post wrist injury should be thrown out. Give him some credit for even playing.

[LUKE23]

Agreed bern. This isn't the 2003 draft, but it's not horrible either. We can get a player that can contribute to a winning team at #8, of that I have zero doubts. The people who just want to get rid of this pick for role players are crazy in my opinion.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

Every year you'll get a sizable group of people who assert it's a down year for the draft. They're the ones who don't watch college basketball much, and aren't really adept at evaluating prospects, so if players aren't 100 percent obvious studs everyone will suck.

What about in years where the draft class really does suck? In 2002 and 2006, the draft was legitimately weak. So your statement only applies to people who called the 2007, 2005, 2004, and 2003 classes weak, right?

There's no chance that this draft falls into the weak category?

[Bernman]

-= original quote snipped =-

What about in years where the draft class really does suck? In 2002 and 2006, the draft was legitimately weak. So your statement only applies to people who called the 2007, 2005, 2004, and 2003 classes weak, right?

There's no chance that this draft falls into the weak category?

I will go on record as saying that it will be better than '00, 02, '06; without a doubt.

Weakness is all relative. Some drafts have to be strong and others solid. My statement was aimed at the people who are just generally pessimists leading into all drafts. And I've noticed the people who make that allegation are typically those who don't follow college basketball, so they need players to be outrageously hyped in order to get excited about an individual. I wouldn't necessarily put PP in that category, although he doesn't follow college bb and drafts as much as some. Therefore, I'm a bit disappointed. There's plenty of players in this draft to get excited about. Freshman had a bigger impact on the college basketball game than ever, arguably, therefore shots at this draft class are ironic.

[LUKE23]

-= original quote snipped =-



I will go on record as saying that it will be better than '00, 02, '06; without a doubt.

Weakness is all relative. Some drafts have to be strong and others solid. My statement was aimed at the people who are just generally pessimists leading into all drafts. And I've noticed the people who make that allegation are typically those who don't follow college basketball, so they need players to be outrageously hyped in order to get excited about an individual. I wouldn't necessarily put PP in that category, although he doesn't follow college bb and drafts as much as some. Therefore, I'm a bit disappointed. There's plenty of players in this draft to get excited about. Freshman had a bigger impact on the college basketball game than ever, arguably, therefore shots at this draft class are ironic.

I just have a hard time with the people who call it weak, but then really won't take the time to break down why they don't like a players game or why their skills won't translate to the NBA, and some not even having seen these players play at all. This year alone as 18/19 year olds you had Mayo, Gordon, Love, Rose, Beasley, Westbrook, Bayless all having major impact on NCAA tourney teams, and all of these players have translatable NBA strengths. I do agree that there probably won't be many superstar elite level players from this draft like you saw in 2003 with LeBron, Melo, Wade, Bosh, but that doesn't make the draft weak, because there are a ton of players in this draft that can be good NBA players, some great.

But lets just get rid of our pick for Udonis Haslem. That will lead us to contention!!!

[worthlessBucks]

Eric Gordon video interview done by DraftExpress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao3ZWTlROLk

Interesting enough, he says he can play point guard and sees himself playing the position in the league. States he's been focusing on his handle in his preparation leading to now.

[LUKE23]

Sucks that us falling one spot in the draft could prevent us from landing Gordon. But that is the Bucks luck.

[ReasonablySober]

He's an intelligent guy.

He didn't hesitate to say he sees himself as a PG. Same thing OJ said. Very, very interesting.

I understand that it's a lot of show for the media and coaches, saying that they see themselves as PGs. But on the oft chance that one or both of these guys turns into a guy you want bringing the ball up that team is going to get themselves a steal.

Rose has been the guy everyone talks about at PG. I honestly wonder how things would be now if someone like Mayo, Bayless or Gordon had been placed in that role on Memphis.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

Bernman, who called one of the strong drafts weak?

[More Bang For The Bucks]

Great thread guys, my feeling is never give up lotto picks because you have a chance to get a star and they have upside even though many of them bust. Improving the roster with a bunch of role players around Bogut and Yi never make the Bucks a contender. Better off picking in the lottery again than winning 40 and out in the first round.

That is why my trade Redd proposals are about getting young guys, a 1st rounder, cap room and an expiring or 2 for it to work. The cap room can be used next summer to sign 2 good role players. Hammond has to build with 1st round picks and mid level FA signings because we will never be able to sign the FA star. I would only move the 8 pick to move up to get Mayo.