What to learn from busts

[King d]

Be super wary of older players if you look at that list.

Also I'm not sure Branden Wright is going to end up a bust. He was injured pretty much all the time. He has played very well this year.

Exactly, Brandan was destroyed by injuries, but looked pretty good when healthy. And as you said he is playing pretty good this year despite limited minutes and he is still 24 years old.

[Kalela]

I am not sure Jeff Green is a bust. Without the injuries and the health problems he would be at the very least a decent role player. We will see next year when he fully recovers from his heart surgery.

[Indy2thaWindy]

How did Roy Hibbert all 7' 2" of him fall to #17?

It was a deep draft and he was probably the worst conditioned athlete in the NBA during his rookie season. You could tell if he got in shape he would be good, but with it being a deep draft, most passed on him as a project. He said Houston told him if they drafted him, they would send him to the D-League for a season or two. All he really did his first two years was block shots and take hook shots.

[MGrand15]

Looking at the recent top 10 busts:

Wes Johnson
Al-Farouq Aminu
Haseem Thabeet
Jonny Flynn
Michael Beasley
OJ Mayo
Joe Alexander
Greg Oden (would have been awesome without injuries )
Jeff Green
Yi
Corey Brewer
Brandan Wright
Adam Morrison
Tyrus Thomas
Shelden Williams
Randy Foye
Patrick O'Bryant
Saer Sene


What changes in draft philosophy should GMs make after the failure of these guys to become starters or even NBA players? Busts will always happen, but do you think certain things in the drafting process needs to change for GMs to dodge some of these busts?

It's not the most important thing but athleticism and size matter a lot. The biggest issue with some of these guys is that their athleticism becomes WAY overrated.

OJ Mayo, Beasley, and Foye are good athletes but not great for NBA standards. Mayo and Foye were undersized 2s who didn't have the athleticism to make up for their size. Beasley was playing the 4 in college but was never strong or big enough for the position in the pros. He was also between positions until he went to the Timberwolves. If he went to a team without Wade and was developed as a Melo-type 3 from the starrt, I think his career would've went much different. All 3 became good players but never lived up to their hype.

Morrison and Shelden Williams were two polished college players who just weren't athletic enough to have their success translate to the league. Morrison had a chance but after he tore his ACL, he was done.

The same thing applies even to really good athletes like Tyrus Thomas, Jeff Green and Brendan Wright. Thomas is still a small-ish 4 and even though he's still good and would be way better with good BBIQ, his lack of size and strength really hurts him. Jeff Green is a good athlete but not quick enough for the 3 and not big enough to play a true 4. Still effective but not really a starting caliber player. Wright was and is too weak as a big man. Never really had the frame to be a consistent big man. They can all dunk but that's not all you need to succeed in the league.

All these guys could carve out their niche as role players (a couple of these guys are already good players) but in terms of making gigantic impacts, they were limited from the start.

[Pogue Mahone]

I wouldn't say Green is a bust but I don't think he is in any way whatsoever a beast. I think he is too soft but we'll see once he plays more SF.

Wright is not a bust, imo, and the reference to his college numbers is misguided, too. he played in an extremely slow-paced, scoring-suppressed environment.

Each position is different and requires different thresholds to be met for expected success.

For example, you can dismiss shotblocking from a college SG as a determining factor but you can't dismiss a combination of shotblocking, rebounding and steals, corrected for pace, to determine if a SG applies athleticism/motor when plying his craft.

I think the danger of drawing limitations on players is that pigeon-hole them. There are certain players who tend to traditionally fall in drafts because they don't fit cookie cutters molds but who go on to be better pros because they have a bunch of above-average to elite skills in their toolkit, even though those skills aren't traditionally aligned with their projected position.

BTW, tweener SF/PF is potentially one of the best values in any given draft so long as you are picking them outside of the lottery.

[hillbilly hare]

Looking at the recent top 10 busts:

Wes Johnson
Al-Farouq Aminu
Haseem Thabeet
Jonny Flynn
Michael Beasley
OJ Mayo
Joe Alexander
Greg Oden (would have been awesome without injuries )
Jeff Green
Yi
Corey Brewer
Brandan Wright
Adam Morrison
Tyrus Thomas
Shelden Williams
Randy Foye
Patrick O'Bryant
Saer Sene


What changes in draft philosophy should GMs make after the failure of these guys to become starters or even NBA players? Busts will always happen, but do you think certain things in the drafting process needs to change for GMs to dodge some of these busts?

What do we learn? That Minnesota gets most of them?

Seriously though, I think it's a good reminder to the people who want to perennially tank in order to "build thru the draft". You've got to really lucky a whole lot of times in order to build thru the draft. Not only beat the odds and get a top 1-3 pick or so, which is hard enough. You also have to do a great job evaluating very young guys who've never played at the NBA level. Which clearly seems to be an extremely hard thing to do, otherwise there would never be any lottery busts.

[Dr Positivity]

I think obviously the degree of difficulty of the draft is hard, but when I look at that list I think "Bad picks" more than anything. I don't want to insult professional scouts, my best guess on what happens with the worst of picks is the owners/GM making it solely themselves instead of the scouts who spend 100x more time during the year with their butts on the line making it. I call it the MJ. You just know David Kahn picked Jonny Flynn and Wes Johnson himself after reading the Chad Ford rankings all year and watching a few college games in his spare time. It's the same reason why Hollywood gave a 250 million budget to "John Carter" even though every film of the same type recently (Alexander, Prince of Persia, Troy) bombed. It was probably greenlit from a person very high up and very insulated from the repercussions of a major bomb

[DJhitek]

-Never draft need over a significantly better player, get the assets and figure the fit out later. (Marvin over Chris, Paul Pierce and Danny Granger falling in the lotto for no apparent reason)
-PG's have to finish near the rim, if they can't, their perimeter/mid range game has to be outstanding (Felton, Flynn and Foye)
-Tweeners are always crapshoots to begin with, know what you are getting. (Tyrus Thomas, M.Beasley and Derrick Williams are obsessed with being small forwards even though they should cater their games to become bigger impacts in the paint)
-Raw bigs who are huge projects are huge risks and I'm ok with doing that as long as the commitment is there from both player and organization. Tyson Chandler(took him his third team but hey) is a perfect example of that.

Mufasa also made an excellent point about drafting strictly defensive talent, I'll caveat off that by saying the very best players in this league learn to give that effort defensively. If Thibs can get the likes of Ray Allen and Paul Pierce to become competent defenders then that side of the ball is easier to coach and develope. This league has too many two way players for a defensive specialist to matter that much.

[hillbilly hare]

^^ This. Defense is such a priority that you have to really do your homework on a potential pick. There are just so many good offensive guys out there that by looking at their D you can separate some from the pack.

In practical terms, which wing player would go with in this year's draft? Barnes or Kidd-Gilchrist or other?

[noobcake]

Harrison Barnes = Bust of the Draft

He has huge bust potential written all over him.

Touted as possibly the greatest freshmen of all time.
Has not shown improvement from Freshmen to Sophomore year despite his amazing work ethic. Skill cap not very high.
Shot too broke for an NBA SG. His FT shooting is a great predictor of future (lack of) shooting success.
Can't even dominate other SF athletically on the collegiate level. Can be lax defensively and get lost in the game.
Tendency to shot jack but has not shown the ability to distribute the ball.
Biggest problem: Tweener SG/SF with no shooting ability. Too slow to defend SG; not physical enough for SF position. Will get abused by big NBA SF like Deng, Iggy, Melo, James.

The team that drafts Barnes within top 10 will be making a huge mistake. There is absolutely 0 reason to take him if MKG/Jones is not yet taken.

[MalonesElbows]

Harrison Barnes = Bust of the Draft

He has huge bust potential written all over him.

Touted as possibly the greatest freshmen of all time.
Has not shown improvement from Freshmen to Sophomore year despite his amazing work ethic. Skill cap not very high.
Shot too broke for an NBA SG. His FT shooting is a great predictor of future (lack of) shooting success.
Can't even dominate other SF athletically on the collegiate level. Can be lax defensively and get lost in the game.
Tendency to shot jack but has not shown the ability to distribute the ball.
Biggest problem: Tweener SG/SF with no shooting ability. Too slow to defend SG; not physical enough for SF position. Will get abused by big NBA SF like Deng, Iggy, Melo, James.

The team that drafts Barnes within top 10 will be making a huge mistake. There is absolutely 0 reason to take him if MKG/Jones is not yet taken.

I would take him at 8 and feel pretty good about it, won't ever live up to a 2nd or 3rd pick where he is targeted to go.

[noobcake]

Harrison Barnes = Bust of the Draft

He has huge bust potential written all over him.

Touted as possibly the greatest freshmen of all time.
Has not shown improvement from Freshmen to Sophomore year despite his amazing work ethic. Skill cap not very high.
Shot too broke for an NBA SG. His FT shooting is a great predictor of future (lack of) shooting success.
Can't even dominate other SF athletically on the collegiate level. Can be lax defensively and get lost in the game.
Tendency to shot jack but has not shown the ability to distribute the ball.
Biggest problem: Tweener SG/SF with no shooting ability. Too slow to defend SG; not physical enough for SF position. Will get abused by big NBA SF like Deng, Iggy, Melo, James.

The team that drafts Barnes within top 10 will be making a huge mistake. There is absolutely 0 reason to take him if MKG/Jones is not yet taken.

I would take him at 8 and feel pretty good about it, won't ever live up to a 2nd or 3rd pick where he is targeted to go.

8 is indeed a good spot. Top 5 for Barnes is just wrong. If you want a shooting guard, get Lamb or Beal. If you want a SF, get MKG or Jones.

There is 0 reason for any team to take him over the 4 PF/C in front of him + MKG.
Davis
Robinson
Drummond
Jullinger
MKG

[doc.end]

I would learn to make draftexpress work for you. As a high priority. Every case is different and I would rather trust guys with detailed knowledge even of obscure prospects than hype and general consensus.

Generalizing could make you pass on a great player. From last year see Biyombo, Bismack. He seems to fit those aforementioned stereotype red lights at first glance but going deeper you would find he was a low risk, high reward pick.

[DJhitek]

Doc, you make an interesting point. I said it earlier, as long as the there is a commitment from both player and organization you will see the rewards of a Biyambo.

[kobe808lak]

Harrison Barnes = Bust of the Draft

He has huge bust potential written all over him.

Touted as possibly the greatest freshmen of all time.
Has not shown improvement from Freshmen to Sophomore year despite his amazing work ethic. Skill cap not very high.
Shot too broke for an NBA SG. His FT shooting is a great predictor of future (lack of) shooting success.
Can't even dominate other SF athletically on the collegiate level. Can be lax defensively and get lost in the game.
Tendency to shot jack but has not shown the ability to distribute the ball.
Biggest problem: Tweener SG/SF with no shooting ability. Too slow to defend SG; not physical enough for SF position. Will get abused by big NBA SF like Deng, Iggy, Melo, James.

The team that drafts Barnes within top 10 will be making a huge mistake. There is absolutely 0 reason to take him if MKG/Jones is not yet taken.

I absolutely agree with your Take on Barnes. I think he is overhyped. He is too slow to get by anybody as a SG in the NBA. His shot is inconsistent and he isn't a good FT shooter. What stands out most to me is his lack of BBIQ. He just seems like a dumb player out there to me. I haven't watched a ton of UNC games this year but when I did watch that is what stood out to me.

I could be wrong but I would stay away from him. Kind of seems like an air head and waste of a big body.

[richboy]

Watch out for perimeter players who can't dribble.
Watch out for Bigs who are just stronger and older than there competition.
Watch out for any big in general who has a post game that doesn't translate to the NBA.
Watch out for anyone that has David Kahn as there GM
Don't overrate guys who project as a role player.

Yi- he is like 1 talent away from being good. That talent is going to keep him out of the league. If he could shoot off the dribble and at a higher percentage he could have been something. He doesn't seem to put the ball on the floor at all at the NBA level.

Brewer- never should have been taken so high. Who cares about athleticism when you loose it when you dribble the ball.

Wesley Johnson - look Corey Brewer

Adam Morrison- kind of shocked that Morrison couldn't at least be Keith Van Horn. One thing you learn is watch out for scorers who can't shoot. At least scorers who can shoot can become spot up shooters. Once we knew Adam Morrison couldn't score against NBA players he pretty much was out of the league. He couldn't even be a spot up shooter.

Michael Beasley- kind of a mystery to me. If he rebounded like he did in college he play a ton. Rookie year has 17 PER. That says he should be good in the future. For whatever reason he has gotten worse. He might be a case of where you get drafted matters. Maybe he needs to be on a bad team like the Bobcast and let him find his game in the NBA level.

Shelden Williams- everyone knew he was going to be a bust except the Hawks.

Tyrus Thomas- never draft someone just because he a good athlete

Thabeet - be afraid of shot blockers who don't rebound at a high level. Especially when they don't have much offensive game.

[BNB]

Brandan Wright was bit by the injury bug. Anyone who saw him at UNC could tell he was gifted offensively. He would've been very solid with good health.

[BoutPractice]

You can learn a lot by comparing "busts" and "gems".

While some teams seem to get it wrong all the time, others consistently manage to draft quality players, the Spurs being the prime example. How do they do it? It isn't pure coincidence when the same front office keeps getting great results over an extended period of time. Obviously a lot of it is due to player development (you can argue that Popovich turns players that would have been busts elsewhere into positive contributors), but it can't be the only explanation.

By looking at track records both from great and poor organiations, a few patterns start to form.

* First of all, don't believe in consensus. Believe in your own hard work.

* Secondly, draft order is deceptive. You can find busts and gems everywhere:

- there is often a bust waiting to happen in the top 5. He can even be the consensus top pick or #2 pick. Oftentimes, the bust is one of those:
1) a victim of hype due to a great tournament performance in college playing for a stacked team that hides his weaknesses. He is labeled a "winner" (an amusing case of reverse causality - he didn't win because he is a winner, he is a winner because he won). However, when you ask yourself "what can he bring to an NBA team", or "what is so special about him compared to the other players in the draft", or "could he ever become a superstar", you struggle to find reassuring answers. If he was only seen as a late first rounder before March Madness, beware.
2) an international prospect you didn't know anything about until two weeks before the draft.
3) an athletic freak who absolutely killed it at the combine/workouts. Usually a big man who has no idea how to play organized basketball but "looks good" going 1 on 0.

- conversely, there is often a top 3 talent in the late lottery. If you're picking 10th, chances are he's still available. Usually a player who used to be thought of as one of the most talented players in the country but who fell in the draft due to overreaction to a single event (a disappointing tourney performance, a question mark about a potential injury, some kind of rumor). If, in particular, he's an athletic freak who can score in a variety of ways (even better if he has an outside stroke), you have to pick him. You will get the last laugh when he's putting up 20+ppg while that African seven footer who has never played any basketball in his life but could be a dominant defensive presence if he had any idea where he is on the court is out of the league.

- there's also a top 5-10 talent hiding in the late first round, surrounded by fantastic role players who are "sure things".

And most importantly:

- in most years, there's everything you need in the second round. At least one really great role player/complementary piece, a future "instant offense off the bench" type player (if he's labeled as "incredibly talented" but "selfish", counter-intuitively, you HAVE to get him, he's the perfect low risk/high reward choice. Plus chances are he's bursting with confidence and eager to prove people wrong), possibly even an all-star. So don't underestimate the second round. Spend A LOT of time scouting players who are projected to be in the second round.

* Thirdly, come prepared. Do your job. On draft day, you should already know your plan A, B and C. Don't be swayed by events, trust instead a thorough scouting report with detailed statistical analysis. It's not perfect, but it certainly is more accurate than hype. You want to pick a player based on fundamental value as opposed to "market" value.

* Think of the best case scenario... and the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario has to be the real worst case scenario (the ones on Draftexpress tend to be overly optimistic). Is there a possibility this player will be out of the league in a few years?

* Pay little to no attention to combine results. An NBA player is athletic enough to make it in the NBA if he can play against the future most athletic players in the NBA. For instance, this year, a great individual performance against Kentucky and Anthony Davis would be a positive sign.

* Don't pick international players if you don't have enough information about them. What you don't know can kill you.
The Spurs know what they're doing with international players. You don't. They probably spend a lot of time and resources scouting them, wherever they are. You don't stand a chance if you don't do your homework.
Don't listen to rumors, it helps to actually watch the guy play, to actually watch European games from time to time. It didn't take a genius to realize Ginobili would thrive in the NBA. Nor did it take a genius to realize Milicic would be a bust. You just had to watch them.
If you insist on believing fairytales about international players, you'll keep on picking Tshikishvilis in the top 5 while the Spurs draft the Ginobilis, Parkers and Scolas of this world much later.
If you do pick an international player, make sure that he actually wants to be in the NBA, that you won't have to wait for him forever, and that he is mature enough to adapt to NBA life.

[Wizop]

Bill Polian says that batting 560 in the NFL draft is all you can expect. some of this is just a reflection of the fact that you will not always hit the ball.

but how do you tell the Beasleys apart from the Boozers? I can name you plenty of tweeners that became solid starters. there is more going on than physical skills.

personally I think the biggest reason for NBA busts is a failure to pay enough attention to what in football we'd call Wunderlick scores. the football parallel would be Manning versus Leaf.

work ethic also matters. the draft writers rarely have enough access to know college coach's opinions on attitude. the Pacers tell a story that when Dale Davis was in for a workout they ran so many wind sprints he barfed. when he walked right back onto the court and asked what was next, they knew they wanted him.

and make sure your coach is willing to play the style of ball that your signee is suited for. Pacers once signed an international all star point guard who didn't make it here even though he could make plays that none of our other guards could make. few NBA coaches are willing to change their style to fit their players so the coach and the gm better be on the same page.

[Dr Positivity]

I'm going to theorize for a second:

I think judging players on their NCAA production instead of skillset is where a lot of the problems originate from

Players with good skillsets and weak NCAA production getting picked too low
Players with weak skillsets and good NCAA production getting picked too high

That represents half of steals and busts IMO. The explanation is easy, teams taking a player on how good he is in college, which can be a fallible way to do it for obvious reasons. The other half of steals and busts:

Players with weak skillsets and weak NCAA production getting picked too high
Players with good skillsets and good NCAA production getting picked too low

This is where the really weird bad picks happen. To me these has everything to do with the first 2 groups and just misdiagnosing how a good NCAA stats guy failed, or a weak NCAA stats guy succeeded. A lot of teams just look at the athletic freaks as the guy with the potential to be a weak NCAA stats/great NBA production player, when in reality this can be unbelievably off. A lot of the weak NCAA producers who showed up in the NBA actually had game in college, it just didn't get used (eg. Jrue Holliday). OTOH when they see a good NCAA stats guy who failed, they put in reasons like he dominated in a bad conference, dominated because he's older, is undersized for his position in the NBA, had a weak motor, etc. Many of these things may be true, but the problem is when all players in bad conferences, juniors/seniors, undersized players, etc. get punished for them, when in reality what matters is what they're specifically doing. For some players conference/age/size may effect their whole career, for some it may mean nothing at all, so you have to look at it case by case and what skillsets they have