2012 NBA Draft - Part V

[Dat2U]

Harrison Barnes had a disappointing freshman season followed by a disappointing sophomore season. He displayed zero above average skills in college basketball, let alone the pros.

And yet, as expected, he could jump high in a controlled setting, so he is suddenly worthy of the 3rd pick?

Come on guys. We're a smarter board than this.

He was disappointing only because he was projected to be a Kobe like talent and didnt live up ti that hype. His freshman year was hardly a bad season though (it was very similar to beals actually). And he improved in almost every category his sophomore year. He had a rough end to the year, but you guys are acting like he was trash or something.

Oh, and his mid-range game, step back jumper and ability to hit off the catch and shoot were all above average skills. MKG truly showed no above average skill, just great hustle and aggressiveness, yet people here are acting like he's some elite level talent. Folks, the elite level talent was the other guy from Kentucky. Come on guys, you're a smarter board than this

If Barnes had a tenth of the hustle and aggressiveness of MKG, then I'd feel better about his prospects. And IMO hustle is a skill. Finishing at the rim (which MKG excels at) is a skill, creating off the bounce and getting to the rack (which MKG did consistently) is a skill. Having a high IQ and knowing when to cut to the basket or set a solid screen is a skill (which MKG excels at). Skill a lot more than just knowing 25,000 ways to jack up a tough contested jumper. For all of Barnes' above average skill he was very average in terms of actual shot making and efficiency. For all his wonderful athleticism, it was excruciatingly brutal watching him trying to take more than 2 dribbles and create.

[Dat2U]

Harrison Barnes had a disappointing freshman season followed by a disappointing sophomore season. He displayed zero above average skills in college basketball, let alone the pros.

And yet, as expected, he could jump high in a controlled setting, so he is suddenly worthy of the 3rd pick?

Come on guys. We're a smarter board than this.

He was disappointing only because he was projected to be a Kobe like talent and didnt live up ti that hype. His freshman year was hardly a bad season though (it was very similar to beals actually). And he improved in almost every category his sophomore year. He had a rough end to the year, but you guys are acting like he was trash or something.

Oh, and his mid-range game, step back jumper and ability to hit off the catch and shoot were all above average skills. MKG truly showed no above average skill, just great hustle and aggressiveness, yet people here are acting like he's some elite level talent. Folks, the elite level talent was the other guy from Kentucky. Come on guys, you're a smarter board than this

No, he was disappointing because didn't live up to the hype in either year. The Kobe comparisons were long gone by the beginning of his sophomore season. All last summer we heard how he remade his game and body and was holding his own against NBA talent. Turns out his sophomore season wasn't significantly different from his freshman season. And he still needed the best pure PG in all of college basketball to make him look respectable! And with out him, he simply didn't even look like an NBA prospect.

If Charlotte is honing on him at #2, well then good luck to them. Maybe he'll show something he didn't show in college. And maybe Adam Morrison will be back in the NBA next year.

[AWIZZINGBULLET]

To be clear, I do like beal as a pick for you guys. He at least displayed some real offensive skill. I just don't understand why a team that clearly needs help offensively is so high on a guy like MKG

I don't get it either. All I can credit it to is getting lost in the hype for a moment. The team clearly needs perimeter help, I think during the season most fans would quickly acknowledge that, now I think they too are getting lost in the depth of this draft.

[AWIZZINGBULLET]

Barnes will be the pick. He is a Ernie Grunfeld type of player.

Here's to hope. Really pulling for Barnes to be the pick.

This is what I have predicting for a while also, we are just hoping that the Cats don't take him.

The other day I was pulling up stats to try and figure out what the Bobcats greatest need may be. I came up with scorer and rebounder. They were really bad when it came to rebounding, their bench help was pretty good at scoring but it was their starters that needed help although Gerald Henderson was their leading scorer at around 15 ppg. I'm thinking they may be looking at Thomas Robinson because he offers both and raises their low FG percentage playing so close to the basket. You really want to know what a team needs, of course you go straight to the voiceless yet diehard fans. There's a poll in the Bobcats forum and around 45% of fans believe Robinson should be the pick, while only 7% believe it should be Harrison Barnes. Hopefully Charlotte's front office is on the same page with their fans.

[FAH1223]

If we have the choice between Barnes and MKG and we don't get MKG, I'd just take it as ANOTHER disappointing draft by a GM who has no idea what he is doing and should be fired after next season

[TheMailMan3232]

MKG outplayed Barnes in the match up that they had in December UK vs UNC. MKG lock down Barnes.

[payitforward]

Well that's not really fair, there wasn't anything especially wrong with Young's per minute scoring average; he was ninth in the league in scoring as a rate stat this year *edit: among shooting guards (Jordan was forth, clearly a very important measure of value). He ... does shoot a lot.

How is shooting a lot an important measure of value? Is missing a lot a measure of value?

Shooting a lot is a measure of value if you make a lot of shots. Nick's eFG% last year was in the bottom 35% of all shooting guards who played 20 minutes or more a game. It was better the previous year at .50 -- a bit above average.

[payitforward]

Any chance we could drop the Blatche & Leanord aspects of this thread to get back to the draft?

Done.
...dreaded topic creep....

[hands11]

Let me ask a question about this "obvious difference"? Do you think this issue has been studied empirically? By people who access tons of data about individual player productivity as players move from team to team and from coach to coach?

If you do think it's been studied, then wouldn't the results of those studies be relevant here?

Yes, I'm pretty sure they would be relevant. And the issue has been studied. And the results show that there is virtually no difference in what a player puts up by way of efficiency and numbers as he moves. Really, how surprising is that? It's the same guy.

Those sound like interesting studies. Can you please link them here? Did they compare players moving from highly efficient offensive team to inefficient ones? That would be the most relevant analysis here, as we're not talking about someone moving from any one team to any other: we're talking about someone moving from one of the best offenses in the league to one of the worst.

Intuitively, my guess would be that players shooting percentages would improve if they moved to better offensive teams, but it sounds like the studies you are citing do not bear that out. I only had time to look up some players who had moved from Phoenix to other teams after playing with Nash, and Amare, Joe Johnson, Marion, Raja Bell, and Boris Diaw (everyone I checked) all had significant dips in their shooting percentages. Diaw then jumped from 41% to 58% moving from Charlotte to San Antonio. And you could see the types of shots players took changed a lot as they moved teams.

To that I will add this.

It sounds like those numbers are comparing as the player moves from one NBA team to another once their baseline is already established. What about the baseline to begin with ? I think that was the point. Where a player lands matters. The SA example was a good one. He came into a system that was very structured. He was asked to focus on specific things and he was given the opportunity. And that team went past the first round of the playoff in his first year. No doubt all of those factors helped him be a more productive player in his first year and the playoff experience has accelerated him development. That is his baseline now. Had he gone to a different team like say the Wizards, I doubt his production would have been the same. Or a player can land on a team where they are buried behind other players and don't get a opportunity early on. Or maybe that team is in a huge transition and changes coaches and offensive systems mid season. Or maybe they played out of position based on team need. All of these things would effect their first year production. Example. I doubt Mack even hit the floor on a good team with more PG depth like he did for the Wizards.

Sure I would expect that player to get better the next year and the year after regardless. But what is their baseline and how quickly does their game develop to it's maximum. That was what we were talking about.

If all you are talking about is moving established players with established roles from one team to another, them sure, in most cases they would have similar production. CP is going to be CP. A bench player is going to mostly likely perform like a bench player as they move from one bench to the next. Rebounders rebound. Moving them isn't likely to change that.

[sfam]

I would echo the need to actually show numbers when we are making a point based off of some study or numbers of some kind. Speaking with authority about numbers, without actually providing them doesn't advance the conversation much. I find it perfectly OK to go off of conventional wisdom. And intuitively, it makes absolutely no sense to me that neither the coach, nor associated players or location changes a player's efficiency rating. This sounds completely made up.

[nate33]

Any chance we could drop the Blatche & Leanord aspects of this thread to get back to the draft?

The Blatche stuff has been moved.

[MDStar]

For me the debate between Barnes, Beal and MKG comes down to basketball. If you looked at last nights game, the stars were shining bright. Lebron, Wade, Durant all played great and Westbrook was un-guardable in that 2nd half. That's what we need. Of course, maybe that player isn't available to us right now as none can know the future but in my opinion, we need to select the player who has the most potential of being that guy.

Barnes - Not that guy. He can be good, I have no doubts about that. However when it comes to be a superstar, his demeanor, personality, skill set, all scream good player but not have that level of greatness. Think Joe Johnson, Rudy Gay, Danny Grainger, etc.

Beal - Possibly but I just don't think he has "it" either. I'm sure that he will score in the NBA and be a very good shooting guard. I just think that those other stats that we hype him up about from his freshman season, will not translate to the NBA. He will not rebound or block shots because in the NBA, he's on the perimeter. Now I'm not saying he'll be Nick Young but it takes a really special player to put up numbers across the board (ala D. Wade) and I just don't see it. Very good but also not great.

MKG - I think he has "it". I feel like he has the speed, power, determination, finishing ability, to make a decision and get to the rim at will. Yes, I know, he can't shoot but still somehow shot 50% from the field, higher than both Beal and Barnes. Additionally, he was the #1 SF coming out of High School last year and nothing anyone saw this year changed that. I watched several Kentucky games this year and while Davis was amazing, MKG was often the best basketball player on the court.

For me, we take MKG and be ecstatic for the next 10 years.

[GhostsOfGil]

Love Beal's attitude. Such a mature demeanor for a 19 year old:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btSTQuc6Ajw&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib8Clfreyak&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

[FAH1223]

For me the debate between Barnes, Beal and MKG comes down to basketball. If you looked at last nights game, the stars were shining bright. Lebron, Wade, Durant all played great and Westbrook was un-guardable in that 2nd half. That's what we need. Of course, maybe that player isn't available to us right now as none can know the future but in my opinion, we need to select the player who has the most potential of being that guy.

Barnes - Not that guy. He can be good, I have no doubts about that. However when it comes to be a superstar, his demeanor, personality, skill set, all scream good player but not have that level of greatness. Think Joe Johnson, Rudy Gay, Danny Grainger, etc.

Beal - Possibly but I just don't think he has "it" either. I'm sure that he will score in the NBA and be a very good shooting guard. I just think that those other stats that we hype him up about from his freshman season, will not translate to the NBA. He will not rebound or block shots because in the NBA, he's on the perimeter. Now I'm not saying he'll be Nick Young but it takes a really special player to put up numbers across the board (ala D. Wade) and I just don't see it. Very good but also not great.

MKG - I think he has "it". I feel like he has the speed, power, determination, finishing ability, to make a decision and get to the rim at will. Yes, I know, he can't shoot but still somehow shot 50% from the field, higher than both Beal and Barnes. Additionally, he was the #1 SF coming out of High School last year and nothing anyone saw this year changed that. I watched several Kentucky games this year and while Davis was amazing, MKG was often the best basketball player on the court.
For me, we take MKG and be ecstatic for the next 10 years.

I agree. Remember, Westbrook couldn't shoot that well when he was a rookie and has steadily improved.

[Swaguar]

Jordan is taking Barnes. And if you wanna help Wall you draft Robinson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Dpzna9UZazQ

[Severn Hoos]

Jordan is taking Barnes. And if you wanna help Wall you draft Robinson.

How exactly does taking Robinson help Wall? Maybe because of how Robinson will be that stretch 4 we keep talking about, with his outside shot creating space for Wall to get to the lane? Oh that's right, Robinson would be yet another guy who has shown little ability to hit a jumper, thus further clogging the lane with defenders to greet Wall on his every drive.

Or maybe it's the way Robinson would be such a great help defender, protecting the rim so that Wall can be extra aggressive guarding the opponent's PG at the point of attack? Oh wait, Robinson doesn't do that either.

Maybe it's the way he'll be great running the break with Wall for easy fast break buckets and awesome alley-oops? Now that might be possible, but unfortunately, the one thing Robinson does better than anyone in this draft or currently on the Wiz is to rebound the basketball. Which means that the team needs him under the opponents' basket geting those rebounds, so he will generally start the break by passing forward to Wall and then trailing the play from behind.

But he does have a great motor.

[LyricalRico]

^TRob does intrigue me, but our frontcourt would be really small with a 6'10 center and a 6'8 PF. Maybe that's not such an issue in today's NBA, but I still see it as a red flag. I'd still probably take him over Barnes, though. Barnes just screams "role player" to me and that's not what I want with a high lottery pick (we already tried that last year with Vesely).

As for MKG, I'm torn between him not having skills that would complement Wall and his potential to be a really good player. Maybe we're making the mistake of seeing Wall as the guy to build around? Do we have reason to believe that MKG can be better than Wall? If so, who's to say we can't trade Wall down the road for another player that's a better fit with MKG?

[willbcocks]

Sev: I think that's a little overboard! Having a strong rebounder is essential to starting the fast break, and Wall's a one man fast break anyway, so it's not critically important that we get people to catch up with him. Also, he has shown some potential to space the floor with his jumper, even if he doesn't have 3 point range.

The poor post defense alone makes me not want to draft him. If I were a GM, my number one rule would be don't sign big men who aren't solid post defenders. It is a significant handicap, and one that you often have to pay your budget for, as good offense poor defense bigs get paid more and have less impact than good defense poor offense ones.

We also already have 4 decent/potentially decent bigs and 0 decent/potentially decent wings. I'm honestly going to throw a fit if we draft anyone but Beal or MKG, because this draft has been handed to us on a silver platter.

[closg00]

For me the debate between Barnes, Beal and MKG comes down to basketball. If you looked at last nights game, the stars were shining bright. Lebron, Wade, Durant all played great and Westbrook was un-guardable in that 2nd half. That's what we need. Of course, maybe that player isn't available to us right now as none can know the future but in my opinion, we need to select the player who has the most potential of being that guy.
Barnes - Not that guy. He can be good, I have no doubts about that. However when it comes to be a superstar, his demeanor, personality, skill set, all scream good player but not have that level of greatness. Think Joe Johnson, Rudy Gay, Danny Grainger, etc.

Beal - Possibly but I just don't think he has "it" either. I'm sure that he will score in the NBA and be a very good shooting guard. I just think that those other stats that we hype him up about from his freshman season, will not translate to the NBA. He will not rebound or block shots because in the NBA, he's on the perimeter. Now I'm not saying he'll be Nick Young but it takes a really special player to put up numbers across the board (ala D. Wade) and I just don't see it. Very good but also not great.

MKG - I think he has "it". I feel like he has the speed, power, determination, finishing ability, to make a decision and get to the rim at will. Yes, I know, he can't shoot but still somehow shot 50% from the field, higher than both Beal and Barnes. Additionally, he was the #1 SF coming out of High School last year and nothing anyone saw this year changed that. I watched several Kentucky games this year and while Davis was amazing, MKG was often the best basketball player on the court.

For me, we take MKG and be ecstatic for the next 10 years.

I agree with much of what you wrote, the stars were shining for Miami, but their role-players were as-well. We don’t even have role-players that can shoot-well. Who on our roster can carry the team like Westbrook did, or even come close? No-one can, perhaps Crawford on one of his rare streaks. Is MKG a candidate to take-over games late in the 4th? As solid as he is, probably not, he’s a slasher and dunker.

[Severn Hoos]

Sev: I think that's a little overboard! Having a strong rebounder is essential to starting the fast break, and Wall's a one man fast break anyway, so it's not critically important that we get people to catch up with him. Also, he has shown some potential to space the floor with his jumper, even if he doesn't have 3 point range.

The poor post defense alone makes me not want to draft him. If I were a GM, my number one rule would be don't sign big men who aren't solid post defenders. It is a significant handicap, and one that you often have to pay your budget for, as good offense poor defense bigs get paid more and have less impact than good defense poor offense ones.

We also already have 4 decent/potentially decent bigs and 0 decent/potentially decent wings. I'm honestly going to throw a fit if we draft anyone but Beal or MKG, because this draft has been handed to us on a silver platter.

I know will, it's just that I think TRob would be likely to be a disappointment for this team as a #3 pick in the draft. Personally, I don't see him cracking the top 10 of PFs in the near future, so using our one shot at a star to get a guy who I think will be a middle of the pack player (10-15 in the league) at his position would not represent value. And I get frustrated by the blanket assertions that he will be an all-NBA type of player, when I see no reason to believe that will be the case.

As far as the "he has shown some potential to space the floor with his jumper" - not trying to be too critical, but what do you base that on? I know Beal's percentages were not great overall, but he shot much better at the end of the season and in the tournamnets, plus we have the scouting from HS and - more importantly - international play. I don't see any similar evidence from Robinson, unless you count shooting jumpers in workout drills. And Robinson was one of the few big men who actually played alongside an NBA-caliber (and sized) Center for most of his minutes, meaning he was perfectly situated to show those skills. His 2P% was pretty bad for a big man. So while I think he might develop that mid-range shooting ability, I'm not willing to bet a top 3 pick on it.

Outside of that, the one thing that we keep coming back to is rebounding. And he will be awesome on the boards. But again - is that worth a top 3 pick?

Other than that, I agree with your other points, the size & lack of help defense should end any discussion in the Front Office of making him the pick.

He seems like a great kid. I hope he goes to a good situation and has a solid career. I'll certainly root for him to lay the wood on the Heat, Celtics, and Lakers, no matter where he goes. I just hope it isn't in DC....