Official 2013 Draft Thread - Part V

[fishercob]

I agree with Ruzious on the notion of a mix.

--Sophisticated stats and analytics
--scouting/"eye test"
--background checks, interviews, personality tests

The art -- and the job of the ultimate decision-makers -- is knowing how to balance all of this data and make a decision. Do you take the guy who looks the part, comes from a great family, but the stats are lukewarm on, or the isn't as tall and long as you'd like, has had some attitude issues, but has been realy productive? There are tons of variables.

[tontoz]

Nivek, do you believe in the "eye test"?

If those eyes belong to EG i am pretty confident his answer would be no.

[Dat2U]

Stats are imperfect. How in the world do you predict stardom for Russell Westbrook or Deron Williams when they put up very middling college numbers? And vice versa, there are numerous NBA prospects, that dominated college basketball, yet did nothing in the NBA.

The more I research college stats historically, the more I realize that it's a very imperfect science.

I've been trying to come up with my own model with mixed results. While stats certainly should be a key part of any analysis, honestly I don't see how one can truly make a viable analysis without the eye test being a huge factor.

Eyes do lie, but I think college stats lie too. I can't tell which is the bigger liar.

Two things that appear to be uniform in analzying recent NBA drafts. First, there's a big difference b/w having a top 10 pick and not. The chances of landing an elite or near elite player with a mid or late first round pick are really small. Teams are getting smarter drafting wise, the chances of finding a Rajon Rondo aren't that great. More than likely, you'll find a Landry Fields or DeJuan Blair type as a late first or 2nd round pick. They may be considered draft steals, but yet both guys aren't rotation players at this stage in their careers so their benefit to the teams that drafted them may be overrated. So trading down in drafts, while a popular discussion topic, in many cases would be a bad idea (sorry CCJ).

Secondly and maybe more importantly, what seperates the mice from men in the NBA is skill. Whether it's offensive skill or defensive skill. Same with IQ. You will not find examples of guys with little to no skill (on either side of the ball) or low b-ball IQ who really help their teams win.

So I'm trying to develop a model that incorporates b-ball IQ (very subjective) and skill (less subjective but still somewhat) as well as basketball character (work ethic, willingness to put wins & teams first, unselfishness in terms of shot selection - incredibly subjective) into judging a prospect. Unfortunately I don't access to background reports like NBA teams do. I wish there was a team or GM that would sponsor me to do this, lol.

[nate33]

After a few more days of contemplation, I'm starting to back away from my advocacy of Bennett. Although I think his high beta makes him an intriguing prospect who could conceivably pan out to be better than Porter, I'm starting to be less optimistic about his defensive upside.

The fact is, even if his disinterest in D can be coached away, he's still a 6-7 guy with a standing reach probably in the 8-9 range. Guys that small are never effective defenders at the PF position. Basically, even if he pans out to be a dynamic offensive player and a hard working defender, I'm concerned that his net effect on winning games will be zero or negative.

I'm also starting to think a little more highly of Porter. The statistical analysis about him by Nivek and that statgeek from the website I posted a while ago are pretty convincing. I have concerns about his light weight, but he definitely has a bigger frame than Tayshaun Prince. He'll put on weight over time. I could see him filling out to roughly the size of Scottie Pippen if he spends the time in the gym. He certainly won't pan out to be the next Pippen because he lacks Pippen's explosiveness, but maybe he ends up about as good as (a healthy) Danny Manning.

Pippen was listed at 210 as a 22-year-old draft prospect. Here's a youtube video of a rookie Scottie Pippen in his first NBA playoff start. He was a twig even though he was 3 months shy of his 23rd birthday. Porter turns 20 next week.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M79eJyW_T0M[/youtube]

[stevemcqueen1]

Yeah there are a lot of problems with player evaluation and prediction.

First, there are all kinds of unknowables that effect player success--injuries, undetectable mental factors (loss of confidence, loss of interest in professionalism such as the desire to compete/practice to name a few). Those things happen to players and there is just nothing anyone can do to predict things like that when the future does not resemble the past.

Second, there is a problem everyone faces with properly collecting and synthesizing all of the data that's out there to tell us who a player is.

A problem with going purely off statistic metrics is that there aren't enough metrics that have been invented to capture a complete picture of what happens on a basketball court during a game.

Another is that statistics are based on the events within games, they are necessarily retrospective and not necessarily predictive. And almost all of the stats we have are situation dependent and influenced by factors outside an individual player's control.

A major problem with just going off observation of skills and play is that there are so many pertinent things to observe and then contextualize with every prospect. First off, you need some expertise/experience to make the kind of predictive comparisons a scout does: "I think Bradley Beal's ability to pump fake from 3 and then take one or two dribbles before he pulls up in mid range is going to be a useful weapon in the NBA because I've observed Ray Allen score a lot of points doing that NBA." You need to have observed a lot of different things that have already happened in the NBA and figured out how to contextualize them.

And a single human brain is not capable of totally cataloging that kind of information IMO, and there isn't enough time for a person to observe everything about every prospect. And our observations are colored by the emotions we feel at the time we make them. So we naturally inflate the importance of certain observations and devalue others. I think it's practically impossible of maintaining the proper perspective of each prospect's strengths and weaknesses. There are tons of biases that influence our impressions that are extremely hard to detect. That's why even the best NBA talent evaluators have made huge mistakes based on errors in judgement.

I think the best you can hope to do is accept that you're just going to get some wrong simply off of unknowables coming up later and biting you in the butt. Then get a team of minds you understand and trust together to form the evaluation staff, and then try and collect and consider and contextualize every bit of pertinent information you can on every player under consideration. So that includes everything from numbers to observations and impressions.

[Dark Faze]

One thing to note is that you can never really tell about a guys explosiveness until they hit the weight room.

Most skinny prospects get more explosive when they get access to NBA quality training staffs after a few off-seasons. Reason being squatting is a big part of good muscle building programs which can really help propel explosive leap numbers.

Look at this video of Kevin Durant having a wide open lade to explode off of for a dunk during his Texas year:

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

That's pretty below the rim and absolutely nothing compared to what he's capable of after a few years in the league and that's with a fairly modest bulk up.

[verbal8]

I'm also starting to think a little more highly of Porter. The statistical analysis about him by Nivek and that statgeek from the website I posted a while ago are pretty convincing. I have concerns about his light weight, but he definitely has a bigger frame than Tayshaun Prince. He'll put on weight over time. I could see him filling out to roughly the size of Scottie Pippen if he spends the time in the gym. He certainly won't pan out to be the next Pippen because he lacks Pippen's explosiveness, but maybe he ends up about as good as (a healthy) Danny Manning.

In general, I think the bench press is of limited value for NBA draft prospects - 0 reps doesn't seem to have held Durant back much. However I do find it encouraging for Porter. 9 reps won't blow anyone away, but it is decent especially when considered with his long wing-span.

[sfam]

Can Bennett be a back to the basket type of player? I understand he can shoot the outside shot how good will his inside game be in NBA

Bennett is the ,most skilled offensive player in the draft. I'd be surprised if he didn't continue to develop offensively, including a post up game.

At this point, I still think Bennett is the right pick for us, but would be excited if its Zeller or Porter as well. Not so much Olapido, as I think we should be drafting starters at this point.

I doubt it. He may be the most intriguing match of skill & physical strength but most skilled? Not by a long shot. He certainly has shown precious little off the ball, especially in terms of awareness. He has no post up game to speak of either. No post moves, no hook shot, he's strictly a face up 4.

Personally, I think Olynyk is the most skilled big in the draft, by a wide margin.

You're right. I should have qualified this as the most skilled offensive player with elite athletics. Olynyk is very skilled, but just isn't a great athlete.

[Dr Positivity]

Yeah there are a lot of problems with player evaluation and prediction.

First, there are all kinds of unknowables that effect player success--injuries, undetectable mental factors (loss of confidence, loss of interest in professionalism such as the desire to compete/practice to name a few). Those things happen to players and there is just nothing anyone can do to predict things like that when the future does not resemble the past.

Second, there is a problem everyone faces with properly collecting and synthesizing all of the data that's out there to tell us who a player is.

A problem with going purely off statistic metrics is that there aren't enough metrics that have been invented to capture a complete picture of what happens on a basketball court during a game.

Another is that statistics are based on the events within games, they are necessarily retrospective and not necessarily predictive. And almost all of the stats we have are situation dependent and influenced by factors outside an individual player's control.

A major problem with just going off observation of skills and play is that there are so many pertinent things to observe and then contextualize with every prospect. First off, you need some expertise/experience to make the kind of predictive comparisons a scout does: "I think Bradley Beal's ability to pump fake from 3 and then take one or two dribbles before he pulls up in mid range is going to be a useful weapon in the NBA because I've observed Ray Allen score a lot of points doing that NBA." You need to have observed a lot of different things that have already happened in the NBA and figured out how to contextualize them.

And a single human brain is not capable of totally cataloging that kind of information IMO, and there isn't enough time for a person to observe everything about every prospect. And our observations are colored by the emotions we feel at the time we make them. So we naturally inflate the importance of certain observations and devalue others. I think it's practically impossible of maintaining the proper perspective of each prospect's strengths and weaknesses. There are tons of biases that influence our impressions that are extremely hard to detect. That's why even the best NBA talent evaluators have made huge mistakes based on errors in judgement.

I think the best you can hope to do is accept that you're just going to get some wrong simply off of unknowables coming up later and biting you in the butt. Then get a team of minds you understand and trust together to form the evaluation staff, and then try and collect and consider and contextualize every bit of pertinent information you can on every player under consideration. So that includes everything from numbers to observations and impressions.

Good post

I'm of the opinion that the "The more information and data included in an analysis, the better" sounds good, but is largely an ineffective way in the draft. The more information considered, the higher ratio of it will be noise and the more complicated it is to separate causation from correlation. What really matters is figuring out which information matters and which doesn't. It's about information interpretation efficiency and not volume shooting.

For example I read a post another board by a guy in love with Caldwell-Pope, one reason why is because he analyzed the footwork and release of his shot and the spaces he can get it off. Chances are pro scouts have similarly gone Game of Thrones nerd on KCP's game, like your Beal example. I haven't watched nearly enough about KCP to see the nuances of his game like that. However I'm very confident my opinion of KCP (not in my top 40) is more likely to be accurate than those who see a top 10 prospect and star. Because I believe I have a more clear grasp of how much it hurts KCP that he's a wing who doesn't attack the rim, or that he has a poor feel for the game. Or how it's a red flag that he was a poor shooter as a freshman and his improvement as a soph was over a small sample size and that his FT shooting was middling in college.

[Ruzious]

Oladipo being the best defender in college basketball is probably the funniest thing I've heard about a prospect this year.

Would you explain why - and who you think is better?

I think he was the best perimeter defender I saw last season - due to his consistent intense focus on it and his athletic ability and length. Anthony Hickey of LSU was probably the most disruptive defender I saw, and DJ Stephens of Memphis was probably the most explosive - though I didn't see enough of him to make much of an evaluation.

[sfam]

Supercool interactive map of birthplace of every foreign-born draft pick over the last 15 years.

This seems to be missing a bit. For instance, one name that comes to mind is Desagana Diop from Senagal (first round pick). When I was there, many people asked me if I knew he was from there. Just looking at Basketball Reference, it says there are 7 players from Senegal, but only 3 are listed.

http://www.databasebasketball.com/playe ... m?code=SEN

[stevemcqueen1]

I want to say that I think there is unquantifiable value in emotional observations too. Basketball is an emotional game where confidence is such a big factor in the outcomes of a game. It's a very hierarchical and dynamic game. A team can lose it's confidence and feel like it'll never make another shot and they start believing they are the lesser team and then they start playing worse. Then an alpha type player comes in and gives them an emotional lift. Maybe he makes a huge stop or spectacular scoring play and suddenly that team feels invincible--the hierarchies change. And they actually start playing way better as a result.

And a true knock down shooter or true lock down defender gives his team a totally unique emotional boost. "It's OK we're down 9, Ray Allen will makes his shots." "Hibbert is behind me, I can play my man aggressively and go for turnovers." "All I need to do is help get a few stops in crunch time, Carmelo will dig us out of this hole."

You can sense when a star seems invincible, like the alpha player of the court and everyone else is effected by him because they are either scared and reactionary as they try and contain him, or they are flying around making plays because they know the best guy is on their team backing them up. That confidence and leadership is so important. You saw it with the Wizards morphing into an entirely different team almost the exact moment John Wall returned.

That's why I think watching players within the context of the season is valuable for picking up on cliche but legitimate attributes like, "wow factor," "star quality," and leadership and such. It's why I say things like you had to watch Bennett in the context of the season to understand what a star he was. When Bennett was playing well, it was palpable. There was nobody else on the other team that wanted anything to do with him, they just wanted to get out of that stretch without being embarrassed and UNLV would suddenly seem unbeatable. You got a little bit of that too with Dipo and McLemore, particularly when they threw down unbelievable dunks. But it's not quite the same. Bennett would throw down with two hands and you couldn't get out of the way fast enough. Then next possession he would pull up and hit a three on you and you'd be totally demoralized. "He can do that too? Well I've got no hope."

When you hear all of the great players who played with Jordan talk about what made Jordan great, the thing they always mention is his competitiveness. He sapped the competitive spirit from his opponents and boosted it in his teammates. After a while his mere presence was enough to make his team better and his opponents worse. It was all emotional.

[stevemcqueen1]

I'm also starting to think a little more highly of Porter. The statistical analysis about him by Nivek and that statgeek from the website I posted a while ago are pretty convincing. I have concerns about his light weight, but he definitely has a bigger frame than Tayshaun Prince. He'll put on weight over time. I could see him filling out to roughly the size of Scottie Pippen if he spends the time in the gym. He certainly won't pan out to be the next Pippen because he lacks Pippen's explosiveness, but maybe he ends up about as good as (a healthy) Danny Manning.

In general, I think the bench press is of limited value for NBA draft prospects - 0 reps doesn't seem to have held him back much. However I do find it encouraging for Porter. 9 reps won't blow anyone away, but it is decent especially when considered with his long wing-span.

Porter has a strong looking upperbody with good muscle tone there. The bench numbers he put up are a pleasant surprise when you look at his height and weight. The biggest thing for him is going to be adding bulk to his lower half. His legs look painfully slender. His build reminds me of JaVale's in that way. I think getting stronger there will be key for him to be able to power through contact in the paint and also to run through screens and hold position against his man.

[stevemcqueen1]

Good post

I'm of the opinion that the "The more information and data included in an analysis, the better" sounds good, but is largely an ineffective way in the draft. The more information considered, the higher ratio of it will be noise and the more complicated it is to separate causation from correlation. What really matters is figuring out which information matters and which doesn't. It's about information interpretation efficiency and not volume shooting.

Definitely. I think that is a whole challenge of evaluation in and of itself. Sorting and contextualizing information. I think that's probably the hardest thing to do actually, and the only real way to get good at doing it is to have loads of experience to tell you what to pay attention to.

Player evaluation is a tough business because some of the most indelible ways to learn and gain experience are to be wrong and fail. But it's a high pressure industry where failure is not tolerated for long.

[Dark Faze]

Oladipo being the best defender in college basketball is probably the funniest thing I've heard about a prospect this year.

Would you explain why - and who you think is better?

I think he was the best perimeter defender I saw last season - due to his consistent intense focus on it and his athletic ability and length. Anthony Hickey of LSU was probably the most disruptive defender I saw, and DJ Stephens of Memphis was probably the most explosive - though I didn't see enough of him to make much of an evaluation.

Being an athlete helps with perimeter defense but positioning and smarts are 90% of it. Aaron Craft was definitely better than Oladipo on that end.

[sfam]

I want to say that I think there is unquantifiable value in emotional observations too. Basketball is an emotional game where confidence is such a big factor in the outcomes of a game. It's a very hierarchical and dynamic game. A team can lose it's confidence and feel like it'll never make another shot and they start believing they are the lesser team and then they start playing worse. Then an alpha type player comes in and gives them an emotional lift. Maybe he makes a huge stop or spectacular scoring play and suddenly that team feels invincible--the hierarchies change. And they actually start playing way better as a result.

And a true knock down shooter or true lock down defender gives his team a totally unique emotional boost. "It's OK we're down 9, Ray Allen will makes his shots." "Hibbert is behind me, I can play my man aggressively and go for turnovers." "All I need to do is help get a few stops in crunch time, Carmelo will dig us out of this hole."

You can sense when a star seems invincible, like the alpha player of the court and everyone else is effected by him because they are either scared and reactionary as they try and contain him, or they are flying around making plays because they know the best guy is on their team backing them up. That confidence and leadership is so important. You saw it with the Wizards morphing into an entirely different team almost the exact moment John Wall returned.

That's why I think watching players within the context of the season is valuable for picking up on cliche but legitimate attributes like, "wow factor," "star quality," and leadership and such. It's why I say things like you had to watch Bennett in the context of the season to understand what a star he was. When Bennett was playing well, it was palpable. There was nobody else on the other team that wanted anything to do with him, they just wanted to get out of that stretch without being embarrassed and UNLV would suddenly seem unbeatable. You got a little bit of that too with Dipo and McLemore, particularly when they threw down unbelievable dunks. But it's not quite the same. Bennett would throw down with two hands and you couldn't get out of the way fast enough. Then next possession he would pull up and hit a three on you and you'd be totally demoralized. "He can do that too? Well I've got no hope."

When you hear all of the great players who played with Jordan talk about what made Jordan great, the thing they always mention is his competitiveness. He sapped the competitive spirit from his opponents and boosted it in his teammates. After a while his mere presence was enough to make his team better and his opponents worse. It was all emotional.

+1 - great post.

This is why I want us to draft Bennett. Even given the risks Bennett poses, having that sort of player on our team can potentially raise us to the upper echelon of the East. I don't know that Porter does that.

[Dark Faze]

That's the thing about tweeners though, they are physically imposing and overpower 95% of college players while being able to outside shots.

It wasn't any different with Derrick Williams or Beasley.

Showing Alpha male qualities is obviously good, but its not the end all. Jimmer Fredettes teammates were super hyped when he was putting in work at BYU, he made big shots and dominated games by himself, yet he can't get much burn because that play didn't transfer over well to the NBA.

[WizarDynasty]

Adams, Shabazz, Bennett are the most explosive athletes in this relative to their position in this draft. Adams has a sister who shot putts in the olympics, talk about explosive genetics.

[Ruzious]

Oladipo being the best defender in college basketball is probably the funniest thing I've heard about a prospect this year.

Would you explain why - and who you think is better?

I think he was the best perimeter defender I saw last season - due to his consistent intense focus on it and his athletic ability and length. Anthony Hickey of LSU was probably the most disruptive defender I saw, and DJ Stephens of Memphis was probably the most explosive - though I didn't see enough of him to make much of an evaluation.

Being an athlete helps with perimeter defense but positioning and smarts are 90% of it. Aaron Craft was definitely better than Oladipo on that end.

Craft certainly belongs in the conversation. I'd take Oladipo over him for his versatility in being able to defend all types of perimeter players - from PG to SF - and that's not just a cliche - he defended the top wing player of the opposition.

[The Consiglieri]

Erm, no, this board is talking about Oladipo because Kevin's evidence-based system YODA gives Oladipo the top score in this draft.

Erm, no, because at the end of the day, Oladipo never played full time starters minutes, and never put together anything resembling a year like '12-'13, in limited minutes until his "THIRD" year. Hence it's inherently flawed. There's a reason so many picks are so often blown and no matter what metric system you use, or create, you cannot create one that utilizes college #'s that are predictive, particularly in the current college game in which most well thought of prospects leave after 1 year or 2 max, and especially if the minutes said player uses are nothing remotely like what would be expected of a top player at the next level.

Hence the reason there are still plenty of doubters of Drummond (limited minutes), and hence the reason why there are so many busts.

People don't love Oladipo because YODA does, people love Oladipo because they love a guy who is the best defender in college basketball, tests out as efficient and so may actually be at the next level, and tests thru the roof athletically.

The people concerned, are concerned either because he doesn't have the size to play the 3, and didn't play anything remotely like enough minutes to project whether he'd be a legit offensive weapon, or efficient weapon at the next level AND he looked like nothing more than a mediocre offensive weapon and a speculative second rounder or undrafted guy when he was a freshman like Shabazz and Bennett etc and a sophomore like Porter.

I love him, and might take him at #3 over Porter because I think he's going to be better than Porter and that trumps positional need w/me just about always, and it has zilch to do with YODA because in the end, I can't rely on YODA or any numbered system as the end all be all of anything, even if I do like to incorporate things like it.

It's a real difficult thing for me to figure out how I'd order Oladipo, McLemore, Porter, and Bennett after Noel. Probably 3, 5, 4, and 2 respectively.

It's just a little weird to accuse THIS BOARD of engaging in an exercise that is not based on fact, when in fact Oladipo gets the top score in a fact-based metric.

Just because you don't like the facts doesn't make them not facts. Don't accuse people of chasing cobwebs and moonbeams when that's exactly what you are doing yourself. Propose an alternate way of interpreting the facts and I'll take you seriously. Reject the facts and then attack a straw man based on your irrational rejection of the facts and you'll deserve any and all mockery directed at you.

How are moon beams, and cobwebs involved with the reality of very limited minutes for a starter, decreasing the issues of fatigue and the liklihood of injury? These are very serious issues when you're analyzing the stats of a player with a limited collection of data and or a limited collection of minutes to judge said player by.

As was mentioned yesterday, there's a fundamental difference between being a player that logs serious minutes producing certain numbers, and a player that isn't logging heavy minutes producing certain numbers. Issues like fatigue and injury crop up more frequently with players that log the heavier minutes. Oladipo didnt have to deal with these issues hence it inherently distorts the numbers a bit, and I don't know any reliable way of adjusting for that, since you can't really create a "known quantity" out of what's missing.

Secondly I question the reliability of statistics in a modern college basketball setting where conference to conference strength is erratic and not reliable in terms of comparisons, and where college as a whole sees its best players repeatedly declaring after a sole year, emptying out both elite talent, and depth of talent so that players excelling as juniors and seniors could be outright frauds, or just late bloomers/developers. How do you quantify any of this? I understand and very much value the importance of finding a way, any way of attempting to quantify production, but I also would argue that college basketball statistics, particularly from juniors and seniors are likely the least reliable statistics in all of basketball in terms of projecting the quality of a player.It's anything but "Facts".

As for "THIS BOARD", since when are Oladipo's supporters, THE Collective BOARD?

I respect the hell out of Nivek for coming up with his sytem. It does not, however, make his system sacrosanct, or free from criticism, nor you. And I am certainly more than willing to accept criticism, there is a ton I don't know, and even more that I don't know I don't know. I have no problems with humility, just sarcastic and dismissive tones.

Other than that, I respect your opinion, and your right to say it.