Official 2013 Draft Thread - Part V

[Ruzious]

Apparently Bennett didn't finish his junior or senior seasons?

There are just so many marks against this guy. Tweener, bad defensive reputation, injury prone, asthma.

It's a really hard pill to swallow.

Yeah, picking at 3 it's really hard to look past all those issues. He'd have to be significantly better than Porter, imo.

[Ruzious]

Larry Bird was a bust anyway.

Didn't pass the I test.

[AFM]

No he didn't. Couldn't leap explosively off both feet, couldn't execute a behind the knee dribble with elite hand speed. He a bust.

[Dark Faze]

pretty awesome

People forget he shot a blazing 51 percent on two-point jumpers as a freshman, and has worked arduously to improve his three-ball this season. The result? 43 percent from three, with 88 percent of them being assisted on. Porter may deal with an adjustment period early on as he acclimates himself to the NBA three, but make no mistake about it, he can shoot the ball.

^ Regarding Porter. I did not know that his mid range shot was that efficient as a freshmen. With that sort of length and jumpshot accuracy it would be hard for him not to have good upside in terms of being able to create his own offense.

Even Beal got better at it as the season went on.

[popper]

BPA is a concept that I have a hard time getting my arms around. Perhaps there’s a definition unknown to me, but if not, how can we even use the term in discussions since no one would agree on its meaning.

For instance, if Gobert projects to play at a below average level for 3 years and then becomes a beast in year 4 as he gains weight and strength, does that make him BPA when compared to Porter who might play at an above average level for an entire career?

Does production per minute divided by salary factor in to BPA? Does the crowd-pleasing swagger that super athletes have factor in to BPA since that type of excitement might sell additional seats and therefore increase ROI? If so, would a Tony Mitchell move up the draft board?

In accessing BPA, does body type factor in to the equation. Do ectomorphs’ get points against them when compared to mesomorphs’? Should we deduct points from Gobert and add points to Bennett based on their body types. Was Kareem an ectomorph?

I’ve often told my son that working muscles are much stronger that weight-lifting muscle. Should athletes that grow up on farms get a bump in the mocks?

Should NBA teams use actuarial scientist in their research and draft deliberations?

[rockymac52]

I've taken a week off this board to reflect on some things, and I haven't come to any groundbreaking conclusions or anything, but at the very least, I'm now convinced that Anthony Bennett should not be an option for us at the 3rd pick (and that he probably isn't in our plans).

I like the kid's potential, and I don't think his floor is as low as a lot of people have made it out to be. I think he's a talented player that can do a lot of good things that our team specifically needs. But I also think that there are better options out there this year, and that he is somewhat of a risk, and I don't think we can afford a risk at this point.

Some of you guys seem to think this team needs to add another legit all-star caliber player if they want to ever become title contenders. I don't think that's necessarily the case, as I think Beal and Wall will both be all-star caliber players, if not better, this coming season and especially in the next 2-4 years. I think we're in a good spot to add a very good role player (a Porter or Oladipo type). I think if we swing for the fences with this pick, and Bennett doesn't turn out to be a stud, then we're in trouble. We all saw how bad the 2011 draft hurt us and set us back. We can't have an empty draft class like that again. We need at least something productive.

I think the pick is definitely going to be Noel (if he falls to us), Porter, Oladipo, or Len. I don't think we're seriously considering the likes of McLemore, Burke, McCollum, Muhammad, Zeller, or Bennett anymore.

[fishercob]

pretty awesome

People forget he shot a blazing 51 percent on two-point jumpers as a freshman, and has worked arduously to improve his three-ball this season. The result? 43 percent from three, with 88 percent of them being assisted on. Porter may deal with an adjustment period early on as he acclimates himself to the NBA three, but make no mistake about it, he can shoot the ball.

^ Regarding Porter. I did not know that his mid range shot was that efficient as a freshmen. With that sort of length and jumpshot accuracy it would be hard for him not to have good upside in terms of being able to create his own offense.

Even Beal got better at it as the season went on.

Very cool indeed, and interesting that Bird was brought up in jest a few post beforehand. But I am reminded of how well Bird used skill and feel to create the slightest amount of necessary space to get his shot off. His release was so high that his fadeaway was unstoppable, and he couldn't jump over a phonebook.

Otto is going to have a legit post game -- not one predicated on backing a guy down. But he'll find a spot and shot over guys. And if he gets pushed (or lets himself get pushed) off the block, he'll catch and take his man off the dribble and create that way.

I love this dude. Can't wait to see him with good players around him -- hopefully here.

[Floater]

If Orlando does the AA for Bledsoe and Butler's exp contract, I think we'd be assured of one of Noel or Porter since Orlando would probably target Mac or Oladipo with the 2nd pick.

[rockymac52]

If Orlando does the AA for Bledsoe and Butler's exp contract, I think we'd be assured of one of Noel or Porter since Orlando would probably target Mac or Oladipo with the 2nd pick.

Disagree. At least, somewhat. While I think such a trade would take Burke out of the running, it doesn't really change their potential interest in Noel. But, it definitely would indicate that they're much more likely to take McLemore or Oladipo. It definitely improves our odds of getting Noel or Porter.

[Dat2U]

That's an interesting comp - Ryan Kelly to Olynyk. Kelly's actually got a significant standing reach advantage. And Kelly's a player who I think you can make the case that his other numbers would have been better if he hadn't been injured. He's recovering from offseason surgery now - and I'm not sure what the prognosis was - when he'll be healthy enough to play. Kelly at some point will play in the NBA.

Well I think Olynyk is the clear cut better athlete. I actually see Olynyk as having above average mobility for a PF. He has strong agility, a surprising first step putting the ball on the floor, rolled to the rim hard and had an impressive top speed running up the court. I don't understand the weak athlete comments for KO really. A 7 footer who moves that well isn't a weak athlete. Kelly is the guy who's feet will look stuck in cement compared to NBA peers, but if he plays C who won't need to be as fast, mind you.

If we were in the 1970's, Oly might have good mobility, speed, and athleticism for a PF. He doesn't pass the eye test, and he didn't pass the combine tests.

I didn't know it was pass or fail. Whose making the decision? Everybody seems to interpret the same data very differently.

[hands11]

He's a lot like Bennett in that if someone is deciding to put him at the top of their board, it's based on unavailable evidence, and simply projecting out from hints.

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.

Awesome rant.

Its is a hard call for sure. Just not very good timing to have the #3 for a number of reasons. But if I was to use it, all things being equal, I think if everything checks out, you go Len.

I see Len as the easier one to bring in. It would be nothing for then to have him come off the bench for two years even if he is taken at #3. Centers are like that.

Otto I see have being an addition and subtraction. I like what Webster and Trevor A give the team with both experience and combination of skills. Sorry but a team of overly young players just doesn't stand up to experience once the deep playoff hits. You could bring Otto off the bench to start the year, but then you have to ship Trevor A, you don't have a choice. And in doing so you are replacing him with a 20 year old. That's to go with your 20 SG. Thats a lot of youth at your starting PG, SG, SF come next year. Not ideal at all. Hence why I think the timing is bad for adding a #3 so soon after adding Wall and Beal who were so young already as a team. Another year of Wall and Beal and we will have a much better picture of what skills they will bring consistently. They are the ones to build around.

And with where they are at PF, its just not good timing to add another #3 there either. You already invested in Nene and you have other youth there. Adding more would be messy. Not sure they would be maximizing assets doing that. All things being equal, that is not where I would be looking with the #3.

The best positions to add for this team are Center, SG and PG and of the three, only Center is clearly open to draft and keep. In two years, a Len could step in to start with Okafor or similar backing them up. Its a win now and win later move. If you believe Len can be that player. They need someone long to go against Hibbert.

If you go SG or PG, you are overbuying using the #3, but you can fill a need now and move it later for good value. McLemore, Burke. Maybe VO. Not telling if his draft stock stay high until draft day.

If not using the #3, you trade back or out and tons of option open up. You can then draft a player that slots well as a back up who might be able to start because of injury. This is where a CJM comes in and this opens things up for a player like Adams. Maybe a Zeller. Or bring in a vet.

So at #3, I would prefer Len or Burke/McLemore/VO knowing you will move them down the road.
In a trade back - CJM, VO, Zeller, Adams. Got no idea where VO goes.

Noel wont play next year and I'm not sure he has a position until he gets stronger.
Bennett and Shabbazz have to many questions and fit issue. Plus they enter crowed positions.
Otto, its just not good timing and I'm not ready to slot him as the future SF making a really young 1,2,3 group.

I would rather build experience around Wall and Beal and add vets and youth as back up.

[hands11]

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

I believe Cody gets the second highest score in the YODA System, and he fits a more pressing long term need than Oladipo does. If it were up to me, and Oladipo were the BPA at 3, I would trade down into a spot where I was certain to get Cody, and then use the additional assets from the trade to get into a spot to also pick up Steven Adams, Kelly Olynyk or Gorgui Deng (players that rate decently in Kevin's Yoda system).

And that what getting number #3 gets us. We didn't know we would here. And now that we are, it does give us more options, challenges and known unknowns.

At least we get the option of choosing a player there if we want. Not sure what the trade back options are but you have to think there something out there. This is when being an actual GM with inside information would help.

As for YODA. I think its a cool idea and respect the work that goes into doing something like that. But I usually find the players I like using my eye and ears first and publicly available information, then go look at stats. Sometimes I look for a kind of player I want and start with publicly available stats, then go to the eye and ear test. But I never let stats drive the decision on their own. As a suspect few here do.

Noel would be a great example. There is so much more there then his stats. It may work out for him. But more likely he is never worth the #1.

The right pick has to do with a ton of things. Your building a team. Plugging the next best stat guy into that doesnt mean you get the best team.

[stevemcqueen1]

Very cool indeed, and interesting that Bird was brought up in jest a few post beforehand. But I am reminded of how well Bird used skill and feel to create the slightest amount of necessary space to get his shot off. His release was so high that his fadeaway was unstoppable, and he couldn't jump over a phonebook.

Otto is going to have a legit post game -- not one predicated on backing a guy down. But he'll find a spot and shot over guys. And if he gets pushed (or lets himself get pushed) off the block, he'll catch and take his man off the dribble and create that way.

I love this dude. Can't wait to see him with good players around him -- hopefully here.

Yeah that's an awesome move. His post game is already one of the best in the class. I could see him developing a really potent Chauncey Billups-esque post game.

The comparisons I come up with for Porter are really far ranging because he has such an eclectic game. Paul Pierce comes up a little bit for me just with the craftiness Porter uses to get his shots off from multiple platforms and release points. A triple threat game could really serve Porter given his passing and shooting ability, just like it does for Pierce.

One thing about Porter I notice is that his release is a little low. That elbow comes out and lowers it. It'd be nice if he released it a little higher but I don't think you can mess with his mechanics at this stage seeing as how the ball goes in.

Aside from getting bigger and stronger, the main thing I want to see Porter improve is the shot off the dribble. His shooting percentages on dribble pullups weren't good and it says to me that he has a hole in his skill set here and is much more comfortable catching and shooting with his feet set. I want to see him incorporate a little more movement into his perimeter offense. Catch the ball then dribble by the close out guy for an uncontested jumper. It'll make it so you can't just pressure him at the three point line.

Beal doesn't break guys down when he scores off the dribble, though he can be pretty powerful on his perimeter drives and take it up strong. He picks his way into space very very effectively using a dew dribbles and step backs to get great space for his shot. I don't expect Porter to be able to blow by NBA wings since he struggles to do it against college wings. But if he could get to where he can knock down those long 2s off the bounce like Beal, he'd be a dangerous scorer regardless.

Porter's skill level playing off the ball is already excellent and I think that's more important than the ability to create off the dribble in the end. That's how I felt about Beal last year too. John generates looks for everyone, when you've got him, you don't need a LBJ and DWade at SG and SF to score. That could lead to hero ball stagnation anyway.

[hands11]

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.

Which was obvious going into the draft. Jimmer was a great college player though.

I like the discussion about breaking down stats and how it isn't perfect. I have seen a lot written about things I focus on that are not easy to measure. Its a hard thing to convey what the eye and ear test is evaluating. We take in a ton of information with both that is hard to put numbers too. Its takes both skills. And at the end of the day, you have to make a call. The gut test.

Some ribbed me about Beal and how could I read so much into an interview video I saw. Well you can tell a lot from watching a person. Combine that with game clips and stats and the Wizards team needs, and it was just clear as day he was the right pick. Lots wanted MKG. A few wanted Barnes or Drummonds.

But Beal was the right pick for this team last draft. I would say that even if longer term Drummonds ends up better. This team needed a Beal last year. He was actually part of what helped turned them around. And he gave Wall a running mate. I think that even help Wall get it turned around. And Beal is the perfect person to share the stage with Wall as the two young stars.

[hands11]

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.

and maybe CJM is the most skilled G...

the other thing is (as was discussed earlier), Bennett appears to have a lot to
learn about 5 on 5 basketball. He can have all the skills in the world (see Javale McGee)
but if he doesn't know how/when/where to put them to use, he ultimately won't
be that successful. I'm not saying I know that this is/will be true, but it is a definite
risk. Combine that with tweener size and the risk grows.

I wouldnt leave out Burke when talking the most skilled guards. Burke is clearly very skilled.

[hands11]

Has anyone mentioned what I will coin as The Posterization Factor?
It seems that all elite wings regularly posterize defenders with their explosiveness off the dribble. It's a sign of both elite athleticism and the aggressive killer attitude it takes to bang on the rim. I can't find a single example of Porter dunking on an opponent. I can find multiple examples of Bennett destroying a defender even though he's shorter than Porter.

Show me an example of Larry Bird or Joe Dumars or Chris Mullen doing it, and I'll believe in your TPF coinage.

Sure its a factor. Its a momentum swing type thing. The players you mentioned did it with handles and awesome shooting and basketball IQ. Like Curry is doing it now. That also has the same effect. Bird was one of highest skilled players to ever play. He had great handles and a killer shot. Thats why he could get away with not being a elite athlete. His size and skills allowed him to overcome that. And there is always the competitive drive factor.

When you combine these things, you get MJs and Kobes. Now Durrant as he is adding strength. And LeBron has added to his skills to make a deadly combination.

VO rates high on competitiveness and athleticism, but he needs to expand his skills. If he can add elite handles and keep improving his shooting, thats it. Being able to shoot off the dribble already is a good sign.

Not enough dog in the fight combined with ball skills is what lowers McLemore. Ball skills you can learn. Have a killer instinct is harder to add if you don't have it. Look at Kevin S. He should be crushing players. Dude is athletic and 6-9 275 and has some skills. But the Tin Man needs a heart. And while not a great BBIQ player, he has shown he can learn. Even if he hasn't as quickly as I would like. Ability to learn quickly also need put in the projection duamahiggy.

Ahh, a new Kevin S nick name. Tin Man.

[dcPress]

I can't imagine selecting Bennett with #3. Most of you probably recall 'Hot lunch' who was also 6' 8' and 230 lbs or so when he was drafted

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01528.html

[hands11]

No he didn't. Couldn't leap explosively off both feet, couldn't execute a behind the knee dribble with elite hand speed. He a bust.

Bird was a warrior with amazing shooting and passing and also good ball skills. Man, I haven't watch any Bird highlights in a while. He was an insane shooter and passer.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeedmxI09tU[/youtube]

[hands11]

I've taken a week off this board to reflect on some things, and I haven't come to any groundbreaking conclusions or anything, but at the very least, I'm now convinced that Anthony Bennett should not be an option for us at the 3rd pick (and that he probably isn't in our plans).

I like the kid's potential, and I don't think his floor is as low as a lot of people have made it out to be. I think he's a talented player that can do a lot of good things that our team specifically needs. But I also think that there are better options out there this year, and that he is somewhat of a risk, and I don't think we can afford a risk at this point.

Some of you guys seem to think this team needs to add another legit all-star caliber player if they want to ever become title contenders. I don't think that's necessarily the case, as I think Beal and Wall will both be all-star caliber players, if not better, this coming season and especially in the next 2-4 years. I think we're in a good spot to add a very good role player (a Porter or Oladipo type). I think if we swing for the fences with this pick, and Bennett doesn't turn out to be a stud, then we're in trouble. We all saw how bad the 2011 draft hurt us and set us back. We can't have an empty draft class like that again. We need at least something productive.

I think the pick is definitely going to be Noel (if he falls to us), Porter, Oladipo, or Len.

I don't think we're seriously considering the likes of McLemore, Burke, McCollum, Muhammad, Zeller, or Bennett anymore.

Sounds like a week off did you some good. Welcome to the dark side, though I dont have Noel in first list.

I would put McLemore up there and Burke, but knowing we would move them. And I do have CJM and Zeller in my trade back list with Adams.

Other then that, we see the same picture with were they are with Wall and Beal and how large the window is. The key is getting them help and getting them into the playoffs. They need that experience.

McLemore, who I haven't given much mind, actually would be an interesting temporary add. He has Beal like religious beliefs I believe. I think Beal and he know each other. And Beal being a quieter dude could help McLemore reach his potential. Another sharp shooter who is athletic would help them now and he should retain trade value. I just wish he had better handles.

Not that they would do it but it wouldn't be a terrible addition.

[The Consiglieri]

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 injur? 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 imporantce of finding a way, anyway of attempting to quantify production, but I also would argue that college basketball statistics, particularly from juniors and seniors are likely the least reliable 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 sacrosant, 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 espect your opinion, and your right to say it.

I was responding to a statement that you made that people ON THIS BOARD are valuing Oladipo without any factual basis ("He's a lot like Bennett in that if someone is deciding to put him at the top of their board, it's based on unavailable evidence, and simply projecting out from hints."). That is untrue. One of the main reasons we (ON THIS BOARD) are discussing Oladipo is that he gets a high score in YODA, a fact-based metric. There may be discussions going on in other forums that I don't know about. The one ON THIS BOARD that I've been following has been completely and utterly fact-based.

You may disagree that Oladipo is as good as YODA says he is, because your interpretation of facts is different. You cannot truthfully say the Oladipo supporters do not have any facts to support their argument. It's just plain wrong to say that.

That's all I'm saying. Of course YODA has Noel lower than Oladipo because Noel is still a work in progress. Of course everybody agrees Noel is the better prospect, because YODA only captures what you have actually accomplished, not what you will be able to do once you grow into your body. Of course YODA doesn't capture desire or potential to improve. But that doesn't mean you throw YODA out. Just because YODA is not as valuable a tool as your eyes does not mean it is completely worthless.

In my mind, YODA and other, similar statistical exercises have a very specific purpose: they are best used as tools to help you find diamonds in the rough. There are about 300 Division I schools with 12 players each and who knows how many euro league teams. YODA will help you identify lesser-known players out there like Faried or Jae Crowder, who both were off the charts in YODA. YODA will highlight ten or so players you never heard of that may be worth checking out. Of those, maybe only half are the real deal. Somebody did an analysis of second round picks in this thread at some point, pointing out that only 6% of second round picks are any good. But what if using a tool like YODA gives you a 50% chance of finding a quality player, instead of 6%? Why would you throw that tool out?

It's like saying "This slot machine only gives me a jackpot 50% of the time. Why bother?"

YODA is also helpful for documenting actual achievement. It's a moneyball thing -- ignore how fat and short this guy is, ignore how ugly his game is, can he actually play? YODA can help you overcome biases. For example, there's a really strong bias against white players. There is a prejudice that white players are slower and less athletic, which may actually be true on average, who knows. But Cody Zeller is neither slow nor unathletic, according to his combine results. According to YODA, his documented achievement accomplishing the things that need to be done on the court ranks almost as high as anyone. Zeller has converted the excellent physical tools that he has into excellent accomplishments -- he is one of the most productive players in the draft this year. He deserves a close look. After taking into account aspects of the game that are not captured in YODA, can you determine whether Zeller is a better player than Porter? Facts force you to ask difficult questions, questions that other people casually dismiss. Skepticism is what protects you from groupthink. Skepticism is how you find the quality players that everybody else missed.

Getting back to the original focus of this discussion: Oladipo, according to the eye test, is one of the best defenders in college basketball. He has also converted his excellent physical tools, as tested in the combine, into excellent accomplishments on the court, as measured by YODA. The facts indicate we should take a closer look at him, so we are. It's a fact-based discussion, although, as you correctly point out, the facts we are using are not 100% reliable, so maybe in the end we'll decide that, say, Noel is still a better player, no matter what YODA says.

What I hear you saying is "because the facts are not 100% reliable, they are not really facts at all and we shouldn't be discussing Oladipo at all. Only the eye test is 100% reliable and statistics don't matter." If that's what you mean, I think you're flat out wrong. I think using data and statistics (properly, with a full understanding of the limitations of the tools you are using) to find things the herd have overlooked is precisely how you succeed at this sort of business.

I see what you're taking issue with and that's totally reasonable. Part of it is misinterpreting what I meant there, when I spoke of unavailable evidence, I was referencing the fact that the Per 40 numbers that can't getting touted were not reliable figures to really project anything, and in referencing hints was simply referencing the issue with all scouting, that the difference between college and the pro's is something that can be hinted at, but that theres a great chasm of difference between making your bones in the Mountain West, Big 12, or SEC, as compared to the Eastern Conference or Western Conference, and you can only truly see it, when the player steps on the floor. Those two comments were largely written in response to some arguments I'd been reading which were becoming overwhelmingly emphatic in tone in their condemnation of the potential of certain prospects, while being almost Pollyanna-ish in their superlatives for other prospects. Essentially in some posts its reading as if: This player IS this at the NBA level, and that player IS that. I have a big issue with those kind of takes especially when people begin to preface their takes by suggesting that they're based on facts, or proof rather than speculation and reason.

It's an odd place to be in as just a week or two ago, I was arguing that metrics, and things like the combine are hugely important and that the backlash against things like the combine, I the NBA, and the NFL in particular have gotten in vogue ever since Mike Mamula and the birth of the "workout warrior" gloss. The problem is that history tells us that things like the combine and metrics, first originating (as far as I can tell) with the Cowboys 45 or so years ago, in baseball in the 70's with the orginal sabremetrics guy etc, made for far more accurate and reliable drafting than the eye test, and old grizzled veteran scouts.

I'm actually far more inclined to line up behind Nivek, than scouts, but moreso in football than basketball. In Basketball it worked much better in the eighties and earlier, now it's difficult to get a read on things.

Anyway I'm babbling, but I see where your issue was, and it was quite reasonable in my opinion to take issue with it, though I hope you understand now where I was coming from.

At this point I'm pretty darn flexible, my board evolves everyday, with Porter and Oladipo closing in on Bennett, and Len up there as well. It's very difficult to get a clear line on these guys, and I hope we can all get on the same page in regards to the one key factor with this draft which was moving up. Without the move up, something that was what, 8.7-1 against? In my view there were basically 6 or 7 guys in this draft that had a chance to really help us, and after the flip loss it really looked like we were going to be locked out of access. Now we'll get one o them, and that is absolutely huge, whomever it is.