2012 NBA Draft - Part V

[TGW]

Faried struck me as an above the rim player in college. Faried is longer and more bouncy than Thomas Robinson. Robinson is more floor bound, but is quick and agile. Robinson has more signs of a developing face up game. Faried is lower usage and very efficient cleaning up around the glass and finishing at the rim. I personally question whether Robinson will have to transition into being a lower usage player in the NBA b/c of his struggles around the rim and inconsistencies with his face up game.

Even considering the level of competition, I think Faried is the better prospect. Robinson isn't a game changer defensively and Faried wrecked havoc defensively in college. I'm just not sold on Robinson as an elite prospect. s he worthy of a top 10 pick? Yes. A top 3 pick? IMO, no.

100% agree. I think at his best, he reaches Carlos Boozer's peak...at his worst, he's Shelden Williams. I see more Shelden Williams than Boozer.

[truwizfan4evr]

Everyone is trying to predict who wizards may or will get out of MKG,Robinson or Brad Beal. I'm wondering would everyone be happy no matter witch of these 3 we get? I know i would, were getting a very good player regardless who we draft.

[Knighthonor]

Too many people here drinking the Beal kool-aid. What's his standout trait? His 3pt % wasn't even that good in college.

So I knew that I first learned of Beal last summer, but I did not remember who first brought him to my attention.

It was theboomking, who first posted about him last July. Big ups to Boom. The second post was from rockymac52, who liked Beal and was familiar with him from Missouri's recruitment of him. Perhaps you'll recognize this third post:

I'm a huge Beal fan! He reminds me of Eric Gordon in a number of ways. Undersized long stocky two-guard who can stroke and get up. They even look similar.

And I didn't know he had ups like this!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6quEQX7ufiI[/youtube]

7/13/11

Beal is gone at the 2 spot. Sorry Wizards.

[AFM]

Huh? I doubt that

[hands11]

I don't think Robinson has the motor Faried does. Faried has the speed of a small forward so he beats most bigs down the court, and I also think he's more athletic than Robinson as well.

I just don't buy Robinson being that great of a player in the pros. You especially don't see him doing the kind of things Faried did in college (i.e. dunking on multiple players, catching high lobs, etc.)

Robinson beats everyone down court as well. He has a serious motor and is focused on effect just like Fared was/is.

He was ranked just below him in rebounding rate. He also catches lobs.

I'm surprised CCJ hasn't been more on the Robinson bandwagon more. They are not exactly the same. Faried seems to be a better leaper. But Robinson has better form and will shoot better from outside. He will be more of a scorer. Fared like rebounding, a leader and a scorer. Charlotte will pick him. He is exactly what they need. Beal is what the Wizards need.

[J-Ves]

Just responding to J-Ves, couldn't quote comment. Something about 3 post being embedded.

When you call Barnes a "reach" at 3, what do you mean? I believe Mchael Kidd-Gilchrist is a reach at 2 or 3 but media is hyping him so much. Not that he isn't deserving of some of it.

From what I've seen on most mocks Barnes highest draft position is 4th to Cleveland, but more likely he is going to fall to the 5-9 range. So, if the wizards decided that they really wanted him they would be foolish to not trade down and get something else in return, even if all they could get was a late first.

[payitforward]

They mean nothing to you? ... You can certainly dismiss numbers you don't like or that don't fit your narrative but that doesn't make you right.

Standing reach specifically is an important tool....

Uh huh, and let me point out that he has to have two arms as well. No good bigs w/ only one arm -- what could more clearly prove the importance of these measurements, I ask you?

Do you have some real research to cite, my friend? Someone has done an actual study plotting standing reach of PFs vs. productivity of PFs? Please feel free to provide a URL.

Suppose we rank all NBA teams in order of added-up team TS% -- do you think there'd be a statistically significant correlation of that order w/ the order of teams by win-loss record? I do. How about if we listed all NBA teams by number of rebounds?

Now what if we listed all NBA teams by the total of their squads' standing reach. Do you think there'd be a statistically significant correlation of that order and the order of teams by win-loss record? If not, why not?

How about if we just listed all NBA Power Forwards in order of their standing reach. Do you think that list would have a statistically significant correlation w/ the same guys listed in order of rebounds per 40 minutes? If you do, please prove it. As soon as you prove it, I'll fall in right behind you to trumpet this oh so important stat. Until then, you are the one with the narrative and choosing numbers to fit it.

So do you refuse to acknowledge that length is important for a big man?

Do you think a midget could play PF in the NBA, lol?

As far as statistical correlation, maybe one exists, I don't know of one.

Oh man, that's so funny and clever. How about Craig Smith? Can he play in the NBA? And why couldn't Chris Taft with his huge standing reach?

The point I'm making is not that we should pick a 6'2" power forward. It's that you cannot tell which of two guys (real ones, not made-up examples) will be better by comparing their standing reach. You get no helpful information (again, among real prospects not midgets).

Would you have picked someone over Charles Barkley coming out of college because of he had greater standing reach? Must have been a lot of guys like that.

On the other hand, from TS% you get helpful information. From rebounding rate you do as well.

[payitforward]

A word of caution for those comparing TRob's college stats with those of Faried. Dont forgot that Robinson played in a MUCH better conference and against MUCH better players.

Uh huh. How about Faried's NBA stats? Why don't you name me 3 PFs who had better stats overall?

I assume you don't think Robinson's heading for elite status. That's where Faried is heading.

[payitforward]

Faried struck me as an above the rim player in college. Faried is longer and more bouncy than Thomas Robinson. Robinson is more floor bound, but is quick and agile. Robinson has more signs of a developing face up game. Faried is lower usage and very efficient cleaning up around the glass and finishing at the rim. I personally question whether Robinson will have to transition into being a lower usage player in the NBA b/c of his struggles around the rim and inconsistencies with his face up game.

Even considering the level of competition, I think Faried is the better prospect. Robinson isn't a game changer defensively and Faried wrecked havoc defensively in college. I'm just not sold on Robinson as an elite prospect. s he worthy of a top 10 pick? Yes. A top 3 pick? IMO, no.

Ah, and here we agree entirely!

[hands11]

[

But Robinson's rebounding rate was right up there with Faried. What is not to like about a Faried type who is more of an offensive player ?

Ummm, Robinson's rebounding rate is up there w/ Faried if you add 20% to it. Brian Zoubek's rebounding rate was better than Robinson's, closer to Faried. I guess that makes him even more of a Faried type?

And Robinson is "more of an offensive player" you think? Faried's eFG% as an NBA rookie was .59; Robinson's as an NCAA junior was .51. Faried averaged north of 18 points per 40 minutes.

Robinson is a good player, as I said above. But it makes zero sense to compare him to Faried. They are not similar players one bit.

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Tho ... nson-5496/

These traits are on full display when watching Robinson on the glass, as once again as a junior he was second amongst all players in our database in rebounds per-40 minutes.

September 28, 2011
Robinson didn't play enough minutes to qualify in most statistical categories last season, but if he did, would have ranked as the #1 defensive rebounder in the NCAA on a per-minute basis, and 2nd best overall per-minute rebounder behind NCAA record holder Kenneth Faried.

[DCZards]

A word of caution for those comparing TRob's college stats with those of Faried. Dont forgot that Robinson played in a MUCH better conference and against MUCH better players.

Uh huh. How about Faried's NBA stats? Why don't you name me 3 PFs who had better stats overall?

I assume you don't think Robinson's heading for elite status. That's where Faried is heading.

I'm not playing the "name me..." game, payit. Suffice it to say, that I exoect both Faried and TRob to have outstanding pro careers. I find comparing them a little silly since their styles of play and what they bring to the table are very different.

[Dat2U]

Oh man, that's so funny and clever. How about Craig Smith? Can he play in the NBA? And why couldn't Chris Taft with his huge standing reach?

The point I'm making is not that we should pick a 6'2" power forward. It's that you cannot tell which of two guys (real ones, not made-up examples) will be better by comparing their standing reach. You get no helpful information (again, among real prospects not midgets).

Would you have picked someone over Charles Barkley coming out of college because of he had greater standing reach? Must have been a lot of guys like that.

On the other hand, from TS% you get helpful information. From rebounding rate you do as well.

And of course you consider TS% & rebounding rate. That should go without saying. All I'm saying is that standing reach is another tool in the process. Whether you place value on or not, many people do. And I actually missed Craig Smith. Good catch. He's the best of the bunch. A solid reserve in spot minutes. But I don't know if making the case for Craig Smith really strengthens the argument for Zeller. My concern isn't with Zeller having a role in the league, its how much impact he can have considering the lack of length (even if it's not 8'8", it's still not ideal to the rest of the bigs he was measured with.)

As far as Charles Barkley goes, that's a different era. Players over the last 25-30 years have gotten longer, taller and more athletic. A guy like Wes Unseld could be a HOF 6-6 center 40 years ago, nowadays...eh not so much.

[fishercob]

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Tho ... nson-5496/

These traits are on full display when watching Robinson on the glass, as once again as a junior he was second amongst all players in our database in rebounds per-40 minutes.

September 28, 2011
Robinson didn't play enough minutes to qualify in most statistical categories last season, but if he did, would have ranked as the #1 defensive rebounder in the NCAA on a per-minute basis, and 2nd best overall per-minute rebounder behind NCAA record holder Kenneth Faried.

BUt when he played actual starters minutes this year, his numbers across the board were nowhere near as good as Faried's.

[hands11]

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Tho ... nson-5496/

These traits are on full display when watching Robinson on the glass, as once again as a junior he was second amongst all players in our database in rebounds per-40 minutes.

September 28, 2011
Robinson didn't play enough minutes to qualify in most statistical categories last season, but if he did, would have ranked as the #1 defensive rebounder in the NCAA on a per-minute basis, and 2nd best overall per-minute rebounder behind NCAA record holder Kenneth Faried.

BUt when he played actual starters minutes this year, his numbers across the board were nowhere near as good as Faried's.

[payitforward]

Faried and TRob... I find comparing them a little silly since their styles of play and what they bring to the table are very different.

Yes, that was my point -- tho badly expressed. And of course I hope Robinson does well: I hope all these guys succeed.

[payitforward]

Robinson didn't play enough minutes to qualify in most statistical categories last season, but if he did, would have ranked as the #1 defensive rebounder in the NCAA on a per-minute basis, and 2nd best overall per-minute rebounder behind NCAA record holder Kenneth Faried.

Oh come on. You said Robinson had the same rebounding rate as Faried. Robinson went for 14.5/40 minutes when he played significant minutes as a junior. Faried went for 17.2 as a junior. That's 20% more, just as I said it was. And, yes, Robinson is a good rebounder -- I said that too. Sheesh.

[theboomking]

Ummm, Robinson's rebounding rate is up there w/ Faried if you add 20% to it. Brian Zoubek's rebounding rate was better than Robinson's, closer to Faried. I guess that makes him even more of a Faried type?

And Robinson is "more of an offensive player" you think? Faried's eFG% as an NBA rookie was .59; Robinson's as an NCAA junior was .51. Faried averaged north of 18 points per 40 minutes.

Robinson is a good player, as I said above. But it makes zero sense to compare him to Faried. They are not similar players one bit.

Faried was certainly a better prospect. More efficient offensively,and a much better defensive player.

I'm trying to find Faried's NCAA rebound rates. Can anyone post them? Here are the rebound rates for Thomas Robinson:
Freshman:20.3
Sophomore: 25.3
Junior: 21.4
http://swishscout.com/?page_id=4377

How about if we just listed all NBA Power Forwards in order of their standing reach. Do you think that list would have a statistically significant correlation w/ the same guys listed in order of rebounds per 40 minutes? If you do, please prove it. As soon as you prove it, I'll fall in right behind you to trumpet this oh so important stat. Until then, you are the one with the narrative and choosing numbers to fit it.

You sure do take a condescending or patronizing tone in a lot of your posts.

Obviously you can't just look at standing reach and tell who the superior player will be, or JaVale would be a great player. It is equally obvious however, that there really is a requisite standing reach for a frontcourt player, below which you will likely have difficulty finishing in the post, and especially defending. Why are we even arguing this? Maybe what that threshold is, is arguable.

Vague references to statistics seem to be thrown around as a crutch a lot recently. Try plotting all of the frontcourt players with a standing reach of 8'10" and higher, and then those with a standing reach of 8'9" or lower. I don't think you need to consult google to guess which group is going to include more quality NBA bigs.

[AFM]

All I know is Robinson is built like a **** tank, dude makes Ray Lewis look like a pussy

[Mizerooskie]

Trying to equate standing reach to player productivity using historical measurements one way or the other is a fool's errand. The record is not nearly complete enough to make conclusions either way.

So does that mean we should throw it out because we don't have a historically complete picture?

This isn't a court of law. This isn't based on the preponderence of the evidence. I'm suggesting standing reach is a useful tool in determining whether or not whether someone has the requisite size to play the position.

If your a scout or GM, you damn well know their paying attention or looking closely at those measurements.

Well yes, it does mean that if you're going to pass on a player because of it.

Standing reach is the basketball equivalent to 40 yard dash.

[Mizerooskie]

You're missing Vesely and Lewis from the SF depth chart.

You were intimating that the flexibility Robinson would provide would be an advantage of drafting him over Beal/MKG. I'm saying that it would create a bigger disadvantage. The front court rotation is in much better shape than the back court rotation.

I've said it before, but I'm not sure Robinson is anything more than a marginal upgrade over Booker.

I don't see how improving on front court depth creates a bigger disadvantage at the 2. It restricts you from using that exact resource to improve the 2 guard spot, but you still have plenty of resources available to do that either via trade, free agency, or additional draft picks. What's harder to find, a quality big or a guard? The mindset that we're ok up front now so lets ignore it is not wise either. You have Nene and Seraphin and they're both ideally 5s. There are no other starting quality forwards on the roster.
Vesely- MIGHT develop into one but as of now looks like a high energy reseves
Booker- High energy reserive who's had injury troubles
Lewis- Will be bought out or traded.
Andray Blatche- Hopefully amnestied but nobody to count on regardless
Singleton- Very big question mark at this point

Look at the available two guards in FA:
Eric Gordon
Landy Fields
Carlos Delfino
OJ Mayo
Courtney Lee
Lou Williams
Gerald Green
Danny Green
Jodie Meeks
Alonzo Gee

If you want a 2 guard, you can find one this year.

I think it's beyond silly to depend on free agency to fill a major hole on the team. Drafting a 4 with the third overall does hurt your chances of improving the 2, because that third overall pick is by far the best opportunity to add starting caliber talent.

Also, there were 38 PFs in the NBA with a PER of 15 or better. There were 23 SGs (and 18 SFs). In fact, PF is the position with the most 15+ PER players in the league. So it's much easier to find a good PF than it is to find a good SG (or SF).

Regarding Booker and Seraphin, both are still developing, 2nd year players.

Among NBA PFs, Seraphin was 34th and Booker 36th in PER (both of which were major improvements over their rookie years). It's not a stretch to imagine that they'll further improve this season.

If you rate Seraphin among centers, his ranking rises to 24th.