Bradley Beal - Part III

[keynote]

Beal says he grew an inch.

Read on Twitter

[nuposse04]

Beal says he grew an inch.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/gene_wang/status/758330419322445824[/tweet]

So he is 6'6 on the court now? He was 6'4.75 in shoes at the combine. I thought he grew an inch before as well? I'm not sure if there is any correlation between growing and being prone to stress fractures. Will look it up later.

[payitforward]

I'd say Beal is at least as good a player as Porter is - probably a hair better - and they're the same age. It really doesn't matter where they rank according to their positions, because they're might be a plethora of 2's compared to 3's. Beal produces more at a slightly less efficient rate than Porter. His scoring and assists are far more than Porter's. Beal scored easily a career-high 22.4 points per 40, while Porter got 15.3. Porter had a 56 TS% while Beal had a 54. If you love Otto Porter, then you should probably love Bradley Beal. I think Beal has more potential, because he's got a better build for his position and has all the physical traits you need to excel in the NBA. He's probably a good 10 lbs heavier than Porter - even though he plays a typically smaller position.

I'd rank Porter slightly higher than Beal, but in general, I agree with this. Both guys are pretty decent players who rank in that 8-15 range at their position. I think Porter is definitely around 8-12 at his position, whereas Beal is more like 11-15. I think Porter's significant advantage in advanced stats (ORtg, WS/48, VORP, BPM) and durability clinches it for him. I also like that Porter still appears to be in a steeply positive improvement trend while Beal appears to have leveled off.

I'm not particularly good with advance stats, but my spider senses tell me they tend to overrate lower usage players. Usually, low usage players are low usage players because they would become far less efficient if they took as many shots as higher usage players.

Ruz -- your last point is a good one, but it'd only be decisive if we looked exclusively at scoring when evaluating a player. Obviously, we can't do that. Still, it's true that only one stat really counts for the team -- the score at the end of the game. So let me try to relate the numbers of the 2 players to shooting and scoring.

Brad scores 7 more points per 40 minutes than Otto. @1.5 of those are at the FT line, and there's no question that he's better at getting there than Otto. The other 5.5 extra points Beal gets require him to take 6.1 more shots. I.e. they come at a .45 eFG%. That hurts rather than helps your chances to win the game.

Moreover, to get those extra shots, Brad has to have the ball enough that he turns it over about 1.5 more times than Otto. A TO is similar to, but worse than, a missed shot (where at least it's possible you keep the ball). In that same time, Otto gets .5 more steals. A steal gives your team an extra shot. So now -- trying to relate other numbers to shots/scoring -- one could say that Brad's 5.5 extra points from shooting come at a cost to the team of an extra 8.1 shots.

Then there's rebounding: in those same 40 minutes, Otto gets .7 more offensive boards than Brad. An offensive board extends a possession and provides another shot for your team. Overall, Otto gets almost 60% more rebounds than Brad.

On the numbers, Porter is a much better player than Beal -- not slightly better. And I'd argue that "the eye test" -- i.e. watching them -- says the same thing. Beal can look great from time to time, but he is way too inefficient, to put it simply, and it shows.

Then there's defense, where Otto is clearly better than Brad. Then there's the arc of improvement -- outstanding for Otto, standing still for Brad. Then there's age/experience -- Beal has played twice as many minutes as Porter has. Enough to make one question how much room for improvement is left.

[nuposse04]

Bone ossification of the lower limb is usually complete by 23ish... there is some link between adolescent growth spurts while playing sports leading to stress fractures... I want to hope if he is "done" growing then maybe it shouldn't be AS problematic but it isn't something I would count on. I don't think he will play as few games as he did last season, but I'd be pleasantly surprised if he suited up for 70+ games this season.

[NatP4]

Entire press conference was centered around health like Beal has shown he's a max player when healthy. Almost zero talk about on court improvement, Brooks mentions how Brads jumpshot is flawless while CSN shows a "39% career 3 point shooter" haha. Mentions analytics over and over then talk about how Brad is a great two way player that can really defend. Oh boy, I'm very hopeful still, but I could easily see Oubre and Sato outplaying Beal in the near future. I can easily envision a press conference a year from now on which Ted and Ernie are speaking about an Otto Porter max contract, and actually have on court achievements to speak of. Still hopeful for Brad though.

[Ruzious]

I'd rank Porter slightly higher than Beal, but in general, I agree with this. Both guys are pretty decent players who rank in that 8-15 range at their position. I think Porter is definitely around 8-12 at his position, whereas Beal is more like 11-15. I think Porter's significant advantage in advanced stats (ORtg, WS/48, VORP, BPM) and durability clinches it for him. I also like that Porter still appears to be in a steeply positive improvement trend while Beal appears to have leveled off.

I'm not particularly good with advance stats, but my spider senses tell me they tend to overrate lower usage players. Usually, low usage players are low usage players because they would become far less efficient if they took as many shots as higher usage players.

Ruz -- your last point is a good one, but it'd only be decisive if we looked exclusively at scoring when evaluating a player. Obviously, we can't do that. Still, it's true that only one stat really counts for the team -- the score at the end of the game. So let me try to relate the numbers of the 2 players to shooting and scoring.

Brad scores 7 more points per 40 minutes than Otto. @1.5 of those are at the FT line, and there's no question that he's better at getting there than Otto. The other 5.5 extra points Beal gets require him to take 6.1 more shots. I.e. they come at a .45 eFG%. That hurts rather than helps your chances to win the game.

Moreover, to get those extra shots, Brad has to have the ball enough that he turns it over about 1.5 more times than Otto. A TO is similar to, but worse than, a missed shot (where at least it's possible you keep the ball). In that same time, Otto gets .5 more steals. A steal gives your team an extra shot. So now -- trying to relate other numbers to shots/scoring -- one could say that Brad's 5.5 extra points from shooting come at a cost to the team of an extra 8.1 shots.

Then there's rebounding: in those same 40 minutes, Otto gets .7 more offensive boards than Brad. An offensive board extends a possession and provides another shot for your team. Overall, Otto gets almost 60% more rebounds than Brad.

On the numbers, Porter is a much better player than Beal -- not slightly better. And I'd argue that "the eye test" -- i.e. watching them -- says the same thing. Beal can look great from time to time, but he is way too inefficient, to put it simply, and it shows.

Then there's defense, where Otto is clearly better than Brad. Then there's the arc of improvement -- outstanding for Otto, standing still for Brad. Then there's age/experience -- Beal has played twice as many minutes as Porter has. Enough to make one question how much room for improvement is left.

If you include turnovers, why don't you include assists? Per 40 minutes, Beal averaged 3.8 versus Otto's 2.1. Considering the Wiz had people like Jared Dudley who didn't have any unassisted 3's for the entire season, the Wiz offense was highly dependent on assists, and Otto contributed very little there.

As far as rebounding, we're talking about a guard vs a forward. Forwards are supposed to get more rebounds because of their positions - where they play on the court. Otto actually played some 4 - a position of huge weakness to the Wiz last season. Did your eye test show that he was badly under-sized at the 4 - as far as weight and strength? Did you notice that Beal is much stronger for his position than Otto is for his? Neither of them were particularly good rebounders for their positions. There's no advantage to Porter there.

I'd say - do the stats over - without rebounding and with assists.

[Dark Faze]

If Brad is 6'6 that could actually change a lot for him this upcoming year

[fishercob]

If Brad is 6'6 that could actually change a lot for him this upcoming year

Why?

[nate33]

Beal says he grew an inch.

Read on Twitter

Ernie Grunfeld was listed at 6-6. Beal looks equally tall at the shoulder level, but Grunfeld has a bigger head. The camera angle may be a factor.

[AFM]

I think it's more likely Ernie is shrinking. Look at his suit.

[Ruzious]

You can see the distortion caused by the camera angle by looking at the slant of the floor. But Ernie does have a face bigger than Mr. Potato Head, and Ted looks like he's gaining some of the pounds back.

[montestewart]

You can see the distortion caused by the camera angle by looking at the slant of the floor. But Ernie does have a face bigger than Mr. Potato Head, and Ted looks like he's gaining some of the pounds back.

I noticed that too. In reality, Leonsis is the tallest of the bunch, but the Wizards' custom Ames room makes it look like EG can feast on Terd's toupee. Terd's suit seems to say, "He's the owner. He can wear whatever he wants."

[Ruzious]

You can see the distortion caused by the camera angle by looking at the slant of the floor. But Ernie does have a face bigger than Mr. Potato Head, and Ted looks like he's gaining some of the pounds back.

I noticed that too. In reality, Leonsis is the tallest of the bunch, but the Wizards' custom Ames room makes it look like EG can feast on Terd's toupee. Terd's suit seems to say, "He's the owner. He can wear whatever he wants."

I think Ernie's saying, "Put your right hand over your left hand. Ha, I didn't say Simon says! You all have to buy me lunch again!"

[LyricalRico]

Not a doctor (and don't play one on TV), but could the inch of growth mean that all the stress reactions were due to a late growth spurt and now Beal is done with the injuries?

[doclinkin]

Entire press conference was centered around health like Beal has shown he's a max player when healthy. Almost zero talk about on court improvement, Brooks mentions how Brads jumpshot is flawless while CSN shows a "39% career 3 point shooter" haha. Mentions analytics over and over then talk about how Brad is a great two way player that can really defend. Oh boy, I'm very hopeful still, but I could easily see Oubre and Sato outplaying Beal in the near future. I can easily envision a press conference a year from now on which Ted and Ernie are speaking about an Otto Porter max contract, and actually have on court achievements to speak of. Still hopeful for Brad though.

Depends how near that future is. Oubre has no right hand right now. I love his aggressiveness in attacking the basket, and his shot selection is good-- if he's not attacking he's shooting a three. But his form on that long J is off, he doesn't square to the basket and his whole body twists sideways on the way down. He's gonna be streaky at best until he fixes that. His on ball defense is good, but his team defense is still distracted at times. Ball watching.

Saty, no. He shoots from outside only when wide open, maybe two a game, hits a nice percentage of those open shots, but at Euro range, and against worse athletes. He has some of Brad's hesitancy and over-dribbling while attacking the basket, if he doesn't find his shot he will stop and look for the pass instead of staying in motion. In the NBA that gets you swarmed or gets your pocket picked. And I think you'll see he's a little slow at this level, especially on defense.

Brad's better than both, even if he's not a MAX player, and especially not a 2016 level max player. But he's pretty good, and still likely to get better. His primary knocks are his durability and shot selection. The first may very well could be due to that late growth spurt. His growth plates have not yet hardened, so he's vulnerable to stress injuries there. Not a bad problem to have if he is also a late developer. Paul George was similarly late in his growth spurt. Difference is Brad has been playing at a very high level for years, even for the U-17 USA mens national team. He's got good habits, smart play. He's only 23 and is going into his 5th year, and has played solid two-way ball in the playoffs each year we qualified. His defense is excellent when he's dialed in. He's a willing rebounder, good passer, few TOs, doesn't foul. Smart.

And his shot selection is a product of the Flip Saunders 'take what the defense gives you' offense which relies heavily on the midrange shot and long two's -- since that's what the defense is all too happy to give you. What's stupid is that the offense was designed to get you open for that long two. By contrast Coach Brooks will emphasize attacking the hoop (which may expose Brad to injury, true) or shooting that three, which Beal does well. If we traded most of those midrange jumpers for three point shots you can add a few points per game to his average. Adding a bit more length and height could make him more confident in his ability to shoot over opponents from long. And as he gets his full grown man weight he may be less vulnerable to getting knocked around when attacking.

I like our chances to develop our young players. Have high hopes for Oubre in particular who is so raw, but seems to have the right attitude and focus. His potential may be higher than Brad's though he may never fully reach it. But Brad's game is mature already and has been for years, he just needs to refine it a bit to see marked improvements, and yeah, to stay on the court and not on the bench in street clothes.

[doclinkin]

Beal says he grew an inch.

Read on Twitter

Ernie Grunfeld was listed at 6-6. Beal looks equally tall at the shoulder level, but Grunfeld has a bigger head. The camera angle may be a factor.

Also Brad's always had a bit of a ninja turtle no-neck build. You should see his big fatty football player brothers. They're practically weeble-wobbles.

[Ruzious]

Yeah, Brad's whole family is quite... big-boned. I wouldn't be surprised if he gradually gains another 10 lbs and gets in the 220 lb range.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Since Beals draft the only 2 guards that come close to Beal are these:
Oladipo
McCollum
Lavine
Hezonja
Winslow
Booker (possibly not a SG)

I wouldn't take one of these players over Brad. In my opinion we've got the most talented 2 guard from the last 4 drafts.

Oladipo was much better than Beal last season, mainly because he's established himself as an elite perimeter defender. Offensively his jump shot has improved enough to where teams have to respect it, which has allowed him to show case his elite slashing ability.

McCollum also had a much better season than Beal, he's just more polished and smoother offensively. He has a wider variety of offensive skills in his toolbox, especially with the ball in his hands... and despite being smaller than Beal, he showed to be the better defender of the two.

I'd take both without hesitation over Beal and that's not even taking into account Beal's health concerns.

I'd rather have Will Barton, taken 40th in Beal's draft.

Me, too.

Sent from my LG-H345 using RealGM mobile app

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I'd rank Porter slightly higher than Beal, but in general, I agree with this. Both guys are pretty decent players who rank in that 8-15 range at their position. I think Porter is definitely around 8-12 at his position, whereas Beal is more like 11-15. I think Porter's significant advantage in advanced stats (ORtg, WS/48, VORP, BPM) and durability clinches it for him. I also like that Porter still appears to be in a steeply positive improvement trend while Beal appears to have leveled off.

I'm not particularly good with advance stats, but my spider senses tell me they tend to overrate lower usage players. Usually, low usage players are low usage players because they would become far less efficient if they took as many shots as higher usage players.

Ruz -- your last point is a good one, but it'd only be decisive if we looked exclusively at scoring when evaluating a player. Obviously, we can't do that. Still, it's true that only one stat really counts for the team -- the score at the end of the game. So let me try to relate the numbers of the 2 players to shooting and scoring.

Brad scores 7 more points per 40 minutes than Otto. @1.5 of those are at the FT line, and there's no question that he's better at getting there than Otto. The other 5.5 extra points Beal gets require him to take 6.1 more shots. I.e. they come at a .45 eFG%. That hurts rather than helps your chances to win the game.

Moreover, to get those extra shots, Brad has to have the ball enough that he turns it over about 1.5 more times than Otto. A TO is similar to, but worse than, a missed shot (where at least it's possible you keep the ball). In that same time, Otto gets .5 more steals. A steal gives your team an extra shot. So now -- trying to relate other numbers to shots/scoring -- one could say that Brad's 5.5 extra points from shooting come at a cost to the team of an extra 8.1 shots.

Then there's rebounding: in those same 40 minutes, Otto gets .7 more offensive boards than Brad. An offensive board extends a possession and provides another shot for your team. Overall, Otto gets almost 60% more rebounds than Brad.

On the numbers, Porter is a much better player than Beal -- not slightly better. And I'd argue that "the eye test" -- i.e. watching them -- says the same thing. Beal can look great from time to time, but he is way too inefficient, to put it simply, and it shows.

Then there's defense, where Otto is clearly better than Brad. Then there's the arc of improvement -- outstanding for Otto, standing still for Brad. Then there's age/experience -- Beal has played twice as many minutes as Porter has. Enough to make one question how much room for improvement is left.

No doubt in my mind that Otto is the better player.

Sent from my LG-H345 using RealGM mobile app

[pcbothwel]

Oladipo was much better than Beal last season, mainly because he's established himself as an elite perimeter defender. Offensively his jump shot has improved enough to where teams have to respect it, which has allowed him to show case his elite slashing ability.

McCollum also had a much better season than Beal, he's just more polished and smoother offensively. He has a wider variety of offensive skills in his toolbox, especially with the ball in his hands... and despite being smaller than Beal, he showed to be the better defender of the two.

I'd take both without hesitation over Beal and that's not even taking into account Beal's health concerns.

I'd rather have Will Barton, taken 40th in Beal's draft.

Me, too.

Sent from my LG-H345 using RealGM mobile app

Look, I like Will Barton just like a lot of you. And yes, CCJ did call him out in the draft, but lets not get ahead of ourselves. Barton has been a bad defensive player his entire career. I know defense can be subjective, but when your On/Off, DRtg, and DRPM are all bad, then the eye test is right. He is not quick enough for 2's or strong/long enough for 3's.
This was forgotten about when he had a really strong first 2.5 months of the season last year, but he fell back to earth post all star break.

You can argue his value based on his draft position or contract over Beal. But there is no way I take Barton over Beal with all else being equal. The fact that he is almost 3 years older plays a significant part.

He is a solid bench player and spot starter, nothing more.