ImageImageImageImageImage

2012 NBA Draft - Part III

Moderators: LyricalRico, nate33, montestewart

User avatar
Nivek
Head Coach
Posts: 7,406
And1: 959
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Contact:
         

Re: 2012 NBA Draft - Part III 

Post#281 » by Nivek » Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:48 pm

theboomking wrote:
This forum treats the NBA draft as if it were the NFL draft. Trading down for multiple picks and players who will outperform their draft slot. This isn't generally how championships are won in the NBA. Championships are won with elite players. I understand that the argument is that since the draft is a crapshoot, to a degree, the more picks you have the more likely you are to luck out. This just isn't how things have worked out historically however.


I agree that titles are won with elite players. The difficulty in this draft is that there's precisely one elite prospect. After Davis there are several good prospects. The guy the Wizards might take at 2 or 3 could still be available at 7, and a guy they might draft 5th might still be available at 11.

I have to say, that it looks to me like something is wrong with your analysis of Crowder. His stats as a Senior look good, but not great, and he isn't a great athlete. I'm not saying he won't be an NBA player. I'm just saying that he doesn't seem to be top 5 pick material. That combined with the fact that noone else has him that high makes me wonder if he isn't seriously overvalued on this board.


Could be that I'm wrong on Crowder. The knocks on him are size and athleticism. Seems to me that his size and athleticism were more than adequate in college, and that they compare favorably with guys who have had good professional careers. The "fact" that "no one else" rates him as highly as I (and CCJ) do really doesn't mean all that much to me. I've seen waaaaaaaay too many times where the "collective" misjudges players. (And yeah, I might be totally misjudging him in this case. I don't think so, but it's possible.)

I'll be interested to see Crowder's measurements in the draft camps. That said, he's tough and he works crazy hard -- which are attributes that usually translate well to the NBA.
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
User avatar
Nivek
Head Coach
Posts: 7,406
And1: 959
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Contact:
         

Re: 2012 NBA Draft - Part III 

Post#282 » by Nivek » Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:04 pm

DCZards wrote:As much as I want to like Crowder, I just don't see a ranking that puts him in the top ten players in this draft. I watched a lot of Marquette games and have always felt that Crowder played more like a PF than a SF, and the things that Jae was able to do in the paint at 6-6 in college he won't be able to do in the NBA.

As this paragraph from the DraftExpress write up about Crowder points out, Jae lacks some essential SF skills.

"Crowder's biggest weakness as a small forward prospect is his inability to create his own shot. A below average ball-handler, he has a difficult time scoring in isolation settings, not looking very fluid with the ball, and struggling to change directions on the fly. It's not a stretch to say that he will need to live off scraps in the NBA, which makes increasing the range and consistency of his jump-shot that much more important."


My response to that criticism is that "shot creation" is possibly the single most overrated "skill" that gets discussed. Crowder MADE shots -- 34.5% from 3pt range, 60.2% from 2pt range. And it's not like he was some low usage specialist. His usage level was a bit higher than average last season. He was well-above average in efficiency in both years at Marquette.

What's being tossed at him as a criticism is actually a complement. Crowder is smart enough not to take bad shots.
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
montestewart
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 14,829
And1: 7,963
Joined: Feb 25, 2009

Re: 2012 NBA Draft - Part III 

Post#283 » by montestewart » Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:05 pm

Maybe I missed something, but I don't recall Nivek or CCJ calling for Crowder going in the top 5, although Nivek's system has him rated that high. To me, what they're saying is he is probably greatly underrated and will likely be be a very successful pro, he'll probably go in the late teens to early second round, and whoever gets him at any of those slots will end up with great value.
User avatar
Nivek
Head Coach
Posts: 7,406
And1: 959
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Contact:
         

Re: 2012 NBA Draft - Part III 

Post#284 » by Nivek » Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:18 pm

The Consiglieri wrote:
Nivek wrote:I'm a BPA proponent, but I think Mufasa makes a good point: sometimes it's hard to tell who the BPA is. At #1 this year, it's easy. After that, in my analysis, players are falling into groups with similar ratings. At that point, "best" can depend on lots of different variables. In this draft, Davis is in a class by himself. After that, I think Crowder is #2. I have MKG on that same tier, but the more research I do on him, the less I think he belongs there -- I think he's in with that next group with guys like Robinson, Beal, etc.

The point is that Robinson, Beal and MKG (for example) rate about the same. In that instance, picking the guy who's the best fit makes a lot of sense. It would be idiocy to be sitting at #2 and take Perry Jones because the team "needs" a SF. Because he's rated a few tiers away.

However, let's say that a tier ends at 7 players. If I'm picking 7th, I'm not going to reach into that next tier down for that selection. I'm going to pick from that higher tier, even if there's only one guy left, even if I might already have a guy on the roster who can fill that need. (Well, really what I'd be trying to do there is trade out of the pick, but assuming I couldn't do that right away, I'd pick the guy I think is best.)


What do you think should be done when scouts rate the ceilings of these guys, and view MKG as a guy who, if he reached his ceiling, would be an all star, and potentially a franchise player. Ford was quoted as saying that's a view around the league the other day. That while he isn't that player now, his mentality, work habits, energy, leadership, and skill set and motor suggest that if he can get his jumper to go, he will be a potential franchise player. That would explain why he appears to be the consensus #2.


I think it's a worthwhile exercise to imagine what a player's ceiling might be, but that's really what it is. The question I have about a guy like MKG is if his mentality, work habits, energy, leadership, and motor are so great, why isn't he a better shooter already? Why should I buy into his high ceiling based on those attributes over someone like Crowder, whose mentality, work habits, energy, motor, etc. resulted in 60% shooting from 2pt range, 34% shooting from 3pt range, 10+ rebounds per 40, etc., etc.?

I'm not saying this to knock MKG -- I liked watching him play and I think he could make a good pro. But it's a worthwhile question to ask, especially considering how humans develop talents. He has a ways to in developing his shooting ability. Could he do it? Of course. But it's worth acknowledging that he might not. Many players have been drafted under the "if he could just [fill in the blank]" and never come close to reaching their potential.

All of this is an interesting exercise in different ways of perceiving and evaluating.
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
User avatar
Nivek
Head Coach
Posts: 7,406
And1: 959
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Contact:
         

Re: 2012 NBA Draft - Part III 

Post#285 » by Nivek » Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:39 pm

theboomking wrote:
Ruzious wrote:That type of analysis is why Crowder hasn't been rated as a prospect. It's the - putting a round peg into a square hole analysis - rather than figuring out how to use a player according to his strengths and weaknesses. Maybe you devise an offense where you don't need your small forward to be a shot creater. Maybe he can be used like he was at Marquette - and he did play out on the perimeter quite a lot.


Meh. There are tons of guys in the NCAA every year with great stats. C.J. McCollum and Doug McDermott are in the top 4 of NCAA PER this year. Are they deserving of being top 5 picks? You can't just look at the stats of college players. Nivek himself said none of Crowder's evaluation came from his physical traits.


That's kinda what I said. Based on the information I have now, he's rated average across the board on the physical part of his evaluation. That could change as I get more info. His statistical indicators suggest more than adequate athleticism. There are concerns about his length, for example, but his 10+ rebounds, 1+ blocks per 40, and his 60% 2pt shooting suggest that he has sufficient length, leaping ability and strength to more than hold his own inside. His 3+ steals per 40 is an indicator of quickness. His weight and chiseled physique is another indicator of his strength.

Nivek, how does your projection evaluate McDermott?


I have McDermott rated as a high 2nd round pick right now. In a cursory look at the stats, he appears similar to Crowder, however Crowder faced significantly tougher competition. Plus, where Crowder is 6-6, 235 with statistical markers of at least solid athleticism for a SF, McDermott is listed at 6-7, 210 and he generated almost no steals or blocks -- suggesting that he may not have the quickness or leaping ability necessary to be a quality NBA SF.
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
DCZards
RealGM
Posts: 11,167
And1: 5,012
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Location: The Streets of DC
     

Re: 2012 NBA Draft - Part III 

Post#286 » by DCZards » Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:40 pm

Nivek wrote:My response to that criticism is that "shot creation" is possibly the single most overrated "skill" that gets discussed. Crowder MADE shots -- 34.5% from 3pt range, 60.2% from 2pt range. And it's not like he was some low usage specialist. His usage level was a bit higher than average last season. He was well-above average in efficiency in both years at Marquette.

What's being tossed at him as a criticism is actually a complement. Crowder is smart enough not to take bad shots.



My question is whether Crowder shot 60% from 2pt range because he has a decent jumper (which he'll need as a SF in the NBA) or because he was getting layups and easy putbacks (which is going to be tougher for him to do in the NBA at his size). I just don't recall Jae having even an average 15-20 ft. jumper or much of a handle, which, imo, are essential skills for a top SF in the NBA.

BTW, I'm on board with trying to get a late first round pick and drafting Crowder or taking him in the second round if he's still there. I too like his smarts, toughness and D.
User avatar
Nivek
Head Coach
Posts: 7,406
And1: 959
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Contact:
         

Re: 2012 NBA Draft - Part III 

Post#287 » by Nivek » Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:42 pm

montestewart wrote:Maybe I missed something, but I don't recall Nivek or CCJ calling for Crowder going in the top 5, although Nivek's system has him rated that high. To me, what they're saying is he is probably greatly underrated and will likely be be a very successful pro, he'll probably go in the late teens to early second round, and whoever gets him at any of those slots will end up with great value.


That's correct. I think Crowder is the 2nd best player in the draft, but if I had the 2nd pick, I wouldn't take him there unless my intel told me other teams had him rated as highly as I do. I'd use that pick to get someone else I have rated higher on the draft board and then pick up Crowder later in the draft.
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
User avatar
Nivek
Head Coach
Posts: 7,406
And1: 959
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Contact:
         

Re: 2012 NBA Draft - Part III 

Post#288 » by Nivek » Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:46 pm

DCZards wrote:
Nivek wrote:My response to that criticism is that "shot creation" is possibly the single most overrated "skill" that gets discussed. Crowder MADE shots -- 34.5% from 3pt range, 60.2% from 2pt range. And it's not like he was some low usage specialist. His usage level was a bit higher than average last season. He was well-above average in efficiency in both years at Marquette.

What's being tossed at him as a criticism is actually a complement. Crowder is smart enough not to take bad shots.



My question is whether Crowder shot 60% from 2pt range because he has a decent jumper (which he'll need as a SF in the NBA) or because he was getting layups and easy putbacks (which is going to be tougher for him to do in the NBA at his size). I just don't recall Jae having even an average 15-20 ft. jumper or much of a handle, which, imo, are essential skills for a top SF in the NBA.


The 15-20 foot jumper is the worst shot in the game. If Crowder avoided taking those long 2s, it's another sign of a smart player. :) The shots you want are at the rim or from the 3pt line. 34.5% from 3pt range suggests something like 38-40% on longer 2s, which would be adequate -- especially since it's a shot you don't want anyway.

BTW, I'm on board with trying to get a late first round pick and drafting Crowder or taking him in the second round if he's still there. I too like his smarts, toughness and D.


Yep, that's what I'd like to do as well. Get a mid-to-late 1st round pick and take him there.
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
User avatar
pancakes3
General Manager
Posts: 9,593
And1: 3,023
Joined: Jul 27, 2003
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: 2012 NBA Draft - Part III 

Post#289 » by pancakes3 » Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:49 pm

color me confused on crowder but isn't he just this year's trevor booker?
Bullets -> Wizards
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 63,021
And1: 16,450
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: 2012 NBA Draft - Part III 

Post#290 » by Dr Positivity » Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:51 pm

The Consiglieri wrote:
Ed Wood wrote:The fundamental problem that haunts any plan to move that first overall pick is that Anthony Davis just towers over the rest of the draft board in terms of value. So as to fit in with the cool crowd let me couch this in terms of what I assume Kevin's draft evaluator is doing with each player. A significant component of the titillation factor for a guy like Michael Kidd-Gilchirst is basically that he lookin' good in a pair of shorts and a tank top. That's to say that based on present play he's a perfectly fine prospect but what really elevates him is the fact that his physical ability is so highly thought of. Davis pretty much hits that same altitude purely based on production.

Davis was, in fact, (and despite having been popularly considered as much, as evidenced by his having won every major award) the best player in college basketball this year. Dude was first in PER, first in WS/48. He had the third highest ORtg in the country behind two guys who almost literally did nothing but hit three pointers all year (Brady Heslip and Dylan Royer). Based purely on production, if he were a fat short senior he would be worthy of consideration towards the top of the draft. Couple that to physical characteristics that are every bit as impressive as any other player in the draft, probably more so, and I don't see how you make up the difference in value trading out of that pick. If you're creating a logjam in the interior by taking him you take a Trevor Booker or Jan Vesely out back behind the woodshed because you are making space for Anthony Davis.


I know these boards are for discussion, fun, and speculating in general, but yeah, when it comes to situations like the 1 slot, I don't even see the point.

There is litterally zero chance. ZERO. That the Wizards would trade the 1 slot if they landed it. They would just draft Davis, and call it a day. Yes technically if they got some insane offer, they'd do it, but that won't come. At the end of the day, everyone knows that Davis is viewed as one of those special #1 overall picks and the last time one of those picks was moved, was twenty years ago, when the Warriors traded for Webber. There's a reason it virtually never happens, and it won't happen this year. Whomever lands the 1 slot will keep it. Period.

I enjoy speculating about 2-5, because there are 2 guys and maybe 3, that we value as the 2 and 3 slot guys, but in terms of slot 1. We wouldn't trade out of the Davis pick, period. The only exception would be a trade offer so nutty, it wouldn't happen in the first place.


The only scenario I could think of where #1 would be in play, is if Cleveland put Kyrie on the table. I know that's crazy but apparantely Cleveland are a stat orientated draft team and picked Tristan Thompson because their stats had him 2nd overall last year. And Davis' stats are like the Optimus Prime version of TT's. It wouldn't surprise me if CLE's stats have Davis ranking as high as like anyone else in history. So they might be thinking they're trading Mark Price for a Tim Duncan/Hakeem Olajuwon prospect and would be willing to throw in another top 5 pick just for that swap.
It's going to be a glorious day... I feel my luck could change
User avatar
Nivek
Head Coach
Posts: 7,406
And1: 959
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Contact:
         

Re: 2012 NBA Draft - Part III 

Post#291 » by Nivek » Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:00 pm

pancakes3 wrote:color me confused on crowder but isn't he just this year's trevor booker?


Not in my evaluation. In my stuff, Booker rated as a mid-first round pick and 25% of his rating was physical attributes -- speed, strength, leaping. Crowder rates top 5 in most drafts and (right now) none of his score is because of his physical attributes. Big difference between them: efficiency. Crowder converts better inside and has a 3pt shot. He also committed fewer turnovers.
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
WizarDynasty
Veteran
Posts: 2,604
And1: 278
Joined: Oct 23, 2003

Re: 2012 NBA Draft - Part III 

Post#292 » by WizarDynasty » Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:09 pm

I am going to keep hammering away at this point. As a basketball player, Barnes is the best offensive player in this draft by a wide margin at the small forward position. All you need to do is compare singleton's offensive game to Barnes. Barnes absolutely destroy MKG playing in a half court playoff style basketball and that's what the wizards need. Secondly, its very difficult to find a small forward with a high basketball IQ who also cares about playing defense. Barnes absolutely destroys marcus morris and markief morris in terms of his offensive half court basketball abilities. You can actually designed an offense around Barnes. The guy is extremely competitive and doesn't back down even from guys twice his size.
MKG is scrappy player but I wizards need a two way three point shooting small forward in the worst way possible. Just think of Singleton and how many opportunities he gets with wall and now imagine if Barnes was in his place for the next ten years. We will not find a player of Barnes ability in free agency because the guy is mentally going to get better and better and better. AGain Wall needs a big scoring small forward with miss match potential who has heart and has proven that he has what it takes to carry a team offensively. I don't see any other players in the top ten that can carry a team offensively. I see alot role players who take shots in wide open situation on catch and shoots but not a player who has been forced to evolve his game to actually carry a power house college team like North Carolina. Barnes is extremely advanced in terms of being forced to evolve his game beyond what he is good at. If he is there are 3, i have no doubt he will be our pick and be cornerstone of our new high iq with great size for his position and our most needed position---and hardest position to fill...a three point threat, highly refined half court game, great perimeter defender small forward.
We have never in the last twenty years, had this type of player and its a huge reason why the wizards have been bottom dweller scum of the earth for so long. We had Butler for a stretch of the season before he re-injured his knee where we thought we had this type of player at the small forward spot. He had injury issues with his knees from his college days so everyone knew anything from Butler wouldn't last for years years and years and it turned out to be true. From all accounts, Barnes has no injury history with his knees and finally getting a future all star who is a refined offensive player at the small forward position for wall, Nene and probably once of hardest things to gain and finally we have our decade long allstar small forward. I even begin to think

who in the east has a young refined offensive small forward who also plays great defense--pierce is in his final days, joe johnson is starting to break down. Barnes main competition will be danny granger and carmelo anthony in the future. Ultimately the wizards will have a tremendous advantage each night at the small forward position and it will be hard for teams find players that can match up with barnes iq and refined offensive game.
I don't see this as the case for MKG, Beal, Davis, PJones, or Lamb. None of these players have a highly refined offensive game and none of these players are going to make the all nba defensive team. If MKG plays a role similiar to what Ronnie Brewer does is great but his lack of offensive half court ability really hurts in the playoffs. CJ watson plays a similar role to Beal. Luol Deng is similar to Barnes except Deng is a great three point shooter or good at creating space to get off his jump shot and not as good a perimeter defender. I think that Davis could play a similar role to noah except robinson has absolulety no shot blocking ability compared to noah and DAvis has not post defense compared to Noah-- don't tell me its easy for a player to gain bigman lower body strength when he has played on the perimeter all of his life. If you played on the perimeter all your life, its very hard to redefined your legs to take all the pounding that bigman need in the post. the bumping of 250lbs plus each night is something that perimeter players can't even begin to prepare for if their body hasn't adapted to it during their growing years usually during 14 up to 20 when you stop growing. Davis is never going to be good post player just like Javale. Great weakside shotblocker who doesn't have to absorb any force on the block.
Build your team w/5 shooters using P. Pierce Form deeply bent hips and lower back arch at same time b4 rising into shot. Elbow never pointing to the ground! Good teams have an engine player that shoot volume (2000 full season) at 50 percent.Large Hands
User avatar
Nivek
Head Coach
Posts: 7,406
And1: 959
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Contact:
         

Re: 2012 NBA Draft - Part III 

Post#293 » by Nivek » Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:10 pm

I wonder what Cleveland is doing to rate Tristan Thompson 2nd overall last year. I had him with a mid-2nd round score. His efficiency was about average overall, but his 2pt percentage was lower than I'd want from a PF and he was below 50% from the FT line. No 3pt shot. His quickness and leaping were impressive, and his block numbers were good, but his rebounding was only about average for a PF.

Knowing the stat guys at Cleveland, they're probably using some kind of +/- evaluation.

Interesting.
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
Ruzious
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 47,909
And1: 11,582
Joined: Jul 17, 2001
       

Re: 2012 NBA Draft - Part III 

Post#294 » by Ruzious » Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:15 pm

Dr Mufasa wrote:
The Consiglieri wrote:
I know these boards are for discussion, fun, and speculating in general, but yeah, when it comes to situations like the 1 slot, I don't even see the point.

There is litterally zero chance. ZERO. That the Wizards would trade the 1 slot if they landed it. They would just draft Davis, and call it a day. Yes technically if they got some insane offer, they'd do it, but that won't come. At the end of the day, everyone knows that Davis is viewed as one of those special #1 overall picks and the last time one of those picks was moved, was twenty years ago, when the Warriors traded for Webber. There's a reason it virtually never happens, and it won't happen this year. Whomever lands the 1 slot will keep it. Period.

I enjoy speculating about 2-5, because there are 2 guys and maybe 3, that we value as the 2 and 3 slot guys, but in terms of slot 1. We wouldn't trade out of the Davis pick, period. The only exception would be a trade offer so nutty, it wouldn't happen in the first place.


The only scenario I could think of where #1 would be in play, is if Cleveland put Kyrie on the table. I know that's crazy but apparantely Cleveland are a stat orientated draft team and picked Tristan Thompson because their stats had him 2nd overall last year. And Davis' stats are like the Optimus Prime version of TT's. It wouldn't surprise me if CLE's stats have Davis ranking as high as like anyone else in history. So they might be thinking they're trading Mark Price for a Tim Duncan/Hakeem Olajuwon prospect and would be willing to throw in another top 5 pick just for that swap.

What stats did Cleveland use for picking Tristan Thompson? He was only moderately productive in college with good - but not great - efficiency. His defensive rebounding was bad for a big man. And he was undersized - with good - but again not great - length.

Edit - I didn't see Kev's post before mine. Just goes to show - great minds think alike. And so do we.
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." - Douglas Adams
The Consiglieri
Veteran
Posts: 2,887
And1: 1,062
Joined: May 09, 2007

Re: 2012 NBA Draft - Part III 

Post#295 » by The Consiglieri » Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:26 pm

truwizfan4evr wrote:Would anyone be open to trading the first round pick to bob cats for there first round pick for next year? Personally I would not do it even though next year draft will have more star power but I'm not patient enough to wait another season.


Next years draft is being touted as one of the worst in the last fifteen years. Maybe not as bad as 2000, but not much better either. Early returns are that it is 4-6 players deep in terms of acceptable lottery picks. Its a horrible draft. Nobody should or would deal a 2012 high pick for futures in '13, especially since that draft appears to only have 2 elite players, maybe.
The Consiglieri
Veteran
Posts: 2,887
And1: 1,062
Joined: May 09, 2007

Re: 2012 NBA Draft - Part III 

Post#296 » by The Consiglieri » Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:38 pm

truwizfan4evr wrote:Just because a team tank don't mean they will win the first over all pick. Anyway they should keep the rule like they are.


They should toss the lottery out entirely, or failing that, use the hockey system, where teams can only move four slots by winning the lottery. It's patently absurd that teams like Orlando in 1993, and Chicago in 2008 were able to win it (and some teams in between). I would toss it out entirely as I think its completely idiotic, but if you're going to keep it, the hockey system is the best. If you are a bottom 5 team, you all have increasing odds of getting it, outside of the top 5, and you can move up four slots, but thats it, no chance at #1, which makes perefect sense. Situations like Chicago getting Derrick Rose are utterly bogus, and also make the system look rigged (even though it isnt). The Magic in '93 (11th), the Nets in 2000 (7th), the Bucks in 2005 (6th) , Blazers in 2007 (6th), the Bulls in 2008(9th), the Clippers in 2011 (8th) all won, in all cases that was complete and utter nonsense (although one can at least find some understanding with the Bucks, and Blazers, and hell, perhaps the Nets in 2000, but the Magic in 1993, the Bulls in 2008, the Clippers in '11? Those are the kind of ridiculous results that make the rigging sound like a reasonable presumption, especially considering the long odds of those results happening, and the storylines they created which were picture perfect for marketing purposes, and the interests of Stern himself (build hoops in Florida, rebuild the Bulls ten years after Jordan with local kid made good, sort of, and save the Cavs after the LeBron debacle.

Just switch to the hockey system, or trash the entire nonsense itself (unlikely as they appear to like marketing the lottery as an NBA trademark for teams in perpetual misery).
User avatar
Nivek
Head Coach
Posts: 7,406
And1: 959
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Contact:
         

Re: 2012 NBA Draft - Part III 

Post#297 » by Nivek » Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:51 pm

Just added Steve Nash's college career to my draft sheet. Very interesting. As a freshman and sophomore, he had a "don't draft" rating. As a junior, he was up to mid-first round status. Then he dropped off his senior year -- down to a mid-2nd round rating. Saw the same thing with Grant Hill, though Hill was at a higher level throughout his college career.
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
verbal8
General Manager
Posts: 8,354
And1: 1,377
Joined: Jul 20, 2006
Location: Herndon, VA
     

Re: 2012 NBA Draft - Part III 

Post#298 » by verbal8 » Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:58 pm

I don't follow college ball a whole lot, but MKG seems to me a lot like Marvin Williams without a 3 point shot. I guess Marvin Williams should have been a great pro, but didn't pan out as much more than an average player.
The Consiglieri
Veteran
Posts: 2,887
And1: 1,062
Joined: May 09, 2007

Re: 2012 NBA Draft - Part III 

Post#299 » by The Consiglieri » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:02 pm

Nivek wrote:
The Consiglieri wrote:
Nivek wrote:I'm a BPA proponent, but I think Mufasa makes a good point: sometimes it's hard to tell who the BPA is. At #1 this year, it's easy. After that, in my analysis, players are falling into groups with similar ratings. At that point, "best" can depend on lots of different variables. In this draft, Davis is in a class by himself. After that, I think Crowder is #2. I have MKG on that same tier, but the more research I do on him, the less I think he belongs there -- I think he's in with that next group with guys like Robinson, Beal, etc.

The point is that Robinson, Beal and MKG (for example) rate about the same. In that instance, picking the guy who's the best fit makes a lot of sense. It would be idiocy to be sitting at #2 and take Perry Jones because the team "needs" a SF. Because he's rated a few tiers away.

However, let's say that a tier ends at 7 players. If I'm picking 7th, I'm not going to reach into that next tier down for that selection. I'm going to pick from that higher tier, even if there's only one guy left, even if I might already have a guy on the roster who can fill that need. (Well, really what I'd be trying to do there is trade out of the pick, but assuming I couldn't do that right away, I'd pick the guy I think is best.)


What do you think should be done when scouts rate the ceilings of these guys, and view MKG as a guy who, if he reached his ceiling, would be an all star, and potentially a franchise player. Ford was quoted as saying that's a view around the league the other day. That while he isn't that player now, his mentality, work habits, energy, leadership, and skill set and motor suggest that if he can get his jumper to go, he will be a potential franchise player. That would explain why he appears to be the consensus #2.


I think it's a worthwhile exercise to imagine what a player's ceiling might be, but that's really what it is. The question I have about a guy like MKG is if his mentality, work habits, energy, leadership, and motor are so great, why isn't he a better shooter already? Why should I buy into his high ceiling based on those attributes over someone like Crowder, whose mentality, work habits, energy, motor, etc. resulted in 60% shooting from 2pt range, 34% shooting from 3pt range, 10+ rebounds per 40, etc., etc.?

I'm not saying this to knock MKG -- I liked watching him play and I think he could make a good pro. But it's a worthwhile question to ask, especially considering how humans develop talents. He has a ways to in developing his shooting ability. Could he do it? Of course. But it's worth acknowledging that he might not. Many players have been drafted under the "if he could just [fill in the blank]" and never come close to reaching their potential.

All of this is an interesting exercise in different ways of perceiving and evaluating.


Usage. My guess is, he's been what he is because of how coaches chose to utilize his ability. Kentucky didn't need him to shoot a ton of jumpers, they already had guys who could fill that role. Its the same reason why Tim Tebow could be so great for Florida, and yet a terrible NFL player. At the end of the day, Urban Meyer needed what he needed, and like a lot of coaches (that are really quite awful for these players who simply don't "get it"), he simply used what Tebow did well, and didn't worry much about what he didn't. If he'd worked with Tebow on his throwing mechanics from his freshman year forward Tebow might have had a chance at being a long term viable quarterback, but he didnt, he used him the way that was best for Urban, not best for Tebow, and so if not for McDaniels, Tebow would have disappeared w/o a trace at the NFL level. Instead, he's got 15 minutes of fame that will end like the Wildcat did, soon enough.

My guess is that MKG's coaches used his athleticism, and motor to dominate inferior players, and didn't work with him the way a guy like Thorpedo would, to provide him with the technique, and mechanics to develop the best possible, and reliable shot he could. Instead they used what was available, because their interest was to win, not to turn MKG into the best possible NBA prospect he could be, Calipari just utilized him for what he needed at Kentucky. With the proper coaching at the next level and attention to detail, at only 18, MKG is nowhere near a finished product, and can easily be helped with his shot. Proper teaching can at least turn him into an adequate shooter, and possibly a good one. He isn't a finished product like Tebow was this past year (at 24). Kidd-Gilchrist is still a kid, w/the proper coaching and teaching, he can reach his potential. Im just not sure if thats happening with the org or not. I'd hire a teacher to work with him and Wall this offseason the second he was drafted. Walls shooting needs work as well, and clearly the team doesnt do the greatest job of helping guys in this area, that would be one of the things I'd be looking on if I was Leonsis, after canning EG.

I tend to trust what Im hearing, at the end of the day, I do think it makes a lot of sense to have a board that reads:

1. Davis
2. MKG
3. Beal
4. Drummond
5. Robinson

Can shift Robinson and Drummond as needed depending upon your capacity for risk management.
The Consiglieri
Veteran
Posts: 2,887
And1: 1,062
Joined: May 09, 2007

Re: 2012 NBA Draft - Part III 

Post#300 » by The Consiglieri » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:24 pm

WizarDynasty wrote:I am going to keep hammering away at this point. As a basketball player, Barnes is the best offensive player in this draft by a wide margin at the small forward position. All you need to do is compare singleton's offensive game to Barnes. Barnes absolutely destroy MKG playing in a half court playoff style basketball and that's what the wizards need. Secondly, its very difficult to find a small forward with a high basketball IQ who also cares about playing defense. Barnes absolutely destroys marcus morris and markief morris in terms of his offensive half court basketball abilities. You can actually designed an offense around Barnes. The guy is extremely competitive and doesn't back down even from guys twice his size.
MKG is scrappy player but I wizards need a two way three point shooting small forward in the worst way possible. Just think of Singleton and how many opportunities he gets with wall and now imagine if Barnes was in his place for the next ten years. We will not find a player of Barnes ability in free agency because the guy is mentally going to get better and better and better. AGain Wall needs a big scoring small forward with miss match potential who has heart and has proven that he has what it takes to carry a team offensively. I don't see any other players in the top ten that can carry a team offensively. I see alot role players who take shots in wide open situation on catch and shoots but not a player who has been forced to evolve his game to actually carry a power house college team like North Carolina. Barnes is extremely advanced in terms of being forced to evolve his game beyond what he is good at. If he is there are 3, i have no doubt he will be our pick and be cornerstone of our new high iq with great size for his position and our most needed position---and hardest position to fill...a three point threat, highly refined half court game, great perimeter defender small forward.
We have never in the last twenty years, had this type of player and its a huge reason why the wizards have been bottom dweller scum of the earth for so long. We had Butler for a stretch of the season before he re-injured his knee where we thought we had this type of player at the small forward spot. He had injury issues with his knees from his college days so everyone knew anything from Butler wouldn't last for years years and years and it turned out to be true. From all accounts, Barnes has no injury history with his knees and finally getting a future all star who is a refined offensive player at the small forward position for wall, Nene and probably once of hardest things to gain and finally we have our decade long allstar small forward. I even begin to think

who in the east has a young refined offensive small forward who also plays great defense--pierce is in his final days, joe johnson is starting to break down. Barnes main competition will be danny granger and carmelo anthony in the future. Ultimately the wizards will have a tremendous advantage each night at the small forward position and it will be hard for teams find players that can match up with barnes iq and refined offensive game.
I don't see this as the case for MKG, Beal, Davis, PJones, or Lamb. None of these players have a highly refined offensive game and none of these players are going to make the all nba defensive team. If MKG plays a role similiar to what Ronnie Brewer does is great but his lack of offensive half court ability really hurts in the playoffs. CJ watson plays a similar role to Beal. Luol Deng is similar to Barnes except Deng is a great three point shooter or good at creating space to get off his jump shot and not as good a perimeter defender. I think that Davis could play a similar role to noah except davis has absolulety no shot blocking ability compared to noah.


Barnes isn't viewed by any scouts this way anywhere. Maybe three years ago he was viewed as you viewed him, but he's been found out, playing largely unimpressive basketball for 2 years on a loaded team that needed him to contribute a hellvalot more.

You may be telling us something, but nobody anywhere agrees with your perception of Barnes. I think the last of the holdouts jumped off that train a few months ago when he consistently came up short time and again and again and again and again when it mattered most.

He isn't the things you think he was. If he was, he would have showed it at some point, with some modicum of consistency. Unfortunately the only consistency was in him not showing it all. Believe me, I'd love it, if he was who you thought he was, because he'd be well worth the pick and if nothing else, would push down a player I like a little more to us post-lottery if we were to be screwed in the lottery. Instead, he has tumbled down the boards and won't push anyone down to us because he's dropped outside our likely slot zone. He never carried squat. That team was carried by Tyler Zeller, John Henson, and then Kendall Marshall. After that, maybe Barnes, but as McAdoo showed down the stretch, even the young, short on minutes McAdoo, when given a shot, also played vastly better than Barnes. All of these guys carried Barnes, not vice verca. I have no idea. NO IDEA. what you were watching. But it certainly wasn't what was happening on the court. Maybe what was happening on his high school team several years ago, but not what was happening on the Tar Heels. It would not be unfair to say that he totally blew down the stretch when first Henson, and then Marshall went down and UNC needed him most. He played miserably down the stretch, and Zeller, and an injured Henson were forced to pick up the pieces and carry him as he folded under the pressure. Why on earth do you think he's plummeted from consideration at the 1-3 slot pre 2011-2012, to outside the top 10 on some draft boards, and generally 7-12 on most?

He isn't. And there's no evidence to support that he ever will be (though who knows, maybe he'll belie expectations and be the ultimate late bloomer after being found out in college, I just won't hold my breath).

Return to Washington Wizards