2012 NBA Draft - Part II

[tontoz]

I haven't actually seen Beal play. My understanding from his stats is that he's not a particularly good outside shooter. How is his midrange game?

I like his rebounding, I've heard good things about his defense and overall game, but I'd be concerned about adding a SG who can't shoot. Then again, I love me some MKG, so I guess I have a double-standard for G-F's.

His shot is supposed to be his strength. Obviously his 3 pt percentage is suspect but he is taking 5 three pointers per game so maybe shot selection is an issue. I haven't watched him at all so i wouldn't know.

[dobrojim]

finally got to see Beal this afternoon - looked pretty good
Barnes looked awful - But I really like Ty Zeller higher now
than a lot of players (top 5 in draft?). He appears to be the type that:
A- is already pretty solid as is
B- is motivated to get better
C- is successful at least partly because he knows how
to make solid basketball plays, for instance, he gets to the line a lot.
He carried UNC today. He's fundamentally sound. And he hustles his
rear end off.

[Dat2U]

Harrison Barnes lack of assertiveness and activity is troubling.

I actually see some improvement in his handle, but it's still nothing special. He's still really limited to one or two dribbles. His effectiveness wains when it's more than that.

He's just not an elite talent IMO. Right now he looks like a marginal starter on the next level.

[DCZards]

Harrison Barnes lack of assertiveness and activity is troubling.

I agree. I've been one of Barnes' biggest supporters on this board but I have to admit he looks disnterested, almost lethargic, at times. And he settles for jumpshots far too often. He needs to be more aggressive. Otherwise, I see his stock going down in the eyes of NBA GMs as well.

On the other hand, I like Rivers more and more each time I see him. Yes, he's a little selfish, but he's one competitive, hardnosed SOB.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

finally got to see Beal this afternoon - looked pretty good
Barnes looked awful - But I really like Ty Zeller higher now
than a lot of players (top 5 in draft?). He appears to be the type that:
A- is already pretty solid as is
B- is motivated to get better
C- is successful at least partly because he knows how
to make solid basketball plays, for instance, he gets to the line a lot.
He carried UNC today. He's fundamentally sound. And he hustles his
rear end off.

jim, I read an article discussing the Spurs and how they targeted Kawhi Leonard. If I could be Ernie on draft night, one of my main scenarios if the Wizards don't get a top-3 pick would be to target Tyler Zeller. In fact, I might trade down from third just to get Tyler. I am certain he will be a good contributor, and I'd trade down for him.

Tyler Zeller, by all I have seen, will be a much better player than Barnes. If any player on Carolina has a bigger impact at the next level it won't be Barnes. Henson has a shot because of his defense and rebounding.

Zeller would really be an upgrade at PF for the Wizards. He can play Aldridge better than anybody did tonight, and Tyler's not known for his defense. What he would bring is half hooks, high perimeter offense, finishes on the break, and offensive efficiency Blatche can only dream of.

Tyler Zeller is flat better than Harrison Barnes, IMO.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Harrison Barnes lack of assertiveness and activity is troubling.

I actually see some improvement in his handle, but it's still nothing special. He's still really limited to one or two dribbles. His effectiveness wains when it's more than that.

He's just not an elite talent IMO. Right now he looks like a marginal starter on the next level.

Jarvis Hayes 2.0

[truwizfan4evr]

What are everyone though's on  Tyler Zeller? he been playing well this year and still under the radar. I think he is underrated.

[doclinkin]

Just to defend Ed for a moment -- his process is purely numbers driven, and it's based on a TON of research. Basically, he went through years of NBA players and gathered up their college numbers, then analyzed those numbers for patterns and benchmarks that would predict good professional careers. He has misses to be sure, but also his hits.

You're welcome to disagree with what he thinks, but one of the values of his approach is that he doesn't care about a guy's reputation. He isn't trying to make his evaluation fit with what Chad Ford thinks or what NBA GMs are thinking. Considering how often the "experts" get their evaluations of players completely wrong, I appreciate Ed's approach. "Reputation" and "perceptions" from "experts" shouldn't be taken as gospel.

Sure, but 'round here we don't even take the word of stat geeks as gospel.

One component Weiland seems to be overlooking is any strength of schedule adjustment.

He's got Tony Mitchell 13 places better than Thomas Robinson, but Mitchell has faced exactly nobody in the front court. The toughest rebounder he faced is a 6'6" center at Southern Alabama. Whereas checking the kenpom pythagorean match-ups Kansas had the 3rd toughest schedule in the NCAA, facing the #1 toughest opponent cumulative defense. Pretty sure TRob's numbers would look a notch better against the 248th toughest strength of schedule in the NCAA (#291th best offensive match-up, out of 345 schools).

Mitchell may be good, may be the 2nd best player in the draft, but who the hell knows, he hasn't been tested against NBA caliber players. Occasionally the numbers themselves shouldn't be taken as gospel.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I like Will Barton in this draft at SG.

I think he's going to be a really good NBA SG. I love his rebounding and defense with great slashing ability. I can foresee Will Barton being a great fit next to John Wall. He is not a great shooter but he's a great athlete and a very good defender who can score.

http://nbadraftroom2.blogspot.com/2011/ ... eport.html

Consiglieri, he's a guy in that 15-55 range that you know I like to find because I see that spot being where NBA scouts frequently miss three or four good to great players. Barton is in the same league as Brad Beal in my book. Barton is better than Jeremy Lamb IMO.

If the Wizards could replace Nick Young and Jordan Crawford with Will Barton, I think it would be such a HUGE difference, we wouldn't see the same team out there.

Will Barton looks like a thin Paul Pierce playing guard. He is decisive and equally adept at attacking the basket or hitting a smooth midrange to college three shot. I think he could be a 20+ ppg NBA player.

[dobrojim]

What are everyone though's on  Tyler Zeller? he been playing well this year and still under the radar. I think he is underrated.

I already commented but I'll go on for a little more.
I heartily agree he's underrated but it would be hard
to say any UNC player is under the radar. They simply
get too much coverage for that to be true.

Several things that struck me while watching yesterday are
how hard he plays - he'd fit right in with the Wiz focus
on guys who play hard ie Wall, Book Sing, Sera and Ves. He really
busts his butt changing ends.

And he also really has a great feel for the game a la Ves
but doesn't have any of Ves' offensive limitations. He makes
little plays that lead to positive turnarounds for his team.
He draws fouls. He is fundamentally sound.

The announcers also mentioned how much time he has
been putting in to practicing his jumphook which looks like
money with either hand. This is exactly the kind of mental
makeup we need to look for (see Player Development thread)

ccj wrote

Zeller would really be an upgrade at PF for the Wizards. He can play Aldridge better than anybody did tonight, and Tyler's not known for his defense. What he would bring is half hooks, high perimeter offense, finishes on the break, and offensive efficiency Blatche can only dream of.

Zeller would be a nice upgrade at C and insurance against McGee
leaving if someone opens their wallet and having us be left with
Kevin (who I like, but wouldn't want to wholly depend on).
Not sure of Zeller as a PF but he's listed as 7-0. That's a C
right there. Agree he might have defended LA better than
anyone on the Wiz right now.

He's really jumped on my board. That said, I confess to drawing
conclusions too rapidly at times ie like after one good game like
yesterday. That said, Zeller has been pretty good for UNC all year.
In my case, I paid more attention to Barnes and Henson while
stereotyping Zeller as a plodding white guy. He's pretty athletic
and he's got good size so that stereotype as a big white stiff
is pretty offbase.

[closg00]

Like Zeller's potential, but he's just too-weak right now, I think JaVale could push him around. I wish Vesely had his skills.

[no D in Hibachi]

One guy getting no love on the board is Dion Waiters, and Im not sure why. Ive watche Beal, Lamb, and Waiters pretty closely this year and if the Wiz fall to 5th or 6th I'd seriously consider Waiters. Waiters is musch better than eithe lamb or beal, imo. He's 6'4" and built like a tank. Every time i watch him i cant help but think or Dwayne Wade because the guys ability to just dominate his man with his amazing combination of athleticism, explosiveness, and strength. He put up 28 on cincy in the big east tourney. His game is made for the pro's. I have him fourth after davis, robinson, and drummond, but thats only because drummonds potential is just too big not to gamble on him at 3.

[pancakes3]

what about jon jenkins? best shooter in the SEC and his commodores are giving kentucky all they can handle right now.

[Nivek]

Just to defend Ed for a moment -- his process is purely numbers driven, and it's based on a TON of research. Basically, he went through years of NBA players and gathered up their college numbers, then analyzed those numbers for patterns and benchmarks that would predict good professional careers. He has misses to be sure, but also his hits.

You're welcome to disagree with what he thinks, but one of the values of his approach is that he doesn't care about a guy's reputation. He isn't trying to make his evaluation fit with what Chad Ford thinks or what NBA GMs are thinking. Considering how often the "experts" get their evaluations of players completely wrong, I appreciate Ed's approach. "Reputation" and "perceptions" from "experts" shouldn't be taken as gospel.

Sure, but 'round here we don't even take the word of stat geeks as gospel.

One component Weiland seems to be overlooking is any strength of schedule adjustment.

He's got Tony Mitchell 13 places better than Thomas Robinson, but Mitchell has faced exactly nobody in the front court. The toughest rebounder he faced is a 6'6" center at Southern Alabama. Whereas checking the kenpom pythagorean match-ups Kansas had the 3rd toughest schedule in the NCAA, facing the #1 toughest opponent cumulative defense. Pretty sure TRob's numbers would look a notch better against the 248th toughest strength of schedule in the NCAA (#291th best offensive match-up, out of 345 schools).

Mitchell may be good, may be the 2nd best player in the draft, but who the hell knows, he hasn't been tested against NBA caliber players. Occasionally the numbers themselves shouldn't be taken as gospel.

Agreed the numbers shouldn't be taken as gospel. But neither should "reputation" and "perception." I haven't systematically looked at Weiland's predictions and how they've panned out. My point is that it's valuable to look at a different perspective and not just dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't match with "perceptions" of self-proclaimed "experts."

[hands11]

what about jon jenkins? best shooter in the SEC and his commodores are giving kentucky all they can handle right now.

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=320710096

Looks like it was a little more then Kentucky could handle.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

what about jon jenkins? best shooter in the SEC and his commodores are giving kentucky all they can handle right now.

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=320710096

Looks like it was a little more then Kentucky could handle.

It is hard to beat the same team three times. Vandy has three legit NBA prospects.

Jenkins is a great pure shooter, like Steph Curry and JJ Redick. He lacks athleticism but he should be a good sub at the least in the NBA. I like him but don't see him having enough speed or quickness to be a star in the NBA. Jenkins could pair with Wall and be a more accurate shooter than Nick or Jordan Crawford. He's not going to be a star guard, however, because he's not going to slash and create his own shot in the NBA. If he can defend SGs well enough he'll be a very useful player.

Jeffrey Taylor passes the eye test of how a good NBA SF should look on athletically. I didn't see the game but he had 18 and 11, while MKG fouled out with zero rebounds and only 5 points.

Festus Ezeli is 22 already and he's got a grown man's physique. He dwarfs Anthony Davis. Ezeli is big, quick, and has had the most success against Davis. He should be an effective C in the NBA--a decent role player.

I think John Calipari might be relieved to see Kentucky drop a game before the NCAAs. He might be able to use the loss to refocus his team. I will be watching MKG. A few have pointed out he can't shoot beyond midrange. He said he wants to come back to college. This game was a stinker by him.

Right now, I wonder if MKG is ready to step up to be a top 2 or 3 pick.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Without Henson, the Tar Heels just fell to the Florida State Seminoles in the ACC Tourney final.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball ... 1203110413

It was the first time since Maryland’s title in 2004 that a team outside the state of North Carolina won the tournament.

Florida State hit 11 of 22 from 3-point range, which turned out to be the difference. North Carolina went 5 of 20 from beyond the arc, including Kendall Marshall potential game-winning shot with 5 seconds to go.

When is the last time a team knocked off both UNC and Duke in the ACC Tourney? My guess would be the Terps did but I cannot remember them doing so.

Florida State's SG Michael Snaer might be an NBA prospect. He is like Gil when his shot is dropping.

Snaer made all but one of his five 3-pointers, while Dulkys finished 4 of 9 outside the arc in a 16-point performance. Luke Loucks and Ian Miller added 10 points apiece for the Seminoles.

What is most impressive is this was no fluke. FSU killed UNC earlier this season.

[Dr Positivity]

consig,

I definitely have concerns about Sully. Maybe I shouldn't have included
him, even last, among the players on my list.

I'm struck by the contrast between Weiland's list and what
I've been looking at on DX. Clearly there is a lot that I don't
know given how little I've heard about many of the picks that
Weiland has above many of DX's top picks.

I think he's just got his thing and is going against type. I tend to throw it out if the stuff Im hearing the scouts and GM's saying is nowhere remotely similar to the poster. I think some guys take it as a badge of honor to not buy the hype, like CCJ who loves to find the underrepped gems likely to go 15-55, and others who like to find the holes in the highly esteemed prospects, or the shine on the less esteemed ones.

Everyone has an axe to grind and a sort of temperment when it comes to evaluating prospects, and repping their views. For me, it's just simply draft building strategy, and that's it, but I loved to read about everyone elses ideas because I learn a little something knew about team building, or about how best to address weaknesses quickly. It's always interesting.

Weiland's views have no more water to me than CCJ's or Dat's, they're just a guys views, and the fact that they are so thoroughly off the grid tells me that he's both not clued into what the pereceptions are of the guys who actually do this for a living, but also suggests that there is some firm disagreement of where value, need, and talent and reputation dovetail.

Just wanted to chime in on this. I agree that while Weiland's approach is very interesting - and a quick look tells me he's had some successes (for his 2009 post http://hoopsanalyst.com/blog/?p=92 looks really good to me) so I will keep my eye on him. But in general I have my doubts about a statistical model of NCAA players predicting draft success. It's just a different game. I think it can find steals but it may also miss in cases.

I do agree though that it's nice to see those willing to buck the trend against the Ford-ian rankings. Since it seems like a lot of GMs are scared to make a "reach" against the consensus big board because that's what puts you on a limb to get fired. If you pick the guy everyone had in the top 10 it goes down as a "Oh well, you can't blame him for that" forgivable situation

In general I just appreciate anyone who tries to analyze prospects from with a good logical backing and opinions coming from a place separate from "That's just where he's ranked". I appreciate this thread more than the one on the Toronto board, it's nice to see posts by people willing to question things like Harrison Barnes and Bradley Beal being on track to duel for 2nd overall when both scream 15th overall talent to me. (Both would be higher in a different draft but this one is deep)

Last year my top 10 prospects were Kyrie Irving, Enes Kanter, Alec Burks, Donatas Motiejunas, Derrick Williams, Brandon Knight, Bismack Biyombo, Jimmer, Reggie Jackson and Marshon Brooks in that order with the first 5 having all-star talent. So far Jimmer and Reggie make me the most worried of that group, but both were elite shooters in college and haven't been so far this year, so I could see that turning around. Kanter has been weaker offensively than I expected but he was a hard guy to project rightly for obvious reasons. I still think Burks and Motiejunas are going to be embarrasing NBA GMs 5 years from now. They are special offensive talents

My top 10 this year: Anthony Davis, gap, Meyers Leonard, Jeremy Lamb, Perry Jones III, Jared Sullinger, Arnett Moultrie, gap, Thomas Robinson, Andre Drummond, John Henson, Damian Lillard, with Davis having franchise potential, the next 5 having all-star talent, and then a long range after that as players I generally expect to be solid starters (going through the teens and including types like Machado, Barnes, Beal, T Zeller). I think Leonard and Moultrie are good examples of players with the size/athleticism/skill talent of all-stars but ignored mainly from where they're playing. Sullinger has offensive skill and feel for that side that's more far rare than big man athleticism even if it's the opposite that's usually assumed. I know this place doesn't like PJIII but I think the importance of getting a superstar talent in a draft is so high that I can't drop him out of the top 5, plus he seems like a really good kid, just a shy one (Which is something I much prefer to a Demarcus Cousins type situation. I could see Perry being like Bosh mentally in the NBA). I can see why the Wizards would be at the bottom for teams where he'd fit though, compared to a team like the Raptors who have a lot of lunchbucket guys but no special talent. Drummond to me is the most overrated talent in the draft because basketball player and skill talent is even more important than physical tools and he doesn't have it. I see a Javale McGee Deandre Jordan type place in the NBA for him which is not a bad career, but I don't see him going from offensive (Please Use More Appropriate Word) to Amare like potential, that's the mistake that happens most often in drafts (Most recently with Derrick Favors compared to a guy like Greg Monroe)

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Just wanted to chime in on this. I agree that while Weiland's approach is very interesting - and a quick look tells me he's had some successes (for his 2009 post http://hoopsanalyst.com/blog/?p=92 looks really good to me) so I will keep my eye on him. But in general I have my doubts about a statistical model of NCAA players predicting draft success. It's just a different game. I think it can find steals but it may also miss in cases.

I do agree though that it's nice to see those willing to buck the trend against the Ford-ian rankings. Since it seems like a lot of GMs are scared to make a "reach" against the consensus big board because that's what puts you on a limb to get fired. If you pick the guy everyone had in the top 10 it goes down as a "Oh well, you can't blame him for that" forgivable situation

In general I just appreciate anyone who tries to analyze prospects from with a good logical backing and opinions coming from a place separate from "That's just where he's ranked". I appreciate this thread more than the one on the Toronto board, it's nice to see posts by people willing to question things like Harrison Barnes and Bradley Beal being on track to duel for 2nd overall when both scream 15th overall talent to me. (Both would be higher in a different draft but this one is deep)

Last year my top 10 prospects were Kyrie Irving, Enes Kanter, Alec Burks, Donatas Motiejunas, Derrick Williams, Brandon Knight, Bismack Biyombo, Jimmer, Reggie Jackson and Marshon Brooks in that order with the first 5 having all-star talent. So far Jimmer and Reggie make me the most worried of that group, but both were elite shooters in college and haven't been so far this year, so I could see that turning around. Kanter has been weaker offensively than I expected but he was a hard guy to project rightly for obvious reasons. I still think Burks and Motiejunas are going to be embarrasing NBA GMs 5 years from now. They are special offensive talents

My top 10 this year: Anthony Davis, gap, Meyers Leonard, Jeremy Lamb, Perry Jones III, Jared Sullinger, Arnett Moultrie, gap, Thomas Robinson, Andre Drummond, John Henson, Damian Lillard, with Davis having franchise potential, the next 5 having all-star talent, and then a long range after that as players I generally expect to be solid starters (going through the teens and including types like Machado, Barnes, Beal, T Zeller). I think Leonard and Moultrie are good examples of players with the size/athleticism/skill talent of all-stars but ignored mainly from where they're playing. Sullinger has offensive skill and feel for that side that's more far rare than big man athleticism even if it's the opposite that's usually assumed. I know this place doesn't like PJIII but I think the importance of getting a superstar talent in a draft is so high that I can't drop him out of the top 5, plus he seems like a really good kid, just a shy one (Which is something I much prefer to a Demarcus Cousins type situation. I could see Perry being like Bosh mentally in the NBA). I can see why the Wizards would be at the bottom for teams where he'd fit though, compared to a team like the Raptors who have a lot of lunchbucket guys but no special talent. Drummond to me is the most overrated talent in the draft because basketball player and skill talent is even more important than physical tools and he doesn't have it. I see a Javale McGee Deandre Jordan type place in the NBA for him which is not a bad career, but I don't see him going from offensive (Please Use More Appropriate Word) to Amare like potential, that's the mistake that happens most often in drafts (Most recently with Derrick Favors compared to a guy like Greg Monroe)

Wow, thanks, Dr Mufasa! That is great insight that you've provided. I don't even consider the way Wieland, you, I, or anyone else who objectifies their talent evaluations by their own assessment means out-of-the box thinking. Some of the mainstream line of thinking is among the least informed.

--I have discounted Meyers Leonard but now I will take a closer look.

--PJIII is a player I have really not liked but recently, he's stepped up big. I now like him, mainly because of what coaches say. Great kid. He's got size with skill and isn't a Harrison Barnes-overrated prospect, but he is a beta type player. The Wizards already have an alpha in Wall.

--I agree with you 100% on Drummond. I will be shocked if he's even as good as Favors when all is said and done. Favors is going to get it and be solid within a couple seasons IMO. I'd take Favors over McGee but not ever expect much offense from Favors.

--As much as I love Tyler Zeller to fit a need of the Wizards; lately, I've come to the conclusion John Henson could be an even better NBA player. After Anthony Davis, Henson (along with Fab Melo) is a defender who stands out among big men.

--Moutrie is the sleeper pick. I would love any Mcgee trade to get a late 1st because like you, I have no doubts about Moutrie (after learning of him late in the game on this board) or Damian Lillard. I am not surprised you have both guys in your top-10.

--I love Machado, but obviously, the Wizards don't have a pressing need at PG. I like Mack, but I think Machado is starter-quality at PG.

--I would like Sullinger just like you, but I'm scared of his back issues and his frame. If his body holds up, yes, he'll be a beast. He has a sophisticated game and I could see him scoring a lot in the NBA.

--I am surprised you have a gap before Robinson. I like his board work even if he's merely a rebounder, no frills scorer. He goes hard to the glass.

I would rate Tony Mitchell and probably, Will Barton, top-ten in this class. Barton just seems like his game will translate well to the NBA game.

[Dr Positivity]

I'll admit I haven't watched Tony Mitchell and there's little youtube stuff on him (there is on the Alabama one) so I don't really have a good grasp on him enough. I do like Barton.

Leonard to me feels like he should be the owner of the vacant 2nd overall title belt. Not just (IMO) because he has top 3 talent with A Davis and PJIII, but because we all know the NBA Draft historically has a peeping tom hair doll obsession with high potential, athletic 7 foot big man prospects, and in this case his skill level on top of that is also impressive. The combination of his physical tools and skill level that looks far more impressive than his numbers (because of a poor situation team wise) really reminds me of Lamarcus Aldridge in 06. I could see him being a strong workout stage away from jumping to 2nd or 3rd because those spots are pretty open right now, and if Drummond falls like he deserves they'll need another center to replace him. In a draft without a consensus 2nd or 3rd overall guy, if you're an extremely toolsy C prospect like Leonard you probably don't need to do much to jump up to those spots, especially if you like, deserve it