2012 NBA Draft - Part II

[Nivek]

Knight: I'm not sold on MKG. He's an impressive athlete and he plays hard, but his shooting is sub-par and his overall offensive efficiency is about average despite being fairly low usage.

Honestly, I have concerns that several of the players considered to be a the top of the draft are overrated in comparison to their college counterparts.

[Zonkerbl]

On measurables (height, wingspan, leaping ability, lateral speed, etc):

You face less physically gifted competition in college. You can get away with stuff in college you will not necessarily be able to do at the NBA level. Measurables can help identify instances where high production at the college level may not translate to the NBA level. That's the concern with Sullinger. But if you have out of this world measurables and couldn't even produce at the college level, that's a big red flag.

Now if you're letting people come out of high school with no college level productivity, then you almost have to rely on measurables. But as long as you have at least one year of college productivity to work with, you should use measurables only to identify instances where productivity at the college level might not translate to the NBA due to lack of physical tools. Not to project higher productivity at the NBA level than the college level.

And even then you will be wrong many many times (to discount college productivity because of poor measurables). Seems to me pretty much all of ccj's correct predictions of highly productive low draft picks were based on high productivity at the college level. Although iirc Faried's measurables were pretty impressive.

[sashae]

Harrison Barnes, the brand (Grantland). I would not draft Barnes at gunpoint. I'm as much against picking him (and dreading him that the Wizards will) as I was against Vesely.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Harrison Barnes, the brand (Grantland). I would not draft Barnes at gunpoint. I'm as much against picking him (and dreading him that the Wizards will) as I was against Vesely.

Pretty much feel the same way. Barnes should not be in the top-15 IMO. He and Austin Rivers are extremely overrated.

[Illuminaire]

110% agreed, Sash and CCJ.

[Zonkerbl]

I'm gonna go out on a huge limb and say Harrison Barnes is not worth picking wherever the wiz will be picking.

Phew, that was scary.

I literally had to look up his number to figure out which UNC player he was because his name was NEVER called -- he accomplished nothing in the UNC games that I watched. Well, except for the one turnover at the end of that one game.

[The Consiglieri]

I do think, or at least hope, that we're not remotely interested in Barnes at this point. The sense I get for now is that our big board reads:

1. Davis
2. MKG or Beal
3. MKG or Beal
4. Thomas Robinson
5. Andre Drummond
6. James McAdoo (Im confused about him, he didnt do anything during the season after being very highly rated last summer, and now he's 7th on Ford's big board, weird)
7. Harrison Barnes YUCK
8. PJ3-Ack!
9. Sully
10. Tyler Zeller

Really does look like we really, really, really need a top 4 pick. Got to finish worst, or probably 2nd worst to lock that in. I think we'll be in a battle to the very last with New Orleans for the 2 slot, I think the 1st is simply too hard to land pre-lottery. The positive is with about 16-18 games left for the season, we have a 5 game advantage on the teams in the 4-6 slots which suggests we'd have to play at the very least a .500+1 or 2 wins stretch run to lose out on a bottom 3 slot pre-lottery.

[tontoz]

Really does look like we really, really, really need a top 4 pick. Got to finish worst, or probably 2nd worst to lock that in. I think we'll be in a battle to the very last with New Orleans for the 2 slot,

With Vesely and Singleton playing a lot of minutes I am sure the tank will keep rolling. No matter how well the other guys play it will be hard to win much when 2 of the rotation players are so offensively challenged.

Mack seems like he wants to drive the tank a bit too here lately. Maybe he feels a connection to his draft class.

[sashae]

The biggest thing that makes me anti-Barnes is that he does not have one "great" skill. You look at late round guys like Tony Parker (really fast), Gilbert Arenas (amazing penetrator, insanely hard worker), Kenneth Faried (amazing rebounder - sup CCJ!) and you can see why they ended up succeeding. It's the guys that you hear "wow he's really athletic / has great measurables" about that end up failing so brutally.

[The Consiglieri]

Ive done a million run downs of our games and schedule and there are variables that are alarming (6 of our last 12 are against miserably bad teams, plenty of home games etc), but there are also positives, like the two sets of back2back2back's, and lots of back2backs while new orleans has fewer games w/that scheduling pressure on them. It will be a close call, I think it looks like we're locked in at bottom 3 pre-lottery. It just doesn't look possible to blow that unless we play outrageously well (11-7 down the stretch) and our opponents are even more ghastly than they have been (3-13 to 5-13). I haven't looked too much at New Orleans as we're neck and neck, our schedule is tougher than theirs, that's all I know, but clearly our play has improved markedly since we shipped out Larry and Curly and benched Moe for the rest of the season (or seemingly so) and added Nene so its been difficult to get a clear bead on what to expect for our record in our last 17 or so games.

Expecting 1-2 teams to invade the top 3 via the lottery is typical, expecting 3 or 0 tends to be the rare exception, so like most I tend to think we'll get #1, or we'll ge 3, or 4 if we're slotted for #2 overall pre-lotto, and if were slotted for 3, I tend to think we'll land the 1st, or 3rd-5th.

The pain is the 5 slot. The 5 slot is where things turn. Drummond could easily fly up boards, but some teams will be willing to take the risk and others wont, I tend to think we will be one of the "no" votes unless we are totally and completely screwed in the lottery. At the end of the day I guess I just want to have more certainty lol. We've finally seemingly arrived at a top 5 for the draft and we are clearly a bottom 3 team, but my curiosity is completely peaked by what the 5 worst teams think of these 5 guys. What do the boards of Charlotte, New Orleans, New Jersey and Toronto look like at this point (and maybe Detroit?).

Where do they all rank Beal, MKG, Drummond and Robinson, because at the end of the day, unless we do great in the lottery, that is going to play a key role in our future, as last year's awful Toronto landing a pick before us showed (granted our idiot GM might have gone Ves anyway, but most competent ones had Valunciunas ranked ahead of him, and sometimes even Kantner, and reports are, Valunciunas is playing fantastic and looks like a future NBA dominant stud big man, and meanwhile, that extra win we had last year, could have ended up costing us the center we needed for the next decade-getting this draft right, is imperative).

[Zonkerbl]

McAdoo had a good tournament. At least he looked good in the games I watched.

[The Consiglieri]

The biggest thing that makes me anti-Barnes is that he does not have one "great" skill. You look at late round guys like Tony Parker (really fast), Gilbert Arenas (amazing penetrator, insanely hard worker), Kenneth Faried (amazing rebounder - sup CCJ!) and you can see why they ended up succeeding. It's the guys that you hear "wow he's really athletic / has great measurables" about that end up failing so brutally.

Much worse to me, is that in my view, he has the easiest and most common of skills. Scoring. He may have been off this year and last in huge stretches, but its not a stretch to imagine him nailing jumpers left and right at the next level, but the fact that he adds little to the stat line outside of long 2's at the next level is what was terrifying me. The guy just looks like a dime a dozen player at the next level. I understand that great shooters aren't necessairly easy to find, but finding scorers is always MUCH easier than finding guys who play defense, rebound, play smart high BBIQ hoops, and with a high motor, driving to the hoop to get to the line, and involving teammates, and being involved in the game. Barnes doesn't do any of this, as the Grantland article I posted yesterday can attest, as well as the Atlantic monthly article i linked this weekend suggests, Barnes has other objectives and priorities. The kid is smart, but he also reminds me of past football players like Michael Westbunk and Courtney Brown who were more passionate about outside interests than about the game itself. Barnes is a mistake waiting to happen for any team that thinks its drafting a genuine difference maker. You need a shooter thats great at providing some long 2's, go for it, but other than that, I can't really see what he brings to the table unless he suddenly changes his game completely despite never having done so in his previous 70 or so at UNC.

There are at least 15 guys I'd take ahead of him at this point. Happily, Barnes saved us all many a nightmare by failing spectacularly this past weekend and pushing himself out of the top 6 of the draft barring a huge surprise, or returnees to college. We do look locked in to take Davis, MKG, Beal, Robinson, Drummond or McAdoo/PJ3. I dont include Cody as everything I've heard about the indiana kid is that he's going back to school to try and make a final 4 run on the shoulders of a second outstanding recruiting class in a row.

[doclinkin]

The measurables I want are things like efficient scoring, rebounds, steals, blocks, etc. If there's a guy with great physical attributes who doesn't produce on the floor, it's important to know why.

Here's where I'll weight the measurables, so to speak: If I see a lightweight tall stringbean small conference rebounder or shotblocker I won't give him as much credence as a shorter player with a more powerful foundation/lower center of gravity who gains similar production.

Every year at the top of the stats we see a Hassan Whiteside, Jerome Jordan (Justin Williams, Stephane Lasme, Shawn James) or whatnot who dominates in the paint against smaller competition but who hasn't such an easy time against the real big boys. You really have to squint and double check them against bigger conference competition otherwise their totals look invalid. Players like Faried caught my attention as a skinny-ish freshman pogo stick, but I had to doubt him until I saw his numbers maintained against the big boys, and saw him add muscle every year).

The tall player will see equally tall but stronger players at the next level, they can't simply overheight their opponents. But the supposedly too-short player tends to get it done with skills that do translate: positioning, athleticism, muscle, leverage, etc. They know what it is like to play against taller players since they've been doing it already. Key with the broomstick players is to check their stats against any big time conference teams to see their production. Key with the bulldog types is to look at their standing reach compared to height, and check if they're just torso-necks who lose an inch or so due to an impacted spinal column hidden under muscle.

Some positions seem to benefit by good numbers: SFs with good agility scores. Standing reach for PFs. Weight (with decent athletic numbers) for C's. If you squint you can see patterns. But nothing conclusive.

As for box scores: All-NCAA Block leaders rarely seem to translate to the next level, unless they also exhibit strong athleticism and good numbers in other categories (which may be idiotically axiomatic: good athletes make good athletes...) Rebounding commonly translates (with the caveats above). Efficient scoring tends to maintain, especially if it's based on a combo of both long range % and FT/FG ratios. Free Throw %s of course stay the same. Steals from SFs tend to indicate good perimeter defenders. Assist ratios commonly translate, though the player needs to also be able to score to see any PT at all otherwise it's literally pointless.

I find that you do pretty well looking at non-traditional stats by position. True Guards (ie not necessarily SG/SF hybrids) with good defensive rebound numbers; PFs who have good passing ratios, perimeter players who block shots -- these are the sorts of things that catch my attention as evidence a player has a complete game.

Thus a player like Bradley Beal starts to catch my attention, especially considering his age and likelihood of improvement. (And players like DWade, and Jeremy Lin will blip across your screen as similarly well-rounded ballers).

[Nivek]

Good stuff doc. One point that bears emphasis is the level of competition. As I've been researching, I've found an ocean of difference between schools -- a swing of nearly 20 points per game in the strength of schedule. In the NBA the gap from toughest schedule to easiest is usually about 2 points per game.

[long suffrin' boulez fan]

110% agreed, Sash and CCJ.

Harrison Barnes. Calbert Cheaney.

[long suffrin' boulez fan]

And by the way, if given the chance, I'd reach for Cody Zeller.

I really like his approach to the game.

[Nivek]

And by the way, if given the chance, I'd reach for Cody Zeller.

I really like his approach to the game.

As long as you weren't picking #1, I don't think it'd be a reach for Cody Zeller. He's arguably the 2nd best player in the draft.

[doclinkin]

And by the way, if given the chance, I'd reach for Cody Zeller.

I really like his approach to the game.

As long as you weren't picking #1, I don't think it'd be a reach for Cody Zeller. He's arguably the 2nd best player in the draft.

Anybody willing to make that argument? I'd like to hear it.

[jivelikenice]

110% agreed, Sash and CCJ.

Harrison Barnes. Calbert Cheaney.

Hmmm. Cheaney lost his jumper in the NBA. I think that's the difference. His game was all about confidence. When Howard was out and he knew he was going to get touches r he could put up 20 ppg on anyone. But when Howard and Webber were on the floor together he just took a back seat and settled into being the 5th option. But I do see the level of athleticism and passiveness as common traits.

[Kanyewest]

Not saying Beal is the next Eric Gordon, but if you had the chance, would you take Eric Gordon with the 2nd pick in the draft. Let's say the trade down scenario isn't a realistic option.

Here's the entire list of SGs taken in the top 5 in the past ten drafts:

Evan Turner
OJ Mayo
James Harden
Dwyane Wade


If you include PG/SG combos:

Tyreke Evans
Ben Gordon

Point is, you just don't see too many SGs taken that high in the first place. (Eric Gordon went #7.) It's easy to envision a scenario where Gordon is there at 4-6, potentially in a trade-down.

Don't forget our boy Randy Foye.