The RealGM Wizards Board Draft Thread 2008/2009

[Ed Wood]

A few quick hits before I launch into something a little different:

- In a situation where Rubio and Harden are being considered for the second overall pick regardless of the team's intent to either keep or trade the player drafted I'd prefer the Gourmet Spanish Chocolate. He's certainly more attractive as a trading chip than is Harden, and I don't lend much credence to the notion that Gilbert and Ricky would clash. Ricky played several years along side a player in Rudy Fernandez who did dominate the ball in Spain and Gil hasn't had any trouble sharing the court with players like Larry Hughes and Antonio Daniels (and Antonio would run the pick and roll while Arenas waited for a kick out, which is something Ricky loves to do). I also tend to think that the Wizards roster, particularly the second unit, would benefit from playing at a faster pace, and Rubio would be a means to that end.

- Right now DeRozan reminds me of Joe Alexander towards the end of last year. He's a very impressive athlete and seems willing to devote himself to improving himself, but his NBA skill set is at this point, more than a little nebulous. Jumping over defenders to shoot from seventeen feet is something stars do in between drives to the basket and threes, the worst shot in basketball isn't a great offensive foundation. Long term he could be very good, but I think I'd only look at him as a potential selection if I had more than one first round pick.

- NBAdraft.net compares rising freshman and future Memphis Tiger DeMarcus Cousins to Andray Blatche, first time I've ever seen him used as a player comparison. Cousins is shorter and stronger, but does play a little like 'Dray.

- I generally like the looks of things in 2010 as compared to the upcoming draft, though that's in large part the product of being able to project next year's freshman class as much better than this year's bunch. The ACC is going to be overflowing with big men next year.

Actually that ended up being a fair bit of foreplay, so I'll shorten things on the back end here.

Because I think we do at times allow our opinions to be colored by the ambient analysis here, I'd like to see some self-report to help contextualize what we're getting. I don't need to know how perfectly you nailed some second round gem or anything, I already know that we all have selective memories. What I want is for everyone to come clean about your personal prejudices and fetishes in prospect evaluation.

My personal excentricities include:

- Everybody has be able to shoot. I don't care if you're seven feet tall, I want to see some fourteen footers, and you better be making your free throws. If you rely on post offense it had better be some poetry in the pivot; the dunk is not a post move (but the drop step to reverse slam is).

- Everybody needs to be able to pass, and ideally to be able to receive a pass (score without a lot of dribbling). Part of playing in the NBA is playing with NBA players, who have better things to do than watch you dribble out the shot clock.

- Threes are better than twos, everybody should take them.

- I don't penalize players for lacking physical strength. Nor do I particularly appreciate players for being physically strong, particularly guards.

- I don't like players that need to be fouled frequently to score.

- I like players who are at home playing at a high tempo.

- I have soccer sensibilities and so tend to appreciate a certain kind of play that I find aesthetically pleasing. I enjoy players that have a "pretty" game.

[doclinkin]

Because I think we do at times allow our opinions to be colored by the ambient analysis here, I'd like to see some self-report to help contextualize what we're getting. I don't need to know how perfectly you nailed some second round gem or anything, I already know that we all have selective memories. What I want is for everyone to come clean about your personal prejudices and fetishes in prospect evaluation.

I'm intrigued first by consistent highlevel stat production, then qualify that with eyes-on assessment, then re-shuffle the deck based on the astrological component since it amuses me to do so and nobody else does it. Also I like outliers, since the NBA is a league of unrealistically aberrant athletes. If you do something better than anybody at your position does it, you catch my eye. So the top assisting Center in the game would hold my attention for a second. Ditto the top shotblocking two-guard. I'm a sucker for a dog that can walk on two legs.

Othe than that my criteria differ depending on position; depending on team playstyle (coach, system, etc); depending on need. I like players who consistently play better when matched against tougher competition, I'm not scared of small school production though it's tougher to get a good eyes-on assessment (in some cases small school play can count in your favor. A sweet pass to an inept teammate doesn't register as an assist, if you rack asts at a small school you probably know what to do with the ball when you have an alley oop threat like JaVale).

Where head-to-head matches vs big schools are lacking, the NCAA tourney can help clarify things. Ditto the much ignored NIT, it's still a one and done tourney of some pretty solid schools.

Despite the assumed lesser talent and athleticism I like upperclassmen from winning programs. Guards especially, point guards doubly. It takes a while to learn to read the floor, experience counts, your transition is quicker. And guards are less likely to be hyped into risking the lottery than the Bigs. Bigs go early, but the fact is there are very few successful tall PGs. Smarts are more important than huge-itude at this spot.

Statwise:
Win score relative to position. (Use DX Dbase, sort by position, then correct for the position they are likely to try to play in the NBA. Juan Dixon never showed PG skills, so I'da called him a 2-guard regardless of height).

Then basic stats, correct for per40 pace adjusted, then select for needed skill at a given position. (eg: Our current true guards don't hit the outside shot, don't get to the line, don't pass all that well, don't defend. So in evaluating backcourt prospects I'd look for a balance of TS% then the FTA per FGA ratio, then the various assist measures. If there was a 1-3 swingman who had all these qualities, well perfect. If not I'll compromise for one or the other. Smarts count for alot, though that's tougher to measure).

I tend to think defensive boards and assists (relative to position) give a decent glimpse of a player who knows what both teams are doing on both ends of the court. A court awareness metric. Ballsmarts; IQ.

Defense, I liked the ratio of blocks+steals per personal foul, especially with a reasonably high foul rate. This shows efficiency, effort, and aggressiveness (even if blocks are overrated in general and especially in the NCAAs). No longer on the DX dbase, so oh well. Still you can tease it out.

Also, given time I'll scan boxscores against the best competition and see if the player-counterpart positions lit it up against the player in question.

Eyes-on?
Thin-slicing. I know what I like. It's an attitude thing. Chris Webber looked like a wonderful NBA baller. He just didn't read as a winner. Derozan ditto. Dunno.

Zodiac steez:
Mostly just to confirm my prejudices. I edit out and ignore the stuff that doesn't scan right according to my preformed biases. This is just a guess to imagine if a given player could live up to their potential, in a world where zodiac info was true more often than not. Nobody is paying me for my assessment so I can feel free to tug any measure I want out my butt. But I prefer production over zodiac when the eyes-on read confirms the basic NBA athleticism, etc. Shaq has the zodiac profile of a hypersensitive diva, but he's too huge and nimble to ignore. Jose Juan Barea has the stars of a cyborg pitbull, had the college production to back it up. But that's a wee wee mannikin, in a game of giants.

That's basically it. Stathappy, gutfeeling from a glimpse or two, then metaphysical jibberjabber. Consider the context of team need along the way since we're usually picking late after the topnotch bar-none talents are gone and there are usually position appropriate choices among the tier two guys.

[Ji]

scouts are now saying the Blake is a much better prospect than Rose or Beasley making this a pretty strong draft if you get the #1 pick

[closg00]

Houston just signed James White(NBDL find) to a multi-year deal. Just goes to show that you don't have to look to the draft to get help, there are NBA-ready guys that are out there to be found. If we end-up with a roster-spot due to trade or whatever, I would seriously look to steal James Gist from the Spurs. We owe them for getting Mason

[fishercob]

Keep in mind I never said he wasn't still a very good player off-ball. But, unlike you, I feel that there is a noticeable drop-off in performance between the Gilbert with the rock in his hands at the start of a possession, and the Gilbert who relies on someone else to set him up.

What Hughes, and to a lesser extent Daniels, did for Gilbert was relieve the pressure of ball-handling up to halfcourt. Gilbert wasn't playing a lot of off-ball when with Hughes and Daniels. Occasionally, you'd see Gilbert give it up to Hughes/Daniels, then run off a quick screen and pop a 3. That was about the extent of it, from what I remember. But the ball was still in Gilbert's hands most of the time. With Rubio, you won't have that. You'll have a guy who wants to facilitate the offense - something Gilbert, not Ricky, needs to do.

Take into account the fact that neither of them have enough height to play the shooting guard position and that our backcourt would be abused on a regular basis with mis-matches galore, and you have a resounding "NO" from me on the selection of Rubio based on the assumption we will keep him.

Miller, how often are teams bringing the ball up against pressure in today's NBA -- 5% of the time? 10% tops? No NBA teams zone press, and to the extent that teams pick up full court man (and trap out of that), it's almost always in very late game situations.

As to your height comment -- Isiah and Joe Dumars did fine. As for today's matchups, Gil has the height to stay with Ray Allen and Delonte West/Moe Williams. Conversely, how are SG's going to chase Gil around all night?

Dat, as to your questions about him, there's a lot of good Rubio footage on youtube (via DX and NBAdraft.net). Granted, a lot of it is highlights, but nonetheless. I don't think he has great lateral foot speed, so yeah, guys like Chris Paul might give him problems. Welcome to the club in that department. From what I saw, he does finish in traffic -- not by dunking on people, but a lot by Tony Parker-style twisting layups and the like.

Rubio doesn't turn 19 until October. We've been hearing about this kid's "genius" for what -- three years? Not since Lebron (and I can't remember who before that) has someone been followed by such loud calls for greatness from such a young age. I'm not saying Rubio should be the pick. But if scouts and EG truly see him as a HOF level point guard, you have to draft him and keep him or get something HUGE in return.

[nate33]

(Our current true guards don't hit the outside shot, don't get to the line, don't pass all that well, don't defend.)

But other than that, they're rock solid.

[barelyawake]

From what I saw, he does finish in traffic -- not by dunking on people, but a lot by Tony Parker-style twisting layups and the like.

As I've said before, Rubio's got no hops. His jumpshot gets swatted on a reg. basis in Euro-league. In the NBA, he'll be eating that ball. And he "finishes" like La Bomba. How well did that work out?

Again, Marco and Rudy were the same type of passers (although, admittedly not as prolific). But, they can finish. Livingston was the same type of passer, but he has size.

I'm not saying don't get Rubio. I'm saying we need to completely restructure the team if Rubio is the pick. So, you begin by first getting a primary scorer, and a SG who can both score and play shutdown defense. Rubio and Arenas together won't work, for a championship team. It may work for a good deal of wins in the regular season, but it will never fly in the post season. Rubio needs a team with inside scorers (we have maybe one in McGee), and lockdown defenders/trey shooters on the wings (and those we don't have)...

[Ruzious]

Because I think we do at times allow our opinions to be colored by the ambient analysis here, I'd like to see some self-report to help contextualize what we're getting. I don't need to know how perfectly you nailed some second round gem or anything, I already know that we all have selective memories. What I want is for everyone to come clean about your personal prejudices and fetishes in prospect evaluation.

My personal excentricities include:

- Everybody has be able to shoot. I don't care if you're seven feet tall, I want to see some fourteen footers, and you better be making your free throws. If you rely on post offense it had better be some poetry in the pivot; the dunk is not a post move (but the drop step to reverse slam is).

- Everybody needs to be able to pass, and ideally to be able to receive a pass (score without a lot of dribbling). Part of playing in the NBA is playing with NBA players, who have better things to do than watch you dribble out the shot clock.

- Threes are better than twos, everybody should take them.

Okay, so they should be good inside, middle, and outside. I like players who don't hold onto the ball for a long time. Don't stall the offense. There are exceptions - like Charles Barkley - but they're few and far between.

- I don't penalize players for lacking physical strength. Nor do I particularly appreciate players for being physically strong, particularly guards.

- I don't like players that need to be fouled frequently to score.

- I like players who are at home playing at a high tempo.

- I have soccer sensibilities and so tend to appreciate a certain kind of play that I find aesthetically pleasing. I enjoy players that have a "pretty" game.

[/quote]
There's where we differ. There are a few exceptions, but physicality beats finesse. You don't have to have bulging muscles, but you gotta be physical. Grunting and snorting are plusses. You can keep the James Whites and the Jared Jeffries' of the world. I'll take the Jeff Rulands and Deron Williams'.

[nate33]

Because I think we do at times allow our opinions to be colored by the ambient analysis here, I'd like to see some self-report to help contextualize what we're getting. I don't need to know how perfectly you nailed some second round gem or anything, I already know that we all have selective memories. What I want is for everyone to come clean about your personal prejudices and fetishes in prospect evaluation.

Defense and shooting. Basically, everyone but the center needs to be able to shoot. And everyone but the top offensive threat needs to defend. (Obvously, if the top offensive threat can also defend, that would be nice; but I'm willing to sacrifice defense in one of my starting 5 if that's what is needed to get me a #1 option on offense.) Give me guys like Udonis Haslem and Shane Battier over guys like Al Harrington and Mike Dunleavey.

Centers must be able to defend. If they can't, they're utterly useless to me. I want no part of guys like Eddy Curry, Al Jefferson (as a center), Spencer Hawes, etc.

Power forwards must have range out to 18 feet. I love Dejuan Blair in college but I can't find a position for him on most rosters because he can't shoot. You can't have both your center and your power forward unable to operate outside of 12 feet. And since very few defensive centers can also shoot, it follows that you must have a PF who can shoot.

I don't make much distinction between shooting guards and small forwards. Both should be able to shoot. One must be a lockdown defender with the other being at least average (chances are, the "average" defender is also the primary option on offense).

I have no preference for PG's. Teams can win with scoring guards (Parker), combo guards (Billups) and pass-first guards (Nash) running the point. I wouldn't waste my time trying to find the right kind of PG. If I have a good PG, whatever his style, I'd be happy and just try to run an offense to make it work.

[closg00]

Because I think we do at times allow our opinions to be colored by the ambient analysis here, I'd like to see some self-report to help contextualize what we're getting. I don't need to know how perfectly you nailed some second round gem or anything, I already know that we all have selective memories. What I want is for everyone to come clean about your personal prejudices and fetishes in prospect evaluation.

Defense and shooting. Basically, everyone but the center needs to be able to shoot. And everyone but the top offensive threat needs to defend. (Obvously, if the top offensive threat can also defend, that would be nice; but I'm willing to sacrifice defense in one of my starting 5 if that's what is needed to get me a #1 option on offense.) Give me guys like Udonis Haslem and Shane Battier over guys like Al Harrington and Mike Dunleavey.

Centers must be able to defend. If they can't, they're utterly useless to me. I want no part of guys like Eddy Curry, Al Jefferson (as a center), Spencer Hawes, etc.

Power forwards must have range out to 18 feet. I love Dejuan Blair in college but I can't find a position for him on most rosters because he can't shoot. You can't have both your center and your power forward unable to operate outside of 12 feet. And since very few defensive centers can also shoot, it follows that you must have a PF who can shoot.

I don't make much distinction between shooting guards and small forwards. Both should be able to shoot. One must be a lockdown defender with the other being at least average (chances are, the "average" defender is also the primary option on offense).

I have no preference for PG's. Teams can win with scoring guards (Parker), combo guards (Billups) and pass-first guards (Nash) running the point. I wouldn't waste my time trying to find the right kind of PG. If I have a good PG, whatever his style, I'd be happy and just try to run an offense to make it work.

+1 on this post, I concure %100

[dobrojim]

I wouldn't call them questions actually. I think it's a pretty hard and fast rule that you don't draft guys who shoot people.

You're right. I was simply being kind/generous/giving the benefit of the whatever
doubt may exist about the story.

Bottom line - there are almost certainly better choices out there

[dobrojim]

[snip]

Power forwards must have range out to 18 feet. I love Dejuan Blair in college but I can't find a position for him on most rosters because he can't shoot. You can't have both your center and your power forward unable to operate outside of 12 feet. And since very few defensive centers can also shoot, it follows that you must have a PF who can shoot.

[snip]

But wouldn't you agree that BLair might be just fine playing with a C like AB or McGee
who maybe doesn't have 18 foot range this year, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him
develop it soon.

I'd say you need to have EITHER your C or PF be able to shoot with /some/ range.
Having neither able to do that would be a problem.

(all that said) You may not be old enough to remember this but the old
Bullets did OK with BOTH Ruland and Mahorn at the same
time. McFilthy and McNasty. They didn't do great but they were
going up against some powerhouse teams. A lot of teams had twin tower
lineups at that time. I guess you could argue that things have changed and
I'd agree with that.

I still think Blair is going to be a beast in the pros. Who is going to stop him
from doing the same things he does now? get position, gets boards/putbacks.

[nate33]

But wouldn't you agree that BLair might be just fine playing with a C like AB or McGee
who maybe doesn't have 18 foot range this year, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him
develop it soon.

Yes. Blatche + Blair work fine offensively. But Blatche isn't the defender that Haywood is so we'd lose it on that end. Now if Blatche can continue to develop defensively while also maintaining his good offense, and do it consistently, well then we have a near-franchise caliber player. A guy like that can make up for the weaknesses of a guy like Blair. Blair would look fine alongside Duncan too.

(all that said) You may not be old enough to remember this but the old
Bullets did OK with BOTH Ruland and Mahorn at the same
time. McFilthy and McNasty. They didn't do great but they were
going up against some powerhouse teams. A lot of teams had twin tower
lineups at that time. I guess you could argue that things have changed and
I'd agree with that.

I still think Blair is going to be a beast in the pros. Who is going to stop him
from doing the same things he does now? get position, gets boards/putbacks.

Yes, I would argue that things have changed. With the handcheck rules, there is more emphasis on slashing guards. Slashing guards don't want people in their way clogging up the paint. They want drive-and-kick options. There aren't any good teams with both the PF and C unable to shoot from the perimeter.

Bottom line. I like Blair. He has skills and a fire that few in the NBA have. But he's only going to fit in on one of the precious few teams with skilled centers. He'd be great in San Antonio, Utah or perhaps Cleveland. But he won't be a starting caliber player on this team alongside Haywood.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Because I think we do at times allow our opinions to be colored by the ambient analysis here, I'd like to see some self-report to help contextualize what we're getting. I don't need to know how perfectly you nailed some second round gem or anything, I already know that we all have selective memories. What I want is for everyone to come clean about your personal prejudices and fetishes in prospect evaluation.

My personal excentricities include:

- Everybody has be able to shoot. I don't care if you're seven feet tall, I want to see some fourteen footers, and you better be making your free throws. If you rely on post offense it had better be some poetry in the pivot; the dunk is not a post move (but the drop step to reverse slam is).

- Everybody needs to be able to pass, and ideally to be able to receive a pass (score without a lot of dribbling). Part of playing in the NBA is playing with NBA players, who have better things to do than watch you dribble out the shot clock.

- Threes are better than twos, everybody should take them.

- I don't penalize players for lacking physical strength. Nor do I particularly appreciate players for being physically strong, particularly guards.

- I don't like players that need to be fouled frequently to score.

- I like players who are at home playing at a high tempo.

- I have soccer sensibilities and so tend to appreciate a certain kind of play that I find aesthetically pleasing. I enjoy players that have a "pretty" game.

Great post, Ed Wood. I'll play along ...

I like players who can beat the hell out of most folks ...

The main thing I want in a player is heart. I want somebody who will not quit or be intimidated.

I like players like Danny Granger, who played through leaving teeth ground up on the court. He knew they couldn't fix his mouth right away, so, WTF? Might as well play through. I like that kid.

I personally love the power players who don't do anything real fancy, but just get the job done. The Wizards don't have anybody like this except Etan, when he's healthy, maybe 2 or 3 out of 10 games he plays. In this draft, I love Blair and Griffin. Griffin really is a tough dude mentally. He is so composed that he doesn't even feel the need to retaliate flagrant fouls. Kid plays through. Blair is a beast.

I prefer well-rounded players, guys contribute at both ends of the court, but appreciate specialists. If you're not a good generalist, you got to be a great specialist.

Bill Russell wrote a book 5-6 years ago (sorry, can't recall the title) about the great Celtic teams and the secret of their success. They had great role players who knew their roles. Russell was the intimidator, gamesman, who patrolled the paint and owned the glass. Cousy, Sanders, Jones, Havlicek et al each had one or two skills that they used. They each did their own thing very will and the relationship was symbiotic. I want that kind of team.

On my ideal team, after physically tough people, what I really like is proficient, efficient players. High-percentage shooters or very high-volume rebounders. I don't really care what they look like, but the great specialist shows mastery.

Guys need to be good at what they do and it really doesn't hurt to be a little bit intimidating and persistent. That's going to win in the end if you're also smart. The Bad Boy Pistons teams and the Bulls teams were just juggernaut teams, and so were the Celtic teams of the past.

On this current Wizard team, my favorite player is Brendan Haywood. Plays efficiently at both ends. He's tough. He's smart. Real solid player. He just doesn't explode quickly inside and takes time gathering himself. Otherwise, I love the way he's a versatile defender and that he could be a very solid offensive player, too, if he got more shots.

[miller31time]

Miller, how often are teams bringing the ball up against pressure in today's NBA -- 5% of the time? 10% tops? No NBA teams zone press, and to the extent that teams pick up full court man (and trap out of that), it's almost always in very late game situations.

I didn't mean defensive pressure in the back-court. I mean just taking the pressure off of Arenas taking the ball up the court (ie: pretty pointless, in my opinion). After they both crossed half-court, Arenas would run around a quick screen and get the ball, in most instances that I remember.

As to your height comment -- Isiah and Joe Dumars did fine. As for today's matchups, Gil has the height to stay with Ray Allen and Delonte West/Moe Williams.

Isiah and Joe were excellent defensive players. That duo defied conventional wisdom. Rubio/Arenas would only bolster it.

Conversely, how are SG's going to chase Gil around all night?

Isn't that the type of culture we're trying to get away from?

[wizards-fan]

Right now, there is only Blake Griffin. If something happens on May 19th and we don't get the #1, then I will consider other options.

But for right now ... this franchise just needs a HOF big man so bad. These opportunities come around so rarely.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I'm intrigued first by consistent highlevel stat production, then qualify that with eyes-on assessment, then re-shuffle the deck based on the astrological component since it amuses me to do so and nobody else does it. Also I like outliers, since the NBA is a league of unrealistically aberrant athletes. If you do something better than anybody at your position does it, you catch my eye. So the top assisting Center in the game would hold my attention for a second. Ditto the top shotblocking two-guard. I'm a sucker for a dog that can walk on two legs.

Othe than that my criteria differ depending on position; depending on team playstyle (coach, system, etc); depending on need. I like players who consistently play better when matched against tougher competition, I'm not scared of small school production though it's tougher to get a good eyes-on assessment (in some cases small school play can count in your favor. A sweet pass to an inept teammate doesn't register as an assist, if you rack asts at a small school you probably know what to do with the ball when you have an alley oop threat like JaVale).

Where head-to-head matches vs big schools are lacking, the NCAA tourney can help clarify things. Ditto the much ignored NIT, it's still a one and done tourney of some pretty solid schools.

Despite the assumed lesser talent and athleticism I like upperclassmen from winning programs. Guards especially, point guards doubly. It takes a while to learn to read the floor, experience counts, your transition is quicker. And guards are less likely to be hyped into risking the lottery than the Bigs. Bigs go early, but the fact is there are very few successful tall PGs. Smarts are more important than huge-itude at this spot.

Statwise:
Win score relative to position. (Use DX Dbase, sort by position, then correct for the position they are likely to try to play in the NBA. Juan Dixon never showed PG skills, so I'da called him a 2-guard regardless of height).

Then basic stats, correct for per40 pace adjusted, then select for needed skill at a given position. (eg: Our current true guards don't hit the outside shot, don't get to the line, don't pass all that well, don't defend. So in evaluating backcourt prospects I'd look for a balance of TS% then the FTA per FGA ratio, then the various assist measures. If there was a 1-3 swingman who had all these qualities, well perfect. If not I'll compromise for one or the other. Smarts count for alot, though that's tougher to measure).

I tend to think defensive boards and assists (relative to position) give a decent glimpse of a player who knows what both teams are doing on both ends of the court. A court awareness metric. Ballsmarts; IQ.

Defense, I liked the ratio of blocks+steals per personal foul, especially with a reasonably high foul rate. This shows efficiency, effort, and aggressiveness (even if blocks are overrated in general and especially in the NCAAs). No longer on the DX dbase, so oh well. Still you can tease it out.

Also, given time I'll scan boxscores against the best competition and see if the player-counterpart positions lit it up against the player in question.

Eyes-on?
Thin-slicing. I know what I like. It's an attitude thing. Chris Webber looked like a wonderful NBA baller. He just didn't read as a winner. Derozan ditto. Dunno.

Zodiac steez:
Mostly just to confirm my prejudices. I edit out and ignore the stuff that doesn't scan right according to my preformed biases. This is just a guess to imagine if a given player could live up to their potential, in a world where zodiac info was true more often than not. Nobody is paying me for my assessment so I can feel free to tug any measure I want out my butt. But I prefer production over zodiac when the eyes-on read confirms the basic NBA athleticism, etc. Shaq has the zodiac profile of a hypersensitive diva, but he's too huge and nimble to ignore. Jose Juan Barea has the stars of a cyborg pitbull, had the college production to back it up. But that's a wee wee mannikin, in a game of giants.

That's basically it. Stathappy, gutfeeling from a glimpse or two, then metaphysical jibberjabber. Consider the context of team need along the way since we're usually picking late after the topnotch bar-none talents are gone and there are usually position appropriate choices among the tier two guys.

Honestly, that's a HOF post, doc.

I ranted about physical intimidation and what not, but your post was super specific.

I also look at superlative win score and efficiency, along with blocks+steals (eg. at any level of the NCAAs if you find a guy who averages over 2 blocks and over 2 steals, that dude can defend at the next level, most likely).

As far as zodiac signs go, conficting with my Christian values, I can't help but say you need to look at that as far as team harmony is concerned. Been looking at that stuff for years. (eg Harden's looked bad as a player, but hiis profile of being laid-back would seem to make him ideal next to Gil.. IIRC him being a virgo and Gil being a capricorn would also seem to promote harmony FWIW).

Most important, which you mentioned and I didn't, is need. I know the conventional wisdom is to draft the BPA and therefore most-valued pick, but it doesn't make a bit of sense if a team has greater need. Personally, I don't see Rubio as a need at all. I could only see pick him for cap or trade reasons. Likewise, if the Timberwolves get the top pick Griffin makes absolutely no sense unless Love and Al Jefferson are packing. Thabeet's their guy IMHO.

So, all the things you said, are spot on and a bit more refined than my criteria, doc.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

scouts are now saying the Blake is a much better prospect than Rose or Beasley making this a pretty strong draft if you get the #1 pick

I think this is a real strong draft in general, not just the top pick. Griffin is way better than Beasley IMO.

There are a number of teams (Memphis, Duke, UNC, U Conn, Pitt, possibly Wake, UCLA) that have multiple potential 1st round picks.

I get the feeling NCAA play is just much better this season than in most. Lotta 30-win teams

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

From what I saw, he does finish in traffic -- not by dunking on people, but a lot by Tony Parker-style twisting layups and the like.

As I've said before, Rubio's got no hops. His jumpshot gets swatted on a reg. basis in Euro-league. In the NBA, he'll be eating that ball. And he "finishes" like La Bomba. How well did that work out?

Again, Marco and Rudy were the same type of passers (although, admittedly not as prolific). But, they can finish. Livingston was the same type of passer, but he has size.

I'm not saying don't get Rubio. I'm saying we need to completely restructure the team if Rubio is the pick. So, you begin by first getting a primary scorer, and a SG who can both score and play shutdown defense. Rubio and Arenas together won't work, for a championship team. It may work for a good deal of wins in the regular season, but it will never fly in the post season. Rubio needs a team with inside scorers (we have maybe one in McGee), and lockdown defenders/trey shooters on the wings (and those we don't have)...

ba, I'll say it. DON"T GET RUBIO.

[Dat2U]

Because I think we do at times allow our opinions to be colored by the ambient analysis here, I'd like to see some self-report to help contextualize what we're getting. I don't need to know how perfectly you nailed some second round gem or anything, I already know that we all have selective memories. What I want is for everyone to come clean about your personal prejudices and fetishes in prospect evaluation.

My personal excentricities include:

- Everybody has be able to shoot. I don't care if you're seven feet tall, I want to see some fourteen footers, and you better be making your free throws. If you rely on post offense it had better be some poetry in the pivot; the dunk is not a post move (but the drop step to reverse slam is).

- Everybody needs to be able to pass, and ideally to be able to receive a pass (score without a lot of dribbling). Part of playing in the NBA is playing with NBA players, who have better things to do than watch you dribble out the shot clock.

- Threes are better than twos, everybody should take them.

- I don't penalize players for lacking physical strength. Nor do I particularly appreciate players for being physically strong, particularly guards.

- I don't like players that need to be fouled frequently to score.

- I like players who are at home playing at a high tempo.

- I have soccer sensibilities and so tend to appreciate a certain kind of play that I find aesthetically pleasing. I enjoy players that have a "pretty" game.

Players generally have to pass the "eye test" and its not just about athleticism. When I watch them play, they need to make things happen. Create scoring opportunities, control the flow of the game. I remember watching Steve Blake at UMD years back and watching him dominate the game with the ball in hands. Making plays, create shots for others, hassling the hell out of Jay Williams for Duke and thinking, why in the hell is this guy not considered a solid NBA prospect?

I love athletes with a high skillset though. I fell in love with Shaun Livingston b/c of how quick his feet were and his amazing court vision. He measured out as the 2nd quickest player in his draft class only behind Nate Robinson. Unfortunately his body type & freakish quickness may have led to his body doing things his knees couldn't accommodate.

Any guard worthy of getting drafted in the first round IMO MUST have a diverse skillset. The type of guards I like should be able to create off the dribble and accomplish something by either finishing at the rim or creating easy shots for his teammates.

An example of how I view this would be DeRozan. Although he's an elite athlete, he gets a ding in my book because ballhandling is not a strength yet which honestly prevents him from using much of his incredible athleticism to dominate the competition. Many a great athlete at SG or SF never developed the skillset to fulfill their potential.

I love guys with high b-ball IQs. After watching the Wizards young guys the past few seasons, I'm frustrated watching athletic players like Young, McGee and Blatche collectively demonstrate no type of on-court smarts.

It's rare that you see that combination of elite athlete & high IQ in one person. Griffin fits the measure. That's why he's the #1 pick IMO. LeBron, Wade, etc...all have off-the-charts IQ and athleticism.

I've only gotten into stats the past few years, mainly b/c of this board and guys like CCJ. However its not a make or break issue for me. I like to combine athleticism, IQ and stats to formulate an opinion about a guy.

Harden gets such a low rating from me b/c of a complete lack of athleticism. Although the stats and IQ are there his foot speed is frankly mediocre for a Pac 10 player. He'll get overmatched in the pros where nearly everyone would possess superior quickness. However his smarts and skillset should allow him to at least be a contributor off the bench.