Slather me, Lather me, Blather me - 2011 Draft Thread 5

[Nivek]

Don't have time to do similar analysis for other draft positions. My guess is that Blair's playing time is probably most like that of a late lottery pick. It's just a guess though. At some point, I might get time to do something similar for other draft spots. Not right now, though.

[Illuminaire]

Mind if I quote your stat-mining on the Spurs board, Kev?

[tontoz]

Don't have time to do similar analysis for other draft positions. My guess is that Blair's playing time is probably most like that of a late lottery pick. It's just a guess though. At some point, I might get time to do something similar for other draft spots. Not right now, though.

I think a side note on those stats is that people tend to overvalue draft picks. That sure seemed like the case on here leading up to the draft.

[Nivek]

Mind if I quote your stat-mining on the Spurs board, Kev?

Feel free. I'll be interested to see what they say.

[Nivek]

Don't have time to do similar analysis for other draft positions. My guess is that Blair's playing time is probably most like that of a late lottery pick. It's just a guess though. At some point, I might get time to do something similar for other draft spots. Not right now, though.

I think a side note on those stats is that people tend to overvalue draft picks. That sure seemed like the case on here leading up to the draft.

Especially NBA draft picks. The NBA may be the toughest league to crack because there are so few jobs, and because players go both ways. The NFL, for example, has offensive players and defensive; and many guys are part-timers and situational players. Even the best players in the game will be on the field less than half the time.

In the NBA, stars play 2nd round picks are something like 50-50 to even make a roster. First round picks often struggle to find playing time. Star players frequently consume 80% (or more) of a team's minutes at their position.

[SumTingWong]

The NBA may be the toughest league to crack because there are so few jobs, and because players go both ways...

Oh dear God in heaven preserve us!! Say it aint so! Say it aint so!

Is nothing sacred!

Oh the agony!

[Zonkerbl]

Well, don't forget that not too long ago we all hated Vesely too for precisely these reasons -- statistically he looks like ass.

So lately we've been convinced by watching tape of him play, watching "the kiss," hearing about his superhero mentality -- and the fact that he was a primary contributor on a very successful, low budget team that won precisely because of it's massively superior teamwork. He was part of a well-oiled machine. Now, the problem with teams is they are precisely that -- there's lots of helping each other and sharing going on. Nice in kindergarten but not all that great for generating world beating stats.

Now I know this is America and we don't believe in teamwork. But Dallas just won a championship relying more on teamwork than on talent. And goshdarnit at the end of the day I'd rather lose with Superman than win with Darth Vader. You know?

C'mon you guys this is comedy gold here and you're missing out. You need to keep up!!!

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Good call, Ed. You probably also know I'm leaving her alone. I've got enough kids and I'm doing things God's way. I'll just keep being a good neighbor.

Lend me some sugar big daddy.

And that negative review is sort of contrarian, but roughly everybody who owned a computer and was willing to admit to the world they like math basically had the same "beep boop, my calculations show that Jan Vesely is a scrub" conclusion so he's not THAT out there. This is not great news when you consider that while super cool dudes on the general board scoff at the very mention of John Hollinger he probably has a better predictive track record than anyone else who writes for ESPN and his numbers also informed him Ves was pretty much ass (this was also supported by my numbers, which I have chosen to conveniently ignore on the basis of what the hell else am I supposed to do a this point).

Vesely's going to be a scrub? I dunno, I rather respect Ernie's eye for talent. I just think the guy's not going to be nearly as good as other picks after him and that he and Singleton are somewhat redundant. That and they won't displace anyone as starters right away. The picks weren't A+, but I'll give them C+ or B- just because they did get athletes.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I don't see any honest way of assessing CCJ's views about Blair except to say that he was correct. Passing on him in lottery made sense because of concerns about his knees. Maybe even the first round. But he has been a great pick for the Spurs at 37, and a fantastic value considering how little he gets paid. I don't think he'd have changed the course of the Wizards franchise, but he'd be a valued piece of the future front line had the Wizards picked him.

Well to be clear CCJ wanted to draft him at #5, which may be way too high. (My boy Curry I guess? There are a few others a little a bit more productive. Taj Gibson, say. I dunno.) The Wiz however pi55ed away the selection entirely so we would have been better off with CCJ on the clock.

On the flipside of the flipside: John Wall. So, that.

Thing is, Blair's production has been better than the historical average for the 5th pick. He's producing (so far) more like a #3 or #4 overall pick. So, CCJ hypothetically picking Blair at 5 would be pretty defensible. Especially since if Blair had been the 5th pick he likely would have played more and would therefore have had higher totals, meaning his Win Shares would be higher even if his per minute production was a little lower.

It's sorta interesting to me that folks will call Blair -- a productive 22-year old (who doesn't turn 23 until April) -- stuff like "disappointment" and "plays like a second round pick." The Wizards would be ecstatic to have a guy who can play like Blair. Especially at his age.

The Wizards would be smart to think of a trade with the Spurs for Blair and James Anderson.

I don't really like Splitter, but I think if he's included I'd send McGee to SA and let them get another shot at a title.

Blair is the type player that can play PF next to long guys Vesely and Singleton. Washington could get away with playing Blatche at C if they had a tough guy like Blair at PF. DeJuan can also play some C. Like Nivek says, the Wizards would be lucky to have a player like Blair. Anderson was really bad last season, but he was injured. I liked him a lot from his NCAA days. SA is likely to undervalue him since Neal is so good for them and because they just picked up Kawhi Leonard. Anderson is a shooter. With Blair and Anderson the Wizards would be addressing two needs, rebounding and shooting.

Best-case would be to get them without giving up McGee.

[Hoopalotta]

The Wizards would be smart to think of a trade with the Spurs for Blair and James Anderson.

I don't really like Splitter, but I think if he's included I'd send McGee to SA and let them get another shot at a title.

McGee for three less pieces, one of whom lacks ACLs? This is why you get the job as scout and not GM.

That's just absolutely terrible.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Win some lose some.

[Hoopalotta]

Win some lose some.

Truth is we've all made some terrible proposals at one point or another.

I mean, I have to admit I've been looking at Villanueva's combination of 3-Point shooting percentages and semi-respectable defensive rebound rate and thinking to myself that......

No, no! Must be strong.

[dobrojim]

my biggest boner was to draft Ed O'Bannon one year as the Wiz rep
on the Usenet Mock draft. What was I thinking? It was a pretty
high pick too IIRC.

[closg00]

Mark (Washington DC)

Help. My Wizards are in love with the Euro big guys. Is that a bad thing? What about some bangers like the guy from Kansas or Tristan from Texas? What will they do with the #6 and #18 picks? I don't trust Grunfield not to mess it up.

John Hollinger (12:35 PM)

Very interesting work by the Washington Post's Michael Lee pointing that No. 18 picks have been about as valuable as No. 6, because for some reason No. 6 picks have storied history of face-planting. I'm not big on Jan Vesely -- he wasn't that productive in Europe and I think he's more of an energy guy you take in the teens than a potential star -- and I think Kawhi Leonard is a much more solid bet for NBA success. Or Tristan Thompson, as you note.

This^ was Hollinger pre-draft, can someone with Insider post a bit of his draft-rater please just for reference. Thx!

[nate33]

Personally, going by the eyeball test, I don't think Blair could play extended minutes and maintain his effectiveness. He's pretty much a specialist and he doesn't really make you want to scream "This guy could run all day!" like when you're watching Serge Ibaka. He's really best when playing next to a skilled center who can guard the rim too.

He's probably the top guy in the NBA for the "Could'a been a left tackle" tag and I don't know that we're going to see him add wrinkles to his game over the years. He's kind of a "what you see is
what you get" guy in that I don't see what sorts of skills he can add with his body type which are going to work at an NBA level. In that sense, it was almost like drafting a veteran, high-efficiency 7th man, so I couldn't justify him with anything like a top 5 pick as I don't see his career arc building up off his rookie year like you'd think. Assuming that's true, I'd be highly dubious of any metric that suggested that this was a good idea in a strategic, team-building sense.

A guy like Demar Derozen might not shine by advanced metrics, but I've seen him sore over 30 points in a half, so, taking into account tools and character, that's more the type of guy I'd have wanted in the long run with a lottery pick as you're looking at legit eventual upside in that there's a whole host of things Demar can add.

Ditto

Blair has made a nice impact as an instant vet on a team with a skilled center. Put him alongside a typical offensively incompetent center and his weaknesses would be more evident. I also question his upside.

[Ed Wood]

Blair's playing time is also limited on the Spurs because their entire offensive system is predicated on having as many three point shooters on the floor as possible to surround Tim Duncan and Tony Parker. Every minute Blair is on the floor Duncan is also probably on the floor, (both to cover for the defensive issues Blair might create and because he usually is in general) meaning that that's one less hand poised to hurl the ball a great distance.

So while Blair himself might be pretty effective the question that must be answered is not simply whether he is more effective than the alternatives, (say Matt Bonner) because it's pretty hard to make a convincing case that he isn't, but whether that difference is greater than the perhaps negative effect of disrupting the ultimate goal of the offense to limit shots taken to three pointers and those taken by either Duncan or Parker. Plus when you consider Parker's entire game is getting to the rim and that he's a phenomenal finisher when he can, and that Manu is pretty good at it as well, anything that may imperil driving lanes has to be awfully valuable to be worth doing.

edit: I had a pretty intense less vs. fewer internal struggle going on there for a bit.

[Illuminaire]

Early responses from the San Antonio fans echo what Ed just said.

Apparently Blair has significant defensive shortcomings, and Pop is unwilling to give him much burn because he unbalances the lineups.

[willbcocks]

Blair is frequently a matchup nightmare--for his own team. Look at the playoffs where they couldn't play him because of Memphis's height. He's a glen davis type player, good off the bench or in certain matchups, not a full-time starter.

[DCZards]

Blair's playing time is also limited on the Spurs because their entire offensive system is predicated on having as many three point shooters on the floor as possible to surround Tim Duncan and Tony Parker. Every minute Blair is on the floor Duncan is also probably on the floor, (both to cover for the defensive issues Blair might create and because he usually is in general) meaning that that's one less hand poised to hurl the ball a great distance.

So while Blair himself might be pretty effective the question that must be answered is not simply whether he is more effective than the alternatives, (say Matt Bonner) because it's pretty hard to make a convincing case that he isn't, but whether that difference is greater than the perhaps negative effect of disrupting the ultimate goal of the offense to limit shots taken to three pointers and those taken by either Duncan or Parker. Plus when you consider Parker's entire game is getting to the rim and that he's a phenomenal finisher when he can, and that Manu is pretty good at it as well, anything that may imperil driving lanes has to be awfully valuable to be worth doing.

Good points, Ed. The Spurs offensive scheme ( 3pts.) and the driving of Parker and Manu do make it much more difficult for Blair to get PT. He'd certainly get more burn with other teams. However, as has been pointed out, because of his size and offensive and defensive shortcomings, Blair's upside is limited.

As far as DeJuan being like Big Baby Davis, as another poster suggested, the Spurs wish Blair could consistently knock down the 10-15 ft. jumper the way that Davis does.

[TGW]

Blair is frequently a matchup nightmare--for his own team. Look at the playoffs where they couldn't play him because of Memphis's height. He's a glen davis type player, good off the bench or in certain matchups, not a full-time starter.

I actually think Big Baby is a more effective player than Dejuan. BB can hit an open j from about 16" with consistency. Blair is strictly a low post threat.