2012 NBA Draft

[Mizerooskie]

I think Givony's analysis of Davis's offensive game is flawed somewhat in that he only mentions the supporting cast in passing.

The UK roster is a HUGE factor in the lack of point production. He plays with what? 5-6 potential first rounders?

He's 5th on the team in FGA/G. So a guy that's the 5th scoring option is leading a team full of NBA talent in scoring. I don't know where to find the stats, but I'd bet his usage rate is relatively low.

Sure, he's not super polished a year out of high school, but how many lottery prospect big men are? Sullinger is the only one that comes immediately to mind.

His biggest weakness is the most easily fixable: strength.

I dunno if I buy that, Miz. The cream rises, right? Webber played with 2 lotto picks in Jalen and Juwan and scored a ton of points. Elton Brand led a Duke team with Battier, Langdon, Maggette, Will Avery and Carawell.

Maybe Davis doesn't shoulder more of the offensive load because he can't yet.

The cream has risen. He's leading the team in scoring despite the high usage of the other starters.

I think the criticisms of his point output, considering he's the 5th option, are nothing more than nitpicking. Especially when you consider his phenomenal efficiency.

As noted previously, Davis has the highest PER in college basketball, and by a decent margin. And having just found the Holinger rankings, no one in the top 48 has a lower usage rate than his (14.7). Wlliam Moseley (49th) from Northwestern State has a 13.3. Jeff Withey (46th) also has a 14.7.

Edit: There are only 3 additional players ranked in the top 100 that have a usage rate equal to or less than Davis' 14.7.

[go'stags]

Davis has shown the touch, athleticism, shooting form and basketball IQ to tell me that he can become a very effective offensive player. He also has the frame to add considerable strength and become a Center, where his athletic advantage will be even more pronounced. And the "grew 8 inches" does in fact add to the narrative. With a frame that big and long, and playing in spots on the floor that he is not accustomed to playing on, his "lack" of skills is not a big worry. FWIW, Calipari said that they were doing drills after practice, and he said he challenged Davis to make 45 3's in 5 minutes. Davis made 49. I know there was no defense, but that is impressive.

Defensively, he is the best big the college game has seen in a long time, and its not even close really. Keep in mind that the Duncan, Mourning, and Ewing that most remember were not freshman when they made their biggest impact. Duncan was a senior. I know its not a perfect way of thinking about it, but what would Davis look like as a senior in College? He has enough bball IQ that he could lend some to Javale to make him an all-star, and still be a smart player himself.

[fishercob]

I think Givony's analysis of Davis's offensive game is flawed somewhat in that he only mentions the supporting cast in passing.

The UK roster is a HUGE factor in the lack of point production. He plays with what? 5-6 potential first rounders?

He's 5th on the team in FGA/G. So a guy that's the 5th scoring option is leading a team full of NBA talent in scoring. I don't know where to find the stats, but I'd bet his usage rate is relatively low.

Sure, he's not super polished a year out of high school, but how many lottery prospect big men are? Sullinger is the only one that comes immediately to mind.

His biggest weakness is the most easily fixable: strength.

I dunno if I buy that, Miz. The cream rises, right? Webber played with 2 lotto picks in Jalen and Juwan and scored a ton of points. Elton Brand led a Duke team with Battier, Langdon, Maggette, Will Avery and Carawell.

Maybe Davis doesn't shoulder more of the offensive load because he can't yet.

The cream has risen. He's leading the team in scoring despite the high usage of the other starters.

I think the criticisms of his point output, considering he's the 5th option, are nothing more than nitpicking. Especially when you consider his phenomenal efficiency.

As noted previously, Davis has the highest PER in college basketball, and by a decent margin. And having just found the Holinger rankings, no one in the top 48 has a lower usage rate than his (14.7). Wlliam Moseley (49th) from Northwestern State has a 13.3. Jeff Withey (46th) also has a 14.7.

Edit: There are only 3 additional players ranked in the top 100 that have a usage rate equal to or less than Davis' 14.7.

Excellent. Keep it coming.

[Dat2U]

No doubt. My question isn't whether Davis is the best prospect in the draft, though. My question is how's he going to perform when he's in the league. Will other teams be able to exploit his weaknesses? How long will it take him to reach his potential, etc.
--
It's obviously not gospel; there's no such thing. But I don't think it's just an opinion either -- or to the extent that a scouting report in Davis is an opinion, it's heavily researched.
--
Davis is very impressive athletically, defensively, energetically. I'm 35 and I'd say Shaq, Webber, Duncan, Ewing were significantly better prospects when they came out based on their offensive skill sets. Ewing, Oden, and Zo were better defensive bigs because of their strength. That said, when I look back at those last two sentences, he's in good company.
--
I don't want to imagine though. I want to see it. Givony points out "Offensively, Davis is not an incredibly prolific scorer at this stage, only ranking 52nd in points per-40 minutes pace adjusted out of the 84 NCAA players currently in our top 100 prospects." I'm not saying that to knock the kid. It's just frustrating that top picks aren't more ready to play. Cousins supposedly put up other-worldly, once in a generation advanced stats at UK too, and I know how you feel about him. Here's the thing about thin big men: to be effective -- let alone superior -- offensively, they either need to be highly skilled (Gasol) or great shooters (KG). They can't get and keep deep enough position in the post, so they need great moves or a money J to score a lot. Davis has neither today, right? Not to say that he won't or can't be. But there's a risk factor there for sure.
--
Rebounding is critically important for a would-be-dominant big man, though. If I'm betting big on Davis, I want to be sure he's going to be great on the glass.
--
DX goes in to Davis's strengths too. They're considerable. But I need more convincing that he;s going to be an elite NBA player.

Davis' usage rate is 14.7% so obviously he's not filling up the score column because he's not asked to. But the opportunities he does get, he's finishes at an incredibly impressive rate. Only two players in the NBA have a TS% of 67% or higher. Also, I think the tools are there for developing a post game. He's certainly appears to have the IQ and work ethic to add polished skill. He also shows solid form on that 12-15 footer even if he's not consistent with it now.

With the NBA draft, there has to be some projection involved. Especially talking about 18 and 19 yr olds, these guys aren't finished products for the most part. So llcc25's arguments about Davis being years away, and lacking strength therefore he's not an elite prospect don't quite ring true with me.

I don't see any "risk factor" with Davis. You point to Shaq, Webber and Oden as clearly better prospects and certainly all three of those guys were already physically developed, however defensively I don't think none has had the consistent impact Davis has had. Ewing maybe but he came long before Duncan. I stand by my asseration that Davis is the best defensive prospect I've seen since Duncan. Oden had moments, but he didn't dominate.

Finally I don't think his rebounding is a weakness. Is it his best trait? No, but it's not a weakness.

Stand by my opinion that Davis is a game changer.

But maybe I'm wrong, I said the same thing about Wall and it's already a fact that he's nothing special and DeMarcus Cousins is clearly the better player. Too bad we can't trade him for Cousins or Jeremy Lin.

[Severn Hoos]

I think Givony's analysis of Davis's offensive game is flawed somewhat in that he only mentions the supporting cast in passing.

The UK roster is a HUGE factor in the lack of point production. He plays with what? 5-6 potential first rounders?

He's 5th on the team in FGA/G. So a guy that's the 5th scoring option is leading a team full of NBA talent in scoring. I don't know where to find the stats, but I'd bet his usage rate is relatively low.

Sure, he's not super polished a year out of high school, but how many lottery prospect big men are? Sullinger is the only one that comes immediately to mind.

His biggest weakness is the most easily fixable: strength.

I dunno if I buy that, Miz. The cream rises, right? Webber played with 2 lotto picks in Jalen and Juwan and scored a ton of points. Elton Brand led a Duke team with Battier, Langdon, Maggette, Will Avery and Carawell.

Maybe Davis doesn't shoulder more of the offensive load because he can't yet.

Yep, the cream does indeed rise - and if a prospect doesn't have a major impact as a Freshman, it looks to me like he's drastically less likely to turn out to be an elite player in the NBA. (It really pains me to type that, since I rather hate the one-and-done approach, but I now grudgingly admit that it's true.)

Carmelo - huge impact as a Freshman (won the title)
Love - huge Freshman year
Durant - monster Freshman year
Wade = 18/7/3 as a Frosh
Paul = 15/6/3.3 with 50% FG and 47% 3PT
Brand = 13 & 7 in just 23 MPG
Griffin = 15 & 9 on 57% FG
Bosh = 16 & 9 on 56% FG
Ryan Anderson = 16 & 8
Rose = 15/5/5 (and a Finals run)
Harden = 18/5/3 on 52% FG & 41% 3PT


I could go on, but I think you get the point. It's really hard to find a difference-maker in the NBA who didn't have a huge impact as a Freshman (caveats: since the one-and-done era began - 2004 - and among guys who played US college ball.) And tyhose guys who did stay for a second year (Griffin, Harden, Wade, Anderson) absolutely blew up as Sophomores.

The other side of the ledger is littered with guys like Tyrus Thomas, Mike Conley, and Brandan Wright, who were highly regarded but failed to make as much of an impact as a Freshman, but scouts wanted to explain it away and how the potential would win out in the end. And now it's looking more like Wes Johnson, Derrick Favors, Al-Farouq Aminu, and several others may be joining them.

It just seems like impact players are impact players from day 1 - they are born and not made.

That said, Davis has been an impact player, so I have no doubts about him. My doubts are foar more centered on Drummond, PJIII, and (sorry) Robinson.

[Dr Positivity]

I think with Davis the idea is that he can be the best defensive player in the league period and after that what you get offensively is gravy. He can be Duncan defensively and not Camby which is a significant difference. And he can probably fit as a valued 4th/5th wheel on offense in a Tyson Chandler, Nene high efficiency/low volume way

The one thing I don't get in the DX article is "arguably the most impressive blend of athletic tools we've seen in a big man prospect in our nine years evaluating the NBA draft" Huh? I wouldn't even call AD's athleticism dynamic. Let alone in an Oden or Drummond's atmosphere in athletic big man tools

[Dat2U]

Sev, what defines impact? Drummond has a PER of over 20, currently higher than Jeremy Lamb (who many people love) as a sophomore. I'd classify Drummond as disappointing, but he's not as bad as some are making him out to be.

With PJ III, he had a solid freshman season if not spectacular. What concerns me more about him is that he didn't improve significantly from his frosh to soph season.

Robinson may be a unique tale because of the NBA prospects in front of him. It's hard for me to dismiss him because his effort, intensity and productivity. Especially on the boards. His rebound rate is hovering around 20% right now.

[Dat2U]

I think with Davis the idea is that he can be the best defensive player in the league period and after that what you get offensively is gravy. He can be Duncan defensively and not Camby which is a significant difference. And he can probably fit as a valued 4th/5th wheel on offense in a Tyson Chandler, Nene high efficiency/low volume way

The one thing I don't get in the DX article is "arguably the most impressive blend of athletic tools we've seen in a big man prospect in our nine years evaluating the NBA draft" Huh? I wouldn't even call AD's athleticism dynamic. Let alone in an Oden or Drummond's atmosphere in athletic big man tools

Of course measuring someone's athleticism is subjective but exactly what seperates Oden & Drummond from Davis?

Oden & Drummond are both impressive physical specimen who move very well for their size, but in terms of run/jump physical traits, I'm thinking Oden & Drummond lag significantly behind Davis.

Davis runs the court like a gazelle and looks incredibly agile and quick to me. I'd consider him an elite athlete IMO.

[tontoz]

14/10 shooting 65% from the field with 5 blocks looks like impact numbers to me. He is the leading scorer on the number 1 team in the country.

[pancakes3]

I agree with Sev that the "cream rises" argument doesn't really pertain to Davis but rather Drummond.

Drummond is shooting 10% lower than Davis from the field on the same attempts. His FT shooting - 35% - leaves me at a loss for an appropriate adjective. Inconceivable? 17% of his team's defensive rebounding, abysmally low scoring, and half an assist per game. The only statistic where he legitimately shines is in shotblocking.

I will say his defense is good. Uconn has had very good opponent fg%, especially at the rim all season long with the exception of the recent 2 blowouts to L'ville and Syracuse. Drummond's stock is a big question mark and has a real shot of going pets.com if he can't learn how to defend in the league. Either way, Drummond to me looks to have Nene potential, which at this point I would have to pass on considering there's Iggy potential in MKG and sane Zach Randolph potential in Sullinger.

[Dr Positivity]

To me explosiveness and power are by far the two most important things for NBA athletes. Without those things it's really hard to "break the defense" with your physical talent alone, if that makes sense. I think Davis is about as physically talented as Camby which is a big tier below the Howard and Oden's. What makes A Davis special is that he's got a head like Duncan, I think that's enough to make him a great prospect instead of blowing his physical tools out of proportion and to an Oden Howard KG tier 1 level of freak, I don't think A Davis is even as physically talented as Bosh (who has one of the best first steps I've seen in a big)

[Mizerooskie]

I think what's happening with Davis is something that happens very frequently in all major North American pro sports.

When one guy seems like a runaway top prospect, he's put under the microscope more than any other prospect. His flaws, however small, are over-emphasized and blown out of proportion.

He's a stud, and I'd trade the Wizards' pcik plus anything on the roster not named John Wall for the #1 pick.

[Severn Hoos]

Sev, what defines impact? Drummond has a PER of over 20, currently higher than Jeremy Lamb (who many people love) as a sophomore. I'd classify Drummond as disappointing, but he's not as bad as some are making him out to be.

With PJ III, he had a solid freshman season if not spectacular. What concerns me more about him is that he didn't improve significantly from his frosh to soph season.

Robinson may be a unique tale because of the NBA prospects in front of him. It's hard for me to dismiss him because his effort, intensity and productivity. Especially on the boards. His rebound rate is hovering around 20% right now.

Fair enough Dat - "impact" certainly is subjective. And of course, there are guys like Beasley, Mayo, and others who had great stats as Freshman but have disappointed in the pros.

But on Drummond - a PER of 21 isn't nearly as impressive as the same PER would be in the NBA. (Davis leads the NCAA at 36, both Zellers & Sullinger are all in the top 10, all above 30.) Not sure where it ranks him nationally, but it puts him well outside of the top 100 players in the NCAA. In fact, outside of Blocks and offensive rebounds, he doesn't even crack the top 10 in the Big East in any category. In terms of impact, it's hard to make the case that he's been very impactful, regardless of definition (including record). And FWIW, Jeremy Lamb actually has a slightly higher PER from what I've seen, plus much higher ORtg & Win Shares.

Perry's two seasons have been remarkably similar statistically, and neither really blows you away (PER right around 20). Again - not much impact (at least in my subjective definition )

Robinson is a tricky case to me. I get that the Morrises were ahead of him - but it's not like they've lit up the league so far (the "lesser" prospect, Markieff, has been more effective to date). So - it just makes me wonder why he wasn't able to displace them to get more minutes than he did.

But, he certainly has had a huge impact this year (as a Junior), with good numbers in PER and Win Shares. He definitely has a chance to break the mold, but in my opinion it would be just that - the exception to the rule.

[truwizfan4evr]

Wizards won back to back games I was like oh no this could hurt are odds at top 3 draft selection at least. Well as we all know it its the luck of the balls. If we not top 3 worst record in nba at the end of the season I don't think we can get top 5 picks. I think were going to get the 6 pick or worst that's just a gut feeling I have.

[fishercob]

I think what's happening with Davis is something that happens very frequently in all major North American pro sports.

When one guy seems like a runaway top prospect, he's put under the microscope more than any other prospect. His flaws, however small, are over-emphasized and blown out of proportion.

He's a stud, and I'd trade the Wizards' pcik plus anything on the roster not named John Wall for the #1 pick.

I'm not trying to over emphasize anything. I was really trying to stimulate discussion and get some analysis of Davis beyond "he's a stud." I like what I'm hearing. There's nothing wrong with thinking critically; it leads to better outcomes, even if it confirms your first instinct or what your eyes are telling you.

[llcc25]

Dat2u, i don't think my take on Davis needing couple of years to develop his body and offensive skill set is off base. I think we need to remember that he is still a freshman and guys like Camby and Mourning who were more polished came into the league after their senior year. So I was just being realistic in trying to point out that Davis's impact, particularly on the offensive side of the ball wouldn't be felt for a couple years.

And I never said he wasnt' an elite prospect. Again, I believe he has potential to be an all star, but I don't see him in the same group as a Tim Duncan or Derrick Rose franchise changer. According to Ford, many scouts have that same opinion. And I know scouts are wrong many times, especially given how many missed on their evaluation of Lin, so thats why I never put too much weight that in developing my opinion. I will, however, put alot of my assessment on what I see with my own eyes and with what his coaches have to say. And although you might not agree with the Camby comparison, if that is the comparison Calipari uses, I'm gonna have to side with the coach that has coached both of these guys to what you might see on TV or stats. I agree with all the scouting reports that say his impact will be immediately felt on defensive end. And I agree he should be drafted #1. I'm just not in the camp that believes he is the all word franchise talent that some make him out to be. So IMO, missing out on him wouldn't be a great loss for us. In fact, I would argue like I always have, that a more polished nba ready PF stud like Sullinger, would translate to more victories immediately especially alongside Center like McGee if we end up keeping him. I believe we have our franchise game changer in Wall and going into his pivotal 3rd year next year, I'm of the opinion that they really need to start adding pieces that can play immediately as opposed to adding guys that project out to making contribitions couple years down the road.

[nate33]

It may well be true that Sullinger is a more impactful rookie than Davis. I just don't think it matters much. I'm confident that we will see enough glimpses of Davis' potential in his rookie year that we'll feel confident in projecting him as star in the not-too-distant future. That's all it would take to retain Wall: hope.

And we have Wall under contract for 4 years anyhow. We really only need Davis to start making an impact in his second NBA season.

If we land Davis, we can take the necessary steps for immediate impact players by utilizing our cap room. With Davis and Wall on board, there will be no more need to tank so it'll be time for Ted to start spending money. Sign Batum, and trade Blatche + Crawford for Gordon. We'd roll with:

PG Wall/Mack
SG Young*/Gordon
SF Batum/Singleton
PF Davis/Booker/Vesely
C McGee/Davis/Seraphin

* Young could be replaced by some other SG like Rudy Fernandez or maybe Eric Gordon, but I'm starting to think that Young could be the best value.

[7-Day Dray]

Why does it matter who has the better rookie year? Are we likely going to be championship contenders next season? We need to take the guy we think has the most upside and who's most likely to reach it. If Davis is available, you take him without looking back. He has a high ceiling, but a high floor also.

[nate33]

If Orlando loses Howard, I wonder if they'd be interested in a sign-and-trade for Ryan Anderson. We give them Vesely, Seraphin and cap room, they give us Anderson on a new, hefty contract. It would generate cap space for Orlando and accelerate their tank so they could quickly reload. I'd love a big man rotation of McGee, Anderson, Davis and Booker.

[llcc25]

It may well be true that Sullinger is a more impactful rookie than Davis. I just don't think it matters much. I'm confident that we will see enough glimpses of Davis' potential in his rookie year that we'll feel confident in projecting him as star in the not-too-distant future. That's all it would take to retain Wall: hope.

And we have Wall under contract for 4 years anyhow. We really only need Davis to start making an impact in his second NBA season.

If we land Davis, we can take the necessary steps for immediate impact players by utilizing our cap room. With Davis and Wall on board, there will be no more need to tank so it'll be time for Ted to start spending money. Sign Batum, and trade Blatche + Crawford for Gordon. We'd roll with:

PG Wall/Mack
SG Young*/Gordon
SF Batum/Singleton
PF Davis/Booker/Vesely
C McGee/Davis/Seraphin

* Young could be replaced by some other SG like Rudy Fernandez or maybe Eric Gordon, but I'm starting to think that Young could be the best value.

I'm gonna have to disagree. I do think it matters if we are "projecting" Davis to take a couple of years to develop an nba ready body and offensive game. To assume that he will be ready to make the impact we're looking for in Year 2 (which will essentially be his jr year in college) is I think a stretch based on looking at the history of guys like Camby, Mourning, and Duncan. If I felt the same, I'd be on board with you. But I think its more reasonable to project that he will make an impact in Year 4 and 5 when he is 23 and 24 and by then I'm not sure Wall will have seen enough wins/progress to convince hime to stay.. And keep in mind that the impact I"m talking about is on the offensive side of the ball as i have no doubt Davis will make a more immediate impact on defense.

I still have a problem with how a low post of Davis and McGEe can work offesnively in the half court set. And defensively, on paper with their lentght and shot blocking prowess, it looks great, but they will clearly be the weakest front court strenght wise..

And in defense of Sullinger, lets fairly say that there is no reason to expect that he can't continure to improve as well... i hate this notion that just b/c he doesn't have this high ceiling, he can't improve and get better in the same way we expect Davis to.