2012 NBA Draft - Part II

[The Consiglieri]

Compare those 3 guys we have for our PF/C rotation to the guys we have for our SG rotation and the weakness on our roster should become clear. Compound that to the fact that we have 0 all stars on our squad - John Wall included - tells us that we can't afford to draft based on need. We're between a rock and a hard place, team composition-wise.

Drummond shouldn't be tossed out. There's a reason he was rated #1 a year ago, and there's a reason he's fallen from 2-6 now, but he needs to be in there. It would be really really really hard for me to pass on him at 4, or 5 if Beal and MKG are gone, I like his upside, more than Robinson's much higher floor, though I could live with either, and as many, many, many have mentioned, a trade down w/someone moving up for him would be ideal if we can't get Davis, MKG, or Beal. But, I'd still consider him, and I think we should, at anywhere in that 2-5 area.

As usual, the problem is, he makes more sense for a team like Cleveland, that got two big hits in Irving and TT and can take a risk on a franchise savior/extremely low floor combo guy, or New Jersey, who are simply desperate to make a big splash (didnt they put their pick at risk though in the Wallace trade?). I dont think Drummond makes much sense for us though unless we get hurt in the lottery badly and Davis, MKG, and Beal are all gone when we're up.

[Nivek]

Height doesn't matter as much as length. Booker has a standing reach of 8-10, which is about average for a PF. Nene's is 9-1, which is about average for a center -- a little above average for a PF. Seraphin's standing reach is also 9-1.

Drummond will probably be longer than these guys, but the Wizards don't just need size -- they need talent everywhere. Drummond might be worthwhile as a project pick, but his offensive game is deficient and it's going to take a lot of time and work to get him to an NBA level there -- IF it happens at all.

Besides, there's no reason to reach on a risky pick like Drummond when there are good players who are far more likely to have quality professional careers sitting there. Not worth the risk.

This could be said the same about Dwight Howard. You think Dwight was a worthwhile pick? I think a lot of people overlook the fact that Drummond wasn't correctly used at Uconn. For a big man with Drummonds athleticism and at his development stage he needed a distributing point guard. Problem with that Uconn team is they had a majority of scorers on the wings instead of distributors. Now the same could be said about last years Uconn team but Kemba at least did a decent job to get others involved. A one two punch of wall and Drummond would be a deadly combo. Though Drummonds performance in the reg season didn't show it he's a very good passer. I mean it's just my opinion but I think a lot of people are gonna look back just like with Cousins and say "Damn I can't believe he fell that far back". If the Wizards lose out on Davis, Drummond is a worthwhile pick.

Not really. The contemporaneous scouting reports of Howard described him offensively as having good footwork and good touch. ESPN's report described him as dominating in the paint, but also having the ability to step out and hit shots on the perimeter. Other reports describe him as a good ball-handler and having a shot with range up to 18 feet. The "issues" with Howard were whether he had the same kind of "passion" or "edge" as guys like KG, and about the fact that he needed to get stronger.

Drummond's scouting report talks about him having difficulty establishing position inside, and talks about how his footwork, countermoves and jump hook needing major work. Perhaps one reason he didn't get the ball more in postup situations is because he was really bad at converting -- he shot just 32% in post-up situations this season.

Put yourself in the place of one of those Connecticut guards. Are you really going to make an effort to pass to a guy who a) doesn't work hard to establish position and make himself a target; b) shoots 32% once he gets the ball in a post-up; and c) shoots 29.5% from the line when he gets fouled?

I can't find Howard's FT% from his senior year, but I'd guess is was better than 29.5%. He shot 67% as a rookie before hovering around 59% the rest of his career -- until this year where he's at 49%.

The Cousins comparison doesn't really work because Cousins actually was both efficient and productive. The issue with him was maturity.

Here's a Cousins vs. Drummond comparison (strength of schedule was about the same for both teams):

Code: Select all

PER40   Cousins Drumnd
efg     .560    .538
2p%     .565    .541
3p%     .167    .000
FT%     .604    .295
eOrtg   117     103
Usg     23.2    14.0
Reb     16.8    10.6
Ast     1.7     0.6
Stl     1.7     1.2
Blk     3.0     3.8
Tov     3.5     2.2
Pts     25.8    14.1


[Nivek]

Just to beat my point on Drummond into the ground...

The center average in my spreadsheet is 11.9 rebounds per 40 minutes. Drummond got 10.6. The average for freshman centers: 11.9. For comparison, Brendan Haywood and Javale McGee got 10.7 boards per 40 minutes. One perhaps encouraging sign -- Patrick Ewing averaged 10.3 as a freshman.

Average center blocked 3.5 shots per 40 -- Drummond got 3.8, so slightly above average. Gorgui Deing blocked 3.9. Oden got 4.5 as a freshman. Etan Thomas had 4.5. Sam Bowie got 3.6 as a soph. Chris Mihm got 3.6 as a junior. Hakeem got 5.4 per 40 as a freshman. Jeff Withey got 5.8 this season. Fab Melo got 4.6. The blocks are good, but not special.

Average center in my spreadsheet scores 18.9 points per 40. Drummond got 14.1. Fewer than Sam Bowie as a senior, Jeff Withey, Reggie Johnson, Bernard James, Etan Thomas, Justin Hamilton, Robert Sacre, Joel Przybilla, Meyers Leonard... Only centers he outscored were Fab Melo (FR & SO seasons), Dieng, Josh Harrellson, and Henry Sims last season.

The issue wasn't minutes -- average center minutes in my spreadsheet was 26.9, he played 28.4.

His usage was a shade lower -- 14.0 possessions vs. 16.2 for the average center, but his efficiency was MUCH lower -- 103 points produced per 100 possessions vs. 118 for the average center. The average center shot .669 from the FT line -- Drummond shot .295. The average center made .577 of his 2pt shots; Drummond hit on .541.

I'm not saying the guy is garbage -- I still have him rated as a late 1st. But it would be foolish to ignore the red flags on him. His physical tools are impressive, but it's worrisome that with those tools his production was ordinary even in his strong spots (rebounding and shot blocking) and awful in his weak spots (free throw shooting).

[The Consiglieri]

I just think he was in a terrible, unusual situation not at all similar to the situation most 1 and doner's are in, or recruits in general so I dont pay much attention to the metrics. Actually, I think it would be fair to say i outright do not care about the metrics, much like I think that Beal is far better than his metrics suggest since his shooting #'s were a huge aberration to what he did in his career preceeding college, and scouts expectations.

My only concerns with Drummond are motor and mental make up and his garbage free throw shooting. I worry a ton about his head, and not much at all about his talent. i think he'll be a success or not entirely based on his head. I think the talents there, and the metrics are largely irrelevant as a predictive measure considering the crazy situation at UConn, and his own situation (he didnt even know if he was going the college route until what, july or august?).

[Nivek]

"I don't care what the data says, I know what I know" is a tough position to argue with.

Even your "only concerns" are enough to make me not want him in the top 5.

My guess is that the scouts and GMs will probably look at it more the way you are. If someone takes him that high, I think it'll end up being a mistake.

[WizarDynasty]

I think alot of you are really reaching on Bradley Beal. He doesn't have quickness and he is also very short. If he had an explosive first step like Eric Gordon, then he could get away with being 6'3 with a very poor standing reach for a shooting guard.
The problem i have with Kidd Gilchrist is that he doesn't have an explosive first step either. Either you are oversized and extremely physical as shooting guard, or you have an explosive first step but powerfully built. those are pretty much the two prototypes for success.
the most important offensive trait for a guard and small forward is having an explosive step, followed by shooting ability.

If you look at Carmelo Anthony who is almost 250 lbs, his first step is quicker than Bradley Beal or MKG. That something for you guys to think about. Getting shooting guard or small forward with an explosive first step and also strength!!!!!!!!!!!.
Having these two combinations makes you worthy of lottery consideration. Beal has some strength but unlike James Harden is extremely short and not long and not nearly as powerfully built. Harden has 8'8 standing reach Beal is probably 8'2 or 8'3. that difference in standing reach is like adding 5 additional inches to a players vertical and getting to rebounds quicker.
Lamb is super thin, and he isn't allen iverson quick to make up for it. He is a nice 4th option but he isn't going to overpower a defender to gain a driving angle to the basket. He is going to get bumped off his angle really easy and be a feather jump shooter. He is fine if you already have pieces built but he doesn't do anything to help on boards and he doesn't have the strength to guard small forward on the block when a switch arises.
I am told Ross has a decent first step but poor ball handling abilities. He to me looks like a better prospect than either Beal or Lamb but i would want to see what his standing reach is. He looks like he can finish with contact and has strong enough body to absorb contact on the drive. 6'7 wingspan is pretty substandard consider gilbert arenas and crawford both have 6'10. But again, if someone can confirm if Ross has an elite first step.
MKG doesn't which means he is going to look alot like Singleton on offense. Gilchrist sounds like a nice roll player but no elite first step and no ability to breakdown a defender off the dribble sounds alot like Singleton.
I believe that you pick the player that will have the most trade value three years down the line. McGee had alot more trade value than the selection just after him J.J. Hickson, Mareese Speights, Jason Thompson, Anthony Randolph, Brandon Rush, Bayless, Joe Alexander. That's what it all comes down to. Getting an Asset than you can trade later on if you decide you don't really need him.
I would like for the best minds to rank which players in the draft will have the highest trade value 3 years down the line.

[Dr Positivity]

I definitely side with "skillsets" over numbers (My argument is just that it's a different game), but I appreciate the numbers you're posting Nivek, I check this thread every day

On the topic of Beasley - I can see why he's such an outlier because of how different his rebound/stl/blk (aka athleticism indicators) were in the NCAA than NBA. A guy going 15.7 TRB per 40 minutes in college to 8.8/8.6 his first two years at PF for the Heat is a WTF going by the history of rebounding stats from NCAA to NBA usually being the most reliable thing out there. I'm guessing Beasley's reb/stl/blk numbers were at a level indicating "Checkmark on the physical tools needed to do this in the NBA" for anyone else in your system. Whereas in the NBA he's been all but dismembered physically.

Do you just have a straight up top 10/top 14 posted for this draft? I haven't seen it yet.

[Nivek]

Mufasa -- Here are my top-rated prospects in "tiers". The difference in scores between the players in each tier is not significant.

Tier 1
Anthony Davis

Tier 2
MKG
Crowder

Tier 3
Lillard
Denmon
Sullinger
T. Zeller
Robinson
Beal

Tier 4
Andre Roberson
Terrence Jones
John Henson
Will Barton
Dion Waiters
Kendall Marshall
Jeff Withey
Mike Dixon
Tony Mitchell (North Texas)

Tier 5
CJ McCollum
Drummond
Fab Melo
Jeff Taylor
Kevin Jones
Scott Machado
Harrison Barnes

In terms of draft strategy, I wouldn't just pick straight down the list. I'd take into account what others thought of them. So, if I was picking 2nd overall, I'd take MKG and then try and get someone like Denmon later in the draft -- someone I think people are undervaluing. If I was 3-5, I might take Beal and then try to get Crowder later. I'm not trying to predict draft order, but figure out who's going to be the best pro.

My dream draft right now -- get the #1 pick. Take Davis #1 and get Crowder with the 2nd rounder, and then Denmon with Dallas 2nd rounder.

[Dr Positivity]

Nice, I'm surprised Barnes made your list at all considering he has a horrible 2P%/TS% and a mediocore block/steal/rebounding indicators which seem like the most important NCAA to NBA stats. What's Leonard missing - Is his low blk numbers enough to drop him off the list despite the 2nd best 2P% behind Davis? I think he's much more athletic and physically gifted than his reb/blk/stl likely suggest. He's a top 5-6 physical talent in the draft IMO

Denmon is an interesting name. Just looking at his profile, one thing I like is his elite FT% (89%+). I trust FT% as the better indicator of shooting than NCAA 3P% (and he's great there too). Lillard's high FT% is also one reason I trust him to be a bomber in the NBA. I also like that they both have a high amount of 3PA at that % which increases the sample size. I see both guys being permanent rotation players just on the basis of fitting in an offense due to that 3pt ability, to go along with generally high IQs

[fugop]

I think alot of you are really reaching on Bradley Beal...

You have no idea what Beal's measurements are. If he measures out at 6'3" with short reach and wingspan, that raises serious red flags. He hasn't been measured yet.

You're also reaching on the "first step" analysis w/r to Kidd Gilchrist. Are you basing this on anything?

[The Consiglieri]

"I don't care what the data says, I know what I know" is a tough position to argue with.

Even your "only concerns" are enough to make me not want him in the top 5.

My guess is that the scouts and GMs will probably look at it more the way you are. If someone takes him that high, I think it'll end up being a mistake.

Exactly. You just need to know when to give in .

I just happen to think that metrics are a part, but not everything in the evaluation. In terms of Drummond, I think you're largely right, my only misgiving is that this draft has two players that can be reasonably be thought of as capable of being elite players at the NBA level, tier 1 guys, and one of them is Drummond. The problem is that the chances that he'll blow arse in the NBA because of his mental make up, motivation issues, and overall lack of dedication etc (just every mental make up view imaginable pretty much) are so high that its real real real damned hard to justify taking him, which is why I almost certainly wouldn't take him 1, 2 or 3, and would have to think long and hard at 4 or 5 and I understand fully why you wouldnt touch him for another 10-20 slots, while others would consider the risk/reward well worth speculating in as high as 2.

[DallasShalDune]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1141 ... s-robinson

I disagree with this article's premise that Sully is better than T-Rob, but it was an interesting read and another viewpoint.

[WizarDynasty]

I think alot of you are really reaching on Bradley Beal...

You have no idea what Beal's measurements are. If he measures out at 6'3" with short reach and wingspan, that raises serious red flags. He hasn't been measured yet.

You're also reaching on the "first step" analysis w/r to Kidd Gilchrist. Are you basing this on anything?

Ok, so Beal has a quick first step? Yes or No?
Did Beal measure 6'3 without shoes just this summer?

Beal is sort of streak shooter like Crawford. He has the same athelticism that Crawford has.

Beal wingspan 6-7
Height w/o shoes 6'3. Standing reach ?
weight 206
lane agility??
Crawford wingspan 6-7
lane agility 11.03
Height w/o shoes 6'3. Standing reach 8'5--
weight-198

Nick Young wingspan 7-0
6'5 w/o shoes standing reach 8'4'5
weight 206
lane agility 11seconds

dwade-wingspan 6-11
6-4 standing reach 8'6
weight 215
lane agility 10.56

Eric Gordon wingspan-6-9
6'2 w/o shoes standing reach 8'3
weight 222 lane agility 10.81

Looking at this data what trait most stands out?
If you are over 215 lbs and are able to still post sub 11 second lane agility drills, you have raw tools to be dominant scorer in the nba.

The ability to move laterally with bulk on your frame is a very elite trait to have offensively at the shooting guard position. All reports out there say that Beal is only average to below average at this ability. Take a look at nbadraft.net's rating of Beal's quickness.
Lamb seems to have a quick first step but i highly doubt he can maintain elite lateral movement if he increased his weight to 215 plus pounds. Eric Gordon showed he had this ability coming into the league. Do did Dwade to an even larger extent. These are the building blocks for a dominant lottery worthy shooting guard.
An oversized guard like Harden just misses the sub 11 second lane agility score with a 215 lb frame but he also has above average standing reach.
James harden wingspan 6-11
6'4 w/o shoes
standing reach 8'7'5
lane agility 11.03
weight 218 lbs.


So again, a shooting guard with 215lb frame, sub 11 second lane agility is usually the raw basis for becoming a dominant shooting guard.
Bradley Beal weighing only 206 lbs doesn't show on film or based on scouting reports from nbadraft.net to have elite lateral movement ability at even lower weight of 215. Remember eric gordon was well known for his explosive first step and he weight close to 20lbs heavier.
so it all comes down to the predraft measurements to see how Beal stacks up.
I like Beal but do i think he will become a dominant offensive guard because he doesn't show that he has an elite explosive first step in college and his first step will get even slower as he adds body weight moving from 206 to 215.

[tontoz]

Mufasa -- Here are my top-rated prospects in "tiers". The difference in scores between the players in each tier is not significant.

Tier 1
Anthony Davis

Tier 2
MKG
Crowder

Tier 3
Lillard
Denmon
Sullinger
T. Zeller
Robinson
Beal

Tier 4
Andre Roberson
Terrence Jones
John Henson
Will Barton
Dion Waiters
Kendall Marshall
Jeff Withey
Mike Dixon
Tony Mitchell (North Texas)

Tier 5
CJ McCollum
Drummond
Fab Melo
Jeff Taylor
Kevin Jones
Scott Machado
Harrison Barnes

In terms of draft strategy, I wouldn't just pick straight down the list. I'd take into account what others thought of them. So, if I was picking 2nd overall, I'd take MKG and then try and get someone like Denmon later in the draft -- someone I think people are undervaluing. If I was 3-5, I might take Beal and then try to get Crowder later. I'm not trying to predict draft order, but figure out who's going to be the best pro.

My dream draft right now -- get the #1 pick. Take Davis #1 and get Crowder with the 2nd rounder, and then Denmon with Dallas 2nd rounder.

No Jeremy Lamb? He shot 60% on 2s. That is pretty impressive.

[gesa2]

Kevin, you need a catchy acronym for your data set. "My stuff says" doesn't have a good ring to it. Something like:

Predraft
Objective assessment by
Nivek/
Kevin

That way we can say "Crowder has a PONK score in the second teir", or even better "Harrison Barnes got totally PONK'd"

[WizarDynasty]

my only issue with the ponk sytem is that it doesn't into a account first step lateral agility scores and body weight per position.

[jivelikenice]

Outside of the Anthony Davis I’m having a difficult time trying to find the best pick for the Wiz.
1. Robinson- I love his game and think he'd be a double double machine we could pair with Wall for the next 10 years. But will the FO think there's a need with Nene, Seraphin, Booker, & Vesely up front. Will we be able to spread the floor well enough with a Robinson/ Nene or a Robinson/Seraphin frontcourt?
2. Beal- I'm just not convinced he's a dominant player. Does he do enough off the dribble? Does he have enough size? He seems to me like a draft pick for need (shooting) versus the best player available. We need a 2 who can effectively spread the floor, but someone who can also create when the court shrinks and the offense gets stagnant. I don’t think he’s that guy but I haven’t seen enough.
3. MKG- All-around player with a great motor but will he be able to develop an effective jumpshot. He probably can do a lot of dirty work and contribute without dominating the ball which is a plus but what’s his upside?
4. J Lamb- Great shooter but doesn’t get to the line. Again, is this a case of drafting a guy to fill a specific shooting need or will he be able to play off the dribble as well?
5. Barnes- People are down on him, but is this a case where he’ll be better in the pros than in college? He doesn’t have elite level athleticism but he can be an all-around player who give us shooting and will be able to drive of shot fakes….

My preference is still Robinson conditioned upon us turning around and dealing Booker for a pick or wing player.

[Mizerooskie]

I'd like a Drummond defender to please qualify what, exactly about his situation in college was so bad. Also, how was he poorly used? And thirdly, does the supposedly terrible situation and usage excuse the lack of motor?

I think there's a better shot he's out of the NBA in 5 years than an All-Star.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Mufasa -- Here are my top-rated prospects in "tiers". The difference in scores between the players in each tier is not significant.

Tier 1
Anthony Davis

Tier 2
MKG
Crowder

Tier 3
Lillard
Denmon
Sullinger
T. Zeller
Robinson
Beal

Tier 4
Andre Roberson
Terrence Jones
John Henson
Will Barton
Dion Waiters
Kendall Marshall
Jeff Withey
Mike Dixon
Tony Mitchell (North Texas)

Tier 5
CJ McCollum
Drummond
Fab Melo
Jeff Taylor
Kevin Jones
Scott Machado
Harrison Barnes

In terms of draft strategy, I wouldn't just pick straight down the list. I'd take into account what others thought of them. So, if I was picking 2nd overall, I'd take MKG and then try and get someone like Denmon later in the draft -- someone I think people are undervaluing. If I was 3-5, I might take Beal and then try to get Crowder later. I'm not trying to predict draft order, but figure out who's going to be the best pro.

My dream draft right now -- get the #1 pick. Take Davis #1 and get Crowder with the 2nd rounder, and then Denmon with Dallas 2nd rounder.

Very close to my dream, Nivek. I would go Davis, Crowder, Barton. I would rate Barton higher on the tier system because of the improvements he made his sophomore season.

For this team's needs, I really think Zeller is a great fit. Zeller is a very underrated player. I like him better than Thomas Robinson. Consiglieri, I disagree about Zeller being a role player at the next level. He was ACC player of the year, and IMO he or Henson are better than Barnes or Kendall Marshall.

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Tyler-Zeller-5154/

After being a below average rebounder for three seasons, Zeller improved dramatically as a senior, showing great activity on the glass on both ends of the floor and grabbing 13.6 rebounds per-40, which was the highest of all centers in our top 100.

Zeller has a bit of Rasheed Wallace in his game. He is a stretch 4/5 who will be deadly in an NBA pick and pop offensively. He will be a tremendous finisher in a wide open NBA game. The thing about him, though, is he's not a true C. Defensively, he'll be a bit like Javale only he will try and be in position instead of going for blocks.

If I didn't get Davis, I would trade down for Zeller. I would try to get Crowder for SF. Denmon is a tremendous shooter, but I think Will Barton's rebounding and playmaking, along with his slashing is going to make him a tremendous NBA 2 guard.

Roberson sure doesn't get enough publicity for all his rebounding and defensive skill.

Two guys who would make a ton of sense with the latter round 2 pick are Fab Melo or Scott Machado. I would add one of the Brazilians if a great shooter weren't still available. Melo is an elite defender. Machado is an elite playmaking guard.

[fugop]

I think alot of you are really reaching on Bradley Beal...

You have no idea what Beal's measurements are. If he measures out at 6'3" with short reach and wingspan, that raises serious red flags. He hasn't been measured yet.

You're also reaching on the "first step" analysis w/r to Kidd Gilchrist. Are you basing this on anything?

Ok, so Beal has a quick first step? Yes or No?
Did Beal measure 6'3 without shoes just this summer?

Beal is sort of streak shooter like Crawford. He has the same athelticism that Crawford has.

Beal wingspan 6-7
Height w/o shoes 6'3. Standing reach ?
weight 206
lane agility??
Crawford wingspan 6-7
lane agility 11.03
Height w/o shoes 6'3. Standing reach 8'5--
weight-198

I was going to ask where your numbers for Beal were from, before I realized that you'd mashed Crawford's numbers up with his. Your analysis rests on unreliable numbers. It's possible that Beal is significantly undersized, but undocumented numbers circulating on message boards aren't sufficient to establish that. I've seen them attributed to the Deron Williams skills camp from last summer, but I'm happy to wait a month or s until official measurements come out.

Where are these numbers from? Beal may have been measured at the D. Williams skills camp last summer. I can't find a reliable source reporting that, and I can't find anything more recent.