2012 NBA Draft - Part III

[nate33]

I think that Davis could play a similar role to noah except davis has absolulety no shot blocking ability compared to noah.

[Ruzious]

Ok, I've finally reached the conclusion that WizNas is here just to put us on... most of the time. Nobody is that... I mean... come on... really?

[go'stags]

Nivek, if you get time, how does Mike Scott from UVA rank in your stuff?

[DCZards]

Consig, I agree will all that you say about Barnes. But I have this sneaky suspicion that he's going to be a solid pro because I believe he has the work ethic and maturity to get better...and he can shoot the rock, which is increasingly a lost art in the NBA. I think whoever gets Harrison with what is likely to be the 8-12 pick is going to be very happy with him down the road.

Of course, my real sleeper in this draft is still Austin Rivers, who will have made believers out of a lot of the doubters 2-3 years from now. He'll likely get drafted in the top 15.

[Nivek]

I think that Davis could play a similar role to noah except davis has absolulety no shot blocking ability compared to noah.

Joakim Noah had 186 TOTAL blocks in 108 games and 2279 minutes. Last season, Anthony Davis had exactly 186 blocks in 40 games and 1281 minutes.

[Nivek]

Nivek, if you get time, how does Mike Scott from UVA rank in your stuff?

I have Scott with a later 2nd round score. He's an efficient and fairly prolific scorer and I like his strength and physical style. That said, his rebounding is only about average for a PF, he doesn't block shots, he's already 23, and he's had 2 ankle surgeries.

He's the kind of player that could end up not getting drafted, but still work himself into being a contributor over time. Or, he could end up having a solid career playing overseas.

[The Consiglieri]

Consig, I agree will all that you say about Barnes. But I have this sneaky suspicion that he's going to be a solid pro because I believe he has the work ethic and maturity to get better...and he can shoot the rock, which is increasingly a lost art in the NBA. I think whoever gets Harrison with what is likely to be the 8-12 pick is going to be very happy with him down the road.

Of course, my real sleeper in this draft is still Austin Rivers, who will have made believers out of a lot of the doubters 2-3 years from now. He'll likely get drafted in the top 15.

Agreed, I actually think he's probably fallen to an area where he will be value, particularly if he falls out of the top 7 or so. He will be a good to very good complimentary player in the right situation. He just can't be going to a team that thinks they're getting an alpha dog superstar because its just not there. He's had innumerable opportunities to take the team on his shoulders and lead, and he's failed every single time. He just can't do it. Period. He's a complimentary piece, a third option.

He needs to go to a team that already has its alpha dog, and its robin, so that he can be that third guy. He'd thrive in that situation. In that sense, he's a lot like PJ3, except that PJ3 has greatness in his game, just not in his mentality (i dont think Barnes has greatness in either, just very goodness in his game, and not much in terms of mentality, other than a great BBIQ-he's a good decison maker, generally, he's just too beta). He just has to land in the right situation. He could work for us, but only if we traded down, and I don't see us trading down, unless our big 4 are gone.

Rivers should have gone back to school. He really made a mistake. Next year's draft is crap, he's already set with money, if he went back to school he'd be taught by one of the best coaches in the country for two years, a guy who even maxes out nba players ability and team work, and he'd have his game identity down, and be a much better product. He would have had a chance to go top 3 next year, and maybe top 2. Instead, depending upon how the players fall, he'll probably go in that 10-15 area.

Why do that? I don't understand it at all.

Ruzious-agreed, it has to be a put on, you have to willfully ignore the blatantly obvious across the board to miss the shotblocking in Davis' game, hell its his freaking calling card. Best shot blocker ever.

On Dwight Howard and Orlando. I really feel for Orlando. They should have dealt him at the deadline in '11, or in the summer of '11. Huge mistake to keep him, now they screwed up their 2012 draft slot, killed his trade value (as much as you can kill it), killed their negotiating position in trades etc. Just awful. Should have moved him. Now they're D.O.A. for the '12 playoffs, and the '12-'13 season, just ahead of a dog mess draft. Finally found a team besides Sacramento in more disaray than us and with an even worse plan.

[dobrojim]

On Dwight Howard and Orlando. I really feel for Orlando. They should have dealt him at the deadline in '11, or in the summer of '11. Huge mistake to keep him, now they screwed up their 2012 draft slot, killed his trade value (as much as you can kill it), killed their negotiating position in trades etc. Just awful. Should have moved him. Now they're D.O.A. for the '12 playoffs, and the '12-'13 season, just ahead of a dog mess draft. Finally found a team besides Sacramento in more disaray than us and with an even worse plan.

The Amway team in the crapper. So sorry for them. Not.

[WizarDynasty]

actually i meant to say robinson when comparing DAvis to Noah. Davis actually has no post defense what so ever he is way worse than robinson in post defense and both are well below average if they don't have the equivalent of nba allstars surrounding them--Kentucky team was basically like having an all star nba roster helping you on defense each night. Davis will have a similar career to Camby except that Davis can put the ball on the floor. Davis won't ever have a post game and you need that when you are deep in the playoffs from your franchise big and once you become a playoff team.
Now I meant to actually say robinson when i was comparing players to Noah. Robinson actually has no shotblocking compared to noah and noah is far far far superior rebounder to anything robinson will ever become, Noah was drafted ninth and is a tier above robinson. I don't ever see DAvis or Robinson ever being a better post defender than Noah--robinson no length and Davis no lower leg strength. Davis is an awesome weak side shot blocker aka Javale but we had someone just as good in Javale Mcgee for the last 3 years and that ability only takes you so far especially when you can guard an athletic powerplayer in the post. Now Robinson or Davis couldn't sniff Noah's jock strap when it comes to post defense and defensive rebounding.
Davis, because he has small forward's game before he sprouted will be good at putting the ball on the floor and getting by his man but Davis does not have a quick first step either so he actually needs someone to give him the ball with a defender cheating off him because Davis is absolutely horrible in a triple threat position on the block or out on the perimeter. Unless Davis is already cutting to the basket and has the ball passed to him while cutting he is pretty useless. He will hit the mid range jumper if open and will catch lob passes Javale McGee style. i honestly think he is a tier two prospect because not having lower leg strength is just as important as standing reach for a bigman. It is an absolutely devastating trait not to have in the nba on a night to night basis as far as match ups. Robinson not having length to guard in the post is absolutely devastating---aka Booker.
MKG not having refined offensive game in the half court at the small forward position, absolutely devastating playing with a guy like wall....see singleton. And being undersized without a quick explosive step and not being able to finish consistently through contact or above the rim as a shooting guard regularly...see jamal jordan -crawford and Nick Young.

[DCZards]

Rivers should have gone back to school. He really made a mistake. Next year's draft is crap, he's already set with money, if he went back to school he'd be taught by one of the best coaches in the country for two years, a guy who even maxes out nba players ability and team work, and he'd have his game identity down, and be a much better product. He would have had a chance to go top 3 next year, and maybe top 2. Instead, depending upon how the players fall, he'll probably go in that 10-15 area.

Why do that? I don't understand it at all.

Agree that Rivers should have stayed in school. I have a hunch that he (and maybe even his father) felt that Duke and Coach K's style of play turned out not to be the best fit for him.

[The Consiglieri]

Rivers should have gone back to school. He really made a mistake. Next year's draft is crap, he's already set with money, if he went back to school he'd be taught by one of the best coaches in the country for two years, a guy who even maxes out nba players ability and team work, and he'd have his game identity down, and be a much better product. He would have had a chance to go top 3 next year, and maybe top 2. Instead, depending upon how the players fall, he'll probably go in that 10-15 area.

Why do that? I don't understand it at all.

Agree that Rivers should have stayed in school. I have a hunch that he (and maybe even his father) felt that Duke and Coach K's style of play turned out not to be the best fit for him.

Now that would definitely make sense. Bad match, and transferring doesnt make sense, as we saw with the Wisconsin kid, because you get hosed by your coach AND lose a year of your potential NBA career.

He also could be playing the Aaron Rodgers factor, which is a massively underrated and valuable tool. Getting drafted by a much better organization. Going to Utah, Houston, New Orleans, Philly, maybe Dallas? Way, way, way better than ending up with Charlotte, Sacramento, Toronto, Golden State, Detroit or us (I mention New Orleans because they got some nice assets, and 2 picks this year, could really turn it around fast, plus new quality ownership). Meanwhile Utah, and Houston are building really well, while Philly and Dallas could swing a deal to move up for him, and both those teams are well run or headed in the right direction (even w/the Evan Turner issue, and the DWill/DHoward plan slightly scuttled for now).

Sometimes going a little later can be better, hell PJ3's career could be changed dramatically for the good by having disappointed this year (ditto Sully and Barnes), and ending up going to a team that doesnt have to rely on him and demand of him that he become a big lights, big city superstar, a role that may not be in him.

[Severn Hoos]

I'm a BPA proponent, but I think Mufasa makes a good point: sometimes it's hard to tell who the BPA is. At #1 this year, it's easy. After that, in my analysis, players are falling into groups with similar ratings. At that point, "best" can depend on lots of different variables. In this draft, Davis is in a class by himself. After that, I think Crowder is #2. I have MKG on that same tier, but the more research I do on him, the less I think he belongs there -- I think he's in with that next group with guys like Robinson, Beal, etc.

The point is that Robinson, Beal and MKG (for example) rate about the same. In that instance, picking the guy who's the best fit makes a lot of sense. It would be idiocy to be sitting at #2 and take Perry Jones because the team "needs" a SF. Because he's rated a few tiers away.

However, let's say that a tier ends at 7 players. If I'm picking 7th, I'm not going to reach into that next tier down for that selection. I'm going to pick from that higher tier, even if there's only one guy left, even if I might already have a guy on the roster who can fill that need. (Well, really what I'd be trying to do there is trade out of the pick, but assuming I couldn't do that right away, I'd pick the guy I think is best.)

Kev, I'm in total agreement with everything in your post - which makes me scratch my head at this first sentence. I think a slavish devotion to taking the BPA can be just as bad (if not worse) as drafting for "need." The discussion on Tristan Thompson and the Cavs is enlightening - just how did they come to their conclusion? And clearly it was not a consensus opinion, since your stats show a far different picture, and almost no one had him that high pre-draft.

Another way of saying what you described in the tier approach (which I wholeheartedly agree with) is that you better be really sure that your guy is going to be the BPA, if you draft a position of redundancy and/or pick a guy way ahead of his perceived slot.

Consider the Wiz. IMO, they have 4 credible NBA players: Two starters (Wall and Nene), a young up-and-coming potential starter (Seraphin) and a solid rotation guy (Booker). Everyone else is still an unknown or marginal (i.e., very replaceable).

Problem is, 3 of those 4 players occupy the same space on the floor, for the most part. And the fourth requires some opening in that same space (the paint) to be his best when driving to the hoop.

So what do you do with the 1st pick, when that guy (Davis) plays the same position as 3 of your 4 best players? Well, in that case you draft Davis because he is so clearly, far and away, the best player on the board. The next best player couldn't see him with a telescope.If you end up trading away any of the other three, you do so with no regrets because the value of the guy you drafted so far exceeds the value of the guy(s) you trade out that whatever you get back in trade is gravy.

Now, let's suppose the second guy on your board also occupies the same space on the floor. (Side note: I shy away from using "position" because it can be misleading. A stretch 4 would not occupy the same space on the floor as TRob, for example.) Except he's not a once-a-decade type prospect. He's a bit more pedestrian, seems like he'd be the best of a decent bunch when considering the next 4 or 5 prospects. To take him anyway, when you have other players of roughly similar (projected) impact would be foolish, IMO.

That's where I part ways with the BPA approach. Because 1st off, there's no guarantee that your guy will actually be the BPA 5 years from now - which means you would have passed on the actual BPA who was also a position of need for a guy who you thought was the BPA. And even if they end up neck-and-neck 5 years down the road, I'd still rather have the guy who helps complete my roster than the guy who improves a position I already have fairly well covered, while leaving another exposed. After all, 5 years later you might make that trade anyway - even though you lose a little in talent to gain something in better fit with your team. Why is that a taboo when drafting?

[The Consiglieri]

Oh and an MKG and Singleton analogy? Lets get real here, get serious. All NBA GM's and scouts are that seriously deluded? Really? Sure, they miss sometimes, and sometimes big time, Thabeet for instance, though its understandable, he dominated as a defensive big, and had an adequate if not awe inspiring offensive game, but still, MKG/Singleton? As Ford related the other day:

Link: http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/ ... -chad-ford

On MKG:

Not sure I've ever seen a player play harder than MKG. He also is an amazing finisher around the basket. He defends three positions in the pros. He's a natural leader who quickly took over a locker room filled with NBA prospects. If he was just an athlete, I'd understand the hesitation. But he's much, much, more. If he gets a jump shot, he could be one of the best players in the league someday.

On who to take at #2

Kidd-Gilchrist. Raptors need toughness in the worst way. He would immediately transform the culture there. That's why I think I'd lean toward MKG in Washington as well. Will be a tough call between him and Beal. Beal is a better offensive player. Just think teams that are mired in a losing culture will want a kid like MKG that only cares about winning.

Kings have plenty of scorers. Need toughness, maturity, leadership. MKG all the way.

On Waiters and Rivers:

Who gets drafted higher, Dion Waiters or Austin Rivers? Who has the better NBA career?

Chad Ford
(1:09 PM)



That's the question on every scout's mind right now. Both about the same size. Both players are pure scorers. Waiters is a much better athlete. Rivers is craftier and a better shooter. Both players have reputations of being a bit difficult or cocky. I bet they'll be going head-to-head in virtually every workout.


On Barnes:

He played two years of mid-lottery type basketball. Judging guys in high school is obviously a very imperfect science. Ditto for college guys by the way. But Barnes just wasn't the same dominant player when the competition stiffened.

Jeremy H (Minneapoils)



Harrison Barnes sliding reminds when Rudy Gay slid to pick # 8 in the 2006 draft...Teams that pass on him will regret it, Thoughts?

Chad Ford
(1:55 PM)



Possible. It's not a bad comp.


On Wroten:

Interviews will be key. Everyone sees the talent. Concerned about the intangibles, leadership ability. If he aces those, he could go very, very high. I think he's a Top 5-6 talent.

On Zeller:

Think he's a Top 10 pick. Has a little Pau Gasol in him scouts think.

[Nivek]

Sev: I understand your head-scratching response because I didn't write that sentence very well. Here's my point about BPA -- the way players get ranked, the way mock drafts get done is in order: 1. Davis, 2. MKG, 3. Drummond, 4. Beal and so on.

Those rankings suggest that Davis is better than MKG, MKG "better" than Drummond, etc.

But when I look at my ratings, what I find are groupings of players. In this draft, Davis stands alone at #1. After him, Crowder and perhaps MKG go into the next tier (in my view). After that, there are several players who rate "about the same." Not identical, but close enough together that there's not a meaningful distinction between them.

When that's the case, I say pick the guy who fits your needs most. If you have PFs and you need a center, don't pick Sullinger over Zeller because his rating is 148 and Zeller's is 147. Realistically, there's no "BPA" in that situation -- they're rated the same. Similarly, don't pick either of those guys if you need a SG and you have Beal sitting there with a 143 rating -- again, there's no real difference between those ratings.

Don't get into Vinny Cerrato type idiocy where you pick guys and then say, "Well, I know we have Wall on the roster already, but those were the highest rated guys on our board so we picked three more PGs." Because that's BS, frankly. They may have been "highest rated" but reality says there several other players on the board at the same time with about the same rating. I know that's true in my research.

[Dr Positivity]

I wonder what Cleveland is doing to rate Tristan Thompson 2nd overall last year. I had him with a mid-2nd round score. His efficiency was about average overall, but his 2pt percentage was lower than I'd want from a PF and he was below 50% from the FT line. No 3pt shot. His quickness and leaping were impressive, and his block numbers were good, but his rebounding was only about average for a PF.

Knowing the stat guys at Cleveland, they're probably using some kind of +/- evaluation.

Interesting.

Possibly. It would also make sense if they value production as a freshman vs older ages a lot. 23.9 PER for a freshman is really good. It would rank 3rd for 1st rd freshman in this year's draft behind Davis and Mitchell. (2nd last year but the competition was pretty light, just Irving/TT/Knight/Harris for 1st rd freshman) He got better throughout the year so it's plausible they have some sort of weighting system for young players towards the 2nd half of their season

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Cavs take Tony Mitchell in the top 7. Doesn't seem much less likely than TT was a year ago and as far as I can tell Mitchell measures out as a better version of him.

[Nivek]

That's probably the best explanation, Mufasa, but even then it doesn't make a ton of sense. In my stuff, Thompson's production wasn't all that impressive even for a freshman. Mitchell does seem like a MUCH better version of Thompson. I have Mitchell as a mid-first round pick -- just outside the lottery. I think taking him 7th would be a reach, but I do think he has a chance to be a very good pro.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

That type of analysis is why Crowder hasn't been rated as a prospect. It's the - putting a round peg into a square hole analysis - rather than figuring out how to use a player according to his strengths and weaknesses. Maybe you devise an offense where you don't need your small forward to be a shot creater. Maybe he can be used like he was at Marquette - and he did play out on the perimeter quite a lot.

Meh. There are tons of guys in the NCAA every year with great stats. C.J. McCollum and Doug McDermott are in the top 4 of NCAA PER this year. Are they deserving of being top 5 picks? You can't just look at the stats of college players. Nivek himself said none of Crowder's evaluation came from his physical traits.

Nivek, how does your projection evaluate McDermott?

If the Wizards had them I sure would be happy. McCollum is better than Austin Rivers. McDermott is better than Barnes. When Lehigh beat Duke it removed all doubt in my mind. Same for when Creighton played North Carolina.

McDermott played very well all season and so did McCollum.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketb ... tournament


http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball ... aab,wp6693

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Oh and an MKG and Singleton analogy? Lets get real here, get serious. All NBA GM's and scouts are that seriously deluded? Really? Sure, they miss sometimes, and sometimes big time, Thabeet for instance, though its understandable, he dominated as a defensive big, and had an adequate if not awe inspiring offensive game, but still, MKG/Singleton? As Ford related the other day:

Link: http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/ ... -chad-ford

On MKG:

Not sure I've ever seen a player play harder than MKG. He also is an amazing finisher around the basket. He defends three positions in the pros. He's a natural leader who quickly took over a locker room filled with NBA prospects. If he was just an athlete, I'd understand the hesitation. But he's much, much, more. If he gets a jump shot, he could be one of the best players in the league someday.

On who to take at #2

Kidd-Gilchrist. Raptors need toughness in the worst way. He would immediately transform the culture there. That's why I think I'd lean toward MKG in Washington as well. Will be a tough call between him and Beal. Beal is a better offensive player. Just think teams that are mired in a losing culture will want a kid like MKG that only cares about winning.

Kings have plenty of scorers. Need toughness, maturity, leadership. MKG all the way.

On Waiters and Rivers:

Who gets drafted higher, Dion Waiters or Austin Rivers? Who has the better NBA career?

Chad Ford
(1:09 PM)



That's the question on every scout's mind right now. Both about the same size. Both players are pure scorers. Waiters is a much better athlete. Rivers is craftier and a better shooter. Both players have reputations of being a bit difficult or cocky. I bet they'll be going head-to-head in virtually every workout.


On Barnes:

He played two years of mid-lottery type basketball. Judging guys in high school is obviously a very imperfect science. Ditto for college guys by the way. But Barnes just wasn't the same dominant player when the competition stiffened.

Jeremy H (Minneapoils)



Harrison Barnes sliding reminds when Rudy Gay slid to pick # 8 in the 2006 draft...Teams that pass on him will regret it, Thoughts?

Chad Ford
(1:55 PM)



Possible. It's not a bad comp.


On Wroten:

Interviews will be key. Everyone sees the talent. Concerned about the intangibles, leadership ability. If he aces those, he could go very, very high. I think he's a Top 5-6 talent.

On Zeller:

Think he's a Top 10 pick. Has a little Pau Gasol in him scouts think.

I keep saying this: I like Tyler Zeller better than Thomas Robinson. Robinson is an absolute beast on the boards. He's going to score on a ton of dunks. Zeller seems to me will do well in transition. He'll do well in pick and roll, he'll do well in pick and pop. Tyler will board well at the next level. I see the Gasol comparison because he's got the agility to play PF or C. Tyler Zeller will score a bunch of points in his NBA career.

Its rare to see a tall guy with his skill set.

[Nivek]

So, I tried to replicate Mufasa's suggestion that Cleveland might have had Tristan Thompson rated as the 2nd best player in last year's draft. I couldn't get him that high, but I did get him into the top 7 by discounting the production of juniors and seniors by about 25%, and the production of sophomores by about 5%.

That said -- I don't think "discounting" like this does much except to push underclassmen further up the board and make the rankings conform a bit more with conventional wisdom.

Applying the "discounts" then says the top 11 prospects (all years) in my spreadsheet are freshman or sophomores. The first junior is Hakeem at 12; the first senior is Duncan at 13.

In terms of this year's draft, this discounting finally succeeds in moving Crowder down a bit. Still with a top 5 rating, though.

I may keep playing with this "discounting" thing. It's an interesting concept. Just not sure whether it does anything to improve the results/analysis.

[pancakes3]

I see a good bit of Spencer Hawes in Zeller. Maybe Zeller will be a smidge better on the boards but overall a serviceable C on a playoff team.