2012 NBA Draft - Part III

[dobrojim]

The various Ben Gordon trades were tied to getting rid of Blatche and/or getting an additional 1st rd, pick, with the idea that even at Gordon's salary, he'd at least fill a pressing need of shooting. The trades were met with a wide variety of response. You can call me monty.

No thanks. Ben Gordon isn't much better than Nick Young. And comes with a $25m price tag -- more than we owe Blatche.

Andray Blatche is a drag-sail. Who would trade for him? You don't ask someone to give you something in exchange for taking on a drag-sail! You are happy if you can just cut it loose.

I assume we'll amnesty him. What's the down-side? Yes, we still have to pay him -- but that is true whether or not we amnesty him.

Next year we'll have the 7 players from 2010-2011 plus Nene. If we're smart, we'll also have James Singleton and Cartier Martin (who has proved that he is an adequate NBA journeyman wing). With some luck, we'll have 3 players out of the draft. That's 13 guys. Add e.g. Danny Green, and our roster is complete.

+1

I like how you think. I like JSing and Martin for us next year. I don't get too excited
about Ben Gordon.

Re Ves - it might be somewhat of a reach or not to project what he might
be able to produce in another year or 2 and to call that 'good enough'.
I think it's safe to think his ceiling might be higher than Booker. I like
them both as young players with the potential to get better in the
relatively (1-3 years) near future.

[verbal8]

Sometimes players get caught in a numbers game with the teams they go to. Sometimes the system is wrong for their game or they have to play a role they are not comfortable with.

I'm believe this is the case with Austin Rivers. Yes, he's immature, selfish and lacking some basic bball skills. He should have stayed in college for at least another year to grow up and work on those skills. But with his competitiveness, quickness, bball IQ, reported work ethic and his pedigree I'm betting that Rivers is going to be a very, very good NBA player, maybe one of the best 6-7 players to come out of this draft. Doc's son will at least be worthy of the top 10-15 pick that most mock drafts that I've seen have him slotted at.

It will be very interesting if Rivers slips and the Celtics are in a position to draft him. He would have slipped enough that he may be "too good a value to pass up", despite the potential complications.

Doc potentially coaching Austin is mentioned in an article about the Dunleays.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_d ... nba-311998

[Dat2U]

Would it not be possible in that situation to dangle the opportunity to draft Harrison Barnes for Utah or potentially Portland and add something like Sullinger or Zeller as well as someone like Lillard with the second pick? That seems like a pretty decent consolation prize if things turn pear shaped during the lottery process. Add a couple of wing players in free agency and hopefully at least one solid selection with the two second rounders and that wouldn't be the worst off season. Just to show that I too can write names with slashes next to them:

Wall/Lillard
Green (Danny)/Crawford/Denmon
Green (Gerald)/Crowder/Singleton
Nene/Booker/Vesely
Seraphin/Zeller

Not so bad, really.

I don't trust Gerald Green just yet.

Danny Green might price his way out of consideration if the Spurs go on a solid playoff run.

And while I like Lillard and Zeller should be a solid rotation player, I'm really praying that we aren't discussing that option a month from now!

[Ruzious]

Does anyone know when they're doing the pre-draft measurements? I would have thought we'd have heard something by now. There may not have been a scientific study done on it, but my hunch is... length matters (obligatory that's what she said). A guy like Moultrie could go up in the top 10 if he measures better than expected. It'll be interesting to see if Jeremy Lamb really does measure in the 7'2 area for wingspan. I think Beal will measure better than doubters give him credit for.

[nate33]

I think I read that they're being done on June 2nd and 3rd, or sometime around then... just after the lottery.

[payitforward]

Height and length certainly have a significance. Burly, floorbound 6-7 big men routinely dominate the college ranks (think Lonny Baxter) but rarely make an impact in the pros. The college ranks are littered with 6-2 shooting guards who can't crack an NBA rotation unless they learn PG skills.

Well, we're just in the realm of narrative and likely stories, aren't we?

It's irrelevant what dominates college ranks. There are also guys 7' and over who can't play in the NBA, and the college ranks are also littered with 6-5 guards who can't crack an NBA rotation.

The question is what goes on at the NBA level. At what position does greater height correlate w/ higher productivity? And where's the data that shows the correlation? None of this exists. It just ain't the case. For that matter, the guy you are calling for at SG for us -- Ben Gordon -- is 6'2"

Not trying to be argumentative, but there's no data to support your claim.

[Nivek]

Height and length certainly have a significance. Burly, floorbound 6-7 big men routinely dominate the college ranks (think Lonny Baxter) but rarely make an impact in the pros. The college ranks are littered with 6-2 shooting guards who can't crack an NBA rotation unless they learn PG skills.

Well, we're just in the realm of narrative and likely stories, aren't we?

It's irrelevant what dominates college ranks. There are also guys 7' and over who can't play in the NBA, and the college ranks are also littered with 6-5 guards who can't crack an NBA rotation.

The question is what goes on at the NBA level. At what position does greater height correlate w/ higher productivity? And where's the data that shows the correlation? None of this exists. It just ain't the case. For that matter, the guy you are calling for at SG for us -- Ben Gordon -- is 6'2"

Not trying to be argumentative, but there's no data to support your claim.

I agree with it PIF on this one. It makes sense that length should matter, but I haven't seen the study that actually shows how much it matters. In my handy database (which still has only 681 player seasons in it), my handling of physical attributes (length (not height), agility, strength, and vertical) has essentially no correlation with the overall production measure (before I add in the adjustments for physical attributes).

The strongest correlation if for length -- and the correlation is just 0.09. Which is to say, virtually random. Second strongest is strength at 0.05. The other factors are even less correlated. Now, my database is looking strictly at the production of college players. If I get some time, I could throw in a dummy variable to indicate players who appeared in at least 4 NBA seasons (or something like that) and see what the correlations look like.

That said, it's probably a good idea to keep in mind what Lamar Odom said -- The game is basketball, not run and jump. Athleticism is nice to have, but it's still a game of skill.

[pancakes3]

so you're saying that there's no science to the draft, no predictors, etc. it's all a crap shoot, and anthony davis is no more likely to succeed than say... me? the only way to tell is to give davis and i a shot at the nba and wait and see what we do?

[nate33]

I am not "calling for" Ben Gordon. I merely think that if we're going to overpay someone to play on this team, I'd rather overpay Gordon instead of Blatche. (Meaning, I'd gladly trade Blatche for Gordon.) I'd rather amnesty Blatche than pay either of those guys, however.

And there is data that shows correlation. How about the data that shows that there are zero starting SG's in this league that are listed at 6-2 or shorter? There are a handful of spot-up shooting PG's in the Mario Chalmers mold that basically play SG on offense and PG on defense, but that's precisely my point. If you're 6-2, you can't defend the SG position.

[payitforward]

Hmmmm, I might have to qualify what I wrote above. There might be correlation between success at the SG and height -- at least at the top of the productivity list.

Of course this doesn't mean there's significant correlation in the other direction -- i.e. that if you pick someone taller, you are more likely to get a better player.

Still, it might turn out that the top ranks of productivity at the 2 are reserved for guys 6-5 or over.

[payitforward]

so you're saying that there's no science to the draft, no predictors, etc. it's all a crap shoot, and anthony davis is no more likely to succeed than say... me? the only way to tell is to give davis and i a shot at the nba and wait and see what we do?

No, of course not. Productivity vs. top-level NCAA competition is the best predictor of productivity in the league. After all, it's mostly the same players a few years on!

The point is that *productivity on the basketball court* is the predictor of *productivity on the basketball court!* The predictor isn't "length" or what you will.

[Nivek]

so you're saying that there's no science to the draft, no predictors, etc. it's all a crap shoot, and anthony davis is no more likely to succeed than say... me? the only way to tell is to give davis and i a shot at the nba and wait and see what we do?

That's not what I'm saying. There are definitely predictors. It's just not clear that physical attributes are good predictors of future NBA success.

[payitforward]

I am not "calling for" Ben Gordon. I merely think that if we're going to overpay someone to play on this team, I'd rather overpay Gordon instead of Blatche. (Meaning, I'd gladly trade Blatche for Gordon.) I'd rather amnesty Blatche than pay either of those guys, however.

Agreed about the last point, but I don't know why we'd make the trade. He's no help. The net cost of amnestying Blatche is not his salary but the salary of the guy who replaces him -- and that would be someone cheap at the end of the bench. A third rookie next year, say.

How about the data that shows that there are zero starting SG's in this league that are listed at 6-2 or shorter?...

I would look at productivity numbers for players, not at who is a starter. Still, I think you are probably right that the best 2s are 6'4" or taller. I don't think the same is true at the front court positions.

[nate33]

Height and length certainly have a significance. Burly, floorbound 6-7 big men routinely dominate the college ranks (think Lonny Baxter) but rarely make an impact in the pros. The college ranks are littered with 6-2 shooting guards who can't crack an NBA rotation unless they learn PG skills.

Well, we're just in the realm of narrative and likely stories, aren't we?

It's irrelevant what dominates college ranks. There are also guys 7' and over who can't play in the NBA, and the college ranks are also littered with 6-5 guards who can't crack an NBA rotation.

The question is what goes on at the NBA level. At what position does greater height correlate w/ higher productivity? And where's the data that shows the correlation? None of this exists. It just ain't the case. For that matter, the guy you are calling for at SG for us -- Ben Gordon -- is 6'2"

Not trying to be argumentative, but there's no data to support your claim.

I agree with it PIF on this one. It makes sense that length should matter, but I haven't seen the study that actually shows how much it matters. In my handy database (which still has only 681 player seasons in it), my handling of physical attributes (length (not height), agility, strength, and vertical) has essentially no correlation with the overall production measure (before I add in the adjustments for physical attributes).

The strongest correlation if for length -- and the correlation is just 0.09. Which is to say, virtually random. Second strongest is strength at 0.05. The other factors are even less correlated. Now, my database is looking strictly at the production of college players. If I get some time, I could throw in a dummy variable to indicate players who appeared in at least 4 NBA seasons (or something like that) and see what the correlations look like.

That said, it's probably a good idea to keep in mind what Lamar Odom said -- The game is basketball, not run and jump. Athleticism is nice to have, but it's still a game of skill.

Wait. If height and length don't matter, why are they criteria in YODA?

Have you had the time to enter a significant number of college stars who didn't get drafted? It seems to me that there are a ton of pretty good basketball players in the college ranks who put up nice numbers but never even get considered in the draft because they are too small. They probably don't show up in YODA because they weren't drafted in the first place.

I just perused the DX database, looking for undersized SG's with high PER's. How would these guys rank in YODA if you threw out the length/athleticism criteria?

Maurice Creek
Rob McKiver
Jaycee Carroll
Lestor Hudson
Booker Woodfox
Aaron Jackson

[nate33]

I am not "calling for" Ben Gordon. I merely think that if we're going to overpay someone to play on this team, I'd rather overpay Gordon instead of Blatche. (Meaning, I'd gladly trade Blatche for Gordon.) I'd rather amnesty Blatche than pay either of those guys, however.

Agreed about the last point, but I don't know why we'd make the trade. He's no help. The net cost of amnestying Blatche is not his salary but the salary of the guy who replaces him -- and that would be someone cheap at the end of the bench. A third rookie next year, say.

And the net cost of trading Blatche for Gordon would be the additional salary Gordon is owed (roughly $4M a year if memory serves, but his contract is a year shorter). For that price, would you rather have Ben Gordon or a 2nd round draft pick or other walk-on vet-minimum free agent? I'd take Gordon. He's still one of the elite shooters and clutch players in this league, and his big weakness, defense, can be masked by playing alongside a big PG like Wall.

[Nivek]

I am not "calling for" Ben Gordon. I merely think that if we're going to overpay someone to play on this team, I'd rather overpay Gordon instead of Blatche. (Meaning, I'd gladly trade Blatche for Gordon.) I'd rather amnesty Blatche than pay either of those guys, however.

And there is data that shows correlation. How about the data that shows that there are zero starting SG's in this league that are listed at 6-2 or shorter? There are a handful of spot-up shooting PG's in the Mario Chalmers mold that basically play SG on offense and PG on defense, but that's precisely my point. If you're 6-2, you can't defend the SG position.

It's sorta what Rick Carlisle once said to me years ago when we were talking about Richard Hamilton and defense. His line was, "Anyone can be a good defender in our system if he follows the rules and plays with effort." I said something like, "Even me?" He gave me the once over and said, "There's a certain athleticism that's required."

So yeah, a 6-2 SG probably doesn't work as a starter -- unless the guy has long arms. And, there are many examples of guys who had successful careers despite violating height norms.

All that said, I'm kinda arguing both sides of this issue. I'm not sure how much physical attributes matter, but I do include them in YODA.

I think PIF's comment that productivity on the court is the best predictor of future productivity on the court.

Length probably matters, but only in the sense that the guy needs to be long enough to do the job. Same for the other attributes.

[nate33]

Length probably matters, but only in the sense that the guy needs to be long enough to do the job. Same for the other attributes.

Well, that was my point too. Measurements matter insofar as a player needs to meet a minimum criteria to be able to keep up with the elite athletes of the NBA on defense. But once that minimum threshold has been met, I'd agree that actual production is much more important.

I'd probably go a bit further and say that measurements really do matter with respect to defense, even after we pass the minimum threshold test. Slow undersized players are almost always bad defenders. Their stats may look good, but their poor defense hurts the team in ways that don't show up in the box score.

[Zonkerbl]

I am not "calling for" Ben Gordon. I merely think that if we're going to overpay someone to play on this team, I'd rather overpay Gordon instead of Blatche. (Meaning, I'd gladly trade Blatche for Gordon.) I'd rather amnesty Blatche than pay either of those guys, however.

And there is data that shows correlation. How about the data that shows that there are zero starting SG's in this league that are listed at 6-2 or shorter? There are a handful of spot-up shooting PG's in the Mario Chalmers mold that basically play SG on offense and PG on defense, but that's precisely my point. If you're 6-2, you can't defend the SG position.

That's a valid point. If you only include in your study players who already made it into the NBA, your study is biased - you're sampling from a subset of players who have made it to the NBA. There won't be any correlation between height and performance precisely BECAUSE there are no SG's shorter than 6 foot playing in the NBA. What would really have a lot of statistical power is to collect data on all college players and find what indicators (or combination thereof) reliably predict actually making it to the pros.

How do you measure success in the NBA? I think total career minutes is a good start, but as Ed points out there are players who get minutes they haven't really earned. Well, any statistical study is going to have some error -- if it didn't you wouldn't need to do the study in the first place...

[montestewart]

Still, it might turn out that the top ranks of productivity at the 2 are reserved for guys 6-5 or over.

Don't forget the quick first step and...what's the rest WD?

[Nivek]

I'll add that dummy variable when I have time. Just guessing, but approximately a quarter of the database is comprised of guys who weren't drafted. That will grow as I continue adding players. Next project is purging underclassmen in the DB who aren't on the league's final list of kids entering the draft and adding in players who are entering the draft but aren't in the database.