2012 NBA Draft - Part III

[fishercob]

Captain Sarcasm! Welcome to the boards. It's always great to have another smart Know-It-All in the group. You'll do fine here.

I was not AT ALL making the point that Harden was comparable to Knight and Kemba. I was merely saying rookies -- even good ones that turn out to be stars -- often don't do much from the outset. In fact, I made this point a couple of weeks ago in a discussion of Beal (we did, somehow, manage to have meaningful discussions before you signed on) -- that while his freshman numbers compared well with some great NBA shooting guards, we should expect his rookie impact to be marginal and for him to struggle at time.

As an aside, this rookie class was at a particular disadvantage due to the circumstances created by the lockout. That's not to say that I'm at all high on Knight or Walker (I'm not), but it's worth noting.

[Nivek]

YODA has its share of misses through the years in both directions. The more information I feed in, the better it's likely to get. Right now, it's still at the toddler stage with just 675 total player seasons. It's a good start, but there's still a TON of work to do on it.

[Nivek]

I think everyone is on the same page with Lamb. I don't think anyone wants him top 5. But i think we agree that he could be a good pick in a trade down scenario. .

Ummm, no... not exactly.

A guy who can create his own shot and hit it has value, even if it is from midrange.

If he can hit it, I don't care if he created it. And I don't care that he can "create it" if he can't hit it.

"can create his own shot" -- one of the most enduring myths of the NBA and really *total* BS. When Carmelo came off the floor for the Nuggets, did the team get fewer shots per minute? No. Did their FG% go down? No. Etc....

http://www.82games.com/0809/08DEN9.HTM#onoff

They scored 7.6 more ppg when Melo played in the 08/09 season and 4.6 more during the 09/10 season. Please explain why they were scoring more with Melo on the floor.

That's points per 100 possessions. They were more efficient when Melo was on the floor. Why were they more efficient? They shot a little better and they turned the ball over a lot less when he was on the floor (4 fewer turnovers per 48 minutes).

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

And holy crap English can shoot!... Might be a guy to look at with the #46 pick.

English shot 38% his first 3 years with an eFG% of @47%, and then he shot 52% as a senior with an eFG% of 64%. Every 40 minutes, he took 11.2 shots and got 14.3 points out of them!

That's an *amazing* leap. None of his other numbers varied much year to year. Don't know what to make of it.

Only John Jenkins is comparable as a shooter -- but he did it for 3 years not 1 year. And he is also 2 1/2 years younger than English, who will be 24 when the NBA season starts.

English played with Denmon, Cardo Ratliff, Michael Dixon, and the Pressey brothers in Frank Haith's system. Much as I like Denmon, I'm thinking even his numbers are influenced by the system he's in. (But make no mistake, Marcus Denmon is the real deal and will be a very successful PG/SG in the NBA).

English is nowhere near the prospect Jenkins or Will Barton are. Jenkins is a good spot shooter, but after watching Vandy I wonder if he's athletic enough to get the same separation on his shot in the NBA. Jeffrey Taylor might fare better.

I still say Barton .... (If you know me you know I tend to repeat myself this time of year. Not that saying Faried mattered. )

[tontoz]

That's points per 100 possessions. They were more efficient when Melo was on the floor. Why were they more efficient? They shot a little better and they turned the ball over a lot less when he was on the floor (4 fewer turnovers per 48 minutes).

So the logical conclusion is that when Melo wasn't on the floor the other guys struggled to create quality shots, hence more turnovers. Imagine that.

I don't even like Melo but some of payitforwards posts are ridiculous.

[DCZards]

(Jeremy) Lamb ...in a tier with Kemba Walker, Jimmer Fredette, Nolan Smith and Brandon Knight.

I expect Brandon Knight to turn out to be a very good NBA point guard. He's already shown flashes of his abilities. Let's not forget that Knight came out after his freshman year (Walker, Jimmer and Smith all played either 3 or years of coll. ball.) Knight was the only one of the four asked to start every game from the beginning of the season (without the benefit of a full training camp) and he was playing the most challenging position to learn in the NBA.

[Nivek]

That's points per 100 possessions. They were more efficient when Melo was on the floor. Why were they more efficient? They shot a little better and they turned the ball over a lot less when he was on the floor (4 fewer turnovers per 48 minutes).

So the logical conclusion is that when Melo wasn't on the floor the other guys struggled to create quality shots, hence more turnovers. Imagine that.

Well, maybe. The year he got traded, the Nuggets were +0.7 points per 100 possessions. The year before that, they were +4.6. In 07-08 (the year before the on you cited), they were +1.3 with Melo on the floor. In 06-07, +6.6.

In NYK this year, they were +2.2 with Melo. Last year, +4.6

So, it would seem that in some years, Melo's teammates had little problem "creating" shots and in other years they had some problems. My guess is that the issue isn't shot "creation" but shot conversion.

Shots happen. Made are valuable; misses aren't. A guy who can "get his shot" is valuable to the extent that those shots go in.

[tontoz]

I don't think the numbers from year he got traded are relevant since he got traded for several players who could score. They were a different team after the trade which skews the results.

If Melo got hurt midseason and wasn't traded then the numbers would be more relevant.

[Nivek]

I don't think the numbers from year he got traded are relevant since he got traded for several players who could score. They were a different team after the trade which skews the results.

If Melo got hurt midseason and wasn't traded then the numbers would be more relevant.

That hypothesis isn't supported by the data.

Here are the percentages of total team minutes played by the guys they got back in that trade:

- Chandler 16%
- Gallinari 11%
- Felton 17%
- Mozgov 2%
- Koufos 2%

The Nuggets were -7.9 per 100 possessions offensively with Chandler on the floor and -8.9 with Gallinari. They were +2.3 with Felton, so he helped some. +1.9 with Mozgov; +7.0 with Koufos, though neither guy had much impact at just 2% of team minutes.

The Knicks guys didn't help.

[tontoz]

I don't think the numbers from year he got traded are relevant since he got traded for several players who could score. They were a different team after the trade which skews the results.

If Melo got hurt midseason and wasn't traded then the numbers would be more relevant.

That hypothesis isn't supported by the data.

Here are the percentages of total team minutes played by the guys they got back in that trade:

- Chandler 16%
- Gallinari 11%
- Felton 17%
- Mozgov 2%
- Koufos 2%

The Nuggets were -7.9 per 100 possessions offensively with Chandler on the floor and -8.9 with Gallinari. They were +2.3 with Felton, so he helped some. +1.9 with Mozgov; +7.0 with Koufos, though neither guy had much impact at just 2% of team minutes.

The Knicks guys didn't help.

If you look at the entire season last year the Knicks were +4.6 with Melo, Denver was +.7 with Melo. So looking at the entire season he had a strongly positive effect on his teams scoring. That was the same as the previous 2 years. I don't see any recent years where the team scored better without Melo.

I really don't like being in the position of defending Melo lol. I do think you undervalue shot creation. I am not sure why you are pointing out that the shots only matter when they go in. That is understood.

I could go out there and create shots every time down the floor. They would be pretty poor shots though. I don't think anyone would be calling me a shot creator.

Melo's efficiency isn't great but it isn't bad either, especially given his volume of shots. Very few guys would be able to have his TS% taking that many shots.

[Nivek]

I think I properly value shot creation, but then I would, right?

I think basketball analysts grossly overvalue "creation" as if there's a benefit to simply shooting the ball a lot. The act of taking shots isn't valuable. As you point out, any schmuck can "create" a shot any time they want.

Lebron's shot creation is valuable because he makes a high percentage of those shots. Carmelo's created shots are a bit less valuable because he doesn't make as many. Created shots from Iverson and Antoine Walker -- even less valuable in most years.

I'm really not knocking Melo, and I'm still not quite sure how we even got on to him (again) in a draft thread. He's a good scorer and there's value in what he does. Not as much as value as he sees in it, but that's a different subject.

My point remains that most of the guys I see mentioned as "shot creators" merely shoot a lot, efficiency be damned. They're guys with bad shot selection, not a special skill.

When the shot clock is running out, sure I'd rather have someone put up a shot with a 20% likelihood of going in than just letting the shot clock expire. (Although, now that I'm thinking about it, I wonder if that's actually an advisable strategy considering that the opposing offense is on average more efficient after your team misses a shot than it is after a dead ball. Hmm...)

But, generally offenses will be more efficient when players work together to create open looks at the basket. There are times when you need someone to force the issue, but that time doesn't come nearly as often as the "shot creators" would have us believe.

[tontoz]

I think you are lumping shot creation and shot selection together. Lebron is good at both. When he tries to create a shot sometimes the opportunities he creates aren't good ones. In those cases he frequently passes the ball out instead of forcing up a bad shot.

I think the ability to create shots is very valuable if it is accompanied by good shot selection. Shot creation without shot selection = Jordan Crawford.

[theboomking]

I think basketball analysts grossly overvalue "creation" as if there's a benefit to simply shooting the ball a lot. The act of taking shots isn't valuable. As you point out, any schmuck can "create" a shot any time they want.

Lebron's shot creation is valuable because he makes a high percentage of those shots. Carmelo's created shots are a bit less valuable because he doesn't make as many. Created shots from Iverson and Antoine Walker -- even less valuable in most years.
the issue, but that time doesn't come nearly as often as the "shot creators" would have us believe.

Lebron's shot creating ability is very different from Carmelo's. I don't feel like Lebron is nearly as bad about taking the isolation long contested 2 pointer, which is the worst shot in basketball. Lebron is also a much better passer, which plays off of his shot creating abilities.

And holy crap English can shoot! His usage rate is a bit low though. He seems like he might pan out to be a Cartier Martin type of player. Might be a guy to look at with the #46 pick.

At 6'6", English shot less than .400 from the field in his first 3 years in college. I think it is pretty ridiculous to compare him to Jeremy Lamb. Has any SG ever shot less than .400 for 3 years in college and gone on to have a productive NBA career? Am I the only one here that thinks a 6'6" shooting guard that lacks athleticism and shot .366 from the field as a Junior, .393 and .387 as a sophomore and freshman, just obviously isn't going to do well against NBA competition?

That in a nutshell is my problem with YODA. If I had to guess, I would say YODA is pretty good for evaluating freshman players of the current era. Comparing a Freshman to a Senior? Comparing a current era player to players before the one and done rule? YODA is a tool. It should be used as such, not as a final arbiter of talent evaluation.

[WizarDynasty]

shot creation is the ability to create an offensive advantage from a neutral position.

Is lebron james good at creating an offensive advantage from a neutral position.

Basically, the ability to manipulate the defender into a recovery position where he has to foul you...if he doesn't foul you, he gives up a high percentage open look because of a movement by the offensive player that put him into a recovery position.

Lebron usually creates his offensive advantages when he receives the ball while in motion. He isn't good at putting a defender in a recovery position off the dribble unless he already has a full tank of steam running down the court. Lebron doesn't have an explosive first step which is usually the most deadly way to put a defender into a recovery position.

Post players usually get the ball so close to the basket that once they received the ball that close to the basket, the defender is usually already in a recovery position because it's much easier for a skilled post player to get off a high percentage really close the basket. a two foot contested shot is alot higher percentage shot than a 20 footer contested shot.
so a post player with ability to easily hold his position for an entry pass due to his strength, balance, and skilled coordination length ect...becomes a shot creator once he gets the ball so close to the basket.
a guard with explosive first step handles...my sig...creates an offensive advantage from a triple threat because his first step usually puts a defender in recovery mode.
carmelo with his quick first step and power on drive usually puts defenders in recovery mode. He is a horrible defender due to lack of length and lateral movement ability.
crawford doesn't have a quick first step and really isn't a shot creator. He pretty much shoots contested shots and they go in sometimes. Once crawford has an offensive advantageous angle he is pretty good at keeping that angle but he doesn't have the bulk to over power defenders and create offensive drive angles with his strength like a harden, carmelo anthony, lebron james.
Lamb and Beal--neither has a quick first step. Beal might be able to overpower point guards like gilbert did but Beal doesn't have the quick first step to beat bulky powerful shooting guards and will rely on others to create openings for him to get off uncontested jumpers. If he had an explosive first step, he could beat heavier guards off the dribble forcing them to foul him once he is in the lane. Unless Beal plays point guard in the gilbert arenas mode, we are going to see all the problems of gil at shooting guard minus the explosive first step.
Lamb doesn't have the body strength to maintain the advantageous offensive angle that his quick first step gives him. As soon as he beats his man, a little shove throws him off balane and he shoots a floater instead of drawing a foul. Defensively, he will get overpowered and tossed to the side when a guard like a wade or granger is driving to the hole. Beal with his short 8'3 standingr reach will get shot over by most shooting guards the same way gil was shot over.
so again, getting a player that can create an offensive advantage from a neutral point is extremely valuable.
Give the ball to tim duncan in the post and he immediately put the defender in recovery mode by backing the defender down with strength, balance and ball control, and as the defender struggles to keep from getting back down, tim then has him his defender at disadvantages do to tim's combination of skills, strength coordination.
Deandre Jordan who probably has the same build as tim duncan, has no coordination dribbling the ball, and has no balance backing down his defender so he can't create an offensive advantage. Jordan has been in the league for 4 years and still hasn't developed it and won't. Tim had this ability when he was in college. Thinking that Davis will magically develop this ability even though he hasn't shown it in college is a little naive.
Again, we need players that can create offensive advantages from a neutral point. Wall seems to be able to create an advantage with his first step and ability to accelerate while dribbling from one gear to the next and his ability to hang in the air longer than most defenders is another way he creates an advantage.
Nene creates an advantage with his strength and quick first step. seraphin create an advantage with his strength, foot coordination, and ability to pin players down with his body while executing a shot.
Crawford is decent once his is moving to the basket and he is an open driving angle. That's about it. the problem with Nene is that he is injury prone and his style of creating for his himself is also what has created his injuries so his advantages can only be used sparingly or he gets injured. Seraphin is still young with lil injury history so that is well than can be tapped into heavily later. Wall is young and we can tap in his quick first step.
so again, a comparison of DAvis to Garnett to me is foolish. Davis is a long lanky strider who has uncoordinated feet like McGee. Garnett and tim Duncan have extremely coordinated feet and can make quick small explosive steps while maintaining their balance. Davis, Camby, and McGee all move their feet the same way..long lanky strides with uncoordinated feet which limits their ability to make quick coordinated post moves. Seraphin is an example of a big with extremely coordinated feet which helps him tremendously in the post which is why Davis is much more like camby and mcgee than garnett or Duncan offensively.
A guy like barnes who can post up from the perimeter and can create open looks for himself on the perimeter due to his excellent footwork would really benefit this team.

[tontoz]

So which is more bizarre, the post or the sig?

[dangermouse]

Just curious: what did YODA say about John Wall?

[The Consiglieri]

[/code]

If I were drafting for the Wizards, instead of picking Beal; I would trade down and offload Blatche and Crawford. I would end up with Will Barton along with Tyler Zeller, plus future considerations along with expiring deals in place of Blatche.

Will Barton is better than YODA rates him, IMO.

I'm opposed to the Zards trading down in the draft and passing on the opportunity to draft either Beal and MKG. I think both of them will turn out to be stars at the next level. (I prefer Beal for his offense.) While I somewhat understand the desire to get rid of Blatche and Crawford (though I think there's a role for Crawford off the bench) I don't think dumping them and their contracts should be a consideration when deciding who to draft.

I am as well, you trade down at 4 or 5 to a team intrigued with Drummond (if only Drummond or Robinson are left and you are 4/5), you sure as hell don't trade down for a guy a lot of NBA scouts think is a backup center and 2nd round bench fodder no matter what Yoda or anything else says.

We were the 29th best team this year out of 30, we shouldn't be coming out of this draft with a mediocre to poor center (I know I have posted about liking him, and I do, but the odds say he's no better than adequate, in the most likely scenario) and a 2nd round guy that is a big reach as someone to build your team around. I just can't possibly express how thoroughly I'd loathe that. The only trade down scenario I'd ever consider would be from 4/5 to the bottom of 10 and a mid teens pick, and I'd use those picks on a shooter and a big or PJ3 and a big.

We should be going with Davis, MKG or Beal, only after all 3 are gone should we think about trading down.

[truwizfan4evr]

[/code]

If I were drafting for the Wizards, instead of picking Beal; I would trade down and offload Blatche and Crawford. I would end up with Will Barton along with Tyler Zeller, plus future considerations along with expiring deals in place of Blatche.

Will Barton is better than YODA rates him, IMO.

I'm opposed to the Zards trading down in the draft and passing on the opportunity to draft either Beal and MKG. I think both of them will turn out to be stars at the next level. (I prefer Beal for his offense.) While I somewhat understand the desire to get rid of Blatche and Crawford (though I think there's a role for Crawford off the bench) I don't think dumping them and their contracts should be a consideration when deciding who to draft.

I am as well, you trade down at 4 or 5 to a team intrigued with Drummond (if only Drummond or Robinson are left and you are 4/5), you sure as hell don't trade down for a guy a lot of NBA scouts think is a backup center and 2nd round bench fodder no matter what Yoda or anything else says.

We were the 29th best team this year out of 30, we shouldn't be coming out of this draft with a mediocre to poor center (I know I have posted about liking him, and I do, but the odds say he's no better than adequate, in the most likely scenario) and a 2nd round guy that is a big reach as someone to build your team around. I just can't possibly express how thoroughly I'd loathe that. The only trade down scenario I'd ever consider would be from 4/5 to the bottom of 10 and a mid teens pick, and I'd use those picks on a shooter and a big or PJ3 and a big.

We should be going with Davis, MKG or Beal, only after all 3 are gone should we think about trading down.

I agree! If them 3 guys gone then we could consider trading down. Would anyone consider trading down for Terrence Ross?

[Nivek]

At 6'6", English shot less than .400 from the field in his first 3 years in college. I think it is pretty ridiculous to compare him to Jeremy Lamb. Has any SG ever shot less than .400 for 3 years in college and gone on to have a productive NBA career? Am I the only one here that thinks a 6'6" shooting guard that lacks athleticism and shot .366 from the field as a Junior, .393 and .387 as a sophomore and freshman, just obviously isn't going to do well against NBA competition?

At this point I don't have much basis other than anecdotal reports to downgrade English's athleticism. The ratings for all players in this draft are based on information I have available right now. As I get more info, I'll add it and the ratings will change accordingly. I have lots of questions about English. His senior year was pretty good, and it was indeed different than his 1st 3 seasons. Maybe that's a reason to downgrade him. It could also be a sign that he got serious and worked on his game. Or, his efficiency and excellent shooting this season could be a function of very low usage. I'll look closer at his 1st 3 seasons tomorrow.

That in a nutshell is my problem with YODA. If I had to guess, I would say YODA is pretty good for evaluating freshman players of the current era. Comparing a Freshman to a Senior? Comparing a current era player to players before the one and done rule? YODA is a tool. It should be used as such, not as a final arbiter of talent evaluation.

That's your opinion, and that's fine with me. YODA reflects my current attempt to objectively evaluate players. It's a work in progress. If it was easy to build an objective system to project kids into the NBA, everyone would be doing it and the draft would be perfectly efficient. I appreciate the comments and suggestions, and where I think they're good, I incorporate them. Ultimately, though -- it's my opinion and it should be viewed as such. Agree, disagree, ignore, make snide remarks -- it's all good.

[Nivek]

Just curious: what did YODA say about John Wall?

I don't have it in front of me so this is from memory, but it had Wall #1 overall in his draft class, just a little ahead of Cousins. A fairly large portion of Wall's rating came from his physical attributes, I don't recall the percentage off the top of my head -- I'll try to remember to post it tomorrow. His college production wasn't great. Overall, he was one of the lower rated #1 picks (if not THE lowest rated in YODA), but his draft class was weak (which is reflected in the YODA ratings). I'd have to check the spreadsheet to see how he would fall if he was in this draft.