2012 NBA Draft - Part IV

[rockymac52]

[Good teams can pick for need. Bad teams (and don't let another end of the year good run fool you - we are still a bad team) need to pick for talent.

I agree with this, but I still think we can rule out MKG. The way I see it, only one player on this roster is a true building block: Wall. Maybe you can make an argument for Seraphin. But even if we ignored everyone else on the roster, I still think there is a compelling argument not to take MKG because I don't think he can coexist with Wall regardless of the talent around them.

Basketball is a lot more than just having proper offensive spacing.

To condemn Wall at 21 and MKG at 18 as not being able to co-exist is just ridiculous.

Yes, it's possible they could co-exist, it's possible one or both could develop a good perimeter game, but it's very risky to go all in on that happening, and that's what we'd be doing if we drafted MKG. We currently have a serious problem with perimeter shooting. Why add to that problem by taking a guy like MKG? We know Wall is going to be around long-term, whether he develops a jumper or not. It's crucial that whoever our SF of the future is, can shoot the ball from deep, at least decently. Don't draft another guy with a broken shot who we HOPE can one day develop a passable jumper. It's flat out DUMB.

[Benjammin]

Nivek, from looking at your YODA data, do you have a sense whether standing reach or wingspan is more influential? And in particular, I'm curious about guards. My intuitive sense is that standing reach is more important for bigs but wingspan may be more important for guards and wings.

I've found standing reach to be the most important length measurement regardless of position.

This is an interesting article that seems to indicate there is more variability and likely measurement error with standing reach than wingspan, for example:

http://www.brewhoop.com/2008/6/22/54308 ... r-explorin

[Benjammin]

Ford just reported that Robinson's vertical is 35.5 inches. The same as Blake Griffin's vert at his combine. *stirs pot*

I think Robinson will go 2nd in this draft. His freakish wingspan and mad hops have clinched it. Plus he has relentless energy, good leadership qualities, and success at the college level. He'd be a great building block for a rebuilding franchise.

I think his offense will be a bit limited at first, but in time, he's going to hone his perimeter shot and become a deadly face-up scorer. He could be Chris Bosh with better rebounding. And in today's NBA, having a face-up game is more important than having a post game.

Ekpe Udoh & Shelden Williams had massive wingspans over 7-4 too. Standing reach means a lot more. Robinson has a standing reach of 8'10". That's a little below average. It doesn't eliminate him in my book, but it certainly doesn't clinch it either.

Apparently standing reach has more variability in its measurements and may not be as reliable as wingspan, for example:

http://www.brewhoop.com/2008/6/22/54308 ... r-explorin

[Benjammin]

According to Drummond himself, he posted a 38" max vertical today, for what it's worth.

[truwizfan4evr]

I might be talking myself into taking Robinson over Beal if MKG goes 2nd. We've got to find a way to trade either Booker or Vesely for a good wing.

Glad you coming around this guy will have a better pro career out of Beal,MKG and Barnes. He's going to play with a chip on his shoulder cause he said it many of times he feel's he should be the number one pick before Davis. I love his confidence i think he has the chance to have the best or maybe second best career behind Anthony Davis in this year draft class.

[closg00]

See ya at the new thread

[The Consiglieri]

It have Teague as a borderline 2nd round pick, slightly behind Taylor, but with a very similar rating. I like Machado better than either of them. Here are the PGs with a draftable grade in YODA this year (pending measurements, of course):

1. Damian Lillard -- 10-15
2. Kendall Marshall -- 10-15
3. Scott Machado -- late 1st/early 2nd
4. Reggie Hamilton -- early 2nd
5. Jordan Taylor -- early 2nd
6. Casper Ware -- early 2nd
7. Tony Wroten -- mid-2nd
8. Tyshawn Taylor -- late 2nd
9. Marquis Teague -- late 2nd

I'm willing to wager that at the end of the day Marquis Teague will turn out to be one of the top 2-3 PGs on this list at the next level. In fact, I expect Teague to be drafted ahead of most of them. Teague had a shaky start to his freshman year but by the end of the season you could see that he was obviously a very talented basketball player. All of the guys above Teague have at least a year of college experience on him (in most cases 2-3 years) so it's a little difficult to compare him with them, imo.

Count me in as well, for whatever reason I tend to systematically disagree with nearly all of Nivek's findings, and all I have is hunches and personal opinion to go on, while he has numbers And yet, I'm still positive I'm right. I think there's only 3 guys on that list that are technically capable of topping Teague in terms of NBA career (Liliard, Wroten and Marshall). On my draft board I'd have them ranked:

1. Lillard
2. Wroten
3. Teague
4. K. Marshall

[Dat2U]

I'd be shocked if Wroten ever became an even average player in the league. The only PG who I like less in the draft is Tyshawn Taylor.

Wehn Nivek compared Wrotem to a poor man's Tyreke Evans, I thought it was dead on.

[nate33]

Apparently standing reach has more variability in its measurements and may not be as reliable as wingspan, for example:

http://www.brewhoop.com/2008/6/22/54308 ... r-explorin

Great find, Benjamin. From the article:

Note: After posting this I received an email from a trainer who offered up a very logical explanation for the standing reach volatility in particular. They noted that inconsistent application of the standing reach test means that players can effectively "tank" their standing reaches by slouching, extending their elbows slightly, etc., which lowers their standing reach. Why do that? Because vertical leaps are typically calculated based on the difference between max (jumping) reach and standing reach.

Thus, a player can to some extent manipulate their measurements--if they want a more impressive vertical then they can tank their standing reach, though obviously it's a tradeoff. Guards may find it particularly beneficial to inflate their verticals at the expense of standing reach, which is probably not scrutinized nearly as closely by teams.

This might explain Beal to some extent. I'm still surprised to see his lackluster standing reach when he has decent height, a good wingspan, and no neck. Maybe we ought to add an inch or two to his standing reach and take an inch or two off of his vertical.