2012 NBA Draft - Part V

[fishercob]

Starting to be some complaints that the discussion is boring and repetitive. Ok, here is something provocative: can someone explain to me why TRob is a better prospect than Jae Crowder? Except, can you do it without mentioning TRob's measurements? Do it based on performance, in other words.

Both guys played the 4 in college at big programs, right?

Robinson is certainly a better rebounder. Every 40 minutes last season, he got 14.9 boards -- 4.7 more than Crowder. Big difference; big plus for his team.

Unfortunately, he turned the ball over 3.4 times in that same stretch to only 1.5 times for Crowder. That narrows the gap to +2.8 for Robinson. Still, that's a ball possession difference for his team. Helps them win.

Then again, Crowder stole the ball 3.1 times in those 40 minutes; Robinson only 1.4 times. Again, that narrows the gap. Still, Robinson had a better effect on ball possession. He gave his team 1.1 extra possessions over Crowder. Every possession helps, so good for him.

How about shooting? Well, Robinson scored 1 more point every 40 minutes than Robinson. But to get that extra point, he had to shoot the ball 1.7 more times and go to the line 2.1 more times. (There go those extra 1.1 possessions!)

Crowder's eFG% was .57; Robinson's .51. Crowder's TS% was .60 to .55 for Robinson.

Crowder had slightly more assists, slightly more blocks, and slightly fewer fouls than Robinson.

Robinson couldn't shoot the college 3-ball. Crowder did it reasonably well.

Again, someone tell me -- why is Robinson a better NBA prospect than Crowder? And if the answer is "because he rebounds more", then you also have to accept the evidence for Crowder that "he turns it over less, steals it more, shoots it better." All the numbers have to count, not just the ones you like. On the other hand, if the reason is "he's taller" then I'll happily repeat this post substituting Drew Gordon for Crowder.

It's a very important question, PIF. More broadly -- what role should the "eye test" play, if any, in evaluating a prospect? Should we be looking at all at what a guy looks like -- how he measures, his gait, etc -- or just what he actually produces.

The answer for me is actually more questions. The first is about the reliability and meaningfulness of the data. I think using stats to evaluate prospects is critically important; but the results are only meaningful if the data is good. For instance, assist numbers are notoriously subjective. Do NCAA scorekeepers inflate their own guys' blocks? Do they give 50/50 rebounds to their stars vs. their role guys?

Then there's a question of which metrics are truly important and/or predictive. I know there are dozens of stats that pro clubs have developed and track on a proprietary basis. Are they tracking these for the prospects? Do these stats play a 25% role of overall stat analysis of a player? 50? 75?

Getting back to the question, there may be other, less available stats, that say that RObinson is the far better (or far worse) prospect than Crowder. Maybe Marquette's official scorers juked Crowder's steal numbers. (The latter seems less likely and less overall impactful, but i'm still curious).

To the larger question, I do think that "stats" (without specifically defining which ones) are far more meaningful than the eye test. The eye test is just a piece of scouting though, certainly not all of it. Interviews with the prospect, his coaches, teammates. Psych profiles, medical exams, and watching game film to see how a guy was used and if he actually did what was asked of him -- those all strike me as important components too.

I think the draft is more of a science than an art, to be honest. It's just a question of using the right data and metrics. My $.02.

[Dat2U]

Post-measurements and work-outs, Leonard has shot-up the mocks past Zeller, no-one knew ahout the T-Rex arms.

Zeller averaged 25 and 8 in the NCAAs. He improved his rebounding dramatically, and even had a 20/20 game with Henson out. He almost made 80% of his FTs. Tyler was the ACC POTY. He had a much higher PER than Harrison Barnes (but not John Henson, FWIW). He was also UNCs first Academic All America. He graduated with a 3.62 average. He consistently improved on the court, while excelling in the classroom and in life.

And all many detractors do is to hone in on a measurement that says Tyler Zeller has an 8'8" standing reach! It is inanely dumb and myopic IMO to conclude that his standing reach will hold Tyler Zeller back in the NBA.

When he is beating big men down the floor are his short arms going to slow him down? On a pick-and-roll, is he going to be unable to catch lobs for slams because of his short arms?

What CCJ said. These kinds of measurements mean just about nothing.

They mean nothing to you? Oh wow, I gotta take that seriously. That makes me want re-analyze my whole line of thinking, lol.

You can certainly dismiss numbers you don't like or that don't fit your narrative but that doesn't make you right.

Standing reach specifically is an important tool in determining if player has the requisite length to play a certain position. It's not the overriding piece of information, but it should factor into the decision process. A big with a standing reach below 8'10" is cause for real concern, specifically on the defensive end.

[DCZards]

http://www.beltwaysportsblog.com/2012/06/07/beal-has-to-be-the-choice/

good read

As a Bealite, I'm in full agreement with the writer of this blog.

[nate33]

http://www.beltwaysportsblog.com/2012/06/07/beal-has-to-be-the-choice/

good read

As a Bealite, I'm in full agreement with the writer of this blog.

Wow. Did I write this?

[fishercob]

Post-measurements and work-outs, Leonard has shot-up the mocks past Zeller, no-one knew ahout the T-Rex arms.

Zeller averaged 25 and 8 in the NCAAs. He improved his rebounding dramatically, and even had a 20/20 game with Henson out. He almost made 80% of his FTs. Tyler was the ACC POTY. He had a much higher PER than Harrison Barnes (but not John Henson, FWIW). He was also UNCs first Academic All America. He graduated with a 3.62 average. He consistently improved on the court, while excelling in the classroom and in life.

And all many detractors do is to hone in on a measurement that says Tyler Zeller has an 8'8" standing reach! It is inanely dumb and myopic IMO to conclude that his standing reach will hold Tyler Zeller back in the NBA.

When he is beating big men down the floor are his short arms going to slow him down? On a pick-and-roll, is he going to be unable to catch lobs for slams because of his short arms?

I know there's some question regarding the accuracy of the measurements but for now let's assume that Tyler Zeller has a standing reach of 8'8".

If it's so insanely dumb and myopic to conclude that a standing reach measurement will hold Zeller back then all I ask is you find me one example, just one. Not two, not three. Just one single solitary example since they've kept such measurements where a big man with an 8'8" (or even 8'8".5") standing reach turned out to be effective NBA big . Again, were assuming just for this argument, that measurement is correct.

Your question implies that it matters. And it might. But I'm not convinced. Whatever physical limitations he has now, he also had them in the ACC -- and was able to compensate in whatever fashion he needed to to be the POY. Maybe he's got amazing timing or an amazing understanding of spacing or angles.

Look at our old friend Antawn Jamison. Is there anything about his physical profile -- can't jump, can hardly bend at the knees, "undersized" for a big -- that suggest he'd be as consistently effective offensively and on the defensive boards over the course of his career? It doesn't seem so. I'm more interested in the production.

[DCZards]

http://www.beltwaysportsblog.com/2012/0 ... he-choice/


As a Bealite, I'm in full agreement with the writer of this blog.

Here are some excerpts.

"Beal Has Good Size

Many scouts believe Beal could be closer to 6’3″ than the 6’5″ he is listed. One, height is probably the most overrated factor in NBA player evaluation today. That’s true regardless of his actual measurements. However, rumor has it that he measured in at 6’4.25″ inches with a 6’8″ wingspan today at the NBA combine. Those measurements are comparable to the two best shooting guards in this seasons playoffs, Dwyane Wade and James Harden, respectively.

MKG Doesn’t Add As Much To The Team

The primary argument for the Wizards selecting MKG is that he is a warrior with a tremendous work ethic and non-stop motor. He will bring these qualities to the organization which will help change the culture. While I agree with this assessment, I find the need for a cultural change factor to be overstated. It is apparent to me that last seasons acquisition of Nene helped change the team culture as much as MKG would. The team was 9-32 at the trade deadline and finished 20-46, winning their final six games. The culture is very much changed and drafting MKG would help but not to the extent that non-Wizards fans believe.

The Team Needs Shooters

The team has had some fascination in recent drafts in finding the player with the worst shooter in the draft and selecting him. Top picks John Wall and Jan Vesely aren’t just poor shooters, they have broken jump shots. Chris Singleton and Trevor Booker aren’t shooters either. Jordan Crawford shoots below 30% from three-point range. The team finished third to last in offensive efficiency and true shooting percentage. This is one of the primary reasons why. At some point this needs to be heavily addressed. Adding MKG would just add another non shooter to the lineup. Beal is regarded as one of the top shooters in the draft.

The Wizards Have Drafted Several Forwards Already

In previous drafts the Wizards have already taken several forwards including Trevor Booker, Kevin Seraphin, Jan Vesely, and Chris Singleton. It is not known whether Vesely will be a SF or PF but at this time PF is much more likely. This would seemingly eliminate the need to draft Thomas Robinson or Michael Kidd-Gilchrist..."

[DCZards]

Look at our old friend Antawn Jamison. Is there anything about his physical profile -- can't jump, can hardly bend at the knees, "undersized" for a big -- that suggest he'd be as consistently effective offensively and on the defensive boards over the course of his career? It doesn't seem so. I'm more interested in the production.

I remember watching Jamison at UNC and thinking "there's no way he's going to get those quick and quirky inside shots off against NBA bigs." Well, he's being doing just that for what 13 or 14 seasons.

[fishercob]

Look at our old friend Antawn Jamison. Is there anything about his physical profile -- can't jump, can hardly bend at the knees, "undersized" for a big -- that suggest he'd be as consistently effective offensively and on the defensive boards over the course of his career? It doesn't seem so. I'm more interested in the production.

I remember watching Jamison at UNC and thinking "there's no way he's going to get those quick and quirky inside shots off against NBA bigs." Well, he's being doing just that for what 13 or 14 seasons.

To Dat's point about defense and my earlier post about "which metrics," it seems that on the surface it's a lot easier to project offensive than defensive success based on available data. Again, maybe there are defensive stats that are tracked that we dont have access to that can tell us that Zeller will be a great/awful defender. I don't know. But it seems to me that there is more to the equation than standing reach. That being said, guys with longer reach -- if positioning is held constant -- should be able to better challenge shots than smaller guys. This is all a really long winded way of saying "I don't know and neither do any of you."

[Ruzious]

Post-measurements and work-outs, Leonard has shot-up the mocks past Zeller, no-one knew ahout the T-Rex arms.

Zeller averaged 25 and 8 in the NCAAs. He improved his rebounding dramatically, and even had a 20/20 game with Henson out. He almost made 80% of his FTs. Tyler was the ACC POTY. He had a much higher PER than Harrison Barnes (but not John Henson, FWIW). He was also UNCs first Academic All America. He graduated with a 3.62 average. He consistently improved on the court, while excelling in the classroom and in life.

And all many detractors do is to hone in on a measurement that says Tyler Zeller has an 8'8" standing reach! It is inanely dumb and myopic IMO to conclude that his standing reach will hold Tyler Zeller back in the NBA.

When he is beating big men down the floor are his short arms going to slow him down? On a pick-and-roll, is he going to be unable to catch lobs for slams because of his short arms?

I know there's some question regarding the accuracy of the measurements but for now let's assume that Tyler Zeller has a standing reach of 8'8".

If it's so insanely dumb and myopic to conclude that a standing reach measurement will hold Zeller back then all I ask is you find me one example, just one. Not two, not three. Just one single solitary example since they've kept such measurements where a big man with an 8'8" (or even 8'8".5") standing reach turned out to be effective NBA big . Again, were assuming just for this argument, that measurement is correct.

I think the answer is somewhere in the middle You shouldn't write him off, but he should be down-graded a bit for the short reach. Remember, Blake Griffin measured at 8'9 reach, and that hasn't stopped him from being a supastar. Then again, Griffin has been known to have fairly good leaping ability - to make up for any lack o length. Btw, I do question the accuracy of the measurements.

[payitforward]

What CCJ said. These kinds of measurements mean just about nothing.

They mean nothing to you? ... You can certainly dismiss numbers you don't like or that don't fit your narrative but that doesn't make you right.

Standing reach specifically is an important tool....

Uh huh, and let me point out that he has to have two arms as well. No good bigs w/ only one arm -- what could more clearly prove the importance of these measurements, I ask you?

Do you have some real research to cite, my friend? Someone has done an actual study plotting standing reach of PFs vs. productivity of PFs? Please feel free to provide a URL.

Suppose we rank all NBA teams in order of added-up team TS% -- do you think there'd be a statistically significant correlation of that order w/ the order of teams by win-loss record? I do. How about if we listed all NBA teams by number of rebounds?

Now what if we listed all NBA teams by the total of their squads' standing reach. Do you think there'd be a statistically significant correlation of that order and the order of teams by win-loss record? If not, why not?

How about if we just listed all NBA Power Forwards in order of their standing reach. Do you think that list would have a statistically significant correlation w/ the same guys listed in order of rebounds per 40 minutes? If you do, please prove it. As soon as you prove it, I'll fall in right behind you to trumpet this oh so important stat. Until then, you are the one with the narrative and choosing numbers to fit it.

[REDardWIZskin]

Any interest in Kyle O'Quin with a second rounder, 6'10 with a 7'5 wingspan an inch shorter than Drummond. Also a decent athlete with 30 inch vert according to DX

[closg00]

"DCZards"]http://www.beltwaysportsblog.com/2012/06/07/beal-has-to-be-the-choice/

>SNIP<

The Team Needs Shooters

The team has had some fascination in recent drafts in finding the player with the worst shooter in the draft and selecting him. Top picks John Wall and Jan Vesely aren’t just poor shooters, they have broken jump shots. Chris Singleton and Trevor Booker aren’t shooters either. Jordan Crawford shoots below 30% from three-point range. The team finished third to last in offensive efficiency and true shooting percentage. This is one of the primary reasons why. At some point this needs to be heavily addressed. Adding MKG would just add another non shooter to the lineup. Beal is regarded as one of the top shooters in the draft.

This ^ is our drafting bottom-line this-year. You can't surround a Point Guard who can't shoot with a bunch of other players who also can't shoot. It's now just a matter of how this gets addressed in the draft. I don't see us in the FA hunt for any big names.

[Jay81]

some mock drafts have beal going 2 to CHO

[sfam]

some mock drafts have beal going 2 to CHO

We still have the release of the athletic drills to go, along with bizarre rumours coming out of the workouts. I fully expect one or two players at least to drop out of most folks top 10 at some point. It wouldn't be too shocking to see one of the second tier, Robinson, Beal or MKG slide a bit. If so, perhaps a Barnes or Drummond moves into those spots.

[hands11]

I believe Beal is as talented as TRob, MKG or anyone else who might be available with the third pick. The fact that he also addresses the Zards need for a great shooting wing player is an added benefit.

What he said. If anything, he is *more* talented than either TRob or MK-G at his position. Not to ding MK-G at all, but Beal is so far along in development at 18; it really sticks out. As to TRob, I don't see how he'll be an impact player -- though of course I could be wrong. He played well in college; he's a good player. That's about as far as I can take it.

But Robinson's rebounding rate was right up there with Faried. What is not to like about a Faried type who is more of an offensive player ?

[popper]

I know there's some question regarding the accuracy of the measurements but for now let's assume that Tyler Zeller has a standing reach of 8'8".

If it's so insanely dumb and myopic to conclude that a standing reach measurement will hold Zeller back then all I ask is you find me one example, just one. Not two, not three. Just one single solitary example since they've kept such measurements where a big man with an 8'8" (or even 8'8".5") standing reach turned out to be effective NBA big . Again, were assuming just for this argument, that measurement is correct.[/quote]

Not 100% sure as they were both pre-measurement era players but I suspect that both Barkley and Unseld were 8'8" or less standing reach.

Edit -not sure what happened but first 2 para's were from a Dat2U post

[tontoz]

Shelden Williams was a big time shotblocker at Duke with his 8'8 standing reach. In the pros....not so much.

[jivelikenice]

I believe Beal is as talented as TRob, MKG or anyone else who might be available with the third pick. The fact that he also addresses the Zards need for a great shooting wing player is an added benefit.

What he said. If anything, he is *more* talented than either TRob or MK-G at his position. Not to ding MK-G at all, but Beal is so far along in development at 18; it really sticks out. As to TRob, I don't see how he'll be an impact player -- though of course I could be wrong. He played well in college; he's a good player. That's about as far as I can take it.

But Robinson's rebounding rate was right up there with Faried. What is not to like about a Faried type who is more of an offensive player ?

+1

[yaboynyp]

Hollis Thompson averaged 1.9 assists per 40 minutes. As a 6'8" SF, he didn't rebound well or get to the line much. I don't think these are matters of "style." A.

It's very hard for me to judge the lack of rebounding or getting to the line for the simple fact that Hollis was basically a spot up shooter in G'Town's offense.


In fact, I would argue that someone like Harrison Barnes' numbers would be greatly depressed in JT3's version of the Princeton as well.

He averaged almost 6 reb a game… That’s good production for a SF plus everybody on that Gtown team was a good rebounder 1-5.. Heck Otto Porter led them in rebounding at 6.7 and he came off the bench for most of the season, and even their PG averaged 4 boards a game.

Hollis is a good rebounder for his position..

[yaboynyp]

Hollis Thompson averaged 1.9 assists per 40 minutes. As a 6'8" SF, he didn't rebound well or get to the line much. I don't think these are matters of "style." A.

It's very hard for me to judge the lack of rebounding or getting to the line for the simple fact that Hollis was basically a spot up shooter in G'Town's offense.


In fact, I would argue that someone like Harrison Barnes' numbers would be greatly depressed in JT3's version of the Princeton as well.

He averaged almost 6 reb a game… That’s good production for a SF plus everybody on that Gtown team was a good rebounder 1-5.. Heck Otto Porter led them in rebounding at 6.7 and he came off the bench for most of the season, and even their PG averaged 4 boards a game.

Hollis is a good rebounder for his position..