2012 NBA Draft - Part V

[TGW]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhjCNr4EtlQ

Tell me this doesn't creep you guys out (LOL I know, but I can't resist).

I think they're going to be saying the exact same thing about Beal come draft night. How he impressed during workouts, how he's a high character guy, etc. I have no problem with that. I am concerned that his numbers weren't great his freshman year -- it seems as though he's getting alot of credit for being somewhat mediocre this past year. If he's our pick, I would be a bit worried.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

[snip]
Also, there were 38 PFs in the NBA with a PER of 15 or better. There were 23 SGs (and 18 SFs). In fact, PF is the position with the most 15+ PER players in the league. So it's much easier to find a good PF than it is to find a good SG (or SF).

Regarding Booker and Seraphin, both are still developing, 2nd year players.

Among NBA PFs, Seraphin was 34th and Booker 36th in PER (both of which were major improvements over their rookie years). It's not a stretch to imagine that they'll further improve this season.

If you rate Seraphin among centers, his ranking rises to 24th.

when I read this, my first thought is that maybe PER isn't that valuable when
comparing players at different positions, that it values the stats that PFs
produce more than what SF/SGs do. Alternatively, PER may be saying that
PFs ARE more important than SF/SGs.

Also if PER is adjusted so that league average = 15, if you have the same number
of PFs as SFs or SGs, you should have about the same number of players above and
below that figure...assuming league average is median, not the arithmetic mean.

or maybe I am totally not getting what PER is trying to describe and how it is designed
to do that.

PER doesn't adjust for position -- bad, because bigs almost always shoot a higher % and rebound more, and those are the most important numbers in determining PER. It's only really useful in looking at a bunch of guys who play the same position.

PER has one other fault that damns it for me: the way it values scoring, if a player shoots over 40% then the more shots he takes the higher his PER. Hence it inflates scores for guys who shoot a lot.

WS40 is a better overall compilation of box score stats. Again, however, it doesn't adjust for position, so it's only useful to compare guys at a single spot.

I feel the same way about WS/48 for NBA players, payitforward. Other stats I like are nerd numbers, Wins Produced and Points over Par, used by the stat geeks at Wages of Win.

http://www.nerdnumbers.com/splits?team= ... F30%2F2012

[dcPress]

Psst - You guys keep talking up Beal, and he likely won't be there at #3.

I think Drummond is worthy of consideration; he's big and tall, so what if his intangibles have a few warts. I'm sure he's not going to be another Kwame Brown. Plus, Drummond has used his year of higher learning to showcase his skills.

And MKG is a great jack-of-all trades, high energy guy. While you normally don't blow a #3 pick on a guy that hasn't proven he can shoot, this might be the case that proves all the statheads incorrect. Remember, it only takes one.

And then there's always TRob, who will vacuum up all those rebounds once they get below the rim.


This is a deep draft, indeed.

[Nivek]

PER has one other fault that damns it for me: the way it values scoring, if a player shoots over 40% then the more shots he takes the higher his PER. Hence it inflates scores for guys who shoot a lot.

WS40 is a better overall compilation of box score stats. Again, however, it doesn't adjust for position, so it's only useful to compare guys at a single spot.

PER is actually worse than that for how it values shooting. I forget the number right now, but a player can improve his PER by shooting more frequently if his percentage is something around 27-28%. Wins Produced is an improvement (when it comes to how it handles efficiency), but goes too far the other way -- a player contributes in WP with his shooting only when he's better than 50%. My system (naturally) gets it right -- the line is about 41-42%. That is to say, a player helps his team (on average) when he shoots better than 41-42% (it fluctuates a bit from year to year, but that's where it is nowadays). I posted the math somewhere on the boards, but my search-fu is not strong. Maybe one of the archivists can dig it up.

[sfam]

You might be right with Beal being more likely to reach EG's potential. But apart from Davis and Robinson, every other prospect in the draft is being judged on potential. Drummond has two things you can't coach, length and elite athleticism at his position. In short, I think he's more likely to be a superstar than Beal. I also add guys like Barnes and the Joneses (if they play SF) to that.

Greetings, and welome to the board!

Drummond may have a higher upside, but he also has clear bust potential. Beal may be an all-star, or might only be a productive, perhaps above average starter. But nobody is thinking he'll be a bust. This is really the difference in the two - for the #3 pick, Drummond may have too much risk.

[WizarDynasty]

well comparing EG to BB is a huge no no athletically. EG has an extremely short standing reach for a guard, same as BB but EGordon absolutely blows away BB athletically 3/4 sprint time is 3.01 vs 3.28(exceptionally slow) and has excellent Bulk for a shooing guard over 221--finishes vs (BB weighing on 200 nofinish good). Not only is BB slowed compare to EG with a sprint time of 3.28 which is what is slow for a small forward...but BB actually carried less bulk on his body only weighing 200lbs and even weighing 20lbs less than EG still couldn't touch his sprint score. EG also had agility scores of 10.45 which is close to Dwade while BB is decent but nothing boastful. that to me is a huge problem. Jharden also has a bulk of 222 and still was quicker than the 200lb BB in 3/4 sprint while putting up reps of 17 and sprint time of 3.13. Beal is SLOW compared to these two comparison of Jhard and EG, he is also weaker than both putting up bench presses of 8 while Hard and EG put up plus 15 bench presses. .
I think Leonsis is looking to add potential superstars this draft as opposed to role players. I think Leonsis believes that the wizards without a draft pick will be in contention for a playoff spot next year. I don't think he is going to choose a player who fits as a decent role player over a player with superstar potential that is likely to be realized with the perfect but running out time Nene. Barnes is the third choice if both AD's are gone and he has guaranteed allstar potential and matches up physically with hall of fame players physically with a high BBIQ.
I think the discussion should turn to how Leonsis can get us a mid 1st pick and grab the remaining superstar Royce White who i believe already has a promise late in draft and it will be up to us to get the bargain of the decade. We are about to see the equivalent of DWade slip to pick 20 and with leonsis business acumen, we should be able to still Royce White from whomever made him a promise.

[Nivek]

Harrison Barnes' combine scores are actually troubling to me. He's a little smaller than the average NBA SF, but he measured strong, quick and a good leaper. Sooooo, it begs the question: if he's such a great athlete and his skills are so good, why didn't he dominate in the NCAA? Why'd he have trouble getting to the basket? Why'd he have trouble finishing when he got there?

I'll have much more to say in a couple weeks when I have time to digest all the new info. Meetings all week, and then I'm out of town and won't have a chance to do much on this until after I get back.

[closg00]

I like this kid. I see no way he ends up in a Wizards uniform, but Terrence Jones looks as if he can play SF and not be bad at all. He's quicker than I thought. I believe he could be better in the NBA than he was in college because he's pretty good on both sides of the court.

Pretty impressive workout video, but I know that looks can be deceiving.




In the NCAA highlight video (below) Terrence Jones shows that he can hit the open midrange shot and he can at least advance the ball up the court with his dribble. At 3:00 and at 3:50 Jones shows he's got some serious ups with the ability to finish in traffic. He is a very impressive finisher and a power dunker on a par with


He reminds me of a bigger, young Antawn Jamison on offense. Jones will score well in the NBA. Defensively, he should be pretty solid against 3s or 4s.

Watching the finals he won me over. He will find a place in the league. Very solid guy. I would take him on my team. Smooth stroke. If he can play the 3 there would be room for him on the Wiz. He has kind of a shorter Boshness to him.

+1 on Jones, he won me over during the NCAA's as-well, love his versatility. A more physical AJ is a good comparison.

[theboomking]

Harrison Barnes' combine scores are actually troubling to me. He's a little smaller than the average NBA SF, but he measured strong, quick and a good leaper. Sooooo, it begs the question: if he's such a great athlete and his skills are so good, why didn't he dominate in the NCAA? Why'd he have trouble getting to the basket? Why'd he have trouble finishing when he got there?

I'll have much more to say in a couple weeks when I have time to digest all the new info. Meetings all week, and then I'm out of town and won't have a chance to do much on this until after I get back.

Barnes is a slow twitch athlete. If you could measure 1st and 2nd steps, Barnes would post very unimpressive numbers. Secondarily, he is rather stiff, and lacks fluid hips. He's much more Ron Dayne than Barry Sanders. I do think however that the improved spacing in the NBA will help Barnes a bit, that he can defend at his position, and that he has much more of a post game than was showcased in college. Not a value at 3, but somewhere between 4 and 8, I don't think he is a bad choice.

[verbal8]

Drafting Drummond would be like getting a new credit card and maxing it out right after you've worked so hard to pull yourself out of bankruptcy. It's a terrible idea right? Yeah, but your maxing out your card because you've got this great business model that just needs some funding to get it off the ground. You could potentially make a ton of money. It just needs your know how and TLC. But if it doesn't work (and it might not work), you would wreck your situation again and you'd be starting over from scratch in a short amount of time.

I like the analogy. I think I am going to try to do it for the rest of the early draft.

Davis - like a new employee investing in a ROTH 401k/IRA. Not 100% guaranteed to work out, but really the best fit for your investment needs.

MKG - growth stock investing. Has a lot of "potential", but not likely to pay-off right away.

Thomas Robinson - savings account. Should be productive, but seems to have a low ceiling for someone so early in the draft. I don't really see a bust, but I see more of a Joe Smith situation.

Beal - investing in Apple. Should be productive early in his career, with some room to grow.

Drummond - can't beat Dat's analogy.

Sullinger - dividend stock. Not a sexy pick, but he should be productive. Less athletic than Robinson, but seems more likely to develop a solid mid-range game(better FT%, signs of decent 3 point shooting).

Harrison Barnes - Facebook IPO. Far more style than substance, but an tiny chance of being the next Google(Durant).

PJ3 - LinkedIn. In the early lotto way overpriced, however at a low enough price might be worth rolling the dice. If he falls to the Mavs(Draft Express has him at 17), he really could be something, although likely mostly in D-League this season.

[Ruzious]

I like this kid. I see no way he ends up in a Wizards uniform, but Terrence Jones looks as if he can play SF and not be bad at all. He's quicker than I thought. I believe he could be better in the NBA than he was in college because he's pretty good on both sides of the court.

Pretty impressive workout video, but I know that looks can be deceiving.




In the NCAA highlight video (below) Terrence Jones shows that he can hit the open midrange shot and he can at least advance the ball up the court with his dribble. At 3:00 and at 3:50 Jones shows he's got some serious ups with the ability to finish in traffic. He is a very impressive finisher and a power dunker on a par with


He reminds me of a bigger, young Antawn Jamison on offense. Jones will score well in the NBA. Defensively, he should be pretty solid against 3s or 4s.

Watching the finals he won me over. He will find a place in the league. Very solid guy. I would take him on my team. Smooth stroke. If he can play the 3 there would be room for him on the Wiz. He has kind of a shorter Boshness to him.

+1 on Jones, he won me over during the NCAA's as-well, love his versatility. A more physical AJ is a good comparison.

I've always liked Terrence Jones, but... that video shows a lot of problems with his jump shot. He's got an awfully long windup - taking the ball behind his head - and it takes an awfully long time for him to release the shot. And still, his shot is a lot better than MKG's. Jones will be a scorer. The question is - will he be an efficient scorer, or will he be the second coming of Al Harrington?

[payitforward]

PER doesn't adjust for position -- bad, because bigs almost always shoot a higher % and rebound more, and those are the most important numbers in determining PER. It's only really useful in looking at a bunch of guys who play the same position.

PER has one other fault that damns it for me: the way it values scoring, if a player shoots over 40% then the more shots he takes the higher his PER. Hence it inflates scores for guys who shoot a lot.

WS40 is a better overall compilation of box score stats. Again, however, it doesn't adjust for position, so it's only useful to compare guys at a single spot.

I feel the same way about WS/48 for NBA players, payitforward. Other stats I like are nerd numbers, Wins Produced and Points over Par, used by the stat geeks at Wages of Win.

http://www.nerdnumbers.com/splits?team= ... F30%2F2012

Yes, if you are looking for *a single number* the WoW gang has done the best job of providing that number. It's very useful. Let it be said that pretty often they go on ask it to do a job it can't do -- it's a statistical tool, not a lens through which you can take a conclusive look at one player.

Still it's the most useful direction of statistical analysis out there.

[payitforward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhjCNr4EtlQ

Tell me this doesn't creep you guys out (LOL I know, but I can't resist).

I think they're going to be saying the exact same thing about Beal come draft night. How he impressed during workouts, how he's a high character guy, etc. I have no problem with that. I am concerned that his numbers weren't great his freshman year -- it seems as though he's getting alot of credit for being somewhat mediocre this past year. If he's our pick, I would be a bit worried.

Beal's numbers *were* great this year. His WS40 was 9.7. He didn't shoot all that well beginning of the year, but he shot extremely well the last 1/3 of the year. I don't see any questions about this guy, to tell the truth. He's going to be very good. How good? No one can say -- but very good.

[payitforward]

PER has one other fault that damns it for me: the way it values scoring, if a player shoots over 40% then the more shots he takes the higher his PER. Hence it inflates scores for guys who shoot a lot.

WS40 is a better overall compilation of box score stats. Again, however, it doesn't adjust for position, so it's only useful to compare guys at a single spot.

PER is actually worse than that for how it values shooting. I forget the number right now, but a player can improve his PER by shooting more frequently if his percentage is something around 27-28%. Wins Produced is an improvement (when it comes to how it handles efficiency), but goes too far the other way -- a player contributes in WP with his shooting only when he's better than 50%. My system (naturally) gets it right -- the line is about 41-42%. That is to say, a player helps his team (on average) when he shoots better than 41-42% (it fluctuates a bit from year to year, but that's where it is nowadays). I posted the math somewhere on the boards, but my search-fu is not strong. Maybe one of the archivists can dig it up.

Love to see it, and I hope there can be a pointer (or tell me how to search for it). Thing is about wp48 -- it correlates higher to wins and losses better than anything else. I understand that you'll claim your system correlates better, but no one has looked at significant numbers.

[jangles86]

I get the feelin that if we draft Drummond John Wall might get a bit cranky. Another big project center.


Drafting beal or Robinson or mkgay make us better early on but what the use? We're not challenging? Drummond is the only player outside of Davis that could make us a contender one day. I would not be upset if we chose him.

[closg00]

Robinson has bigger hands, a much bigger wingspan, and better basketball skills. But your overall point is valid. Robinson appears to be merely a modest upgrade over Booker. Drafting him really only makes sense if we manage to also move Booker for a decent wing.

This^ could also be justification for taking Robinson as-well. A slightly taller "Booker" with added rebounding (desperately needed) and better offense is nothing to look-past. Robinson plays with fire and passion just like Booker. If our draft-night ends with:

Robinson
Booker for a SF
SG @ pick 32

This would be a nice night for us.

TRob:

“I’m ready to start playing. I’m literally tired of everything. I want to get my name called and to start the season.”

[hands11]

Drafting Drummond would be like getting a new credit card and maxing it out right after you've worked so hard to pull yourself out of bankruptcy. It's a terrible idea right? Yeah, but your maxing out your card because you've got this great business model that just needs some funding to get it off the ground. You could potentially make a ton of money. It just needs your know how and TLC. But if it doesn't work (and it might not work), you would wreck your situation again and you'd be starting over from scratch in a short amount of time.

I like the analogy. I think I am going to try to do it for the rest of the early draft.

Davis - like a new employee investing in a ROTH 401k/IRA. Not 100% guaranteed to work out, but really the best fit for your investment needs.

MKG - growth stock investing. Has a lot of "potential", but not likely to pay-off right away.

Thomas Robinson - savings account. Should be productive, but seems to have a low ceiling for someone so early in the draft. I don't really see a bust, but I see more of a Joe Smith situation.

Beal - investing in Apple. Should be productive early in his career, with some room to grow.

Drummond - can't beat Dat's analogy.

Sullinger - dividend stock. Not a sexy pick, but he should be productive. Less athletic than Robinson, but seems more likely to develop a solid mid-range game(better FT%, signs of decent 3 point shooting).

Harrison Barnes - Facebook IPO. Far more style than substance, but an tiny chance of being the next Google(Durant).

PJ3 - LinkedIn. In the early lotto way overpriced, however at a low enough price might be worth rolling the dice. If he falls to the Mavs(Draft Express has him at 17), he really could be something, although likely mostly in D-League this season.

Off all those investment, you go with Apple. You would be a rich man if you bought it at 8 per share.

[nate33]

EG also had agility scores of 10.45 which is close to Dwade while BB is decent but nothing boastful. that to me is a huge problem.

Eric Gordon's agility score was 10.81, which is only .14 seconds faster than Beal. For all intents and purposes, they were equal. Beal beat Harden on the lane agility test.

Beal is damn near equal to John Wall across the board in all athletic tests. I'm not worried about his athleticism.

[nate33]

Sullinger - dividend stock. Not a sexy pick, but he should be productive. Less athletic than Robinson, but seems more likely to develop a solid mid-range game(better FT%, signs of decent 3 point shooting).

I can't agree with this. The measurements say Sullinger is a sure bust. There hasn't been a single successful NBA player who is as slow and as short as Sullinger. See my earlier post:

viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1186029&start=315#p32164193

[closg00]

I've always liked Terrence Jones, but... that video shows a lot of problems with his jump shot. He's got an awfully long windup - taking the ball behind his head - and it takes an awfully long time for him to release the shot. And still, his shot is a lot better than MKG's. Jones will be a scorer. The question is - will he be an efficient scorer, or will he be the second coming of Al Harrington?

Noticed this during the NCAA's, if he can speed-up that shot, great!! I would think that he will adjust. Jones looks ready to play.