2012 NBA Draft - Part V

[fishercob]

We need to shoot for the moon with our pick on whoever might be a superstar. And then somehow grab another pick and take Ross. Beal isn't Wade. And Beal can't be traded for a star. A failed number three big (or MKG) might get us a star in two years (when packaged with draft picks and expiring contracts. Remember the trades offered for a failed Kwame Brown in the early years? I don't want to be Harden and Westbrook without Durrant.

Ye of short memory. Eric Gordon just got traded with a late lotto pick, a marginal prospect and an expiring contract for the best point guard in the world.

Javale McGee, for all his athleticism, upside, and shoot-the-moon qualities just netted us a very good but not great 29-year old with a big contract.

Even if we have an eye towards consolidating assets down the road, we should be picking the guys with the best chance of success. Give me the guy with very good chance of being very good over the guy who has a remote chance of being great any day of the week. Or to quantify it a bit, let's say Beal has an 80% chance of being an "80" on a 100 scale (.80 x 80 = 64). Drummond has a 25% chance (generous) of being a "95" (.25 x 95 = 23.8). Beal in a landslide.

[hands11]

Lets get focused here. What the Wizards most need is range shooting from a SG who can rebound and defend.

They went 3 and D with Singleton SF. His outside shot will look better this year. 6-8 230
They went athletic big with all the intangibles BBIQ, energy in Ves 6-11 240
They have a athletic post power and post hook game in KS. And he has a mid range game. Butter.
Booker is a strong athletic 6-8 fast, leaping, tough guy who can do a little of everything. Remember, Booker added a decent outside shot last year. He had none the year before.
Wall is the athletic PG who can run, pass and drive and run the offense. Just needs to add range and he will. He had moments last year. He need to get consistent now.
Nene is the PF/C who can score, bang, and box out. He should be good for 3 years.

They have two primary scorer in Wall and Nene. I'm not sold on this Nene injury thing. He missed like 10 games in three years before last year.
Crawford is a SG who can drive and also makes some really nice passes. Just need a better outside shot and shot selection. Which he will improve on now that the team is adding structure and accountability.

The team has two primary players and lots of pieces. What they most lacked is someone like Beal.

Beal would be perfect. Sweet shot. Rebounds. Defense. Athletic. Jumps. Super mature for 18. His personality will fit right in with this team. And he seems very coachable.

The Wizards need to keep a high level of team defense but they need to spread the floor on offense. Someone need to be able to reliably catch and shoot it from outside as a guard as other role players improve their range. They lost Nick. He was their only player who could get hot and stroke it. But Nick was an idiot and he did little else. Well they got a little of that from Mason also but he is getting up there in age. They need a replacement at SG.

Beal is the perfect Nick replacement/upgrade.

Wall, Beal and Nene is a solid core of offense to which you can add all those other players. KS baby hooks. CS 3 and D, etc. Wall will hit him open. Nene will play inside out with him. Ves will find him because Ves sees the court and passes well. They can find a a defending ball handling SF later.

And I think it won't take Beal long to start hitting spot up Js in the NBA. The rest of his game may take a year but he can help right away. And he will help Crawford get better. He can help him with is outside shooting form. If Crawford could fix that, he is nothing to sneeze at. They can even bring back Mason to add insurance for range shooting. Once the team settled in, Mason got it going from outside. He is the vet guard they need on the cheap for a few more years.

I could live with

Wall, Craw, C Singleton, Nene, Ves
Mack, Beal, J Singleton, Booker, Keven

Each line up has a box out guy and a rebounder. Ves will be cleaning up more boards this year. He ended the year much better at this. Each has two primary scorers. Each has a SF who can defend and hit from outside. They just don't have a SF with handles. That is ok for now.

Bench Mason and whoever they get in the 2nd. Someone at SF would be good. And another long big to replace Dray's height/size once they move him. And a sparky PG.

Eventually Beal would replace Crawford as the starter so Crawford can go off with the second unit as a primary scorer and let Wall set up Beal and Nene as starters.

Beal is a perfect fit for replacing what they need since they lost Nick and he doesn't upset the apple cart. They have several young players they still need to play and see what they can do before deciding on moving in another direction.

Look, very few teams are good enough to win it all. Right now you would have to be better then OKC, Miami, and SA. There is a long way to go to get to that level. First you have to get good. I would be happy with a team who is able to get out of the first round right now. That would make for an entertaining season and a lot more win. Much more entertaining. And that is why I watch. To be entertained. I could live with a second round team for a few years. They can figure the rest out from there. And if they have cap space, they will be able to add players later. They have a ton of rookie contracts right now. Keep the powder dry and their time will come.

[sfam]

Wow, I take a trip to Almaty (Kazakhstan - no, it doesn't look much like it did in Borat, btw - actually saw a Bentley a few minutes ago), and the board did like 10 pages from the time I went in the air to landing. Just checked in a few hours ago, and its already gone a few more pages.

And yeah, LOVE Beal's hops. I totally want him at #3.

[fishercob]

An absolute must read from DraftExpress: NBA Combine Athletic Testing Analysis

DX does a really nice job analyzing both the draft prospects and the overall process itself. While Chad Ford is the much better source for insights on what NBA teams are thinking (and I think his mocks are usually more accurate), Givony and DX are much more thorough overall.

Some key stuff in the intro:

Trying to pinpoint a player's athleticism based on their combine testing is akin to trying to get a feel for their basketball IQ by watching them play one-on-zero –it simply doesn't make all that much sense. It does help us get a very general idea of where a player is at in terms of physical conditioning and strength, which often speaks to their work ethic, but rarely sheds much light on what it really aims to portray.

Unlike the NFL combine, all parties involved realize that few people put much stock in these results. Players aren't trained in running 40-yard dashes from their days in high school like most gridiron stars and simply aren't well versed in many of these tests. Raw athletic data can be useful in a football setting where certain properties manifest themselves more completely on the field, but for the NBA's purposes, a player's lane agility time ultimately means very little.

In basketball, where anticipation and coordination play major roles in how players perform on the court, combine numbers will always take a back seat to how a player uses the tools it aims to measure in actual games. Scouts have done their homework, they have a good feel for who the fastest players in the draft are, and know which athletes are the most explosive as it related to what they offer in game-settings. The combine only provides them with a standardized metric for particular athletic traits that often fail to live up to and remain consistent with what they already know.

It's all a good reminder that, by and large, this "data" should be taken with a grain of salt. It's far, far less meaningful that stats and scouting to understand what a guy can actually do.

[AWIZZINGBULLET]

Hello fellow Bullets/Wizards fan, I just wanted to introduce myself. I've been a long time stalker on this board, but have always been too chicken to make an account (it gets intense on here sometimes lol). I just want to go straight to the point of our 3rd pick in the draft. I know the majority on here prefer Beal, but I do not agree. i know we've been bad for a while now and Beal looks like a great fit on our roster. However, ask yourselves this question: will you take Dwight Howard over Eric Gordon? I vote Andre Drummond. He's a once every five years type of big man and you just can't pass on him. As a fan, we need a legit bigman, 3pt shooting can be added via FA...Rush, Lee, etc. Also, how come we give Beal a pass for underwhelming in college, because of his age, and not Drummond? Anyway, this is just my opinion. What do y'all think?

Well given all the physical attributes Drummond receives praise for possessing---and yes he's a physical specimen (crazy power speed combination)--- where was his dominance at UConn? Jeremy Lamb was the leading scorer, followed by another guy, followed by another guy, followed by Drummond who averaged 10.0 ppg on a bad team that had a stretch of going 5-11 after starting 12-1. He had all the opportunity to stand out. I haven't watched a great deal of him, but just looking at what's on the surface, his stats suggests he's not much more than a freakish athlete of a big man who lacks the intagibles that make players great. Beal on the other hand played for a better team and was second in scoring on a team that had five players average 10.0 or more points per game.

Lastly, Drummond is no Dwight Howard.

[Mizerooskie]

As the season was progressing, I could buy into the instability and ball-dominant guards hurting Drummond's production. It seemed reasonable that a freshman might have issues putting himself into situations to be productive without stable coaching.

Then I watched the Louisville game. Complete disinterest. No motor. No toughness or heart. He was utterly dominated by Gorgui Dieng--hardly the most polished or dominant player in college basketball.

I was even willing to give him another chance, thinking maybe that was just one bad game. Then, there was a similar effort against Marquette, and against West Virginia, and against Iowa State (in the tournament).

The guy has Javale's head for the game and Blatche's motor and toughness.

Stay away. Far away.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

An absolute must read from DraftExpress: NBA Combine Athletic Testing Analysis

DX does a really nice job analyzing both the draft prospects and the overall process itself. While Chad Ford is the much better source for insights on what NBA teams are thinking (and I think his mocks are usually more accurate), Givony and DX are much more thorough overall.

Some key stuff in the intro:

Trying to pinpoint a player's athleticism based on their combine testing is akin to trying to get a feel for their basketball IQ by watching them play one-on-zero –it simply doesn't make all that much sense. It does help us get a very general idea of where a player is at in terms of physical conditioning and strength, which often speaks to their work ethic, but rarely sheds much light on what it really aims to portray.

Unlike the NFL combine, all parties involved realize that few people put much stock in these results. Players aren't trained in running 40-yard dashes from their days in high school like most gridiron stars and simply aren't well versed in many of these tests. Raw athletic data can be useful in a football setting where certain properties manifest themselves more completely on the field, but for the NBA's purposes, a player's lane agility time ultimately means very little.

In basketball, where anticipation and coordination play major roles in how players perform on the court, combine numbers will always take a back seat to how a player uses the tools it aims to measure in actual games. Scouts have done their homework, they have a good feel for who the fastest players in the draft are, and know which athletes are the most explosive as it related to what they offer in game-settings. The combine only provides them with a standardized metric for particular athletic traits that often fail to live up to and remain consistent with what they already know.

It's all a good reminder that, by and large, this "data" should be taken with a grain of salt. It's far, far less meaningful that stats and scouting to understand what a guy can actually do.

Thanks for posting this, fish.

I remember Boozer's bench press and his weight and what is cost him on draft day. (Recall, Boozer had some good years early in his career). IIRC Faried did not set the world on fire with his bench press and his height really cost him. I don't give a rip about the lane agility scores or the standing reach. When Crowder's height and reach as measured by two different combine personnel can vary greatly within two weeks, it points out the futility of placing much stock in the results. Will Bynum isn't that slow. According to lane agility, he and Jared Sullinger rate somewhere between "turtle" and "sloth". Harrison Barnes has an extremely impressive no step vertical, but then again, so does "Air Up There" and some guys with "And 1". I remember a guy who played for USC and in the NBA named Jeff Trepagnier. He could high jump 7 feet and was a monster of an athlete. He just wasn't much of a player skill wise.

To each his own, but I am not enamored with the combine numbers other than to conclude what fisher just posted. They can point to work ethic. Occasionally, a guy like DeJuan Blair can do the seemingly impossible and lose 40 or 50 pounds. Jordan Williams seriously toned up and it helped his game his rookie year.

I go by stats more because they show proficiency. One thing I do have to concede, however, is there is such a jump in athleticism from the NCAA to the NBA that how one fares in making the transition is really tricky to predict. Either a player has to either have a knack for creating separation to get their shot off or they do need freakish size/speed/quicks to get the job done. Stats alone cannot predict who will be good, but rebounding does seem to carry over fairly well from college to pros.

[payitforward]

We seem to be running out of things to talk about, so I have a project to suggest that would solve the problem.

I think we should petition the NBA to add a 3d round to the draft. No, seriously -- think of how much speculation we could do here if there were another round! Think about what could define a good round 3 prospect. All those guys who dominated at podunk colleges. Guys with a standing reach (any standing reach).

We could even have a 3d kind of guard -- after all, why stop at 2? I think the new category should be the "pointless guard" -- though, come to think of it, that may not really be a new category. Don't we already have one of those?

What do you say? Can I get some support for this idea?

[AWIZZINGBULLET]

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.

His ballhandling skills aren't the strongest and he's not a freak of an athlete. Solid offensively and underrated defensively.

[TGW]

Andre Drummond = Michael Olowakandi.

Except Olowokandi had better measurables easily. MO actually measured 2 inches taller than Drummond w/o socks, and had a higher vertical by 2 inches.

Anyone who drafts that kid is going to be disappointed. He doesn't have the will to dominate.

[AWIZZINGBULLET]

As the season was progressing, I could buy into the instability and ball-dominant guards hurting Drummond's production. It seemed reasonable that a freshman might have issues putting himself into situations to be productive without stable coaching.

Then I watched the Louisville game. Complete disinterest. No motor. No toughness or heart. He was utterly dominated by Gorgui Dieng--hardly the most polished or dominant player in college basketball.

I was even willing to give him another chance, thinking maybe that was just one bad game. Then, there was a similar effort against Marquette, and against West Virginia, and against Iowa State (in the tournament).

The guy has Javale's head for the game and Blatche's motor and toughness.

Stay away. Far away.

Coaching or no coaching you'll always see the competitive nature and desire of a player who is about being great at what he does.

[Zonkerbl]

Yeah, basketball is a combination of athletic skill and basketball-specific coordination (as opposed to say, hitting a ball with a bat coordination).

It's good to have apples to apples height and reach and vertical reach measurements. Precisely the reason this thread is so long is we want to know if it's true that Beal is short -- he isn't. We also want to know if his leaping ability can make up for him being a little short -- looks like it can.

It's good to know if someone with a good reputation for defense has good lateral quickness -- that means success at the college level is likely to translate to the pros.

Not particularly interested in Sullinger's lane agility test - that's not his game, although it confirms that he will struggle on defense at the pro level.

This data can answer some specific questions about players for us, the fans. Pro folks already can tell that Beal's leaping ability makes up for any lack of height, and etc.

[Higga]

Andre Drummond = Michael Olowakandi.

Except Olowokandi had better measurables easily. MO actually measured 2 inches taller than Drummond w/o socks, and had a higher vertical by 2 inches.

Anyone who drafts that kid is going to be disappointed. He doesn't have the will to dominate.

Agreed. Drummond will be the big bust of this draft like Hasim Thabeet a couple years back.

[AWIZZINGBULLET]

Yeah, basketball is a combination of athletic skill and basketball-specific coordination (as opposed to say, hitting a ball with a bat coordination).

It's good to have apples to apples height and reach and vertical reach measurements. Precisely the reason this thread is so long is we want to know if it's true that Beal is short -- he isn't. We also want to know if his leaping ability can make up for him being a little short -- looks like it can.

It's good to know if someone with a good reputation for defense has good lateral quickness -- that means success at the college level is likely to translate to the pros.

Not particularly interested in Sullinger's lane agility test - that's not his game, although it confirms that he will struggle on defense at the pro level.

This data can answer some specific questions about players for us, the fans. Pro folks already can tell that Beal's leaping ability makes up for any lack of height, and etc.

It almost feels like one guy made an issue of Beal's height and then everyone else decided to join the party. Was Gilbert Arenas the ideal size of a SG? I don't think so. With that being said, Beal > Arenas. I hope the Wizards can get him.

[nate33]

This came up in a discussion between myself and Wizardynasty on the trade thread, but I thought it was worth repeating here.

I've put the measurements onto a spreadsheet and weeded out all of the guys who weren't drafted. That leaves me with a list of roughly 500 guys over the past decade with full measurements data, plus another 250 or so guys from the past two decades with partial data.

I was looking at some of the athletic testing results and noticed some odd groupings based on the year the tests were made. Specifically, 2008 was an extremely odd year with the full court sprint. Of 492 total players who participated in the full court sprint, 3 of the top 4 game from the 2008 class, as well as the 8th (Sonny Weems, Joe Alexander, Eric Gordon and Derrick Rose). That doesn't seem statistically likely. Likewise, only two players from the 2012 (Denmon and Barnes) scored in the top 100 (they ranked 76th and 88th respectively). That also doesn't seem likely.

The same thing happens in the lane agility. Out of 489 players, the 1st, 2nd, 7th and 11th rankings all came out of the 2011 class. Meanwhile, the 2010 class is suspiciously underrepresented, with John Wall showing up as the first name on the list, ranking 71st. Call me crazy, but my guess is that John Wall's lane agility is better than Carlos Boozer's.

My guess is that there are significant deviations in testing procedure each year, that makes some of these year-to-year comparisons less than perfect. This year, we are seeing it in suspiciously low standing reaches

[TheKingOfVa360]

Yeah, basketball is a combination of athletic skill and basketball-specific coordination (as opposed to say, hitting a ball with a bat coordination).

It's good to have apples to apples height and reach and vertical reach measurements. Precisely the reason this thread is so long is we want to know if it's true that Beal is short -- he isn't. We also want to know if his leaping ability can make up for him being a little short -- looks like it can.

It's good to know if someone with a good reputation for defense has good lateral quickness -- that means success at the college level is likely to translate to the pros.

Not particularly interested in Sullinger's lane agility test - that's not his game, although it confirms that he will struggle on defense at the pro level.

This data can answer some specific questions about players for us, the fans. Pro folks already can tell that Beal's leaping ability makes up for any lack of height, and etc.

It almost feels like one guy made an issue of Beal's height and then everyone else decided to join the party. Was Gilbert Arenas the ideal size of a SG? I don't think so. With that being said, Beal > Arenas. I hope the Wizards can get him.

Arenas was a PG and I doubt Beal will ever have an season or two where he averages over 28 ppg. But Beal is the pick, let's stop over thinking. Drummond has a high bust potential and MKG is a bad fit because of his lack of shooting

[jivelikenice]

Yeah, basketball is a combination of athletic skill and basketball-specific coordination (as opposed to say, hitting a ball with a bat coordination).

It's good to have apples to apples height and reach and vertical reach measurements. Precisely the reason this thread is so long is we want to know if it's true that Beal is short -- he isn't. We also want to know if his leaping ability can make up for him being a little short -- looks like it can.

It's good to know if someone with a good reputation for defense has good lateral quickness -- that means success at the college level is likely to translate to the pros.

Not particularly interested in Sullinger's lane agility test - that's not his game, although it confirms that he will struggle on defense at the pro level.

This data can answer some specific questions about players for us, the fans. Pro folks already can tell that Beal's leaping ability makes up for any lack of height, and etc.

It almost feels like one guy made an issue of Beal's height and then everyone else decided to join the party. Was Gilbert Arenas the ideal size of a SG? I don't think so. With that being said, Beal > Arenas. I hope the Wizards can get him.

Arenas was a PG and I doubt Beal will ever have an season or two where he averages over 28 ppg. But Beal is the pick, let's stop over thinking. Drummond has a high bust potential and MKG is a bad fit because of his lack of shooting

I agree that the Arenas comp is way off. Beal is not a pg and doesn't have Gil's ability to get to the basket and create his own shot. You don't have Robinson in the equation?

[fishercob]

This came up in a discussion between myself and Wizardynasty on the trade thread, but I thought it was worth repeating here.

I've put the measurements onto a spreadsheet and weeded out all of the guys who weren't drafted. That leaves me with a list of roughly 500 guys over the past decade with full measurements data, plus another 250 or so guys from the past two decades with partial data.

I was looking at some of the athletic testing results and noticed some odd groupings based on the year the tests were made. Specifically, 2008 was an extremely odd year with the full court sprint. Of 492 total players who participated in the full court sprint, 3 of the top 4 game from the 2008 class, as well as the 8th (Sonny Weems, Joe Alexander, Eric Gordon and Derrick Rose). That doesn't seem statistically likely. Likewise, only two players from the 2012 (Denmon and Barnes) scored in the top 100 (they ranked 76th and 88th respectively). That also doesn't seem likely.

The same thing happens in the lane agility. Out of 489 players, the 1st, 2nd, 7th and 11th rankings all came out of the 2011 class. Meanwhile, the 2010 class is suspiciously underrepresented, with John Wall showing up as the first name on the list, ranking 71st. Call me crazy, but my guess is that John Wall's lane agility is better than Carlos Boozer's.

My guess is that there are significant deviations in testing procedure each year, that makes some of these year-to-year comparisons less than perfect. This year, we are seeing it in suspiciously low standing reaches

All the more reason to make no sweeping conclusions off any of the data.

[WizarDynasty]

there is only one player outside of AD that makes us contender if he is groomed
correctly and its not Beal.
For us to worry to much about what wall thinks when he isn't a difference maker on offense and an inefficient scorer and playmaker is absurd. Wall is not a dominant offensive player and we don't have one.
Our recent acquisition of Nene and his years of training in a winning culture and high basketball IQ is the only trump card we have in terms of transforming any player in this draft into not just an allstar but superstar. Nene is the one asset that the wizards have that nearly no early lotto team has and he completely allow us to evaluate players differently. To repeat, MKG and BEAL, even if they reach the highest possible ceilinig will not make us a deep playoff team and we aren't getting a player in free agency that will make us a contender. Wake up people. If you are aiming to be the philadelphia 76ers or atlanta hawks...then getting "safe" low ceiling guys who are average nba starters is your cup of Tea but most older posters here were disappointed with getting destroyed in round two by the cavaliers at the wizard peak and learned valuable lessons when it comes to team building. Superstar are the only thing that matter in the playoffs and if you built your team incorrectly, you will suffer.

[DaRealHibachi]

there is only one player outside of AD that makes us contender if he is groomed
correctly and its not Beal.
For us to worry to much about what wall thinks when he isn't a difference maker on offense and an inefficient scorer and playmaker is absurd. Wall is not a dominant offensive player and we don't have one.
Our recent acquisition of Nene and his years of training in a winning culture and high basketball IQ is the only trump card we have in terms of transforming any player in this draft into not just an allstar but superstar. Nene is the one asset that the wizards have that nearly no early lotto team has and he completely allow us to evaluate players differently. To repeat, MKG and BEAL, even if they reach the highest possible ceilinig will not make us a deep playoff team and we aren't getting a player in free agency that will make us a contender. Wake up people. If you are aiming to be the philadelphia 76ers or atlanta hawks...then getting "safe" low ceiling guys who are average nba starters is your cup of Tea but most older posters here were disappointed with getting destroyed in round two by the cavaliers at the wizard peak and learned valuable lessons when it comes to team building. Superstar are the only thing that matter in the playoffs and if you built your team incorrectly, you will suffer.

Funny how I read through this whole post twice and still haven't figured out who that player in the first sentence is...