Official 2013 Draft Thread - Part II

[SUPERBALLMAN]

Don't know who this announcer is but he just called Porter "The Ultimate Weapon" after a nice turnaround j!

[stevemcqueen1]

Porter is starting to roll.

[SUPERBALLMAN]

Dag Terps down 15.

Porter drops a 3 to bring Hoyas within 2!

[stevemcqueen1]

Really wanted to see Len play better than he did tonight. I don't think we learned anything at all from that game.

[SUPERBALLMAN]

Well Terps lost. Probably ends their chance for tourney bid.

Looks like Hoyas gonna lose too. May end their hopes for #1 seed. Porter has played good overall, but missed some needed shots down the stretch. Hey don't mind if he drops on the draft boards some.

[SUPERBALLMAN]

Really wanted to see Len play better than he did tonight. I don't think we learned anything at all from that game.

True. Feel the same. You can say the same thing about his entire college career.

[stevemcqueen1]

MD doesn't have a decent PG, but he makes their jobs so much harder because he's so soft at fighting for entry passes. Why pass to him if you know there's a good chance he'll simply let the opposition out-fight him for the ball? He's really lacking court awareness - unless the ball goes right to him. It's so frustrating, because he's go so much natural ability.

He also has a hard time establishing his position within the rhythm of the offense in time for you to get him the ball. It looked like McAdoo out-muscled him most of the game again.

Len is a huge project. Such great feet and length and good skills too but he definitely has an air of softness about him. He scares me as a draft pick. A difference between him and Valanciunas is Valanciunas was obviously scrappy and tough.

[pancakes3]

Regarding C's in the league and who we should draft...

The NBA isn't a copycat league, it's a matchup league. In the NFL you can copycat more because the coaching and schemes matter more, and a "recipe" for success is more easily replicated.

In the NBA, it's a player's league. When analysts say "it's all about matchups" it's not just a hollow platitude. You win with talent and it doesn't matter where it comes from. Shaq is out of the league but KG and Duncan are still keeping their teams in contention with their post work. Lebron is such a singular talent, there's just no way you could copy that success. The mavs won with a stretch 4 as their key cog while the Lakers won with Kobe and twin towers up front. Chicago is a 1-man show, OKC runs a 2 man game, and Rockets look to be setting up a 3 headed monster down in Houston. Every team is different and the only unifying thread is that they've got talent.

That would boil down to many people, if forced to rank via Dat's tiered system, has Noel as being the closest thing to a tier 1 prospect as it gets for this draft so screw the rest of the league, you need to grab Noel if you get the chance. To do otherwise would be out-thinking yourself (which GMs often do). Case in point, Bowie of Jordan, Darko over Melo, and Vesely over the field.

[nate33]

Here is the question thats easy to forget when looking at draft picks.

Are you drafting a starter on a good team?

Are you drafting a player who can eventually be a top 5-10 player at his position.

Is that a position that is core to a conference title team.

Can they contribute right away. I'm not wasting a top pick on a project.

Beal qualified as a great pick. SG Offense. Defense. Personality. He has it all.

But most years, while you can find players that look solid, most the draft is filled with back quality players on a 2nd round or conference title level team. So if you want filler quality back up, fine. Go for it.

The way I see the Wizards, they have Beal and Nene. I'm not counting Wall for lots of reasons that have been discussed in the Wall thread. Trevor A and Webster are top quality back up SF on a great team.

So for me, I want my top pick to have that start kind of potential. If not, don't over value the pick if it is 3 or 4th. Specially not as a #1 or 2.

In today game, I don't see the best teams with the centers as their best player. Certainly not young centers. You need a good defensive center first and for most part there are not many Shaq teams out there.

Great talent at SG, SF is more important and its gotta be a player that has a real feel for the game. Good handles. Great shot. Great D. PF is important also. Just look at the Wizard. Beal and Nene are what stabilize the team.

I honestly don't know enough about Noel to know his upside. Can he be elite top 3 in the league, if not, I wouldn't take him top 3.

If I have a top 3 pick, I'm going with Otto or Victor O. Victor O has the high ceiling and Otto has the low bust potential. 6-8 SF that plays team ball and can do it all. He will keep value and should get better year after year as he learns and gets stronger. Burke would be my 3rd choice as a top pick but in the 5-6 range but I would trade Wall in doing it and get another top pick.

I don't think I would use my first top 4 on Noel or Len. I think they both be good but I think the Wizard still need core stars and center isn't often that position any more in the NBA.

I go for one of those 3 and draft center later in the draft. Jeff Withey does everything the Wizard would need backing up Okafor.

I would even consider a trade for a top know NBA winning talent in a package. I wouldn't waste having Nene while we have him. Add one more known quality piece at SF and you could make some noise with Beal and Webster on the team.

That's one take, but I think you are overlooking two extremely important issues:
1. You win with good bigs, period.
2. Good bigs are never available outside of the top 7.

On Point 1: think about all of the top tier bigs: Aldridge, Griffin, Dirk, KG, Duncan, Howard, Noah, Horford, Love, Nene, Bosh. All those teams win, all the time. Portland has nobody on the roster but Aldridge, Batum and an undersized rookie PG yet they're a .500 team in the West. Atlanta has dreck at all positions except PF and C, but Horford and Smith carry them to 50 wins every year. Chicago wins even without Rose thanks to Noah. Yes, you can win without a big if you have a once-in-a-decade superstar swing man like Durant or Lebron, but we don't have one of those either (and Porter sure isn't one).

And on my second point, look at my list of good bigs again. All of them were drafted in the top 8. I can't even think of a high quality 2-way big that was taken outside of the top 8. The best I can come up with is Ibaka, who is really only a role player on offense. Maybe you count Bynum, but he took 6 years to groom and really only dominated for short spurts over two seasons.

If all goes well, this will be our last chance at picking in the top 10. If we don't get a young big for the future this time, we're just not going to get one, and we won't be a consistently good team.

So the bottom line is that if you are in position to draft an All-Star caliber big, draft him. SF is an easier position to fill. The league is littered with quality SF's found outside of the top of the lottery: Batum, Parsons, Pierce, George, Johnson, Marion, Butler, etc. I love Porter, and I'll take him over most people in this draft, but I'm not taking him over Noel.

[stevemcqueen1]

Well Terps lost. Probably ends their chance for tourney bid.

Looks like Hoyas gonna lose too. May end their hopes for #1 seed. Porter has played good overall, but missed some needed shots down the stretch. Hey don't mind if he drops on the draft boards some.

Yeah he was pretty much himself although for some reason I thought he looked less fluid and energetic. He was probably a bit more aggressive with his shot selection than usual but that's not necessarily a bad thing. His team was down and as the star, he had to press a bit to try and spark a comeback. He made a couple but he just wasn't feeling his three ball tonight.

Another game where we didn't learn a whole lot but he's already put a lot out there on tape the previous four games.

[stevemcqueen1]

And on my second point, look at my list of good bigs again. All of them were drafted in the top 8. I can't even think of a high quality 2-way big that was taken outside of the top 8. The best I can come up with is Ibaka, who is really only a role player on offense. Maybe you count Bynum, but he took 6 years to groom and really only dominated for short spurts over two seasons.

Technically Noah was a 9th pick but he's a role player on offense. Brook Lopez was a 10th pick and he's getting pretty good. But he wasn't supposed to fall as far as he did on draft day. He was projected to go earlier than he did, something funny happened on draft day.

In general, I think your rule holds true with very few exceptions.

Another exception I would point out is Minnesota not winning with Love. It's an unusual situation that Love's record in Minnesota is so horrible. I think you can chalk some of that up to him being a poor defensive player. Usually a top big man means your defense is going to be good and you can make buckets in the lane hard to come by.

Good bigs will always be disproportionately impactful in basketball. They control lots of critical space. They command doubles. They end opposing possessions with rebounding. They're usually a source of easy, efficient scoring and they make easy, efficient scoring harder.

[AFM]

Here is the question thats easy to forget when looking at draft picks.

Are you drafting a starter on a good team?

Are you drafting a player who can eventually be a top 5-10 player at his position.

Is that a position that is core to a conference title team.

Can they contribute right away. I'm not wasting a top pick on a project.

Beal qualified as a great pick. SG Offense. Defense. Personality. He has it all.

But most years, while you can find players that look solid, most the draft is filled with back quality players on a 2nd round or conference title level team. So if you want filler quality back up, fine. Go for it.

The way I see the Wizards, they have Beal and Nene. I'm not counting Wall for lots of reasons that have been discussed in the Wall thread. Trevor A and Webster are top quality back up SF on a great team.

So for me, I want my top pick to have that start kind of potential. If not, don't over value the pick if it is 3 or 4th. Specially not as a #1 or 2.

In today game, I don't see the best teams with the centers as their best player. Certainly not young centers. You need a good defensive center first and for most part there are not many Shaq teams out there.

Great talent at SG, SF is more important and its gotta be a player that has a real feel for the game. Good handles. Great shot. Great D. PF is important also. Just look at the Wizard. Beal and Nene are what stabilize the team.

I honestly don't know enough about Noel to know his upside. Can he be elite top 3 in the league, if not, I wouldn't take him top 3.

If I have a top 3 pick, I'm going with Otto or Victor O. Victor O has the high ceiling and Otto has the low bust potential. 6-8 SF that plays team ball and can do it all. He will keep value and should get better year after year as he learns and gets stronger. Burke would be my 3rd choice as a top pick but in the 5-6 range but I would trade Wall in doing it and get another top pick.

I don't think I would use my first top 4 on Noel or Len. I think they both be good but I think the Wizard still need core stars and center isn't often that position any more in the NBA.

I go for one of those 3 and draft center later in the draft. Jeff Withey does everything the Wizard would need backing up Okafor.

I would even consider a trade for a top know NBA winning talent in a package. I wouldn't waste having Nene while we have him. Add one more known quality piece at SF and you could make some noise with Beal and Webster on the team.

That's one take, but I think you are overlooking two extremely important issues:
1. You win with good bigs, period.
2. Good bigs are never available outside of the top 7.

On Point 1: think about all of the top tier bigs: Aldridge, Griffin, Dirk, KG, Duncan, Howard, Noah, Horford, Love, Nene, Bosh. All those teams win, all the time. Portland has nobody on the roster but Aldridge, Batum and an undersized rookie PG yet they're a .500 team in the West. Atlanta has dreck at all positions except PF and C, but Horford and Smith carry them to 50 wins every year. Chicago wins even without Rose thanks to Noah. Yes, you can win without a big if you have a once-in-a-decade superstar swing man like Durant or Lebron, but we don't have one of those either (and Porter sure isn't one).

And on my second point, look at my list of good bigs again. All of them were drafted in the top 8. I can't even think of a high quality 2-way big that was taken outside of the top 8. The best I can come up with is Ibaka, who is really only a role player on offense. Maybe you count Bynum, but he took 6 years to groom and really only dominated for short spurts over two seasons.

If all goes well, this will be our last chance at picking in the top 10. If we don't get a young big for the future this time, we're just not going to get one, and we won't be a consistently good team.

So the bottom line is that if you are in position to draft an All-Star caliber big, draft him. SF is an easier position to fill. The league is littered with quality SF's found outside of the top of the lottery: Batum, Parsons, Pierce, George, Johnson, Marion, Butler, etc. I love Porter, and I'll take him over most people in this draft, but I'm not taking him over Noel.

nate, this is the type of thinking that led to Oden being drafted over Durant. You can win without a quality big if you have ridiculous wing talent (see MIA last year). They probably have the worst starting C in the league.
I still take Noel first in this draft. But if theres a better player, you take him.

[Ruzious]

Another quality game from Burke - getting 26 points, 7 assists, 1 to, 5 boards, and 3 steals. He is Mr. Consistency.

And another underrated PG I like is Myck Kabongo of Texas. He missed a lot of games because of a suspension, but he's developing really well - and he's another PG that controls his team well. He still needs work on his jump shot, and turns the ball over a bit too much. But If he figures out the jump shot, he's going to be an NBA starter. Currently, draftexpress.com has him going 39th, I think he'll go around 25th if he comes out (He's a soph), but if they're right, it's a good player being available to the Wiz.

[pancakes3]

Oden over Durant was catastrophic, but unless Porter is putting up 26/11 (30/12 in conference play) it's a strawman as far as this draft is concerned.

[Illuminaire]

I don't think it is, AFM. Nate called out Durant as an exception - because Durant truly is an exception as a player.

Also, Oden being a mistake is generally a hindsight thing, unless there really were plenty of health issues that came up in his pre-draft physicals. He was an extremely talented player who was also quite impactful as an NBA defender/rebounder for the brief stretch of time that he stayed healthy.

[nate33]

nate, this is the type of thinking that led to Oden being drafted over Durant. You can win without a quality big if you have ridiculous wing talent (see MIA last year). They probably have the worst starting C in the league.
I still take Noel first in this draft. But if theres a better player, you take him.

Not a fair analogy. First, it was clear that Durant was a special talent with uberstar potential. It was a real dilemma whether to pick him or Oden. And frankly, if Oden had stayed healthy, it might still be a dilemma. Oden could have been the next Dwight Howard.

Clearly, we're not faced with that type of decision in this draft. There is nobody close to Durant's potential. Porter looks like he might be the next Batum, or in a best case scenario, the next Paul Pierce. You take the next Noah over the next Batum every day of the week. Heck, you take the next Noah over the next Pierce too.

[Ruzious]

Very much a strawman. If Oden was healthy, there's no question in my mind he'd be the top center in the NBA. If both Oden and Roy were healthy, Portland would be OKC - except better.

[nate33]

And on my second point, look at my list of good bigs again. All of them were drafted in the top 8. I can't even think of a high quality 2-way big that was taken outside of the top 8. The best I can come up with is Ibaka, who is really only a role player on offense. Maybe you count Bynum, but he took 6 years to groom and really only dominated for short spurts over two seasons.

Technically Noah was a 9th pick but he's a role player on offense. Brook Lopez was a 10th pick and he's getting pretty good. But he wasn't supposed to fall as far as he did on draft day. He was projected to go earlier than he did, something funny happened on draft day.

In general, I think your rule holds true with very few exceptions.

Another exception I would point out is Minnesota not winning with Love. It's an unusual situation that Love's record in Minnesota is so horrible. I think you can chalk some of that up to him being a poor defensive player. Usually a top big man means your defense is going to be good and you can make buckets in the lane hard to come by.

Good bigs will always be disproportionately impactful in basketball. They control lots of critical space. They command doubles. They end opposing possessions with rebounding. They're usually a source of easy, efficient scoring and they make easy, efficient scoring harder.

Thanks for the comments. Good points all.

And yes, Love might not be quite in that category of "really good bigs" because he can't defend. David Lee is another player of that ilk. So was Boozer a few years ago when he was still a major offensive force. Offensive bigs with suspect defense are a little hit and miss. They can win with the right players around them, but it's not a sure thing. Exceptional defensive bigs who are at least pretty good on offense (think Horford) will lead you to wins in almost all cases.

[stevemcqueen1]

nate, this is the type of thinking that led to Oden being drafted over Durant. You can win without a quality big if you have ridiculous wing talent (see MIA last year). They probably have the worst starting C in the league.
I still take Noel first in this draft. But if theres a better player, you take him.

That's a horror story no doubt. So is Hasheem Thabeet. But those were probably more mis-evaluations, bad luck with injuries, and/or failure to develop a raw talent as an indictment on the value of big men. There are similar horror stories going the other way: going with OJ Mayo over Kevin Love; a boat load of perimeter guys over Lopez and Hibbert and Noah. Or another instance is a team correctly evaluating a "low upside" big as a better pick over the "high upside" perimeter guy like taking Greg Monroe over Al Farouq-Aminu.

You can find isolated cases to support any theory really. The sample sizes are small. Picking an AS player at any position transforms your franchise. But I think it's true in an abstract sense that bigs and PGs are the most valuable players in the game and you see it born out somewhat in the salaries for each position league-wide.

[AFM]

Maybe. Even if Oden was healthy I'd still take Durant. Sure there's hindsight there.
But all of the great teams have great wings. This is the era of the 3. Durant, Lebron, Melo.... You can say a great big is important, but theres just as much evidence that a great wing is just as crucial