Official 2013 Draft Thread - Part III

[nate33]

[I'd have no problem taking Shabaaz b/c we have NO wing depth whatsoever and the SG depth in the NBA is at and absurdly bad level. SHabaaz is strong enough to play the SF and with the NBA now, more teams are playing traditional SFs at PF and rolling with 4 perimeter guys and 1 big. I don't think Shabaaz will be there at 8 b/c Detroit, Sac, Cavs, and Suns ALL need wings.

No wing depth? We have 3 starting caliber players to man the two wing spots (assuming Webster is resigned). It's the only position on the roster where we do have depth.

[DCZards]

Why does everyone call him an "elite" scorer. He averaged 17.9 points per game with a TS% of .528.

48 players in college basketball average more points than him. And here's the kicker: each and every one of those 48 players managed to post a higher TS% than Shabazz!

Let that sink in for a moment.

It's not about how many points Shabazz averaged in comparison to other college ballers. College ball is full of guys who score a lot of points...in most cases against mediocre opposition. Most of the 48 players who outscored Shabazz and had a higher TS% won't play a minute in the NBA. You and I both know that.

What I like about Shabazz is that he scores in a variety of ways---midrange jumper, off the dribble, on the perimeter, in the open court and posting opponents up. He also plays hard and is very physical for a SG/SF.

[nate33]

Just FYI, I mixed up the numbers a bit and fixed it in my post. There are 53 players that scored more than him, 48 of whom did so at a higher TS%.

[mhd]

[I'd have no problem taking Shabaaz b/c we have NO wing depth whatsoever and the SG depth in the NBA is at and absurdly bad level. SHabaaz is strong enough to play the SF and with the NBA now, more teams are playing traditional SFs at PF and rolling with 4 perimeter guys and 1 big. I don't think Shabaaz will be there at 8 b/c Detroit, Sac, Cavs, and Suns ALL need wings.

No wing depth? We have 3 starting caliber players to man the two wing spots (assuming Webster is resigned). It's the only position on the roster where we do have depth.

Well, Ariza is a FA after this year, and he's more of a 3-4 anyways. My point is that I'd rather have Shabaaz than Zeller (assuming Len & Bennett are gone). I think the Wiz would take Zeller over Shabaaz though.

[Illuminaire]

Scoring in a variety of ways loses it's luster if you need a lot of shots to get your makes. Being able to miss from a wide of shots does not an elite scorer make - see Crawford, Jordan.

[sfam]

Just pointing out, Blatche has a history of doing well in stretches before completely sucking. The question I would have is how long will Blatche do well? Personally I'm expecting the real Blatche to show up in the offseason.

Credit where it's due, please! Dray had a very good season. I hope he's figured it out, and I don't see that as impossible. As to Nick Young, he doesn't have the gifts Dray has. As to McGee, he's a world-class non-learner.

These guys don't seem similar to me, and even though I shouted "Hallelujah" the day we amnestied Andray Blatche, I don't see the point of denying the guy his props.

You're a better man than I.

[sfam]

[I'd have no problem taking Shabaaz b/c we have NO wing depth whatsoever and the SG depth in the NBA is at and absurdly bad level. SHabaaz is strong enough to play the SF and with the NBA now, more teams are playing traditional SFs at PF and rolling with 4 perimeter guys and 1 big. I don't think Shabaaz will be there at 8 b/c Detroit, Sac, Cavs, and Suns ALL need wings.

No wing depth? We have 3 starting caliber players to man the two wing spots (assuming Webster is resigned). It's the only position on the roster where we do have depth.

Well, Ariza is a FA after this year, and he's more of a 3-4 anyways. My point is that I'd rather have Shabaaz than Zeller (assuming Len & Bennett are gone). I think the Wiz would take Zeller over Shabaaz though.

I'd be quite happy if we took Zeller over Shabaaz. As Nate points out we're currently fine on the wing, and only have two quality players to man the 4 and 5, both of which will probably need a cane in a few years. We need athletic bigs who can score from further than 10 feet. It'd be great if they could rebound and play D as well, but you can't always have everything in a draft pick.

[Dr Positivity]

I'm expecting Shabazz to fall in the draft. It's not that I trust NBA GMs to see his obvious flaws in regards to speed and attacking the basket. It's that you can always rely on GMs to freak out about tweeners or players who are undersized for a position and that's how Shabazz is being projected right now, as either a 2 guard who's super slow and weak at ballhandling for the position, or a small forward who's a few inches short. Here's David Aldridge's scout quotes on him:

Muhammad full of talent ... and caveats

Muhammad came to and went from UCLA in controversial fashion, and that kind of uncertainty is exactly the kind of thing NBA types don't like dealing with. But the Pac-10's co-Freshman of the Year, who led the Bruins in scoring, still won't last long on Draft night. He plays too hard and has too much potential.
Shabazz Muhammad could end up being an NBA shooting guard, not a small forward.

Many people around the league think Muhammad may have to play some shooting guard in the NBA. There's a lot of "yeah, but" when people talk about him.

"Shabazz is going to have to figure out how to be a two," one Eastern Conference executive said. "Because I don't know he's big enough at the small forward. He's not a great athlete. He plays bigger and stronger than most kids. I'm not gaga over Shabazz like some people. He plays hard. But there may be more hype than real substance for me. I could show up at the run with C.J. Fair against him and be OK."

One college coach whose team played against UCLA this season said Muhammad plays extremely hard, and comes to play. But ...

"I like him. I don't love him," the coach said. "I like him because he does have a good motor. He's gonna have to be a two guard in the NBA. He's not a great one-on-one player, taking you off the dribble. You bring him off screens, surprisingly, he can knock down shots (Muhammad shot 37.7 percent on 3-pointers). But other than getting it on the catch, he doesn't have anything to beat you off the bounce with.

"I know he's rated real high and all that stuff, but ... he's not a great one-on-one player. He doesn't do enough stuff for a guy as athletic as he is. His numbers are just average for a guy as athletic as he is. He can adjust his attitude. He has to be a little more inspired on the defensive end."

Another East exec has Muhammad at small forward in the pros.

"He knows how to score, because of his ability to create space for himself," the exec said. "He's powerful. But I don't think he's as athletic as Porter. I think one of his biggest advantages is he's left handed, but he overpowers people with his size and his strength. He doesn't blow by people and he doesn't jump over people."

The exec says Muhammad's time at UCLA had a "mercenary" feel to it, likening it to the saga of O.J. Mayo at USC.

"There's a lot of people who don't have a real positive reaction to him," the exec added. "But here's what I will tell you: you put him on the floor, he's gonna get you double figures."

Another executive says Muhammad would be a real gamble high in the Lottery, but would be fine in the No. 8-12 range in the first round.

"He's looking to put points up, and he looks to do it by overpowering you," this executive said. "What you hope with Shabazz is he gets a little bit better at his skill set ... at the NBA level, your main talent cannot be to be a bully. Because every team has a bully ... the biggest question will be what is his actual talent?

"He needs to work on his conditioning. He has a body sort of like Michael Redd's when he came in. Shabazz is going to have to get himself in better shape than what he played at UCLA."

http://www.nba.com/2013/news/features/d ... bahpsplit2

The overall opinion of Shabazz seems to be shrinking the gap with my lukewarm one. To me, Wes Matthews + Kobe Complex = Shabazz Muhammad. I think Shabazz would actually be a good fit on the Wizards because it's likely he gets brought in as a 3pt shooting role player from the start, instead of being forced into a #1 option role he's not talented enough for from the start

[The Consiglieri]

Why does everyone call him an "elite" scorer. He averaged 17.9 points per game with a TS% of .528.

53 players in college basketball average more points than him. And here's the kicker, of those 53 players who averaged more points than him, 48 of them did so with a higher TS%!

Let that sink in for a moment.

Because of who he was as a recruit. I'd be worried if he had 2-4 years of worrisome numbers, or Zellers flat-line in a sophomore year. For a guy whose recruiting ranking was #1 or #2 overall throughout the process during '11-'12, I'm going to believe the body of work going back years just as I believed in Beal's stroke and reputation as an elite, pure, beautiful shooter, rather than his early struggles. I'll double down on that belief based upon the fact that Shabazz was suspended, and had all manner of trouble just getting in position to play, and was cleared during the season. Not remotely similar condition to any of the other highly thought of prospects.

I could be wrong, but at the end of the day, I just tend to believe what the scouts say, what I see, and what the grand body of evidence says, rather than a handful of games he played while he was working his way into shape in an untenable situation.

You do have a perfectly reasonable argument. I just think it's wrong. Small sample size, etc.

[Ruzious]

How is an entire season a small sample size? He was a decent player for his entire freshman year - at age 20. If not for being hyped in HS and people assuming he was a year younger, probably nobody would be talking about him as a lottery pick.

[verbal8]

How is an entire season a small sample size? He was a decent player for his entire freshman year - at age 20. If not for being hyped in HS and people assuming he was a year younger, probably nobody would be talking about him as a lottery pick.

I don't think it is so much that Shabazz will be terrible, it is more he isn't a high to mid lotto pick. In the middle of the first round, he makes a lot more sense. His role on a play-off team seems to me to be 6-man.

I think the OJ Mayo comparison may be a pretty good one, guys who can score but not hugely productive outside of that. Looking at Mayo's career the seasons he played about 25 mpg primarily off the bench, his team made the play-offs. His years of starting and playing 30+ minutes, his teams have not.

[sfam]

How is an entire season a small sample size? He was a decent player for his entire freshman year - at age 20. If not for being hyped in HS and people assuming he was a year younger, probably nobody would be talking about him as a lottery pick.

This is the problem. The "body of work going back years" is tainted by the belief that Shabazz was younger than he actually is. That lie was done purposefully for just that purpose. Now the scouts have to take that in account, in addition to the character issue this brings up.

[nate33]

How is an entire season a small sample size? He was a decent player for his entire freshman year - at age 20. If not for being hyped in HS and people assuming he was a year younger, probably nobody would be talking about him as a lottery pick.

This is the problem. The "body of work going back years" is tainted by the belief that Shabazz was younger than he actually is. That lie was done purposefully for just that purpose. Now the scouts have to take that in account, in addition to the character issue this brings up.

Exactly. He was effectively a college freshman dominating high school seniors. That's where he got his reputation. It certainly didn't come from his play in college.

If you look at his college numbers, then factor that he is the same age as a sophomore, you realize how unimpressive he really is. I wouldn't take him anywhere in the top 20.

[Wallbeliever]

How is an entire season a small sample size? He was a decent player for his entire freshman year - at age 20. If not for being hyped in HS and people assuming he was a year younger, probably nobody would be talking about him as a lottery pick.

This is the problem. The "body of work going back years" is tainted by the belief that Shabazz was younger than he actually is. That lie was done purposefully for just that purpose. Now the scouts have to take that in account, in addition to the character issue this brings up.

Exactly. He was effectively a college freshman dominating high school seniors. That's where he got his reputation. It certainly didn't come from his play in college.

If you look at his college numbers, then factor that he is the same age as a sophomore, you realize how unimpressive he really is. I wouldn't take him anywhere in the top 20.

I wouldnt go that far. In this draft i still have SM as a top 10 player. I think the fact that he was suspended and then out of shape at first was a detriment to his game. As discussed several times UCLA players seem very prepared for the pro game. My guess is he ends up being a top 7 player out of this draft. At minimal he has one very good skill and will be a contributor off someones bench. OJ Mayo is a solid comparison.

[Mizerooskie]

I don't get the big deal about his age. So what if he's a year older? There's no magic physical maturation bullet that hits you on your 20th birthday. As long as he's got the same amount of basketball development as a 19 year-old, it makes absolutely no difference, IMO. I don't know the full details of his early life history, but I'm guessing he was just started in school a year late.

You want to drop him due to video analysis of his game? Fine. You want to drop him due to unimpressive peripheral stats? Fine. Both are perfectly valid reasons.

Dropping him due to age is just silly.

[nate33]

I don't get the big deal about his age. So what if he's a year older? There's no magic physical maturation bullet that hits you on your 20th birthday. As long as he's got the same amount of basketball development as a 19 year-old, it makes absolutely no difference, IMO. I don't know the full details of his early life history, but I'm guessing he was just started in school a year late.

You want to drop him due to video analysis of his game? Fine. You want to drop him due to unimpressive peripheral stats? Fine. Both are perfectly valid reasons.

Dropping him due to age is just silly.

I think age is relevant because of the style of his game. He's not really a highly skilled, fundamental player. His one refined skill is that he's a pretty good shooter. Mostly, he is just a very physical, slashing type of player who takes advantage of his strength advantage against his competition. When we're talking about 18, 19 and 20 year-olds, that one extra year gives him an advantage in the strength department. Take that strength advantage away and I don't think he's got much game.

[DCZards]

Has character issues. Didn't live up to expectations coming out of high school. Hmm...where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, that Drummond kid from last year's draft.

[sfam]

How is an entire season a small sample size? He was a decent player for his entire freshman year - at age 20. If not for being hyped in HS and people assuming he was a year younger, probably nobody would be talking about him as a lottery pick.

This is the problem. The "body of work going back years" is tainted by the belief that Shabazz was younger than he actually is. That lie was done purposefully for just that purpose. Now the scouts have to take that in account, in addition to the character issue this brings up.

Exactly. He was effectively a college freshman dominating high school seniors. That's where he got his reputation. It certainly didn't come from his play in college.

If you look at his college numbers, then factor that he is the same age as a sophomore, you realize how unimpressive he really is. I wouldn't take him anywhere in the top 20.

I wouldn't go that far. After the crop of second tier bigs and guards are exhausted, I think Shabazz is worth taking a flyer on, perhaps around 14-16 or so. Certainly not at 8 or 9 though.

[DCZards]

I don’t see the Mayo comparisons. The first thing that almost everyone says about Shabazz is that he always plays hard. Mayo is pretty much the opposite. In fact, a couple of weeks ago his coach, Rick Carlisle, publicly criticized Mayo for taking plays off. Opposing coaches quoted in the scouting report on Shabazz by David Aldridge almost universally called Muhammad a “bully” because of the way he uses his toughness and strength to overpower opponents (I love that in a player) in the low post. Mayo has none of that in his game. Shabazz will find a way to use his strength in the NBA…just as he did in high school and college.

I think age is relevant because of the style of his game. He's not really a highly skilled, fundamental player. His one refined skill is that he's a pretty good shooter. Mostly, he is just a very physical, slashing type of player who takes advantage of his strength advantage against his competition. When we're talking about 18, 19 and 20 year-olds, that one extra year gives him an advantage in the strength department. Take that strength advantage away and I don't think he's got much game.

This age means strength stuff is a weak argument, especially in today's world where the focus on physical training and strength-building begins in junior high school…maybe even elementary school. There are 18, 19 and 20 year olds (Bennett for example) who come out of high school already stronger than the 21 and 22 year old players they’re going up against in college. Heck, Beal is stronger than many of the older guys he’s matched up against in the NBA.

[sfam]

Has character issues. Didn't live up to expectations coming out of high school. Hmm...where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, that Drummond kid from last year's draft.

Are you implying we should snatch up anyone with character issues who doesn't live up to expectations? If so, you should change your name to "Mr. Contrarian".

I would just point out that all things being equal, you will have far less risk picking players without character issues who live up to their expectations. Drummond was a high risk player. Lucky for Detroit, he worked out. Drummond's success probably doesn't translate to other high risk players though.