Official 2013 Draft Thread - Part VI

[stevemcqueen1]

What about Grant Hill as a comparison for Porter?

An off-brand Grant HIll yes.

Before injuries, coming out of Duke, Grant was not only smooth with a mature game (as is Otto Porter) but had above-the-rim athleticism. No way Otto would average ~20ppg as a rookie no matter what team drafted him.

If Grant wasn't kneecapped with injuries then he'd have been a HOF player. Even if he came out as a soph not senior. I don't see Ottomatic as putting up 20/8rb/6ast his first 5 years in the league.

But same mentality and cool demeanor and court awareness and team focus, yes.

I think that's fair. That's pretty much where I settled on that line of thinking myself. Poor man's Grant Hill. You're right that Hill was HoF bound in Detroit. He was a top five player and one of the top young players in the league with Penny Hardaway and Jason Kidd. I'd say he was ahead of Kidd at that point. Definitely ahead of CWebb.

[Nivek]

I think Profit was better, but not by a lot. They must send these guys to a special class where they learn the Official NBA Analysis Cliches. Which they then recite endlessly.

[Dat2U]

I enjoy listening to Tony Massenburg on 980, although he's like a lot of ex players. He's at his best when he's telling stories about stuff he experienced and talking about "the life" but gets weaker when talking about Xs and Os and why on-the-court stuff happens.

As for the DX top 100 rankings -- I'm baffled about how Len has become the top prospect. Maybe it's how well he's been playing the couple weeks.

When Len looks good, he really looks good. When he doesn't, he looks like a 2nd round pick.

I think he's a solid prospect, but I'd still only draft him in a trade down scenario, I wouldn't feel comfortable drafting him 3rd. His foot injury is probably my biggest concern.

[Ruzious]

I think Profit was better, but not by a lot. They must send these guys to a special class where they learn the Official NBA Analysis Cliches. Which they then recite endlessly.

Massenburg has some potential, but his typical answer to questions on why he thinks a coach did this or a GM did such and such is - "You should ask him." I'd much prefer he give his opinion - even if he has to heavily qualify it. I sometimes get the feeling he has something to say, but he's too diplomatic to say it. That doesn't work on sports radio. Profit was better.

[LyricalRico]

Noel slipping? Maybe so...

Might former Kentucky center Nerlens Noel still be available when the Charlotte Bobcats pick fourth on June 27?

A player-personnel executive connected to a lottery team thinks that’s a real possibility, despite Noel often being listed as the first or second pick in various mock drafts.

This executive, speaking on condition of anonymity because he’s not authorized to give pre-draft interviews, predicts the first three picks will be some order of Nevada-Las Vegas forward Anthony Bennett, Kansas shooting guard Ben McLemore and Georgetown forward Otto Porter, Jr.

http://blogs.charlotte.com/inside_the_n ... vable.html

[Nivek]

I enjoy listening to Tony Massenburg on 980, although he's like a lot of ex players. He's at his best when he's telling stories about stuff he experienced and talking about "the life" but gets weaker when talking about Xs and Os and why on-the-court stuff happens.

As for the DX top 100 rankings -- I'm baffled about how Len has become the top prospect. Maybe it's how well he's been playing the couple weeks.

When Len looks good, he really looks good. When he doesn't, he looks like a 2nd round pick.

I think he's a solid prospect, but I'd still only draft him in a trade down scenario, I wouldn't feel comfortable drafting him 3rd. His foot injury is probably my biggest concern.

Problem is, on average -- at least in YODA -- he looked like a late 1st/early 2nd. I don't see any justification for making him the top prospect in this year's draft. I might pick him a little earlier than where he lands in YODA because of his size and mobility, but no way I'd take him #1 #1. Or at 3. Maybe as early as 15, in a trade-down scenario.

[DANNYLANDOVER]

I enjoy listening to Tony Massenburg on 980, although he's like a lot of ex players. He's at his best when he's telling stories about stuff he experienced and talking about "the life" but gets weaker when talking about Xs and Os and why on-the-court stuff happens.

As for the DX top 100 rankings -- I'm baffled about how Len has become the top prospect. Maybe it's how well he's been playing the couple weeks.

When Len looks good, he really looks good. When he doesn't, he looks like a 2nd round pick.

I think he's a solid prospect, but I'd still only draft him in a trade down scenario, I wouldn't feel comfortable drafting him 3rd. His foot injury is probably my biggest concern.

Problem is, on average -- at least in YODA -- he looked like a late 1st/early 2nd. I don't see any justification for making him the top prospect in this year's draft. I might pick him a little earlier than where he lands in YODA because of his size and mobility, but no way I'd take him #1 #1. Or at 3. Maybe as early as 15, in a trade-down scenario.

Seriously, YODA rates Len that low? I think that's very exaggerated. Len is a top 5 player in this draft.

[Dat2U]

I enjoy listening to Tony Massenburg on 980, although he's like a lot of ex players. He's at his best when he's telling stories about stuff he experienced and talking about "the life" but gets weaker when talking about Xs and Os and why on-the-court stuff happens.

As for the DX top 100 rankings -- I'm baffled about how Len has become the top prospect. Maybe it's how well he's been playing the couple weeks.

When Len looks good, he really looks good. When he doesn't, he looks like a 2nd round pick.

I think he's a solid prospect, but I'd still only draft him in a trade down scenario, I wouldn't feel comfortable drafting him 3rd. His foot injury is probably my biggest concern.

Problem is, on average -- at least in YODA -- he looked like a late 1st/early 2nd. I don't see any justification for making him the top prospect in this year's draft. I might pick him a little earlier than where he lands in YODA because of his size and mobility, but no way I'd take him #1 #1. Or at 3. Maybe as early as 15, in a trade-down scenario.

I think he's rated too low then. The UMD guards were nothing short of horrible, arguably the worst backcourt in ACC. Had he been in a different situation his stats would have been better. He's got some unique athletic traits that would put him in an elite category in terms of overall physical profile. His key weakenesses appear to be related to his strength which with his frame, should come in time. The injury question is the only one I can't be sure of so I gotta ding him a bit for that. I think he's a good choice if you trade down to 6 or later.

[rockymac52]

I've heard a lot of people use the excuse about Maryland not having a PG and how it hurt Len. It makes sense if it's true, to a certain extent. But I'm curious if there's any real stats to support this. Not just to support that Maryland didn't have a good PG, but more importantly, if having a good PG would have made that much of a difference in Len's stats.

Can anyone think of some examples of big man prospects that were undervalued because their college stats were depressed because they didn't have a PG that could get them the ball? Just curious. I'd be much more inclined to buy this excuse if someone could provide an example or two.

[Nivek]

Yep -- he's that low in YODA. Could end up being a big miss, of course. In the numbers, Len wasn't very impressive. Decent rebounding for a C; solid shot blocking. His 2pt% this season was really low for a guy his size and position. A top center prospect typically has a 2pt% around 60%. Len was at 54%. As a freshman, it was 56%.

Of the guys who rated most similar to Len in my doppleganger machine, there are a couple good pros. Here are the "most similar":

- Reggie Johnson SO
- Jack Cooley JR
- Trevor Mbakwe SO
- Jordan Hill SO
- Anthony Tolliver JR
- Glen Davis FR
- Roy Hibbert SO
- Robin Lopez SO
- Larry Sanders JR
- Michael Olowokandi SO

Hibbert and Davis both had higher overall scores in YODA. Larry Sanders rated a bit worse. Olowokandi has the same rating as a soph as Len does.

I readily acknowledge Len has potential. So does everyone in the draft, though. I wouldn't pick him in the top 5.

[Nivek]

When Len looks good, he really looks good. When he doesn't, he looks like a 2nd round pick.

I think he's a solid prospect, but I'd still only draft him in a trade down scenario, I wouldn't feel comfortable drafting him 3rd. His foot injury is probably my biggest concern.

Problem is, on average -- at least in YODA -- he looked like a late 1st/early 2nd. I don't see any justification for making him the top prospect in this year's draft. I might pick him a little earlier than where he lands in YODA because of his size and mobility, but no way I'd take him #1 #1. Or at 3. Maybe as early as 15, in a trade-down scenario.

I think he's rated too low then. The UMD guards were nothing short of horrible, arguably the worst backcourt in ACC. Had he been in a different situation his stats would have been better. He's got some unique athletic traits that would put him in an elite category in terms of overall physical profile. His key weakenesses appear to be related to his strength which with his frame, should come in time. The injury question is the only one I can't be sure of so I gotta ding him a bit for that. I think he's a good choice if you trade down to 6 or later.

If those observed athletic traits are valid, then he'll be a miss in YODA. I don't use athleticism scores from scouting reports or watching the games -- I use the data from the combine. Since he wasn't even measured...he gets no bonus for size and/or athleticism. I'm left with his stats, and his stats aren't very good.

[Ruzious]

I've heard a lot of people use the excuse about Maryland not having a PG and how it hurt Len. It makes sense if it's true, to a certain extent. But I'm curious if there's any real stats to support this. Not just to support that Maryland didn't have a good PG, but more importantly, if having a good PG would have made that much of a difference in Len's stats.

Can anyone think of some examples of big man prospects that were undervalued because their college stats were depressed because they didn't have a PG that could get them the ball? Just curious. I'd be much more inclined to buy this excuse if someone could provide an example or two.

Yeah, he was part of the reason the MD guards were so ineffective, because he was so bad at creating a target, using angles, bobbling passes. A guy that big has so many advantages in being able to get the ball, and he showed very low BBIQ in that regard. Lack of strength is the least of my concerns about Len. His lack of BBIQ and overrated skills are much bigger concerns.

[nate33]

Noel slipping? Maybe so...

Might former Kentucky center Nerlens Noel still be available when the Charlotte Bobcats pick fourth on June 27?

A player-personnel executive connected to a lottery team thinks that’s a real possibility, despite Noel often being listed as the first or second pick in various mock drafts.

This executive, speaking on condition of anonymity because he’s not authorized to give pre-draft interviews, predicts the first three picks will be some order of Nevada-Las Vegas forward Anthony Bennett, Kansas shooting guard Ben McLemore and Georgetown forward Otto Porter, Jr.

http://blogs.charlotte.com/inside_the_n ... vable.html

EG better not let him slip past us at #3. He's a project, but the payoff will be good. He is a Noah clone, only longer.

[Dat2U]

Problem is, on average -- at least in YODA -- he looked like a late 1st/early 2nd. I don't see any justification for making him the top prospect in this year's draft. I might pick him a little earlier than where he lands in YODA because of his size and mobility, but no way I'd take him #1 #1. Or at 3. Maybe as early as 15, in a trade-down scenario.

I think he's rated too low then. The UMD guards were nothing short of horrible, arguably the worst backcourt in ACC. Had he been in a different situation his stats would have been better. He's got some unique athletic traits that would put him in an elite category in terms of overall physical profile. His key weakenesses appear to be related to his strength which with his frame, should come in time. The injury question is the only one I can't be sure of so I gotta ding him a bit for that. I think he's a good choice if you trade down to 6 or later.

If those observed athletic traits are valid, then he'll be a miss in YODA. I don't use athleticism scores from scouting reports or watching the games -- I use the data from the combine. Since he wasn't even measured...he gets no bonus for size and/or athleticism. I'm left with his stats, and his stats aren't very good.

But shouldn't you assign some kind of grade for athleticism? If prospects are getting bonuses for size oathleticism with the exception of those that weren't in the combine, how do you account for that? How can you fairly order the prospects with key information like that missing? How would Len rate if he did get a bonus for having an elite physical profile?

[AFM]

^(And Bennett)

[Nivek]

YODA is an attempt at being objective. When I've read scouting report assessments of athleticism, I've primarily been struck by how often it clashes with my own observations, as well as with objective tests like the combine. In previous threads, I've pointed out the "Michael Beasley is an elite athlete with an NBA-ready body" vs. the "Kevin Love is slow and ground-bound and will suffer in the NBA because of his lack of athleticism" stuff. In reality, they were both very productive in college, and they tested/measured out nearly identical in the combine.

So, where I don't have the combine data or an objective measure of athleticism, I default to zero -- no penalty, no bonus.

If I adjust Len to what folks are saying about him -- above average length, agility and leaping ability, average strength -- he would rise to a mid-first round pick rating.

[Wizardspride]

I've heard a lot of people use the excuse about Maryland not having a PG and how it hurt Len. It makes sense if it's true, to a certain extent. But I'm curious if there's any real stats to support this. Not just to support that Maryland didn't have a good PG, but more importantly, if having a good PG would have made that much of a difference in Len's stats.

Can anyone think of some examples of big man prospects that were undervalued because their college stats were depressed because they didn't have a PG that could get them the ball? Just curious. I'd be much more inclined to buy this excuse if someone could provide an example or two.

Obviously you didn't watch Peshon Howard (MD's PG). He was beyond horrible.

Probably the worse PG play I've ever seen. Yeah, it was that bad.

MD literally could not make a basic entry pass. It was sad.

And from what I've seen scouts have recognized this fact.

I've posted this before but for the purposes of answering your question it bears repeating:


http://www.nba.com/2013/news/features/d ... index.html


Len was inconsistent in his two seasons at Maryland, but part of that, NBA types believe, wasn't his fault. He played with guards who struggled to get him regular touches in the paint, and wings who couldn't take pressure off of him consistently with jumpers.

"The thing with Len is, staying at Maryland wasn't going to help him, because they weren't going to throw him the ball," a Northwest Division scout said. "They didn't throw him the ball when they could see both of his numbers in the post."

[The Consiglieri]

Saw a wonderfully put, spot by spot examination of how to build a team right (the spurs) and how to build a team wrong (the wizards) over on bulletsforever.com (amusingly sourced from realgm) :

link:

http://www.bulletsforever.com/2013/6/11 ... g-nba-2013

"...Going to take these two questions together. Jonathan Tjarks has two really good pieces (here's the second) about this subject on Real GM. Basically: the Spurs:
1.Don't waste picks -- everyone is selected for a purpose.
2.Constantly sift through the so-called "scrap heap" for contributors. No selling of late second-round picks to meet an operating budget. Constant monitoring of the D-League and Europe for undervalued players, rather than stopping their research at guys already in the league.
3.Identify certain kinds of players that they can mold into their style of play.
4.Have a great existing infrastructure in the Duncan/Parker/Ginobili trio that forces those picks to fit into a role while simultaneously giving them a great chance to learn from true pros.
5.Aren't afraid to play youngsters to see how they function. The point Tjarks makes about Gregg Popovich not forcing his GM to acquire a veteran backup point guard when George Hill was struggling as a rookie really hit close to home. The Wizards' youngsters, unless they are Wall or Beal, rarely receive that kind of trust.

The bottom line is the Spurs appear to treat each and every one of their draft picks as assets rather than liabilities through every step of the process. You would never hear the Spurs' GM and coach suggest that they don't want to use all their draft picks, for example..."

[pancakes3]

As a tangent, I don't think people should attack YODA or criticize it. Nivek's been pretty up front with what YODA does and how it grades talent. To try and tweak it and force it to align with "conventional wisdom" completely betrays YODA's original intent. So this ONE metric to measure prospects has Len pegged as a late 1st rounder. Deal with it. Understand that it doesn't compensate for athleticism other than raw numbers and move on.

[tontoz]

Let's not pretend like Len actually had success in the post when he did get the ball.