Bradley Beal - Part II

[stevemcqueen1]

The majority of this board practically cut bait on John Wall in February 2013.

[nate33]

The majority of this board practically cut bait on John Wall in February 2013.

This is simply not true.

[80sballboy]

Kid's going to be an All Star in a year or two and I'm going to recusitate the last few pages of this thread for the **** smorgasbord of crow that will be served.

Every time a young guy struggles, half the fan base wants to trade him. Sure, a lot of people were skeptical about John as well. I recognize Brad does have to get better. It starts with his physical health, but it ends with the mental part of his game, which is not strong right now. If you don't think you are going to make it, you aren't going to make shots. The last three pointer he made last night, he threw up his hands to the crowd as if to say 'it's about time I hit an open three.'

If Beal continues to underwhelm, Washington will be lucky to win a game in the first round against Chicago/Toronto. If he plays like he did last season in the playoffs, the sky is the limit. That's how important Beal is to this team (we lost 7 straight without him). No way to do you give up on a 21-year old talent like that unless you can get a young stud big man in return.

[montestewart]

The majority of this board practically cut bait on John Wall in February 2013.

In February 2013, Wall was making noises about being a top-5 PG worthy of a max contract, when by a wide variety of very reliable measures, his actual on court production ranked as average, regardless of his potential. Maybe 10% of the board were talking "cut bait" (if by that you mean give up on him) while others were more open to trades.

You could fairly say that a majority probably felt it was time for Wall to put up or shut up, which he finally started doing in March 2013. If you weren't part of that majority, if you thought that February 2013 player was all he could become, if you thought that player as he was would ever take the Wizards anywhere…Dewey defeats Truman.

Beal is better than Cheaney, but the comparison is apt, because the expectations were higher, for a 19-year-old shooter picked #3 to run with John Wall on a rising Wizards, than they were for a four-year college player (who perhaps was partially just the product of a good system) chosen #6. In many ways, Cheaney was about what should have been expected (would have been nice if his shot evolved a little more).

Beal is only 21, but he's at the same place Wall was in February 2013. Watch his game. Look at his stats, basic and advanced. Where is the development? Where is the trajectory? If he shows basically the same next year, what contract would YOU offer him?

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Kid's going to be an All Star in a year or two and I'm going to recusitate the last few pages of this thread for the **** smorgasbord of crow that will be served.

I don't think he will be. I hope you are right.

I didn't foresee Harden and Thompson blowing up. Hopefully, Beal can get healthy and make a productive leap.

[Induveca]

Cheaney's best season (his second) wasn't as good as Beal's rookie season, which is Beal's least productive (at least so far).

Yet your comparisons you ran a few months back listed Cheaney as a comparable I believe?

[Induveca]

Cheaney's best season (his second) wasn't as good as Beal's rookie season, which is Beal's least productive (at least so far).

And Cheaney's a good example of why we can't assume young wing players will improve.

But....

He did improve.

Ended up playing like 9 session at TS .600

And was moved to PG and was 2003-04 NBA Finals MVP and won a title.

Did you mean to use green font in your post ?

Haha.....Jesus.

[hands11]

The majority of this board practically cut bait on John Wall in February 2013.

In February 2013, Wall was making noises about being a top-5 PG worthy of a max contract, when by a wide variety of very reliable measures, his actual on court production ranked as average, regardless of his potential. Maybe 10% of the board were talking "cut bait" (if by that you mean give up on him) while others were more open to trades.

You could fairly say that a majority probably felt it was time for Wall to put up or shut up, which he finally started doing in March 2013. If you weren't part of that majority, if you thought that February 2013 player was all he could become, if you thought that player as he was would ever take the Wizards anywhere…Dewey defeats Truman.

Beal is better than Cheaney, but the comparison is apt, because the expectations were higher, for a 19-year-old shooter picked #3 to run with John Wall on a rising Wizards, than they were for a four-year college player (who perhaps was partially just the product of a good system) chosen #6. In many ways, Cheaney was about what should have been expected (would have been nice if his shot evolved a little more).

Beal is only 21, but he's at the same place Wall was in February 2013. Watch his game. Look at his stats, basic and advanced. Where is the development? Where is the trajectory? If he shows basically the same next year, what contract would YOU offer him?

Again. He had good numbers for DEC/JAN. Then he was injured and before that he was injured. Since he returned, he has been in a shooting funk but a small sample size funk. The remaining games will effect his totals a good bit since he has only played 48 games with 16 remaining.

I see the progression. And I see the recent shooting funk. But shooting slumps end. But yeah. Some of this is painful to watch. Specially air balls. But he stepped up in the playoffs last year. I expect he will get it going again.

Not like he is a slacker. If anything, he is trying to hard and just needs to relax.

He is still shooting .408 from 3 for the year on 4.1 attempts and .399 for his career on 4.4 attempts.

And he is shooting a higher percent of attempts from 3 ft and in and a higher percentage of attempts more beyond the 3 line this year.

[TheSecretWeapon]

Cheaney's best season (his second) wasn't as good as Beal's rookie season, which is Beal's least productive (at least so far).

Yet your comparisons you ran a few months back listed Cheaney as a comparable I believe?

Yep -- that was Cheaney's 2nd season (his best). Wasn't as good overall as Beal's (PPA: 88 vs. Beal's 96).

And now that I look back at what I did...it really is kinda surprising how closely their 2nd year production matches. Beal was less efficient (ortg: 102 vs. Cheaney's 104). He shot better from 3pt range (shocker, right?), but MUCH worse from 2pt range. And he attempted just 1.4 more 3pt shots per 40 minutes (pace adjusted) than Cheaney did. Cheaney actually had the better 2nd year FT%, although they were pretty close (.812 to .788).

Cheaney rebounded better, Beal assisted more. Blocks, steals and turnovers were about the same. Cheaney fouled more.

In my blog post using similarity scores, 11th on Beal's "most similar" list was Klay Thompson from last season. So...hope.

On the other hand, when I estimated Beal's likely peak PPA based on the players most similar, the number was 128. Which isn't bad, but isn't All-Star level either.

[TheSecretWeapon]

Comparison of Beal's 2nd season with Cheaney's:

Code: Select all

STAT    Beal    Cheaney
Age     20      23
GMS     73      78
MPG     34.7    34.0
Usg%    22.8%   21.3%
Ortg    102     104
efg     .479    .496
2pt%    .426    .492
3pt%    .402    .339
FT%     .788    .812
Reb     4.7     5.1
Ast     4.2     2.8
Stl     1.2     1.3
Blk     0.3     0.3
Tov     2.2     2.4
PF      2.6     3.4
Pts     21.4    20.6
PPA     96      88

Stats are pace-neutral per 40 minutes.

[payitforward]

Cheaney's best season (his second) wasn't as good as Beal's rookie season, which is Beal's least productive (at least so far).

Yet your comparisons you ran a few months back listed Cheaney as a comparable I believe?

Yep -- that was Cheaney's 2nd season (his best). Wasn't as good overall as Beal's (PPA: 88 vs. Beal's 96).

And now that I look back at what I did...it really is kinda surprising how closely their 2nd year production matches. Beal was less efficient (ortg: 102 vs. Cheaney's 104). He shot better from 3pt range (shocker, right?), but MUCH worse from 2pt range. And he attempted just 1.4 more 3pt shots per 40 minutes (pace adjusted) than Cheaney did. Cheaney actually had the better 2nd year FT%, although they were pretty close (.812 to .788).

Cheaney rebounded better, Beal assisted more. Blocks, steals and turnovers were about the same. Cheaney fouled more.

In my blog post using similarity scores, 11th on Beal's "most similar" list was Klay Thompson from last season. So...hope.

On the other hand, when I estimated Beal's likely peak PPA based on the players most similar, the number was 128. Which isn't bad, but isn't All-Star level either.

There's an overwhelming temptation to use statistics for things it can't be used for. E.g. from the fact that there were xx,000 deaths from traffic accidents in year 1, we can conclude w/ reasonable certainty that there'll be something around that same number in year 2.

Similarly, from what a set of players w/ certain numbers did over period of time, we can conclude w/ reasonable certainty what another (similar-sized) set of players w/ those numbers will do over the same period of time in the future. The larger both sample sets, the more reliable the conclusion

What we can't do is draw any conclusion whatever about an individual player. Sorry. Can't be done. Not how statistics works.

This might be easier to "grok": I've read the claim that over many NBA drafts the guy picked 3d in the draft has tended to work out better than the guy picked 2d in the draft. That's what is called a statistical fact.

Now, on that basis, if you've got the #2 pick in the draft, should you trade it straight up for the #3 pick?

[TheSecretWeapon]

Yet your comparisons you ran a few months back listed Cheaney as a comparable I believe?

Yep -- that was Cheaney's 2nd season (his best). Wasn't as good overall as Beal's (PPA: 88 vs. Beal's 96).

And now that I look back at what I did...it really is kinda surprising how closely their 2nd year production matches. Beal was less efficient (ortg: 102 vs. Cheaney's 104). He shot better from 3pt range (shocker, right?), but MUCH worse from 2pt range. And he attempted just 1.4 more 3pt shots per 40 minutes (pace adjusted) than Cheaney did. Cheaney actually had the better 2nd year FT%, although they were pretty close (.812 to .788).

Cheaney rebounded better, Beal assisted more. Blocks, steals and turnovers were about the same. Cheaney fouled more.

In my blog post using similarity scores, 11th on Beal's "most similar" list was Klay Thompson from last season. So...hope.

On the other hand, when I estimated Beal's likely peak PPA based on the players most similar, the number was 128. Which isn't bad, but isn't All-Star level either.

There's an overwhelming temptation to use statistics for things it can't be used for. E.g. from the fact that there were xx,000 deaths from traffic accidents in year 1, we can conclude w/ reasonable certainty that there'll be something around that same number in year 2.

Similarly, from what a set of players w/ certain numbers did over period of time, we can conclude w/ reasonable certainty what another (similar-sized) set of players w/ those numbers will do over the same period of time in the future. The larger both sample sets, the more reliable the conclusion

What we can't do is draw any conclusion whatever about an individual player. Sorry. Can't be done. Not how statistics works.

This might be easier to "grok": I've read the claim that over many NBA drafts the guy picked 3d in the draft has tended to work out better than the guy picked 2d in the draft. That's what is called a statistical fact.

Now, on that basis, if you've got the #2 pick in the draft, should you trade it straight up for the #3 pick?

I'm not offering the above as metaphysical certainty. I ALWAYS believe players can alter the trajectories of their career by working hard/smart...or not. Especially players as young as Beal.

That said...statistics are historical record. I don't know why we wouldn't compare players today to players that came before. In fact, we do it all the time. Why wouldn't we look at players who performed similarly in the past as possible guides to what a player today might do in the future? I mean, we could just figure a guy will get better because he's young. That worked well for the Wizards in the past.

And, I'm not sure who is the "we" drawing conclusions. I'm certainly not, even as the guy publishing the numbers. It's possible Beal will develop along the lines of players who performed similarly at similar age, and it's possible he could perform much better or much worse.

[hands11]

http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=400579283

Beal 4 for 4 from 3.. 7 assists. 4 rebounds. 23 pts

Kicking some rust off.

[Dark Faze]

Dude has been dreadful post break...no more excuses, he's had PLENTY of time to "kick off rust":

March Numbers (8 games): 14ppg, 4rpg, 4 apg, 42%FG, 31%3PFG, 65% FT

February Numbers (12 games): 13ppg, 6 rpg, 2apg, 34%FG, 25%3PF, 72% FT

And he's averaging 33 minutes a game this year. We've taken great care of his health and held his minutes down.

[Higga]

I still like Beal but more and more I'm thinking he'll never be more than just a 3 point specialist. Not an all-star worthy of the #3 pick. Still waiting to see the Beal from last years playoffs on a more consistent basis. When Beal and Wall both play like stars we can beat anybody.

[dckingsfan]

I still like Beal but more and more I'm thinking he'll never be more than just a 3 point specialist. Not an all-star worthy of the #3 pick. Still waiting to see the Beal from last years playoffs on a more consistent basis. When Beal and Wall both play like stars we can beat anybody.

Let's give it until next season - but I am guessing you are probably correct for both of our #3 picks. They could still end up being very solid - both top 10 for their respective classes - and that is a huge improvement for EG.

[Kanyewest]

I thought Beal played alright for a stretch but looked really tired in the 4th quarter. I'm not sure that he should be playing 40 minutes a night. Wittman should give some playing time time to one of the others.

[tontoz]

Whenever he pulls up for a 2 pt jumper off the dribble with nobody near him i automatically think brick. He would be so much better if he would at least try to get all the way to the rim. Make the defense stop you. Don't bail them out.

[Kanyewest]

Whenever he pulls up for a 2 pt jumper off the dribble with nobody near him i automatically think brick. He would be so much better if he would at least try to get all the way to the rim. Make the defense stop you. Don't bail them out.

He tried in the last game to get to the rim in the final minute. He drove the lane to dry to draw some contact but no call was called and it was ruled a clean block. I'm just wondering if it is in his game to get to the rim- he probably needs to work on his handle in the offseason.

Weirdly enough, all of Beal's points in the last game came from inside the two point line. He would have had a solid game if he knocked down a 3 and eliminated a few turnovers.

[SizzlinSimms]

Whenever he pulls up for a 2 pt jumper off the dribble with nobody near him i automatically think brick. He would be so much better if he would at least try to get all the way to the rim. Make the defense stop you. Don't bail them out.

Agreed. It seems when Beal pulls up he has plenty of room to continue his movement toward the rim, yet he rather settles for the jumper. Which from the elbow he technically should be draining but this season he has been awful, unless wide open. With that room I feel he should drive and get contact far more often as well. Beal is athletic enough yet he plays so cautious and passive. Kind of like Wall in the past. They need to be majorly aggressive. Beal could easily be similar to Ray Allen on the Bucks or Reggie Miller, not exactly as good, but similar, yet he is settling to be a simple spot up shooter as of right now and it is not good!