Bradley Beal - Part III

[Ruzious]

Not that much better though, surprisingly

And a worse defender as well

Going by DBPM, Beal was literally one of the worst defensive shooting guards in the league last year, ranking 81st out of 95 players with a ghastly -2.53 rating. McCollum was pretty ordinary, ranking 24th with a +0.05 rating.

Beal has historically been a pretty decent defender, but he was absolutely dreadful last year.

Thing is - why should he work to improve - when he's been rewarded with a max contract? And does he even realize he has so far to go to actually be one of the top guards in the NBA?

One other way Sato could end up starting - Wiz go to a 3 guard lineup. I think that's going to become fairly common in the NBA.

[Upper Decker]

Waiters at 2 for 6, or Beal at 5 for 128?

I'm not sure how this is even a debatable question. I'd almost rather have Waiters even if costs were equal.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

How do I feel about Bradley's max deal??

(See below)

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Is there any word on how long Beal's likely to be out?

(Bump in anticipation of the inevitable - reposted)

Sent from my LG-H345 using RealGM mobile app

[nate33]

Waiters at 2 for 6, or Beal at 5 for 128?

I'm not sure how this is even a debatable question. I'd almost rather have Waiters even if costs were equal.

I wouldn't go that far. Waiters is a really bad player who has shown no ability to help a team. He has had horrific on/off numbers throughout his career. He's a gunner, a poor defender, and has low bball IQ. He had a PER of 9.4 last year for goodness sake!

Beal has definitely shown the ability to help a team. Beal's main issue is that his usage rate is too high relative to his skill set. If he was primarily a spot-up shooter and secondary pick-and-roll runner with a USG% of, say, 22%, I think he could be a pretty efficient player. He's definitely a starting-caliber player in this league and probably between the 10th and 15th best SG in the game. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that he is perceived to be a budding superstar because of his draft position and age. If Beal was drafted 17th or so, we'd all be pretty happy with him. (We also wouldn't be paying him $25M a year.)

[Dark Faze]

Not that much better though, surprisingly

And a worse defender as well

Going by DBPM, Beal was literally one of the worst defensive shooting guards in the league last year, ranking 81st out of 95 players with a ghastly -2.53 rating. McCollum was pretty ordinary, ranking 24th with a +0.05 rating.

Beal has historically been a pretty decent defender, but he was absolutely dreadful last year.

The style of play change had everybody on the team on their heels last year on this team. Witt pretty clearly didn't have the guys ready
for the change heading into the year and things pretty much snowballed.

[Dark Faze]

Waiters at 2 for 6, or Beal at 5 for 128?

I'm not sure how this is even a debatable question. I'd almost rather have Waiters even if costs were equal.

I wouldn't go that far. Waiters is a really bad player who has shown no ability to help a team. He has had horrific on/off numbers throughout his career. He's a gunner, a poor defender, and has low bball IQ. He had a PER of 9.4 last year for goodness sake!

Beal has definitely shown the ability to help a team. Beal's main issue is that his usage rate is too high relative to his skill set. If he was primarily a spot-up shooter and secondary pick-and-roll runner with a USG% of, say, 22%, I think he could be a pretty efficient player. He's definitely a starting-caliber player in this league and probably between the 10th and 15th best SG in the game. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that he is perceived to be a budding superstar because of his draft position and age. If Beal was drafted 17th or so, we'd all be pretty happy with him. (We also wouldn't be paying him $25M a year.)

The thing is...his numbers offensively weren't even inefficient. 45% FG and 39% 3PFG for a high usage two guard...you really can't ask for much more than that. If he could get his FTA up to 5 a game then I think it does wonders for his advanced stats, especially if he can hit the free throws better.

I think he found out where he needs to be on the perimeter last year, this year needs to be about his slashing. That's the area of his game he really needs to improve, particularly getting fouled. To me though I always scratch my head because I don't think his numbers add up to a 15/16 PER player. I'd have thought around 17 or so.

[nate33]

Waiters at 2 for 6, or Beal at 5 for 128?

I'm not sure how this is even a debatable question. I'd almost rather have Waiters even if costs were equal.

I wouldn't go that far. Waiters is a really bad player who has shown no ability to help a team. He has had horrific on/off numbers throughout his career. He's a gunner, a poor defender, and has low bball IQ. He had a PER of 9.4 last year for goodness sake!

Beal has definitely shown the ability to help a team. Beal's main issue is that his usage rate is too high relative to his skill set. If he was primarily a spot-up shooter and secondary pick-and-roll runner with a USG% of, say, 22%, I think he could be a pretty efficient player. He's definitely a starting-caliber player in this league and probably between the 10th and 15th best SG in the game. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that he is perceived to be a budding superstar because of his draft position and age. If Beal was drafted 17th or so, we'd all be pretty happy with him. (We also wouldn't be paying him $25M a year.)

The thing is...his numbers offensively weren't even inefficient. 45% FG and 39% 3PFG for a high usage two guard...you really can't ask for much more than that. If he could get his FTA up to 5 a game then I think it does wonders for his advanced stats, especially if he can hit the free throws better.

I think he found out where he needs to be on the perimeter last year, this year needs to be about his slashing. That's the area of his game he really needs to improve, particularly getting fouled. To me though I always scratch my head because I don't think his numbers add up to a 15/16 PER player. I'd have thought around 17 or so.

You can't look at FG% and 3P% independently and glean much information. It all depends on how many shots are from 2 point range, how many are from 3-point range, and how many free throws are generated. TS% encapsulates this better. Waiters' TS% was a horrendous .492. And that's on a great team with two All-NBA players drawing defensive attention. His TS% in Cleveland was an laughably bad .460. For comparison, Beal's TS% was .547 - about average for an NBA player.

There's no way around it. Dion Waiters was literally one of the worst players in the NBA last year. I can understand somebody taking a flyer on him just based on his draft pedigree, but you don't pay him much and you don't pretend that he's almost good as a average starter like Beal.

[nuposse04]

I just hope they stop running that god damn Beal-Gortat high pick action that always leads to a Beal mid range jumper, or turnover. Maddening that we saw them run that play as much as we did. >.>

[payitforward]

...Beal has definitely shown the ability to help a team. He's definitely a starting-caliber player in this league and probably between the 10th and 15th best SG in the game.

I would have picked Bradley Beal, just as Ernie did. He was the right pick. No criticism. But, I can't see any support in the numbers for what you say above.

If you mean by "shown the ability to help a team" that he's shown some skills -- sure. But last season, every previous season, and on his career, Brad has produced at a below-average level for a NBA SG (considering everyone, not just starters). I'd say he is more like the 30th-35th best SG in the league, rather than the 10th-15th best. Then add the injury problems -- esp. for a starter.

There's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that he is perceived to be a budding superstar because of his draft position and age. If Beal was drafted 17th or so, we'd all be pretty happy with him. (We also wouldn't be paying him $25M a year.)

"Nothing wrong" -- are you saying there's nothing wrong with Brad's production level? He's doing fine? People should just change their expectations? I'm surprised if so -- you were a lot more critical of him a few months ago, if I remember right, and for my money you were right back then. I can't imagine being happy with him if his draft position had been different.

Beal's main issue is that his usage rate is too high relative to his skill set. If he was primarily a spot-up shooter and secondary pick-and-roll runner with a USG% of, say, 22%, I think he could be a pretty efficient player.

The problem with this speculation is that there's no way to test it. H*ll, we don't even know whether he could play that role.

I think we are reduced to "hope." If Brad were 25, we wouldn't even feel like there was hope. But, he just turned 23; he's still young. All we have left is to hope that he becomes a productive player on the court, that he isn't forced to play within time constraints that mean he can't be on the court enough, and that he shucks off his injury history.

[nate33]

...Beal has definitely shown the ability to help a team. He's definitely a starting-caliber player in this league and probably between the 10th and 15th best SG in the game.

I would have picked Bradley Beal, just as Ernie did. He was the right pick. No criticism. But, I can't see any support in the numbers for what you say above.

If you mean by "shown the ability to help a team" that he's shown some skills -- sure. But last season, every previous season, and on his career, Brad has produced at a below-average level for a NBA SG (considering everyone, not just starters). I'd say he is more like the 30th-35th best SG in the league, rather than the 10th-15th best. Then add the injury problems -- esp. for a starter.

There's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that he is perceived to be a budding superstar because of his draft position and age. If Beal was drafted 17th or so, we'd all be pretty happy with him. (We also wouldn't be paying him $25M a year.)

"Nothing wrong" -- are you saying there's nothing wrong with Brad's production level? He's doing fine? People should just change their expectations? I'm surprised if so -- you were a lot more critical of him a few months ago, if I remember right, and for my money you were right back then. I can't imagine being happy with him if his draft position had been different.

Beal's main issue is that his usage rate is too high relative to his skill set. If he was primarily a spot-up shooter and secondary pick-and-roll runner with a USG% of, say, 22%, I think he could be a pretty efficient player.

The problem with this speculation is that there's no way to test it. H*ll, we don't even know whether he could play that role.

I think we are reduced to "hope." If Brad were 25, we wouldn't even feel like there was hope. But, he just turned 23; he's still young. All we have left is to hope that he becomes a productive player on the court, that he isn't forced to play within time constraints that mean he can't be on the court enough, and that he shucks off his injury history.

I'd really like you to name 34 shooting guards better than Beal before entertaining any of your other arguments.

Beal is a decent player. An average starter. If he was paid $8-10M a year or so, I'd be happy. The problem is the perception that he's a top 5 SG with big upside. That's why he got paid a max contract. My criticism of Beal on these pages is in that context. I never said he sucks. I've always said he's mediocre.

[Ruzious]

I'd say Beal is at least as good a player as Porter is - probably a hair better - and they're the same age. It really doesn't matter where they rank according to their positions, because they're might be a plethora of 2's compared to 3's. Beal produces more at a slightly less efficient rate than Porter. His scoring and assists are far more than Porter's. Beal scored easily a career-high 22.4 points per 40, while Porter got 15.3. Porter had a 56 TS% while Beal had a 54. If you love Otto Porter, then you should probably love Bradley Beal. I think Beal has more potential, because he's got a better build for his position and has all the physical traits you need to excel in the NBA. He's probably a good 10 lbs heavier than Porter - even though he plays a typically smaller position.

[nate33]

I'd say Beal is at least as good a player as Porter is - probably a hair better - and they're the same age. It really doesn't matter where they rank according to their positions, because they're might be a plethora of 2's compared to 3's. Beal produces more at a slightly less efficient rate than Porter. His scoring and assists are far more than Porter's. Beal scored easily a career-high 22.4 points per 40, while Porter got 15.3. Porter had a 56 TS% while Beal had a 54. If you love Otto Porter, then you should probably love Bradley Beal. I think Beal has more potential, because he's got a better build for his position and has all the physical traits you need to excel in the NBA. He's probably a good 10 lbs heavier than Porter - even though he plays a typically smaller position.

I'd rank Porter slightly higher than Beal, but in general, I agree with this. Both guys are pretty decent players who rank in that 8-15 range at their position. I think Porter is definitely around 8-12 at his position, whereas Beal is more like 11-15. I think Porter's significant advantage in advanced stats (ORtg, WS/48, VORP, BPM) and durability clinches it for him. I also like that Porter still appears to be in a steeply positive improvement trend while Beal appears to have leveled off.

[Ruzious]

I'd say Beal is at least as good a player as Porter is - probably a hair better - and they're the same age. It really doesn't matter where they rank according to their positions, because they're might be a plethora of 2's compared to 3's. Beal produces more at a slightly less efficient rate than Porter. His scoring and assists are far more than Porter's. Beal scored easily a career-high 22.4 points per 40, while Porter got 15.3. Porter had a 56 TS% while Beal had a 54. If you love Otto Porter, then you should probably love Bradley Beal. I think Beal has more potential, because he's got a better build for his position and has all the physical traits you need to excel in the NBA. He's probably a good 10 lbs heavier than Porter - even though he plays a typically smaller position.

I'd rank Porter slightly higher than Beal, but in general, I agree with this. Both guys are pretty decent players who rank in that 8-15 range at their position. I think Porter is definitely around 8-12 at his position, whereas Beal is more like 11-15. I think Porter's significant advantage in advanced stats (ORtg, WS/48, VORP, BPM) and durability clinches it for him. I also like that Porter still appears to be in a steeply positive improvement trend while Beal appears to have leveled off.

I'm not particularly good with advance stats, but my spider senses tell me they tend to overrate lower usage players. Usually, low usage players are low usage players because they would become far less efficient if they took as many shots as higher usage players.

[nate33]

I'm not particularly good with advance stats, but my spider senses tell me they tend to overrate lower usage players. Usually, low usage players are low usage players because they would become far less efficient if they took as many shots as higher usage players.

I think this is fair. Usage definitely matters. But the disparity between Porter and Beal on the advanced numbers is pretty darn big. I personally don't think Beal's higher usage is enough to close that gap, but reasonable people can differ about this.

[Dat2U]

I'd say Beal is at least as good a player as Porter is - probably a hair better - and they're the same age. It really doesn't matter where they rank according to their positions, because they're might be a plethora of 2's compared to 3's. Beal produces more at a slightly less efficient rate than Porter. His scoring and assists are far more than Porter's. Beal scored easily a career-high 22.4 points per 40, while Porter got 15.3. Porter had a 56 TS% while Beal had a 54. If you love Otto Porter, then you should probably love Bradley Beal. I think Beal has more potential, because he's got a better build for his position and has all the physical traits you need to excel in the NBA. He's probably a good 10 lbs heavier than Porter - even though he plays a typically smaller position.

I'd rank Porter slightly higher than Beal, but in general, I agree with this. Both guys are pretty decent players who rank in that 8-15 range at their position. I think Porter is definitely around 8-12 at his position, whereas Beal is more like 11-15. I think Porter's significant advantage in advanced stats (ORtg, WS/48, VORP, BPM) and durability clinches it for him. I also like that Porter still appears to be in a steeply positive improvement trend while Beal appears to have leveled off.

I'm not particularly good with advance stats, but my spider senses tell me they tend to overrate lower usage players. Usually, low usage players are low usage players because they would become far less efficient if they took as many shots as higher usage players.

At least last year, there was a dramatic difference b/w Porter & Beal on defense. I know Porter gets a lot of criticism for his individual match up's with better SFs but he's a very solid team defender. Beal was just ghastly on defense last year. To me that's what really separates the two, especially if you believe defense is 50% of the game, and just important as offense.

Now maybe Beal will bounce back and be at least passable on that end. Considering what were paying him, I hope to God that's the case.

Offensively I thought there was a lot of Beal over-dribbling last year which stagnated our offense a bit. But I think that's a case of a bad coaching staff playing to our stars weaknesses rather than strengths. For the last few years we've had an elite slasher/play maker in Wall pump up mid-range jumpers at an incredibly high rate like he's a great shooter, while an elite 3 pt shooter in Beal runs P&Rs like he's a stud play maker and dribble searches for tough shots inside the line. I'm hopeful that our new coaching staff will focus on the simple stuff, like playing Wall & Beal to their core strengths. I think that would make both much more efficient and effective.

[jangles86]

Since Beals draft the only 2 guards that come close to Beal are these:
Oladipo
McCollum
Lavine
Hezonja
Winslow
Booker (possibly not a SG)

I wouldn't take one of these players over Brad. In my opinion we've got the most talented 2 guard from the last 4 drafts.

[Ruzious]

Since Beals draft the only 2 guards that come close to Beal are these:
Oladipo
McCollum
Lavine
Hezonja
Winslow
Booker (possibly not a SG)

I wouldn't take one of these players over Brad. In my opinion we've got the most talented 2 guard from the last 4 drafts.

I think you meant Winslow is possibly not a SG (since he's a 3) rather than Booker. Pope might belong in the conversation soon, and I'm guessing he'll get ridiculously over-paid next year.

[Dat2U]

Since Beals draft the only 2 guards that come close to Beal are these:
Oladipo
McCollum
Lavine
Hezonja
Winslow
Booker (possibly not a SG)

I wouldn't take one of these players over Brad. In my opinion we've got the most talented 2 guard from the last 4 drafts.

Oladipo was much better than Beal last season, mainly because he's established himself as an elite perimeter defender. Offensively his jump shot has improved enough to where teams have to respect it, which has allowed him to show case his elite slashing ability.

McCollum also had a much better season than Beal, he's just more polished and smoother offensively. He has a wider variety of offensive skills in his toolbox, especially with the ball in his hands... and despite being smaller than Beal, he showed to be the better defender of the two.

I'd take both without hesitation over Beal and that's not even taking into account Beal's health concerns.

[AFM]

Since Beals draft the only 2 guards that come close to Beal are these:
Oladipo
McCollum
Lavine
Hezonja
Winslow
Booker (possibly not a SG)

I wouldn't take one of these players over Brad. In my opinion we've got the most talented 2 guard from the last 4 drafts.

Oladipo was much better than Beal last season, mainly because he's established himself as an elite perimeter defender. Offensively his jump shot has improved enough to where teams have to respect it, which has allowed him to show case his elite slashing ability.

McCollum also had a much better season than Beal, he's just more polished and smoother offensively. He has a wider variety of offensive skills in his toolbox, especially with the ball in his hands... and despite being smaller than Beal, he showed to be the better defender of the two.

I'd take both without hesitation over Beal and that's not even taking into account Beal's health concerns.

I'd rather have Will Barton, taken 40th in Beal's draft.