Why Otto Porter could be the #1 pick in the 2013 NBA Draft

The Cleveland Cavaliers just won their 2nd lottery in 3 years, following the 2011 win that netted them Kyrie Irving. Many are all but writing in Nerlens Noel as the pick, widely the favorite to go 1st all year and a defensive compliment for a team who’s been terrible on that end.

Not so fast.

First, it bears noting how it’s no secret Cleveland is leading the way among NBA teams who are relying on advanced metrics to pick players. The Tristan Thompson and Dion Waiters 4th overall picks that came out of nowhere, appear to be have been on the back of what the stats said. Nerlens Noel and Otto Porter have been the advanced metrics community’s favorites all year. This is because most draft regression studies, favor players who fill the statsheet in non-scoring ways – such as rebounding, blocks, steals, assists. Noel averaged an exceptional 11.9 rebounds, 5.5 blocks, 2.6 steals, 2.0 assists per 40 minutes. His 27.7 PER for a freshman big and .58 TS% on 13.1 pts per 40, also could help his case. Porter averaged 8.5 rebounds, 3.1 assists, 2.1 steals, 1.0 blocks per 40 minutes, rare all-around numbers for a sophomore SF, in addition to 27.8 PER .59 TS% on 18.3 pts per 40 .

I’ve been using statician Ed Weiland’s site hoopsanalyst.com as a Cavaliers canary since last year. In 2011 he ranked Tristan Thompson as his 2nd best prospect after Kyrie Irving and in 2012 he ranked Dion Waiters 2nd after Anthony Davis. Considering Cleveland went on to surprise and take Thompson and Waiters top 5, he seems an excellent indicator of the statistical method they’re using. On Weiland’s last big board update, Noel and Porter ranked as his #1 and #2 respectively, followed by Trey Burke 3rd, out of the question for the Cavaliers. Another well respected statician draft site, shutupandjam.net, ranks Porter 1st and Noel 3rd (with Trey Burke 2nd).

In a vacuum, the evidence would still seem to point to Noel. Although Porter’s rebounding, passing, and blocks/steals for a SF are exceptional, Noel’s rebounding, block and steal rate is even more freakish and he rates 1st on Weiland’s site. However, other factors are playing towards Porter:

- Noel is recovering for a torn ACL. While ACL recoveries are reliable in this day and age, there’s still a risk that a loss of explosiveness will occur. A problem magnified by how much Noel relies on not just great, but transcendent athleticism for a big man. Furthermore, Noel had a fractured growth plate in the same leg that ended his sophomore year in high school. Multiple knee injuries this early in his career is a huge concern, especially with a frame as light as his.

- Porter is the superior fit positionally, sliding into the SF role beside Irving at PG, Waiters at SG, Thompson at PF and Varejao at C. Noel and Thompson is not a great fit. For one, Noel may be too light to play center, pushing him to long term starting PF status, leaving Thompson’s spot out to dry. Secondly even if they play together, it’s lacking in offense. A lack of floor spacing would hurt on a team with guards who want to drive into the paint

- The Cavaliers appear to be impatient to win. As they stated on the lottery telecast, they hope this to be their last lottery for a long long time. They’ve tanked 3 long years post Lebron and with Kyrie heading into his 3rd season, appeasing him by pushing towards winning is now important. Noel’s ACL recovery means he doesn’t help them win next year, while Porter would likely immediately start at SF for them.

When Noel’s health, positional fit and the desire to win soon is taken into account, the Cavaliers choosing Porter becomes a real possibility even if their statistical methods give the edge to Noel. If Noel is ahead, it depends by how much. I imagine any narrow gap is made up for health, fit and immediate production. If Noel has a large lead on Porter in their advanced metrics, they may feel the best move is taking him and dealing with the other consequences. Right now I’d call it a near toss-up, but I’m actually leaning towards Otto Porter grabbing this. Of course, the Cavaliers could also rectify this by trading down, perhaps to 3rd overall if the Wizards wanted Noel more than Porter. With Tobias Harris and Moe Harkless on the team, the Magic taking Porter at the 2nd overall spot is unlikely. Though because #1 picks are a source of pride, I’d bet against the Cavaliers moving down just for a small asset.

This has been the most up in the air year for the #1 pick since 2006 and lottery night didn’t change it. I see two major contenders if the Cavaliers keep the pick, but they could be deadly tight.

What Memphis may regret about the Rudy Gay trade

English: Memphis Grizzlies vs. Oklahoma City Thunder during the second round of the 2011 NBA Playoffs, game 1 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Memphis Grizzlies are playing like a true title contender. Right now, the advanced stats supporting side of the Rudy Gay trade looks more on point than those who claimed the Grizzlies would miss him.

I criticized the Grizzlies for the Gay trade when it happened, but my concern isn’t that they traded Gay, a likely wise move. It’s whether what they received in return is the best they could do.

It’s clear the Grizzlies believed they could improve and contend this year trading Gay and they’ve been proven right about that. For this reason, they took on Tayshaun Prince’s long term contract – when if solely building for the future, an expiring contract like Jose Calderon may have given them more flexibility.

However the Grizzlies also had an eye on the future by acquiring Ed Davis, a young, promising PF. In other words, the Gay trade was the Grizzlies trying to have their cake and eat it too. They’d improve now, while also acquiring a young player to transition to the future.

But this may be the regret the Grizzlies have that keeps them up at night, if they don’t win the title this year. Because while Ed improves their future, he is not in the rotation or making them better now. Instead of taking Ed Davis, the Grizzlies have the option to flip him to another team for a win-now veteran who’d be in their rotation and producing now. There may have also been offers for Gay on the table from teams other than Toronto, who were offering more solely win-now production than Prince and Davis are.

In other words, the Grizzlies didn’t go all-in on winning the title this season, by choosing Davis over more immediate production. But they could’ve.

Even if just flipping Ed Davis to Atlanta for Kyle Korver – a no-brainer deal and heist from Atlanta’s side considering Korver is 32 and a UFA this summer, that gives Memphis one more player in a 3pt shooting specialist role they desperately need. That one more player may be what separates Memphis from a title and a near miss in the end. At the trade deadline flipping Davis for Korver looks insane. But with what we know now? It may be worth it. This is the year the Thunder are a lame duck. The year other young franchises who may contend in the future like Golden State, Houston, Denver, the Clippers aren’t ready yet to make the Finals (seemingly for the Warriors). Zach Randolph is in his 12th season, he may not be the same player long after this year or the next. Memphis may not get a better chance than this and every inch will matter if they want to win the title.

Of course, the Grizzlies ownership may have expected the advanced stats friendly Davis to be a productive, important part of their title run. A disconnect between ownership and Lionel Hollins may the main reason Davis isn’t producing for Memphis right now, not that he lacks the ability to.

In addition, the other argument can be made as well. That if no trade could make the Grizzlies beat the Miami Heat this year, it may end up their chances of winning a title with this core by improving the future by acquiring Ed Davis, if their real chance is later, never destined to be this year.

Finally, maybe the perfect mix is what the Grizzlies have now, for reasons that go beyond talent to fit and chemistry. If the Grizzlies win the title this year, there will be no reasonable criticism of the Rudy Gay trade. But in the chance they don’t, “what if” may hang over them. Not necessarily the what-if of keeping Rudy Gay, but the what-if of not going all-in this season, of having a young asset on the bench in Ed Davis that had the trade value of one more win-now veteran.

Analyzing why James Harden, Stephen Curry and Ty Lawson’s star upside was missed in the 2009 draft

Washington Wizards v/s Denver Nuggets January 25, 2011 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The 2009 draft has turned into one of the best of this generation. James Harden, Stephen Curry and Blake Griffin are blossoming as superstars and franchise players. Ty Lawson is leading the way in Denver not too far behind.

It’s easily forgotten that 2009 at the time had been called one of the worst drafts of this generation, with 1 star in Blake Griffin and little upside after him. Many saw Ricky Rubio as having the 2nd highest chance at a special career, while some supported Demar Derozan, Tyreke Evans, Brandon Jennings, Jrue Holiday, as potential surprise stars. Few saw such upside coming for Harden, Curry or Lawson.

The question is, why? What mistakes in evaluation led to not just missing on Harden, Curry and Lawson, but missing on evaluating their maximum potential?

Here’s my analysis of why:

James Harden

Harden had many clear strengths in college, such as size, shooting, passing and ballhandling for a 2 guard. His feel for the game, control and “old man” game stood out as well.

The main reason Harden’s upside got underplayed, is he was regarded as a less than an elite athlete. A few points about this. Although Harden may not be a freak athlete, he’s still a good one. He has a strong first step, especially for his size.

Furthermore, I’ve made the point that athleticism goes as far as it can be used. The usual value of a wing player’s athleticism, is “slashing” or having the explosiveness to attack the basket, scoring points in the paint and at the free throw line and collapsing the defense for others. When a wing player forces his will on the opponent by attacking the basket, I categorize it as physically impacting the game. A few months ago I wrote how Gerald Green despite great athleticism, had less than impressive ability to physically impact the game due to a lack of ballhandling. Because of lacking ballhandling skills, a player like Green could not use his athleticism to physically impact the game at a high level and without that his athleticism is not as valuable. Harden is the antithesis of Green. Although a good and not elite athlete, he adds to that elite ballhandling ability. The combination of good athleticism, elite size and elite ballhandling makes Harden a closer to great or elite talent physically impacting the game than merely judging his athleticism in a vacuum would suggest. Furthermore his college career showcased this. Harden used his first step, size and ballhandling to be a dynamic player attacking the basket in college. Largely a mistake was made assuming the tools allowing Harden to attacking the basket at an elite level in college, wouldn’t be there in the NBA too. Certainly Harden’s skills and IQ were so high that if he had been projected as a dynamic slasher at the next level, he’d have been known as a surefire star.

Stephen Curry

Coming out of college, Curry clearly was a special, special 3 point shooter. What people didn’t know is whether he’d do anything else. The reasons to doubt Curry were long. His athleticism and skinny frame was seen as a weakness limiting his upside. It was unclear whether he could play PG and run an offense at the next level, or whether he’d be stuck at SG. Many expected awful defense. Curry was also a 21 year old Junior coming out of Davidson, older age and small schools usually hurt draft prospects. With Curry the appeal was a guaranteed skill, 3 point shooting. However younger, more physically gifted peers in the draft were seen of players with a higher chance of flaming out, but a higher upside.

A main reason for the Harden miss, is similar for Curry. Curry may not be an elite athlete or very wide, however he is an exceptional ballhandler. When added to at least decent quickness, Curry’s ability to create attack the rim off the dribble is average, not bad. This difference between average and bad slashing, is key considering the rest of Curry’s game is flawless. Aside from all time great shooting and elite ability to create jumpshots off the dribble, Curry’s feel for the game and IQ is elite.

As for the rest of his concerns: In regards to playing PG, Curry became more of a playmaker his final year at Davidson averaging 5.6 assists per game. As a strong ballhandler with an elite feel for the game, while doubts about his position were not unfounded, PG was always his most likely position. Curry is still not a defensive standout, but many offensive stars aren’t and especially at PG, where man-to-man defense is almost dead. Point guards are almost entirely defended with help and team defense, allowing a team to survive Curry’s defensive inadequacies. Curry’s age and college are red herrings to me because talent is talent, regardless of when the player comes out. Furthermore age and college are usually red flags when a player who doesn’t produce early in his career, suddenly starts dominating them once they’re a few years older. Curry was elite as a freshman at Davidson statistically (27.8 PER) and one of the best in the NCAA in his sophomore season (34.7 PER and a dominant March Madness performance), before his junior year (36.4 PER).

Of the misses in this article, I consider Curry’s the most forgivable due to valid questions about whether he’d attack the basket and his position in the NBA.

Ty Lawson

With Lawson it’s quite simple, his height. At under 6 feet this submarined an otherwise perfect resume. Lawson had an elite combination of speed and strength for his height, an elite skill game with a dominant 3pt shooting season his final year at UNC with great ballhandling and passing, along with a silky smooth feel for the game and IQ. Furthermore Lawson was the standout, star player on the a national championship Tar Heel squad. But because of his height, he got labeled as a likely backup PG and sparkplug. The other thing that hurt him, is he was a Junior and set to turn 22 in November of his 2009 draft year.

Lawson’s height prevents him from being an even better player, but considering he aces the rest of the test, he has more than enough to make up for it. I wrote last week about why I consider height to be overrated. The gist is that length has to compete with athleticism and strength for what matters in physical talent alone, but then physical talent has to compete with skill, intelligence and motor as other factors influencing a player’s success. If physical talent is only a slice of a pie for a player’s success, if one sees height as only a slice of that slice, all of a sudden it becomes logical to see why a short player like Lawson can be so good. Lawson’s height is relevant, but when it’s added to his elite skill and strength which allows him to attack the basket and finish, even from a physical talent perspective he comes out well. When added to terrific perimeter skills and feel for the game, Lawson playing like this makes sense. Largely what it comes down to, is isolating any single factor as overwhelming an otherwise near perfect resume, is likely a mistake just because of the amount of factors that go into a player’s success. For example, Rajon Rondo is a star with shooting as a clear weakness. But like height, one can see shooting as only a portion of skill level, while skill level is then a portion of overall talent and success – like Lawson’s situation, Rajon’s weakness as a shooter then becomes a slice of a slice and thus overcome-able. Marc Gasol’s athleticism is likewise only a slice of a slice, with Gasol having other physical talents like strength and length, then that physical talent only being a portion of his success competing with skill and intelligence where he is elite for his position.

As for his production, like Curry, talent is talent. Furthermore Lawson played at a strong level his freshman (21.3 PER) and sophomore (24.8 PER) seasons before his junior (30.5 PER) year and was not a late bloomer, in particular emerging as a star by his sophomore season.

Lawson’s is clearly the most unforgivable evaluation of this group, considering how far he fell compared to the others, that he had the perfect college situation for the spotlight to be on him and especially considering an undersized PG with a poor skill level and feel for the game in Jonny Flynn went 6th overall!  I don’t know entirely how Lawson fell that far, sometimes you have to shrug your shoulders and just accept wild things happen.

As a wrapping note, as I’ve stated before, whenever you hear that this or another draft is terrible and hopeless – just remember Harden, Curry and Lawson and how they were missed. And check out this blog because I’ll be trying to sniff out who the next versions of them are!

Why height/length may be only 10% of what matters in an NBA’s player’s success

If you follow the NBA Draft, you know how much a player’s height and wingspan is talked about. Who’s undersized, who’s arms aren’t long enough, who’s extra long for their position.

Length matters in the NBA. Clearly it is key to defending and it helps plays find space offensively.

But let’s do some math. First off if judging raw ability, let’s remove effort level and motor or other character concerns for now, we can assume a player’s “tools” are a combination of physical talents, skills and intelligence. Don’t confuse this with my personal grading system of physical impact and skill impact (shoot, post, pass), where I factor in how literal skills like ballhandling helps a player attack the basket and physically impact the game, or literal physical tools like strength help the effectiveness of a post game or skill impact. For now let’s just assume physical tools includes athleticism, strength, length, skills includes everything a player does with the ball in his hands. Their literal definitions.

So with these literal definitions of physical talents, skill talents and intelligence, the question is how much each one matters. Let’s give physical tools a favorable split of 40% of ability, with skill and intelligence combining for 60%. I may not agree with this number but it’s conceivable.

Now most agree athleticism is the most valuable physical talent. In particular the ability to either explode by player to get to the rim, or explode vertically to finish is key. Let’s give say athleticism is half of what matters with physical talent. Again I may consider it more valuable personally, but I’ll use that number for now.

From 40% of physical talent’s overall worth, 20% is athleticism, leaving another 20% for other physical talents – namely, body strength and length. Splitting it down the middle which may or may not be fair, leaves them both at 10%.

Now, I did this all with only 3 factors in physical tools, skills and intelligence, the literal definitions. In reality most consider effort level and heart, another important part of succeeding in the NBA. If factoring this in and then redoing the ratios, the number would be bumped below 10%. Another reason of course is that it’s very arguable that giving a 40% physical tools/60% skill and intelligence combined weighting, is too high. A 30%/70% split between physical talents and skill and intelligence is just as conceivable. Overall 10% looks generous to me.

These are all estimates, but the point is this. Length matters in the NBA, but it’s one of many factors. Skill is hugely important and there’s multiple aspects within skill that are important. Intelligence and instincts are key and there’s many facets to that as well. Within physical tools alone, which competes with skill, intelligence and effort for important, length then competes with athleticism and strength for importance. Consider it this way, even if length was 40% of what mattered to physical talents and physical talents were 40% of what mattered to the player, that still only adds up to 16% when multiplied together, hardly a domineering number. Even if length was 15-16% of what matters for a player, that’s far lower than how important the talent is considered in the draft process and then in the NBA. Do your own numbers for the importance of physical talents to a player’s success and then the importance of length to a player’s physical talents. When it’s accepted physical talents are a fraction of what it takes to succeed in the NBA, then length is a fraction of what’s important in physical talents, the number comes out low.

If the number is 10-15%, that still matters and is enough to care about in the NBA. If a student has an exam that’s worth 10-15% of his grade, he shouldn’t blow it off. However the NBA tends to act like a poor showing on that test is enough to make passing the course from there an uphill climb and huge task and I don’t believe logic bores this out.

2013 NBA Draft Talent Grades: The Point Guards

Here are my talent grades for the PGs in the NBA Draft. The PGs I find relevant enough to grade are Trey Burke, Michael Carter-Williams, C.J. McCollum, Myck Kabongo, Dennis Schroeder, Shane Larkin, Isaiah Canaan, Phil Pressey and Nate Wolters. (Seth Curry will be on my SGs list) *May 8th update: Added Pierre Jackson, Erick Green, Matthew Dellavedova, Ray McCallum. Removed Russ Smith (returning to school).

I give the PGs grades from 1 to 11 in the areas of physical impact, skill impact (Shoot, post, pass) and feel for the game, according to this rubric:

11: Transcendent, 10: Incredible 9: Elite, 8: Great, 7: Very good, 6: Decent, 5: Average, 4: Lacking, 3: Weak, 2: Very poor, 1: Awful

What the overall grades mean:
25+: Perennial all-star talent, 23-24: Blue Chip starter to Perennial all-star talent, 19-22: Blue Chip starter talent, 17-18: Rotation player to Blue Chip starter talent, 14-16: Rotation player talent, 12-13: Deep bench to rotation player talent, 11 or lower: Deep bench player talent

First, here are my grades split between the 3 categories:

Physical impact talent grades:

Dennis Schroeder – 8 / Great

Myck Kabongo – 7 / Very good

Michael Carter-Williams  – 5 / Average

C.J. McCollum – 5 / Average

Pierre Jackson – 5 / Average

Trey Burke – 3 / Weak

Phil Pressey – 2 / Very Poor

Shane Larkin – 2 / Very poor

Isaiah Canaan - 2 / Very poor

Nate Wolters – 2 / Very poor

Matthew Dellavedova - 2 / Very poor

Erick Green – 2 / Very poor

Ray McCallum - 2 / Very poor

Schroeder and Kabongo lead the way for physical impact. Schroeder has a strong first step attacking the basket and respectable size for the position. Kabongo also has a nice combination of speed and size. Pierre Jackson is as explosive as any of the PGs, but also the smallest at a generous 5’10. Carter-Williams is long which will help defensively, but I do not see a plus athlete for the position, in addition he is skinny which may hurt finishing. McCollum has the ballhandling and size to get to the basket and finish, but is also not a plus athlete. Burke, Pressey, Larkin, Canaan, Wolters, Green, McCallum, Dellavedova are at a likely weakness as slashers and physical impact players, with questionable athleticism and/or size for their position.

Skill impact (Shoot, post, pass) talent grades:

Trey Burke – 9 / Elite

Matthew Dellavedova – 9 / Elite

CJ McCollum – 8 / Great

Shane Larkin – 8 / Great

Isaiah Canaan – 8 / Great

Nate Wolters – 8 /Great

Erick Green – 8 / Great

Pierre Jackson – 7 / Very good

Michael Carter-Williams - 4 / Lacking

Dennis Schroeder – 4 / Lacking

Myck Kabongo - 4 / Lacking

Phil Pressey - 4 / Lacking

Ray McCallum – 4 / Lacking

Burke and Dellavedova leads the way in skill impact. Burke is a terrific perimeter shooter, shot creator and passer. Dellavedova’s shooting at the 3pt and FT lines are also excellent and he’s a talented, creative passer. McCollum, Larkin, Canaan, Wolters, Jackson, Green are also among the NCAA’s standout perimeter scorers. The rest are a work in progress. It’s hard to rank players below average when they’ve yet to prove into the NBA they can’t develop to respectable levels, but Carter-Williams, Schroeder, Kabongo, Pressey and McCallum are not known as reliable perimeter scorers and could easily perform worse than the grades I gave them.

Feel for the Game talent grades:

Trey Burke – 9 / Elite

Matthew Dellavedova – 9 / Elite

C.J. McCollum - 8 / Great

Shane Larkin – 8 / Great

Isaiah Canaan - 8 / Great

Phil Pressey – 8 / Great

Nate Wolters – 8 / Great

Erick Green – 8 / Great

Ray McCallum – 8 / Great

Myck Kabongo - 7 / Very good

Pierre Jackson – 6 / Decent

Michael Carter-Williams – 6 / Decent

Dennis Schroeder – 4 / Lacking

An impressive group. Burke and Dellavedova’s feel for the game jumped off the screen in college, playing with a superior control, fluidity and awareness of teammates. McCollum, Larkin, Caneen, Pressey, Wolters, Green, McCallum, Kabongo are also smooth, intelligent points. Carter-Williams and Jackson can be erratic at times, but also have solid vision and awareness on both ends. Schroeder is hard to get a read on, but appears to lack some control or awareness driving, relying on his physical tools.

By adding up these scores, my rankings of PG prospects:

Tier 1 – Blue Chip starter talent grades (Grades between 19-22)

C.J. McCollum

Physical impact talent grade: 5 / Average

Skill impact (Shoot, post, pass) talent grade: 8 / Great

Feel for the Game talent grade: 8 / Great

Total talent grade: 21 (Blue Chip starter talent grade)

Trey Burke

Physical impact talent grade: 3 / Weak

Skill impact (Shoot, post, pass) talent grade: 9 / Elite

Feel for the Game talent grade: 9 / Elite

Total talent grade: 21 (Blue Chip starter talent grade)

Hard to pick between Burke and McCollum, who impress me for similar reasons. Both should have strong perimeter shooting/scoring games, both with with range and superb ballhandling creating jumpshots and space off the dribble. Both are smooth, fluid and smart offensive players. McCollum is considered less of a guarantee to play PG, but I see ballhandling and feel for the game what separates players who can play PG from thus forced to SG the most and McCollum is great and not just good in both. McCollum’s size makes me sold on his ability to slash and create points in the paint, albeit Burke’s skill, passing and decision making is more of a guarantee. My gut saying McCollum has the higher upside if his shooting and slashing are better than my grades indicate, but I expect both to compete for rookie of the year next season with the award favoring guards who can handle the ball and create offense for themselves immediately.

Matthew Dellavedova

Physical impact talent grade: 2 / Very poor

Skill impact (Shoot, post, pass) talent grade: 9 / Elite

Feel for the Game talent grade: 9 / Elite

Total talent grade: 20 (Blue Chip starter talent grade)

Dellavedova may be the weakest athlete of this group, despite solid size for his position and ballhandling otherwise helping him attack the basket. Where he shines is his skill and feel for the game. He scored 3s at a high volume and has the highest FT% of this group at over 85%, with his ballhandling gives him solid perimeter scoring potential. Moreso, he’s arguably the most creative passer of this group. He’s a very smooth and intelligent player, seeing the game a step ahead of others. Despite his physical limitations, Dellavedova’s skills and feel for the game makes me rank him as a likely starting PG in the NBA.

Tier 2 – Rotation player to Blue Chip starter talent grades (Grades between 17-18)

Myck Kabongo

Physical impact talent grade: 7 / Very good

Skill impact (Shoot, post, pass) talent grade: 4 / Lacking

Feel for the Game talent grade: 7 / Very good
Total talent grade: 18 (Rotation player to Blue Chip starter talent grade)

Myck is a nice PG prospect. He’s big and athletic enough to attack the basket consistently, with a fluid game and awareness of his teammates. His problem is an unproven perimeter shooting game. Although I expect his physical tools and feel keeps him in a rotation alone, he’ll need a perimeter scoring game to start in the NBA. Myck has the upside of a blue chip player if he improves to a plus level in the area.

Shane Larkin

Physical impact talent grade: 2 / Weak

Skill impact (Shoot, post, pass) talent grade: 8 / Great

Feel for the Game talent grade: 8 / Great

Total talent grade: 18 (Rotation player to Blue Chip starter talent grade)

Isaiah Canaan

Physical impact talent grade: 2 / Very poor

Skill impact (Shoot, post, pass) talent grade: 8 / Great

Feel for the Game talent grade: 8 / Great

Total talent grade: 18 (Rotation player to Blue Chip starter talent grade)

Nate Wolters

Physical impact talent grade: 2 / Very poor

Skill impact (Shoot, post, pass) talent grade: 8 / Great

Feel for the Game talent grade: 8 / Great

Total talent grade: 18 (Rotation player to Blue Chip starter talent grade)

Erick Green

Physical impact talent grade: 2 / Very poor

Skill impact (Shoot, post, pass) talent grade: 8 / Great

Feel for the Game talent grade: 8 / Great

Total talent grade: 18 (Rotation player to Blue Chip starter talent grade)

All four players have the same grade, despite some differences in style between Larkin and the other 2. Larkin is faster but very small, while Caneen’s size (a little small), Green’s size (average) and Wolters’ size (big) is respectable for a PG, but they lack the speed to slash to the basket well in the NBA. All are good bets to make it because they can shoot and are crafty, smart players. While unlikely stars, I expect Larkin, Canaan, Wolters and Green to be reliable NBA players.

Pierre Jackson

Physical impact talent grade: 5 / Average

Skill impact (Shoot, post, pass) talent grade: 7 / Very good

Feel for the Game talent grade: 6 / Decent

Total talent grade: 18 (Rotation player to Blue Chip starter talent grade)

Jackson is the fastest and arguably the most athletic point guard of this group, but at barely 5’10 is also tiny and will struggle to finish at the basket. With his ballhandling, his ability to attack the basket still is enough for an average physical impact grade. His perimeter shooting is above average for a point guard. Jackson also has solid awareness and instincts, despite some erratic-ism.  Jackson may end up starting for some years in his career before settling into excellent backup status.

Tier 3 – Rotation player talent grades (Grades between 14-16)

Dennis Schroeder

Physical impact talent grade: 8 / Great

Skill impact (Shoot, post, pass) talent grade: 4 / Lacking

Feel for the Game talent grade: 4 / Lacking

Total talent grade: 16 (Rotation player talent grade)

I am not basing this off a ton of footage, so take my grades for Schroeder and other European players with a grain of salt. Schroeder is getting buzz for his ability to get to the basket and size for his position, but the rest of his game has question marks. His control and awareness looks to be a question mark. In addition, like Kabongo it’s accepted Schroeder’s perimeter shooting game needs development if he wants to start in the NBA.

Michael Carter-Williams

Physical impact talent grade: 5 / Average

Skill impact (Shoot, post, pass) talent grade: 5 / Average

Feel for the Game talent grade: 6 / Decent

Total talent grade: 15 (Rotation player talent grade)

Although Carter-Williams is very long for a PG, I am not a huge fan of his physical impact tools. He has average explosiveness and his lack of strength, makes him struggle finishing plays at the basket after slashing. Despite his high assist numbers, I also grade Carter-Williams’ feel for the game as merely decent, there are times when he looks out of control instead of smooth when driving to the basket, albeit he also has moments of greatness in anticipation and vision. Much of his career will hinge on his perimeter shot which is very worrying at this stage of his career. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he can be an average shooter or near it in his skill impact grade, but he could be regraded at a lower level in the category if his shooting is poor in the NBA. His passing also helps his skill impact grade. Overall, Carter-Williams’ length and feel for the game gives him high defensive potential at PG, but offensively without assured slashing or shooting ability, he’s a huge question mark. Carter-Williams can turn himself into a starter if his shooting develops, but I also see major bust risk if he’s taken into the lottery.

Phil Pressey

Physical impact talent grade: 2 / Very poor

Skill impact (Shoot, post, pass) talent grade: 4 / Lacking
Feel for the Game talent grade: 8 / Great

Total talent grade: 14 (Rotation player talent grade)

Pressey is somewhat of a less skilled version of Larkin. He’s quick, but lack of size makes his slashing and physical impact game unlikely to translate. His strength is a high feel for the game and instincts level, with strong control and craftiness. Pressey’s career will depend on his shooting ability. If he is questionable scoring in the paint, he needs the perimeter shot to drop to produce. Like the other points I will give his development the beneift of the doubt by not grading him too low in the category, but if he is a poor shooter instead of average in the NBA he’d likely struggle to find a long term place in the league.

Ray McCallum

Physical impact talent grade: 2 / Very poor

Skill impact (Shoot, post, pass) talent grade: 4 / Lacking

Feel for the Game talent grade: 8 / Great

Total talent grade: 14 (Rotation player talent grade)

McCallum has an excellent feel for the game and fluid awareness of teammates. However the rest of his talent is lacking. He has sluggish athleticism attacking the basket and has struggles as a perimeter shooter. McCallum is a smart enough player to stick in the league, but barring fixing his shooting game I do not see the physical and skill talents to start.

Factors outside of talent grades: I consider Skill impact (Shoot, post, pass) grades the hardest to gauge. Because of their age I trust Burke, McCollum, Dellavedova, Larkin, Canaan, Wolters, Green’s strong scores as likely to be accurate, while players in developmental stages are harder to predict.

Taking this into account, if purely ranking upside I would rank it: 1. McCollum 2. Burke 3. Dellavedova 4. Kabongo 5. Jackson 6. Schroeder 7. Wolters 8. Green 9. Larkin 10. Canaan 11. Carter-Williams 12. Pressey 13. McCallum. Kabongo and Schroeder are the main beneficiaries of ranking by upside, presuming they make a leap up in skill. If judging worst case scenario, I would rank it (with a high ranking as positive) 1. Burke 2. McCollum 3. Dellavedova 4. Wolters 5. Green 6. Larkin 7. Canaan 8. Jackson 9. Kabongo 10. Schroeder 11. Carter-Williams 12. Pressey 13. McCallum In this case Kabongo, Schroeder, Carter-Williams, McCallum and Pressey would find it hard to mark a consistent place in the league due to lack of useable perimeter skill plays.

Final rankings and an estimate of where they rank on my overall list:

1. C.J. McCollum (top 10)
2. Trey Burke (top 10)
3. Matthew Dellavedova (top 14)
4. Myck Kabongo (top 20)
5. Erick Green (top 20)
6. Shane Larkin (top 20)
7. Nate Wolters (top 20)
8. Isaiah Canaan (top 20)
9. Pierre Jackson (top 20)
10. Dennis Schroeder (top 30)
11. Michael Carter-Williams (top 30)
12. Phil Pressey (top 40)
13. Ray McCallum (top 40)

For fun considering he led the way all year for PGs, my grade for Marcus Smart:

Physical impact talent grade: 8 / Great

Skill impact (Shoot, post, pass) talent grade: 5 / Average

Feel for the Game talent grade: 8 / Great

Total talent grade: 21 (Blue Chip starter talent grade)

Smart has impressive explosiveness and size, making it likely he’s an impact guarding attacking the basket and finishing. His physical tools also give him the talent to physically impact the game defensively at a high level. Smart suits his name, as a smooth and crafty player, with strong feel for the game on both ends. The shooting game is the concern with Smart, albeit post potential helps raise my skill impact grade for him. I would give the Smart the highest upside of PGs in this class ahead of Burke, McCollum and Smith, but with greater risk than Burke and McCollum. Because of the importance of finding players with star upside, I’d take Smart before the other PGs in this class but would pause at taking him top 5.

Fun with the Stanley Cup Playoffs and NBA analogies

English: Alex Ovechkin, warmups. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Usually I write one NHL article a year, right before the playoffs start. I don’t have great NHL expertise, so I usually buckle and write a “NHL from the NBA fan’s perspective” article in some way.

So for fun this year, I will rank the 16 teams from most likely to least likely Stanley Cup Champion, but by comparing them to something about the NBA.

1. Chicago Blackhawks (1st seed, Western Conference)

NBA Comparison: Kevin Durant era Oklahoma City Thunder

The Blackhawks have a great team culture. Headlined by Patrick Kane and Jonathan Toews who are surefire lifers for the franchise, they play with the effort and team unity in addition to their talent all franchises should strive for. Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook hold the reigns of the Thunder franchise and the expectations to contend year in and year out for a decade and a half, in the similar way.

2. Pittsburgh Penguins (1st seed, Eastern Conference)

NBA Comparison: Jerry West and Elgin Baylor era Lakers

The Penguins landing Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin, two generational talents in back to back drafts has made them the star franchise of the league since they arrived. Of the great star duos in NBA history, West and Baylor stand out the most. Crosby and West is a great comparison. Like West, the respect for Crosby as a leader and professional from fans and the league is off the charts and the league leans on him as their star. Malkin slides in as the team’s second, super talented star.

3. New York Rangers (6th seed, Eastern Conference)

NBA Comparison: Present day Indiana Pacers

The Rangers and Pacers both play a defensive, fundamentally sound style that turns off some fans. The Rangers have done a great job building a homegrown talent base lately, like the Pacers. Like the Pacers the Rangers do everything right, but are they dynamic enough? Rick Nash as an X factor forward will help. The Rangers came into this season as a title favorite with offensive and defensive depth and the best goaltender on the planet. They should still be at the top of favorites.

4. Los Angeles Kings (5th seed, Western Conference)

NBA Comparison: Russell Westbrook

Westbrook himself gets his own team. Like Westbrook, the Kings combination of power, speed, talent and swagger make a ton to handle. The Kings won the title last year as an 8th seed, but leading up to that season their contention had been expected for years. The Kings are one of the most talented teams and right at the top of contenders.

5. Washington Capitals (3rd seed, Eastern Conference)

NBA Comparison: Steve Nash era Phoenix Suns

Washington has long been an explosive offensive team who struggles to get over the hump in the playoffs. As a 2-time MVP who may be the frontrunner for a 3rd this season, Alex Ovechkin is one of the great title-less players, like Steve Nash.

6 Vancouver Canucks (3rd seed, Western Conference)

NBA Comparison: John Stockton/Karl Malone era Utah Jazz

The Canucks have strong seasons year in and year out and have a fundamentally strong style of play. But they are questionable in pressure situations and can get beat. The Canucks do everything right, but a lot of champion teams need a greater X factor.

7. St Louis Blues (4th seed, Western Conference)

NBA Comparison: Memphis Grizzlies

This one is easy. Like the Grizzlies, the Blues play in the mud. They are big, mean and hang their hat on tight defense. But like them, the Blues lack of dynamic offensive skill and gamebreakers make people doubt them.

8. Boston Bruins (4th seed, Eastern Conference)

NBA Comparison: Patrick Ewing era Knicks

The Bruins are a signature defense and physicality team. They’re the “don’t face them in a back alley” team. Although the Bruins got a title, I’ll compare them to the Ewing and Pat Riley Knicks, who made their games a brawl.

9. Anaheim Ducks (2nd seed, Western Conference)

NBA Comparison: Carmelo Anthony era New York Knicks

The Ducks had a surprisingly big season thanks to their top end offensive firepower. The Knicks combination of Carmelo Anthony and a 3pt barrage, give them a similar dynamism. The Ducks’ strengths seem too weighted towards top line offense, instead of defense and depth, so they are likely pretenders.

10. Montreal Canadiens (2nd seed, Eastern Conference)

NBA Comparison: Paul Millsap

Millsap’s skill, intelligence and toughness is terrific, but he lacks the athletic explosiveness to be a game breaker at a higher level. The Canadiens are skilled, deep and tough, but seem to play the NHL’s equivalent to “below the rim”.

11. San Jose Sharks (6th seed, Western Conference)

NBA Comparison: Pre 2011 Dallas Mavericks

As with the Mavericks before their title run, the Sharks are a half decade past dominant regular seasons and playoff letdowns and are hoping for a surprise run. Joe Thornton fits the NHL Dirk profile, peaking as a superstar and MVP but below contention for THE best player of this generation.

12. Detroit Red Wings (7th, Western Conference)

NBA Comparison: Boston Celtics

The Red Wings franchise’s eerie doppelganger has long been the Spurs. For this particular team however I’ll compare them to the Celtics, an older former champion who admirably squeezes into the playoffs, but don’t have the gas.

13. Toronto Maple Leafs (5th seed, Eastern Conference)

NBA Comparison: James Harden

The Maple Leafs had a breakout season with a nice combination of offensive skill and physical grit. But is their game too predictable? Do they defend enough? Like Harden there’s hairs to pick at before calling them truly competing with the greats.

14. Minnesota Wild (8th seed, Western Conference)

NBA Comparison: Houston Rockets

Like Houston, Minnesota made a big leap last summer by signing Ryan Suter and Zach Parise. Minnesota just snuck in as the 8th seed and will be feed to the 1st seed Blackhawks, however a strong future lies ahead.

15. New York Islanders (8th seed, Eastern Conference)

NBA Comparison: Golden State Warriors

A long tortured franchise who made it back the playoffs this year. As a young team with a tough first round playoff matchup, this will be an experience trip, not a long one. John Tavares leads the way like Stephen Curry.

16. Ottawa Senators (7th seed, Eastern Conference)

NBA Comparison: Chicago Bulls

The Senators lost their biggest offensive stars in Erik Karlsson and Jason Spezza most of the year, but somehow scraped a playoff spot out with defensive team-play, effort and strong coaching, similar to this year’s Bulls. In the playoffs grit will give way to lack of talent.

Here are my personal predictions:

1 Chicago over 8 Minnesota (6 games)
7 Detroit over 2 Anaheim (7 games)
3 Vancouver over 6 San Jose (6 games)
5 LA Kings over 4 St Louis (6 games)

1 Chicago over 7 Detroit (5 games)
5 LA Kings over 3 Vancouver (6 games)

1 Chicago over 5 LA Kings (7 games)

1 Pittsburgh over 8 NY Islanders (5 games)
2 Montreal over 7 Ottawa (7 games)
6 NY Rangers over 3 Washington (7 games)
4 Boston over 5 Toronto (7 games)

6 NY Rangers over 1 Pittsburgh (6 games)
4 Boston over 2 Montreal (5 games)

6 NY Rangers over 4 Boston (7 games)

Stanley Cup Final:

1 Chicago over 6 NY Rangers (6 games)

Why PF Anthony Bennett is my #1 ranked 2013 NBA draft prospect

Choosing the top prospect for this year’s draft hasn’t been any easier for me than everyone else. However I am feeling stronger and stronger about who my top graded prospect is: UNLV PF Anthony Bennett.

Bennett is a unique combination of physical tools, skills and instincts. An area he has dynamic potential in, is as a slasher. With both a strong first step and an impressive ballhandling base, he has the tools to blow by defenders to the rim off the dribble. Once there, he has great strength, vertical explosiveness and a long wingspan to finish. Although Bennett is 6’8, short for a PF – I believe his athleticism, strength and wingspan shouldn’t prevent his ability to finish above the rim and through contact. On the defensive end he isn’t expected to be a shotblocker, but most PFs aren’t. Because of his speed and power, I see Bennett’s talent in the area of physically impacting the game, as clearly above average.

He also has a strong feel for the game. Bennett is a smooth, natural and fluid offensive player who shows the ability to adjust and craftiness off the dribble. He plays at an easy pace. Bennett needs to improve on the defensive end, but his offensive instincts, I expect Bennett’s defensive problems come from youth and inexperience. With his feel for the game along with his athleticism and wingspan, I see little reason to doubt Bennett can be respectable defensively. On the glass he has the body, instincts and college production to average over 9 or 10 rebounds a game in the NBA.

What really excites me about Bennett however, is his skill impact game. For a freshman big, Bennett has impressive shooting range out to the NCAA 3pt line and can create jumpshots off the dribble like a guard. This indicates he has the potential to be an NBA 3pt shooter. In addition to this, Bennett’s freakishly strong frame, low center of gravity and touch around the basket, make him a perfect fit to add a post game in the NBA with the body to hold position and skill to finish. If he had either an NBA 3 or a post game, he’d be a high end skill player for a PF. With both it would potentially make him the most skilled PF in the league. Because of his shooting ability for a young player and post upside, Bennett’s skill game has the upside to be one of the best for his position in the league.

Although my prospect grading system is based on pure talent and not college production, it also doesn’t hurt that Bennett produced at an elite level as a freshman (Per 40 minutes: 22.0 points, 11.0 rebounds, .60 TS%, 27.6 PER). These numbers are especially impressive once considering it came in spite of UNLV’s system and teammates, dominated by shot jacking perimeter guards, instead of a system clearly designed to run plays for Bennett. There have been many talented big men whose production slipped through the cracks in college because of a game suiting perimeter players more, the recipe for Bennett to be the latest of these misused college bigs were there, but in the face of this he still produced at a rare level for a freshman PF.

Here are my talent grades for Bennett using my 3 categories Physical Impact, Skill Impact (Shoot, post, pass) and Feel for the Game under this rubric:

11: Transcendent, 10: Incredible 9: Elite, 8: Great, 7: Very good, 6: Decent, 5: Average, 4: Lacking, 3: Weak, 2: Very poor, 1: Awful

What the overall grades mean:

25+: Perennial all-star talent, 23-24: Blue Chip starter to Perennial all-star talent, 19-22: Blue Chip starter talent, 17-18: Rotation player to Blue Chip starter talent, 14-16: Rotation player talent, 12-13: Deep bench to rotation player talent, 11 or lower: Deep bench player talent

Physical impact talent grade: 8 / Great

Bennett grades well here, due to his upside as an explosive, face-up slasher, with the length and strength to finish at the basket.

Skill impact (Shoot, post, pass) talent grade: 9 / Elite

His best category, due to both shooting range and the tools to be a post player. If everything goes right, regrading this to a 10 or 11 would be conceivable. On the other hand, he could also be only a solid midrange shooter, instead of a 3pt or post player, in which case 7 or 8 would be a more accurate grade.

Feel for the Game talent grade: 8 / Great

An 8 or 9 feels right here. Bennett’s fluidity and natural feel to his game, is a clear strength.

Total talent grade: 25 (Perennial all-star talent grade)

If all goes right, Bennett would have the ability to do all of attack the basket off the dribble, shoot the ball  on the perimeter or score in the post, with the feel for the game to mix it all together. With all these tools, he’d likely be one of the game’s best offensive frontcourt players and a star. There are some questions about whether he’ll prefer to play SF, but I believe Bennett neither has the lateral quickness or ballhandling to play the position, which should rule out that possibility quickly, perhaps to the benefit of his career. Bennett’s grade does not have a huge lead over other prospects near the top of my board like Kelly Olynyk, Gorgui Dieng, Ben McLemore, Victor Oladipo, or Alex Len, but I expect to hold as the top grade until the June draft. I believe Bennett would likely be picked 1st overall if he had been 6’10 instead of 6’8. Due to not only his strength, wingspan and athleticism, but his skill and feel, I see his lack of height as only preventing an even higher upside, not a weakness that will prevent him from dynamic upside. From the last 5 drafts (2009-2013) Bennett is one of 8 players who’s talent I presently grade a 25 or higher (my highest category, “Perennial all-star talent grade”), along with James Harden (2009), Blake Griffin (2009), Paul George (2010), Kyrie Irving (2011), Anthony Davis (2012), Jeremy Lamb (2012), Evan Fournier (2012). I see Bennett as the most likely candidate to the be star this draft is looking for.