A Substitute for War

Basketball philosophy

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

The Raptors don’t need a superstar to contend for a title

leave a comment »

torraptors27_226273710

With the Cavaliers shellacking the Raptors a popular takeaway is “Wow, teams without a superstar don’t have a chance”. Lowry is a knife in Lebron, Curry and Durant/Westbrook’s gunfight. A knife needing to be sharpened after hacking through two tough series.

But it’s not the only problem. The team struggles to pass the ball and finished out of the top 10 in defense. If a team is going to win a title without a superstar, that’s not the way.

When bringing up the alternatives to superstar championship teams the 2004 Pistons are listed as the lone example. In other words you need an aberration. I’m not as convinced. First, here are the 6 champions in the 2010s:

2015 – Golden State Warriors

2014 – San Antonio Spurs

2013 – Miami Heat

2012 – Miami Heat

2011 – Dallas Mavericks

2010 – Los Angeles Lakers

The list has Curry, Lebron, Dirk and Kobe. But the 2014 Spurs had nobody finish higher than 12th in MVP voting in Parker and Duncan’s tie. Duncan was a former superstar and Kawhi a future one but that season neither them or Parker was any more a superstar than the 04 Pistons had.

Now consider the 2013 Spurs who had a 5 point lead with 30 seconds left and a 99%+ chance at the title after Lebron’s shot missed. From the Raptors perspective, why is this less useful an example than the Heat’s win? They were equally title caliber. Parker and Duncan finished 6th and 7th in MVP this season, while excellent seasons, they weren’t a level two Raptors like Lowry and Valanciunas couldn’t get to one day.

While they didn’t come as close as the Spurs, the 2010 Celtics had a 3-2 series lead and were up 13 midway through the 3rd quarter of Game 7 and up 4 with 9 minutes left in the 4th. That’s probably close enough to call them title caliber. If they were good enough to beat the Lakers 3 other games and build that lead they were good enough to outplay them for one more half game or quarter. The Celtics didn’t get an MVP vote this year as Garnett, Allen, Pierce had aged from 08 and Rondo was still emerging.

3 title caliber teams since 2010 is manageable enough odds for the Raptors to have hope. One could add the the 2011 and 2014 Heat, 2012 Thunder and 2015 Cavaliers as title caliber teams with superstars, but even after that the ratio isn’t that bad for the superstar-less teams.

In the decade before, champions with Shaq, Duncan, Wade, Garnett, Kobe dwarf the lone 2004 Pistons. But the 2005 Pistons went 7 and were up by 6 with about 16 minutes left, not to mention had a great chance to close the series in 6 if not for Robert Horry’s heroics in Game 5. The 2000 Blazers were good enough to beat the Lakers in the conference finals before their collapse, which would have guaranteed a superstar-less champion in them or the Pacers.

Furthermore the more you go back the less recognizable the league is or usable as a test case. The CBA has evolved, the talent pool is different, the talent in front offices is a different level, the style of play has gone from post-ups to a slash and kick 3pt game that would have seemed foreign to that era. Players today live in a radically different, social media-infused world emotionally. The game on and off the court has gone from SNES to X-Box, from serve and volley to baseline groundstrokes with topspin. Just because for 50 years only superstars won titles doesn’t mean it will be that way from now on. A sample size like the last 5 or 6 years may be a more reasonable comparison for the challenge the Raptors face now.

If the Raptors want to beat Lebron James, it’s not about being in awe of his talent but looking at what the 2015 Warriors, 2013 and 2014 Spurs, 2011 Mavericks and 2010 Celtics had that they didn’t. They defeated a King by passing the ball, spacing the floor and playing elite defense. Five men have always had the capability to beat one. That’s the formula to follow for superstar-less teams.

Written by jr.

May 20, 2016 at 5:28 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

The case for Ben Simmons over Brandon Ingram being an easier call than advertised

leave a comment »

bensimmons

Simmons vs Ingram is considered a dead heat. The Lakers are co-winners cause they get to just sit back and grab whoever’s left.

Or is it? I enjoyed this Libertyballers post “Just Fucking Take Simmons”. I see evidence for Simmons as the guy also.

For me it’s all about production. Here is their per 40 stats:

Simmons: 22.2 pts, .60 TS%, 13.5 reb, 5.5 ast, 2.3 stl, 0.9 blk, 3.6 TOV, 27.2 PER

Ingram: 20.0 pts, .55 TS%, 7.8 reb, 2.3 ast, 1.3 stl, 1.6 blk, 2.3 TOV, 21.1 PER

Simmons is 1st in the SEC in PER, 3rd in reb/40, 5th in stl/40, 10th in ast/40. Ingram is 20th in the ACC PER, his best stats are 13th in pts/40 and 16th in blks/40, not coming near Simmons rebounding, steals or assists dominance compared to PFs. He had a quality season but in the same way Harrison Barnes and Bradley Beal did in college.

When you consider how great his Ast/40 is for a PF, it’s fair to call Simmons a sure thing to pass at a standout level for his position. When you consider his elite Reb/40 and his size and athleticism, that’s likely in the bag. When you consider his athleticism, strength and ranking 1st in the SEC in FTA/40, attacking the basket is a likely near guaranteed skill too.

Without the same top 10 statistical performances, Ingram doesn’t have this. His closest guaranteed skill may be taking shots. He’s in 8th in the ACC in FGA/40 in addition to the 13th in Pts/40. He has the tools for this with the length to shoot over anyone.

But the days of valuing 20 point a game scorers who create their own midrange are dwindling. The priority is now shots at the rim, 3s, passing and defense.

The pro-Ingram take is normally his 3s and defense make him that modern player. He is ranked 9th in the ACC for 3pt shooters attempting more than 1 per game (41%), 23rd in 3PA/40 (6.3) and 62nd in FT (68.2%). In those stats Durant rated 19th, 14th and 8th respectively his draft year.

I value volume and FT% to project shooters because the NCAA season is a small sample size. Take the difference between Ingram’s 41% and Malachi Richardson’s 35% who is not considered in his class as a shooter. Richardson shoots a higher volume (7.0 3PA/40) and FT% (72.0%). Ingram went 80 for 195 from 3, Richardson went 79 for 224. The swing between their 3P% comes down to about 11 or 12 made 3s. If Ingram went 75 for 195 and Richardson went 86 for 224 their 3P% is both 38.4%. Not only could the difference between their 35% and 41% be liable to variance, but context. What if one player had to force end of shot clock prayers more often? Or one player especially benefitted from teammates getting him open shots? Using FT% both adds more information and is free of contextual effect of teammates/situation. I still value Ingram’s 3P% but my compromise is to call him a 6 or 7 out of 10 talent in the skill. Good but not a guaranteed lights out guy. More Barnes than Durant.

As for his defense. Ingram has an elite wingspan. But I see defense as a combination of length, frame, athleticism, positional IQ, motor, toughness. Ingram’s case outside of his length isn’t as strong. Here is Draftexpress  on him:

“Defensively is where Ingram surprised many this year with his underrated combination of toughness and competiveness. While his fundamentals need work, his size, length and reach gives him great versatility when paired with his willingness to get stops. He showed the ability to switch out onto guards effectively at times out of pick and rolls from the power forward position, sagging off and staying in front, while still getting a hand up to contest thanks to his 7’3 wingspan.

With that said, Ingram still has a ways to go to become a more consistent defender, something that clearly didn’t become a priority for him until arriving in college. He can get a little sleepy at times and lose his focus, closing out lackadaisically, standing around off the ball and looking hunched over in his stance guarding the perimeter. Duke had one of the smallest rotations in high major college basketball and couldn’t afford for Ingram to get in foul trouble, which didn’t always lead to him operating with the highest intensity at all times. Once again, getting stronger will help, as he tends to get caught up on screens quite a bit on the perimeter and can get pushed around inside the paint.

Upside and Motor wrote this:

His defensive potential is really confusing. There are times when Ingram looks like an elite defender, something that he is capable of being due to his length. There are other times, however, where he is undisciplined and confused. He too often leaves his feet to contest jump shots and chase blocks. Here, he unnecessarily helps down, probably chasing a come-from-behind block, and leaves his man wide open.”

“Ingram’s length can help him make up for it at times, but for the most part the motor and consistency isn’t there. He doesn’t have the type of elite athleticism to help him get away with this all the time. He’s not particularly fast on his feet and he doesn’t get in his stance often enough. For a player with exceptionally long legs, standing straight up can be the kiss of death. He switches out on to a guard here but gets off balance and can’t recover on the step back jumper when he stands up.”

There are times where Ingram looks like a monster on that end, especially when he is locked in. This makes it even more frustrating when he gets scored on because he isn’t sitting in a stance or he is biting on a shot fake. If he wants to improve on that end, he needs to stay dialed in every possession.”

Both recognize his potential but do not rave about his current ability. While he could translate his length into great D he could also end up bullied due to his body, caught upright and flat footed and just not smart or tough enough.

Ingram’s 1.3 steals and 1.6 blocks per 40 is solid but unspectacular and also reflective of a non-elite defender in college.

He has promise on that end but this is not a guaranteed skill. And that’s where I see the difference between him and Simmons. Simmons has not only tools but the elite track record in NCAA in areas like attacking the rim, passing, rebounding, stealing. Outside of possibly taking creating his own FGA, Ingram does not have both this track record of excellence in addition to the tools, when considering his 3pt is less a closed case than it looks. Sure, if everything goes perfectly, Ingram has a non-zero chance of being Durant. But max upside is not something he has to hold over Simmons, who it’s not inconceivable could be Lebron or Magic. May as well just take Simmons.

Written by jr.

May 19, 2016 at 2:32 pm

Ron Baker and searching for Draymond Green

leave a comment »

0621357001454971404_filepicker

The Warriors picking Draymond Green 35th changed their franchise, changed the balance of power in the league, changed a position. Now teams will look at passing on Green and do their best to rectify the mistakes next time.

Here’s an attempt:

Draymond’s defense

Defense is a big reason teams missed on Green. Here is Draftexpress on his defense in December 2011:

Screen Shot 2016-05-10 at 10.07.19 AM

Here is Chad Ford in June 2012:

Screen Shot 2016-05-10 at 10.08.42 AM

Green was supposed to not have a defensive position in the pros as short for a PF at 6’7 and too slow to guard SFs. He’s gone on to be a top 2 defender in the NBA.

There are signs he was a better defensive prospect at the time. First off while Green is short at 6’7, a 7’1 wingspan is above average. He adds that to an excellent frame/strength. So Green’s length and strength combined was actually above average for a PF.

The next sign were results. Green averaged a quality 1.8 steals, 1.2 blocks, 10.3 defensive rebounds per 40 and had the highest defensive win shares on an elite Spartans D. For this he was voted to the Big Ten’s All-Defense team. The season before he averaged more steals and blocks at 2.2 and 1.5 per 40.

Having a plus defensive body and a statistical and recognition track record of playing defense is a great place to start for projecting on that end, especially when you add in grade A basketball IQ and motor raves. While you can’t blame scouts too much for misreading his athleticism at the time, one can guess he would have looked better moving side to side than vertically.

Draymond’s offense

Draymond’s skillset was one of the most unique among college bigs this generation. A stretch big at 39% on 4.4 attempts/40 doesn’t happen too often on its own, but that combined with 4.6 assists/40 is what made him one of a kind, peaking at 5.7 assists/40 as a junior. Green’s unique shooting and passing skills in the NBA far from came out of nowhere. His scoring rate of 19.6 pts/40 on .54 TS% as a senior was not spectacular, but solid.

Ron Baker’s Draymond Green credentials

A prospect with some Green in his profile is Wichita State’s Ron Baker.

To start look at the similarities in Baker’s defensive profile. Defense is one of his biggest strengths in college. He made the MVC All-Defensive team and ranked 1st in Defensive Win Shares on Wichita State’s elite D. His 1.9 steals, 0.8 blocks, 5.5 defensive rebounds per 40 minutes is a strong combination compared to SGs.

Baker is small in height at 6’4, but his 6’9.5 wingspan is above average. He has a big frame. He is known most for his basketball IQ and high intensity allowing him to pressure opposing players and pick off passes.

So much like Green he has the defensive track record of production, the plus body and the IQ and motor. Athleticism is what scouts worry about most on that end. This is fair enough, although it appears to his ability to move side to side is more impressive than his jumping ability. If Green and Baker were such bad athletes, perhaps they wouldn’t have been good defenders in college.

ron-baker-nba-wichita-state

On offense is where Baker loses the comparison to Green a bit more. He averages 4.1 assists per 40 and has the ball handling to run pick and rolls at the next level. He shot 34.8% from 3, after over 37% as a sophomore and junior. With a quality 78% FT his shooting projection is solid. His 17.4 pts/40 on .55 TS% as a senior isn’t amazing, but you can do worse.

All of this doesn’t compare too badly to Green, but the difference is position. Over 4 assists per 40 is good at SG, but once or twice a generation levels of rarity at PF. Being a 3 point shooter and floor spacer at PF is a whole different animal than SG. It doesn’t mean Baker can’t find a role with shooting, passing and basketball IQ at the next level, it’s just not as obviously rare from the outset as Green’s skillset.

I don’t expect Ron Baker to be a star like Green. I’d estimate the “median outcome” is probably more like Courtney Lee and to be a star would require hitting some high bell curve outcome. But if looking for a Green-like 2nd round older prospect with defensive production, body, IQ, motor make him underrated on that end and has shooting and passing tools on the other, he seems to check a lot of boxes.

 

Written by jr.

May 10, 2016 at 11:47 am

Posted in Uncategorized

NBA Draft Big Board – May update

leave a comment »

These come from my statistical retrodiction system, adjusting for talent with the philosophy of 1/3s physical tools and 2/3s skill and basketball IQ and accounting for any mental make-up flags if necessary:

1. SF/PF Ben Simmons
2. PG Kris Dunn
3. C Chinanu Onuaku
4. SF Brandon Ingram
5. PG Wade Baldwin IV

To avoid just posting the same thing over and over again, my post in April went into greater detail of these players stats and talent:

https://asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com/2016/04/17/top-10-prospects-april-update/

To recap some points:

– I am lower on Ingram’s talent than most due to using a statistical approach to shooting instead of scouts, who I rely on for other attributes. Ingram is rated a top notch shooter by scouts but because he hits 68% from the FT line only rates as a decent perimeter shooter for me. That added to average ball-handling and passing skill puts his overall skill level in question for me. If he had Kevin Durant level shooting I would rate him as an elite talent and in consideration for first or second. With that said he’s still plenty talented due to his length, agility, feel and decent shooting.

1443801138– Baldwin’s size is not just good but special. A 6’10 wingspan for a PG is like an Ingram-esque 7’2-7’3 wingspan for a SF. He adds that to a strong frame. If he sticks at PG, that’s one of the best bodies of any PG prospect this generation. In addition to his other talents like shooting.

– Onuaku’s talent comes the closest to being a weak link of this group. But while he isn’t a go-to scorer in the post or a shooter, with only a 58% FT, he has other valuable traits for a center. Especially in the modern game where teams prefer to run their offense through perimeter stars, protecting the basket, rebounding, finishing offensive plays and passing is a lot of what you could ask for from a starting level center. He has the athleticism, size and passing skill to do that.


6. PF/C Zhou Qi

I struggled with how to apply my per category system to international players, but in the end I decided just to look at players who excel for their league compared to their teammates and the rest of the league. A lot of recent international bigs like Kristaps Porzingis, Rudy Gobert, Clint Capela, Nikoa Jokic, Jusuf Nurkic can say they were productive per minute in their leagues, with PER as a solid stat to capture this.

txmpfttz2eykoaex0qjapa

Zhou’s 22.1 PER ranks 18th in the CBA and 2nd on his team, he is easily the best shotblocker in the CBA at 3.7/40 and has the highest TS% at .672. He is 22nd in rebs/40 and 41st in pts/40, the latter in a league full of individual shot jackers. His stats are about as impressive for his league as Gobert’s were in French A. The question is how much to trust the CBA’s stats to European leagues. The consensus is most European leagues are far better competition than the CBA, but that’s because they put a greater emphasis on coaching, fundamentals and team play. The CBA is more like the D League full of stat-stuffing individuals.

But if Zhou plays in a league full of individual stat stuffers, does that mean being one of the 20 best players in the league statistically is any less impressive? It’s fair to suggest there’s nothing wrong with the CBA’s talent level as it’s is littered with former NBA castoffs who either have put up stats in mid level European leagues, or presumably would be. A quick look for players who’ve played in the CBA and European leagues suggests this is the case. While their per minute stats are inflated in the CBA, their rank in PER compared to the rest of the league isn’t necessarily inflated, since everyone else’s numbers in the CBA are inflated too.

Therefore while coming with some skepticism, I’m inclined to think Zhou’s numbers are a positive. He adds that to a compelling skillset. While having a painfully thin frame, he would be one of the longest bigs in the league and mobile on both ends. He shot 9 for 15 from 3 this year and 75% from the FT line. He has a chance to be a mobile, shotblocking big who shoots 3s, which is the type of commodity teams are dying for right now. The frame is a major weakness but like when a prospect is a few inches short, I don’t think it throws everything positive about his talent set out. Rebounding well despite his frame is also a positive sign.

7. SF Dedric Lawson

Outside of efficiency, Lawson has an excellent statistical profile for a freshman DX has listed as SF, with 1.5 stl/40, 2.1 blk/40, 11.6 reb/40, 3.2 ast/40, 19.6 pts/40 and .49 TS%.

As a talent he is not perfect as he is an average athlete. However he does have excellent size if he plays SF with a 7’1 wingspan and a big frame. He has a high feel for the game and passed the ball well this year. His high volume of scoring this year could indicate shot creating ability long term. The key swing stat is shooting where he put up 35% from 3 on 70.9% FT. This only OK and it would be nice to see the FT% higher especially. However with a 3 point shot he has an interesting combination of size, shooting and feel.

8. SG Ron Baker
9. SG Patrick McCaw

These are two SGs with relatively comparable statistical profiles:

Baker: 1.9 stl/40, 0.7 blk/40, 6.1 reb/40, 4.1 ast/40, in addition to 13.4 pts/40 on .59 TS% as a freshman, eventually 17.4 pts/40 on .55 TS% as a senior.

McCaw: 2.8 stl/40, 0.5 blk/40, 6.1 reb/40, 4.5 ast/40, in addition to 13.4 pts/40 on .59 TS% as a freshman, eventually 17.4 pts/40 on .55 TS% as a sophomore.

Baker is not an impressive athlete, but has good length, frame, ballhandling, passing and feel for the game for his position. McCaw is more agile, but has a skinny frame and worse ballhandling skills.

The body and track record is there for both to defend in the NBA, finding a place offensively could lean on their shooting. Baker shot 34.8% from 3 on 78.4% FT, with a higher 3pt in previous seasons. McCaw shot 35.2% 3pt on 76.9% FT. For both this is just good enough to have potential at the next level, but just average enough to not be a guarantee.

maxresdefault

For Lawson, Baker, McCaw, projecting as can defend and shoot a little feels role player-y, but it bears mentioning sometimes all-stars were the ones projected to just be role players at first, like Kawhi Leonard, Jimmy Butler, Draymond Green. High IQ, passing and having size can mean more than freak athleticism for all-star potential.

10. C Diamond Stone
11. C Jakob Poeltl

Of these two I prefer Poeltl’s skillset but Stone’s numbers come out higher. The margin isn’t huge in either case. Their profiles are:

Stone: 0.9 stl/40, 2.8 blk/40, 9.7 reb/40, 0.7 ast/40, 21.8 pts/40, .61 TS%
Poeltl: 0.8 stl/40, 2.0 blk/40, 12.0 reb/40, 2.5 ast/40, 15.7 pts/40, .63 TS% as a freshman, 22.6 pts/40, .66 TS% as a sophomore

Stone has a superb combination of scoring and shotblocking for a freshman big. He has a strong body that can be a bully down low, allowing him to back down and finish offensive plays. By hitting 75% this could indicate some shooting potential going forward. His basketball IQ is in question however.

Poeltl puts up better assist and rebound numbers than Stone, while having an appealing skillset. He has a quality combination of athleticism and frame, with post and passing skills and feel for the game. Hitting 69% of his FTs is solid and gives him a chance to improve his range. Post players who aren’t known for spacing the floor or protecting the rim is less in vogue these days, but if you can do it well, there’s still value there. And if a player does it as well as Pau Gasol did, they can still be superstar playing that way. Not to mention that Poeltl has some chance to either expand his range or become a good defender.

Overall while neither prospect seems spectacular to me, they are both solid, skilled big men.

12. SF Derrick Jones, Jr.

Jones is a superb wing statistically with 1.3 stl/40, 2.5 blk/40, 8.1 reb/40, 1.5 ast/40 and 20.4 pts/40 on .61 TS%. I’d take his statistical profile over more hyped up freshman wings like Ingram and Brown.

Despite being one of the best athletes in the draft, his skill game is too raw for me to love his talent level. It’s just hard to be a wing who can’t shoot or create off the dribble in the modern game. But he has a lot of defensive potential with his production and tools, and his youth and current scoring rate, would suggest not to totally write him off as an offensive player. A Jones who learns to shoot at an acceptable level would be an excellent prospect considering his athleticism and numbers. Jones is toolsy with upside and even on the downside, may make it for athleticism and defensive production anyways.

13. C Ante Zizic

Of all the international players in this draft, Zizic’s stats for his age impress me the most. At 19 he is 6th in PER (24.2) in the Adriatic league and 3rd (25.8) in the Croation league this year. In the Adriatic league he is 2nd in rebounds per 40 (12.3), 2nd in blocks (2.1), 9th in points (20.3), and 2nd in TS% (.673). This is the type of stat stuffing you want to see from a young international big and follows in the footsteps of the production of players like Nikola Jokic, Jusuf Nurkic, Clint Capela, Rudy Gobert, Jonas Valanciunas.

7b31fd2996-4861-4dcb-80f8-d1a90eff44727dflexible

The knock is that as a talent he has some flaws. He is considered a decent athlete with good size but his skill game is restricted to scoring around the rim, although hitting a solid 70% FT gives him some hope to expand his range. His basketball IQ is considered average. His game to start his career will likely be to get rebounds and finish plays around the basket. But the size, athleticism, touch around the rim and numbers alone is enough to make me interested in his chance to be a starting center or more.

14. PF Deyonta Davis

Davis is an excellent shotblocker for a freshman big at 3.9 blks/40 and scored well at 16.1 pts/40 on .60 TS% and is a solid rebounder at 11.8 reb/40, although is average at some other stats like 1.6 ast/40 and 0.6 stl/40.

He has a solid combination of length and lateral mobility which should help him on the defensive end and although his skill game is raw, scoring at a solid rate may be a decent side. His frame is skinny and weakness.

I don’t love the upside of Davis to be more than a finisher at the basket at block shots, but that may do just fine.

15. PF Brice Johnson

Brice is one of the most complete statistical prospects in the draft with 1.5 stls/40, 2.1 blk/40, 15.0 reb/40, 2.1 ast/40, and 19.8 pts/40 on .50 TS% as a freshman, later 24.2 pts/40 on .65 TS% as a senior. As a talent he has great athleticism but questionable length and frame for a big man and his skill game is largely around the rim, although he improved his range a little this year and hit 78.3% of his FTs. Still, his skills and his size puts some caps on his talent.

His numbers and athleticism would be enough for him to be top 10, except I also have him flagged for mental make-up as he has the reputation as immature or a hothead. I don’t have a big enough sample size of hotheads to say with confidence what this measn for his career, but it’s enough to rate him below some prospects who were rating close to enough to him.

16-30:

16. SG James Blackmon
17. SF Taurean Prince
18. PG Demetrius Jackson
19. SF/PF Juancho Hernangomez
20. C Ivica Zubac
21. PF Petr Cornelie

22. SF Jaylen Brown

Brown’s stats are no worse than average, with a low rate of 1.2 stls/40 and 0.9 blks/40 for his position, but a solid 2.9 ast/40, 7.8 reb/40 and 21.2 pts/40 on .52 TS% against hard competition. The thing keeping him out of the top ten, is that my philosophy of 2/3s of talent being skill and IQ does not play well on Brown at all, as he is an average shooter at 29.4% 3 and 65.4% FT, is not a great ballhandler, and is known for average at best basketball IQ. It also bears mentioning that while his statistical profile comes out as OK, I don’t take into account one of his worst categories like TOVs, and his whole profile from the high volume inefficient scoring, high assists and high turnovers, screams someone who just used a lot of possessions regardless of whether it was the right move. Therefore Brown forcing his way into some of these stats is plausible and wouldn’t be a great sign.

635547194003210143-img-9420

23. PF Dragan Bender

Bender rates as an impressive talent to me due to his athleticism, length, potential to shoot 3s and basketball IQ, I just don’t favor his season in Europe. In the Israeli league where he got most of his minutes he was about 9th on his team in PER, and being around his team’s 9th man reflects the rest of his season where the coach treated him as a fringe rotation player. In his limited minutes in the Euroleague he was the team’s least productive per minute player. There have been European prospects who weren’t trusted with a lot of minutes, but when they did, filled up the per minute stats compared to teammates. Bender is not one of them. While he blocked shots and scored at a decent TS% in a small sample size, but put up poor rebounding numbers, a low steal rate compared to the rest of his team and was an average scorer in volume and passer. His numbers suggest he got the minutes he deserved.

I see the team who drafts Bender as believing they can get a defensive anchor, shooter and playmaker from the 4 spot, a holy grail trinity of skillsets. It’s the Draymond Green package. But the problem is that there’s likely a reason why there’s only one Draymond Green in the league, and almost never another in NBA history: Because playing like him is really hard, and relies on stuff like Green’s incredible combination of basketball IQ, skills, strength and toughness. It’s sort of like how Shawn Marion used to be a popular prospect comparison in the draft because every year there’s a long armed, athletic wing who likes to score in transition. But with so many athletes at SF in the NBA and only one Marion, it’s clear there was a lot more to it than that. Bender could end up a great defensive anchor who shoots and is his team’s playmaker, or he could just be a long armed project.

24. PF Nigel Hayes
25. PG Melo Trimble
26. C Daniel Ochefu
27. PG/SG Jamal Murray

Murray is a talented player as one of the top 5 shooters in the draft, the rare strong ball-handling/shooting combination and a strong feel for the game, making up for mediocre size and athleticism for his position.

He just doesn’t come out well enough in my numbers. 1.1 stl/40 and 0.3 blk/40 is a low rate when most star perimeter players are over 2 stls and blks combined and 2.5 ast/40 is unimpressive. His 22.7 pts/40 on .59 TS% and 5.9 reb/40 are good numbers though.

28. PG/SG Alex Caruso
29. PF Henry Ellenson
30. SG Furkan Korkmaz

Notes on players out of the top 30:

Buddy Hield, Denzel Valentine, Malcolm Brogdon – From a talent perspective all of them rate highly as 3 of the best shooters in the draft, a high feel for the game, passing skill and size attributes. This is just all about the statistical indicators as old prospects with low numbers in categories like steals and blocks and who didn’t score at a high rate until they were older than the competition.

Domantas Sabonis – just missing the top 30, his profile outside of rebounding is somewhat average, especially in steals and blocks. More than that I struggled with his talent level as an athlete average with a below average wingspan at PF and not a great shooter.

Timothe Luwawu – Of the 1st round international prospects in this class, his numbers come off the worst to me. He is 21 next week and played in the Adriatic league and wasn’t all that impressive, shooting under 40% from the field and having about the 30th highest PER In the league. He was even less impressive if we went back a year ago when he couldn’t stand out in the French Pro B. Nemanja Nedovic in his draft year was a great athlete for his position, but old and putting up weak numbers in the Adriatic league. The concern for Luwawu is his profile points towards being the SG/SF version of that pick.

Gary Payton II – he is a high ranking on a lot of statistical boards right now. Rebounding is not rated as important in my system as it for others which hurts his performance a little and leaves his outstanding performing to largely the steals category. He also gets burned on the talent side of things as despite a great athlete, he is a non-shooting guard who struggles to handle and is considered to have an average feel.

Skal Labissiere – not saying anything surprising here, but yeah, his numbers are bad.

Written by jr.

May 4, 2016 at 2:43 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Mike Woodson may be the right coach for the Kings

leave a comment »

mike-woodson

 

Mike Woodson will be one of the Kings first interviews for their vacant coaching position. Woodson isn’t as hot a name as hires like Tom Thibodeau or Scott Brooks, or Luke Walton if he hits the market. In a league where everyone dreams of being the 73-9 Warriors who built a masterpiece of ball movement and pace, Woodson is a coach known for playing slow and isolating.

But coaching is weird. Last year the Pelicans strategy under Monty Williams seemed slow and antiquated, but nothing was wrong with the results. They won 45 games despite a bundle of injuries. The Pelicans thought hiring Warriors assistant Alvin Gentry would unlock the potential of their roster, but it backfired. Randy Wittman tried to make the Wizards faster and smaller to match John Wall’s strengths and it cost him the job. The Thunder finally replacing Scott Brooks with Billy Donovan didn’t lead to the team taking off.

With Mike Woodson, you can’t knock the results too badly. After the early rebuilding seasons in Hawks, he went on to average 45.6 wins his next five full seasons as coach, not counting the half season taking over for Mike D’Antoni in New York. He’s coached five playoff teams and made the 2nd round three times. With the Hawks he once won 53 games led by Joe Johnson, Josh Smith, Al Horford, Jamal Crawford. In New York they won 54 led by Carmelo Anthony, Tyson Chandler, Jason Kidd, J.R. Smith. Not that these teams weren’t talented, but it looks to me they won as much as you could ask of either roster. It’s not all sunshine and roses as Woodson was fired by the Knicks for a reason after they collapsed to 37 Ws, but the Knicks have only played worse in the two seasons since.

He also may fit the team. A team with DeMarcus Cousins and Rudy Gay leading the way was never going to move the ball like the the Warriors or Spurs. The same strategy that led to success on teams with Joe Johnson, Josh Smith, Jamal Crawford or Carmelo Anthony and J.R. Smith taking the most shots, may be the right fit for their strengths and weaknesses.

Mike Woodson is probably not the coaching hire that wins you a title, but after the last decade and the clock ticking until Cousins free agency, the Kings would kill for a nice, 45 W season right now. There’s a case he’s the best man for that job.

Written by jr.

April 26, 2016 at 1:06 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Top 10 prospects – April update

leave a comment »

This rankings are based on my statistical system comparing players in steals, blocks, rebounds, assists, and points and TS% (adjusted for age and competition) to a list of recent future all-stars at their position. The statistical conclusions are then run through my talent adjustment system crediting players for physical tools, skill and basketball IQ.

1. PF Ben Simmons

Simmons is arguably the top statistical player in the draft. He has one of the best single categories in his 5.5 asts/40 compared to PFs. His 2.3 stls/40 is also elite for the position and has other strong numbers like 13.7 reb/40 and 22.6 pts/40 on .60 TS%. His weakest number in 0.9 blks/40 is partly explained by playing on the perimeter so much, thus a higher steal rate instead.

Scouts consider him a top 2 talent in the draft with Brandon Ingram. He has a great combination of athleticism and ballhandling that helped him get over 10 FTA/40. His passing and court vision is considered special. While his shooting is his weakness a 67% FT is not so bad for a big and could be encouraging for his mechanics going forward.

The mental make-up is the big concern. One of the most interesting things Gregg Popovich has said about the Spurs philosophy is they look for players who are “over themselves”. This is one of the best ways to describe that nagging feeling about Simmons you can’t put your finger on. He doesn’t look like he’s over himself.

In my attempts to retrodict previous drafts, a number of players flagged for mental make-up before the draft underperformed including Michael Beasley, Tyreke Evans, Rudy Gay, Terrence Williams, Derrick Williams, along with the Royce White disaster. This flags ranged to things as little as Gay’s motor getting questioned to Evans not playing with teammates well to Terrence Williams getting called immature. But this is a small sample size of players to take a trend from. And at the same time there’s successes like DeMarcus Cousins who went on to be a star and Andre Drummond who got called soft in college. Furthermore while it wasn’t picked up on in college, I consider a number of NBA stars to be at semi-enigmatic like Carmelo Anthony, James Harden and Kyrie Irving. If Simmons has the personality of Anthony or Irving, so long as he’s as good as them, picking him #1 will work out fine.

Nevertheless, is it something to worry about? Yes. But if not for that he would otherwise be a rare shoo-in to be an NBA all-star. There’s no Anthony Davis or Karl-Anthony Towns in this draft to rate over him, the next best alternatives have either talent or numbers deficiencies. So he will have to do.

2. PG Kris Dunn

Dunn’s numbers are also terrific. His combination of 3.0 stls/40, 0.6 blks/40, 6.5 reb/40 and 7.6 ast/40 is elite at PG. His scoring numbers are less impressive, starting as a 8.4 pts/40 .47 TS% freshman and eventually ending at 19.9 pts/40 on .54 TS% as a senior.

He fits the profile of an all-star guard. Having a great combination of athleticism, ballhandling and size for a PG could make him elite attacking the basket. While PG isn’t the most individual defense friendly position, he’s as good a defensive prospect as it gets there for what it’s worth.

Dunn’s shooting is also considered his weakness. Although he hit 37% from 3 it was on an average volume and he shot a mediocre 69% from the FT line. Still, this is better than the range of “broken” shooting prospects like Elfrid Payton and Tony Wroten. Dunn hitting 3s in the NBA regularly to complete his offensive game wouldn’t be that surprising.

Dunn is a skilled passer but his decision making is questioned. When added to his shooting, in worst case he could be throwing up a lot of bad jumpers. But overall he has the numbers and he has the physical potential to be an all-star.

3. C Chinanu Onuaku

This rating is statistically driven. As a 19 year old center he put up 3.3 blks/40, 1.3 stls/40, 13.8 reb/40, 2.7 ast/40, as impressive a combination as Simmons and Dunn. His scoring career wasn’t stellar with 6.7 pts/40 as a freshman and 16.1 pts/40 as as sophomore, albeit efficient at .60 TS% and .62 TS% respectively.

Onuaku doesn’t have the scouts blessing as he is projected 2nd round. Despite having athleticism, length and frame to his credit along with youth, he is considered a raw skill player in the post or shooting. Only hitting 58.9% FT helps back this up. To his credit he does appear to have passing skill.

But at center there’s a lot of value to defending the rim while finishing lobs on the other end and Onuaku has a good chance of being that player. Not to mention he can pass the ball and still has time to develop a little shooting game. While not as obvious an all-star talent as the top two prospects, his numbers and physical tools are too strong to ignore.

4. PG Wade Baldwin IV

Baldwin’s numbers are good but not as dominant as the above players. He has 6.9 ast/40, 5.3 reb/40, 1.6 stl/40 and 0.4 blk/40. He scored 12.8 pts/40 on .59 TS% as a freshman and 18.4 pts/40 on .57 TS% as a sopohomore.

But I otherwise love the skillset. He is a 40% 3pt shooter and 80% FT shooter with plus passing skill for his position who has excellent defensive measurables. His 6’10 wingspan is near SF-like and one of the longest for his position in the draft, along with a big frame and big hands. Getting shooters who can defend is now a high value play in the NBA.

For scouts his big weakness is average athleticism and ballhandling, leading to a lack of slashing game in the pros. One thing compelling about this is he’s one of the best at getting to the FT line in the class at 7.7 FTA/40 and at .61 has a higher FT/FGA than James Harden had in college. This doesn’t mean it’ll translate, as for example Adam Morrison averaged over 10 FTA/40 his last college year. But when Harden was in college despite his FT drawing success scouts predicted he would be a skilled but perimeter orientated pro, due to average athleticism. In the end Harden translated his slashing game to the pros and it completed his game and made him a star. If Baldwin learned to drive in the pros like he did in college, when added to his size, shooting and passing ability, it makes him a perfect guard.

5. SF Brandon Ingram

Ingram has good but not great numbers. His 1.6 blks/40 for a SF is a highlight and his 20 pts/40 on .55 TS% is very good for his age and conference. His 7.9 reb/40 and 1.3 stls/40 would be the lowest among recent all-star SFs which is a concern for his length. His 2.3 ast/40 is average but he wasn’t a ball dominant player.

There’s a lot to love as a talent. He has a center’s length in a wing’s body, great agility and a natural feel for the game. I’m a little lower on his shooting than conventional scouts. While he shot 41% from 3 on a high volume, he only hit 68.2% of FTs. He still has a chance to be a great shooter, but as a prospect I rate him as more like a 6 out of 10 as a shooter, not a 9 out of 10 like say college Kevin Durant. If I had him rated as an elite and not just decent shooting prospect, it probably would have been enough for me to rate him 2nd or 3rd in this class.

In the end Ingram has the talent and enough numbers to be an all-star, but I don’t consider him a home run prospect. This is partly from statistical reasons like his low steal and rebounds, and partly from a more lukewarm opinion of his shooting along with other weaknesses like a skinny frame and average ballhandling.

6. PF Dragan Bender

My statistical system is not built to rate international players, so this is about as high as a prospect can get on my list without having any numbers backing them up. With that said Bender barely getting onto the floor on a struggling team, also makes me give him less production benefit of the doubt than I would have for say Porzingis last year.

As a talent though he is one of the more interesting in the class. He has the length and mobility to be a defensive big, while shooting 3s and passing the ball. The team that drafts him may have eyes on “European Draymond Green”, or if Andrei Kirilenko came out now and played exclusively as a smallball PF. But he has to be actually good at that role for it to worth it, a player can have Draymond Green’s style of play but just Ersan Ilyasova’s level of effectiveness, or worse.

7. PG/SG Jamal Murray

Murray was a strong scorer for a freshman guard at 22.9 pts/40 on .59 TS%, against good competition. His 1.1 stls/40, 0.3 blks/40, 5.9 reb/40, 2.5 ast/40 is a mediocre remainder of his profile though. A scary comparison? This makes Murray’s year for SGs the equivalent of Anthony Bennett’s for PF at UNLV, who had a strong year in pts/40 and TS%, but was below average at everything else.

His talent is appealing though. While his 78% FT is good not great, his 41% from 3 on a massive 8.7 3PA/40 was enough to rate him as a top 5 shooter in the draft for me. His ability to both dribble and shoot at a high level is compelling. There aren’t that many in the NBA who succeed at both, compared to spot up shooters who don’t dribble or big slashing wings who don’t shoot. Many who succeed at both are great players like Steph Curry, James Harden, Damian Lillard, C.J. McCollum, Jamal Crawford. Murray adds that to what appears to be a natural feel for the game. Also to his credit, his season may have been affected by playing beside Tyler Ulis. If given the car keys at PG for a team, he may have helped his statistical profile more by putting up assists. Playing PG would also make his size more acceptable.

Overall, Murray is a risk with between his stats and being a guard with mediocre size and athleticism. But his shooting, dribbling and feel for the game has a lot of appeal and his numbers are more like the median for draft prospects in this class, while a prospect like Nik Stauskas for example had bad, not mediocre in his year. I value Murray’s statistical information about as valuable as much as Bender having no stats, for both it is better than having bad stats. In the case of both, that combined with appealing talent sets looks good enough for these spots once outside the top 5.

8. PF Brice Johnson

Brice has some impressive numbers including 15.0 reb/40, 2.1 ast/40, 1.5 stl/40 and 2.1 blk/40. As a scorer he’s been a high volume player from the start at 19.8 pts/40 as a freshman building to 23.7 pts/40 as a senior, but with efficiency improving from .50 TS% as a freshman to .65 TS% as a senior.

Johnson is an impressive athlete although with poor length and frame for his position. He has improved his skill level and hit 78% from the FT line this year showing shooting potential, but is most known for points around the rim. Johnson’s most likely future may be a Kenneth Faried style energy big, but he has the chance to develop a skill game.

I would have rated him 2 or 3 spots higher than this but he is tagged with immaturity and hothead issues. I don’t have the sample size of how much this effects a career and at least one hothead recently became a star in DeMarcus Cousins, but with prospects close to as appealing as him, it’s worth watching out for enough to drop him a few spots.

9. C Jakob Poeltl

Poeltl isn’t amazing anywhere statistically but has no bad categories either, with 0.8 stls/40, 2.0 blks/40, 12.0 reb/40, 2.5 ast/40 and a good scoring career with 15.7 pts/40 on .63 TS% as a freshman and 22.6 pts/40 on .66 TS% as a sophomore. Likewise as a talent he is well rounded with solid athleticism, good size, post skill and IQ. This is enough for scouts to project him as a top 10 pick. There are prospects with better numbers and prospects who rate higher as talents to me, but Poeltl’s appeal is being at least decent at both.

10. SG Ron Baker

Baker has impressive all around numbers of 1.9 stls/40, 0.7 blks/40, 6.1 reb/40 and 4.1 ast/40 for a guard. His scoring career has been average with 13.4 pts/40 on .59 TS% as a freshman and 17.4 pts/40 on .55 TS% as a senior. Both competition and age are adjusted for in scoring categories for me, so Baker only scoring that well as an old senior for Wichita State is definitely concerning.

Baker is barely projected to be drafted, so scouts aren’t a believer in him. I’m higher on his talent. First off he has good defensive measurables for a SG at 6’9.5 wingspan and 210 pounds. Athletically he may not be stunning, but he can move laterally which helped him put up steals and blocks and he got to the line at a respectable rate. The numbers suggest an average instead of bad athlete and so does my eye test.

He is a good but not great shooter with his 3pt dipping to 35% this year with a solid 78% FT. He is also a ball-handler and passer giving him some pick and roll potential. He is known for a high feel and motor. I don’t think Baker is the most talented player in the class but having length, strength, lateral mobility, 3pt shooting ability and feel is talent. Baker may not have star potential and there’s a chance scouts are right and he doesn’t make it, but at the 10th pick in a below average draft, a prospect doesn’t have to be amazing at this range. It wouldn’t surprise me if he carved out a Courtney Lee to Wes Matthews level career.

Current rankings from 11 to 30:

11. PF Ivan Rabb
12. PF Deyonta Davis
13. PF Domantas Sabonis
14. C Daniel Ochefu
15. SF Jaylen Brown
16. SF Timothe Luwawu
17. PF Thon Maker
18. SG Furkan Korkmaz
19. PF Zhou Qi
20. SF Taurean Prince
21. SG Buddy Hield
22. SG/SF Denzel Valentine
23. PF Nigel Hayes
24. C Diamond Stone
25. PG Gary Payton II
26. PF Henry Ellenson
27. SG Patrick McCaw
28. PF Marquese Chriss
29. PG Melo Trimble
30. C A.J. Hammons

Written by jr.

April 17, 2016 at 6:32 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Bryan Colangelo deserved to be a GM again

leave a comment »

colangelo-size-xxlarge-letterbox

By the end of Bryan Colangelo’s Raptors tenure he had gone from conquering hero to the goat. Misfires including drafting Andrea Bargnani 1st, going all in for a past his prime Jermaine O’Neal and giving Hedo Turkoglu 5 years, 50 million drove Chris Bosh to greener pastures in Miami and the team with a long playoff drought. After a few post Bosh rebuilding seasons, the team moved on.

But then something funny happened. Many of the pieces he left behind began to shine. The Kyle Lowry trade gave the team a future franchise point guard and will go down as one of the best in the team’s history. DeMar Derozan, drafted 9th in 2009 went on to blossom and make 2 all-star games and counting. 2011 5th overall pick Jonas Valanciunas is playing the best ball of his career on both ends since the all-star break. It will be no surprise if he’s an all-star in the East in an upcoming year. The Terrence Ross pick at 8th in 2012 was controversial for passing on future all-star Andre Drummond. While Ross hasn’t gone on to reach those heights his shooting and athleticism has made him an important part of the team. Colangelo also hired Dwane Casey who’s gone on to be the franchise’s most successful coach and played an integral role in the team’s strategic and cultural fabric. The end result has been three straight franchise record seasons and breaking 50 wins for the first time.

It’s not enough to just have the ingredients, one has to make them work. Masai Ujiri trading Rudy Gay and acquiring players such as Patrick Patterson, was the crucial step towards a team that fits. But much of the legwork Colangelo did in the years before his departure left the team a step away from success. As does the success of the Seven Seconds or Less era Suns and acquisitions of core pieces such as Steve Nash, Amare Stoudemire, Shawn Marion, Boris Diaw, Leandro Barbosa, Mike D’Antoni that brought them to the edge of a championship and into the hearts of all basketball fans, a shining gem to have on a resume.

When looking closer at Bryan Colangelo’s resume with the Suns and Raptors, there’s plenty of mishaps such as the contracts of Tom Gugliotta, Penny Hardaway in Phoenix or Jason Kapono, Hedo Turkoglu, Landry Fields in Toronto. But Steve Nash was once one of those aggressive signings. There’s been trades that backfired such as dealing for Jermaine O’Neal, or trading Jason Kidd for Stephen Marbury, but other trades have been huge successes such as bringing Kidd to Phoenix originally or Lowry to Toronto, or other trades such as Joe Johnson to Phoenix and Amir Johnson to Toronto. There’s been picks like Bargnani that flopped, but other picks such as Stoudemire, Marion or Derozan help redeem that resume. For the missed shots along the way, end result is that Colangelo has had an integral part in 3 successful cores, in the Kidd Suns, Nash Suns and Lowry Raptors.

In the end like almost everything about him, Colangelo is the opposite of Sam Hinkie. Sam Hinkie’s 76ers were supposed to be a win for process over results, for philosophy and exploiting market inefficiencies. Colangelo is a gunslinger where the theory and process doesn’t look great. But what he can say that Hinkie and other can’t, is he’s drafted all-stars, he’s traded for all-stars and he’s hired top coaches, and done it on several teams in each case, or eras on the same team. Perhaps this is all an illusion, a trick of correlation over causation. But maybe it’s not. Maybe something about Colangelo’s ultra-aggressiveness and player evaluation actually wins out in practice over more theoretically driven plans. In any case, with the recent success of the Raptors helping redeem his last few years of work there, there’s a good argument Colangelo’s three decade spanning resume is successful enough to deserve another go.

Written by jr.

April 8, 2016 at 1:04 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Using stats to re-do Sam Hinkie’s draft picks

leave a comment »

051413-sam-hinkie-6001

Sam Hinkie has stepped down as GM of the 76ers after the Jerry Colangelo takeover had made him a lame duck. The philosophical merits of his plan can be debated, but for me it’s his drafting that wasn’t successful enough for ownership to keep faith in him. If he was going to put all his eggs in one basket in the draft he had to crush it more than he has.

I thought this would be an opportunity to test my draft statistical system to see if it can outperform his picks. My system is based on six categories in steals, blocks, rebounds, assists, freshman points and freshman TS% compared to a list of recent future stars at each position.

To restrict my picks to realism, I will use these rules: For every pick, I will reach down the draft no further than 2x that pick, according to mock drafts. Meaning with the 1st overall pick, I can only select among the top 2 players in mock drafts. With the 10th overall pick, the pool of players expands to everyone mocked top 20. And it means with the 30th pick, everyone in the top 60 is fair game. I thought this reflects reality as by the 2nd round nothing is really considered a risk. I give myself a little flexibility if the situation asks for it. For example if a player is only one pick from the cut-off but would easily have the best stats if he had made it, it may be justified to cheat by one spot and include him in the player pool

I will go through it draft by draft

2013

Here are my stat’s ratings for NCAA 1st round picks:

SF Andre Roberson 1.294658275
PG Michael Carter-Williams 1.25
SG Victor Oladipo 1.201030928
PF Cody Zeller 1.170454545
SG Kentavious Caldwell-Pope 1.154639175
C Nerlens Noel 1.129213483
PG Trey Burke 1.111702128
SF Otto Porter 1.065217391
C Steven Adams 1.056179775
SG Ben McLemore 1.051546392
SG Tim Hardaway, Jr. 1.030927835
C Gorgui Dieng 1.018386108
SG C.J. McCollum 1.005154639
SG Archie Goodwin 1.004119216
C Mason Plumlee 0.9965222044
PF Anthony Bennett 0.9772727273
PF Kelly Olynyk 0.9431818182
SF Reggie Bullock 0.9122113584
PG Shane Larkin 0.9057136717
C Alex Len 0.904494382
SG Tony Snell 0.7966260544
SF Solomon Hill 0.7808924485
SF Shabazz Muhammad 0.5869565217

 

International prospects in the 1st round include Giannis Antetokounmpo, Lucas Nogueira, Dennis Schroeder, Sergey Karasev, Rudy Gobert, Livio Jean-Charles, Nemanja Nedovic. Since my system isn’t built to rate international players, my simplistic way of accounting for it is to treat it as if they have the median score of the above players, which in this case is 1.018. This gives them a limited upside, but it also allows them to avoid a poor rating.

Draftexpress has this as their last mocked top 30 in 2013:

  1. Nerlens Noel
  2. Victor Oladipo
  3. Otto Porter
  4. Alex Len
  5. Ben McLemore
  6. Trey Burke
  7. CJ McCollum
  8. Anthony Bennett
  9. Kentavious Caldwell-Pope
  10. Cody Zeller
  11. Steven Adams
  12. Kelly Olynyk
  13. Michael Carter-Williams
  14. Shane Larkin
  15. Sergey Karasev
  16. Dennis Schroeder
  17. Giannis Antetokounmpo
  18. Shabazz Muhammad
  19. Reggie Bullock
  20. Tim Hardaway, Jr.
  21. Lucas Nogueira
  22. Mason Plumlee
  23. Isaiah Canaan
  24. Jamaal Franklin
  25. Allen Crabbe
  26. Rudy Gobert
  27. Gorgui Dieng
  28. Jeff Withey
  29. Tony Mitchell
  30. Pierre Jackson

After trading Jrue Holiday, Philadelphia has the #6 and #11 pick. For the #6 pick, using my rule of 2x the draft position, this makes everyone in the top 12 on Draftexpress mock eligible except for Anthony Bennett, Victor Oladipo, Otto Porter, Cody Zeller and Alex Len as they had been picked already. That leaves these players as options:

Nerlens Noel – 1.13

Ben McLemore – 1.05

Trey Burke – 1.11

C.J. McCollum – 1.01

Kentavious Caldwell-Pope – 1.15

Steven Adams – 1.06

Kelly Olynyk – 0.94

Of those players Caldwell-Pope rates highest at 1.15. However Michael Carter-Williams at 1.25 would be easily the highest rating of that group and he just misses the cut-off as 13th on Draftexpress.com’s mock. Based on his numbers I feel justified stretching my rule here and taking the player just outside the cut-off in Carter-Williams. In this case since Caldwell-Pope is arguably the more valuable NBA player right now, it doesn’t benefit my system that I cheated to take Carter-Williams.

With the 6th overall pick the Philadelphia 76ers select PG Michael Carter-Williams

For the #11 pick the remaining player pool is

Steven Adams – 1.06

Kelly Olynyk – 0.94

Shane Larkin – 0.91

Sergey Karasev – Intl. (1.018)

Dennis Schroeder – Intl. (1.018)

Giannis Antetokounmpo – Intl. (1.018)

Shabazz Muhammad – 0.59

Reggie Bullock – 0.91

Tim Hardaway, Jr. – 1.03

Lucas Nogueira – Intl. (1.018)

However since I just picked a player in the top 10 in Carter-Williams that wasn’t there originally, it makes sense to bump the 10th overall pick C.J. McCollum down one spot and treat him as available at the 11th pick I feel. McCollum’s rating is 1.01

At 1.06 Steven Adams has the highest rating, followed by Hardaway at 1.03. This is also in range of the NCAA median and international prospects makeshift rating of 1.018. Ultimately while it would be nice to say my system picks Giannis or Gobert, at the time of the draft Steven Adams had a lot of what they did, as a physically gifted young talent but raw. When added to his positive numbers he is the pick.

With the 11th overall pick the Philadelphia 76ers select C Steven Adams

2014 Draft

Here are my ratings for the 2014 draft for 1st round NCAA prospects

C Joel Embiid 1.303370787
PG Marcus Smart 1.164893617
C Mitch McGary 1.153691814
SG Jordan Adams 1.103092784
PF Jabari Parker 1.102272727
PG Elfrid Payton 1.10106383
SG P.J. Hairston 1.089630869
PF Julius Randle 1.085227273
PF Noah Vonleh 1.079545455
SG Gary Harris 1.067010309
SG C.J. Wilcox 1.058380487
PG Tyler Ennis 1.007414571
PG Shabazz Napier 0.9788915987
SF Andrew Wiggins 0.9565217391
PF Kyle Anderson 0.9034090909
SG Zach LaVine 0.8969072165
SG Rodney Hood 0.8762886598
PF T.J. Warren 0.8693181818
SF Aaron Gordon 0.8586956522
SF Doug McDermott 0.8369565217
SF Josh Huestis 0.7839262187
SG Nik Stauskas 0.7474226804
PF Adreian Payne 0.7216494845
SF James Young 0.7173913043

 

The median of the above players is .993. The international prospects selected in Round 1 include Dante Exum, Dario Saric, Jusuf Nurkic, Bruno Caboclo, Clint Capela, Bogdan Bogdanovic.

Here is Draftexpress.com’s last 1st round mock

  1. Andrew Wiggins
  2. Jabari Parker
  3. Joel Embiid
  4. Dante Exum
  5. Aaron Gordon
  6. Marcus Smart
  7. Julius Randle
  8. Elfrid Payton
  9. Doug McDermott
  10. Noah Vonleh
  11. Jusuf Nurkic
  12. Nik Stauskas
  13. Zach LaVine
  14. TJ Warren
  15. Dario Saric
  16. Rodney Hood
  17. Gary Harris
  18. Adreian Payne
  19. Shabazz Napier
  20. Tyler Ennis
  21. Mitch McGary
  22. Clint Capela
  23. Jordan Adams
  24. J. Hairston
  25. James Young
  26. Jarnell Stokes
  27. Glenn Robinson
  28. Kyle Anderson
  29. Spencer Dinwiddie
  30. Bogdan Bogdanovic

With Philadelphia’s 3rd overall pick the pool of players to pick from:

Joel Embiid – 1.30

Dante Exum – Intl. (.993)

Aaron Gordon – 0.86

Marcus Smart – 1.16

Clearly this is a tough call to make, especially without the access to medical reports the Sixers had at the time. The next closest player Smart is both behind him by a wide margin and doesn’t fit the Sixers at all with their rookie of the year Michael Carter-Williams profile. The Sixers have another lottery pick to help stomach the wait for Embiid and Steven Adams as insurance at C. Unless his reports were truly dire, I feel this pick is Embiid.

With the 3rd overall pick, the Philadelphia 76ers select C Joel Embiid

The Sixers started with the 10th pick but traded back to 12 to take Dario Saric. Since they were likely just moving back to take the player they wanted anyways, I’ll treat it as if I’m keeping 10. The player pool for this pick is

Elfrid Payton – 1.10

Doug McDermott – 0.84

Jusuf Nurkic – Intl. (.993)

Zach LaVine – 0.90

T.J. Warren – 0.87

Dario Saric – Intl. (.993)

Rodney Hood – 0.88

Gary Harris – 1.07

Adreian Payne – 0.72

Shabazz Napier – 0.98

Tyler Ennis – 1.01

Mitch McGary – 1.15

The highest rating of those players is McGary at 1.15 however this is based off a just under 200 minute season with his injury shut down. Furthermore he’s a bad fit on the Sixers as they just drafted 2 lotto Cs in Adams and Embiid and don’t need to take another injured player after the latter.

Next is Elfrid Payton at 1.10, but he’s an impossible fit playing with Michael Carter-Williams unless they’re willing to trade him. Jordan Adams is at 1.10 but as the 23rd mocked player is 2 spots outside of the cut-off, and only marginally ahead of Gary Harris at 1.07. With a much smaller gap between them and 2 picks out, I don’t see the same justification to cheat as I did for Carter-Williams.

I feel the pick is between Payton despite the poor fit or taking Harris. Based on a relatively small difference between them in the numbers, I believe the fit of Harris as a 3pt shooting wing beside Carter-Williams is worth giving him the edge.

With the 10th overall pick (or 12th), the Philadelphia 76ers select SG Gary Harris.

2015 draft

Here are the 1st round NCAA players ratings

R.J. Hunter 1.271714892
D’Angelo Russell 1.223404255
Delon Wright 1.207446809
Karl-Anthony Towns 1.202247191
Justise Winslow 1.173913043
Cameron Payne 1.170212766
Bobby Portis 1.0625
Kelly Oubre 1.054347826
Stanley Johnson 1.02173913
Myles Turner 1.011235955
Kevon Looney 1.002130944
Jerian Grant 0.9948420374
Justin Anderson 0.9810531764
Rondae Hollis-Jefferson 0.9782608696
Terry Rozier 0.9771946267
Jarell Martin 0.9635980339
Chris McCullough 0.9592484569
Willie Cauley-Stein 0.9438202247
Jahlil Okafor 0.9269662921
Tyus Jones 0.9091890225
Frank Kaminsky 0.8806818182
Larry Nance 0.8567821068
Trey Lyles 0.8465909091
Rashad Vaughn 0.8456596444
Sam Dekker 0.7143552943
Devin Booker 0.6649484536

 

The median is about .979. The international players in the 1st are Kristaps Porzingis, Mario Hezonja, Emmanuel Mudiay, Nikola Milutoniv.

Draftexpress.com’s mock draft for 2015

  1. Karl Towns
  2. Jahlil Okafor
  3. D’Angelo Russell
  4. Kristaps Porzingis
  5. Mario Hezonja
  6. Justise Winslow
  7. Emmanuel Mudiay
  8. Stanley Johnson
  9. Frank Kaminsky
  10. Cameron Payne
  11. Myles Turner
  12. Trey Lyles
  13. Devin Booker
  14. Willie Cauley-Stein
  15. Kelly Oubre
  16. Rondae Hollis-Jefferson
  17. Bobby Portis
  18. Tyus Jones
  19. Jerian Grant
  20. Sam Dekker
  21. Delon Wright
  22. Rashad Vaughn
  23. J. Hunter
  24. Montrezl Harrell
  25. Jarell Martin
  26. Justin Anderson
  27. Kevon Looney
  28. Cliff Alexander
  29. Chris McCullough
  30. Terry Rozier

For Sixers 3rd pick, their player pool is

Jahlil Okafor – 0.93

Kristaps Porzingis – Intl. (.979)

Mario Hezonja – Intl. (.979)

Justise Winslow – 1.17

This one is the easiest pick. Okafor’s numbers are below average and Porzingis and Hezonja are international players, while Winslow has excellent numbers. If one came up with a system reliably projecting Porzingis stats it could be a competiton, but I’ll go with Winslow here.

With the 3rd overall pick, the 76ers select SF Justise Winslow.

In the end the Hinkie Sixers got Michael Carter-Williams, Nerlens Noel, Joel Embiid, Dario Saric, Jahlil Okafor. My team got Michael Carter-Williams, Steven Adams, Joel Embiid, Gary Harris, Justise Winslow. I would say my system did no better. Adams is a productive young big but Noel has potential to pass him going forward. I prefer having the bird in the hand in Harris than two in the bush in Saric. Okafor scored more than Winslow did, but Winslow is playing an important role on a good team and it wouldn’t be a huge surprise if he ended up having a better career.

To make Hinkie’s draft record a home run you probably needed the international prospects like Giannis and Porzingis, and I can’t say my system was set up to do that, nor perhaps could anybody’s.

 

Written by jr.

April 7, 2016 at 6:32 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Will Buddy Hield be an NBA star?

leave a comment »

buddy

Buddy Hield continued his torrid play with 37 points to lead Oklahoma to the Final Four. With mock drafts wide open after Ben Simmons and Brandon Ingram, Hield’s play could lead towards a top 3 pick.

Hield’s run comes at the perfect time for him. With Stephen Curry at the peak of powers it’s hard not to compare his run to Curry’s as an older, elite shooting, hard working prospect at Davidson.

To look closer at this comparison here are their per 40 minute stats their draft year:

Curry (junior): 34.0 points, .60 TS%, 5.3 rebounds, 6.6 assists, 3.0 steals, 0.3 blocks, 4.4 turnovers

Hield (senior): 28.9 points, .67 TS%, 6.4 rebounds, 2.4 assists, 1.3 steals, 0.6 blocks, 3.3 turnovers

Unlike Hield Curry was elite in another category but scoring, in steals. Hield’s best performances compared to Curry are rebounds and blocks, but these are partly explained by playing the bigger defensive position SG.

While PG is a more assists friendly position than SG, the gap is a little too big to be explained by that. The median per 40 assist rate of seven PGs I chose in Russell Westbrook, John Wall, Damian Lillard, Kyle Lowry, Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Deron Williams, is 6.5. The same for seven SGs in James Harden, Dwyane Wade, DeMar Derozan, Jimmy Butler, Klay Thompson, C.J. McCollum, Brandon Roy is 4.3 assists. Therefore Curry’s assists compared to his position is stronger. While Hield’s role was to be an off the ball scorer, this could also be reflective of Hield lacking ballhandling skills that has made Curry such a success.

I find scoring a tricky category due to the impact of age and conference. With less talent on his team at Davidson Curry was able to have a major role immediately. As a freshman he averaged 27.8 points on .62 TS% per 40, as a sophomore 31.2 points on .64 TS% and as junior 34.0 points on .60 TS%. Hield as a freshman averaged just 12.8 points on .47 TS% per 40 minutes, followed by 20.6 points on .57 as a sophomore and 21.5 points on .55 TS% as a junior.

To make another comparison to other sharpshooters in this class, Jamal Murray averaged 22.7 points per 40 on .59 TS%. As a freshman Grayson Allen averaged 19.1 points on .58 TS% per 40 and as a sophomore 24.0 points on .62 TS%. As freshman and sophomores they outscored Hield. The problem with using Hield’s scoring as a reason to draft him over Murray and Allen is it’s not a big leap to say they were on trajectory to match Hield’s senior scoring rate of 28.9 points on .67 TS% per 40 if they stayed in school long enough.

As a whole I don’t believe the numbers support Hield as a top 5 pick. He is not as dominant in categories like rebounding, assists, steals or blocks as some other prospects in the class and overweighting scoring numbers that blew up for a senior compared to freshman and sophomore prospects, has burned teams in the past.

But the Curry comparison may work in another way. The real story of Curry falling to #7 in 2009 is underestimating his talent. At the time 2009 was considered a 1 star draft, with Blake Griffin having athletic gifts that players like Curry and James Harden lacked. We know now you can’t teach how to shoot like Curry any more than teaching a player to be as athletic as Russell Westbrook. Nor is Harden’s combination of elite size for a SG but the dribbling and passing of a PG, any more common than Griffin level athleticism.

This is where the case for Hield may be. What he lacks in only having good, not great athleticism, may be made up for special talent as a shooter. This talent could be as powerful as dynamic athleticism is for others. Hield is having arguably the best shooting season since Curry. While in a vacuum 46% 3pt shooting could be a hot streak, two important ways to legitimizing shooting is FT% and volume of 3s attempted. Hield is even more impressive in those than he is in 3p%, as an 89% FT shooter who attempts 10 3s per 40 minutes. Visually his shooting release and confidence taking them anywhere passes the sniff test. Hield has an average wingspan of 6’8.5 for a SG, but a better than average body. His last measured 215 pounds is the weight of a SF, not SG. His mental attributes are considered terrific in both basketball IQ and work ethic/character, which some see as talent. The shooting is the foundation of his game but decent athleticism, plus strength and top level mental talent all around, could add enough to make him a star talent. Perhaps it’s enough to be the most talented player in the draft.

At the end of the day however, the numbers still make it a risk. Hield may be properly rated by accident, with worse numbers than conventional opinion but more star-level talent. There’s definitely a world where he pays off big time for the team who picks him, but also one where the numbers were prescient.

 

Written by jr.

March 27, 2016 at 4:54 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

The case for the Spurs and Kawhi Leonard

leave a comment »

hi-res-170353136_crop_north

The Warriors need to win 8 of their last 10 games to beat the Bulls 72-10 all time record. With no worry about playoff chops after winning last year’s title, in almost any other year the playoffs would be a formality. However their party may be spoiled by the Spurs.

Here are the top 10 margins of victory of all time

1971-1972 L.A. Lakers: 12.28

1970-1971 Milwaukee Bucks: 12.26

1995-1996 Chicago Bulls: 12.24

2015-2016 San Antonio Spurs: 12.11

1971-1972 Milwaukee Bucks: 11.16

2015-2016 Golden State Warriors: 11.13

1996-1997 Chicago Bulls: 10.80

1991-1992 Chicago Bulls: 10.44

2007-2008 Boston Celtics: 10.26

2014-2015 Golden State Warriors: 10.10

Out of the over 1,000 NBA seasons, San Antonio’s margin of victory is in the top five. It was briefly first for a stretch this season.

Furthermore, of the 8 teams on that list that aren’t this season’s Warriors and Spurs, all but the 1971-1972 Bucks were champion. The Bucks lost to another team on the list in the 1972 Lakers. Short of playing each other teams this good have been unbeatable.

The Warriors offensive rating is 4 points better than the Spurs, but the Spurs defensive rating is 5.8 points better than the Warriors, who in their title season had the top ranked defense. The Spurs have a top 2 defensive rebounding team to the Warriors 15th. The Spurs dominance derives more from their bench than the Warriors does. The Spurs are dominating in quieter ways than the Warriors.

Still, on paper it just doesn’t seem like this is a historically good roster, right? One blind spot may be Kawhi Leonard. In the modern game teams are getting better at recognizing seasons like DeMarre Carroll, Danny Green and Draymond Green’s 2014-2015’s for reasons beyond their boxscore output. Without taking a shot their defending while spacing the floor for teammates is highly valued. This is shown by their salaries last summer.

Kawhi is a mega version of this. He’s not just a good defender but the reigning Defensive Player of the Year, perhaps soon to repeat. In the past it would have been difficult for a perimeter player to compete with rim protecting big men like Ben Wallace, Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett for defensive value. However with the game moving towards a smaller perimeter game, it makes perfect sense the new best defensive player is built like Kawhi. He’s hitting over 46% from 3, good for the 2nd best mark in the league. There’s highly valued spacing and defense wings and then there’s Kawhi.

What makes him a freak is he starts with this baseline of star level value without taking a shot, and then adds star level stats on top of it too. Due to his 21 points a game on .619 TS% with a low turnover rate, he rates 8th in offensive win shares, a stat that full on ignores his defense and spacing. He’s a star outside of the stats and a star in them. On the Warriors title team last year Draymond was a star for providing spacing and top 3 defense and Klay for all-star boxscore stats. Kawhi is like getting this package 2 for 1.

Whether it’s because Kawhi has reached Curry levels of value or not, or whether it’s because the rest of the Spurs cast in including Gregg Popovich, Lamarcus Aldridge, Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Patty Mills, David West, Boris Diaw, Danny Green have reached a special level in their own right, the numbers suggest the Warriors could come all this way and not leave with the title, much like the defending champion 1971-1972 Bucks. Because the record of teams with the margin of victory the Spurs have is not messing around and they may be buoyed by a true star.

Written by jr.

March 26, 2016 at 12:16 pm

Posted in Uncategorized