The RealGM Wizards Board Draft Thread 2008/2009

[pancakes3]

1 - so nick young, arguably our best prospect at SG isn't good enough to start at shooting guard because we would rather play DMac out of position than play N1. sounds like +1 for my argument that SG is our weakest position.

2 - this "vet" system doesn't allow for N1 to rebound the basketball?

3 - there are no vets in front of Nick Young and he still isn't starting. This would be another +1 as to why our SG position is underperforming

4 - Assists count if you pass to perimeter players too. There are 8 players with more assists than Nick on the team. Crittendon has more assists on 1/3 of the minutes played. Both Butler and Jamison have more (Butler 3x more) assists while shooting contested jumpers. Who're the phantom low post options that those two are passing to that nick isn't?

Nick is an incomplete player and is more of a "scoring spark plug" than either Harden or Curry. Thus Nick should be relegated to the bench and we should be shopping for/scouting for a legitimate starting 2-guard.

[Ruzious]

first, nick is not a starter. secondly, its only his second year and he is playing in a system where the vets run the team, not the coach. Third, a 4th year player named blatche has only got minutes because two vets in front of him are injured. And 4th, he doesn't have a low post option to pass to in order rack up assists. How many times have you seen Butler or Jamison rise in the air and catch alley oops.
There busy shooting contested jumpers. I just want to know what starting playoff will curry be able to defend. curry translates into jamison at the powerforward spot on defense. Hit a few threes..stroke a few open jumpers because powerfowards don't normally play out on the perimeter and go right back on defense and give those points up at an even higher field goal percentage than what you earned them at. Jamison scores at .45 percent field goal percentage and gives his opponents those same points on defense letting his man shoot .60 from teh field. I see the same thing happening with curry at the guard position.

Jamison is a player that's extremely easy to run up assists with - because most of his shots are taken right after he catches it. With Butler, you're right - as he generally holds on to it - makes a move - and finally takes a jumper - so there's no assist there. But as far as taking shots - Young shoots with the same regularity as Butler. Butler takes 16.8 shots per 40 minutes, and Nick takes 16.7.

[Kanyewest]

Watching Jrue vs Harden right now.

Yeah, i got to watch most of that game. See this is why I can't depend on scouting reports. I got a total different opinion on Jrue. He's good athlete and a good defender but he can't score! He can't throw it the ocean. I didn't see him create off the dribble or anything like that. Maybe that's not his role right now but I'd be scared to draft someone and expect him to do something totally different at the NBA level than what he did in college.

Jrue needs to stay in school. Heck if he keeps playing like that, he won't have a choice but to stay in school.

As for our boy James Harden, my opinion on him doesn't change. The 11 assists were impressive. The 8 TOs were not. UCLA was overplaying him which allowed him to set up some teammates for easy baskets but he had a real tough time getting the ball and getting off a shot. He only took 8 shots tonight. He doesn't have the lift or explosiveness to shoot over guys or go past him. His handles are crafty enough to get to the lane but he's not going to finish against bigger guys, he's more likely to pass at the stage.

Basically I see a nice role player. He's not Brandon Roy. He's pure SG. Slightly undersized and not very athletic. Very skilled, smart & heady guy but not the type you can rely on to create a shot at the end of a possession or game. He may be better coming off of screens on the next level.

As a top 3 pick, he'll be a bust. I think he can have a productive career but he doesn't belong in the top half of the lottery. He looks like a mid-first rounder at best to me. My guess is Kevin McHale will think the world of him.

I'd take Stephon Curry over Harden 10 times out of 10. Not sure how Harden gets rated as a better prospect.

I was watching the UCLA/ASU game for like 5 minutes to check out how well Harden can play but I don't really think much could be evaluated from it. UCLA constantly doubled and triple teamed Harden and was forced to pass out of double teams constantly. UCLA mission was to make sure Harden didn't have a great game but that strategy ultimately cost them game.

ASU also played zone defense so it was hard to make out how well Harden is defensively although he was generally in the right area of the court. BTW, Stephen Curry also had 8 turnovers earlier this season.

[AgentOvechkin08]

Ok well I love Terrence Williams from Louisville. He can blow by his man and he probably is the highest leaper in the country. I mean last night (even though they lost by 33), he went up for a dunk and got fouled, but i went back and paused it to see how high he got and his head was a rim level. Thats ridiculous, remembering he is only 6'5 6'6 ish, plus he was supposedly injured. I mean i have seen Lebron do it but he is 6'9.

So he is probably the most explosive athlete in the country, and has an NBA body, so to speak. I doubt he falls to the early 2nd but that would be nice if he did. He has a shaky jumpshot, and have no idea really what his defense is like, but he can score using his elite athleticism and strength.

[doclinkin]

Doc, I see everything you are saying about Curry... on a college level. My problem comes when translating his skillset to the NBA.... especially on anything close to our current make-up (Arenas or no). I fully understand I could be wrong on this one, but I feel Curry up until a point, and then he becomes more JJ Reddick than Bibby, more Dixon than Tony Parker. I have more faith in Rubio's skillset translating to the NBA -- and I don't have the greatest faith in that either. And I have much more faith that Holiday has the potential to contribute on both ends of the floor than Curry. As I said, I get what you are seeing, and fully realize this is one that could go either way. To me, if the pick is Curry (or to be honest any guard in this draft), I'd rather trade the pick (and Etan plus one) for Des Mas, Joe Smith and the Thunder's 2010 unrestricted. Or JO and Toronto's 2010. Or Bosh and Toronto's 2010 (with Caron added). Or about ten other deals. Again, I could be wrong. But, the test will be not if Curry becomes a good player (he will), but if he is able to be a twoway player who is able to start on a championship team -- which to me is 60/40 against because of his frame/step.

(Edit for jinx)... Funny Ruz, we both got that Dixon vibe at the same time. Didn't read your post pre-posting.

Dixon has come up in this thread (re Curry). Ditto JJ Redick. Let me say this about that.

I'll reprise my Redick breakdown: Redick had nothing like the handle and creativity that Stef carries. Redick was a pass-dependent player who was pretty poor on-ball but who could hit an open shot. He played in an offense designed primarily to do just that: get him an open shot. Curls, screens, etc JJ ran all day just to get a touch, he had a quick release and textbook perfect shot that masked his inability to get a shot for himself. He went up quick and let go before the defense got around that last staggered screen. The shot looked the same every time. Nice shooting %, but that's it. All his other stats are a disaster. That plus the short arms, etc suggested he'd struggle.

By contrast Stef Curry hits shots from odd angles while dribbling the ball against double and triple teams and still manages to find the cutter, the open man. To the tune of 7 assists pace adjusted per 40 minutes. Top ten nationwide. On a team with one other double digit scorer.

He's also top 5 in steals per minute, pace adjusted. And, though DX has removed the metric from their database, Stef Curry maintains an excellent ratio of steals + blocks per personal foul.

I get the Juan Dixon comparison. Juan's best NCAA year nearly compares with S'Curry. Shooting %'s, steals, 5 boards per 40padj. Fewer FT's per shot attempt, but equivalent.

Until you factor in that Juan shared a roster with 2 other legit NBA players (and one less legit in Baxter who at least had a cuppacoffee in the league; plus Drew Nicolas who plays well in Euroball). Then recognize that Stef has the #1 nation-wide usage rate, with a minimal dropoff in shooting %'s (balanced out by an uptick in FT attempts per shot).

In other words, if Juan could maintain that 50% fg shooting rate and ~40% 3ball while triple teamed as the focus of the opponent defense, and with no Stevie Blake to stretch defenses, and no Lonny Baxter low-post load and no athletic superfreak CWilcox-- if Juan could still pull that load, I submit he'd probably have panned out to be a slightly better NBA prospect. If Juan could score 30+ points per game in every NCAA tourney game he'd ever played in, on solid %'s, from ridiculously deep range, well that Indiana game for the Win wouldn't have been as boring a snoozefest as it was.

But what puts it in stark contrast is that assist rate.

Now if Stef had Wilcox, Baxter, etc... I'm saying he'd make them all look good. (And the pure fact is if Juan had _any_ PG skills coming out of college, he would have stuck with a team. He can score. He's only just now starting to get it (last year as well). Little too little, maybe too late on the learning curve).

But with Stef you combine the legit scoring (ask defensive nasty team West Virginia who contained him for as long as they could before the late loss) with that high assist rate (better than DJ Augustin, Mario Chalmers , better than Rod Stuckey, Ramon Sessions, Rajon Rondo, Acie Law, Jordan Farmar...) You get a kid whose upside is way better than the respect he garners. Understand, he studied over the summer with Nash & CP3, then suddenly stepped in at point. While _increasing_ his scoring. No adjustment period. Nothing incremental. And his asst/to rate actually improved despite the high usage.

The real question is if and whether he still has room to improve. I submit with actual finishers, and no need to carry the entire team's offensive load --yeah he does. There's next to nobody who manages to contest for the scoring lead nation wide while remaining in the conversation as a shot creator at PG.

Defense? Legit question. No doubt. Yeah I agree he looks skinny. He looks like a hybrid of those two Terrapins Blake and Dixon. Pretty-girly little biscuit-colored kid, wouldn't last a minute during free rec on the Yard. Maybe. I see some Reggie toughness in him. But sure, he looks small. He's listed at 6'3" 185. When wearing an iron diaper and pimp sneakers. Know what though? I haven't seen anyone run over him yet. And he slides over picks and screens, unless they grab him or set an illegal moving pick. And his positional defense is fine. Is he a shutdown defender? No. He will get smeared by some of the bigger, tougher mugs in the league. But so does Tony Parker. So does Steve Nash.

Just saying, even playing for a small school (the biggest placekeeper on my personal doubts. March Madness aside) some of his markers are really insane. Comparing only with guys like Chris Paul and Rod Stuckey. I'm saying, if we could swap out of the high draft to get an instant-fit veteran now, plus have the young Steve Nash on the bench behind Gil. That's not a good thing?

[nate33]

As for nick young... some stats to consider:
- has not had a game where he registered more than 5 rebounds this season
- registered 3 or less rebounds in 49/53 games
- has not had a game where he dished out more than 4 assists
- has 3 or less assists in 51/53 games
- recorded 2 or more three-pointers in only 4 games
- went 0'fer in three pointers in 31/53 games
- had 4 or more FTA in only 15/53 games
- had 0 FTA in 21/53 games
- scored 20+ in only 9/53 games
- 7 of those games happened in the last 30 days.

Call me crazy, but I consider that a promising sign.

Also, most of those stats aren't that discouraging once you consider Young's minutes. If you compare Young to other young swingmen (25 and under) who get regular minutes, he's about average in FTA/min and only slightly below average in assists/min and 3P made per minute. He is indeed a terrible rebounder though. Here's a screen of young swing men and their per-minute numbers.

If the on/off numbers are any indication, Nick Young is already a decent defender and may actually become a pretty good defender as he gets stronger and more experienced. I'm not ready to call him the SG of the future, but I'm not so worried about the SG position that I'd reach for one on draft day.

[mhd]

As for nick young... some stats to consider:
- has not had a game where he registered more than 5 rebounds this season
- registered 3 or less rebounds in 49/53 games
- has not had a game where he dished out more than 4 assists
- has 3 or less assists in 51/53 games
- recorded 2 or more three-pointers in only 4 games
- went 0'fer in three pointers in 31/53 games
- had 4 or more FTA in only 15/53 games
- had 0 FTA in 21/53 games
- scored 20+ in only 9/53 games
- 7 of those games happened in the last 30 days.

Call me crazy, but I consider that a promising sign.

Also, most of those stats aren't that discouraging once you consider Young's minutes. If you compare Young to other young swingmen (25 and under) who get regular minutes, he's about average in FTA/min and only slightly below average in assists/min and 3P made per minute. He is indeed a terrible rebounder though. Here's a screen of young swing men and their per-minute numbers.

If the on/off numbers are any indication, Nick Young is already a decent defender and may actually become a pretty good defender as he gets stronger and more experienced. I'm not ready to call him the SG of the future, but I'm not so worried about the SG position that I'd reach for one on draft day.

I think Nick is a good defender. He's miles better than what Rip was when he was here. Give Nick a good coach like Flip, and he'll improve even more.

[Kanyewest]

Mitch Kupchak had an interview on the Doc Walker show and when asked about Nick Young, he said he was an "immensely talented player". He believed that Young was a 3 year project when he came out of college and Kupchak stated that Young will be a solid player by his 4th season.

[doclinkin]

Question for the board, alluded to earlier.

What's your ranking of select draft prospects at each position, upside:

PG
SG
SF
PF
C

And if possible label them on the 5 point scale on your loose prediction of their upside, best case scenario, or probability, however you see it:

(1-- HOF lock, 2 --allstar, 3-- starter, 4-- role player/bench, 5-- marginal roster player)

[doclinkin]

1. Tier One: Surefire HOF locks. Once a generation players.
2. Tier two: probable allstars at some point in their career.
3. Tier three: Longterm starter. Good players.
4. Tier four: Productive players, role players, bench players.
5. Tier Five: marginal roster player.

A select few PG's
-------------------------
Stef -- From 2 to 4. Depending on the continued steep development of the PG skills.
Jrue -- 3, possible 1st team all-defense, needs next year though to build offensive skill and PG skills
Calathes -- 3/4 A better Steve Blake.

[barelyawake]

LOL, Doc I think you've been looking for the next Nash since we had the argument about the original one where you took the opposition. Curry may be him. I don't see it. Kerr is closer, though I doubt that too. If he had Parker's first step, then maybe he'd translate better. If he had more of a Nash frame (wider shoulders etc), then maybe. As is, the kid sends off all the signals of a college star (and spark plug off the bench in the pros). And I believe his listed measurements about as much as I believe Dixon's. You can quote college stats all day long, but it doesn't mean they translate to the pros. If you're looking for Nash-lite, then look at Rubio (who has better court vision than Curry IMO).

We aren't taking Curry, but the question is should we. And say Curry is the next Steve Nash, would that help our team? Sure, it'd help in that we would blow-up the team and base it around him. But, we don't need another player who doesn't play defense. Here's half a straw man for you, but Nash and Bibby have never won championships (while Rondo has). I say half of a straw man, because obviously they could, but it's rather hard to get the mix of defense and offense when you are working in one way players. It's like working with the odd-shaped legos -- as we know all too well. We have more than enough one way players. We need more defense -- a lot more. So, to answer your question, I'd rather have a starting caliber, two way playing, role player than Steve Nash on THIS bench. And that's Holiday's worst case. Again, trade the pick for a future pick, and roll the dice on getting John Wall. Or pray that Rubio's defense translates to the NBA. If all we needed was a spark plug on a team packed with defense, then I would think more highly of a Curry gamble.

[pancakes3]

Holliday. VOMIT. and that's not just the hangover talking. The kid is raw on defense - sushi grade. I am NOT a fan. If you're talking "fit" then Danny Green would be a better "fit" on our team at 2-guard as it's presently constructed.

[Ruzious]

Mitch Kupchak had an interview on the Doc Walker show and when asked about Nick Young, he said he was an "immensely talented player". He believed that Young was a 3 year project when he came out of college and Kupchak stated that Young will be a solid player by his 4th season.

That sounds like a reasonable evaluation. Coincidentally, it's pretty much what I predicted pre-draft for a different player from that same draft - the Critter.

Doc, another cautionary comparison - Steve Alford. http://www.basketballreference.com/play ... =ALFORST01 Think about it - if he was asked to move to the point and play the same role that Curry is - Would he have put up similar numbres? I think Curry is better - but I'm not sure how much.

[bsilver]

UCLA-Arizona on TV today at 1. Be interesting to see draft prospects, Collison, Holiday, Hill, and Budinger. If we don't get Griffin, I think we still need to get the best big man, so Hill has to be considered. The top guard prospects are unimpressive, except maybe for Rubio who I haven't seen much. Our best team would include a good all around PF (especially defense) to go with Haywood. Jamison should go to the bench and be a candidate for 6th man award.

[doclinkin]

LOL, Doc I think you've been looking for the next Nash since we had the argument about the original one where you took the opposition. Curry may be him. I don't see it. Kerr is closer, though I doubt that too. If he had Parker's first step, then maybe he'd translate better. If he had more of a Nash frame (wider shoulders etc), then maybe. As is, the kid sends off all the signals of a college star (and spark plug off the bench in the pros). And I believe his listed measurements about as much as I believe Dixon's. You can quote college stats all day long, but it doesn't mean they translate to the pros. If you're looking for Nash-lite, then look at Rubio (who has better court vision than Curry IMO).

Rubio has better court vision than Nash. The question on him is if he continues to develop, he's still a kid.

No my comparison between Nash & Curry is pretty simple: what NBA players have good outside shot, good 'slither' in traffic, excellent stamina, hit the clutch jumper, and score inside despite underheight. And while a liability on defense, still play smart. Curry is actually a slightly better athlete than Nash, if not yet filled out, but they have equivalent coordination. Both have a lifetime of training and aptitude for the game. Nash has hockey/soccer vision, Stef Curry learned to dribble with Muggsy Bogues.

Nash is a good college comparison since he was also a small school guy. Nearly identical stats. 6 assists/game, equivalent FG%s from inside and out, 1.7 ast/to ratio. Nash scored half as many points, but whatever.

College stats translate. There are outliers and misses, but there are a few pretty good aptitude markers. Position-adjusted Win score is one. (PG's average a winscore of 7, PF's average something like a 12, I'll see if I can find the position-corrected link. BUt here's one discussion of the stat).

And here's the PG sort in the DX dbase.

For guards I always look at position-adjusted/pace adjusted Defensive rebounding and assists as markers of relative 'court sense'. (Offensive rebounding in guards often means you're out of position for the transition defense). Then correct for size, last year (playing offball) Stef snagged ~5 def boards per 40 mins, pretty good relative to the other true PGs. By contrast a guy like Dom McGuire was listed as a guard, and had insane rebounding numbers for the position, but he was 6'8" -- so I measured him against equivalent SF's since he was listed as a guard mostly because of his assist totals (he played the same role in college that he has earned here). Even after position adjustment, he still measured well. (And ridiculously well when you compared his assists to the Bigs). Small conference, big numbers, still translated. Predictable because when he played ranked schools his stats remained the same or even increased.

And that's key. I'm suspicious of a guy like Lester Hudson (a win score standout) because while he posts stats at a small school, he's a less efficient shooter, doesn't pass, stats read like a SG/SF not a PG despite 6'3" height. But more so because not only has his team not played real competition much, but when they do he comes up smaller. This is the CCJ measure: what does a guy do when the stakes are higher. The Paul Millsapp metric.

Stef Curry is one of 3? 4? 2? (some ridiculously small sample) who scored above 30 points in each of his first 4 NCAA tourney games. And vs Tourney teams he tends to play well.

As for physique, I don't have a problem with the kid at his age. He's still filling out, but has room to build. And nah, I don't see how Nash (especially early in his NBA career, has that much more brawn:




What he does that's Nash-like is the ability to run like a lizard, low to the ground almost parallel to the floor to slither past his man. Kid learned basketball at the feet (literally) of Alonzo Mourning, Muggsy, LJ, loves the game, loves it most when the intensity turns up. That's a quality impossible to teach.

All that said. (And more). Right, I doubt the Wiz take him. I'm just saying it's a mistake. If the Wiz could swap to upgrade (Jamison + picks for Bosh + pick, say) and still get this kid, we'd have done the right thing.

[Ruzious]

The thing I wonder is - guys like Nash... eh, there are no guys like Nash. So, is he the exception to the rule? I think he is. Just like AI was the exception to a rule. Larry Bird. Barak Obama. Trying to find the next one will prolly be fruitless.

[mhd]

Everyone tune to CBS now. Jordan Hill and Buddinger on dominating. I've never seen Chase be this good on defense. Hill with monster rebounds and just had a MONSTER dunk of an offensive rebound.

[Ruzious]

Everyone tune to CBS now. Jordan Hill and Buddinger on dominating. I've never seen Chase be this good on defense. Hill with monster rebounds and just had a MONSTER dunk of an offensive rebound.

Fudge, I'm at work. People don't get how good Buddinger is. I think he's grown to 6'8 and he really is not your white stereotype player - he's a good very fluid athlete - and he can step into the NBA and do what Rip Hamilton did. Hill - check his hands. Why does he get lots of turnovers?

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Thabeet had 25 points, 20 rebounds, and 9 blocks. Wow.

[AgentOvechkin08]

Griffin had 30 points and 19 boards.....

with 14:00 left in the game

WOW