Good example. I wonder more so about guards and specifically PG. But I do remember the big hype with Joe Alexander.
That is a great answer. I looked it up after I saw this and found some interesting numbers though. Alexander didn't really blow the doors off the combine Comparing him to Faried, for example. Faried known as an athlete for sure, but didn't blow the doors off the combine either w/o shoes JA 6' 7.25" KF 6' 6" w shoes JA 6' 8.25" KF 6' 7.5" Weight JA 220 KF 225 Wingspan JA 6' 11.5" KF 7' 0" Reach JA 8' 10" KF 9' 0" Body fat JA 5.8 KF 6.3 No step vert JA 32.5 KF 30.5 Max vert JA 38.5 KF 35.0 Bench JA 24 KF 16 Agility JA 11.33 KF 11.35 Sprint JA 2.99 KF 3.26
He had the second fastest 3/4 court sprint. Second highest max. vert. reach. Second most bench reps. Good agility numbers. 8th in no step and max. vert jump. And he was white.
To me, that feeds into another, slightly more important question: Have the scouting staffs for any teams figured out which combine numbers (or combinations of) are actually useful? So many of the numbers end up telling you little about how the guy will play, and when someone like Rose or Westbrook tests about the same as numerous run-of-the-mill guards, you know the combine tests are failing to capture which components of athleticism actually translate to game situations.
For the PG's at least I wish they had a test that combined agility with speed and verticle. For instance set up the cones say 3 quarters court and have them dribble down full speed in and out of the cones and THEN measure their vert with the ball. Or find a way to incorporate having to finish that drill with a lay-up. This ability to break down defenders, get in the lane and finsh is a key for today's PG's. Take some number from this that is a combination of vert height and time. Or find a way to measure jumper vert or the height of release. And then combine that with speed of release. I find at hard to believe that in todays world of technology that there arent ways to do this. Almost like advanced stats based on mechanics.
I envision a test like in MIB where Agent J has to shoot the hostiles and avoid the friendly targets. It doesn't even have to be with passing the basketball, just with court vision.
I think you're on the right track, but it needs to go a step further. If it's just cones, you're testing something that can be practiced and patterned. That's why so much of the combine data is nonsense. To be effective, the tests need to show how well a player can improvise athletically. I'm not sure how to do that, other than to borrow a page from Wipeout and have Bayno whacking at them with big pads from behind random pillars or something... See how balanced they can remain right before gathering to go up for a contested shot against a big windmill contraption with varied timing and openings. The point is, the whole thing has to be unpredictable, just like a game.
Anyone starting to wonder if MKG could slip to us at 6? If people are really high on Barnes (who tested better athletically than MKG), and Beal looks good, AND someone take a flyer on Drummond, doesn't that leave us with MKG potentially? I think it is a long shot, but I'm not hearing the buzz about MKG after the combine that you are about the others.
Given their lack of desire to pull in another project big man, you are probably right. But, Barnes could also look good at 5 if he was available, as could Beal. It would probably have to look something like: 1: Davis 2: Robinson 3: Drummond 4: Barnes 5: Beal
Possible. I think Davis at 1 (obviously), Robinson at 2, and Barnes at 4 are all pretty much locks. So that leaves Beal, Drummond and MKG for WAS and SAC. If WAS is as high on Beal as rumored, and SAC really does want to pair Drummond with Cousins, then it's very possible that MKG could fall to us. It would feel like an upset of epic proportions if it were to happen, but I wouldn't complain. I think the better question is, if Davis-Robinson-Beal go 1-2-3, is MKG a big enough prize to justify the 6/11 for 4/24 trade with Cleveland that has been rumored?
Why does everyone like MKG so much!!!!!!! Undersized 3 that can't shoot and scored all his baskets in the open court.
A long time ago I took an entire quarter's class on multivariate regression. The visiting professor had a bunch of data on athletes who had competed for football scholarships at Clemson University IIRC. We spent a bit of time proving that the single best physical indicator of future performance was vertical leap. It is evidence of fast-twitch muscle and speed -- both necessary to outperform other athletes. However this is a case of necessary but not sufficient. Jumping and running are way important in basketball, but as others have pointed out here, there is hand-eye coordination for shooting and the mental side of the game among other things.
I think there is a pretty good chance that you are right with those 5. I would be happy with MKG. I know we all want BAP and if we get Barnes or MKG at 6, A center, SG and PG are still in play at 11. But I think if we somehow get Beal at 6 then that will take another SG at 11 off the table. (So PG or C) And if Drummond slips to us at 6, then I think they go SG at 11 for sure. We would need scoring help
Is he undersized? 6'7.5" 233 lbs and 7' wingspan sounds pretty good size to me. (actually, almost identical in every dimension with Carmelo). I don't disagree with your analysis of what he is now, but I think the question is what will he become. He was a very strong team leader on a national champion team. He appears very driven and athletic. Maybe has the kind of drive that Jordan, Wade, Bird had--just not fully developed yet? Can he develop a better outside shot? I don't know. People seem to believe that he will develop enough of these other skills given his very strong drive. Blazers could use a guy with strong drive getting on his teammates when they start to coast. The good news is that the rise of Barnes makes the field of top players now 6-7 deep (depending on how you see Lillard). So, picking 6 now looks pretty sexy because you are going to get someone good.
Exactly. The combine results should really just be a yes/no checkbox. All of the guys have enough measurable athleticism to succeed on the next level, but the numbers themselves are unlikely to predict anything with much accuracy.
It's my opinion, I am entitled to state it, and I have given numerous, specific & justifiable reasons as to why I came to that opinion, and I will again since they keep being glossed over. He was back end of the lottery and a lot of the slotting right now on mock drafts is based on percieved team needs and not whom teams ACTUALLY like...and the fact that he has some measureables that resemble Rose, CLEARLY is worthless isn't it? b\c history has certainly shown us that basketball at the NBA level is more than just athletic combine numbers...otherwise Rose wouldn't be one of the best players in the NBA now would he? The fact is there are always players that teams rave about or vice versa and a lot of it is smokescreeen...and sometimes guys just look better in a workout setting than they actually are on the floor in a 5v5 setting (Hello Martell Webster!),...and I do believe that the lack of PG in POR adversly affects many fans' perspective on a player...Lillard doesn't have as many question marks to me as Leonard does or as critical of a one, but he DOES have some serious concerns that I am baffled how people can just wave away like they are no big deal... Lillard...He has not performed well in games vs better teams, that should be concerning when reviewing a player from a smaller conference....He shoots the ball low and in front of him, look at how a guy like Waiters shoots the ball for instance, high above his head, a little lean back, that shot would be hard as hell to block in the NBA....low and in front of you? That will get blocked or more likely what will happen is that he will be chased off the shot and have to pull back and take an off balance shot...much tougher shot, far less success rate...and watch how he drives to the basket, a lot of little lay in type shots, you are not going to get that in the NBA...He shows athleticism but he doesn't appear to have explosion to the basket, he can do it when the path is open before him, but when a defender is there it is a lean to the side and an attempt to lay it in across the backboard...against inferior competition that can work, against top nothc size\athleticism in the NBA that will be blocked...Again, look how Waiters finishes...look how he absorbs body hits and continues onto the basket and throws it down...that is very impressive and reminiscent of what he will face, defensively in the NBA...I think Lillard is fool's gold...looks good when playing against sub par competition and in a gym when no one is guarding him...but in an NBA game, 5 on 5, I am prediciting he will strugggle, he will essentially be a jump shooter (and he isn't lights out there) and I don't see him as a go-to player type scorer at the end of games either (which this team DESPERATELY needs)...Maybe I am wrong, maybe he overcomes those short comings, but I would be highly surprised if he does... Not sure what Cleaves was ranked coming out of HS, Teague was a top 5 HS recruit (I do think that matters, I did a rough analysis and the percentages were pretty compelling to me)....and his ahtleticism, speed and size compared to Cleeves are certainly factors....I think Teague is a better athlete than Lillard, a better PG in terms of passing\running a team...He is accustomed to playing against better competition and he performed well for a freshman...and I thought his play in the NCAA tourney when the competition\pressure is at its's greatest was very good...Those to me are very positive signs...and what I said was correct, he had a better assist\to ratio as a freshman than Lillard did ANY year he at Weber State....Lillard is a SG that once again, POR is trying to make into a PG, that experiment has failed several times now already...and even if you think Lillard is better, is he that much better to take at #6 than getting a guy like Teague and other assets in the mid 1st? I don't think so, bad use of your assets IMO...and either way, whomever they pick (if they do pick a PG) POR is going to have to bring in a vet... Lastly to Leonard, I have mentioned it several times now and you keep skipping over it but he has a well known history of problems with mental toughness and self confidence...He gets down on himself a lot....I just don't know how ANYONE can ignore that...to me that is a MAJOR red flag...Look at Luke Babbitt, talk about a guy who struggles with confidence, and it is likely why he will be nothing more than a bench scrub\specialist in the NBA, b\c the shooting tools are there...and for a big man to have those issues? I would argue that lack of confidence is even more concerning...he is going to get pushed around, banged on, fouls called on him...a lot...and other players yapping in his ear to get into his head....You add that to the fact that athleticism aside, he is raw offensively and raw defensively....Heck his best shot is a little jump hook that he starts low and can be blocked quite easily...that isn't going to work in the NBA...So you are drafting a project that is very raw that struggles with confidence issues and whose best case otucome if he overcomes all that is Spencer Hawes? I view that as a reach.... and you mention Hawes as a comparison, whose play has improved after FIVE years in the NBA and on his 2nd team....and he didn't have confidence issues and had a better offensive game out of college than Leonard does....You really want to wait 5 years for Leonard and hope that he developes into that type of player? You take Leonard at #11 then you are reaching, you are hoping he becomes a serviceable...middle of the road starter...you are hoping that he developes some kind of go to post move...you are hoping that he improves enough on defense that he can actually stay out on the court and not collect fouls like a magnet...and MOST importantly you are hoping that by some miracle? he suddenly overcomes all of his self confidence issues...and again history I think shows that players who suffer from that don't usually overcome it...Not in the NBA... First of all, I don't think we really know where they rank with executives...saying a guy helped himself or he loked good at the combine is a LOT different from how you have him ranked on your draft board...and I don't think he has ANYWHERE near the athleticism or EXPLOSION of Russell Westbrook. Seriously? I don't know how anyone can see similarities from watching them play....It is that explosion that makes Westbrook so damm good...and his jumpshot has come along....I think that is reaching if you are comparing the 2... Long enough? You want to debate those points fine, but I have given you MY reasons for why I don't particularly like either player...Not just a "They suck, STFU"...
