The Language of the NBA (mock) Draft

Reading through the NBA Mock Drafts, it is easy to see what NBA people (the decision-makers and those who talk to the decision-makers and interpret their opinions online) value. To be a high draft pick, you need to have "potential" or "length." Unfortunately, "productive" relegates you to the latter half of the draft...

Evaluating the 2009 Draft by labels, not players.

Save my TV

After going for a run, I wanted to plop down on the couch and watch basketball. So, I flipped on ESPN: Ohio State vs. Penn State. Really? I could care less about either of these teams, but normally I would watch anyway. But, Brent Musberger and Steve Lavin? No thanks. Lavin and Musberger have reached Vitalian proportions: it does not matter who is playing, I cannot listen to Lavin for more than a minute without wretching and screaming at the television (and, while on the subject, can someone tell Mike Patrick that he isn't an analyst? I turned off the Georgetown game last night because I grew sick of his repeated criticism of Greg Monroe. It's one thing for Len Elmore to disagree with JTIII's philosophy, but Mike Patrick? Come on, dude, know your role!).

So, I flipped to the deuce. NBA Coast to Coast. Fantastic. Ugh, Nancy Lieberman. Really? She's terrible on women's basketball games and now she's polluting the NBA too. I understand she was a great player. I respect that. However, that does not mean I have even a remote interest on her opinion of Lamar Odom's role on the Lakers. I don't even want to hear her talking about Pat Summit or anything else to do with women's basketball. Give me Doris Burke and her inability to grasp ACL injuries anyday. But, the NBA too? And, on this note, I don't need to hear Swin Cash talking about the NBA either. I get it. She's a pretty face and everyone wants to be politically correct. But, if you're terrible, you're terrible. If ESPN wants to hire women for women's basketball ames and have them give poor analysis, that's one thing. But on NBA games too? Save me. Give me Kara Lawson. Lawson knows basketball and actually knows what she is talking about. Cash is insipid.

So, I flip to NBATV for its pre-game show. Ah, the magic trifecta of Ahmad Rashad, Gary Payton and Chris Webber. God, where's Steve Lavin again? These three have to be the absolute worst crew ever imagined. Stunning. I cannot believe there is not more protest about this. Why is Ahmad Rashad still on television? I thought he retired with Michael Jordan?

Are they trying to make Steven A. Smith look good in comparison? Where did David Aldridge go?

So, I moved to re-runs of That 70's Show. Astin Krucher isn't half as annoying as Musberger/Lavin, Lieberman or Rashad/Payton.

The Legacy of Geoff Petrie

It is increasingly difficult to evaluate Geoff Petrie's reign in Sacramento, as it appears that the MaGoof brothers have asserted more and more influence over basketball decisions.

I don't think Petrie is to blame or Rick Adelman's firing or the hiring of Eric Mussleman or Reggie Theus.

However, the recent string of trades and free agent signings leaves one wondering what use the salary cap may be in the off-season.

The Kings traded Chris Webber for three players, ostensibly because nobody would take Webber's albatross of a contract and trading three smaller parts would be easier. However, Kenny Thomas still remains on the Sacramento roster. Nobody will take Thomas and his salary.

The Kings traded Mike Bibby, still an above-average, if overpaid, NBA point guard and have nothing to show for it. At least when Memphis "gave" away Pau Gasol, it acquired a 1st Round draft, a young player (since traded for another 1st Round pick) and Marc Gasol, a starting center. The Kings acquired Sheldon Williams who they traded for expiring contracts in an effort to rid itself of Bobby Brown's contract for next season.

The Kings traded Ron Artest for an expiring contract and Donte Greene, a deal that could prove fortuitous if Greene develops. Some predicted he would be a lottery pick, and he is talented, so the Artest deal could become a win for the Kings. But, if he never develops, one wonders if there was a better deal to be made for one of the top defenders in the NBA (though the Rockets tried to deal him, so the market does not seem to be very large for Artest's services now that Isaih Thomas is unemployed).

In recent drafts, Petrie hit it big by picking Kevin Martin and Jason Thompson and made a very good pick with Spencer Hawes, but missed on the Quincy Douby pick.

However, possibly the biggest busts have been the recent free agent signings. At the Trade Deadline, the Kings cut Mikki Moore and traded John Salmons and Bobby Brown. Beno Udrih was a very adept sining during last season, but he played so well that the Kings probably overpaid for his services during the off-season. Now, half-way through the season, some wanted to trade him just to get rid of his contract.

Petrie is certainly playing with one hand tied behind his back. However, what direction will the Kings go in the off-season? Who will they hire to coach this group? The Kings have some young talent with Martin, Garcia, Greene, Thompson and Hawes. If the Kings can supplement this nucleus with some toughness, shot blocking and improved point guard play, they may be on their way to improvement, though breaking through in the Western Conference will be difficult. However, how will a new coach use these players?

This is an offensive-minded group. As Phoenix illustrated this season, hiring a defensive-minded coach to coach an offensive group may not be the answer. To an extent, Mussleman's struggles could be explained in the same way. So, the Kings probably need an offensive coach, a coach who can maximize the talents of these young players and develop a system around their talents. This is not a walk the ball up the court kind of team. Hiring a Jeff Van Gundy or Terry Porter probably is not the answer.

Petrie continues to assemble players who fit into a Pete Carril-like system with an emphasis on player movement, shooting and big man passing. For this reason, former Wizards' Head Coach Eddie Jordan or Houston Rockets' Assistant Coach Elston Turner could be the ideal hire. If Turner could implement the Adelman offensive system and improve the defense (as he is a defensive coach) through his defensive schemes, he might not be the "big name" hire or the most obvious choice, but sometimes going with the familiar is better than reachng for a big personality.

The draft will present interesting opportunities. Many fans favor Hasheem Thabeet and his shot blocking. I would like the Kings to give a 10-day contract to Cheik Samb, recently cut by the Clippers, or Saer Sene, recently cut by the Thunder, as they are long, active, raw big men. Take a flier and see how they fit coming off the bench. Thabeet is better than either, but not unlike them. It would be like a mini-preview. If it looks like it could work, than Thabeet could be a good choice. If there is no fit, then there might be a better pick available.

The Kings have two choices, plus they might be able to work out something with Andres Nocioni to a contender. If the Kings cannot get a big shot blocker - if Thabeet or Jordan Hill is gone or if he does not seem like a fit with the new coach - my next choice would be to get an energy guy and aggressive rebounder with one choice and a point guard with the other .

Currently, the mock drafts have the Kings at #2 taking James Harden and #22 taking Craig Brackens, though the mock drafts do not yet take team needs into account. Harden obviously is not a great fit because the Kings have Martin and Garcia at SG. So, if the Kings do draft #2, Hill or Thabeet fill a need, while Greg Monroe fits the same style of player as the rest of the team - skilled, perimeter-oriented. In a Carril-style, Monroe fits very well, though he duplicates Thompson to a degree.

At #22, Darren Collison or Eric Maynor could make sense as a PG. I also like Tyler Hansborough or Dajuan Blair as an energy guy who will be a lot like Paul Milsap and would add a different dimension than Thompson/Hawes inside. If someone like Kyle Singler falls, his high basketball I.Q. would fit with the current Kings. Terrence Williams is another player who would fit well with the Kings, but does not fill a need with Garcia/Martin.

Fortunately, Petrie's record as a "draft guru" is accurate. Everyone misses because of the imprecise nature of the draft, but he is right more often than not and some of his picks have been outstanding: Martin, Stojakovic, Turkuglo, Thompson. The bigger question remains how he (and the Magoofs) will handle the salary cap space. Will the Magoofs spend money? Will Petrie spend the money wisely? Or, will they go after an overpaid role player like Mikki Moore and overpay him?

Meeks vs. Curry

For over a year, Davidson's Stephon Curry has been college basketball's best shooter. This is said as a statement of fact, not as someone's opinion. From channel to channel and analyst to analyst, there is no debate.

On the various draft boards, Curry is a lottery lock. Hoops Addict has him at #5 and Draft Express has him at #9.

Where's Jodie Meeks? Neither Draft Express or Hoops Addict has Meeks in its 2009 1st Round, and Meeks is all but ignored when the analysts predict the player of the year candidate and mention Blake Griffin, and throw out other names like Hasheem Thabeet, Tyler Hansborough and Curry. What does Meeks have to do?

I admit, I have not watched Meeks play extensively. In fact, I missed his really good games when he dropped 50+ and burst on the national scene.

However, I do not understand Meeks' absence from a mock draft. Sure, Meeks is a junior. But, so is Curry. Maybe Meeks is unlikely to enter the draft; speculation suggests that Curry may stay for his senior year and pursue Pistol Pete's scoring record.

Meeks is a bigger body who stays in perpetual motion. He had a great shot (8/10 from three against Tennessee) and can get to the rim as well.

This is not an anti-Curry post. I love Curry's game. However, like Monta Ellis, I believe Curry is a shooting guard, not a point guard, and I believe the comparison between two of the best shootrs in the country is fair. I understand that Curry proved it on the big stage in the tournament last year.

However, if they played shirt and skins at the local Y and nobody entered the gym knowing who was who, I wonder how many people (NBA GMs, mock draft gurus) would pick Curry and how many would take Meeks.

Oh, to be a Kings fan...

Last year, as the NBA Trade deadline came and passed, rumors were that Denver was willing to send Linas Kleiza to Sacramento for Ron Artest. However, Sacramento wanted a draft pick too. When Denver would not include the pick, Sacramento passed. Instead, Sacramento sent Artest to Houston for Bobby Jackson and Donte Green during the summer.

According to rumors this year, Dallas was willing to send Jerry Stackhouse and Brandon Bass for John Salmons. Also, New York was interested in Brad Miller for Malik Rose, but Sacramento insisted on Nate Robinson (alledgedly).

Instead, Sacramento dealt Miller and Salmons for Andres Nocioni, Drew Gooden, Cedric Simmons and Ike Diogu. Gooden, Simmons and Diogu are expiring contracts, like Rose, Kleiza, Jackson and Stackhouse (well, basically).

So, to re-start Sacramento's rebuilding efforts, the Kings acquired three more years of Andres Nocioni. Of course, this is after sending Mike Bibby to Atlanta for Sheldon Williams (expiring contract) and other pieces.

So, in effect, Sacramento dealt Mike Bibby, Brad Miller, Ron Artest and John Salmons for Andres Nocioni, Donte Green and cap space without acquiring a single draft pick in the process.

Instead, at minimum, Sacramento could have acquired Kleiza (the small forward Sacramento needs with an expiring contract and a smaller contract than Nocioni) and Bass (an athletic power forward to complement Jason Thompson and Spencer Hawes).

Personally, I prefer Kleiza and Bass to Nocioni and Green.

I had hope that Sacramento could acquire a young player or a draft pick to bring hope. Nope.

Maybe a contender would like Nocioni's toughness and outside shooting. Cleveland? San Antonio? Phoenix? Hello? Anyone?

What does it take to run an NBA organization?

Over the weekend, the New York Times had an interesting article about Shane Battier, which featured Houston Rockets' General Manager Daryl Morey. Also on Sunday, Steve Kerr was replacing his hand-picked head coach with the Phoenix Suns.

Last week, I wrote about "Mistakes of Certainty." Yesterday, I spoke to a guy from a consulting firm who works with organizations to make better hires. One of my contentions is that people think they know what experience, skills and characteristics to fill a job, but those often are not the ones that will guarantee success.

The common perception is that in the 21st Century, to be an NBA General Manager, you need to have played in the NBA to understand the game. However, if you look at the best run franchises, few have former NBA players running the show.

Greg Popovich and R.C. Buford run the San Antonio Spurs. Kevin O'Connor is the GM in Utah. Kevin Pritchard has turned around Portland. Sam Presti appears to be turning around Oklahoma City. Mtch Kupchak runs the Lakers.

Joe Dumars certainly ranks as one of the top General Managers in the NBA (incidentally, at this point last year I wrote about the Nazr Mohammed trade and how Dumars kept the Pistons near the top with small deals like that one. Many said Mohammed was a good player and the Bobcats won the trade. Now, Charlotte desperately wants to trade his contract. Score another one for Dumars). Certainly, Danny Ferry and Danny Ainge have proven more than capable running the Cavaliers and Celtics.

However, Steve Kerr, John Paxson, Kevin McHale and Isiah Thomas are recent examples of former NBA champions struggling to run an NBA organization.

What's the difference? From the outside, there seems to be a certain arrogance from the former NBA players who struggle. They seem to believe that since they won as a player, they understand how to win as an executive. However, playing basketball and running an organization are two different jobs requiring two vastly different skill sets. They rely on their collected wisdom and believe in their own ability. They make mistakes of certainty because they believe that what they see and feel is the truth, even though it is colored by their perceptions.

Kerr saw the Suns' lose and saw a philosophy different than his own, so he tried to change Mike D'Antoni's philosophy. D'Antoni was not changing, so he left. Kerr hired a coach with an opposite philosophy to coach a team built to succeed with D'Antoni's philosophy. Kerr's perception of what a championship team should be did not allow him to see that D'Antoni was coaching in a way that maximized his players' ability, and changing the system would not move the team closer to a championship. The Suns' slip is not all Kerr's fault, as the change started before he was hired and Sarver deserves much of the blame for the way he handled Joe Johnson and the draft picks. People in Phoenix assumed the problem was the style of play and if they played more conventionally, they would win. However, it was the style of play which gave them a competitive advantage and maximized their players' talents. As they became more conventional, they lost that advantage.

Ferry served an apprenticeship under Popovich and Ainge hired Morey (I believe) in Boston. Ainge also is one General manager who relies heavily on different personality tests and the "sabremetrics" stats during the NBA draft process. They do not rely strictly on their background as a player and their assumptions.

The non-NBA guys do not have a background to rest on. They are open to ideas and different ways to think. Part of this comes from the owners. Paul Allen spends freely to help Pritchard, while Miller showed patience with O'Connor and Jerry Sloan. There was no knee-jerk reaction when they missed the play-offs for the first time; no need to fire anyone or make a big trade.

So, who is the best fit to run an organization? I think the biggest key might be one's open-mindedness. If one is closed to new ideas and believes things must be run one way, he is more likely to fail. However, if one is open to different possibilities, opportunities and thinking, he will not fall into the "mistakes of certainty" and he'll have a better chance for success (and, the importance of a supportive owner cannot be overstated).

Kobe vs LeBron

This season, I switched my vote. I believe Lebron James is the best player in the NBA. If you want to argue most skilled, I might shift to Kobe over LeBron, as Kobe is definitely a better outside shooter than LeBron. However, LeBron's combination of size, strength, speed, vision and personality give him the edge in my opinion.

Most NBA analysts pick Kobe. They say he has a "killer instinct" that LeBron lacks.

This is the problem with perception. Once we believe something, it colors everything that we see. Once a coach thinks the official is making bad calls, every call is a bad call. Once a player thinks his coach hates him, every comment is proof. Once we believe Kobe is the best player, we notice his positives and accentuate LeBron's weaknesses.

I believe the Lakers put Kobe into better positions. If LeBron James got the ball just off the elbow through a game, rather than 35-feet from the basket, he could average 35ppg and 8 assists. He's unstoppable when he gets the ball inside 15-feet because he is unselfish and makes his teammates better, which makes it harder to double team. Kobe gets the ball closer to the basket, and he also has two 7-footers to throw the ball to at the rim. I see LeBron throw the bll up to Ben Wallace and he fumbles away gimmes and Z is far less mobile than Gasol, Bynum or Odom. If LeBron was throwing those passes to Amare Stoudemire at the rim, his scoring might go down, but he might average 10 assists. However, the Cavs do not get LeBron the ball in dangerous positions enough during games, though they are improving.

The real argument usually ends with: yeah, but Kobe is better at the end of games. We believe this as fact. There is no disputing this. Kobe is the guy you want with the ball at the end of the game. According to an SI poll in the ARod issue, 76% of NBA players would want Kobe to take the last shot. 76%! Chauncey Billups and James tied for 2nd with 3% each! Kobe won by 73% of the vote.

The facts, however, are that since 2003-04, Kobe Bryant has missed the most potential game-winning shots (42). He has made 14, which places him 4th in the NBA. During that time, James is first with 17 game-winners (from82games.com via SI)

So, James has made 3 more game-winning shots, and attempted fewer, so he shoots a better percentage in these instances, yet we overwhelmingly believe that Kobe is better in thee situations. That is a case of not allowing facts to get in the way of perceptions.

How to use a Shot Chart

Henry Abbott linked to a good article which describes the way that Shane Battier uses a shot chart and charting program in his defense against Kobe Bryant:

The data essentially broke down the floor into many discrete zones and calculated the odds of Bryant making shots from different places on the court...how well he scored off screens, off pick-and-rolls, off catch-and-shoots and so on.

180Shooter.com's Shot Tracker program provides the same type of information to coaches so they can learn about and assist their players. How is that valuable?

The numbers show him that Allen Iverson is one of the most efficient scorers in the N.B.A. when he goes to his right; when he goes to his left he kills his team. The Golden State Warriors forward Stephen Jackson is an even stranger case. "Steve Jackson," Battier says, "is statistically better going to his right, but he loves to go to his left - and goes to his left almost twice as often."

If you coached Iverson, wouldn't you use this information? Wouldn't you structure your offense to get Iverson or Jackson going to their right, rather than to their left?

Then, during the off-season, wouldn't you work on their finishing and productivity off a left-hand dribble?

As for Kobe:

When he shoots directly after receiving a pass, he is more efficient than when he shoots after dribbling.

As his coach, isn't that important to know? Wouldn't you work harder to run him off screens for catch-and-shoot shots rather than depending on him to create his own shot off the dribble?

This type of information could greatly increase the effectiveness of a team's offense (if you played to each player's strengths), and the effectiveness of a coach's off-season training program (by attacking some of the weaknesses).

I designed 180Shooter so youth and high school coaches would have easy access to this information so they could help their players improve and run more efficient offenses that used their players' strengths.

Basketball Analysts Confusing Fact with Opinion

Last week, after UCLA scored 90 against Notre Dame, another ESPN analyst called UCLA a bad offensive team. UCLA has spent much of the season ranked as the #1 team in offensive efficiency. How did analysts not know these things? The information is available, for free, on the Internet.

Unfortunately, most analysts believe their greatness as an athlete carries over to their ability to analyze basketball, even though playing basketball and analyzing the game require two different skill sets.

Analysts often make a mistake of certainty. They believe their own eyes more than objective facts.

Amare Stoudemire and Paul Milsap

In 2007, I wrote that Paul Milsap was the exact type of player that Phoenix needed. Now that the Suns appear intent on trading Amare Stoudemire, I have to ask the question: who would you rather have?

Now, on its face, this is a spectacularly ridiculous question. Stoudemire is a perennial all-star who most people would list in or near the top ten talents in the NBA, while Milsap is only starting because Carlos Boozer is injured.

However, I ask because the Sacramento Kings fans, caught in a downward spiral not felt since the Kings moved to Sacramento, hang onto hope by dreaming of which player could be acquired for Brad Miller's contract or signed when Miller's deal expires. Milsap was a popular choice early in the season, but now Stoudemire seems to be coveted by fans.

While few would argue that Milsap is the better or even equal player, that is not always the question. Who would you want? Milsap, even when he gets his giant raise this summer, will likely command less than $10-million, while Stoudemire, when he hits free agency in 2010, will likely ask for $20-million. So, is Stoudemire twice as good as Milsap?

I believe in the superstar effect: a team really only has a chance to win the NBA championship if it has a superstar. Therefore, when it has a superstar, it has to spend whatever it costs to keep him, as superstars are rare. Which begs the question: Is Stoudemire a superstar? Will he lead a team to an NBA Championship? Or, is he a star, a Robin to someone else's Batman, or the number one player on team's destined not to win the championship?

With his well-chronicled aversion to defense, I would suggest that he is not a superstar - he is not the player on which to hitch a franchise's championship aspirations. And, if he is not the superstar to lead your team to a championship, is he worth $20-million?

I don't think Milsap is a superstar either. However, if I am building a franchise, I don't want to spend $20-million on my Robin, unless I have Batman in place or I have an endless bank account. So, for those teams other than Portland and New York ($$) and Cleveland, Boston, Los Angeles, Miami (Batmen), I would rather have Milsap and his more-friendly contract, hustle, rebounding and defense than the almost-superstar Stoudemire.

Stoudemire flourishes with Steve Nash. But, will he flourish when he gets his opportunity to be the man? Will he be a devastating back to the basket scorer or is he the type of post player who has to get the ball in motion to excel and score against bigger players and tougher defenders? Stoudemire is 26 and in the prime of his career, but $20-million is a lot of money for a team if you are not sure that he is your alpha-male. And, do you really want your alpha-male to be defense-averse?

It seems like Steve Kerr has decided that he wants his alpha-male to be someone else. However, someone will be lured into believing they can make Stoudemire into a defensive presence and the leader of a championship team. It's just a matter of who. This seems so strange because the combination of Robin Lopez and Stoudemire seemed so perfect as a post combination moving forward, as Lopez can run the floor and play defense and play with a selflessness that allows Stoudemire to get a high percentage of touches and shots to fuel his ego. I wonder what would have happened if the Suns did not have Shaq and the Lopez-Stoudemire combo was given time to marinate and develop.

Most Underrated Player: Andres Biedrins

A couple years ago, I wrote that Jose Calderon was the NBA's most underrated player. After watching Golden State, I feel Biedrins is currently the most under-appreciated player in the NBA.

I never really believed that Biedrins would be a great player. He's tall and lanky, and has horrible form on his shot. But, when I watched him play, all he does is make plays. Golden State lost Friday night against the Suns when Biedrins twisted his ankle. If he remains in the game, Golden State wins that game.

Trying to explain Biedrins' impact is difficult because he lacks a traditional skill set. He's not a shooter, he's not a great back to the basket scorer, etc. He does not fit a mold. However, he has great instincts and timing and somehow he manages to always be where the ball is, which is a talent. He's a great rebounder and he moves well for a big guy, so he rebounds outside his own area. He has a great feel for the offensive boards, too.

There is a lot of hype for David Lee right now, and I suppose Biedrins is a similar type player - an energy-guy who does a lot of the things that are often overlooked for more spectacular or more obvious plays.

NCAA Men's Basketball Senior Class Award

I saw this award linked elsewhere. Lowe's gives a senior class award to men's and women's basketball players. There are 10 finalists and popular vote counts for a third of the vote.

Apparently Lowe's does not recognize the Western third of the country, as no player representing a school west of Texas was named a finalist on the men's or women's side.

While I am sure they are all great choices in their own right, few players represent the spirit of a student-athlete more than Alfred Aboya from UCLA. Aboya graduated from UCLA - a top 25 academic institution - in three years. He resisted an opportunity to play professionally in Europe to return for a fourth season and a chance to go to a fourth NCAA Final Four. He is working toward a Master's degree in Political Science and his stated goal is to become the President of Cameroon, his home country.

Not to take anything away from the other candidates, but somehow, I think a player working on his Master's degree and a fourth trip to the Final Four while setting the all-time record for games played at UCLA, a program with a little basketball history, would be hard to overlook. I would like to know where to start the write-in campaign.

I am happy that Lowe's and the NCAA did not hold it against players if they were from the western United States, as players like Oakland's Courtney Paris, Phoenix's Christina Wirth, Seattle's Terrence Williams and Denver's Abby Waner managed to slip onto the list. However, not one western institution is represented on the list.

As for my personal choices, as I said, I suggest a write-in for Aboya on the men's side. On the women's side, I suggest voting for Christina Wirth from Vanderbilt, another player already working on a Master's degree from a top university and a player with WNBA ability on the court.