Tag Archives: Kyle Anderson

Summer League Scouting: The Rest

20 Sunday Jul 2014

Posted by in NCAA

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

I already wrote my detailed scouting reports on Andrew Wiggins, Jabari Parker, Doug McDermott, and TJ Warren as those were the players I felt I got to know the most intimately in Las Vegas. But I watched enough of other players to have observations I’d like to share.

Zach LaVine

Of all the players I was bearish on, Zach LaVine appears to be the strongest bet to prove me wrong. He was a mystery box that I assumed contained nothing substantial, but now that we got to see him run an offense and play man to man defense, he demonstrated much more ability than I anticipated.

In the first game, it stood out that Gal Mekel tried to drive past LaVine on 3 occasions and couldn’t get by once. I wasn’t sure whether to be sad for Mekel or happy for LaVine, but then Mekel blew by Glenn Robinson and got to the rim 3 times in a row. Even though Robinson is a SF, he’s not athletically challenged. Then Mekel tried to go at LaVine one last time, put a nice crossover on him and tried to shift directions a couple of times, but LaVine diligently shuffled his feet and forced him into a tough fadeaway jumper that badly missed.

I expected LaVine to be clueless on defense due to bad high school and college steal rates. He finished with 4 steals in 5 games, and 2 of them showed quick hands to strip the ball that you never see from McDermott or Randle types. I don’t think his defensive instincts are that bad, he just didn’t get many steals because he doesn’t have long arms and he is rail thin (I am starting to believe strength plays a significant role in steals). He still can’t fight through a screen to save his life and doesn’t always seem certain of where he’s supposed to be on defense, but he definitely showed enough potential to make me believe he can possibly become a positive on this end.

Offensively, we finally got to see LaVine run an offense and it wasn’t too bad. He doesn’t seem like a natural PG, and in the first game he appeared uncomfortable whenever Dee Bost applied pressure. He also isn’t the best passer, as he doesn’t see the floor all that well and he didn’t appear to be particularly accurate with his passes. But once he settled in his handle didn’t look too shabby, as it was good enough to get him wherever he wanted to go with his elite explosiveness and quicks. The issue was that it’s difficult for him to get off passes in the post because of his short arms, and he struggles to finish due to his lack of strength, so he was fairly reliant on his jumper and free throws. But he did a couple of shots to go at the rim when he found daylight, including some highlight dunks. His feel for the game didn’t look great, but at the same time it was much better than expected for a guy who hasn’t run an offense above the high school level. It will be interesting to see how much he can improve with hard work and repetitions. His final counting stats weren’t too shabby for such a raw prospect: 15.7 pts 2.8 asts 3.3 tovs in 6 games– his turnover rate is especially mild given all of the slashing, passing, and scoring LaVine was asked to do given his age and experience.

LaVine is pretty much Nik Stauskas if you traded a healthy portion of skill and feel for elite quickness and explosiveness. Stauskas was a lower RSCI recruit than LaVine who rose due to working diligently on his skills and body. I now understand why LaVine wasn’t top 50 RSCI: there’s a bias toward players who dominate high school due to physically developing sooner such as Jabari Parker, Shabazz Muhammad, and Julius Randle. LaVine’s rail thin frame is still a concern, as he is uniquely underweight and may never add enough muscle to accomplish much inside. But I get the impression that he is taking his NBA career seriously and is going to work hard and listen to his coach (if only his coach wasn’t Flip Saunders). I don’t know how high he’ll peak or if he’ll even necessarily become good, but he inspired a ton of hope in Las Vegas and he shot up my rankings. I feel he justified his lottery selection.

Dante Exum

Exum looked awesome the first game, as he was getting to his spots offensively, dishing beautiful passes to his teammates, and protecting the ball with just one turnover. I don’t know if he was feeding off of the crazy pro-Utah energy (the crowd was going crazy over every tiny pro-Jazz event) or if he faced a horrible defense, because he completely disappointed in the following games.

He still showed good quickness, good vision and passing ability, and playmaking instincts defensively to suggest that he has plenty of upside. He is young and toolsy enough such that he didn’t need to have a great summer league. Frankly he looked uncomfortable adjusting to the higher level of competition after not playing above Australian HS level for the past year. It would have been nice to see him show some progress toward the end, but maybe he just needs to get repetitions and work on dribbling with his left hand. Also it appears his conditioning may be a bigger issue than expected, which explains why he conserved so much energy on defense in high school.

His defense looked as bad as anticipated and he couldn’t buy a bucket in the paint over length. He had some sexy finishes in FIBA, but it’s possible that he can’t consistently finish at the rim off the dribble in the NBA.

Altogether there is nothing about his summer league that suggests irreparable flaw or makes his upside unattainable. But he could have shown more and we do need to brace for the possibility that this mystery box does not contain a boat. I don’t drop him heavily though, he’s still top 5 to me.

Julius Randle

I like the way the Lakers were using Randle. He often slashed from the perimeter, where I felt he was at his best in college. And unlike Jabari and Wiggins, he doesn’t attack exclusively for himself, as he makes a conscious effort to create to teammates. I don’t think he sees the floor all that well, but he is mindful of where his teammates are hanging out and he tries to dish to them when he can. He had one excellent pass where he threaded the needle inside and created FT’s.

And even though he’s bad on defense, it’s not because he doesn’t care. He shows competitiveness on this end, he just is naturally bad at it due to short arms, lack of burst, and slow reactions. I think this is just a killer triumvirate of weaknesses, but he works hard and he can at least become good man to man with his quick feet and great strength.

Randle is definitely less talented than Wiggins and Parker but it feels like he’s on a better developmental path than either of them. I’ve always had the impression that he really does want to be good at as many things as possible to win, and he will sacrifice touches and shots for the good of the team. He still doesn’t naturally play efficiently, and he struggled to finish some of his postups which involved a bit too much dribbling. But he still is so good at finishing circus shots that his shooting percentages didn’t look horrible at the end of the day.

I think he has an uphill climb to become great and I will always perceive him as an underdog in spite of his recruiting ranking and draft slot. I could see him overachieving my expectations for him through hard work and adaptability. It will be interesting to monitor Randle vs. Parker– I feel that Parker has naturally sharper instincts, but Randle is more in tune with the overall health of the team, but they are otherwise largely similar players.

Tyler Ennis

Ennis was a disappointment for me. I didn’t watch a ton but from what I can tell he’s too slow to get to the rim and could only get close enough to get off floaters. He made some sharp passes and showed quick hands that suggest he might have had a good steal rate even without the zone. Also he might be much better in the NBA since he was awful against bad teams his first few college games before everything clicked. But I might just have been too much of a sucker for cerebral PG’s and need to upgrade the value of athleticism + quicks for the position. I can still see him as a Mark Jackson type.

Rodney Hood

I didn’t like Hood as a prospect at all, but he had a solid showing in Vegas. His offensive package isn’t shabby: he makes 3’s, he sees the floor, he passes well, he can exploit mismatches to get to the rim with his decent athleticism and handle, and he doesn’t force the issue and make mistakes. That’s a solid supporting role player, and 11 assists vs 5 turnovers is nice. If he could even be neutral defensively I’d say that’s a solid pick in the late 1st. Unfortunately given his poor strength, short arms, and bad instincts defensively I still think he’ll offset the good but not great offensive skill set. But who knows, maybe he’ll overachieve enough on both ends to become an alright role player.

Kyle Anderson

I am big time disappointed in Kyle. He couldn’t get to the rim and finish, he couldn’t get to the line, he didn’t rebound, and he didn’t get many assists because he couldn’t get to his spots offensively. Further when he played Utah, Rodney Hood absolutely abused him and was able to blow by him at will. Against New Orleans there were 2 occasions on which Kyle was near the rim but didn’t rotate to help, although on one occasion he reached in to commit a weak foul and got pulled. I have heard that he did well defensively against some of the other top players, but whenever I happened to notice he was not getting to the rim and not doing anything of value on defense.

The slomo nickname is all fun and games until Kyle actually needs to match up against NBA athletes. He’s the smartest player in the draft, but smarts won’t be enough when he’s weak and slow and going up against elite athletes. He was drafted to the best possible situation to succeed, but I’m starting to fear he’s just a bit too slow and lazy.

Bruno Caboclo

Caboclo’s rawness was on fully display with his 2 assists and 18 turnovers. He didn’t seem to be that sure of where he was supposed to be defensively when I watched either. His rawness is a thing, his feel for the game is a work in progress. But it’s still easy to see why he was such a tantalizing prospect: just look at those arms and his shooting touch. He had one possession where he splashed a stepback 3 and it looked especially nice. Near the end of a half he was standing covered in the corner and caught the ball, fired, and hit at the buzzer. It’s such a broken weapon if he can get off corner 3’s whenever he wants– there was no off ball movement necessary to create that shot. He might not be good at all, but his upside is obvious so I can’t hate on the selection.

Parsing Through The NCAA Prospects: Part 2

24 Tuesday Jun 2014

Posted by in NCAA

≈ 14 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

Earlier I published part one of my last second scouting binge, and now I am on to part 2.

KJ McDaniels
McDaniels was the first prospect I wrote about as underrated when he was barely even on draft radar.  He is now a consensus first rounder who is neck and neck with Rodney Hood on DX and ESPN (DX has KJ 2 slots higher, ESPN 2 slots lower).

KJ thrives on defense, and it shows in his stats, his team’s performance, and his effort vs. Hood.  Clemson had the 20th best defense in the country (per kenpom.com) as they thrived off shot prevention with the 5th best defensive eFG% and the 5th best defensive FT rate.  McDaniels contributed heavily to both categories, as he led the team in blocks accumulating 100 of the team’s 221 total rejections in spite of being a 6’6″ wing.  To make it even more impressive, he committed fewer fouls than blocks as 2.6 fouls per 40 tied him for 3rd lowest foul rate on the team.  The only player with a substantially lower foul rate was Rod Hall who succeeded at avoiding fouls by also avoiding steals, blocks, and rebounds.  Clemson played a non-gambling defense, ranking just 283rd out of 351 in steal%, but KJ was 2nd among the team’s 10 rotation players in steal rate at 2.3%, only ranking behind foul prone guard Adonis Filer (3.0%).  He also had a solid D-Reb% at 15.9%, narrowing trailing Clemson’s bigs.  KJ was essentially a one man wrecking crew defensively as he excelled in all regards and it showed in his team’s success.

McDaniels is clearly a strong defensive prospect, although he may not quite be as strong as his college resume suggests.  He doesn’t have great size for a SF (6’6″ 196 lbs) and he isn’t exceptionally quick.  He atones for this with length (6’11.25″), explosiveness, and incredible timing on his blocks.  While his block rate will likely fall of a cliff in the NBA, he clearly has enough working in his favor to become a good defensive wing in the NBA.

Offense is the side of the ball where McDaniels is a bit shaky.  He only made 30.4% of his 3PA and his 0.69 assist:turnover ratio leaves much to be desired for a 21 year old wing.  But he also played in a woefully bad offense, and 114.4 O-Rtg on 29.1 usage (per sports-reference.com) is nothing to scoff at given how little help he had.  His efficiency was largely boosted by making 154/183 FT’s (84.2%). While he won’t get to the line as frequently as a pro his FT% does offer hope that he is a better shooter than his 3P% would suggest.  Even though he isn’t quite meant to carry an offense (especially not while carrying the defense and playing 34 mpg), he performed well in the role and nearly backpacked Clemson to the NCAA tournament.

KJ doesn’t quite have the upside to merit a top 10 pick, but if he can develop into a capable floor spacer he has potential to become a quality 3 + D role player who is neutral offensively and good defensively. In my earlier writeup I noted that KJ may elevate his stock to lottery caliber with strong conference play, and he certainly obliged.  I now have him as a late lottery value on my board, and I expect him to get selected in the top 20 on draft night.

Nik Stauskas
Stauskas is another prospect I was high on early in the season, and now it seems everybody is on the wagon.  His appeal is rather straightforward: he has an awesome combination of slick handles, vision, and elite shooting.  His ability to shoot off the dribble as well as spot up gives him interesting upside as a pick and roll ball handler.  He also adds a layer of intrigue with his offseason transformation, as he made stellar progress developing his body and PG skills.  If this is any indication of future growth potential, he may vastly succeed expectations.

That said I’m not completely certain that he is deserving of a lottery selection, and I’m a bit surprised that I haven’t come across more Stauskas skeptics given his poor tools and late 1st round grade according to most statistical models.  While he has surprisingly solid athleticism, he is lacking in speed, quickness, length, and strength and is a virtual lock to be below average defensively.  This is supported by his poor steal rate and his team’s mediocre defensive effort where he was likely their worst perimeter defender.  And it’s unclear how much his physical deficiencies will limit him offensively, as he didn’t carry a particularly high usage at Michigan.  His handles stand out as possibly the best in the draft, but how much will they be undermined by his lack of quicks and strength when he tries to navigate through NBA defenses?

I still believe that stat models undervalue him, because his statistics do not fully convey the goodness of his passing and ball handling.  Further, when models price in the prior year’s stats (as they should) it may be a bit misleading as I believe Stauskas’s leap was completely genuine without the help of positive variance.  In my eyes it’s a bonus that he was able to improve both his body and game by such a drastic margin.

Overall I am still enamored with Stauskas’s strengths and ability to develop himself enough to keep him as a late lottery value.  I only have an inkling of doubt that his bad tools and defense are getting underplayed, but he’s really not the type of player that I am in a rush to bet against.

Kyle Anderson
Anderson is likely the weirdest prospect in the draft.  Every time I try to think really hard about what he’ll become in the NBA, I come up completely blank.  He’s pretty much LeBron James if LeBron was doughy and required to move in slow motion at all times.

I respect the work Layne Vashro does modeling prospects, and it’s hard to ignore that he has Anderson as the #2 prospect in the draft.  Even though that should be de-valued for Anderson’s poor speed and athleticism (as well as UCLA’s gambling zone inflating his steal rate), he does at least have one excellent tool in his length at 7’2.75″.  He measured with solid length for a PF (8’11.5″) and while he needs to add strength to play the position full time it is a possible way to somewhat mitigate his slow motion ways defensively.

My big hang up is that Kyle played PG full-time at UCLA and in spite of his size and skill, was only able to get to the rim a frighteningly low % of the time in the half-court.  If he can’t get to the rim vs. NBA defenses, can he be permitted to handle the ball often enough to reap full benefits from his stellar passing ability?  I would assume not.  This isn’t a death knell for his ability to be useful, as he could succeed in a role similar to what Boris Diaw played for the Spurs.  I feel like the Spurs’ offense is the wave of the future, so investing a player who can thrive as a stretch 4 in a ball movement offense is a pretty good idea in my book.  When is the right juncture of the draft to invest in such a player is the difficult question, which hinges largely on Anderson’s slippery upside.  The fact of the matter is that he doesn’t have a historical upside comparison, if he becomes a good starter he will become the token comparison for unathletic tweeners with great passing ability.

Spencer Dinwiddie
If there was any doubt that Dinwiddie is the most intellectually curious player in the draft, he eradicated that when he tweeted an inquiry regarding his WARP rating at Kevin Pelton:

Jun 18

wouldn’t that 1.1 rating put me in the 20’s tho? Or is my math off?

Jun 18

ook thank u, just checkin…as long as y’all keep saying my stock rising I’m happy lol

I’m not sure whether it’s right to significantly upgrade his stock based on this, but it adds a layer of shine to Dinwiddie as a prospect.  And fortunately there is enough to like about him without appreciating his nerdy, intellectual side.  He is a prototypical role playing SG, as he is a good shooter and a solid ball handler and passer.  Further he has the size and quickness to be solid defensively, which is supported by a good steal rate. He also has excellent shot selection, as he limits his mid-range attempts and draws a ton of FT’s of which he converted 85.7% as a junior.  If anything he shot too infrequently last season, but that is of little concern since he doesn’t have a high usage skill set for the NBA anyhow.

His big weakness is that he doesn’t have the athleticism or burst to be a big time scorer, and he is also coming off an ACL tear that prematurely ended his junior season.  I dropped him a few slots for the ACL tear, but players make strong recoveries often enough such that it doesn’t make him much less attractive.

Dinwiddie is a straightforward prospect.  He likely will never become an all-star, but he has all of the necessary traits to become a good role player at a position that is sorely lacking in depth right now.  He’s a good prospect to target anywhere in the second half of round 1.  I believe he’s sorely underrated as a 2nd round pick and expect him to rise into the 1st round on draft night.

Jordan Adams
Adams is another weird UCLA prospect.  If you are in the business of modeling the draft, good luck coming up with a model that doesn’t love him.  He is a young sophomore who stuffed the stat sheet in every category other than blocks, and on paper he appears to be the next James Harden.

The trouble is that his statistical goodness cannot be taken at face value because he simply does not meet scouting expectations for high NBA upside.  While he has good SG length (6’10”), he has mediocre height (6’4.75″) and lackluster speed, quicks, and athleticism.  And he somehow managed to accrue his great stats without being much of a ball handler or 3 point shooter.

Defensively he used his length, quick hands, and good instincts to rack up a Marcus Smart level 5.0% steal rate.  Unfortunately he doesn’t yield the same level of effectiveness in shot prevention as Marcus Smart, as he doesn’t excel at containing penetration and UCLA’s gambling zone ceded a poor defensive eFG%.  His steal rate is indicative of some good qualities, but it is not reflective of his defensive potential and it was a bit bolstered by UCLA’s zone.  As a freshman he posted a steal rate of 4.2% playing man defense with greater frequency.  That rate is still excellent, but Adams is an example of how steals can be a bit misleading in spite of their predictive power.

Offensively he is more or less an elite garbageman, as he thrived in transition and off of cuts.  He also was a solid offensive rebounder and could post up smaller match-ups.  Even though he only made 33.1% of his career college 3’s, his 83.9% FT% suggest that he may be able to develop into a better long distance shooter than his college sample suggests.  He also had a good assist to turnover ratio (3.1 vs 2.0 as a sophomore) as he is a capable passer.  He certainly benefited from ample transition opportunities as well as playing in a ball movement offense alongside the best passer in the NCAA in Kyle Anderson. His offense has major translation risk.  He’s a bit of a bully and while he has good touch around the rim, his lack of explosiveness will make it difficult to replicate this his rim efficiency at the next level.

The crazy thing about Adams is that he lost weight as the season progressed and then dropped a further 15 pounds leading up to the draft.  Even though he is loaded with translation risks, it’s somewhat amazing that he accomplished as much as he did while being that out of shape.  If he commits to staying in shape going forward (not a given as he picked an awfully opportunistic time to trim down), it adds a degree of intrigue.

Jordan Adams may be a player who is cut out to thrive in college and fall on his face as a pro.  But his statistical excellence and improved condition cannot be entirely ignored, and they are compelling enough to roll the dice in the back end of round 1 once the sure bets are off the board.  This is especially true for a team that incorporates heavy doses of ball movement in the offense, as this provides the optimal environment for Adams to succeed.

Jarnell Stokes
Stokes’ mold of undersized PF who doesn’t make 3’s is limiting, but other than that I like everything about him.  He is the strongest player in the draft and he plays like it, as he activated beast mode near the end of the NCAA season and Tennessee started buzzsawing opponents.  Much like Julius Randle, Stokes isn’t an explosive athlete but neverthless moves well.  Stokes and Randle share a number of parallels– they have similar physical profiles, similar skill sets, similar stats, and they played in the same conference.  The key differences between the two of them are that 1) Randle had more recruiting hype and played for a more reputed school and 2) Stokes has superior awareness and instincts and is the better prospect.

Stat models rate Stokes a hair higher (8.0 vs 7.7 EWP, 1.9 vs 1.6 WARP), but what really sets Stokes apart is that he projects to be less of a liability defensively.  Randle has an awful sense of awareness, and not that Stokes’ awareness is top notch but he did post superior steal + block rates and perform better as a team defender.  Stokes started at center for the 19th best defensive team in the country, and his fellow big man Jeronne Maymon more closely resembled a bowling ball than a rim protector.  Not that Stokes’ deserves a world of credit for Tennessee’s success, as Josh Richardson and Jordan McRae both contributed quality perimeter defense and Armani Moore and Darius Thompson were able to make plays defensively off the bench.  But Stokes played the most important position on the floor and it worked in spite of him not being much of a rim protector, as he contributed with his rebounding and ability to defend without fouling.

Offensively Stokes is still a work in progress, but he’s a beast on the offensive glass, a good passer for a big, and his shot isn’t entirely hopeless as he elevated his FT% to 69.6% after making just 57% as a freshman and sophomore.  He also shot a respectable 37.7% on non-rim 2 pointers (for reference Julius Randle converted 34.5% and Jabari Parker 39.2% on similar volume).  And even though Stokes is two classes above Randle, he’s less than a year older because he’s young for his grade.

Stokes’s strength and rebounding are the foundation of his appeal, and he has enough skill offensively and invests enough effort defensively to possibly become a good role player.  As a bonus, he seems to carry a sincere determination to prove to the world that he is every bit as good as players who are beneficiaries of greater hype such as Julius Randle.  Also he got into a car crash and allegedly wanted to attend his workout anyway in spite of being concussed and covered in blood.  He strikes me as the type of personality who has an above average chance of exceeding expectations.  I won’t weigh this heavily into my final ranking, but he is the one non-lotto guy who I randomly feel compelled to root for.

Anyway that’s all for both part 2 of NCAA parsing.  Part 3 will venture into the prospects in the class with deeper flaws.

Reactions From The Combine

17 Saturday May 2014

Posted by in NCAA

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Now that the combine is underway, we get all sorts of cool new information to process and update our perception of each prospect.  Unfortunately, the information is largely flawed and worthless.  For instance: Doug McDermott topped Blake Griffin’s max vert (35.5″) with 36.5″.  While it is encouraging that he may be more athletic than expected, it shows how deeply flawed some of these tests are since Griffin is a far superior athlete.  But the official measurements are of value, and even though everything else should be ignored I will selectively choose to pay attention to it when I have a point to make.

Reach For The Stars

One aspect of the draft that does not make sense to me is how much more attention height gets than standing reach.  Perhaps this is because height is easier to measure with a high level of accuracy, but height only approximates where a players line of vision falls.  Players make plays with their hands, and reach is necessary to contest shots on defense and shoot over defenders on offense.  Intuitively, the latter seems far more important.  As a disclaimer, I am unsure how much a player can vary his reach by stretching as far as he can vs. casually reaching upward, so these measurements come with a grain of salt.  But I don’t believe it’s nearly as flukey as the athletic testing, so it may be worth paying some regard to.

Losers

The biggest loser on measurements is Gary Harris.  He measured slightly shorter than expected at 6’2.5″ without shoes, 6’4.5″ with shoes, and a 6’6.75 wingspan.  But the ugly figure for him is his 8’0″ reach.  The only players who measured with worse reach are small PG’s Russ Smith (7’11”), Aaron Craft (7’10.5″), Shabazz Napier (7’9″), and Jahii Carson (7’9″).  Bigger PG’s such as Deonte Burton (8’1.5″), Tyler Ennis (8’2″), Elfrid Payton (8’2.5″), Marcus Smart (8’3″), Semaj Christon (8’3″), and Dante Exum (8’7″!!!) comfortably reached higher than him.

Going through DraftExpress’s database, I cannot find an example of a full-time NBA SG who measured this poorly.  The worst measurements I can find are Jerryd Bayless and Randy Foye at 8’1″, who are both undersized and horrible defensively.  After that JJ Redick (8’1.5″), Monta Ellis (8’2″), Dion Waiters (8’2″), and Jodie Meeks (8’2″) are the next lowest measurements among full-time SG’s, and keep with the theme of bad defense.  The worst reach in DX’s database among SG’s who are considered to be good defensively is Avery Bradley (8’2.5″).  Even if we give Harris the benefit of the doubt and tack on an extra inch to his measurement, it appears to remain problematic.  I would not be surprised if he slides on draft night, as his main appeal had been a lack of glaring warts, and now that is no longer true.  He may need to be paired with a big PG who can cross match defensively.  I do not want to read too much into this, but I will likely drop him a few slots down on my board.

The other disappointing reaches were Patric Young and Jarnell Stokes, who shared a 8’7.5″ reach.  This is surprising given their height and wingspan combinations, but they were also the two strongest players at the combine which likely hurts their reach.  I believe this hurts Young more than Stokes since he has a lower skill level, with rim protection being his primary value in college.  His reach puts a damper on his defensive upside, and he is so limited on offense I doubt he’s worth drafting.  On the other hand, Stokes was known to lack rim protection skills and may have the skill level to contribute as an undersized PF, so this does not hurt him as much.  But it still calls into question his ability to contest shots in the paint, as it is difficult to find any full time NBA PF’s with a pre-draft reach < 8’9″.

Winners

Dante Exum measured with a staggering 8’7″ reach.  That is the same as Doug McDermott and Rodney Hood, and just half an inch worse than Stokes and Young.  That is incredible for a point guard, as he may be able to cross match onto SF’s as he gains strength.

Kyle Anderson measured to have a 7’2.75″ wingspan and 8’11.5″ reach, better than a number of PF prospects in the draft such as Julius Randle (8’9.5″), Cory Jefferson (8’9″), Dwight Powell (8’9″), and Johnny O’Bryant (8’9″).  He definitely has the length and reach to play PF and only needs to add strength to fit in at the position.  This is important for him as the impact of his lack of speed and quicks is mitigated at PF.

Jordan Adams measured just 6’4.75″ in shoes, but more than atoned with a 6’10” wingspan and 8’6″ reach.  Further, he trimmed down to 209 pounds after being listed at 220 pounds this past season.  He posted stellar statistics as a 19 year old sophomore, and it is a bit tantalizing to imagine how good they may have been if he had spent the season in peak condition.

Nik Stauskas measured slightly taller and longer than expected with a respectable 8’6″ reach.  This bodes well for him since his tools are otherwise weak and he projects to be bad defensively.  Having NBA SF size presents the option for him to match up with the slowest opposing wing and mitigate his lack of mobility on defense.

Tyler Ennis measured longer than expected at 6’7.25″, with an 8’2″ reach that barely trails some of the taller PG’s in the class such as Elfrid Payton (8’2.5″) and Marcus Smart (8’3″).  For a player who does not have any distinct strengths athletically, it is encouraging that he at least has above average size for a PG.

Isaiah Austin measured 7’0.5″ in shoes, 7’4.5″ wingspan, and a 9’4.5″ reach.  His reach exceeds that of some of the best defensive centers in the NBA, such as Larry Sanders (9’4″), Dwight Howard (9’3.5″), Andrew Bogut (9’2.5″), Tyson Chandler (9’2″), and Joakim Noah (8’10.5″– Noah is the best counterexample for the importance of reach measurements).  Converse to Young and Stokes, his reach may have been aided by his lack of strength, but his combination of size, mobility, and shooting cannot be overlooked.

Adreian Payne measured with a surprising 7’4″ wingspan and 9’1″ reach, which means he may be able to play both PF and C.  Further, it came to light that he has been dealing with mono since January so he may be underrated by his on court performance this past season.  The mono would explain his decline in steal and block rates, which were especially bad in conference play.  His age may inhibit his upside, but his combination of size and shooting makes him a solid bet to become a useful player.

Markel Brown appeared to be undersized for a SG as he was listed at 6’3″, but he measured favorably at 6’3.5″ in shoes, 6’8.75″ wingspan, and a 8’4″ reach.  Along with his elite leaping ability (he tied Jahii Carson for best max vertical at 43.5 inches), he has the tools to guard NBA SG’s even if his instincts are in doubt.  He carries intrigue as a round 2 flier as he combines excellent athleticism with solid passing and shooting.

Athletic Testing

The results from vertical, shuttle, and sprint drills should all be ignored.  Doug McDermott’s vertical leap and Nik Stauskas’s score on the shuttle and sprint may be encouraging for those who are high on their skills, but in reality they are likely meaningless noise.  For reference: Jimmer Fredette completed the shuttle drill in 10.42 seconds, which would have tied him with Zach LaVine for the best score in this year’s class.  Yet he has been completely overmatched physically by NBA competition, as he cannot stay in front of anybody defensively.  If his score made the Kings feel better about using a lottery pick on him, I doubt they still feel good about it now.  Paying regard to any surprising outcomes is more likely to lead away from the truth than toward it, so we’ll just pretend these tests never happened and move on.

Interviews

Again this qualifies as information that largely will be misleading, as a player’s performance on the court is far more important than speaking well in interviews.  But I would like to take a moment to discuss my favorite interviewee: Spencer Dinwiddie.

In his interview, he discusses the adjustment to defending NBA players by noting his Colorado team wanted to close out late on 3’s, but that he wouldn’t want to closeout late on a Steph Curry 3. He also mentions James Harden as a player he compares to given Harden’s high volume of 3 pointers and free throws while also being a playmaker who makes the right pass “outside of the playoffs when he was shooting a lot.”  This comports with a past interview where he noted that he wanted to improve his efficiency as a junior.  And then he did so in part due to cutting the percentage of his mid-range from 33.3% to 14.5%, as he finished with an elite 66.7% TS.

He is clearly interested in a statistical understanding of the game, and he discusses it in a way that is rare to hear from a prospect.  He would fit in well with an analytics driven team, as he would likely soak up the advanced information they have to offer.  The possibility that he may be able to follow complex instructions offers a bit of hidden value that should be attractive to teams who are eager to maximize their analytic knowledge.  There was nothing sharp about Colorado’s scheme on either side of the ball, and I wonder if he was trying to dissociate himself from their lack of regard for 3 point defense with his commentary regarding late closeouts.

Aside from conveying intelligence in his interview, Dinwiddie also measured well.  His body is similar to that of Dante Exum’s, as they are both 6’6″ in shoes with a 8’7″ reach.  His wingspan is 1.25″ inches shorter than Exum’s at 6’8.25″, but he is also 9 pounds heavier at 205 with less body fat (5.4% vs 6.4%).  He has the size to guard either wing position, and the quicks to likely stay in front of most NBA wings as well.  He is not much of a leaper and tearing his ACL this past January is not going to help, but he has the tools and intelligence to become an average or better defender.  Offensively he can space the floor with his 3 point shooting, and he also has some PG skills as he can handle and create for himself and others.

Dinwiddie is 21 and doesn’t have the athleticism to be a traditional high upside type, but his combination of skills, body, and intelligence give him sneaky potential.  He could become a B+ player on both ends, which is quite valuable considering the current lack of wing depth in the NBA and how easily he fits into most lineups.  He fits the mold for a prototypical role playing SG in the modern NBA.  He is currently ranked 36th at DX and 38th at ESPN, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he wins a few teams over in interviews and rises into the 1st round.

The Meaning Of Tweener

21 Friday Feb 2014

Posted by in International, NCAA

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

The word “tweener” has become a common draft lexicon to describe players who are stuck between positions.  It normally carries a negative connotation, but is not always fleshed out.  And not all tweeners are created equally, in some cases it can be a strength.  It largely depends on how each player’s offensive fit meshes with his defensive fit.  I’ll run through some examples from this draft to demonstrate my interpretation of a few players’ tweener relevance:

Good Tweener: Jabari Parker

Parker’s concern is that he is too small to play PF and too slow to play SF.  This is valid to an extent, but nobody is projecting him to be a positive defensively.  He only needs to not be a sieve so teams can get his offense in the lineup, and I believe he certainly has the tools for that.  I quite like him as a PF, he’s 6’8 235 lbs with a 7’0 wingspan.  He plays like he weighs 300 lbs, as he doesn’t mind getting physical in the post and rebounds well for his size.  Further, his length enables him to average 1.7 blocks per 40 minutes.  Playing at PF mitigates the impact of his lack of quickness, as he will spend less time defending wings on the perimeter.  He is listed as having an 8’8 standing reach at DraftExpress, which is lower than you’d expect for a player with his height + length and is a mild concern.  But I’d like to see how he measures at the combine before harping on this too loudly, as reach measurements are not always done with precision.  For reference Carmelo Anthony is half an inch shorter with the same wingspan and measured with a 8’9.5 reach, and he has performed extremely well as a small PF paired with Tyson Chandler at C.  Parker shows similar potential to be an elite stretch 4, as if you surround him with a strong defensive center and three shooters, you have a synergistic NBA lineup.

While I would err on the side of giving Jabari PF minutes, he also does have the capacity to play SF.  He has the perimeter skills to play on the wing offensively, and his size and length may atone to prevent his quickness issues from holding him back too much.  Further, it is possible that he proves to be more adept at defending the perimeter than the post, so this gives an alternative means of success if his lack of reach causes him to struggle to defend bigger PF’s.

Although he’s not a perfect fit at either position, the fact that Parker can fit in well enough at either position to get his offense into the lineup is a bit of a bonus.  And even if he doesn’t find a niche where he can play solid defense, his offense still may outweigh his defensive shortcomings as is the case for his upside comparison Carmelo Anthony.

Bad Tweener: Aaron Gordon.

Earlier I wrote about Aaron Gordon’s shooting woes.  He almost certainly will not be able to play the wing offensively in the pros, and needs to focus on adding strength and developing a post game.  PF is clearly going to be his niche offensively, but his main appeal is the defensive upside that his tools offer.  And as far as I can tell, he has much better tools to be a perimeter stopper than a post presence.  He is listed at 6’9 with a  6’11.5 wingspan and an 8’10.5 reach, which is adequate to play PF, especially with his athleticism.  But he only weighs 212 pounds, and being below average in all of length, reach, or strength it makes it a bit more daunting of a proposition.  Further, using him at SF does not capitalize on his lateral quickness that offer promise for his potential as a perimeter defender.  His ideal situation would be to pair him with a perimeter shooting PF such as Ryan Anderson, and play him in the post offensively and on the perimeter defensively.  But that makes it a pain to build around him as an integral part of your core, as it disqualifies the majority of starting PF’s as plausible pairings and precludes an offense from ever being perfectly spaced with 4 shooters.  His synergy between his offensive and defensive skill sets are quite messy, and frankly he doesn’t offer enough upside promise to be worth the hassle as a top 20 pick.

Tweener comparison: Kyle Anderson vs Dario Saric

I have mentioned that these players strike me as similar, as they are both tall ball handlers who lack burst.  They also both have questionable outside shots, and offer much more appeal playing as primary ball handlers than complementary pieces on offense.  They are both best served to play PF, since it is easier to pair them with a SF who can shoot than it is to find a floor spacing PF.  It also is ideal to mitigate the defensive issues caused by their lack of quickness.  There is quite a bit of value to these two players fitting into NBA lineups at PF.  Saric is 1.5 inches taller (6’10 vs 6’8.5) and DX lists him as a possible SF/PF whereas Anderson is listed as a possible SF, so one may initially be inclined to give the edge to Saric.  But Anderson has a much longer wingspan at 7’2.25 vs 6’10, and his 9’0 standing reach is likely greater than that of Saric as well.  Further he is listed at 233 vs 223 and is possibly slightly stronger.  It’s not by an enormous margin, but if Anderson does indeed have the edge in all of length, strength, and reach it is a significant advantage over Saric.  Ability to defend bigger positions is always a bonus, but it is especially helpful for players in their offensive mold.

Bad Tweener That Isn’t Too Bad: Nick Johnson

Johnson is the classic SG in a PG’s body.  He has good tools and defensive acumen defending the perimeter for the best defense in the nation, but he is just a bit small to regularly defend SG’s.  DraftExpress lists his height at 6’2.5″ with a 6.5.5″ wingspan, which makes him big enough to only situationally defend SG’s.  But since he doesn’t have the PG skills to run an offense, he will likely be available in the 2nd round.  But that doesn’t make him necessarily difficult to fit into NBA lineups.  If his outside shot develops well he can be a 3 + D PG in a lineup where a taller player runs the offense.  A team with a big PG such as John Wall, Deron Williams, Michael Carter-Williams, Marcus Smart, or Dante Exum could pair him with their bigger point guard and cross match accordingly.  He also fits well alongside ball dominant stars such as Dwyane Wade and LeBron James, as he could fill the Mario Chalmers role in Miami.  There is a common perception that the smaller player on the court should necessarily run the offense, and this isn’t true.  He’d be a significantly more appealing prospect if he was 2-3 inches taller + longer, but he remains an appealing 2nd round flier for a team that has a bigger ball-handler to pair him with.