Tag Archives: Nik Stauskas

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.

Advertisement

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.

NCAA Tourney First Weekend: Risers and Fallers

24 Monday Mar 2014

Posted by in NCAA

≈ 12 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Now that it’s March and the tourney is full swing, many people get their first look at prospects.  There will be plenty of overreactions to players who happen to have good or bad days.  That said, the tournament still should carry an extra degree of weight due to the increased relevance of games and quality of competition.  Coaches will pay extra attention toward exploiting the weaknesses of opposing stars, and some bad performances will show a glimpse of struggles to come in the NBA.  It is worth taking every game in context and deciding whether there is any particular meaning to be gleaned.  Since I haven’t updated my big board in over a month, I figure I should clue everybody in on my thoughts regarding recent play:

Hypotheses Confirmed
Andrew Wiggins: Wiggins likely hurt his stock more than anybody else in the tourney.  He simply had the worst stat line of any expected 1st rounder en route to his team getting upset.  4 pts 1-6 FG 4 rebs 2 assists 4 TOV’s is not what people want to see out of a top 3 pick.  Stanford did a great job of getting back in transition and showing a variety of defensive looks to take away Wiggins’ driving ability, and Wiggins predictably disappeared.  If anybody has wondered why I have been harping on his half-court splits and poor skill level so loudly this is why.  Wiggins leans heavily on transition opportunities and free throws to get his points, and those both translate poorly to higher level of defenses.  Once Stanford took those away, Wiggins was relegated to an OK but not great jump shooter, and Kansas finished with just 57 points on 67 possessions in the loss.

Aside from his deficiencies being on full display, this also dispels the notion that he suddenly discovered how to fulfill his potential around the West Virginia game.  Further, Kansas struggled mightily without Joel Embiid.  They blew out hapless TCU and mediocre Texas Tech at home, but those were their only good performances without their starting center.  They lost @ West Virginia by 6 as 5.5 pt faves, they needed OT beat a banged up + tired Oklahoma State team as 3 pt faves, they lost by 11 to Iowa State as 5 point faves, they struggled a large portion of the Eastern Kentucky game and only won by 11 as 13 pt faves, and they lost to Stanford by 3 as 6.5 pt faves.  Overall they went 1-3 against KenPom top 70 teams in spite of being clear faves in all 4 games, with the sole win coming in overtime.  Joel Embiid was comfortably the best player on that team, and his team’s performance without him helps cement that notion.

Doug McDermott: Truthfully, his box score vs. Baylor wasn’t that bad.  He shot 7/11 on 2 pointers and only turned it over once.  But when you factor in that he only finished with 15 points due to 0/3 3 point shooting and 1/2 FT shooting and contributed in no other areas as per usual, it’s easy to see how Creighton was blown out.  A large part of this is that Baylor made every shot imaginable and Creighton only shot 5/24 from 3, but this nevertheless illuminates concerns about Ougie’s NBA future.  This is the 3rd year in a row in which McDermott has failed to exceed tourney expectations, losing by 16 to Duke last year and 14 to UNC as a sophomore (both after winning in round 1).  The fact of the matter is that in spite of his gaudy scoring numbers, it did not translate to winning high leverage games vs teams with NBA prospects.  This is because defense matters, and it’s much easier to have your dad draw up play after play for you effectively against mid-major competition than it is against future NBA talent.

Rodney Hood: Does anybody still think he’s a good prospect?  I gave consideration to the idea that he may justify a late 1st round pick, and now I am quite confident that he is not.  He flat out does not bring enough to the table other than shooting to make his horrible defense worth keeping on the floor, and I don’t see how he’s better than a mid-late 2nd round value.

Late Risers
Jarnell Stokes: He is a 6’9 PF who is a bully in the paint, and while I am not particularly fond of the mold his current level of play cannot be ignored.  He has played exceptionally well as of late as Tennessee is destroying every team that crosses its path.  He is not much of a shot blocker, but he does have solid length and an exceptional combination of speed and strength.  Between his rebounding, passing, finishing, ball handling, and improved FT%, he is showing enough skill to merit late 1st round consideration.

Jordan Adams: The statistical beast of the draft that is sure to translate poorly keeps making a case that he just may bring enough to the table to be worth something as a pro.  He lacks athleticism, he gets a ton of his points in transition, his steals are padded by UCLA’s zone, and he is a questionable defensive prospect, so inevitably it’s best to not get too carried away with his numbers.  But at a certain point you need to start wondering whether his skill level and feel for the game are good enough to become a good pro nevertheless.  He had an excellent Pac-12 championship game vs Arizona and followed it up with 2 strong showings vs Tulsa and Stephen F. Austin.  Now Adams and his teammate Anderson get another big test vs Florida to further boost their stock.  Even if he doesn’t have a good game Adams has likely done enough to establish that he’s worth a 1st round selection.

Frank Kaminsky: He keeps failing the face test and passing the basketball playing test.  After a big game vs Oregon’s soft defense, he gets to match up with Baylor’s beasts Isaiah Austin and Cory Jefferson.  If Wisconsin can get past them, he gets another big test as Arizona or San Diego State lies next and they both have elite defenses.

Rock Solid Performance
Nik Stauskas: Pop quiz for Rick Barnes: how do you slow down an elite shooter and passer with questionable speed and quickness when you have a roster full of athletes?  If you answered “zone defense” (spoiler alert: you did!) it’s no wonder why you are regarded as a horrible coach and your team got sent home early.  Stauskas’s big day vs. Texas comes as no surprise, as he finished with 17 points, 8 assists, and 0 turnovers in Michigan’s 14 point win.   On one hand he didn’t hit a single 2 point shot, but on the other hand he didn’t need to because he was so dominant with his shooting and passing, as he was making exceptional deliveries to his teammates all game long.  This game was definitely good for his draft stock, but I don’t believe it proves anything about him that wasn’t already known.  A big game vs Tennessee would be more meaningful, as their defense is tailored to take away Michigan’s strengths.

Question Marks
Jabari Parker: His game vs. Mercer certainly doesn’t help his standing, but I do not believe that it is necessarily anything more than a bad game.  Mercer is not a particularly strong defense, and he had plenty of good games vs better competition so I do not believe Mercer exposed any new flaws.  Also it’s worth noting that Duke hit 15/37 3 pointers against Mercer’s zone, which was the hefty price paid by Mercer to slow down Jabari in the paint.  But it does illuminate some translation concerns that I have been monitoring, as his rim finishing has been lackluster against good competition.  He isn’t particularly athletic but is aggressive nevertheless, and often runs into trouble trying to finish against players who can physically match up.  While I greatly enjoyed watching him dunk all over Boston College’s woefully soft defense, that performance is less predictive toward his NBA success than other games and need be given limited weight.  It looked like he may have been ready to turn a corner with a big performance vs North Carolina in Duke’s regular season finale.  But then he struggled in the ACC tourney against Clemson and UVA’s stout defenses followed by the Mercer game, which largely dispels that theory.  He still has the skills and attitude to become a great NBA scorer, but he is a bit more reliant on bullying smaller players in the post than people realize.  I am going to keep him as the #3 prospect for now, but this is why I had him below Exum to begin with, and I now feel particularly good about ranking Exum higher.

Montrezl Harrell: He is an exceptionally fun college player, but what does he bring to the table other than dunking?  He hasn’t shown much in the first two rounds of the tourney, as Manhattan and Saint Louis both limited his dunking opportunities and he struggled to produce in both games.  To his credit he finished the weekend with 24 rebounds and 5 blocks so he wasn’t completely taken out of the games, but it would be nice to see him do some damage in the half-court this tourney.

Aaron Gordon: His shot is still a major, major wart, but he is trending in the positive direction nevertheless.  His steal and block rates have seen big upticks lately, with 11 and 10 respectively in the past 5 games.  This makes it a bit easier to feel good about him as a defensive stopper, as they were surprisingly low entering the Pac-12 tournament.  He’s so young and brings so many positive qualities to the table, I really don’t feel comfortable writing him off entirely due to his poor shooting.  He will still be a pain to fit into NBA lineups, and he badly needs to ditch the long 2’s, but he still makes for an interesting project nevertheless.

Greatest Failure to Solidify himself as a Prospect
Taylor Braun: He had two chances to show the world that he can do more than style on inferior Summit league competition, and he failed twice.  Taylor Braun finished the weekend with 18 points on 5/25 FG with 4 assists and 5 turnovers against Oklahoma and San Diego State.  It is possible that he just happened to have bad games, but he turns 23 in July and his upside did not appear to be exceptionally high to begin with.  He still does have 21 points vs Ohio State earlier in the season to hang his hat on, but this clearly hurts his odds of getting drafted.

Bittersweet Weekend
Julius Randle: I have to give Randle credit- he has cut down on his grotesque turnover rate big time down the stretch, and it has vastly improved his team’s play as Kentucky is finally starting to play as well as everybody hoped that they would.  But he cut his turnover rate by drastically cutting down on his post-up attempts, when that was intended to be his main appeal as a prospect.  If he is at his best not posting up, then what purpose does he serve to an NBA team?  He still does have an interesting blend of passing, handling, and shot making ability to work with, but he is also still prone to defensive lapses.  He needs to make a significant impact on the offensive end to make his defense worth stomaching, and it is difficult to envision him achieving that goal if he is only going to be a medium usage player for his college team.  I still have him as a 1st rounder and perceive his adaptation as a positive development, but I won’t be skyrocketing him too far up my board because of it.

Richard Sherman Is Awesome And We Can Learn From Him

02 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by in Personalities and Intangibles

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Recently Richard Sherman has garnered much attention, as he frightened Erin Andrews when he angrily declared himsef the best corner in the game and called Michael Crabtree a “sorry receiver” after Sherman’s Seahawks defeated Crabtree’s 49ers in the NFC championship game.

As a casual NFL fan, this was my first exposure to Sherman.  While people had varying reactions to his postgame mini-rant, I had an inkling that he was one of the more awesome human beings on this planet and did some digging.  Last year he went on ESPN’s First Take and told Skip Bayless “I’m better at life than you,” which is painfully true.  He also demonstrated commendable word choice when he called Bayless an “ignorant, pompous, egotistical cretin.”

But Richard Sherman is more than just an elite troll.  After his 2nd NFL season, he was voted by the AP to the NFL All-Pro 1st team.  Now in his 3rd NFL season, he is widely considered a top 2 NFL cornerback.  He’s on the fast track to become an all-time great, yet in the 2011 NFL Draft he was chosen in the 5th round, 154th overall.  His draft stock was deflated because he started off his college career as a wide receiver, and only had two years experience as a cornerback entering the draft.  He was considered raw, which was something that Sherman himself acknowledged.  But he has good tools and is insanely smart and driven to succeed, so it shouldn’t be surprising that he achieved the heights that he did.  Check out how cerebral his approach to the game is:

And much like Paul George, he had his sights set on extreme goals.  Per an SB Nation interview:

“Doesn’t matter where I play I just want to be a great player.  I don’t want to be a guy that’s in the league a few years, makes a ton of money and has nothing else.  I want to go down as one of the best.I want to prove other NFL Draft websites wrong that say I am the 52nd ranked CB prospect in their eyes.”

The fact that there was a player with the tools to be great and had such an intelligent and dedicated approach to the game yet was passing up multiple times by every team is amazing to me.  Richard Sherman is the archetype of player that both NFL and NBA GM’s should be pursuing, and the fact that he slipped to the 154th overall shows the inefficiencies of the NFL Draft that I believe remain present in the NBA Draft as well.

The NBA player who stands out as the most Richard Sherman like personality is Chris Paul.  He went 4th overall, as he was a polished NCAA superstar, but he neverthless made the GM’s who drafted Andrew Bogut, Marvin Williams, and Deron Williams ahead of him look foolish.  He thrives off of his otherworldly basketball IQ, and there was concern that he was too competitive as he punched Julius Hodge in the crotch during an ACC game.  I feel that he was one of the all-time underrated draft prospects in spite of going at a high slot, as his lack of an extra inch of height got too much attention and his intelligence received far too little.

Players like Richard Sherman and Chris Paul are one of a kind, and most draft classes will not have anybody who compares.  But these personality types are so underrated, part of the prospect evaluation process should be to identify players who show similar characteristics.  It is built from thin slices from afar, but here’s my early list of players to monitor who have shown signs of possible elite drive, confidence, and intelligence.

6) Joel Embiid-  His personality is slippery to assess, as he is still learning the English language and the game of basketball which makes it difficult to fully convey his intelligence.  On the other hand it also makes it difficult to grasp for his mental limitations since there’s an excuse for most of his mistakes. But his massive overperformance when he wasn’t expected to make an impact, and also his demonstration of a basic ability to learn are positive signs early.   Also noteworthy with Embiid is that he seems to have a fiery passion to his game as he already has 3 technical fouls on the season. Some may view this as a negative, but prefer it to his teammate Andrew Wiggins’s passive approach by a comfortable margin.

5) Tyler Ennis- He has an insanely low turnover rate for a freshman PG, and he has been at his best against good competition as some of his worst games have come against the dregs of Syracuse’s schedule.  Further, his stats in the final 5 minutes of games are better than sooner.

4) Dante Exum- he’s outwardly quiet but reputed to be confident and an extremely hard worker.  Derrick Rose is his role model and they seem to have similar deameanors.  He won me over a little bit with an incredibly sharp assessment regarding the pressure of being a high draft pick:

“Being told that you’re going to be a franchise player doesn’t mean anything, honestly they can say what they’d like and it’s just an opinion and it doesn’t mean it’s going to come true…Dealing with I guess that pressure, it doesn’t really matter to me because I know I’m just going to do what I can to get to that.”

That’s an impressive perception for an 18 year old kid, and it should inch NBA teams toward taking the mystery box over the boat.

3) Spencer Dinwiddie- He may not declare for the draft after his ACL tear, but he is an obviously intelligent person in interviews.  In a DX interivew, he cited that he wanted to improve his efficiency last offseason, and demonstrated a solid vocabulary when touched on his capacity to be an “auxiliary scorer.”  He also expressed an inclination to be a franchise point guard but accepted the possibility of a supporting role.  To me, he reminisces of Shane Battier with PG skills.

2) Marcus Smart- he occasionally makes a bad decision on the floor as he is prone to force bad shots, which may be a sign that he does not have elite intelligence.  But overall he demonstrates good feel for the game, especially defensively.  And from watching interviews he seems to back up his name with above average intelligence.  Moreover he demonstrates uniquely good intangibles and leadership skills as I noted in my Embiid breakdown.  He recently had a mini-meltdown where he outwardly demonstrated frustration during a poor game, and had a good apology afterward where he expressed desire to avoid similar behavior in the future. Willingness to accept feedback and learn from mistakes is how people grow, so it’s encouraging to see the reaction from him even though the meltdown wasn’t particularly bad.

1) Nik Stauskas- He strikes me as the complete package in terms of intangibles.  He is a highly intelligent player, and his work ethic must be incredible given the offseason work he put in on both his body and his skills.  He has a confident demeanor as he does things like blow kisses to the Michigan State crowd after a crucial road win.  His coach also acknowledged that Stauskas showed leadership by holding him back from the refs after a missed call.  His physical limitations place a ceiling on his upside, but that ceiling might be higher than common wisdom would suggest.

Note that the list is not comprehensive, and I hope to identify other attractive personalities as the season progresses.  My analysis of on court performance and statistics certainly carries more weight, but personalities can’t be excluded from prospect assessment altogether so this is a subject I will touch on sporadically.  Consider the assessment of the personality underlying each player to be a skill that I am developing as a side project.  In the interim, I will be rooting for Richard Sherman and the Seattle Seahawks to win that football game that is apparently happening tonight.

Video

Nik Stauskas Makes A Case For Defense Being Unimportant

27 Monday Jan 2014

Posted by in NCAA

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , ,

In spite of the importance of defense with respect to prospect value, not all prospects who project as liabilities on that end have limited value. Stephen Curry, Steve Nash, and Ryan Anderson are examples of players who provided elite value at their draft slots that would have been missed with steadfast refusal to draft such types. In this year’s expected crop, the prospect with the best odds of paying similar dividends is Nik Stauskas. Not only is he an elite shooter and floor spacer, but he has also shown tremendous ball handling and passing skills this season, which offers a dimension to his game that other defensively challenged prospects such as Rodney Hood and Doug McDermott are lacking. I compiled a video briefly touching upon his defensive limitations, but mostly glazing over them and highlighting his offensive strengths.

If anybody was hoping to see his offensive shortcomings, he doesn’t have any striking flaws beyond his physical limitations. If there is any complaint to be made with his offense, it is that he does not shoot enough as he hardly makes any mistakes at all.  He is boasting an astronomical 67% TS and a miniscule 11.3% turnover rate. That efficiency is unprecedented for a player who serves as an offensive centerpiece for a team that has played the 8th toughest schedule in the nation. Here is how he statistically compares to historical perimeter prospects with questionable tools, as well as Hood and Ougie. Opponent D-Rtg is based on the player’s team strength of schedule as per Kenpom.com. The far right column is how the player’s O-Rtg compares to that of Stauskas once you normalize to his SOS and usage rate, using 1.25 points of O-Rtg per 1 percent of usage as the conversion rate to offer a rough estimate:

Player Season Usage O-Rtg Opp D-Rtg Adj O-Rtg
Jimmer Fredette Senior 36.3 115.3 99 133.4
JJ Redick Senior 28.9 121.4 97 132.9
Nik Stauskas Soph 23.4 132.8 100.5 132.8
Doug McDermott Senior 32.5 121.2 101 131.9
Luke Jackson Senior 28.6 120.8 98.9 129.4
Stephen Curry Soph 31.5 122.1 102.8 129.3
Kyle Korver Senior 22.9 129.6 101.6 127.6
Rodney Hood Junior 22.9 128.3 101.2 126.8
Luke Babbitt Soph 25.9 120.7 101.7 122.4
Luke Ridnour Junior 27.6 112 99.4 118.5

I used each player’s final season of college except for Curry, since his sophomore season is a more pertinent comparison to Stauskas, and I do not believe he progressed enough as a junior to drastically boost his value. Not only do Stauskas and Curry have similar mannerisms as they maneuver through the opposing defense, but they are the two premier offensive prospects in this sample as they were able to achieve dominance at an earlier stage of their careers than others on the list. Granted that Curry did take on a larger role in his offense, Stauskas’s ball handling ability likely would enable him to do likewise if necessary.

The closest comparison is senior Redick, as he has a usage closer to Stauskas’s range and they were both centerpieces of elite major conference offenses.  The fact that Stauskas is performing on the same level as a sophomore is quite the feather in his cap, as Redick’s senior year is acclaimed as an all-time great college season.  The same adjusted O-Rtg for Redick was 125 as a sophomore, and 126.5 as a junior.

Senior Jimmer grades out the highest, but he is also the shakiest comparison given his monstrous usage.  It’s not certain that he had the basketball IQ to play such mistake free ball at a more moderate usage, as he posted just a 112.5 O-Rtg on 24.8 usage as a sophomore.

Of course bottom line production matters, but the distribution of point production is also important for translation concerns:

3 2 FT
Kyle Korver 64.1% 17.9% 18.0%
Stephen Curry 52.2% 33.6% 14.2%
Nik Stauskas 44.1% 29.4% 26.4%
JJ Redick 43.3% 33.8% 22.9%
Luke Ridnour 37.4% 37.6% 25.0%
Jimmer Fredette 34.8% 41.6% 23.6%
Rodney Hood 34.0% 43.1% 22.9%
Luke Jackson 33.4% 41.8% 24.8%
Doug McDermott 30.2% 47.3% 22.4%
Luke Babbitt 17.0% 56.3% 26.8%

The interesting bit in this sample is the strong correlation between percentage of points from 3 and NBA value with respect to draft slot.  3’s translate, but scoring inside the arc with shaky tools may be a problem. It is not a mystery why Luke Babbitt failed as a prospect, as he dominated inside the arc as a 6’9 mid major player and went on to shoot 37% from 2 as an NBA player. This does not bode well for McDermott, who attempts the majority of his 2’s at the rim and has worse tools. Hood is less of a translation concern than Ougie with superior tools and a greater frequency of two point attempts coming from midrange, although his inside the arc translation still can’t be taken for granted.

On the other side of the spectrum, it is easy to see why Curry is such a force in the NBA as he was able to sustain high efficiency on a large workload with a huge % of his attempts coming behind the arc.  This is where he sets himself apart from Stauskas, as nobody else is a pure enough shooter to be that good on that volume behind the arc.

Once again Stauskas mirrors Redick’s senior year, as they have near identical point distributions.  Their assist and turnover rates are not horribly different either (Stauskas 21.3% assist 11.3% TOV, Redick 15.7% assist 13.0% TOV).

Steals, blocks, and height:

Player Steal% Block% Height
Stephen Curry 3.5 1.4 6’3
Luke Ridnour 2.8 0.1 6’2
Kyle Korver 2.6 2 6’7
JJ Redick 2 0.1 6’4
Luke Jackson 2 0.4 6’7
Jimmer Fredette 2 0 6’2
Nik Stauskas 1.5 0.8 6’6
Luke Babbitt 1.5 1.8 6’9
Rodney Hood 1.3 0.7 6’8
Doug McDermott 0.5 0.5 6’8

This is a friendly reminder that in spite of Stauskas’s solid instincts and ability to jump a little, he still does not stand out in this collection as a defensive playmaker.  He remains a significant defensive liability.

Curry again sets himself apart from Stauskas.  Even though he was correctly projected to become a bad pro defender, his defensive playmaking at the collegiate level gives him an additional edge.  He was also a better rebounder in spite of being smaller.  Curry is clearly the overall better prospect, although Stauskas is not as far behind as current perception would suggest.

On the other hand, he continues to equate to senior Redick.  Redick had more steals, quicks, and speed, Stauskas more blocks, size, and athleticism.  And like JJ, Stauskas has the benefit of a strong work ethic.  It is difficult to envision how he was able to chisel his body and improve his handles and passing to the extent that he did and still have time to eat and sleep this offseason.  It is not a guarantee that he reaches the same level as Redick in the pros given that JJ likely achieved the upper bound of his NBA range.  But given Stauskas’s work ethic and feel for the game, his odds seem favorable.  And given that he achieved this level of success two seasons earlier and 15.5 months younger, he clearly has more upside.

Overall Nik Stauskas’s prospect value as well as style lies somewhere in the middle of JJ Redick and Stephen Curry.  If he achieves his upside as they did, he offers an excellent offensive piece to fit in any NBA offense that will make his defensive woes worth stomaching.  He still has plenty of time for his stats to lose a bit of luster, but if he continues to perform at this level through the rest of the season he likely will have value worthy of the back end of the lottery.