Tag Archives: Rodney Hood

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.

Advertisements

Parsing Through The NCAA Prospects: Part 4

25 Wednesday Jun 2014

Posted by in NCAA

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Commentary on a handful of Round 2 prospects who I skipped in the NCAA parse

Rim creation stats

Zach LaVine
The funny thing about LaVine is that it seems HS scouts rated him accurately as the #52 recruit in his class, and then when he went to college it was decided that he should now be a lotto talent because he can jump through the roof. His steal rate, assist rate, and half-court rim creation stats are all poor and I don’t see a single statistical signal that he has nearly the upside that draft narratives suggest. Further he seems to be a skeptic that 3 > 2, as his favorite move is to catch the ball behind the arc, take a few dribbles, and then launch a long two with his foot on the arc.

He seems to think he has PG skills that he wasn’t permitted to display at UCLA because Kyle Anderson was the primary PG and the coach’s son Bryce Alford was the backup. If he has a world of skill that somehow went completely undetected during his time at UCLA and he also develops well, then maybe he will one day justify the hype. But for now I’m rolling with the more likely conclusion that he’s a leaper who can shoot but lacks the skill and smarts to succeed in the NBA. I think he’s an early 2nd round flier.

Adreian Payne
He seems to be the prototypical stretch 4 from a scouting perspective- he has good height and length for a PF, he makes 3’s, he rebounds, he has the athleticism to finish in the paint, and he seems to have a shot of being competent defensively. This has earned him an invite to the green room and chatter as a fringe lottery pick. But every statistical model I have seen grades him as a mid-late 2nd rounder.

Issue #1 with Payne is that he doesn’t have the steal or block rates to exist as a rim protecting center. Issue #2 is that he has a dreadful assist to turnover rate in spite of being exceptionally old. This doesn’t quite strike me as a death knell, but his horrible passing may completely nullify his ability to fit in offensively as a stretch 4. I still have a bit of skepticism toward his ranking in statistical models, but I see why they would dislike him enough to have a bit more skepticism toward his 1st round ranking. I have him as an early 2nd.

Jerami Grant
I don’t think he should be a 1st rounder. His tools give him upside to be pretty good defensively on the wing once removed from the Syracuse zone, but he simply doesn’t have the skill level to play offensively on the wing in any capacity. He doesn’t even have good skill level for PF, where he is likely too small to play regularly.  I’m not sure how he finds a niche in NBA lineups.

Russ Smith
Russdiculous has made an incredible transformation from his sophomore season when he was an inveterate chucker. Since then he has vastly improved his shooting ability, PG skills, and shot selection to become one of the best players in the NCAA. He is likely too old and small to have much upside, but he makes up for his size with quicks, speed, and quick hands to force a high number of steals in Louisville’s press. He somewhat reminds me of a poor man’s Kyle Lowry. While he almost certainly won’t become nearly as good as Lowry, I believe he’s a solid 2nd round flier.

Nick Johnson
He’s a dreaded SG in a PG body, which is never good for draft stock. Further he doesn’t have an exceptionally high skill level for a 21 year old SG, as both Layne Vashro and Kevin Pelton grade him as a late 2nd rounder based on stats. But I think he has a niche in the NBA anyway as a 3 + D PG. He is an explosive athlete with solid quickness, and he was one of the best defensive guards in the NCAA this past season as he played a key role in Arizona’s super elite defense. There’s such an influx of big PG’s who can cross match with SG’s, I think he’s a good player to target in round 2 if you can pair him with a Michael Carter-Williams or Dante Exum sized PG.

Chris Udofia
A largely unknown prospect who ranks 17th according to VJL’s EWP model. Udofia is an interesting case– like most of the Denver team, he rocked as a junior and then regressed as a senior. Vashro uses a 60/40 weighting, so his junior season plays a big role in his EWP score. Denver runs a unique offense with heavy emphasis on passing and 3 point shooting as they rated top 2 in assists:FGM and top 20 in 3PA:FGA in each of the past two seasons. Defensively they gamble for steals (I don’t know their precise scheme but his steal rate certainly comes with a grain of salt). Both their offensive and defensive 2p% fell off a cliff from 2013 to 2014, as they dropped from the 53rd kenpom team to 143rd in spite of retaining much of their rotation. I don’t know the precise cause, but suffice it to say that Denver is not a run of the mill mid-major team. Further, Udofia played as an undersized 6’6″ center, so there were a number of factors aligning in his favor to post statistics that overstate his talent level.

That said, I’m not completely writing him off. He has a 7’2″ wingspan and appears to be quite explosive based on his block rate and dunk reel. He posted an excellent assist rate playing in Denver’s ball movement offense, which inspires hope for his ability to convert to NBA SF. His shot is a flaw as he only made 29% 3’s and 65% FT’s for his college career, but if he can make a late leap in his shooting ability he may be a round 2 steal.

Dwight Powell
Powell is old and lacks length, athleticism, and consistent 3 point shooting.  All of these things make him not really worth a 1st round selection, as it stacks the odds of him becoming a good NBA player against him.  But he’s a good passer for a big man and is fairly athletic and mobile.  His shot isn’t completely broken, so if he can develop into a capable NBA floor spacer then you have an interesting stretch 4.  I like him as a 2nd round flier.

Scottie Wilbekin
It’s a bit surprising that he isn’t generating any buzz as a 2nd round draft pick.  He was perceived as the leader of the #1 overall seed in the tournament and played quite well en route to the Final Four.  Granted he struggled badly in an upset loss to UConn, tallying just 4 points 1 assist and 3 turnovers.  But based on his college reputation you’d expect him to rank higher than 74th on Chad Ford’s big board, and he’s not even in DX’s top 100, as he’s only their 50th best senior.  I imagine the issue is his lack of length (6’3.25″) and bulk (168 lbs), but those critiques also apply to Shabazz Napier and Wilbekin is 1.75 inches taller and more athletic.  He’s young for his class and does a little bit of everything.  Layne Vashro rates him as the #35 NCAA prospect and Kevin Pelton rates him as the #27 overall prospect.  Given that he was a good defensive player at the NCAA level, I would say that’s enough to make him worth a 2nd round flier.

Khem Birch
It seems stat models have Birch pegged as a second round sleeper, but I don’t share their enthusiasm. He is underskilled for a center, as his offensive repertoire is limited to offensive rebounds and dunks. He can’t pass and he can’t create his own shot at the rim. His 69.3% FT as a junior gives some hope for his shot which is instantly crushed by him shooting 20/75 (26.7%) from mid-range.

To make matters worse, he is undersized for a PF at 6’9.25″ with a 7’1″ wingspan while weighing a paltry 209 pounds. Not only does his size cast doubt on his ability to translate his gaudy block rate to the NBA, but how in the world is he ever going to have enough skill to fit in offensively at PF? He is far too small to play center full time.

Birch strikes me as a cut and dry case of somebody who is built to dominate NCAA and then not translate to the NBA due to his lack of size. You can give his stats enough regard to take him somewhere in round 2, but he’s a run of the mill flier as opposed to a compelling sleeper in my book.

Rodney Hood
I took a cautious approach to writing about Hood earlier in the season. After a full season of observation, there is no need for caution. The guy has mediocre tools and is a complete trainwreck defensively. He had poor steal and block rates, and he was regularly faked out and blown by. He was likely the worst defensive player on Coach K’s worst defensive team that I can remember. Offensively he’s a good shooter and has solid feel for the game as he passes well for a SF. That’s not nearly enough for a 21 y/o with lackluster tools who is lock bad on defense, at best he’s worth a late 2nd round flier.

Cleanthony Early
I honestly can’t fathom how he turns out to be useful as a pro. In spite of being 23 he’s a horrible passer and couldn’t even create shots at the rim playing in the Missouri Valley Conference. He doesn’t have a good steal rate, he doesn’t eye test well defensively, and he’s obviously too small to play PF full time.  He can shoot and he can jump but at age 23 you need more going for you than that to succeed in the NBA. I don’t see how he’s draftable. He is extremely fortunate that he had the game of his life when everybody was watching vs. Kentucky to generate all of his draft hype.

Sim Bhullar
Nobody wants to talk about the New Mexico State giant, but I do.  He’s probably a stiff, but I think people are too quick to assume that he can’t be useful.  The man is 7’5, he doesn’t need to have a world of talent to become a useful rotation player.  He weighs 360 pounds and there is clearly quite a bit of room to improve his physical profile.  Why not take a flier in the back end of round 2, try to get him on a dietary program to see if he can trim down, and then see what happens?  He claims he has lost 17 pounds in the past month which isn’t a bad start.

Also I am not totally convinced that he’s a stiff.  I watched about one half of New Mexico State basketball in the NCAA tournament vs. San Diego State, and I was surprised to see Bhullar make a graceful catch and finish on a long outlet pass in transition.  Layne Vashro’s EWP stat model rates him as a late 1st rounder, although it’s possible that the Bhullar ranking is broken by his outlier height as EWP also rated Shawn Bradley as a historically great prospect.  There’s nevertheless enough to like here such that I’m at least intrigued to see if he can become something if he trims down.

Playing The Round 2 Lotto

22 Tuesday Apr 2014

Posted by in Miscellaneous, NCAA

≈ 12 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Round 2 is the uneventful part of the draft, where the majority of picks amount to little or nothing.  But sometimes teams uncover solidly useful players such as Chandler Parsons, Isaiah Thomas, Paul Millsap, Kyle Korver, Danny Green, Omer Asik, etc.  The goal of drafting in round 2 should be to draft a starting caliber player such as the aforementioned names.  It is more likely that you can find a fringe bench player such as Chris Duhon, but those types offer little value since they can always be acquired with the veteran’s minimum.  Bearing that in mind, I’d like to review some of the highly rated players that I’d pass on and the unheralded players who I’d target instead:

Do Not Draft: CJ Wilcox (#32 ESPN, #35 DX)

I have no problems with Wilcox’s game, as he is a solidly good college player without any glaring warts.  But the underlying logic to rate him as a fringe 1st round prospect is so backwards that the thought of him going round 1 is somewhat grating to me.  CJ Wilcox is a good shooter, as he shot 39% from 3’s and 87% from FT as a senior.  He also has average size and athleticism for an NBA SG.  If you were required to trot out a round 2 prospect for bench minutes in 2014-15 season and hope he does not submarine your 2nd unit, Wilcox would not a bad pick.  But that is the opposite of the correct goal for drafting in round 2, as teams are not required to play their 2nd rounders.  And unless he was woefully misused in his 4 years at Washington, he is drawing dead to become a starting caliber SG.  He turns 24 in December and his skills outside of shooting are largely underdeveloped.  As a senior, he was roughly the same player he was as a freshmen and is not much of a handler, passer, rebounder, or defender.  Considering his age, it is exceptionally unlikely that he develops his non-shooting skills to NBA levels of competence, and it’s not like he’s a Kyle Korver or JJ Redick level shooter.  His upside is roughly Willie Green, the poster child for replacement level SG.

Instead Draft: Isaiah Sykes (unranked ESPN, unranked DX)

Sykes is the inverse Wilcox, in that he’s good at everything except shooting.  This was roughly Chandler Parsons’s appeal: he was a good handler, passer, rebounder, and finisher and then when his shot developed better than expected he quickly became a solid starter.  Sykes is 6’5 with a 6’11 wingspan and exceptional athleticism, and he offers defensive upside that Parsons lacked.  He racked up a solid steal rate in his final 2 seasons at Central Florida, and could be effective on this end playing for an NBA coach.  Also he is a good rebounder, ball handler, and passer, and his shot is not completely hopeless as he shot 34 for 103 (33%) from 3 for his college career, improving his 3p% each season.  The downside is that he shot poorly from the FT line (54% as a senior 56% overall) and was generally an inefficient and turnover prone player in his large offensive workload.  He turns 23 in December which gives him limited time to improve his shot, but his shooting splits are not too different from Parsons who was similarly bad at FT’s and merely took a higher volume of 3’s.  If his shot can take a mini-leap and he lands with an NBA coach who gives his game a nice haircut, he has enough positive qualities to become a solidly good cog in any NBA unit.

Do Not Draft: Jahii Carson (#38 ESPN, #42 DX)

Why is this guy a prospect?  He’s explosive, but he’s also diminutive at 5’11 and not exceptionally skilled.  He’s a solid but not great shooter and passer, and he struggles to finish inside amongst the trees in college.  He also is a near lock to be woefully bad on defense given his size and the fact that he did not accrue many steals to help atone for this.  He has developed a reputation as a selfish player and he is old for a sophomore as he turns 22 in August.  There is little to like and oh so much to dislike.

Instead Draft: Kendrick Perry (unranked ESPN, unranked DX)

Perry is also diminutive, as he recently measured 5’11.75 in shoes and 169 pounds at Portsmouth.  But he atones with exceptional explosiveness and length with a 6’6 wingspan.  Even though he’s a senior, he’s actually 4 months younger than Carson.  And while he shares Jahii’s burst with similar shooting and passing abilities, he is also better at everything else.  He’s a better finisher, rebounder, defender, and superior at protecting the ball.  He completely and utterly outclasses Carson in every way conceivable, and the fact that Jahii is on draft radar and Perry isn’t speaks to the inefficiency of consensus prospect rankings.

Do Not Draft: Cleanthony Early (#24 ESPN, #27 DX)

Well, this hype train sure got out of hand in a hurry.  I rather like Early as a college player, but considering him in round 1 is a hilarious overreaction to a well timed career game vs. Kentucky in the tournament.  Early appeared incapable of ever missing a jump shot vs UK, but you can trust me on this one: he sometimes missed shots in his other games.  He has solid size and good athleticism for a SF, but really what else is there?  He’s a solid but not exceptional shooter, and his finishing will struggle to translate when he is facing NBA competition rather than undersized Missouri Valley Conference bigs.  While his athleticism enables him to average 1 block per game, he projects to be a liability on defense overall.  And most troubling is this blurb from DX:

“The only small forwards drafted with a lower assist percentage in our database spanning back to 2001 (who played over 20 minutes per game in that college season) are Lazar Hayward, Al Thornton, Shabazz Muhammad, Dahntay Jones, Deshaun Thomas, Bobby Jones, Damion James and Maurice Ager”

Yikes, that is a frighteningly worthless collection of players.  And to make matters worse, Early’s pitiful assist rate came at age 22 (he turned 23 last week), and he should have learned to sometimes pass by now.  This calls his feel for the game into question, and it’s difficult to envision him becoming useful vs. NBA competition.

Draft Instead: Javon McCrea (unranked ESPN, unranked DX)

If only because his stats are frighteningly similar to those of Paul Millsap:
USG% O-Rtg eFG% FT% AST%
Millsap 26.9 114.3 57.6 62.3 8.2
McCrea 28.3 115 56.2 66.7 16.6
ORB% DRB% STL% BLK% Height
Millsap 18.1 23.9 3.2 6.7 6’7
McCrea 13.7 20.6 2.7 7.2 6’7

These stats are from each player’s final season of college, and McCrea will only be 3 months older as of draft night.

Millsap played a tougher schedule and is clearly the superior prospect with his advantages in rebounding and steals.  But McCrea’s assist advantage is not to be scoffed at, as assist rates correlate with feel for the game.  But falling short of Millsap’s goodness is not a bad thing, as he was woefully undervalued sliding to 47th overall in the 2006 draft.  More importantly, Millsap proves that undersized mid-major bullies do not necessarily flop in the pros.  McCrea’s assist and steal rates offer hope that he has the feel and length to become something in the NBA.  It will be interesting to see how he measures out pre-draft, because he offers intrigue as a 2nd round flier based on his stat stuffing and parallels to Millsap.

Do Not Draft: Rodney Hood (#21 ESPN #23 DX)

I have been bashing Hood all season, and finally DX and ESPN are starting to catch up as they no longer have him as a top 20 pick.  Nevertheless, he should never get picked in round 1 and I do not find him to be particularly compelling in round 2 either.  His only positive tool is that he has solid height for an NBA SF, and even that is in part due to his long neck.  He has subpar strength, length, quicks, and athleticism.  And to make matters worse, he has awful instincts defensively and doesn’t seem interested in working hard on this end either.  He projects to be somewhere on the scale of worst all time defender to a clear liability.  What does he bring offensively to offset this?  He’s a good shooter and a solid passer with decent feel for the (offensive aspect of the) game.  That is all.  He doesn’t rebound and isn’t much of ball handler or finisher.  It’s difficult to envision his offense amounting to enough to make his defense worth stomaching.  When at age 21 you are just the 6th best player on a team that cannot win a single tourney game, it may be a sign you aren’t going to excel in the NBA.

(Side note: as an avid Duke watcher my player ratings this past season are: Amile > Jabari >> Cook > Dawkins > Sulaimon > Hood.  Amile is the Amir Johnson of college: he goes unnoticed due to low scoring totals but makes a ton of good plays, not many bad ones, and has an overall surprisingly positive impact.)

Draft Instead: Artem Klimenko (unranked ESPN, #35 DX)

Klimenko is a complete and utter mystery box, which makes him a great player to target in round 2.  He is 7’1 with a 7’4 wingspan and good mobility, but at age 20 he has yet to face any level of challenging competition.  According to DX he is averaging 15 points in 24 minutes on 57% inside the arc against weak Russian competition.   This means little for his NBA projection, but at least he’s dominating the dregs like he should.  Also he shoots 74% from the line, which offers hope that he has some semblance of skill.  The primary question is whether he has the instincts and intelligence to maximize his physical tools and become a useful NBA defensive player, which is where he has the most potential.  If he does, then perhaps whoever gambles on him will acquire an Omer Asik level steal.  If not, at least you didn’t waste your pick on a player who has already strongly suggested that he lacks upside.  Teams can glean more regarding how worthwhile of a gamble Klimenko is via interviews and workouts.  But as a general concept: young, toolsy internationals with fuzzy translation are good targets as the talent on the board thins.  Giannis Antetokoumpo going 15th overall last year is a good example of this.

Closing Thoughts:

The players I listed as solid round 2 targets are some ultra deep sleepers, and it’s reasonably likely that all of them amount to nothing.  The vast majority of players who ever may amount to anything are already on DX/ESPN’s radar at this stage, and the best 2nd round picks will likely be players who are already on the radar and slide too far.  For instance: Spencer Dinwiddie (#42 ESPN/#49 DX) has become a bit of a forgotten man after his ACL injury.  But he still may declare nevertheless, and he may slide to round 2 and then become a Korver/Green level role playing wing.  Jarnell Stokes (#28 ESPN, #49 DX) also may make for a valuable role player with his unique combination of speed, strength, and skill.  But these players also may go in round 1 and the players that *should* merit 1st round consideration often make for the best 2nd round picks.

Since it is difficult to anticipate precisely where everybody will land when the draft actually happens, I constrained myself to scraping the barrel for this exercise.  So take this as a demonstration of my logic for uncovering diamonds in the rough as opposed to my list of favorite round 2 sleepers, as it will ultimately be the Dinwiddie/Stokes type sliders who are the slickest steals.

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.

Video

Rodney Hood’s Defense vs Lamar Patterson: Don’t Believe Everything Jay Bilas Tells You

03 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by in NCAA

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

When Pittsburgh All-American candidate Lamar Patterson struggled offensively in a home loss to Rodney Hood and the Duke Blue Devils, the immediate media reaction was to applaud Hood’s defensive performance. He spent most of the game guarding Patterson, who finished with 14 pts 4-14 FG 5-6 FT 1 Ast 5 TOVs, which is a decidedly bad line for a normally efficient scorer.

It’s natural to assume that some significant portion of credit goes to Hood, and it raises the possibility that I have been underrating his defense and/or he has improved throughout the season.  The team as a whole has recently been playing better on that end, so it’s fair to wonder if Rodney Hood is transforming from a sieve to a passable defensive player.

I compiled the key plays to display how Duke shut Patterson down:

Conclusions:
-Hood was only guarding Patterson for 1 of his 5 turnovers, and it was when Marshall Plumlee came to help for the trap. It does not require much defensive acumen to force a turnover in that situation.
-Pitt’s bad spacing and elite help defense neutralized Patterson almost every time he penetrated. He got all the way to the rim only twice when Jabari Parker failed to cut off his drive and fouled him for free throws.
-Did anybody notice Hood doing anything impressive? He contested a couple of shots and he ripped away the ball on the trap, but that’s it. None of his good plays are indicative of an ability to hang with NBA SF’s
-There were four occasions on which Patterson badly faked out Hood. Aside from having questionable tools to hang with NBA SF’s, Hood exacerbates his projection by being easily juked. Consequently he gets blown by regularly, only this game he had Amile Jefferson at his back to keep him from looking too bad.

Overall this shows why measuring defense by counterpart performance is entirely worthless. The main credit goes to Coach K for finding a way to mitigate the impact of Hood’s defensive deficiencies, and Amile Jefferson for playing good help defense. At both the NCAA and NBA level defense is a team effort, and Hood’s role against Patterson could have been fulfilled by any wing draft prospect. In the NBA Hood will once again be reliant on help from his teammates, except it will be more difficult to find a solution when all of the good NBA offenses have far better spacing than the Pittsburgh Panthers.

Video

KJ McDaniels vs. Rodney Hood

20 Monday Jan 2014

Posted by in NCAA

≈ 10 Comments

Tags

, , ,

Rodney Hood of Duke and KJ McDaniels of Clemson have a number of similarities: they are both going to be 21 on draft night (KJ is 3.5 months younger), they are similarly sized SF prospects (Hood is 2 inches taller, 1-2 inches shorter wingspan), they play in the same conference, they both employ a slashing game but lack advanced ball handling skills, and they both have shot and scored well this year.  Both players posted good box score lines in their recent matchup, but a closer analysis of the game tape highlights their differences.

I compiled a video of the matchup (embedded below).  It is a near comprehensive look at the two players, which includes all possessions where Hood and McDaniels are matched up on each other, all made baskets when they were not matched up, and all other notably good or bad defensive possessions.

Pay attention to how well each player performs defensively in terms of staying in front of their man, fighting through screens, and generally forcing their matchup into difficult shot attempts.

A table of contents has been included in the “about” description on the video’s youtube page, which describes each play with timestamps. It also has been posted to the site and can be accessed here.

Box Score: http://espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=400502786

Conclusions:
This game gives a nice snapshot of each prospect. Hood is a great shooter who can drive and finish against weaker defensive players. He also is a defensive liability, as both his quicks and instincts are suboptimal. If anybody is wondering why there is no “Hood other defense” section, it is because defense isn’t exactly something Hood does. His lack of quicks also cause him to struggle to drive past a defensive player of KJ’s caliber, so he likely will not be able to get to the rim against NBA caliber defenses on a regular basis.

KJ demonstrated his full array of strengths in this matchup. Defensively he completely took away Hood’s driving ability, and was also able to cut off Quinn Cook’s drive 2 out of 3 times. This speaks well for his lateral quicks as Cook is a quick point guard who is fringe NBA caliber. He showed off the various situations in which he blocks shots (transition, help, and man to man) as he leads the ACC in blocks at 2.8 per game in spite of being a wing. Duke screened him often, and while he was slowed down on occasion, he was able to fight through them on multiple occasions. Overall he showed excellent NBA wing tools with good size (6’6), length (6’9.5 wingspan), strength to fight through screens, quicks to hang with guards, and explosive athleticism at the rim. Combined with good defensive effort (in spite of playing 36 minutes with a heavy offensive workload), instincts, and awareness he clearly has upside to be a good defensive wing in the NBA. He does not project to be a primary option offensively, but he did show the ability to attack both smaller and slower matchups and finish at the rim. While his shooting form is imperfect and he has yet to prove himself as a shooter over a large sample size, he has improved his shot each year at Clemson.

Hood’s advantage lies in shooting and passing, McDaniels in physical tools and defensive acumen.  Here is an assist and shooting comparison with KJ’s numbers on the left and Hood’s on the right (Hood redshirted during 12-13 after transferring from Mississippi State to Duke):

Season AST% 3PA 3P% FTA FT% AST% 3PA 3P% FTA FT%
2011-12 5.2 25 0.280 38 0.579 11.9 129 0.364 41 0.659
2012-13 6.5 96 0.333 79 0.684
2013-14 8.4 60 0.350 78 0.859 12.2 81 0.457 85 0.847
Career 6.9 181 0.331 195 0.733 12 210 0.400 126 0.786

KJ’s improved shot hasn’t been proven over a large sample (he is unlikely to sustain an 86% FT this season), his steady improvement in both 3’s and FT’s strongly suggest that he has been working on his shot and it has genuinely improved over each offseason.  Shooting is a major point of inflection for him, as developing a decent NBA 3 point shot would allow him to fit in most offenses and likely be a useful pro.  Hood has also clearly improved over his redshirt season, and also has shown the ability to shoot off the dribble as only 70% of his made 3’s this season have been assisted (KJ has been assisted 81% and the NCAA average is 84%). Now if we compare defense and rebounding numbers with KJ again on the left:

Season ORB% DRB% STL% BLK% ORB% DRB% STL% BLK%
2011-12 13.4 8.9 2.1 7.5 3.5 13.3 0.8 1.3
2012-13 7.8 14 2.7 8.3
2013-14 8.9 16.8 2.5 9.7 4.2 11.7 1.3 0.7
Career 9.2 14 2.5 8.6 3.7 12.7 1.0 1.1

These comport with the highlights in that KJ makes plays on defense and Hood doesn’t. KJ has a good steal rate and an exceptional block rate that hasn’t been seen from a wing prospect since Dominic McGuire blocked 10.1% of opponent two point attempts for Fresno State as a junior in 2006-2007 (for inquiring minds: McGuire couldn’t stick as an NBA player due to lack of shooting ability). Hood needs to significantly improve his defensive fundamentals and awareness to offer a positive return on a 1st round pick, as he is nowhere near ready to play defense in the NBA and does not have high upside on that end with mediocre tools and questionable acumen.

In terms of overall offense, Hood has been better thus far but it is too soon for a meaningful comparison since Clemson has yet to play most of the tough defensive teams on its schedule. McDaniels did have his two highest scoring outputs vs two of Clemson’s toughest matchups vs Duke and at Arkansas and did so with excellent efficiency (in sum 51 pts on 32 FGA 16 FTA 2 TOV). His future NBA team will not rely on him to create and score nearly as much as Clemson does, so he has the benefit of trimming some of the fat to his offensive game and focusing more of his energy on defense.

For those who are unfamiliar with each player’s respective pro stock, it may surprise you to discover that Hood is rated drastically higher (13th DX, 12th ESPN) than McDaniels (57th DX, not in ESPN’s top 100). This is largely because Hood plays for a higher profile program and there is a bias toward offensive performance, as defensive discrepancies are not readily apparent to the casual observer. With a closer look, there is strong evidence that they belong in the same class of prospect, and I currently believe that McDaniels is superior (this could change as information is gained over the course of ACC play).  Hood belongs in the 1st round but is overrated as a lottery pick as his offense is not elite enough to make his defense tolerable at such a high draft slot.  KJ has a good shot of elevating his stock into the 1st round should he choose to declare, and with a strong enough performance in conference play he may even enter lottery discussion.