Bismack Biyombo: Where Do We Go From Here?

In the 2011 draft, the then-Bobcats selected Bismack Biyombo with the 7th overall pick. While some people leaned towards drafting a future Finals MVP, the die was cast. Going into Year 4, his substantial physical potential has yet to be realized on the court. While it appears that Biyombo is headed for some form of free agency (restricted or otherwise) next summer, a few questions arise: what do lottery big men look like in year 3, and does it say anything about their future productivity? Looking at the lottery big men drafted from 2000 to 2010 yielded some answers.

TIER 1: Year 3 PER of 18+

As is fairly obvious from this group, lottery big men at this level are already pointed in the direction of an All-Star berth, or at the very least a productive career. Two players missed their third seasons due to injury, but posted 18+ PER's in year two: Brandan Wright and Sean May. So, out of this group, the average case appears to be NBA All-Star, and that's obviously worth a well-paying extension.

TIER 2: Year 3 PER of 15-18

Among this group, it's more of a mixed bag. While members of this group earned All-Star and All-NBA accolades (Joakim Noah, Chris Kaman, Andrew Bogut), there are some frustrating cases of unrealized potential in this group. The expected case here looks more like average productivity, so worth a reasonably priced extension.

TIER 3: Year 3 PER below 15

This is where it gets it a little dicey. Of the 26 players in this group, only 13 have produced a PER of 15 in any season after Year 3. And 15 is league average productivity. So the expected case in this group? Somewhere around average productivity, or a little below that. This is the group that Biyombo currently finds himself in. There is one All-Star in this group: Tyson Chandler. He did manage to get there, after 13 seasons, and stints with Chicago, New Orleans, Charlotte, Dallas, and New York.

So what, if any, conclusions are to be drawn from this group? First, there seems to be a grain of truth in the idea that the third year for an NBA player is important; at that point, players seem to slot fairly neatly into bands of productivity. Second, the lottery picks that ascended above "good rotation guy" largely show that potential on the court in regular season games, and they show it in their first three years.

For Biyombo, all indications are that he possesses the talent and work ethic to round into a useful NBA player at some point. However, there's enough evidence to realistically reset the ceiling below the Ibaka / Ben Wallace comparisons from a few years ago. If he ends up a productive rim protector with limited utility as a screener/roll man on offense, he has value, it's just not an indispensable value. And, if push comes to shove, would you rather pay guys like Hilton Armstrong (abroad), Ed Davis (1mm per year), or Ian Mahinmi (4mm per) for 15 minutes of rim protection? Or would you rather give Biyombo a hometown premium hoping that he makes a leap? Frankly, I'd rather give those minutes to Noah Vonleh.

Postscript: There isn't enough to merit a whole post, but Vonleh was an extremely sensible pick for the Hornets at #9. The best #9 picks over the years (Andre Drummond, Joakim Noah, Amare Stoudemire, Shawn Marion, Dirk Nowitzki, Tracy McGrady) have tended to to follow a "just grab the guy with the talent, and let's figure it out" pattern. This hopefully fits that pattern.

The Hornets Window is Open... Where Does It Lead?

Two years removed from historical futility and a different team name, the 2014-2015 season begins with a far different outlook. The Hornets boast a returning All-NBA player (Al Jefferson, 3rd team), an infusion of All-Star caliber talent (Lance Stephenson), young draft picks (Vonleh, Hairston, Zeller, MKG, Walker, Biyombo, Henderson) with varying degrees of upside, and a few plausibly useful veterans (Gary Neal, Brian Roberts, Marvin Williams, Jannero Pargo). It's undoubtedly the best team this Charlotte franchise has ever had, and the talent has caught some mainstream attention. So, if you wanted to assume a best case scenario, what would that mean for the Hornets?

Over the last 15 NBA seasons, here's how many opportunities there were to achieve what most fans would call success.

15 championships, 15 losing Finals berths, 30 losing conference finals berths (60 total spots)

Now, since the best players in the game tend to dominate the sport, here's that list without the Spurs, Lakers, and Heat.

3 championships, 10 losing Finals berths, 26 losing conference finals berths (39 total spots)

Looking back at the last 15 years, the rules of the NBA have held pretty firm: every championship team has at least one All-NBA player, 2nd team or better. When your team doesn't have Shaq/Duncan/Kobe/Lebron near their prime, making it to the top is pretty tough. So how far did the other 27 teams get?

CHAMPIONS: '04 Pistons, '08 Celtics, '11 Mavericks

The Celtics added a former 1st Team and 2nd Team All-NBA player in the previous offseason, so that's not the Hornets. Both the Mavericks and Pistons had one 2nd team All-NBA guy (Dirk, Ben Wallace) surrounded by some solid veteran players. That's probably not the Hornets this year or next year, barring a substantial trade or two and a very durable Al Jefferson.

NBA FINALS: '00 Pacers, '01 76ers, '02-'03 Nets, '05 Pistons, '06 Mavericks, '07 Cavaliers, '09 Magic, '10 Celtics, '12 Thunder

The Cavaliers and Thunder possess two obvious differences from this year's Hornets. The 76ers, Magic, and Nets surrounded a singular talent with a very well-matched roster, which could be a best (read: BEST) case scenario for Al Jefferson in the low post. The Pistons and Mavericks were, as before, largely veteran teams.

CONFERENCE FINALS: Blazers, Bucks, Bulls, Cavaliers, Celtics, Grizzlies, Jazz, Kings, Knicks, Magic, Mavericks, Nuggets, Pacers, Pistons, Suns, Thunder, Timberwolves

17 different franchises have reached the conference finals in the last 15 years, and that's excluding the Spurs, Lakers, and Heat. These teams include teams growing into title form, multi-year runs in contention, and borderline NCAA tourney-style surprises. The sheer volume and variety of teams here suggest this is a reasonable target given a 3-4 year window.

In summary, despite the quality and potential of the current Hornets roster, the rarefied air of the NBA Finals is just that - rare. How should Hornets fans feel about the team's prospects with this nucleus, however long it stays together? In short... a title seems extremely unlikely, a Finals berth seems very unlikely, and the conference finals seems a reasonable possibility, but maybe not an expectation.

If all that seems a little too morose, there's always this: can Hornets fans at least expect to get to the 2nd round? Yes. In the last 15 seasons, only one franchise failed to win a single playoff series... the Bobcats. And they're gone.

Talking Yourself Into Lance Stephenson

As a Hornets fan that pinned a lot of hope on signing Gordon Hayward, the last week has seen the team go in a decidedly different direction. The knee-jerk reaction to signing Lance Stephenson involves questions about conduct and maturity, both on and off the court. But is there a way to talk yourself into the signing?

1. LANCE STEPHENSON IS A GOOD PLAY-MAKER.

NBA Rank Among Non-Point Guards: #10 (minimum 41 games played)

During the 2013-2014 regular season, Stephenson averaged 4.6 assists per game. Aside from the raw number being impressive, he generated a good amount of "assist opportunities" (passes that would have been assists had teammates made their shots), particularly for a non-point guard. In fact, only nine players did better last year (Lebron James, James Harden, Gordon Hayward, Monta Ellis, Joakim Noah, Kevin Durant, Nic Batum, Tyreke Evans, and Dwyane Wade). 

2. LANCE STEPHENSON DOES NOT NEED TO DOMINATE THE BALL.

NBA Rank Among Non Point Guards: #11 (minimum 41 games played)

Despite the fact that Indiana operated with Lance as a de facto point guard at times, it turns out that Lance did not dominate the ball while on the floor. His time of possession fits nicely with the role of a secondary playmaker, coming in lower than a host of creators from the wing (Lebron James, James Harden, Monta Ellis, Carmelo Anthony, Kevin Durant, Gordon Hayward, Tyreke Evans, Paul George, Dwyane Wade). This bodes potentially well for his ability to mesh with a (typically) ball dominant point guard in Kemba Walker.

3. LANCE STEPHENSON IS A VERY GOOD REBOUNDER.

NBA Rank Among Non Big Men: #4 (minimum 41 games played)

There's no denying Stephenson's raw rebounding numbers this season. While it's fair to point out that this is one area of rumored stat-hunting (aka stealing rebounds from teammates), the fact is that he did grab a lot of "uncontested" rebounds (no opponent in the area). But he actually grabbed a comparable amount (72.3% of total rebounds) to Lebron James (75.2%) and Kevin Durant (77.8%). It's certainly possible that he tended to fight Pacers for rebounds more than the other team, but his overall motor for rebounding, particularly at the guard/forward spot, cannot be denied.

4. LANCE STEPHENSON IS A COMPARABLE SHOOTER TO OTHER NOTABLE SHOOTING GUARDS.

There are several things to note for Lance as a scorer, particularly with respect to other notable 2's/3's in the league. First, He was a strong finisher in the restricted area, a result of both drives and offensive rebounding. While his mid-range efficiency leaves something to be desired, it's the corner 3 numbers that are the most encouraging from a Hornets perspective.

Stephenson shot better from the corners than Josh McRoberts (48% versus 30%) on twice as many attempts per game. He shot better than Anthony Tolliver (39%), Chris Douglas-Roberts (45%), and Gary Neal (38%). While he clearly had a preference in location (right corner), Big Al has a preferred side of the floor too. There's enough here to work with as far as spacing the floor off the ball.

5. LANCE STEPHENSON IS A LEGITIMATE TWO WAY PLAYER.

As much as I am a fan of Gordon Hayward, even I can't dispute that his ability to defend well was largely dependent on using his height as an oversized shooting guard. There is no such debate about Stephenson. He's a plus defender at both wing positions, and is capable of hounding opposing wing players with length, strength, quickness, and motor. And in crunch time, he does not have to be a part of any offense/defense substitutions.

CONCLUSION

Looking at what Stephenson brought to the court last year, it's hard not to appreciate his overall talent level. There just aren't a lot of young two guards in the league that possess his package of skills. The problem with Lance, particularly the last six months, is that all sentences about his outlook start with the word "if." There are examples of talented guys in the league who realized their potential (Zach Randolph, Amare Stoudemire, Allen Iverson) despite conduct/character concerns, and maybe Stephenson is one of those guys. As a Hornets fan, I hope he is. But I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little worried.

(all stats from www.nba.com)

A Bobcats Plan for the 2014 Draft (And Beyond)

2011 Edition
2012 Edition
2013 Edition

As hard as it is to believe, the once-interminable Bobcats rebuild is over. The 2014-2015 Hornets boast the following attributes:

• 43 regular season wins last year
• an All-NBA player on the roster (Al Jefferson)
• cap space ($41mm of committed contracts before addressing Josh McRoberts, Jeff Taylor, and the backup point guard situation)

So, with that out of the way, let's delve into the most optimistic post in the history of this blog regarding the Bobcats/Hornets. The roster looks like this as currently constituted:

• Point Guard: Kemba Walker, TBD
• Shooting Guard: Gary Neal, Gerald Henderson
• Small Forward: Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Jeff Taylor
• Power Forward: Josh McRoberts, Cody Zeller
• Center: Al Jefferson, Brendan Haywood
• Other: Bismack Biyombo, TBD, TBD, TBD, TBD

The 2014-2015 Hornets have a few glaring issues to address. First, a crunch time lineup that can space the floor for Big Al. There's a reason that two midseason additions (Gary Neal, Chris Douglas-Roberts) played significant minutes in a playoff series. Second, a reliable backup big that can work effectively out of the low post. Third, a reliable backup point guard. Fourth, continuing to build depth and talent. Having one All-NBA player doesn't punch an automatic ticket to the 2nd round of the playoffs (ask the T-Wolves). So, what should the Hornets target in the draft?

There are a few players I've talked about at the top of the draft, and if they were to unexpectedly fall, you'd have to take them. But in the event that it doesn't happen...

DRAFT NIK STAUSKAS AT #9.

He's a natural shooter off a catch-and-shoot or off-the-dribble. He has natural instincts working as the ball-handler in pick-and-rolls, and has the ability to get to the rim and either finish or get fouled, especially when attacking closeouts. His wingspan and strength probably won't allow him to be more than an average individual defender, but he gives you everything you'd want on offense from a shooting guard. I'm so bullish on Stauskas, I think he has the potential to sneak into an All-Star game at some point, and at the very least, he's a skilled basketball player that will always have a place on an NBA roster.

Upside Picks If They Fall (in order of preference): Joel Embiid, Julius Randle, Andrew Wiggins, Dante Exum, Noah Vonleh, Aaron Gordon

The guys I didn't mention (Jabari Parker, Marcus Smart) are guys I honestly would not draft at #9. I legitimately prefer the talent/fit combo that Stauskas brings over both of those guys. If none of those guys are available, here are other directions I would go...

Other Fit Picks (in order of preference): Jusuf Nurkic, Zach LaVine, trade down

DRAFT JOHNNY O'BRYANT AT #24.

Good low post scoring instincts in a legit power forward body. Conditioning should be a fixable issue given the progress he's already made since entering college, and Al could be the perfect mentor to help him realize is still-impressive potential. He could be the backup low post scoring threat that the Hornets desperately need, and a nice frontcourt complement to Cody Zeller.

Other Picks (in order of preference): Cleanthony Early, K.J. McDaniels, Mitch McGary, Walter Tavares, Russ Smith

DRAFT RUSS SMITH AT #45.

Smith's athletic ability and penchant for clutch performances are known by everyone who watched college basketball. His size might preclude him from performing with starter minutes over 82 games, but unleashed as a two-way terror with the second unit? He could be an incredible complement to our starting unit, and the definition of a "change of pace" coming off the bench.

Other Picks (in order of preference): Spencer Dinwiddie, Joe Harris 

After the draft, the depth chart would like this...

Point Guard: Kemba Walker, Russ Smith

Shooting Guards: Nik Stauskas, Gary Neal

Small Forwards: Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Jeff Taylor

Power Forwards: Josh McRoberts, Johnny O'Bryant

Centers: Al Jefferson, Cody Zeller

Bench: Gerald Henderson, Jeff Taylor, Bismack Biyombo

I like that roster's ability to space the floor, play both sides of the ball, and while there isn't a good answer to "what if Al Jefferson gets hurt," no team really has a good answer for replacing an All-NBA player. Besides, the team can still go get Gordon Hayward with a 4 yr, $50mm offer sheet when free agency starts.

Heat Pacers Summary

(all box score data compiled from www.basketball-reference.com)

Best Plus Minus: Lebron James (+53 in 191 minutes). If I had to guess, Lebron's foul trouble in Game 5 skews his per game numbers down, and probably extended the series by one game. In what was supposed to be a team tailor-made to match Miami, Lebron scored efficiently from the field and produced decent playmaking (by his ridiculously high standards) despite the challenge Paul George and Roy Hibbert were supposed to present.

Worst Plus Minus: Paul George (-30 in 243 minutes). After a whole season of debating whether Paul George belonged in the same class as Lebron and Kevin Durant, the result of the series seemed to be... no, not at this point. One of the best two way players in the game didn't make a noticeable dent in Wade or Lebron's scoring efficiency. A poorly diagnosed concussion may have taken a crucial 4th quarter stretch away from him, but regardless, he didn't seem to find another gear on either side of the floor to meet the Heat's challenge. Hopefully, a year free of runaway rumors will reveal the next evolution of his game.

Series MVP: George Hill (Net +35 in 215 minutes). It's easy to note George Hill's non-traditional point guard role in the Indiana offense and say, "if a true point guard occupied that role, Indiana could have an easier time scoring." However, he's a very good fit for the style of defense they play, and for the structure of offense they run, he played his role fairly well in this series. 44% from three in the series (albeit with a concerning 42% from two), reasonable assist and steal production, and most important of all: only in Games 4 and 6 were the Pacers outscored while he was on the floor.

Series LVP: Mario Chalmers (Net -57 in 166 minutes). I'll never question his role on this Heat team, because after four straight Finals appearances (and two wins so far), he provides something more than his stats suggest. Even more, the competent outside shooting normally required of the Heat's other players, he provided (40% for the series). However, it's hard to ignore the fact that Norris Cole's time in the lineup was far more productive in this series. Do I think that will affect his playing time at all against the Spurs? Absolutely not. Mario Chalmers is definitely capable of swinging a quarter or a half his team's way, and the Heat will probably need one or two of those to beat the Spurs.

Jerome James Award: The World Around The Pacers. No one outside of the locker room can explain what happened to this team over the last few months. It's hard to understand how a lineup that seemed so perfectly constructed, working well for such a prolonged period of time, could suddenly find itself so inept weeks before their most important playoff run. There's a part of me that thinks that, much like Lebron's infamous Game 5 against the Celtics in 2010, we'll never really know what happened here. But the only logical conclusion I can draw from what they showed the last two months is, something must have happened here. I just wonder what it was. 

Blazers-Rockets Summary

(Note: all box score data compiled from basketball-reference.com)

Best Plus Minus / Series MVP: Damian Lillard (+22 in 268 minutes, Net +24). The first two regular seasons of Damian Lillard have been filled with impressive scoring efficiency, at-times lackadaisical defense, and a very heavy minutes burden. Now, the narrative goes that the playoffs, especially the first time, are a test that most players tend to fail. While basketball nerds might point to a higher minutes load against a high pace team, most people will only remember that he was better than his season averages in points, rebounds, assists, steals, and assist-turnover ratio. Actually, I take that back, all anyone will remember is this shot. Well done.

Worst Plus Minus / Series LVP: Dorell Wright (-33 in 79 minutes, Net -31). The Blazers have been a starter-heavy team all year, and the playoffs only accentuate that strategy. Given the tightness of the series, the quality play of Nic Batum, I don't think this says anything about Dorell Wright.

Jerome James Award: Dwight Howard. For the record, I had a whole lot of venom stored up for Patrick Beverley for this spot, but given the torn meniscus, knee sprain, and fever, it's just not right. So, unfortunately, this has to go to D12. 26 points, 13 rebounds, and almost 3 blocks per game are ridiculous numbers. But, why were the Rockets +8 with Dwight off the floor in the series, and -8 with Asik off the floor? While some could argue that the Dwight produced despite flaws like poor foul shooting, James Harden managed to be +15 despite his famously bad defense, and Howard was -6. Looks like the big guy was the bigger problem in this series.

Wizards-Bulls Summary

(Note: Box score data compiled from basketball-reference.com)

Best Plus Minus: Trevor Ariza (+53 in 195 minutes). It's almost forgotten that Trevor Ariza made two game-winning plays in the Western Conference finals for the Lakers... in 2009. In the years that followed, we've spent so much time focusing on what he isn't, that we forgot what he can do really well: play good defense on three positions, and provide timely (if streaky) outside shooting as a safety valve on offense. When he's hitting threes (46.4% for the series on 5.6 attempts per game), he's a very valuable piece.

Worst Plus Minus: Kirk Hinrich (-32 in 163 minutes). Unfortunately, Derrick Rose's injury placed a burden on Hinrich that he may not be up for at this point in his career. Combined with the task of chasing around John Wall or Bradley Beal, and it's pretty easy to figure out why he shows up here.

Series MVP: D.J. Augustin (Net +42 in 142 minutes). Despite being cast off for basically nothing by two franchises, Chicago put Augustin in the "Nate Robinson Memorial Scoring Point" role, and he performed admirably. I'm still not sure that his place in the league can move much beyond rotational guard, but kudos to Chicago for letting a guy do what he does best, and reaping the benefits.

Series LVP: Martell Webster (Net -48 in 91 minutes). I'm assuming that Trevor Ariza's defense allowed him to flourish much more than Webster, given that Ariza was tasked with chasing Augustin around at critical junctures. Having said that, for a guy whose major calling card is outside shooting from the corners, 31% from three probably isn't good enough.

Jerome James Award: Nene Hilario. As a fan of Nene's one-on-one post defense and offensive smarts, this one is tough. But it's hard not to notice that the Wizards were +25 when he was off the court. I'm perfectly willing to accept the idea that Nene and Gortat had a cumulative effect on wearing down Noah, and for some reason it just happened to show up in Gortat's minutes (who was +43 in 180 minutes). Unfortunately, their respective numbers are just too different to back that up, and I won't play favorites on the hallowed grounds of the Playoff Summaries.

Heat-Bobcats Summary

(Note: Data compiled from box scores at http://www.basketball-reference.com)

Best Plus Minus: Lebron James (+38 in 158 minutes). Much like last year's 1st round Heat series, there isn't a lot to take from this plus-minus data. Every Heat unit seemed to best the Bobcats' units, so no one really stands out. The most interesting thing that Lebron did on the court was maybe look at MJ, although he's confirmed that he didn't.

Worst Plus Minus: Kemba Walker (-34 in 153 minutes). If it's possible for a player to gain national respect during a 4 game sweep, I think Kemba did it. It wasn't long ago that some people were trying to prove Kemba could even play in the league, and look at his play against the two time champs: efficient scoring, decent playmaking, and quite a few eye-opening plays. Hopefully Charlotte doesn't follow its prior pattern of drafting point guards in the lottery every few years...there's a keeper already on the roster.

Series MVP: Josh McRoberts (Net +34 in 153 minutes). It's a testament to the fit between player, scheme, and team that McRoberts is in this spot. His career previous to Charlotte only offered hints of the floor-spacing, part-time point forward he's been as a Bobcat. His market value will be difficult to gauge, but I could argue that his on court production won't be better than it was in Charlotte if he leaves.

Series LVP: Dwyane Wade (Net -41 in 133 minutes). Just like I said for Lebron, there's nothing to take from the plus-minus data for the Heat. The most important thing for Wade is that he looked healthy for the overwhelming majority of the four games, and that's the only thing that matters for him going forward.

Reverse Jerome James Award: Rod Higgins and Rich Cho. In June of 2012, when people were scratching their heads about the Mike Dunlap hire, I mused about the real questions to answer regarding the roster. Fast forward two years, and it's time to give credit where credit is due.

• hired Steve Clifford as head coach
• signed Al Jefferson for 3 years, $40.5mm (averaged 22-11 this season in 73 games)
• traded Hakim Warrick for Josh McRoberts (averaged 9 pts, 4 reb, 4 ast, 36% 3PT)
• traded Corey Maggette for Ben Gordon and Detroit's 1st round draft pick (coming this year or next)

While anyone can poke holes in the draft picks a team didn't make, the rest of the roster management has been undeniably good. Relative to the Bobcats' last trip to the playoffs, the future looks notably brighter. 

The NBA's Best Scorer: 2014 Edition

2011 Edition (Dirk Nowitzki)
2012 Edition (Kevin Durant)
2013 Edition (Lebron James)

Once again, it's time to identify the best scorers in the NBA, and crown one of them as the best of the best. A quick refresh of the criteria for eligibility:

• Must have played more than 41 games with a team.
• Must have ranked among the league leaders in attempts (free throws and shots) per game.

Without further ado, here's the 2014 crop (click for a better view).

(Note: in the NBA.com shotcharts below, green regions are above average, yellow regions are average, and red regions are below average.) 

1. STEPHEN CURRY 

Throughout the season, I've felt the gushing over Curry's late game exploits got a little over the top. And I was 100% wrong. Not only is he deadly from pretty much every spot behind the arc, he's not Reggie Miller running through screens. With only 2.5 catch and shoot threes per game, he's generating the other 5+ himself (as opposed to his Splash Brother, 2nd in the league in catch and shoot 3's attempted). Combine that with efficient shot-making ability from all over the floor, and you get the best scorer in the NBA this season.

2. LEBRON JAMES

Having never really looked at a Lebron James shotchart before, it's interesting to note where he takes his shots. As opposed to Curry or Durant, there are spots on the floor that he hasn't scored efficiently from. And yet, he's an extremely efficient overall player. Half of his shots are taken near the charge circle, where he converts a ridiculous 75%. His limited work from the corner threes looks surgical. This is the handiwork of someone who's in full mental command of what's happening on the court, and methodically hunts the shots he wants, not what the defense dictates.

3. KEVIN DURANT

Durant's shot distribution is eerily even among the three basic areas of the court: 1/3 near the rim, 1/3 from beyond the arc, and 1/3 in between. It seems like the best way to guard KD over the past few years was to run him off a jumpshot, and make him drive. Well, now he's scoring on 59% of his drives, which means he might be as close to unguardable on a single possession as exists in the NBA. He's just too tall and smooth to stop him from getting a jumper off, and he is making people pay for years of crowding him with a smaller defender. 

OTHER NOTES

• Everyone has spent a lot of time talking about Durant's play without Westbrook, but Dwyane Wade only played 8 more games than Westbrook this year. And, if he can score the way he did in the regular season, Miami will be tough to beat 4 out of 7 times. Again.
• It's been a wild ride for Paul George, but for the overall season, he took on a larger scoring burden with no dropoff in efficiency. Maybe he actually is making a leap... I mean, he's 23.
• Kyrie Irving was truly one of the more efficient scorers in the league in the last two years. This year, he's closer to John Wall and Russell Westbrook than the top. Given what the other two bring to the table in terms of play-making and defense, not sure he's on par with them at the moment. However, Wall also got a max extension that people questioned last summer, and no one is questioning it now.
• Evan Turner's career year resurgence in Philly looks more like unapologetic gunning by the numbers. My question for Indiana remains the same in the playoffs: for a team that struggles to generate spacing and score, can Evan Turner solve the latter while not helping the former?

PLAYOFF PREDICTION

Since I've been so good at calling the champ the past three years (2011 - Heat, 2012 - Lakers, 2013 - Heat), why wouldn't I try again? Since I'm already on record as skeptical of the Heat regardless of what they did this season, I'm going with the Thunder. The only team I think could give them serious trouble is the Clippers.

2014 Early Entry Analysis: Deadline Decisions

With the NCAA tournament over, college basketball players and other NBA draft hopefuls have little time to make a life-altering decision. Despite several sources of "information", it's difficult to find any reliable data. With that in mind, I've tried to look at this from the perspective of the best, publicly available information: the mock drafts of DraftExpress and NBADraft.net as of today.

The past three years (2011-2013 NBA Drafts), I've written this post using the mock drafts available at the time (post-tournament, pre-deadline), not at the beginning of the season or the week before the draft. This way, it's a true(r) representation of the imperfect information that's out there. What have the past three years shown about how useful my typical tiers are?

1. PROJECTED LOTTERY PICKS ARE VERY LIKELY TO BE DRAFTED IN THE 1ST ROUND.

In the last three years of NBA drafts, 33-40 players have chosen to enter the draft that were projected as a lottery pick by one or two of the mock drafts. All of those players ended up being drafted in the 1st round, and at least 80% of them ended up lottery picks. They may not have signed for as much money as they hoped, but they were signing guaranteed rookie contracts.

2. PROJECTED 1ST ROUND PICKS OUTSIDE THE LOTTERY ARE MEANINGFULLY LESS LIKELY TO BE DRAFTED IN THE 1ST ROUND.

For the players that went into the draft as projected 1st round picks outside the lottery, the chances of falling out of the 1st round are much higher. While this idea is easily accepted without digging into data, consider the magnitude: for every three players that thought they were a mid-teens to late 1st round pick based on a mock draft, one of them fell to the 2nd round. That is a very real risk to consider.

3. BEING IN BOTH MOCK DRAFTS MATTERS, ESPECIALLY OUTSIDE THE LOTTERY.

Again, this seems like an intuitive point, but the magnitude is significant. Being a lottery pick on both mock drafts means seven out of eight guys will go in the lottery, versus four out of five going with only one site. Outside the lottery, being in both mock 1st rounds meant that a player significantly reduced the chance of falling out of the 1st round altogether.

Now, the sample size (three years) isn't nearly big enough to point to anything as a definitive trend, but at a minimum, it should indicate that the concept of this post is at least pointed in the right direction. Unless you're the type of person that says mock drafts have no value whatsoever, in which case, there's nothing I can say to change your mind. Now, without further ado, on to the (new and improved) tiers...

TIER 1. LOTTERY PICKS (LIKELY 1ST ROUNDERS) 

Despite all the hand-wringing over the top prospects, the consensus lottery picks (shaded in blue) are pretty familiar names to most people that look at potential draftees throughout the college basketball season. The non-consensus guys are the typical mix of international prospects that may or may not come out, and prospects with diverging opinions. Based on the last three years, these guys have a good shot of going in the lottery, and a very good shot of going in the 1st round if they enter the draft. It's also of note that despite the roller-coaster season Marcus Smart had as sophomore relative to his breakout freshman year, his standing as a mid-to-high lottery pick does not appear to be affected at this point.  

TIER 2. POSSIBLE 1ST ROUND PICKS.

For guys in this group, the potential for falling out of the 1st round is real. As a result, they are probably considering a few factors with regard to coming out this year: 1) the quality of their individual prospects next year; 2) the quality of their team prospects next year; 3) remaining work towards graduation; and 4) any personal situations that prioritize a professional career sooner rather than later. For some guys, the decision to come out is already made, but for others, this is a very difficult call. I would simply echo the following: seven guys on this list are projected as "consensus" 1st round draft picks. If recent history holds, then it's likely that one (or more) of those seven players falls out of the 1st round.  And, including both tiers, there are 35 projected 1st round picks, and only 30 actual 1st round picks. 

2013 Edition

2012 Edition

2011 Edition

What the Bobcats Might Do With a Top 3 Pick (2014 Edition)

2013 Edition
2012 Edition

ASSUMED HE'S NOT COMING OUT: Joel Embiid

For the record, I'm assuming that he's not coming out this year. If he was coming out this year, he'd be the most likely All-NBA guy from this class. His physical skill set is remarkable for a guy his size, his acumen for development is impressive considering his low exposure to high level basketball, and I'd echo everything that the Internet says about his upside. Did I conveniently assume he's not coming out, going against everything we've learned about the majority of top 5 picks in college basketball, so that I could focus on some other guys in this post?

Probably.

TOUGHEST OMISSIONS: 

Aaron Gordon

As good as Gordon is on defense, I don't see a very functional player in a spacing-critical NBA offense, aside from better-than-you-think passing. What is the probability of Gordon becoming a passable scorer at the small forward position without a jump shot? He was one of my favorite guys to watch going into the season, and while I'd still love to have him on my team, I'm just not sure a great defensive player without a jumper can dominate the NBA at the small forward position.

Noah Vonleh

Vonleh is a hard prospect not to like. His physical attributes seem outstanding for an NBA big, and he's already shown the beginnings of a useful jumper to keep defenses honest. The only knock I can come up with is that, despite his tangible attributes, he seems to play below the rim / struggle in close space more than I'd think he would. Seriously, that's all I could come up with. Very worried that he's going to make me look stupid in a few years.

IF ONLY I HAD THE GUTS: Zach LaVine

I admit, Steve Alford's rotations at UCLA are probably hiding several things about Zach LaVine. Does he want to be a point guard or shooting guard at the next level? Are his above-the-rim plays limited to the open court, or do they translate into good finishes in the halfcourt? In the limited time I've seen him, he's shown flashes of high level NBA athleticism, shooting, with enough ball-handling and passing. I see Klay Thompson with more spring, and a less accurate jumper.

And now, for the best prospects to eventually be All-NBA players...

3. Dante Exum

Relative to the other highly touted prospects, it feels like there's far less game footage to evaluate Exum. That seems typical for international prospects, but his potential is amazing. He has significant things to work on at the next level: is he a full time point guard or not (I think he's a play-making 2)? Can his jumper become reliable? Can he defend both guard spots (or either)? Despite these questions, it's pretty clear what he does bring. His athleticism and basketball IQ will likely translate to both guard spots on offense and defense, and he seems to have a clear #1 guy aura to him. To me, he's got almost as much physical potential as Andrew Wiggins, with less uncertainty about whether he wants to be "the guy." At the risk of sounding like a basketball xenophobe, if he had played college ball in the U.S., I wonder if he'd be my #1 prospect, as opposed to just behind the two guys ahead of him.

1B. Andrew Wiggins

So, given what I've said about Joel Embiid, I might be breaking one of my own rules, but I don't really have a choice. The Paul George comparisons are interesting, because while George's physical profile was pretty impressive as a 2010 draftee, I was hard-pressed to see a true NBA alpha dog lurking in there... and I was wrong. Watching Wiggins, he has the ability to do everything an NBA small forward can do at a high level (minus Lebron's passing, because no NBA small forward passes like Lebron). We'd all like to see him get to the rim consistently off the dribble. We'd all like to see him put his stamp on every minute he's in a game. But he clearly values playing high level defense, the ability to keep teammates' involved, and the necessity of taking the reins of a game when needed (read: the Florida game). All the pieces are there, as are the intangibles.

1A. Julius Randle

He has a T-Rex wingspan. He doesn't play above the rim. He doesn't always play with consistent effort. I just put those in there because I've read them from other people, because I'm skeptical of all those sentiments (except the wingspan, that can't be argued). What I see is a very polished offensive skill set, everywhere from the box to the high post. I see a rebounding monster, who attacks the ball off the glass. And while his wingspan doesn't necessarily allow him to block a ton of shots, he's got an impressive amount of footspeed and quickness for a 6"9, 250 pounder. It looks like the kind of quickness that would make him a good positional defender, able to handle switches in the pick-and-roll, which, combined with his general strength, should make him an above-average to good defender. I see a 20-10 machine, and the potential to be the #1 guy on a contender.

P.S. All the links provided are to the excellent video scouting reports put up by DraftExpress. For any NBA draft nerd, their site is basically impossible to ignore.

The NBA Big Man Has Not Disappeared

Given the change to All-Star voting, which excludes the center position as a mandatory spot in the starting lineup, a natural question has bubbled up. Does the change mimic a lack of All-Star caliber centers in today's NBA? Has this changed over time? What happened to the great NBA big men we remember from years gone by?

It's true that several significant changes that have occurred over the last few decades. The "Mark Jackson" rule, the changes in permissible defenses, the hand-check rule, all have played a role in altering the way teams look to score and defend. So, have these changes marked the death knell for the romanticized "NBA big man?"

Well, it depends on what that phrase means. The most basic definition would likely be the "20 and 10" stat line of a true big man.

Over the last 30+ years, an average of roughly five players have averaged 20 and 10 during the regular season. The early 90's clearly had a lot of guys that fit this criteria, and 2009-2013 clearly had a lower number. But this season? Back to the average number, with guys like Kevin Love, LaMarcus Aldridge, DeMarcus Cousins, Anthony Davis, and Blake Griffin.

Seeing the numbers, and noting the relative youth of all the guys in this year's 20-10 club, I'd say it's highly unlikely that the NBA big man is gone. If anything, it looks about how it has for some time, with guys like Dwight Howard, David Lee, and Nikola Pekovic just knocking on the door this year. But, somehow I can already hear a response brewing...

"Yeah, but it's not just about the numbers. These guys today aren't playing down low, they're floating around the outside shooting jumpers. They're not banging in the post, using old school post moves."

Since I can't condense 30+ years of games into anything anyone would take seriously, I'll just change the rules a little. Assuming that NBA players still shoot better from in close than further out, there should be a simple tweak to prove this out.

If you add the criteria that players had to shoot at least 50% from the field, the numbers change, but the idea is the same. Instead of averaging five guys per season, it's a little over three per season. Again, the early 90's had a lot of guys on this list, but in 2014, the number looks a lot like it has for every other period... two guys this year (Davis and Griffin).

There's several other ways that you can try to cut this list, but it ends up looking very similar.The league today has the same number of guys averaging double-doubles (12) as it has since 1984 (average: 11). If you add guys averaging 20, 10, 50% from the field, and at least one block per game, the league has the same number of guys today (3) as it has since 1984 (average: 3).

I think the answer to this question isn't necessarily as clear as everyone would want. Does every team have a seven foot center that blocks shots, shoots only jump hooks, and produces huge stats exclusively from inside the lane? No. But it's doubtful that was ever the case. The game has changed a lot, and there are a variety of ways that NBA big men can play effectively today. But the NBA big man has not disappeared. And anyone who tries to argue something similar may be on the wrong end of this.