2011 Early Entry Analysis: Deadline Decisions

Since tonight is the official deadline for college basketball's early entrants to withdraw or stay in the draft, it's probably the right time to take a look at who should stay in school, and who should go. Obviously, if three major NBA mock draft sites have a player as a 1st rounder, I believe that means that player should go. Since Harrison Barnes, Jared Sullinger, and Perry Jones have already announced they're staying, let's look at who's staring down their decisions before the deadline. (For the record, all three guys were consensus lottery picks, and extremely likely top 5. Let's see how that plays out. My guess is that 2 of those guys are disappointed with their decision a year from now).

HAVE TO GO NOW (consensus 1st rounders): Alec Burks, Bismack Boyimbo, Brandon Knight, Chris Singleton, Derrick Williams, Donatas Motiejunas, Enes Kanter, Jan Vesely, Jordan Hamilton, Kawhi Leonard, Kemba Walker, Klay Thompson, Kyrie Irving, Marcus Morris, Markief Morris, Terrence Jones, Tobias Harris, Trey Thompkins, Tristan Thompson, Tyler Honeycutt

The easy lightning rods here will be less accomplished college players like Klay Thompson, Tobias Harris, and Tyler Honeycutt. But if mock drafts are in any way indicative of league consensus (I believe the three used are), their decisions to go are good. Terrence Jones, a player whose tweener label will likely grow next year, is definitely risking something by staying, especially considering he was viewed as a consensus lottery pick. 

NEED TO THINK (2 out of 3 1st rounders): Darius Morris, Jeremy Tyler, Jordan Williams, Shelvin Mack

I'd guess that 3 out of 4 are taking calculated risks, given uncertainty around next year (team performance, coach, etc.). The apparent head-scratcher is Morris, but his progress and potential could make him a late 1st round steal.

TAKING A RISK (1 out of 3 1st rounders): Josh Selby, Lucas Nogueira, Reggie Jackson, Travis Leslie

Honestly, nothing that crazy here. Most people know Selby's story. The one thing I would note: he may prove people wrong, but Travis Leslie's an interesting case. Usually, a prospect with his athleticism is the kind of guy NBA GM's get excited about. If in 3 years of playing college basketball, there isn't that much buzz about his potential, he could have a very tough professional road.

BAD DECISION (not a 1st rounder): Everybody else

This is a group that's clearly determined to go pro, despite any other feedback they got. For guys like Scotty Hopson, who definitely has pro-level talent, an unsettled situation next year isn't the best place to raise his stock, especially as a rising senior. But for guys like Jereme Richmond, Cory Joseph, and Malcolm Lee, this is a very tough decision to understand solely based on draft stock.  

Mock Draft Links Used:
http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-mock-draft/2011/
http://www.nbadraft.net/2011mock_draft
http://hoopshype.com/draft.htm

NBA Hater Response: The Game Isn't As Good

Every lifelong NBA fan has run into him at one time or another. The most casual of basketball watchers (typically age 35+), who watches 60 minutes of actual NBA basketball a season, mostly of the highlight variety. For reasons that only the most twisted version of karma can justify, you're stuck talking to this guy about sports. You mention that you like the NBA, and suddenly, you're listening to some flimsy subjective analysis of why the NBA is inherently bad. And you have to make a choice.
 
You can meekly agree, affirming every ridiculous thing they say for the sake of avoiding an awkward conversation. If you're having a drink, you can throw it on them (the modern-day face slap with a glove). Or, you can fight stupid with fact. If you're like me, then you're too much of a man to go option #1. But, if you're like me, you're not man enough for option #2. So, you're stuck with option #3. If that's the way you're gonna go, this is an attempt to provide the weapons against the various arguments that come up, one by one. 

Stupid Argument: "The players / game just isn't as good as it was years ago."

The fundamental (-ly flawed) premise of this argument is that for whatever reason, NBA players have been getting progressively worse at every skill in the game. "Guys just can't shoot the way they used to... These guys don't pass at all anymore... the game today is so sloppy and one-on-one now." Shockingly, the data just does not back this up. At all.

As far as shooting, overall league shooting percentages shouldn't be looked at in isolation, because the addition of the 3 point shot, and its increasing use, has some effect on that metric. As a result, it makes more sense to look at the three types of shots available: free throws, 2 pointers, and 3 pointers.

FREE THROWS

The free throw hasn't changed in 40 years. 15 ft away from a 10 foot hoop, and no one is playing defense. Over the past 4 decades, NBA players shot free throws at the following percentages: 75.5% ('72-'81), 75.8% ('82-'91), 74.2% ('92-'01), and 75.6% ('02-'11). That conspicuous low point for any season? The '99 lockout shortened season. Nobody getting worse here.

 2 POINTERS

Again, nothing unusual here. But an interesting question... has defense gotten worse in the last 10 years? I would say that it's no worse than the 80's, which most consider the golden age of NBA ball. Same shooting ability (proven by free throws), similar 2 point shooting results. Watch some old highlights closely when you get a chance... do the rotations and close-outs look as intense as today? I say no, but at the very least, they're equal. That's another point for the NBA fan.

3 POINTERS

This is too easy. Now, obviously, the 3 point shot only started in the NBA in the '79-80 season, so players had to get used to it, but anyone who argues that today's players aren't better at shooting it is looking at this backwards. Or upside down. Or both. Players in the league are shooting a higher proportion of 3's, at the same clip as any other time, if not better. One more for the NBA fan.

ASSISTS-TO-TURNOVERS

If the game is devolving into one-on-one plays that generally make the game sloppy and ugly, then it stands to reason that there should be fewer assists (because of the players that don't know how to pass), and more "i'm-gonna-score-at-any-cost" type turnovers (again, because of the players that don't know how to pass). Not so much. Quite the opposite, in fact. Don't say offenses might be more intricate now, though - you don't need a knockout when you're ahead on points.

If your opponent can even comprehend the beating he's just taken, he'll probably say that numbers don't matter, because he knows basketball. That's the arguing equivalent of him taking his ball and going home. When he does, feel free to break out the Dikembe wag, because nobody brings that weak stuff in your house. The Sam Cassell dance works too, but make sure the crowd is age appropriate - gotta stay classy when you win.

One last thing: there's an outside chance that someone throws random things like rules changes in your face. These aren't arguments based on numbers, so matching him with something equal should be a push. Things like, "Ever since the hand check rule, any guard can score at will." Easy to come back with something like, "Before the Mark Jackson rule, any low post player could score at will."

Hope this helps other NBA fans in the eternal fight against stupid.

Taking the Money: Why and When A Player Enters the NBA Draft Early

Every year around this time, the NBA draft early entry list is finalized, and a small army of college basketball analysts wax poetic about the horrible decisions young athletes are making by trading 1-3 years of eligibility for their chance at an NBA career. The odds of being drafted in the 1st round are so low, they say. Staying in college to hone your craft gives you a better shot at making it, they say. While I can't begin to describe how hypocritical the 2nd sentiment is (how many times do college coaches dump on their power forwards and centers trying to face up because "they care too much about what scouts think?"), the first is pretty misleading too.

The NBA draft, like most drafts, are not about what players do at their current level of the sport, but what they could do at the highest level. And over the last 5 years (the one-and-done rule period), the drafting pattern is plain and simple. Most freshmen who are drafted are lottery picks or 1st rounders, and most seniors who get picked are 2nd rounders. Is this focus on potential over production valid? Well, based on NBA success, the list of under-drafted seniors is pretty short (Wes Matthews), but almost every year there's an under-drafted early entry (DeAndre Jordan, Rudy Gay, Rajon Rondo).

The composition of drafts is only half the story, though. What about all those early entry kids who messed up by listening to the wrong people, and shortchanged themselves? Well, looking at the official early entry candidates who stayed in the last 5 drafts, it looks like this...

Underclassmen making bad decisions? Please. In the last 5 years, 88% of freshmen early entries drafted, 76% in the 1st round, with guaranteed contracts. 76% of sophomore early entries drafted, 58% in the 1st round. Overall, 71% of early entries are getting drafted, and 49% in the 1st round.

So, what advice is there to kids weighing the early entry deadline? There's something important to be gained from looking at the underclassmen who declared early, and weren't drafted.

Undrafted Freshmen: Davon Jefferson, JaJuan Robinson, Nate Miles, Robert Earl Johnson, Tommy Mason-Griffin

Robinson and Johnson were definitively off the NBA radar when they declared. Jefferson, Mason-Griffin, and Nate Miles were all flagged for varying levels of issues after their freshman years (work ethic, chemistry, and recruiting violations, respectively).

Undrafted Sophomores: Courtney Fortson, Dar Tucker, Darius Washington Jr., David Johnson, Dee Bost, Derek Burditt, Donald Jeffes, Keith Brumbaugh, Kellen Lee, Samardo Samuels, Sylven Landesberg, Tedric Hill, Terrence Roderick

Of this group, Washington, Samuels, and Landesberg were truly being evaluated as NBA prospects ahead of the draft. In total, of the 18 undrafted underclassmen, you could argue that only 5 harbored legitimate hopes of being drafted at all, if not in the 1st round. Removing the truly irrational draft entrants, the data is striking: 95% of early entry freshmen were drafted (82% 1st rounders), and 93% of early entry sophomores were drafted (71% 1st rounders). That's 81% of those early entrants drafted, 66% in the 1st round. Doesn't seem like anybody mentions that Tristan Thompson has a 95% chance of being drafted, and an 80% chance of being a 1st rounder, does it?

For the prospect considering early entry, if they've consistently seen their names on the mock drafts of DraftExpress, NBADraft.net, and HoopsHype all season, they need to seriously consider leaving school to play in the NBA. And if most mocks have a player in the lottery, I'd advise against turning down the chance to earn more money in 3 years than most college graduates earn in a lifetime. College basketball analysts love to rail against a DeAndre Jordan or B.J. Mullens leaving early and falling in the draft. What they always fail to mention is the opportunity for life-changing money that guys like Willie Warren and Devin Ebanks gave up by going back to school for one more year, and having scouts fall out of love with their potential.

This decision, of course, has to be made with the perspective of a likely NBA lockout. No one really knows what a new collective bargaining agreement will bring for rookie salaries, guarantees, when players actually play, when players actually get paid, etc. Is that a reason to stay in college, or a reason that a record 56 underclassmen declared for this year's NFL draft with a similar lockout looming? I lean toward the latter.