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.