The Problem with NBA Scouts: An Early Look at the 2009 NBA Draft
Last spring, I wrote about my philosophy for the NBA Draft. I wrote that I would take Memphis' O.J. Mayo as the #1 pick based on his potential to develop into an NBA superstar because he possessed the characteristics like competitiveness, focus and discipline which often determine a player's ultimate success.
I read ESPN's Chad Ford's latest look at the 2009 NBA Draft and the comments that he made, which supposedly reflect those of NBA General Managers, and their thoughts seem to reflect an unwillingness to learn from recent drafts and instead to fall back on the popular perceptions of height, length and upside.
When the NBA instituted its Age Limit, those in favor argued that high school players needed a year of college to develop their skills. However, NBA teams continue to draft on perceptions, not skills. At the end of last season, most viewed Davidson's Stephon Curry as a mid-1st Round pick (15-20). He dominated the post-season last year and almost single-handedly beat eventual champion Kansas. What do scouts want to see? He is a shooter and he shoots as well as anyone, and he can create his own shot. Yet, through most of the season, most mock drafts had six to seven guards rated above Curry. He started the season at #22 on Ford's list. If Curry clearly illustrates the most skill at the college level, and scouts still feel other players should be drafted ahead of him, then why do these players need college? Skill development is not enhancing their draft status; instead, teams value the same talent which was present when they were in high school.
Instead, last year, scouts drolled over Gonzaga's Austin Daye. He looks like an ideal NBA player, sort of a more athletic Dirk Nowitski with more length. He's 6'11 with legitimate guard skills, including his shooting. However, he never seems to perform to the levels that his talent suggests. As Ford writes, "Daye has all the tools of a Top 5 pick, but none of the production."
Fortunately, scouts seem to be learning, as Curry continues to rise and Daye continues to fall. However, opinions about other players are curious.
I read ESPN's Chad Ford's latest look at the 2009 NBA Draft and the comments that he made, which supposedly reflect those of NBA General Managers, and their thoughts seem to reflect an unwillingness to learn from recent drafts and instead to fall back on the popular perceptions of height, length and upside.
When the NBA instituted its Age Limit, those in favor argued that high school players needed a year of college to develop their skills. However, NBA teams continue to draft on perceptions, not skills. At the end of last season, most viewed Davidson's Stephon Curry as a mid-1st Round pick (15-20). He dominated the post-season last year and almost single-handedly beat eventual champion Kansas. What do scouts want to see? He is a shooter and he shoots as well as anyone, and he can create his own shot. Yet, through most of the season, most mock drafts had six to seven guards rated above Curry. He started the season at #22 on Ford's list. If Curry clearly illustrates the most skill at the college level, and scouts still feel other players should be drafted ahead of him, then why do these players need college? Skill development is not enhancing their draft status; instead, teams value the same talent which was present when they were in high school.
Instead, last year, scouts drolled over Gonzaga's Austin Daye. He looks like an ideal NBA player, sort of a more athletic Dirk Nowitski with more length. He's 6'11 with legitimate guard skills, including his shooting. However, he never seems to perform to the levels that his talent suggests. As Ford writes, "Daye has all the tools of a Top 5 pick, but none of the production."
Fortunately, scouts seem to be learning, as Curry continues to rise and Daye continues to fall. However, opinions about other players are curious.
Comments
A.Grant
(Guest)
(Guest)
11/22/2009
He definitely can play ball but it comes down to who you know
THE TRUTH
(Guest)
(Guest)
07/28/2009
I think the NBA is a joke..its all about hype and big school players...I know a guy name Kevin Sowell that could be a great NBA player..i dare u to google his name and research the things he had done.
All I can say is wow
I understand "ceiling" and "potential." I just question it. Danny Granger had a low "ceiling" and no "position" so he fell on draft day. My point is that once you get past the first several picks - the potential superstars - you have a choice: gamble or draft someone that you know will contribute. The bad teams tend to gamble on players like Ndubi Ebi, Saer Sene, Patrick O'Bryant, Sebastian Telfair, etc., while the better teams are smarter will their gambles (Tony Parker, Andrei Kirilenko, Kendrick Perkins, Andrew Bynum, etc.) or draft players who are overlooked despite their solid track records (Luke Walton, Rajon Rondo, etc.).
Actually, Luke Jackson fits my argument perfectly. Jackson was considered a mid to late 1st round pick after the college season, but only became a lottery pick based on his pre-draft workouts and tests, as he tested as the most athletic player in his draft. He was not drafted based on his playing time at Oregon, but based on his shuttle runs times and his be
Players like Trajan Langdon, Luke Jackson, Adam Morrison, Andre Emmett, Ike Diogu, Shawn May, etc seem to have conveniently been left out of your article. I wonder why?
Comparing Hansbrough to Millsap is a decent comparison, but there were more questions on Millsap because he played at La Tech as opposed to North Carolina. Millsap is an undersized post player, while he may be undersized, he still has the ability to score the basketball down low. I'm not sure Hansbrough possesses that trait. That little flip shot he shoots around the basket is going to get abused and blocked in the NBA and I'm not sure he can post up consistently in the NBA and score. That said, he is going to be a big body who runs the floor, hustles, rebounds, and plays defense....so he will have some value.
The thing I think you're missing in your article and it pertains to Hansbrough, is a player's CEILING. Hansbrough likely has a low ceiling, so some GM's are going to bypass him for a player with a higher ceiling even if Hansbrough is the better player now and the safer pick.
While your article talks about players who MADE it, you don't mention any from the same categ
They don't value effort and basketball I.Q. Darko Milicic is all you need to say.
Thomas is definitely having ups and downs... good points you make
I like this article you. You compared Hansbrough to Millsap which shows some daring. I notice that sports writers often refuse to compare white players to black players - although the two players may have similar skills. Anyway - I recently wrote an article slamming Duke that you might enjoy. I am a Carolina grad - not that I am biased or anything!
Carlos Boozer is an all-star who lasted until the second round because he was "too small" and "not athletic enough." Gilbert Arenas was a 2nd round pick because he "didn't have a position." I wouldn't say Redick is a "total" flop yet; he's still on his rookie contract and he really hasn't been given an opportunity yet. But, he played well last night in a start. As for the Spurs, Tony Parker as the last pick in the 1st Rd and Ginobili as the next to last pick in the 2nd Rd, not to mention George Hill, Luis Scola and others are why they are credited with being a smart drafting team. Duncan was just luck, but the others were not.
Comments 1 - 10 (of 17)
Next >>
|
|