Who Should Thunder draft?

[Smash Williams]

The point on the FA's was that when you factor in replacing FA's then it does limit what you can do with 2 first round picks that are guaranteed roster spots. We are taking two different perspectives at the same issue.

We can agree to disagree on the Center issue. They are definitely outliers and the exception proves the rule. I just think taking flyers on Centers past proven commodities is a risky business and it's hurt the Thunder in some very clear ways.

The Mullens pick was brutal. The guy underachieved in college and was basically a 7'0 SF. He's played crappy for a TERRIBLE team where he gets to shoot as much as he wants. He shot 38% from the field this year! LOL.

To take mullens we passed on Rod Beaoubois, Taj Gibson (BRUTAL), Dajuan Blair, Derrick Brown, Danny Green, Marcus Thornton, Chase Budinger.

The Aldrich pick was worse, if only that it compounded the Mullens pick. Again, you listed a ton of outliers but if you listed all the busts that go along with them it would make it seem much less tasty.

The point on Gasol was that he was considered a pretty poor prospect for most of his young career. He played HS in the states and was basically a big fat doughboy. They literally took a flyer on him and it paid off. I wouldn't call that a super calculated move or say that it's comparable to taking Aldrich at 13 or even Mullens at 24.

I should have been more specific in mid to late lottery. I think anywhere from 9-14 is a tough place to get a Center because you're usually going on potential and having guys that aren't really good at anything yet.

When I said skill I should have included more aspects and more players. There are various skills that if you are really good at one you can pay off as a pick. obviously Ibaka and Sanders were really good at shotblocking which paid off in terms of their lack of offensive skill. Noah had an extreme motor and will and could rebound right away.

Either way I think we can both agree that the Thunder roster needs some retooling and this Free Agency and draft are really important after the disaster of the Harden trade.

"Proven commodities" are a rarity outside the top of the draft. To clarify, I'm sure the bust rate of centers is significantly higher than the bust rate of wings and PGs; however, there are plenty of wings and PGs that don't pan out. I think the potential of hitting on a big man is greater than that of other positions, particularly when center is a position of need.

Calling the Mullens pick "brutal" is having unrealistic expectations for the value of the 24th pick. Late first round picks not panning out doesn't break a franchise. Sometimes, guys drafted at that spot or later pan out, but the vast majority of the time they're at or below replacement level. Beaubois and Blair have so little value to their current teams that either one can currently be had for a late first round pick. Derrick Brown isn't even in the league now. He was let go by the same terrible team for whom Mullens is playing major minutes. No one knows which players are going to pan out at that point in the draft. They're so clustered in perceived value that you can't assume that OKC would've drafted one of the guys that panned out if they had passed on Mullens. Budinger went 20 spots later.

Outside of the top of the draft, it's pretty much nothing but taking flyers. A few years ago ESPN had a series of articles leading up to the draft, largely centered around evaluating the historic value of draft picks. From some of those pieces:

Our statistical analysis shows the people picked 10th or above have a decent chance of becoming excellent NBA players. But go any lower, and we mean any lower, and you're in a casino. A foreign casino, with odd games and different languages. The odds are against players in the last 50 picks giving a team any more value than an average replacement player, as defined by John Hollinger's estimated wins added (EWA) metric.

link

But in reality, criticizing teams for missing on a future star after the first five picks is revisionist history. As we've seen throughout the D.R.A.F.T. Initiative, eEWA drops significantly with each successive pick, and the No. 1 overall pick has by far the highest eEWA. In fact, the biggest lesson to take home from this entire series is that the NBA draft is not typically filled with vast talent. So calling the 12th pick in any draft the biggest bust (even if it preceded Kobe and Nash) just isn't fair -- 11 other teams passed over those guys, too.

link

Beyond the first five picks, the quality falls off rapidly. Beyond the first 10, the selection process is a proverbial crapshoot. Actually, it's not that proverbial; teams drafting after the fifth pick are quite likely to pick a crap player and look back on it while using closely related linguistic variants of the word "shoot."

link

I understand where you're coming from in all of this, as I was once of the same mind on the topic, but I think our philosophical differences arise from what I perceive as you having unrealistic expectations for these picks. It's also why I was down on the Harden package. The Thunder got a #12 pick in Lamb and another pick that everyone expected to land in the late lottery. The value of the trade hinged so heavily on the value of the Toronto pick, which was far more likely to land in the 10-13 range than the 4-7 range.

The Thunder need a quality center more than anything else, but those are difficult to find at a reasonable price via free agency or trade. Conversely, serviceable PGs and wings are readily available on the cheap. It's much easier to sign a Matt Barnes than a center of comparable value (relative to their respective positions).

 

[bocabull]

Smash, if I'm reading your chart correctly ... the 6th picks sucks. Trade down from the 6. Makes sense. There is always some player just outside the lock zone people reach on.

 

[Smash Williams]

Smash, if I'm reading your chart correctly ... the 6th picks sucks. Trade down from the 6. Makes sense. There is always some player just outside the lock zone people reach on.

Yeah, 6-8 outperformed 9-10. Something to keep in mind though is that one or two outliers on the high end can skew the average EWA for a draft slot. I think Dirk and Paul Pierce are the primary reasons that #9 and #10 are so high, and likewise with Kobe and #13. Thus, I wouldn't read too much into it on a pick-to-pick basis (i.e. I don't think drafting #10 is preferable to #6), but the overall trends are telling. As you would expect, the draft is typically top-heavy, dropping off very quickly.

That graph was prior to the 2009 draft. Lillard went 6th last year, and Curry, Monroe, and Barnes all went 7th. Before that, Gallinari and Gordon went 6th and 7th in 2008, so it's not necessarily a bad position.

 

[gracefor24]

Yeah, 6-8 outperformed 9-10. Something to keep in mind though is that one or two outliers on the high end can skew the average EWA for a draft slot. I think Dirk and Paul Pierce are the primary reasons that #9 and #10 are so high, and likewise with Kobe and #13. Thus, I wouldn't read too much into it on a pick-to-pick basis (i.e. I don't think drafting #10 is preferable to #6), but the overall trends are telling. As you would expect, the draft is typically top-heavy, dropping off very quickly.

That graph was prior to the 2009 draft. Lillard went 6th last year, and Curry, Monroe, and Barnes all went 7th. Before that, Gallinari and Gordon went 6th and 7th in 2008, so it's not necessarily a bad position.

Yeah, I feel like we're kinda taking about two different things. The Mullens pick being brutal was based on watching him play and knowing he didn't hve what it took to play at a high level as a big man. I just feel like the Thunder have struggled to evaluate the Center position.

I think the time to take flyers on big men is in te second round. Seems like that's where you get more value. Either way the NBA draft is super difficult and it's not an exact science. The Thunder have hit in some huge ways (Westbrook, Harden, Ibaka, Jackson) but have had some significant misses that were just curious decisions (Green over Noah, Mullens, Aldrich).

 

[coolm]

they will take Dieng.

watch.

 

[Smash Williams]

Yeah, I feel like we're kinda taking about two different things. The Mullens pick being brutal was based on watching him play and knowing he didn't hve what it took to play at a high level as a big man. I just feel like the Thunder have struggled to evaluate the Center position.

I think the time to take flyers on big men is in te second round. Seems like that's where you get more value. Either way the NBA draft is super difficult and it's not an exact science. The Thunder have hit in some huge ways (Westbrook, Harden, Ibaka, Jackson) but have had some significant misses that were just curious decisions (Green over Noah, Mullens, Aldrich).

In terms of expected production, there isn't a significant difference between #24 and #31. Those first two guaranteed seasons didn't hurt the Thunder's cap situation, either. Mullens was an athletic 7-footer who was an unlikely to pan out, but some of his flaws centered around issues (i.e. motor, work ethic) that could potentially be corrected in a good culture. He had some red flags, but you could say that for just about any center drafted outside the Top 5. I don't think anyone who saw DeAndre Jordan at A&M thought, "This kid is going to be a decent enough NBA center to command $10+ million a year."

I don't think "We missed on a flyer at #24 and busted on Aldrich, so let's avoid drafting a center in spite of our needs" is sound reasoning for an otherwise solid organization, especially given that the Thunder won't have the cap space to add a center worth more than the MLE, even after Perkins comes of the books (and engineering a trade for a quality center isn't the easiest task). Drafting Ibaka at #24 was also taking a flyer on a raw big. That he's a 6'10" player that primarily plays PF rather than a 6'11" C doesn't change the reality that he was a big man flyer that paid off.

Those "curious decisions" are curious with the benefit of hindsight. Jeff Green went #5; Yi, Corey Brewer, and Brandan Wright went #6-8, and Noah went #9. People questioned whether Noah could add enough bulk and strength to play center, and his offensive skill set wasn't that attractive, especially for a potential PF. Mullens was widely projected to go mid-first (in particular, he was linked to Chicago). As for Aldrich, you said this the day after he was drafted:

Aldrich is perfect for the Thunder in game and personality.

link

I'm not posting that to call you out, because I thought the same thing. It's about hindsight skewing perceptions. Aldrich didn't pan out, but it wasn't really a "curious" decision at the time. It made perfect sense, given the configuration of the roster at the time. They needed a defensive center with the bulk to bang with the Lakers' 7-footers.

The irony of this discussion is that I'm not in love with any of the bigs projected to be available at #12, but that goes back to it being easier to nitpick big men that don't have the combination of potential and polish to go Top 5. In other words, I'm on board with the idea of gambling on a big at #12, but not for any particular player, especially after seeing the wings that may still be on the board.

 

[sperry]

The Aldrich pick was terrible, and was terrible when they made it. It's not just through the lens of hindsight that Cole Aldrich was a bad pick. That was evident from day 1,and I'm guessing the front office relied on some advanced metric that didn't calcluate the fact that in the real world he was a useless stiff.


Mullens was a fine pick at that point in the draft. A raw 7 footer with upside, and it turned out to be a good pick. He's a reasonable NBA player, which is all you can ask for outside the lottery. The Thunder just got good in a hurry, and didn't have the the time or desire to try to develop a project like him.


Green over Noah was also a fine pick. They got an above average NBA starter with the pick. The fact that someone behind him in the draft turned out to be better isn't a fair consideration. The overwhelming majority of players selected in the NBA draft will end up with someone taken later than them who turns out better.

 

[gracefor24]

In terms of expected production, there isn't a significant difference between #24 and #31. Those first two guaranteed seasons didn't hurt the Thunder's cap situation, either. Mullens was an athletic 7-footer who was an unlikely to pan out, but some of his flaws centered around issues (i.e. motor, work ethic) that could potentially be corrected in a good culture. He had some red flags, but you could say that for just about any center drafted outside the Top 5. I don't think anyone who saw DeAndre Jordan at A&M thought, "This kid is going to be a decent enough NBA center to command $10+ million a year."

I don't think "We missed on a flyer at #24 and busted on Aldrich, so let's avoid drafting a center in spite of our needs" is sound reasoning for an otherwise solid organization, especially given that the Thunder won't have the cap space to add a center worth more than the MLE, even after Perkins comes of the books (and engineering a trade for a quality center isn't the easiest task). Drafting Ibaka at #24 was also taking a flyer on a raw big. That he's a 6'10" player that primarily plays PF rather than a 6'11" C doesn't change the reality that he was a big man flyer that paid off.

Those "curious decisions" are curious with the benefit of hindsight. Jeff Green went #5; Yi, Corey Brewer, and Brandan Wright went #6-8, and Noah went #9. People questioned whether Noah could add enough bulk and strength to play center, and his offensive skill set wasn't that attractive, especially for a potential PF. Mullens was widely projected to go mid-first (in particular, he was linked to Chicago). As for Aldrich, you said this the day after he was drafted:

link

I'm not posting that to call you out, because I thought the same thing. It's about hindsight skewing perceptions. Aldrich didn't pan out, but it wasn't really a "curious" decision at the time. It made perfect sense, given the configuration of the roster at the time. They needed a defensive center with the bulk to bang with the Lakers' 7-footers.

The irony of this discussion is that I'm not in love with any of the bigs projected to be available at #12, but that goes back to it being easier to nitpick big men that don't have the combination of potential and polish to go Top 5. In other words, I'm on board with the idea of gambling on a big at #12, but not for any particular player, especially after seeing the wings that may still be on the board.

Again, I don't disagree with anything you've said and I don't think we are disagreeing. You are taking exception to things I've said from a technical or philosophical level. But we are basically talking about a the same thing.

All the Aldrich point does is show how I've changed my opinion. Usually the thing that translates to the NBA is defense and rebounding. Aldrich had it in spades. Only the league changed and the way it changed has left him in the cold (along with Perkins). Mullens was a flyer and we knew it, I just didn't like the flyer. There's no point in arguing about why they took the flyer, I get it. You don't have to try to convince me of why the Thunder did it or how they came to that decision. I simply thought it was a bad choice then and think it was a bad choice now. Ibaka was a flyer that worked out. The difference was no one had seen Ibaka suck in college! The funny thing about Mullens is he was billed as an athlete, yet at the combine his numbers aren't much better than Jeff Withey's. Again, Draft Express had Mullens at #15 in their mock. Lot's of people liked him. He just didn't pass the sniff test for me after watching him in college. Comparing he and Serge Ibaka is difficult because Ibaka could stay overseas and no one really knew a whole lot about him. He was definitely a bigger flyer and I'm much more ok with that than a flyer on a guy who you watched for a whole year.

I know you spend a lot of time educating people on the board about the NBA but I'm not one who needs it. I've followed the NBA for 25+ years in addition to playing basketball and coaching it. I get everything you're saying.

The thing that made the Green pick ridiculous was that they picked a tweener forward right after they selected Durant! Just a brutal pick. They picked a SF who was going to start for the next 15 yrs then picked a SF right after him. Similar to the Minny PG debacle a few years later.

As you said, any pick at #12 is going to be a bit of a gamble, as Jeremy Lamb has shown. I'm not against the gamble or taking a flyer there. I just happen to think that their last couple of gambles turned out badly and it might not be a bad idea to rethink the strategy a little bit in terms of how they evaluate those prospects.

 

[Smash Williams]

Grace, I hope you don't think I was talking down to you. I have a lot of respect for your NBA opinions (and zero respect for your KU fandom). I thought it was an interesting two-way discussion of draft philosophy, though I am guilty of belaboring my points.

The Durant/Green situation is still fascinating to me. At the time of the draft, the decision to take Green with the Boston pick made a lot of sense to me. Given the direction of the franchise, that team needed an infusion of young talent. If Green was the best player available, so be it. The key difference between this situation and Minnesota's Rubio/Flynn debacle is that Green and Durant were wings projected to play multiple positions. The given reasoning at the time was that Presti wanted long and athletic interchangeable parts, which was a prescient approach in light of the league's subsequent evolution. Green also had some point forward skills that Durant didn't possess (that's clearly changed).

We saw that the Durant/Green combo didn't work for a number of reasons: Green was a terrible rebounder as a PF, OKC never acquired a center to cover up his weaknesses, Ibaka emerged as both a better player and a better fit, Harden was better suited to carry the offensive load when Durant and Westbrook were on the bench, and the Lakers traded for a second 7-footer with a deadly post game. Some of those things were related to Green being a better fit at SF than PF, but I think the primary reason it didn't work is that Green simply wasn't that good. Aside from his size, which was destined to be an issue when defending PFs, he wasn't even a good rebounder for a SF, and his 3-point shooting regressed after one breakout year. He essentially provided the defensive liability of small ball without the offensive uptick, as he didn't stretch the floor.

The funny thing about it all is that Durant, after starting out as SG, has developed into a better fit at PF than Green. Green has always had the advantage in strength and bulk, but Durant's physical development, his center-like length (something like a 7-inch standing reach advantage over Green), superior rebounding, and the dearth of powerful post-up PFs have made him better suited to be a small-ball PF.

 

[gracefor24]

Grace, I hope you don't think I was talking down to you. I have a lot of respect for your NBA opinions (and zero respect for your KU fandom). I thought it was an interesting two-way discussion of draft philosophy, though I am guilty of belaboring my points.

The Durant/Green situation is still fascinating to me. At the time of the draft, the decision to take Green with the Boston pick made a lot of sense to me. Given the direction of the franchise, that team needed an infusion of young talent. If Green was the best player available, so be it. The key difference between this situation and Minnesota's Rubio/Flynn debacle is that Green and Durant were wings projected to play multiple positions. The given reasoning at the time was that Presti wanted long and athletic interchangeable parts, which was a prescient approach in light of the league's subsequent evolution. Green also had some point forward skills that Durant didn't possess (that's clearly changed).

We saw that the Durant/Green combo didn't work for a number of reasons: Green was a terrible rebounder as a PF, OKC never acquired a center to cover up his weaknesses, Ibaka emerged as both a better player and a better fit, Harden was better suited to carry the offensive load when Durant and Westbrook were on the bench, and the Lakers traded for a second 7-footer with a deadly post game. Some of those things were related to Green being a better fit at SF than PF, but I think the primary reason it didn't work is that Green simply wasn't that good. Aside from his size, which was destined to be an issue when defending PFs, he wasn't even a good rebounder for a SF, and his 3-point shooting regressed after one breakout year. He essentially provided the defensive liability of small ball without the offensive uptick, as he didn't stretch the floor.

The funny thing about it all is that Durant, after starting out as SG, has developed into a better fit at PF than Green. Green has always had the advantage in strength and bulk, but Durant's physical development, his center-like length (something like a 7-inch standing reach advantage over Green), superior rebounding, and the dearth of powerful post-up PFs have made him better suited to be a small-ball PF.

It's all good!

Totally agree on Green. I just never got the idea that Durant could be a SG. That was crazy talk. I think the interesting thing is that guys like Noah have proved that playing hard is a skill and a really desirable one at that! I just was never impressed with Green in college as an impact NBA guy. He seemed destined to be a tantalizer. All the tools with none of the production.

It's going to be fascinating to see how the Thunder begin to shape or reshape the roster. The team is feeling much like the team that Cleveland built around Lebron. Solid team surrounding him but just not quite fit to his skills. They also learned that you can't surround him with non-offensive players because it kills your offense and makes the star carry too much of the burden.

Miami has realized that you just have to put shooters and hustle guys around the 2-3 stars. Guys with high bball IQ's who will be in the right place at the right time. What's crazy is the Thunder have surrounded KD and RW with non-shooters (Sefalosha, Perkins, Jackson) and low IQ guys (Sefalosha, Perkins, Ibaka). Those guys aren't bad players but they just don't do a lot of the little things.

Even compare Sefalosha to Tony Allen. Both good defenders but Allen is a plus athlete who wreaks havoc on defense, rebounds above average, and is a plus athlete who finishes at the rim and forces your SG to block him out because he hits the offensive boards like crazy.

I think the Thunder REALLY need Lamb to develop into a lights out shooter and defender for this thing to work. I also think that if Mclemore falls to #4 the Thunder need to see about working a trade with Charlotte. Chad Ford brought it up on ESPN and I think that would a great trade. Give Charlotte the #12, #29 pick and Lamb for the #4 pick. A guy like McLemore would be a perfect fit for the Thunder. He's a plus athlete and a plus shooter.

They can't amnesty Perkins so that means they just have to bench him. I think you move Serge to Center full time and add Collison to the starting lineup. You hope that Jones develops into your backup 4.

I think you let Martin go if you can get someone like Reddick for a value deal (doubtful). I just hate Martin on the Thunder because he is SO BAD defensively.

 

[bocabull]

McClemore shouldn't slide to 4 should he? Would be surprised if he's not 1 or 2. I would take him #1.