Boring Draft Analysis

Obviously, the NBA draft (like all sports drafts) isn't an exact science and picking Greg Oden ahead of Kevin Durant could end up looking foolish in retrospect. Still, I think things like Bill Simmons' effort to turn this into a controversial debate are pretty foolish. Consider, say, Seattle. If you could put Oden in the middle with Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis scoring from the perimeter plus a competent Luke Ridnour / Earl Watson platoon at the point, you're in pretty solid shape.

But if -- as seems likely -- you wind up with Durant, what kind of a big man are you going to snag in a sign-and-trade for Rashard Lewis? There's just way, way, way more depth out there in terms of quality perimeter players and it's genuinely rare at this point to see a seven footer in the draft who isn't a "project" (i.e., crapshoot) of some kind.

Comments

"If you could put Oden in the middle with Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis scoring from the perimeter plus a competent Luke Ridnour / Earl Watson platoon at the point, you're in pretty solid shape."

Plus Chris Wilcox seems to have been an serviceable fill-in at four. Of course, the perimiter defense is still horrible.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | June 25, 2007 1:35 PM

Simmons is in love with Durant as something new and unique. But it's weird that he pegs Oden's most likely scenario as being another Patrick Ewing who's great but not quite able to get it done by himself, while ignoring the obvious similar comparison of Durant to Garnett.

Posted by Doug T | June 25, 2007 1:43 PM

"But if -- as seems likely -- you wind up with Durant, what kind of a big man are you going to snag in a sign-and-trade for Rashard Lewis?"

Zach Randolph.

Posted by king thrifty | June 25, 2007 1:45 PM

First of all Bill Simmons is what he is; being a potentially brilliant GM or talent scout probably isn't in the cards for him:

http://therealests.blogspot.com/2007/06/sports-guys-top-nba-draft-blunders.html

Second, Rashard Lewis is G-O-N-E. He is not going back to Seattle with or without Oden. With Vince Carter looking like he'll be re-signing with NJ, Rashard-to-Orlando (way under the cap) is looking like its about 90% certain. While it would be helpful to both Seattle and Rashard to do this as a sign-and-trade, it will happen with or without Seattle's blessing.

The issue with Portland is that is seems Kevin Pritchard a) thinks Randolph has a long term future with the Blazers, b) thinks LaMarcus Aldridge (who is bulking up rapidly) really is a center, and c) thinks Durant really is some unholy result of a Garnett-Nowitzki love affair.

Now, this could all be a smokescreen as some have speculated, but if Pritchard (and Paul Allen and Nate McMillan) really believes those three things then it is entirely possible they DO pass on Oden for Durant.

Posted by matthew c | June 25, 2007 1:51 PM

If Greg Oden is Patrick Ewing, there's no question you take him first. If Ewing had had anyone as good as Ray Allen on any of his teams he'd absolutely have won a ring.

Posted by Antid Oto | June 25, 2007 1:51 PM

it's weird that he pegs Oden's most likely scenario as being another Patrick Ewing who's great but not quite able to get it done by himself, while ignoring the obvious similar comparison of Durant to Garnett.

Any of those kind of predictions are pretty close to worthless. No one player is directly analogous to any other, at least in ways that have real explanatory value.

While I understand what MY is saying, I equally don't like the idea that there is no controversey whatsoever. If you watched the Kansas game, you would have to recognize that this is a guy who at least must be considered at number one. He was incredible at Texas this year. Incredible. Devaluing the year he had seems to have become a trendy thing to do, but you underestimate this guy at your own peril.

Posted by Freddie | June 25, 2007 1:53 PM

"But it's weird that he pegs Oden's most likely scenario as being another Patrick Ewing who's great but not quite able to get it done by himself, while ignoring the obvious similar comparison of Durant to Garnett."

Indeed.

-----

And am I the only one who finds Matthew's decision to depict the Oden/Durant choice as a choice belonging the Sonics as pretty bizarre?

-----

Portland's decision-making process is quite simple:

- If you think Oden has serious back/wrist problems that are going to cripple his career, you take Durant.

- If you think Durant is a game-changing big small forward who is likely to be significantly more valuable player than Garnett or Nowitski, you take Durant.

Otherwise, you take Oden. End of story.

Figuring out what holes you need filled on your team should not enter the process. When you've got the number one pick, you just take the most best long-term player and worry about building around him.

Posted by Petey | June 25, 2007 1:56 PM

To me, the silliest thing about the Patrick Ewing comparison, is how close he came to winning a ring. If John Starks happened to shoot say 5 for 18 instead of 2 for 18 in game 7 of the 1994 finals, Ewing would likely have a ring, and his stature in history would be forever changed.

A single NBA player can NEVER do it alone. Not Russell, not Wilt, not Kareem, not Magic, not Bird, not Hakeem, not MJ, not Shaq, not Duncan. No player in NBA history has ever been able to win titles singlehandedly. Greg Oden will likely become a dominant center, but it is meaningless to say that he won't be able to win championships by himself.

Posted by Pete (not to be confused with Petey) | June 25, 2007 2:06 PM

Petey reminds us of exactly why Portland drafting Sam Bowie with the number two (over jordan and after olajuwon, for you young people) was so frickin' dumb.

it wasn't that portland didn't recognize jordan's potential (no one did); it wasn't that portland was wrong in thinking that with clyde drexler they already had a jordan-like capability (at least as far as anyone was projecting jordan).

it was that sam bowie had already demonstrated that he had physical problems that would cripple his career.

(i have no idea whether this is true of oden, btw, simply wanted to emphasize the thought process issue.)

Posted by howard | June 25, 2007 2:07 PM

Simmons has irrational exuberance for Durant. Oden's monster game against Florida's big three showed that he has at least as much upside potential as Durant, especially considering the slower development rate of big men, the wrist, etc.

I know the argument that a great big man is more valuable than a great perimeter player is scoffed at in some quarters, but that doesn't mean it's not true. A great big man anchors your defense, controls the tempo and rebounding, and provides scoring. Which explains why "the best big man in the league" inevitably wins titles, generation after generation (see: Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem, Kareem, etc etc etc).

I know Simmons thinks NBA GM's are a bunch of idiots, but when they unanimously believe something about the league or a given player, it's probably true. Besides, he'll turn out "right" either way, since old Bill isn't above a little revisionist history every now and then. I seem to recall him selecting Sebastian Telfair as his preseason pick for Most Improved Player before lambasting Danny Ainge for the trade every other week as soon as it became blindingly obvious that Telfair sucks at basketball. (Which most intelligent followers of the NBA already knew.)

The one thing that concerns me a tiny bit about Oden is his health. Chad Ford indicated last week that there were still some question marks about his wrist, not to mention a bulging disk in his back. But without anything more definitive, there's no way you let him pass you by if you're Portland.

Posted by owenz | June 25, 2007 2:08 PM

Pete (and others who have made this point in this thread), i've long meant to prove this out, but on the face of it, i've always contended that of all the top 50 players in nba history, patrick had the least talented teammates.

which isn't to say that patrick's small hands and feet didn't keep him from becoming what i thought he would become when he was at georgetown: the next russell. but even russ couldn't have won with derek harper, john starks, charles oakley, and anthony mason....

Posted by howard | June 25, 2007 2:09 PM

"Second, Rashard Lewis is G-O-N-E. He is not going back to Seattle with or without Oden."

Why Danny Ainge isn't offering Wally and the #5 for Lewis escapes me. The odds of any #5 pick being substantially better than Lewis in the next three years is practically nil, and shipping out Wally allows you to use Theo's expiring deal to extend Big Al. The only problem is that if Gerald Green proves worthy of a big contract, Boston would be in luxury tax hell. But that's the least bad problem to have in the NBA.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | June 25, 2007 2:11 PM

I'm a transplanted New Yorker living out here in Portland. I have to say that it's nice to see the NBA suddenly matter out here. I don't see the Blazers having the cajones to take Durant over Oden, even if they thought it was the right move. And, of course, as you mention, athletic, dominant, 7-foot post players are a rare breed. It'll be interesting, of course given that whomever gets the short end of this (though it's just as likely that everyone wins, given the talent of these two) is going to have to watch their Pacific NW neighbor reap benefits for years. That is, unless the Sonics move.

The other intrigue with this draft is with the big men in the second half of the first round. McRoberts, Smith, Fazekas, "Big Baby" Davis, Williams of BC, and Splitter could all go anywhere from 15-early 2nd. All of them have skills, and all have questions, and it's quite possible that one or more of them mature into all-stars.

If I'm a GM in need of size, I'd have to look carefully at deals with either Philly (2 picks, #21 and 30) or the Suns (#24 and 29) who are both likely to go small, and may be willing to package their picks to move up a few places. It's not unlikely that you could get two of the above-mentioned bigs at those spots, increasing the odds of finding the gem in there.

I think Williams has the biggest upside, if he can stay out of trouble, and Glen Davis, who played at over 310 lbs, but is down to 280 or so, reminds me a bit of Charles Barkley - skills-wise and personality-wise.

Should be interesting.

Posted by ajsmith | June 25, 2007 2:14 PM

"The other intrigue with this draft is with the big men in the second half of the first round. McRoberts, Smith, Fazekas, "Big Baby" Davis, Williams of BC, and Splitter could all go anywhere from 15-early 2nd."

It'll be a good test of GM intelligence to see if anybody grabs that big slug Aaron Gray while any of the above players are still on the board.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | June 25, 2007 2:18 PM

On Ewing and supporting casts: that year at least, I don't think Ewing had a worse supporting cast than Olajuwon, who had an aging Otis Thorpe, a second-year Robert Horry, a rookie Sam Cassell, and, uh, Vernon Maxwell.

Posted by Tom Scudder | June 25, 2007 2:20 PM

Bill Simmons being a popular sports writer is like Friedman being heralded as an intellectual and editorial giant: a product of the terrible relative company rather than the substance.

Posted by alec | June 25, 2007 2:29 PM

Don't sleep on Lasme out of UMass either, who is a devastating interior defender.

Posted by cure | June 25, 2007 2:31 PM

What's Seattle got to do with this? Portland has one good if crazy big man plus a young good looking center.
Also, 7 ftrs are not as rare as they used to be. I'd take Oden for sure but you need to give some thought to your starting five - Durant on that team would look pretty good.
Of course the obvious thing to do is trade big crazy - though what kind of return can you get for him? Hiz craziness getz in the way.

Posted by berger | June 25, 2007 2:36 PM

First of all Bill Simmons is what he is; being a potentially brilliant GM or talent scout probably isn't in the cards for him:

http://therealests.blogspot.com/2007/06/sports-guys-top-nba-draft-blunders.html

----------------------

The errors at the #1 and #2 spots are pretty telling.

The buzz on Howard at the time of the draft alternated between "He's the next Tim Duncan" to "He's soft". What the "He's Soft" crowd failed to remember is that Duncan's rep entering *and* leaving college was that he was "soft". Taking a step back, they might have seen the forest from the trees. The irony was that Howard proved his anti-softness even quicker than Timmy.

On the other one, I'm a Dookie fan for more than 20 years. I loved Williams as a college player. But there was also something about his size that made him a rather big question mark in the NBA, even while the Dicky V's of the world were putting him over. Who knows how he would have turned out without the accident, and whether he would have ever gotten the motivation to pick is game up dramatically. I'm just not sure that his weaknesses wouldn't have always been exposed, and that he would have failed to develop some special skills to make him even a useful role player.

Posted by jdw | June 25, 2007 2:42 PM

It's a crap shoot - they are both great players and any team would be lucky to get either guy - at least judging from past performance and our best future guesses. For the record and without further equivocation, I would take Durant. Nevertheless, I would think any GM would be pretty damn happy to get either guy.

Posted by HungChad | June 25, 2007 2:43 PM

On the other one, I'm a Dookie fan for more than 20 years.

Then you're biased against Okafor, cause he ripped your teams heart out in the 2004 tourney. The Magic made the right choice, but Okafor was also the perfect guy for the Bobcats. And Howard is never going to be Tim Duncan. Next year is going to be huge from him; it's really time for him to start developing an offensive game.

Posted by Freddie | June 25, 2007 2:48 PM

an aging Otis Thorpe, a second-year Robert Horry, a rookie Sam Cassell, and, uh, Vernon Maxwell

Plus Kenny Smith, who was their second-leading scorer after Olajuwon, and Mario Elie, a very consistent outside shooter. Otis Thorpe had one of his best years that year. Sam Cassell wasn't really a big factor, and Vernon Maxwell gets underrated just because he was crazy.

That said, I don't think it's a huge knock on Ewing to acknowledge he wasn't quite as good as Olajuwon. To win that series the Knicks did need another legitimately very good player.

Posted by Antid Oto | June 25, 2007 2:57 PM

But it's weird that he pegs Oden's most likely scenario as being another Patrick Ewing who's great but not quite able to get it done by himself, while ignoring the obvious similar comparison of Durant to Garnett.

If that's what he's saying, he's engaging in some seriously dubious cherry-picking, considering that Ewing is the only dominant center not to win a championship in the past 20-30 years. Meanwhile, the landscape is littered with great forwards who failed to win it all.

Posted by JP | June 25, 2007 2:59 PM

The way Garnett is being discussed in this thread makes no sense. Garnett is a 7' power forward who blocks shots, scores in the post and grabs 1000+ rebounds a year. Referring to him does NOT bolster the "big men will win you championships" argument.

Durant, meanwhile, is a lanky perimeter player who likes to play facing the basket and shoot the three. His list of similarities with Garnett goes like this: Both have long arms. Both play basketball very well. The end. Tracy McGrady is the more obvious comparison if you want to claim Durant won't bring success to his future team.

Posted by Jake H. | June 25, 2007 3:16 PM

Scoring from the low post is not something Garnett does particularly well. This is pretty much the point.

Posted by mpowell | June 25, 2007 4:05 PM

"Vernon Maxwell gets underrated just because he was crazy."

Exactamundo. Similarly, try explaining to a casual fan that Stephen Jackson was an integral part of a championship team, and they'll give you a blank stare.

I actually like my '2' guard to be a bit crazy. It seems to work well with the position's responsibilities.

This is part of the reason I continue to have high hopes for J.R. Smith.

Posted by Petey | June 25, 2007 4:18 PM

Can someone explain to me how Durant's upside could ever lead him to be as great as Kevin Garnett? The Durant I saw last year was a very good outside shooter, but was too physically weak to have the kind of inside game that would fly in the NBA.

Posted by mq | June 25, 2007 4:18 PM

Historical perspective:
Everyone complains about picking Bowie over Jordan. Bowie's career tanked because of injuries, not because he sucked. I don't hear nearly as many complaints about picking Olajawon over him. Remember that Hakeem's titles only came in the years when Jordan was out of the league.

On the flip side, the Jordan years show that the argument about "the best big man in the league" winning titles is hooey. Bill Wennington and Luc Longley weren't exactly the class of the league then. If you you were thinking of the Pistons championships just prior, maybe you meant to say "dirtiest big man in the league".

Posted by DMoore | June 25, 2007 4:18 PM

That said, I don't think it's a huge knock on Ewing to acknowledge he wasn't quite as good as Olajuwon.

Ewing shouldn't even be in the same sentence as Olajuwon. Does anyone remember when Ewing's knee problems became obvious? It was pretty early, IIRC.

And it's Oden over Durant, absolutely. How is this even a question. The worst competition Durant has ever faced was probably the competition he faced last year. In high school camps, he would at least be faced with the best players from the years ahead of him and behind him.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 25, 2007 4:20 PM

Durant is more of a perimeter guy than Garnett, but don't forget that he averaged 11 boards a game last year. For a guy who weighs about a buck seventy-five, that's pretty good.

Posted by too many steves | June 25, 2007 4:22 PM

Anyway, the obvious Oden comparison is David Robinson. They both have every skill you could ever want in a big guy, but neither one seems to have The Fire.

Oden seems to have a better touch around the hoop, and he might be stronger. He's probably a better rebounder. But I don't see him scoring 29 a game like Robinson did that one year.

Posted by too many steves | June 25, 2007 4:26 PM

"I don't hear nearly as many complaints about picking Olajawon over him. "

Picking Olajuwon over Jordan was the correct choice, even though Jordan turned out to be the better player.

You play the odds, and if you play the odds correctly and still lose, you should have a smile on your face.

Posted by Petey | June 25, 2007 4:34 PM

Yeah, those long arms help with the boards. I dunno though -- I thought even Carmelo Anthony might have been a better player coming out of college than Durant. You could see he could play inside, outside, didn't get fatigued, and he wasn't as dependent on his jumper being on to score. (Try watching the *second* half of that Kansas/Texas game). Not to mention that Carmelo led his team to a championship.

Posted by mq | June 25, 2007 4:40 PM

Ewing shouldn't even be in the same sentence as Olajuwon.

Oh come off it. Ewing is one of the top 10 centers of all time. Granted, he's probably somewhere between #8 and #10 on the list, but Olajuwon is probably no higher than #5 (#4 if you rate him ahead of Shaq, I guess).

Posted by Antid Oto | June 25, 2007 4:44 PM

Jordan is the exception that proves the rule here. Picking the very promising perimeter player over the very promising big man will pan out for you . . . if the perimeter guy turns out to be literally the best perimeter player ever. Otherwise, you're better off with the big man.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | June 25, 2007 5:05 PM

dmoore, to repeat what i said up above, the problem with sam bowie going number two is that it was obvious that a guy who broke his leg twice in college ball wasn't going to be a good risk for the pros.

as for hakeem and patrick, yes, hakeem was a little better than patrick (better footwork), but ask hakeem how tough patrick was (and take a look in the record books as to who holds the nba record for blocked shots in the finals).

the best knicks team was the one that - thanks to having players suspended for coming off the bench (sound familiar, phoenix whiners?) - lost to miami after a 3-1 lead, but even that one wasn't as good as even the first olajuwon title team, as both antid and petey have already noted.

Posted by howard | June 25, 2007 5:26 PM

Remember that Hakeem's titles only came in the years when Jordan was out of the league.
On the other hand, he apparently managed to win 2 titles in one year, which is pretty impressive.

Posted by Tom Scudder | June 25, 2007 5:28 PM

Can someone explain to me how Durant's upside could ever lead him to be as great as Kevin Garnett? The Durant I saw last year was a very good outside shooter, but was too physically weak to have the kind of inside game that would fly in the NBA.

See, this here is just absurd. He was an incredible offensive force last year. And he was fourth in the country in rebounds!

Posted by Freddie | June 25, 2007 5:33 PM

Picking the very promising perimeter player over the very promising big man will pan out for you . . . if the perimeter guy turns out to be literally the best perimeter player ever. Otherwise, you're better off with the big man.

...except when you aren't. Should I go through recent draft classes where a very promising big man was chosen ahead of a very promising perimeter player, only to have the perimeter player be the far more valuable commodity? Like, for instance, the best player on your team?

Blanket statements like that are part of the thinking that gets you Michael Olowokandi at number 1.

Posted by Freddie | June 25, 2007 5:37 PM

"Blanket statements like that are part of the thinking that gets you Michael Olowokandi at number 1."

Hmmm... Who do you think should have gone at number 1 in that draft instead? Raef LaFrentz or Tractor Traylor?

Just because Kandi Man was a bust doesn't mean he wasn't the correct choice...

Posted by Petey | June 25, 2007 5:42 PM

Ya, Freddie, after further reflection I decided my comments in this thread were stupid.

Posted by mq | June 25, 2007 5:44 PM

Vernon Maxwell gets underrated just because he was crazy.

Dennis Rodman isn't underrated.

Is it because his craziness was entertaining?

Posted by Thlayli | June 25, 2007 6:08 PM

Anyway, the obvious Oden comparison is David Robinson. They both have every skill you could ever want in a big guy, but neither one seems to have The Fire.

Does Oden really have "every skill you could ever want in a big guy"? At 19? I think he's actually a bit raw at this point.

Regardless, it's not a fair comparison. Robinson came into the league at 24. Oden is 19. We really don't know how Oden's skills will develop. One thing I do know: it's silly to hold Oden's thoughtful nature against him when so many modern players crash and burn because they believe their own hype. Tim Duncan didn't exactly show "fire" as a young player - and Kareem played his whole damn career without it. In my opinion, it's a lot more important for a big man to be a hard worker and relentless than "fiery." After all, it wasn't Michael Olawakandi's lack of chest thumping and screaming that made him suck - it was his total lack of interest in working hard. The guy could have easily been Robert Parrish (another guy without "fire") if he gave a shit.

Robinson had the misfortune of coming of age during a golden age of NBA centers. Oden probably won't have to contend with the likes of Ewing, Young Shaq, and Hakeem (not to mention Mourning, Dougherty and Mutumbo). The best centers not named Duncan in the league today are an aging Shaq and Yao, who is hardly a beacon of burning competitive fire. I know people like Simmons argue that the NBA game evolved past post-oriented big men, but that Tim Duncan guy sure seems like an exception to the new rule. I suspect just the opposite is true: the scarcity of franchise centers in today's NBA will make Oden's life easier and his value even higher.

Posted by owenz | June 25, 2007 6:36 PM

"Picking Olajuwon over Jordan was the correct choice, even though Jordan turned out to be the better player."

Actually, there was a better choice. Houston was then sporting the 'twin towers', the league not having figured out that Ralph Sampson was overrated, not to mention fragile. Portland would have easily taken Sampson for that second pick, along with anything short of Clyde to boot.

The correct trade and pick gets Hakeem AND Jordan to Houston.

Posted by drinkof | June 25, 2007 7:01 PM

"Just because Kandi Man was a bust doesn't mean he wasn't the correct choice"

Wow. Take a look at the 1998 draft and then try to say that with a straight face:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_NBA_Draft

Posted by too many steves | June 26, 2007 12:35 PM

Oh please let Oden slip to the Sonics! They could then sign-and-trade Lewis for a real point guard (MY have you seen Ridnour and Watson play?) and look to pick up a small forward (Gerald Wallace?) somewhere.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | June 26, 2007 1:29 PM