Size Matters

Rose or Beasley in the draft? Chad Ford says the odds are now leaning toward Rose:

In the last 20 years, only one player shorter than 6-6 -- Allen Iverson -- has ever gone No. 1. When in doubt, NBA GMs almost always opt for a big man. However, as we watch point guards such as Paul, Williams and Tony Parker dominate in the playoffs, the thinking is beginning to change. It's no longer considered a given that a big man is the key to winning in the NBA.

Tony Parker is a very good player, but realistically he's the third-best guy on that team. Certainly anyone who's looking at the San Antonio Spurs, 1999-2008 and thinking to himself "maybe a big man isn't the key to winning in the NBA after all" really ought to pay more attention to that Tim Duncan guy. Similarly, Deron Williams is a young player that any team (except the Hornets) would be thrilled to have, but the one-two punch of Okur and Boozer is nothing to sneeze at in terms of big men.

Paul makes the point better, this season at least he's having a genuinely dominant season in the way that normally only big men have -- the talent distribution curve for backcourt players is generally much flatter and it's rare to have someone stand out from the pack the way Paul has. But it seems to me that it would be pretty crazy to toss out decades worth of information indicating that the odds favor going with the big guy purely because Paul had a fantastic season this year. Weird things happen in life, which is what makes it interesting, but to just expect that every talented college point guard is now going to put on Paul-caliber performances is crazy.

Comments

Weird things happen in life, which is what makes it interesting, but to just expect that every talented college point guard is now going to put on Paul-caliber performances is crazy.

Yes it is crazy. But, never-the-less, that is how the world works.

Posted by mpowell | May 13, 2008 5:41 PM

"Certainly anyone who's looking at the San Antonio Spurs, 1999-2008 and thinking to himself "maybe a big man isn't the key to winning in the NBA after all" really ought to pay more attention to that Tim Duncan guy."

The question isn't whether you'd rather have Tony Parker or Duncan. Duncan is a great big man, one of the best of all time while Parker is a very good small player. The question is do you draft a great guard over a good big man. Would you draft Kevin Durant over Chris Paul? Would you draft Jordan over Sam Bowie? Wait a minute, I think we know the answer to that one now.

If Rose is in Paul's class, I'd take him over Beasley.

Posted by SteveH | May 13, 2008 5:47 PM

The "lessons of history" are usually some knee-jerk reactions to the latest screwup. See: politics. So it's not that people really think that in most drafts there are 6-0 players you can build a team around. Rather, they keep thinking about how the Hawks and Bucks *really* screwed up in not picking up Paul or Deron Williams.

Posted by Colatina | May 13, 2008 5:48 PM

I agree that teams shouldn't look at Paul and Williams (and certainly Parker) and determine the world has turned upside down. However, Rose over Beasley as the top pick makes a lot of sense for many teams.

A good example would be my favorite team, the Portland Trailblazers. Not only do they need a point guard more than a power forward (or even small forward if you think Beasley could be one), but Beasley has some "character issues" that seem to concern some people.

Now, if Beasley graded out way, way higher than Rose you take him regardless of need. But if they have similar potential then team need and player personality may trump "size matters" when picking between two players.

Also, I think Rose is just going to be a lot better than Beasley. He'll probably put up a lot of good stats, but he doesn't strike me as a big time winner in the NBA.

Posted by matthewcc | May 13, 2008 5:50 PM

Can you really have this discussion without mentioning the rule changes and the stylistic changes in the game over the past 3-4 years? It seems obvious to me that guards who can go by people are way more valuable than they were 5 years ago.

Of course, the real question isn't, "is a point guard more valuable than a power forward?" The real question is, "Is Rose better than Beasley?" I've only seen Rose play 4 or 5 times and I've only seen Beasley play twice, I think. From that limited sample, I'd take Rose in a heartbeat.

Posted by too many steves | May 13, 2008 5:53 PM

I'm not sure it's quite as straightforward as MY's suggesting. Looking at PER for this season, it looks like 11 of 20 play as a four or a five. Certainly more than ones and two (five). But not enough that I'd say that a good big man is obviously a better pick than a good backcourt player.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 13, 2008 5:59 PM

The NCAA tournament has a funny way of altering people's perceptions. Beasley was widely considered to be the best player the entire year. Rose played on a great Memphis team that played the whole tournament. Due to the exposure and the great tournament, now everyone's convinced he's better than Beasley? Its truly bizarre to me, and unless you are a lottery team with a very good 4, you would be insane not to choose Beasley. Well, maybe insane is a bit too strong, but I think Beasley's a sure thing. People forget, but he had better numbers than Durant and has a much more NBA-ready body. He should have been the player of the year. He had better numbers than "Psycho T."

Posted by Stacy | May 13, 2008 6:04 PM

SCMT,
I see your point, but I don't think that tells the whole story. I would have to do further investigation, but maybe the disparity in players' PER is greater when talking about great vs. average 4's and 5's Sure, if these players were going to be Tim Duncan and Jason Kidd, you might call it a wash, but if they both happened to be "good" players such as Elton Brand and Mike Bibby, I think you have to go with the big.

Posted by Stacy | May 13, 2008 6:12 PM

Stacey, its certainly true that Rose's stock went up during the tourney, but even before that a non-insignificant amount of people rated Rose over Beasley. There are questions about whether Beasley has that same desire as someone like Durant, or whether he's the second coming of Derrick Coleman (as one ESPN columnist suggested). I think he can come into the NBA and score 20 points a game and get lots of endorsement deals, and I'm not saying I wouldn't want him on my team, but I think Rose pushes a team a little further towards an NBA title.

Also, Memphis is talented, but its not exactly the Fab Five.

Posted by matthewcc | May 13, 2008 6:20 PM

Matthew,
Those are all fair points. But while that number was not insignificant, there was also no real question about who was going to be drafted #1. At least not by the pundits. I mean, do they actually watch the games before the tournament? Rose didn't do anything different than he did all year. Also, I've heard the comparisons to DC. And while they certainly have a simlar strong hand, size, and skin tone, I think it would be silly to assume that Beasley is also going to underachieve. Really, there's no reason to think EXCEPT that he looks like Derrick Coleman. But I will agree with you that Rose could push a lot of teams closer to a title, but I think the emergence of CP3 and D Williams has more to do with this line of thinking than anything. I don't even know why I'm sticking up for Beasly so much. I just find the media so fickle when it comes to things like this.

Posted by Stacy | May 13, 2008 6:28 PM

Also, I think if you trade Beasley for Rose OR Hansbrough, Memphis or NC would win the whole thing going away. Easy.

Posted by Stacy | May 13, 2008 6:30 PM

"Better than Tyler Hansbrough" isn't exactly the same thing as "best player in the draft."

Posted by too many steves | May 13, 2008 6:37 PM

It's been said before, but: you always draft the big guy, unless the guard is in that class. Rose is in that class. He could be CP3 in a few short years.

Posted by 55 | May 13, 2008 6:40 PM

Too Many,
Never said it was. I was simply saying he had better numbers than the National Player of the Year the past two years. I also find it funny that people think Rose will be a CP3 in the next few years. He's much more of a scorer and not as good of a ball handler. I see him as Marbury with a higher ceiling.

Posted by Stacy | May 13, 2008 6:44 PM

The year Chris Paul and Deron Williams came out, Milwaukee stupidly picked Andrew Bogut first. At the time, he was the obvious pick, and no shame to them for making it, but in retrospect it was foolish. Picking a point guard first looks attractive provided recent draft history. A great point allows a team to do many things normally unavailable to them. Given Beasley's questionable, surly attitude and what already appears to be a penchant for meaningless stats, I'd say Rose is a no-brainer for first pick now.

Posted by Eric | May 13, 2008 6:45 PM

As a college player it seems like Beasley compares very similarly to Glenn "Big Dog" Robinson except with greater range on his jump shot. If I'm a GM and I think about that and then think that Rose compares to Chris Paul, it's a no-brainer to take Rose. Beasley supposedly has "maturity issues" whereas Big Dog, while at Purdue, actually did pretty well leading his team (albeit at the strong hand of Gene Keady) though that came to a quick halt once at the NBA. Whether by dint of position or team success Rose appears to get high leadership marks.

Posted by Odenize | May 13, 2008 6:48 PM

I'm a bit confused by what you refer to as Beasley's "penchant for meaningless stats." What meaningful games did he play in? His team simply wasn't that good. Kansas State upset USC in the tourney and then lost to Wisconsin. He played well in both games. Just like this Democratic nomination, the media creates a narrative and runs with it regardless of whether or not its true.

Posted by Todd | May 13, 2008 6:50 PM

I'm not sure why everyone keeps comparing Rose and Paul. Sure, they are both point guards, but their games really aren't that similar.

Posted by Ted2 | May 13, 2008 6:54 PM

I don't think I've ever agreed with Mat as much as I do in this post. The way the media has latched on to Rose late in the season AND offseason has truly been bizarre. He's probably going to be a very a good player, maybe great, but Beasley is a sure thing.There is no other explanation than the emergence of CP3 and D. Williams.

Posted by Tony | May 13, 2008 6:56 PM

this year, it really depends on which team gets the first pick. If it's the Sonics, they should definitely take Rose, since they have no guards at all. If it's Miami, I'd take Beasley since they have Wade.

Posted by Steven Donegal | May 13, 2008 7:10 PM

Stacy: Rose may not be CP3 in terms of ball-handling, but he's damn good.

NBADraft.net is also projecting Rose as 1: http://nbadraft.net/

Posted by 55 | May 13, 2008 7:11 PM

I think GMs would be better of thinking about what a player can do and what make reasonable assumptions about how they might improve their game with work. Comparing a college player to Chris Paul is ridiculous since CP3 is a once in a generation talent at the point and it is pretty much impossible to project that someone will develop to Paul's level. The GMs need to remember that the debate is between Beasley and Rose, not Derek Coleman vs. Chris Paul. I'm really tired of the facile comparisons that people are always making about players (eg: Bargnani is the next Nowitzki!).

Posted by Ethan | May 13, 2008 7:12 PM

It seems NBA personnel men have as likely a chance of recognizing greatness as Matt or Stacy or me, even if a good big man is available. Obviously, taking a Wake Forest graduate (Duncan and Paul) is the key element here. Successful teams need both a good big man and a good point guard, unless you have Jordan or Kobe. Choosing Sam Bowie or Bogut did not turn out to be the best move. Choosing Dwight Howard did.

I do not know who has the first choice. If that team needs a point guard, take Rose. If not take Beasley. One or both may turn out to be excellent in the NBA.

Posted by Mudge | May 13, 2008 7:13 PM

also, it's worth remembering that way before the season even began Rose and OJ Mayo were widely assumed to be going #1 and #2 in the draft is some order. The time when Beasley's stock was rocketing was around the time Rose and Mayo both were seen to be not exactly disappointing, but not setting the world on fire either. I think the tournament pushed aside any doubts some people may have had about Rose as far as being an overrated high school player.

Posted by matthewcc | May 13, 2008 7:15 PM

Chris Paul is Superman.

Derrick Rose is Iron Man.

Posted by dorkus malorkus | May 13, 2008 7:16 PM

Some support for Rose's ball-handling abilities: His assist to turnover ratio last year was 1.7. If he improves a little, he could be Tony Parker (career 2.2). CP3 is 3.9 career, including a great 4.6 in 07-08.

Posted by 55 | May 13, 2008 7:25 PM

I think if you go back and look at the biggest lottery stiffs of all time, most of them were centers. Duncan, I think, is a bad example, because with the exception of that bogus, strike-shortened title the Spurs won in '99, it wasn't until they picked up Parker that they began to be a dominant team with the potential to be a dynasty. If you want to see how good the Spurs would be without Parker, check out the '04 Olympic team that Duncan carried all the way to a bronze.

Posted by Steve Smith | May 13, 2008 7:27 PM

Just looking at the numbers, it strikes me as a little funny that we're looking at a big man and a point guard, and the big man can shoot the 3 better than the point guard.

You might expect this if the point guard was on the worse team and had to toss up more desperation shots, or if he was playing against stronger competition. But both of those factors work the opposite way here.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 13, 2008 7:32 PM

It's about time for a Bad Matt post. NBA draft advice from the guy who prides himself on not giving a shit about college ball.

Regardless of the bullshit Ford puts out to make espn Insiders feel like they aren't wasting their money, the people who've actually seen Rose play don't find it hard to believe at all. Beasley is a good prospect, and was jobbed out of a player of the year award based on the overrated white guy from a program the whitebread media hacks adore (ie Duke, Gonzaga, or UNC uber alles), but Rose is by far the better pro prospect.

He didn't have a good tourney, he went absolutely fucking nuts on everybody; showing breathtaking athleticism, incomprehensible skills, and an amazing feel for the game. He averaged 20.8 ppg, 6.0 apg, and a better than a 3:1 a/to ratio (which is unheard of at the ncaa level). He was playing against some of the best players in college and made them look helpless. He is the reason Darren Collison is going back to ucla instead of being a lottery pick in june.

Chris Paul wishes he was Derrick Rose. In two years, you are going to be complaining that you don't give max contracts to good but not great players like Gilbert Arenas, you give them to superstars like Derrick Rose.

Posted by Client #11 | May 13, 2008 7:39 PM

Matthew uses the terms "backcourt players" and "big guys". I think that is slightly misleading - we're talking about a point guard and a power forward. I think that points are harder to find than 2-guards (or 3s), and centers more difficult to find than power forwards. And, IMO, finding a good point guard is slightly harder than finding a good power forward, so all things being equal, I'd rather get a PG than a PF.

But I'm also thinking about Matthew's claim in another way. Taking the 2007 NBA draft out of the question (because we don't know about Oden and don't know if the Durant-as-guard experiment is worthwhile), in the prior 6 drafts the best player in the draft was a guard 3 times:
2006 Roy
2005 Paul
2004 Howard
2003 James
2002 Stoudamire (or Yao)
2001 Agent Zero

I would have no problem taking a guard with the #1 pick.

Posted by Al | May 13, 2008 7:39 PM

Oops. That was supposed to be:

Beasley is a good prospect, and was jobbed out of a player of the year award based on the overrated white guy from a program the whitebread media hacks adore (ie Duke, Gonzaga, or UNC uber alles) clause, but Rose is by far the better pro prospect.

...but when commenting on Matthew Yglesias' blog...

Posted by Client #11 | May 13, 2008 7:46 PM

Seriously, how the fuck did Tyler Hansbrough win the Player of the Year award over Beasley? Was the thing selected by West Virginia Democrats?

Posted by too many steves | May 13, 2008 7:47 PM

2001 Agent Zero

Kwame is just biding his time.

I agree with the case made against Rose. He really doesn't have a great handle, and with one-and-done, the NCAA is probably worse competition he faced in a given year. At least in high school, he might compete in camps against people of comparable skill. I'd take Beasley. But your general point, Al, is well taken.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 13, 2008 7:50 PM

As usual the smart Al shows up for basketball threads.

If you look at draft history the big mistakes are almost always taking a big guy over the guard(I can't think of a single case that isn't but there must have been at some point so I hedge)

Center and PG are the two toughest positions to fill. If Beasly were like Duncan (a 7 footer who is really center even though they call him the PF) that would be different, but smallish PF, even if he is very good isn't a difference maker the way a PG is. What is Beasly's upside? Elton Brand? A very nice plyer, every team would love ot have him, but if you could trade him straight up for Deron Williams you'd do it fast before the Jazz came to their senses.

Posted by eric k | May 13, 2008 7:54 PM

I think Odenzie and Al have it right--calling Beasley a big man is misleading. He's a combo forward, probably likely to play the 3 in the pros, or maybe as an undersized 4. How many franchise combo forwards have their been? Bird, and...?

I'd rather have a great center than a great PG, but I'd rather have a great PG than a great combo forward.

Posted by Doug T | May 13, 2008 7:58 PM

Steve,

They should rename the player of the year award "the over rated white guy from Duke, NC or Gonzaga who is going to suck in the pros" award.

Even the runner up white guys suck. IIRC the voting the last time I paid attention was 1) Reddick 2) Morrison 3) Roy. We know how that turned out.

Durrant snuck by last year because their weren't any over rated white guys to pick from:-)

Posted by eric k | May 13, 2008 8:01 PM

calling Beasley a big man is misleading.

How big is he? Someone wrotej 6'10", which was bigger than I expected, and definitely makes me more inclined to treat him as the #1.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 13, 2008 8:04 PM

steve smith gets the 1999 nba season wrong, the spurs wrong, and the 2004 olympics wrong.

1999 was a short season because the owners locked the players out. important difference between that and a strike. the 1999 spurs hit their stride in march and never lost it. they easily handled the lakers, who were a year away from being hailed a dynasty, and swept a good portland team. the only ugly series was against the knicks where the worst aspects of the pre-2003 popovich matched the ugliness that is a jeff van gundy coached team.

tony parker is a very good player, in the last two years. before that, he was a young talent who was a tentative and tended to disappear in key spots. the spurs won in 2003 becuase they had one young excellent big and another, aged, but wise big; they got lots of offense from duncan and funneled the other team's offense to ducnan and robinson, who were dominant in the paint. they were helped by a couple big games from stephen jackson and a lot of quality minutes from manu ginobili. ginobili, not parker, was duncan's key partner in the 2005 title run. and ginobili not parker brought the spurs back, with duncan, from a huge deficit in game 7 against the mavs in 2006 and then he made a stupid foul. but you know what: he plays hard and sometimes that means a stupid foul; tony parker doesn't get them close enough to make a mistake parker has stepped up in the last two years, but he is still, for now, the third best palyer on his team and not chris paul

and, oh my, that was ginobili who took argentina to the 2004 olympic title, though great as manu is, it helps to have a real team, which duncan and the usa did not.

so, rose or beasley? damned if i know.

as to al, i wish y'all would try to rebut his non-basketball arguments instead of simply engaging in ad hominen attacks. petey at this point, sadly, deserves the abuse, which doesn't mean that we should necessarily give it to him. i find, though i disagree with most of what he says that al attempts to argue and support his points. when you simply rail in response, you look stupid, even if you think you've won the day by calling him a name. i say this as one who every day has to counter what i think are incorrect arguments, but no judge is going to rule for my criminal accused client, because i rail. i understand that different rules apply here, but to many readers who rarely comment, you, not al, look stupid. even though it's al whom i often think is mistaken.

Posted by bigbadwolf | May 13, 2008 10:03 PM

I saw both Durant and Beasley play quite a bit; my take is that Durant was smoother, but Beasley has that killer instinct. He was tougher down low, was just as good a shooter, and if he'd been on a team with enough of a supporting cast, he'd have impressed Chris Ford and company more.

Rose is good, but not great. Sheron Collins (5'11"/205) took him out of the NCAA finals. Those ~8 minutes in the second half when he 'took over the game' were the only time he looked like a lottery pick.

I agree the game's changed, and you need better backcourt play, and that high quality forwards are more common than high quality guards; no one wants another Bogut, Morrison, or Okefor.

Posted by PW | May 13, 2008 10:07 PM

Beasley's ceiling is Elton Brand? Huh? Have you seen him play? He's two inches taller, just as strong, and he shot 38 percent from 3. Oh, and he was clearly the best player in college basketball as a frosh. C'mon.

Posted by Stacy | May 13, 2008 10:29 PM

[Rose]'s probably going to be a very a good player, maybe great, but Beasley is a sure thing.There is no other explanation than the emergence of CP3 and D. Williams.

In 2006, the best guard, Brandon Roy, went sixth. Andrea Bargnani went first.

In 2005, the best guards, Williams and Paul, went third and fourth. Andrew Bogut went first.

In 2003, the best guard, Dwyane Wade, went fifth. Darko Milicic went second.

In 2001, the best guard, Jason Richardson, went fifth. Kwame Brown went first.

In 2000, the best guard, Jamal Crawford, went eighth. Stromile Swift, Marcus Fizer, Dermarr Johnson, and Chris Mihm went ahead of him.

In 1998, the best guards, Mike Bibby and Vince Carter, went second and fifth. Michael Olowokandi went first.

In 1997, the best (non-high school) guard, Chauncey Billups, went third. Keith Van Horn went second.

Obviously this chain goes all the way back to Bowie/Jordan. Big men are always overvalued in the draft. Sometimes--Duncan, Howard, Yao, LeBron--it's justified, but the best guard in the draft is almost always a good value.

Posted by right | May 13, 2008 10:37 PM

"Decades worth of information" includes the records of high picks like Darko and Kwame Brown.

I don't have a strong opinion about Beasley v. Rose. I'll grant you, there is a little irrational exuberance for point guards this year, and there always ought to be a slight bias toward big men, since height is the thing nobody can teach or develop. But "always take the big man" is a musty old piece of conventional wisdom.

Posted by dix hill | May 13, 2008 10:58 PM

Beasley's ceiling is Elton Brand? Huh? Have you seen him play? He's two inches taller, just as strong, and he shot 38 percent from 3. Oh, and he was clearly the best player in college basketball as a frosh. C'mon.

Elton Brand was also the best player in college basketball as a freshman, and that was when a lot more of the best players spent time in college.

Posted by right | May 13, 2008 11:00 PM

Elton Brand is a damn good player. You could do a LOT worse with the first pick. Also, Beasley is taller and a better shooter so I don't think it's fair to say that Elton Brand is his ceiling. But I still think ceiling is overrated. Andrew Bogut was pretty obviously a terrible pick, I gasped when I saw it on the ticker. But I really don't think it is fair to compare Beasley to Olowokandi, Bogut, Darko, Kwame etc.

Posted by Ethan | May 14, 2008 12:38 AM

I can't believe you didn't mention Steve Nash. Wait, yes I can. But really, the #1 pick is financial. Big guys tend to go first because they have better resale value if they flop, and generally speaking have a shorter shelf life. The #1 pick's a big gamble, imagine making the call on Yao Ming. Who Knew? (He panned out IMHO). Focus on back court players now is because of the changing nature of the game. Solid guards add more tangible team value now because the pace is picking up. Somebody might want to check into where a certain Canadian skater dude left the bar, eh?

Posted by Brian Holmes | May 14, 2008 1:42 AM

Isn't it historically true that there have been way more big men busts taken high in the draft than busts at point or the two?

Posted by Asher | May 14, 2008 1:47 AM

one point that i think is worth remembering is generally (but not always, mssrs. bogut, brown and kandi man) the first big man taken is pretty good, and any big men after the first five picks are almost always busts. this is not the case w/ beasley and rose. i think the beasley/rose debate is tough, just as tough as oden/durant.

now, my feeling on draft picks is need is a bad idea to draft for, especially with the first pick. just take whomever you think will be better and figure it out later: trade, move people around on positions, whatever, but busts weigh you down and are useless. i happen to think rose will be better. both are nonentities on the defensive end, as are most highly-rated young players these end. so the question comes down to offensive skills.

rose makes much better decisions; i think assist/TO ratio is a very deceptive stat for a few reasons. first, the philosophy of the statistic has always bothered me: TOs are gotten not just from passing, they're also from failed drives, charges, etc. TOs are waste; compare good stuff to bad stuff. second, specific to rose, his big men were awful scorers, especially at the free throw line. his teammates just got fouled instead of being allowed to shoot; you don't get assists for free throws, made or not. also there was almost no long-range shooting on that team. that rose had many assists at all is testament to his incredible skill. beasley is a great scorer and rebounder, no question about it. but none of his teammates deigned to rebound, so his rebounding is somewhat inflated, and his scoring is a product of athleticism and easy defenses. generally whenever he faced a vaguely novel defense, he made very poor decisions--the wisco and usc games were awful in this regard, and the nebraska game from the big 12 season is like this. ultimately there's some bias at work here--i only saw rose's best games, whereas i feel i saw a more representative sample of beasley's game, but ultimately i think rose achieved more, has more potential (rose can gain a jump shot; i'm not sure what, beyond decision-making, beasley can gain and generally i can't remember many players who gain that), so i'd pick rose. though i'd be thrilled to have beasley on my team too.

Posted by dtah | May 14, 2008 4:43 AM

Tony Parker has always been modest about his place. He has often said that the star of his team is Duncan. If I remember right, Parker did win the MVP in last year's playoffs. In this year's playoffs he has been the Spurs' most consistent player.

Posted by bernarda | May 14, 2008 5:17 AM

just as tough as oden/durant.

There was no debate there. Durant's not some sort of wizard who magic his team to wins. Absent injury concerns, Oden was the obvious first pick.

I'm really going to enjoy watching Durant getting pantsed for the next five years. At which point, I assume he'll sign elsewhere.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 14, 2008 10:22 AM

SCMT,
I have to respectfully disagree about Oden and Durant. Oden was only the obvious pick because(surprise) of the premium put on big men. Durant was the greater talent. Obviously, Oden is a freak as well, but I think Durant's ceiling is higher. There is no way he's not going to be a 30 point, 8 rebound per type of player. Oden will probably be a great player you can build a championship team around, but I don't think it was as open and shut case as you remember.

Posted by Stacy | May 14, 2008 10:36 AM

Also, Tony Parker isn't even the second best player on the Spurs. That would be Tim Duncan. Ginobli was the best player on the Spurs all year.

Posted by Stacy | May 14, 2008 10:42 AM

You have to give Parker props for his courage in coming out and marrying that Tampa Bay baseball player, Evan Longoria......What? Oh, never mind.

Posted by CJColucci | May 14, 2008 10:50 AM

I'm curious why so many people assume that Beasley has character issues. I live in Big 12 country, and, although KSU isn't my team, I did witness much of their season via the Kansas City sports media. I don't recall a single character issue on Beasley. Furthermore, I also watched Durant quite a bit last year, and Beasley is every bit as good as Durant, but with a much stronger body.

I do like Rose, and I was especially impressed that he man-handled Augustin and Collison in the tourney.

Either one is a nice pick, but it's far too early to determine how good a 19 year old will be in 5 or 10 years.

Posted by Chris | May 14, 2008 11:43 AM

Chris,
Are you a KU or Mizzou guy? Or do you just happen to live in KC?

Posted by Stacty | May 14, 2008 12:09 PM