Combine Results

You can get your NBA draft combine results here. As reader DM observes, "not a ton of surprises, though both Rose and Beasley measured pretty short relative to expectations." At 6'2" 1/2 in shoes, though, I'd say Derrick Rose comes in at tall enough to play point guard, even if his size isn't super-impressive. Beasely, who's definitely looking short for a power forward at 6'8" in shoes, is a somewhat more interesting case.

In recent years, there've been a series of undersized power forwards -- Craig Smith, Carl Landry, Chuck Hayes, Paul Millsap who slipped very far in the draft due to their small stature and then wound up having decent success in the league. One thing we've learned from that experience is that rebounding is one of the stats that's most directly projectable from college to the NBA -- guys good at pulling them down are good rebounders irrespective of size. Beasley certainly seems to fit the bill. What's more, he measured a 7' wingspan and a solid standing reach of 8'-11" and those factors often turn out to be more important than height.

Comments

Really, the only reason that Beasley projects as a 4 is because of his physical strength and rebounding ability. Its not as though he couldn't play 3 in the NBA if he wanted to. He shot 38% from the 3 point line in college. I'm sure that will only improve. But Matt is correct, his wingspan and reach are what will allow him to play a 4 and guard taller 4's in the league.

Posted by Stacy | June 4, 2008 12:24 PM

I think for the most part rebounding tends to translate to the NBA. Although, last year Kevin Durant averaged 4.4 rbs for the Sonics, while averaging 11.1 for the Longhorns in college...so go figure. As always the draft in every sport seems to be a crapshoot.

Posted by keith | June 4, 2008 12:26 PM

Isn't Beasley only 19, maybe 20? He could still grow another inch. But with his strength and reach, he'll be fine playing PF.

Posted by Ted2 | June 4, 2008 12:29 PM

I think for the most part rebounding tends to translate to the NBA. Although, last year Kevin Durant averaged 4.4 rbs for the Sonics, while averaging 11.1 for the Longhorns in college, so go figure. As always the draft in every sport seems to be a crapshoot. I'm still waiting for Yinka Dare to be the dominate center he was at George Washington when I was a kid...

Posted by keith | June 4, 2008 12:29 PM

Durant only rebounded poorly because his idiot team is intent on playing him at the 2-guard. He looked totally lost for the entire first half of the season. By the end of the year he was catching on. But the guy is as natural a 3 as I've seen. Perhaps they shouldn't have used their 2 high draft picks last year on 2 guys who play the same position.

Posted by too many steves | June 4, 2008 12:33 PM

"6'8" guy with long arms" seems like an apt description of Elton Brand. A very good player, but not, I think, a superstar. It's not clear that Rose will be a superstar, either, but I think that now, given the true heights, I'd take Rose first.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 4, 2008 12:33 PM

Dennis Rodman was 6'8" tall and he was an outstanding rebounder. Charles Barkley at 6'6" (maybe) was as well. Rebounding is a skill. The fact that Beasley can score is an asset that Barkley had, but Rodman didn't. Both, however, had excellent careers.

Rodman was also an excellent defender against taller opponents not because of his winspan, but because of his positioning and footwork.

I will not compare Rodman the shooter to Beasley.

Posted by Mudge | June 4, 2008 12:36 PM

I too was thinking Elton Brand. Chuck Hayes comparisons are, I'm sure, not what the Heat and Bulls are thinking about.

Posted by Al | June 4, 2008 12:36 PM

Barkley was more like 6'4"

Posted by Bas-O-Matic | June 4, 2008 12:40 PM

Honestly, I cannot think of a single reason less height cannot be made up for by wingspan.

When defending in the post or shooting, the relevant measure is how high you can reach. Beasley's wingspan probably gives him the equivalent height of 6'9/10'' player. I think that's enough to be pretty damn good at the 4, though it may mean he will never be as good as a Tim Duncan. For general defending and some rebounding, I think wingspan is more important than height because you need to reach sideways very quickly.

It's certainly true that a lack of height/reach is a liability in the post game. It becomes much more difficult to be good or great at that position without a lot of height. Barkley is a veritable miracle. But I really do think wingspan can make up for a lot.

Posted by mpowell | June 4, 2008 12:46 PM

As a life long 'Horns fan, Kevin Durant was used much the same way in college as he was with the Sonics. He spent much of his time with the Longhorns around the perimeter at the 2 and 3. He just happened to be a freak amongst college competition.

Posted by keith | June 4, 2008 12:48 PM

As always the draft in every sport seems to be a crapshoot.

Also, WTF? I mean, sure, you don't always get it right. But the only sport for which it's even close to a crapshoot is MLB. In the NBA, NHL and NFL the top picks and 1st round picks consistently outperform later picks. It's nearly impossible to get an all-star calibre player after the 15th pick in the NBA.

Posted by mpowell | June 4, 2008 12:59 PM

I think it's always helpful to remember that both Barkley and Rodman are both NBA freaks of nature. They both succeeded due to uncomparable ability. Their career trajectories, given their size, may be a direction that Beasley's career may take. But it is much, much more likely that his career path is more like Glenn Robinson's or even other less successful high draft choices than Charles Barkley's. With all of the pre-draft hype, it is easy to fall into best case scenarios.

Posted by JCJ | June 4, 2008 12:59 PM

Honestly, I cannot think of a single reason less height cannot be made up for by wingspan.

The weight-or-quickness trade-off associated with the height is part of it.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 4, 2008 1:00 PM

keith, just because Durant had the skills to play the 2 in college doesn't mean he should be playing the 2 in the NBA. Backcourt play in the pros requires a lot more quickness and handle.

If Beasley turns out like Elton Brand, nobody will complain. Brand's career averages are 20 and 10, plus 2 blocks, for a 22.7 PER.

I haven't seen Beasley play much, but from what I've seen his game is more versatile and perimeter-oriented than Brand's.

Posted by too many steves | June 4, 2008 1:08 PM

The weight-or-quickness trade-off associated with the height is part of it.

Doesn't this actually favor wingspan then? It is almost certainly easier to be more athletic when you're shorter.

Posted by mpowell | June 4, 2008 1:09 PM

I haven't seen Beasley play much, but from what I've seen his game is more versatile and perimeter-oriented than Brand's.

But the issue is: what's his game on the defensive end? Will he be able to guard bigger guys? Of course, he'll end up being in the East - so the question is whether he'll be able to guard guys like Garnett, Bosh, and Josh Smith. That seems a lot more doable than trying to guard Amare and Timmy.

Posted by Al | June 4, 2008 1:19 PM

Larry Smith was listed at 6'8", I think, but was actually more like 6'6" and was a dominant rebounder, especially on the offensive end. He wasn't a particularly slithery athlete like Rodman, was an even worse shooter and ballhandler than Dennis, and didn't have amazingly long arms, but he still pulled down huge numbers of offensive boards.

Skills and relentlessness can make up for a fair amount of height in rebounding, even in the NBA.

Posted by Pesto | June 4, 2008 1:20 PM

Doesn't this actually favor wingspan then? It is almost certainly easier to be more athletic when you're shorter.

Yeah, I said that badly. The problem with shorter players is that they often weigh less, which means that they get pushed around in the post. I think there's some relationship between density and quickness. So between two players that weighed the same amount, I'd prefer the taller one, on the assumption that lower density means more quickness, but equal mass means equal ability to push around in the post. That's all ill-informed speculation.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 4, 2008 1:26 PM

""6'8" guy with long arms" seems like an apt description of Elton Brand. A very good player, but not, I think, a superstar. It's not clear that Rose will be a superstar, either, but I think that now, given the true heights, I'd take Rose first."

While this may be an apt description of Elton Brand, I don't think there is any question as to which two of these players is more athletic. Also, let's not forget that Beasley can shoot from the outside. Beasley's ceiling is much higher than Brand's career. Also, I don't think Rose is clearly the better of the two. Although I now seem to be in a minority. This isn't true for scouts, but it seems like the results of the NCAA tournament have more to do with this assumption than the actual ability of the two players.

Posted by Stacyq | June 4, 2008 1:28 PM

Maybe "crapshoot" might be overstating it, much like "nearly impossible" to pick an all-star caliber player after the 15th pick is.

The list of all-star caliber players in the NBA that are picked after 15 is extremely long. Kobe Bryant was picked at 13 for god's sake! All I was saying is that you never really know, I'm sure Cleveland was perfectly happy with Vitaly Potapenko with the 12th pick. Sometimes you get Sam Bowie, sometimes you get MJ...

Posted by keith | June 4, 2008 1:31 PM

Beasley is similar in size to Derrick Coleman.
Beasley is left-handed like DC.
Beasley has a very similar skin tone to DC.
Therefore, he lacks a competitive fire and will probably be a bust like DC.

No one here has made this assumption, but I've seen it elsewhere and it always puzzles. Fans tend to do this with basketball players more than other sports, but its just faulty logic. As a Big 12 fan, I've watched a lot of Beasley's games this year, and I've seen nothing to suggest he suffers from apathy, or a bad attitude.

Posted by Ted2 | June 4, 2008 1:35 PM

The list of all-star caliber players in the NBA that are picked after 15 is extremely long. Kobe Bryant was picked at 13 for god's sake!

Kobe's not a very good illustration of this, though. He came along fairly early in the wave of high school players to jump to the NBA, and they weren't really proven yet. If he was in, say, the 2003 or 2004 draft class (without us knowing how good he'd become), he would have gone much higher. The uncertainty surrounding high schoolers was gone by then.

Posted by Seitz | June 4, 2008 1:37 PM

I disagree that the list of all-star caliber players chose after the 15th pick is long. Gilbert Arenas, and Carlos Boozer are the only ones that come to mind. I'm sure I'm missing a few, but there are definitely not a lot.

Posted by Stacy | June 4, 2008 1:38 PM

Gilbert Arenas, and Carlos Boozer are the only ones that come to mind. I'm sure I'm missing a few, but there are definitely not a lot.

Parker, Ginobli, Josh Howard, and David West also fit, I think. I'm sure there are others.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 4, 2008 1:45 PM

I disagree that the list of all-star caliber players chose after the 15th pick is long. Gilbert Arenas, and Carlos Boozer are the only ones that come to mind. I'm sure I'm missing a few, but there are definitely not a lot.

I would definitely be interested to know what other players picked later than 15th appeared in any all star games, much less several, which is more or less required to be 'all-star calibre'. I'm pretty sure it's not very long. I know very well that Kobe was picked 13th. I didn't pick the number 15 arbitrarily. Most of the top players go in the first 5-10 picks. But there are a few weird cases, and these slip into the top 15. Very few will go later than this. It's also really hard to find a guy who is better than a replacement level starter in the 2nd round.

In general, it's absolutely correct that there are busts, even at the top of the draft. But that doesn't mean that's not where the overwhelming majority of the talent is. I don't think of that as a crap shoot, personally. Even the 'busts' are frequently not that bad in the NBA.

Posted by mpowell | June 4, 2008 1:46 PM

Seitz- point taken, I agree the high school effect was much different back then. I should have used Steve Nash who was picked at 15 in that same draft, after 4yrs at Santa Clara and a good run in the tourney.

Posted by keith | June 4, 2008 1:46 PM

I'm surprised at how well Kevin Love stacks up against Beasley with similar standing verticals - which is better for Love than it is for Beasley - given Beasley's greater penchant for grabbing rebounds and dunking on people, which seems to me to have more to do with quick ups than reach.

The other thing the vertical tests show is that very few basketball players have true 40-inch verts despite that being the standard way of billboarding that someone can leap. Patrick Ewing Jr. almost gets there, but watch him dunk on youtube with running starts and the top of his head never comes anywhere near the rim. Puts guys like Carter in perspective, along with freaks like Henry Bekkering.

Posted by jimmybiscuit | June 4, 2008 1:55 PM

I'm not sure being an all-star should be the only standard to suggest 'all star claibre'. With the limted spots and fan voting aspect, surely you would admit that the 'all star snub' is a hot topic around all star time. Jamaal Magloire(19th pick) was an all star, wouldn't consider him all star calibre.

But off the top of my head, and excluding the ones already mentioned:
Michael Redd(2nd rd)
Stephen Jackson
Ron Artest
Tony Parker
Zadrunas Ilgaskus
Andrie Kirelenko
Gerald Wallace
Zack Randolph
Mehmet Okur(arguable)
Teyshaun Prince
Al Jefferson
Josh Smith

Again this is off the top of my head,and I know I am missing a few, but I think the point I was trying to make was that it is not impossible.

Posted by keith | June 4, 2008 2:07 PM

While this may be an apt description of Elton Brand, I don't think there is any question as to which two of these players is more athletic.

I can't get behind this. They look like about the same player to me. I've even used the analogy myself.

Seriously, Beasley unquestionably more athletic? Really? Obviously more so than top pick of the '99 draft?

I say take Rose. The Bulls could've had Baron Davis in '99, had they not gone with Brand. Are they really going to pass on possible greatness again, just to get a quality big man (besides I think Love might end up better depending on the frailty of his back)?

Posted by keatssycamore | June 4, 2008 2:25 PM

Keith,
Not to split hairs, because your point is valid, but I find it funny that you put arguable next to Okur, but not Jackson, Wallace, Randolph, Smith, or Jefferson. Or is arguable because you are not sure when he was drafted? I've thought of a couple other good ones to add- Brad Miller and Jermaine O'Neal. Jamaal Magloire was probably the worst player to make an all-star game in the past twenty years. Either way, point taken.

Posted by Stacy | June 4, 2008 2:31 PM

Agreed about Magloire, though consider the context: Eastern Conference, early 21st century. On the other hand, consider where he came from: Canada. I grew up watching Magloire play in high school. He'd grab a board at one end, pull a crossover at half-court and dunk on some hopeless kid from the wine-growing region of Niagara. Repeat. One day Gene Keady showed up to watch, too - amazing not because there's Gene Keady, but because there's a D1 coach. When Kareem said Magloire might go pro after two years, I thought that was the craziest sh*t I'd ever heard. Didn't happen, but he did make an NBA all-star team, which is even more improbable.

Posted by jimmybiscuit | June 4, 2008 2:46 PM

jimmy, you're right about Love, his results were the ones that jumped out at me. I'm shocked that Love is a legit 6-9 with decently long arms and a 35-inch vert. He sure looks short, fat and slow, and my initial reaction when I saw him play was, "this guy can't cut it in the NBA." Maybe I was wrong and he can be a real NBA big man. He's going to be a solid rebounder no matter what. He's going to hit the open jumpers and he's a great passer. It he's not as small and short as I thought he was, those things might be enough to overcome his defensive liabilites. In fact, I hope he drops out of the lottery and my Warriors get him. They need a PF, and nobody plays defense anyway. Love would be like Biedrins' mirror image: one's long and athletic and lanky and can block shots and dunk on people, and the other can shoot and pass and bang down low. I doubt Love will drop that low in the draft, though.

Posted by too many steves | June 4, 2008 2:48 PM

mpowell- I agree that the majority of talent can be found at the top of the draft. But I have to disagree that "busts" frequently aren't that bad in the NBA. I think in the NBA, more than the other sports is a "bust" more deadly and amplified. Given the nature of the sport, basketball most hinges on a singular player than the other sports. In other words, one player has more of an impact on a starting 5 as opposed to a 9-10-11 player sport.

As to the quality, and usefullness of said "bust" that is up to interpretation. I mean the '03 draft which is considered the best in awhile(Lebron, 'Melo, Wade, Bosh, etc.) also had Darko, Michael Sweetney, and Jarvis Hayes in the top 10.

T.J.Ford, K.Hinrich, and C.Kaman were also in the top 10 of that draft, and I would not consider them "busts". But, in a draft where J.Howard, L.Barbosa,D.West, T.Outlaw, B.Diaw, and Kendrick Perkins were all picked later in that first round(all after the 15th pick I may add). Gotta think some of those teams in the top 10 may want a do-over.

Posted by keith | June 4, 2008 2:51 PM

Yes, keatssy, unquestionably. I'm not sure how much you've watched Beasley play this year, but they're really not similar type of players. I mean, Brand played center in college. He MIGHT have been listed as a forward, but he played like a center all the same. I also find it curious that you only think Beasley would be a "quality big man." He could play a 3 in the pros and he had a better year than Durant did last year. He was UNQUESTIONABLY the best player in college basketball this year.

Posted by Stacy | June 4, 2008 2:53 PM

Stacy - I wasn't sure when he was drafted, for some reason I thought he was a first round pick, like 12 or 13. I was surprised to find out he was a 2nd rd pick.

Posted by keith | June 4, 2008 3:06 PM

Keith,
That's surprising to me as well. I would have sworn he was mid first round. Does anyone remember why the Pistons got rid of him? I don't think it was a trade...

Posted by Stacy | June 4, 2008 3:12 PM

Stacy- he signed with Utah as a free agent.

Posted by keith | June 4, 2008 3:20 PM

As a few of your commenters pointed out, never ever ever discuss undersized but over-performing power forwards without mentioning Charles Barkley. A power forward is rated not according to height but *power*. Does Beasely have the power to play at a pro level at power-forward? That's the question to consider.

Posted by William Smith | June 4, 2008 7:09 PM

I disagree that the list of all-star caliber players chose after the 15th pick is long. Gilbert Arenas, and Carlos Boozer are the only ones that come to mind. I'm sure I'm missing a few, but there are definitely not a lot.

Tony Parker 28th
Manu Ginobili 57th
David West 18th
Josh Howard 29th
Rashard Lewis 32nd
Monta Ellis 40th

Not that hard. The real point though is that it's ver possible to draft a total bust with a top 10 pick, and neither Beasley nor Rose seem like sure things. We're probably talking at least Joe Smith good, but not necessarily Carlos Boozer/Deron Williams good.

Posted by Alan in SF | June 4, 2008 7:59 PM

I don't see why Beasley is getting a hard time about being 2 inches shorter than he was supposed to be. I looked at the entire combine list, and just about everyone had puffed themselves up and inch or two. Dorsey wasn't even 6'7". The player who surprised me most was Sasha Kaun from KU. That guy was the tallest player on the court for every game for four years that I saw him play. Yet he measured under 6'10".

Beasley will do fine as a 4. Tim Duncan is the only good 7 foot power forward that I can think of.

Posted by Chris | June 4, 2008 8:29 PM

Kevin Garnett isn't good, isn't a PF, or isn't 7 feet tall? Same goes for Dirk.

Posted by too many steves | June 4, 2008 10:48 PM

Yes, keatssy, unquestionably.

That's funny, Stacy, because the combine results (which attempt to measure athleticism) don't show this "unquestionableness" of which you speak. In fact, (I'm checking the spreadsheet now) Beasley appears, unquestionably, to be less of an athlete than, for instance, Joe Alexander.

That is if by "athlete" we mean the typical things: how high does he jump, how fast does he run, how strong is he. If that's athleticism, then Alexander jumps unquestionably higher, runs unquestionably faster, and unquestionably lifts more weight than does Beasley. These things weren't even close.

Of course, if by "athlete" you mean, "I've watched a lot of games featuring Michael Beasley and you haven't", then I guess I can't really argue with that. All I saw the kid play were at most 5, or 6, halves.

In fact, the only one I even really remember was the 2nd half when he was scoring all of SIX points against an unquestionably unathletic Badger front-line. A blow-out loss for KSU, if I remember correctly.

Posted by keatssycamore | June 5, 2008 12:54 PM