Curry and Redick, pt. i
Let's start with the obvious: We here at Hoopus love us some Stephen Curry. From the beginning of last season to our pre-season draft extravaganza to our updated draft board, we have long pegged Curry as a fantastic fit for the Wolves. Here is what we wrote about the young fella at the beginning of the season:
I've made no bones about my belief that Curry is the best thing going in college ball this year. A stunningly efficient jump-shooter who is able to maintain an extreme ORtg while holding the ball a ton, Curry will be given PG duties during his junior year at Davidson. If he can maintain his Ortg/%Poss ratio while not turning the ball over and running an offense, Curry should be included in the conversation about who is the best lead guard in the draft.
He did that and then some.
Despite his sterling track record, there are a few seemingly legitimate knocks on Curry's game. First, he's too small. Second, he's a tweener. Third, he'll get eaten alive on defense at the next level. Fourth, he's J.J. Redick 2.0. Depending on where the Wolves end up in the lotto, I'll address the first three points in a later post. Right now I would like to take a moment to address the Redick Factor.
The short answer to the "Isn't Stephen Curry just another J.J. Redick?" question is this: Hell no. The somewhat longer answer has something to do with general career progression, reliance on the threes, and the ability to be a lead guard. Let's start with general career progression:
Both players started out their careers as long range gunners who were heavily dependent on the three ball. 66% of Redick's shots as a freshman were from beyond the arc compared to 57% for Curry. Since both players are solid outside shooters, this resulted in a fairly high pts/poss number. What you will notice from the above graph is that while Redick was able to develop something of a dribble drive (and become more effective at getting into the lane in transition) game to increase his free throws per possession, Curry made large strides in his free throw rate and assist rate while maintaining a healthy points/poss mark.
In other words, Redick the Scorer was unable to make the transition to Redick the Facilitator while Curry most certainly was. Let's take a deeper look at these numbers:
If you ever have to fall back on a single point in an argument between Redick and Curry, this should be your rock. When asked to take upon the duties of point guard, Stephen Curry jacked up his assist rate from 19.3 to 40.2. He did this while shouldering a mind-bending (and NCAA leading) 38% of his team's possessions. His turnover rate was 16.1, he carried a ppr of -0.11, and chalked up 0.24 assists/possession all the while being the sole focus of opposing defenses while leading a team filled with very, very, very modest D-I players. The guy faced a box and 2 for Pete's sake. In plain English, the guy upped his time on the ball while maintaining a relatively flat turnover rate and significantly increasing his facilitation numbers.
On the other hand, Mr. Redick played on one of the most prestigious programs in all of college ball, was surrounded by somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 McDonald's All Americans and he shot the damn ball and that's pretty much it. Each game Davidson played this year, opposing defenses threw everything they had at a single guy. Redick had guys like Sheldon Williams, Josh McRoberts, DeMarcus Nelson, and Shavlik Randolph. One would think assists and solid facilitation numbers would be a tad easier to come by in such company than they were at lowly Davidson going up against gimmicky defenses constructed to stop a single player.
Redick was a gunner. There is nothing wrong with that. Let's take a quick look at how he made his shots compared to Curry:
J.J. Redick never had a single season where his 3pa/fga number dipped below 50%. He was an extreme outside shooter. An absurdly extreme outside shooter, putting up over 60% in 3 of his 4 years. While he did, as previously noted, develop something of a dribble drive game near the end of his college career, he is, was, and always will be a long range bomber.
Curry, on the other hand, has reduced his reliance on the three ball (from 57 to 49%) while getting to the line more often and maintaining a more than acceptable mid-range 2fg%.
J.J. Redick's highest % of poss was 29.2 in his senior year. He used these possessions to jack up a gigantic number of three pointers, take a fair number of free throws and not much else. Stephen Curry's highest % of poss was 38 in his junior year. He used these possessions to score a lot of points, hand out a lot of assists, go to the line a fair amount, and not turn the ball over nearly as much as one would expect for someone with such a heavy load and a large target on his back. Redick needed to shoot a large number of threes in order to be an effective player. He really didn't do much else throughout his entire college career. Outside of a modest dribble drive game, he stayed pretty much the same player he was as a senior as he was as a freshman. The quality slightly improved, but the type was the same. On the other hand, Curry lowered the percentage of threes he took while increasing his load of team possessions, jacking up his assist numbers, getting to the line more often, and maintaining his excellent outside and mid-range shooting.
Curry looks like he's 15 years old. At a quick glance he looks to be nothing more than your (slightly above) average college shooter: a guy who relies on the short college three and modest competition to be effective. A J.J. Redick. No, no, no, no, and more no. He is a college guard who may have started out his career down the Redick path but he has since modified his game to incorporate more lead guard activities, less three point reliance, and an increase in free throws.
Stephen Curry is built for the modern NBA. With modern hand checking rules, pro-style spacing, and a cache of hesitation moves, he is built to be a devastating pick-and-roll player. While we don't have access to the type of data that would really help us make our point, Draft Express gave us enough to bridge the gap just a little:
In terms of guard play, his 41% shooting in transition ranks second to last, showing how hard he was pressing to score, but his 1.3 PPP on the pick and roll is excellent—which leaves a lot of room for optimism. He did use 2.6 possessions per game as a jump shooter running off of screens, so he does have a nice base of experience there, but it is notable how far apart Curry’s role in the NCAA was from the role he is likely to play in the NBA.
Part of the problem was that Davidson, unlike Duke, didn't exactly have anyone for him to effectively run the pick-and-roll with.
I would really, really, really like to know what Curry's numbers are from mid-range. We have a pretty good idea but nothing that could be used definitively. What we do know is that he is a fantastic shooting guard who can be on the ball for a large amount of time while not turning the ball over, facilitating ball movement among teammates, getting to the line at a decent clip, and converting on a large amount of pick-and-roll and spot up opportunities.
Depending on how the lotto plays out, we'll follow up this post with more on what makes Curry a completely different player than Redick. Think of this post as a general argument about the differences between the two players. Should the Wolves find themselves out of the top 2 in the draft (which we are going to assume are Blake Griffin and Ricky Rubio), we'll have more for you.
Until later.
PS: I have attached an Excel spreadsheet with the numbers used to make the above charts. You can find each player's full stat sheet here and here. Curry and Redick xls.
126 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
One thing missing...
You can’t make the “Redick had better talent around him” argument without making the EQUALLY important argument that Redick faced much stronger competition in the ACC. Yes, Curry had a few tough non-conference games. I even watched his 44-pointer against Oklahoma. But he wasn’t playing set-up man those nights as much as he was taking (and often making) long bombs with a few seconds on the shot-clock. Redick played in a regular offense. He ran around like crazy trying to get open and his jumpers were as well or better defended than Curry’s—considering he was facing future pro guards on a nightly basis. Both guys specialize in one thing, and that is making long jumpshots with a hand in their face. Curry was smart to move over to point guard, since it’ll help him get drafted higher. But let’s not call him something he’s not, just because he racked up assist numbers in the Southern Conference. In that league, he’s pretty much the LeBron James, in terms of being so much better than everybody else that the offense runs 100% through him.
I'm saving that point...
…..for when the Wolves end up with the 5th pick. That’s the best counter argument to Curry and he more than makes up for it against superior competition and crunch time.
Also, let’s not get ahead of ourselves by calling Duke a regular offense. Redick shot over 9 threes/game in his last 2 years in college. Duke is an extreme three point shooting operation. The problem for Redick (and many other Dukie guards) was that this sort of thing doesn’t transfer well to the NBA, where he has taken between 1.3 and 2.8 threes/game in Orlando.
The thing to take note of with Curry is the type of ball he plays. You are right that he played in the Southern Conference but name me another player from that conference to put up those types of numbers with the ratio between turnovers, usage, and facilitation stats that Curry has. Also, don’t forget that if you’re going to make the poorer competition argument then it has to apply to his teammates as well. How many assists do you think they missed compared to what Redick’s teammates gave him? What about their help with spacing? The competition argument cuts both ways and when the big lights came on, Curry answered (which I’ll have more on in a future post if the Wolves don’t get a top 2 pick).
I think you are wrong about what Curry specializes in. Redick, for sure, specialized in hitting long jumpshots with a hand in his face. Curry did this too. Curry also has an amazingly developed mid-range game both from the spot up, off the dribble, and off the screen. Redick hasn’t been able to transfer his long range game to the NBA because he’s not able to be on the ball a lot to dribble into a shot, come off a screen, whatever. Curry can play on the ball and maintain the parts of his game that should be effective in the NBA.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
My biggest point is that if Curry played in the ACC, he would’ve looked more like a shooter and less like an all-around star. Flip it around and if Redick played in the Southern Conference, he definitely would’ve had a more active role in running his team’s offense. Both guys were national player of the year candidates (I don’t believe either won it, but I’m not sure on that) so it’s pretty fair to say both would completely dominate a mid-major league and “just dominate” (if that makes sense) a bigtime conference.
Redick’s best team was his sophomore season, when they still had Sheldon. They were a Nick Horvath meltdown from beating UConn and facing the relatively weak GA Tech team for the title. In his two years after that, he had to play with young Paulus (who started those seasons) young DeMarcus (who wasn’t very good) Randolph (injured/disappointing) and young McRoberts (again, disappointing). By ACC standards, that’s not very much help. Kind of like the Lakers, those Duke role players get way too much attention and credit when they are no better than a typical team’s supporting casts.
Re: midrange shooting— I just don’t think it matters much in the NBA, for Redick and Curry-type of players. If you’re big and athletic enough to shoot over forwards (Rip Hamilton) it’s a valuable skill. If you’re a short guard, you’d better be really quick like Tony Parker, Aaron Brooks or Bassy Telfair, or just stay out on the perimeter. I think both Redick and Curry will make their money behind the 3-point line. They aren’t good enough athletes to do much damage closer to the basket.
Mo Williams, Steve Nash...
….Jason Terry, Derrick Fisher, Anthony Morrow and Chris Paul are all near the top of the league in mid-range jumpers:
http://www.82games.com/0809/FGSORT7.HTM
It’s an invaluable skill for a pick and roll player. Add in the three ball and you’re really in business. As for the help, Duke is Duke is Duke is Duke. Granted, I think they’re a bunch of garbage and Kryzkeshulofogus is a vastly overrated coach, but they still bring in a quality of talent that is miles and miles and miles beyond what is at Davidson.
The bottom line here is that Curry, despite what conference he played in, actually showed that he could operate on the ball while losing none of his scoring and shooting effectiveness. Against superior competition, Curry used his mid range game, facilitation abilities and superior shot creating ability to play at a very high level. Redick shot a lot of threes.
I completely get where you are coming from on the anti-Curry angle but I do think that he’s a significantly different type (and quality) of player than Redick. Curry can play on the ball.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
We'll see
You’re really bashing Redick by trying to say he was just a three-point shooter in college. I don’t know how much you watched him, but he scored in all kinds of ways and played great college defense. He was also a very good passer in college and was effective in transition. Given that he played 4 years against consistently much better competition than Curry, had more team success than Curry and was the ACC’s all-time leading scorer, I think it’s crazy to call Curry a significantly better player, at this point.
Curry has shown that he can play on the ball in the Southern Conference. Whether that means he can do it in the NBA, where athletes such as Randy Foye have failed at it, is another story. It’s not as simple as being able to dribble, being short-enough to look like a point guard and being able to shoot. Again, see the Randy Foye Project. Foye would’ve been a monster point guard in the Southern Conference. He was a point/combo of sorts in the 4-guard offense at Nova and was All-American.
For Wolves purposes, I cannot stand the idea of taking another guy who is physically underwhelming. Don’t we have enough small slow guys? I know that this is a weak draft lottery, but there are big bodies (Thabeet, Harden) and great athletes (DeRozan, Jennings) to consider that might be a better fit.
I watched a fair amount of Redick...
….and I’ll stick by the notion that he was very little more than a 3 point shooter. The guy took upwards of 9 a game and over 60% of his shots were from beyond the arc. That’s how he scored. He got some looks in transition because of the type of ball Duke plays and his slap-the-floor Dukie defense hasn’t translated to the NBA. In the NBA, he had nothing to fall back on in terms of being on the ball, mid-range effectiveness, passing, or pick and roll and fair or not, hasn’t had the opportunity to do much at the next level. I think the important thing here is to look for player type. Curry has a part of Redick’s game plus the ability to do some things that, if he’s good (and I think he is), will translate much better to the NBA game.
I also completely agree with the reaction to getting more physically underwhelming players. That being said, I’ll refer to what Poor Dick wrote below: ultimately, when the rubber hits the road in this draft there aren’t going to be too many players that fit the bill the Wolves need and they may just have to roll with something less than optimal…which, admittedly, Curry is.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Regardless of how I feel about Curry...
Good work and good presentation on this.
by College Wolf on May 15, 2009 8:45 AM CDT up reply actions
Great stuff S-n-P
CW,
you’ve stated your opinion on curry more than once. i like everything I’ve seen and read about him, but I wouldn’t want the Wolves to draft him at #5 if hes not going to be a fantastic NBA player. What is it you don’t like about him? What gives you pause? Andy G gave some good reasons to be hesitant about Curry, are there other reasons too?
Well... To be honest I don't have a ton of time to comment this morning, but:
I can at least give you the curtesy of a response. Sorry for not elaborating as much as I’d like but here goes:
- He’s small. Way too small to be a starting caliber SG on the TWolves. At least with the backcourt we’ve got. So people will counter by saying he’s going to play PG? I don’t see it. He’s not a PG. At least not one that we can build our franchise around for the next decade. That is the type of PG we need. No more of these combo Foye types.
- He’s skinny. See above.
- Is he really “proven” in the NCAA? I personally don’t think so. Andy G mentioned him being the “LeBron James of his conference.”
- Regardless of if he’s playing SG or PG he will have a much harder time getting his shot off in the NBA than he did in school. Bigger, stronger, faster, leaning, more athletic players will be guarding him in the NBA. And he’s small. It’s just a fact.
- Can he play defense? Ummmmmmmmm……………………
- Lastly, I don’t want him at pick five because there are easily 5 other players I would rather have. Here’s my list as of this exact moment (subject to change): Rubio, Griffin, Evans, Harden, DeRozan.
MAYBE if the Wolves somehow fell to the 8th pick I’d be fine with Curry. Maybe.
by College Wolf on May 15, 2009 9:03 AM CDT up reply actions
Also
My list doesn’t account for Jennings, who I would probably rather have too. And probably even take Thabeet, even though I am not a fan of him either. We just need a real PG and Center on the Wolves that bad
by College Wolf on May 15, 2009 9:47 AM CDT up reply actions
I like Jennings too..
…but I have no idea where to place him. I love how he has handled the whole Europe situation and from most things I’ve read, he’d be fantastic on the p-n-r. He’s one of those guys that would be hard to stay in front of. His jump shot is a bit troubling. The problem with Evans is that no one knows if he can run the point and he can’t shoot. The problem with Jennings is that he can’t shoot.
Harden is another interesting player. I think he’s problematic because I don’t see them giving up on Foye and I never, ever want to see him on the ball again.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Lastly
I typed my list wrong. I’d take Harden #3 with Evans #4. I really like Harden.
by College Wolf on May 15, 2009 9:49 AM CDT up reply actions
Thanks
I’m worried about the defense and I’d want him to play the point for the Wolves. If he can play point PG I don’t think he’s too small and I’m not worried about the skinny. I think he’ll put on muscle and, possibly height. His body still has some maturing to do.
Regardless of PG or SG, though, I do think he will be a scorer in the NBA and at the very least he will be a valuable contributer off the bench. The fear is that he will offer some redundancy we already have with Foye. But, if that’s the case I’m all for scheduling the sequel to McCants vs. Foye Deathmatch I with Curry vs. Foye Deatmatch II.
The problem...
Is that we can’t keep drafting “valuable contributors off the bench” with our lottery picks. I know it’s easier said than done, but we NEED to land a big time player one of these years. Look at our last picks, all would be bench players on any legit contending teams:
- McCants: Debateable if he’s even a bench player, lol.
- Foye: Definitely a bench player.
- Brewer: Defintiely a bench player.
- Love: Bench player on teams that already have solid big men. Starter on fringe teams like the Wolves.
We’ll never contend if we keep drafting like this. Unless Curry is a superstar (not happening), then it will just be more of the same.
by College Wolf on May 15, 2009 9:58 AM CDT up reply actions
True
We do need a big time player. The problem is who will be available at 5 and I can appreciate your list of players. However, as has been pointed out, whoever is available at 5 will have some weaknesses that should give us pause. I think Curry might have the biggest upside of anyone who we could draft at 5. In other words, I think he might (emphasis on might) become a big-time NBA player who may dominate in the NBA. Maybe.
Then again, so might Jennings. At 5 (or 6-8) its an even bigger crapshoot than 1-3. And, given the wolves luck, I’m afraid that whomever they draft, two years down the line we will wish we had drafted someone else.
I disagree that Love is a bench player on a good team and a starter on a fringe. The guy is a serious rebounder and only 20 yo. I think he was a great pick for the WOlves and will be a good compliment to Jefferson. Having Curry as the PG/shooter could make the Wolves into a legitimate western conference powerhouse, if Curry does pan out as a big-time player (caveat: Jefferson returning to health)
Fair enough.
I just don’t see Curry being this “superstar” in the NBA that some people seem to think. I’m not going off stats, just what I have seen on the court. I could very well be wrong, who knows.
As for Love, there is no way he’s starting on all teams in the NBA. On top of the fact that he is short, his defense is awful.
by College Wolf on May 15, 2009 10:24 AM CDT up reply actions
That's a pretty high standard
for a rookie to be starting on all teams in the NBA. Not sure anyone fits that bill from last year’s draft class. I’d say that Love would not start on over 50% of NBA teams last year. Rose would start on 90% and Mayo somewhere in between though closer to Love.
Love’s defense could use some improvement and his size is worrisome, though it hasn’t affecdted his ability to grab a rebound.
But, I agree, we will see and Curry (for that matter Love Too) may not make it in the NBA. I love watching shooters. My favorite thing to see in the NBA is a Reggie Miller type jumpshot with picture perfect form. Even seeing Foye stroke a shot gives me chills. My preference is always for shooters and I can imagine Curry sending shivers down my spine in a Wolve uniform. S-n-P prognosis of the Curry/Love p-n-r already has me salivating.
Curry/Love
are a solid core to build around in the Spurs/Jazz mode (which is the only hope the Wolves have of returning to prominence). This whole idea of “WE NEED A SUPERSTAR!” is a joke—no sh*t we need a superstar. As soon as LeBron feels that Cleveland winters aren’t quite cold enough, I’m sure he’ll look the Wolves’ way. In the meantime, adding reliable, proven, hard-working, quality individuals is the only way the Wolves can go.
The one thing..
….that I really agreed with Bill Simmons in his whole imaginary run for the Wolves GM is that the only way the Wolves become a powerhouse is if they draft the next LeBron. Short of that, you have to go about it by making sure each and every player you add to your roster can play. As a quick side note, if Houston wins game 7 against the Lakers it will be the best example yet of winning with modest quality across the board.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Good point on Houston
That team is unbelievable. I cheer for LAL pretty much whenever they aren’t playing Minnesota, and it’s hard to watch them face a team that plays like Houston—I really wish we somehow could’ve gotten Rick Adelman before they did. He, better than any coach I can remember, coaches the “team” before the individual players. It’s almost like the cliche’ where the name on the front matters more than the one on the back. They are the Rockets, more than they are Brooks-McGrady-Artest-Battier-Yao…just put in a different red jersey and it’s the same team. Unbelievable.
LA (and I can’t believe I’m saying this) could use more Shannon Brown and less Derek Fisher. Fish can’t stay with Brooks to save his life and it’s costing them the series.
It really is amazing...
…what a lightning quick point guard can do in today’s NBA. If Brandon Jennings is the pick, he definitely has a place. That being said, the Rockets make up for his lack of size with 2 guys who can really play d at the 2 and 3. Hayes is an interior defensive wizard and he’s 6’6". Hopefully Brewer can become one of those perimeter lock down guys.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
What I found amazing last night...
is how much better Battier guards Kobe than Artest does. When Shane sat down, Kobe blew by Ron for dunks and layups. It shows that either Shane is incredible at D or Ron has lost a couple steps. Artest used to be the premiere defender of wing players. Now, he’s better-suited for stronger scorers. If Houston wins Game 7, I think Ron would have a lot better luck against a guy like Melo.
It really...
…is fun to watch him guard guys. He’s one of the few players where you can kind of figure out “the book” on how to guard someone when you watch him. He tries to get Kobe to certain spots on the floor and to have him take very specific types of shots. Also watch him when a shot goes up. Not too many other players in the league does the stuff he does. Too bad he’s a Dukie.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
More importantly...
A quick guard who can shoot with range and guard on the other end. And he’s not even a true point guard (that’s why he was drafted so low). If Telfair had consistency from behind the arc…
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 15, 2009 3:12 PM CDT up reply actions
Curry/Love
Jazz and Spurs have always had superstars. Stockton/Malone, Williams/Boozer, Parker/Ginobili/Duncan. Those seven guys, with the possible exception of Boozer, are miles and miles beyond where Curry or Love will ever become. Those are guys that are MVP candidates. Curry and Love, by almost everybody’s estimation are going to have careers as role players, even if good ones (in Love’s case).
You don’t build around role players.
You may not build around role players....
…but you also can’t create stars out of thin air. I’d argue that it is much more detrimental to the long term health of this club to gamble on someone who has a 15-20% chance of turning into The Guy than it is to pick someone who has, at the very least, a 75% chance to become a solid role player.
I also think that Love will eventually become a guy who you can put in a Top Three on a high level winning squad.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Fair point
If they watch DeRozan, Thabeet, and all those other guys and really don’t see it, and Curry looks like the real deal, then they might as well take him (if they can’t work out a beneficial trade).
From what we can see as fans, though, I think there are some guys with clear upside that might one day be impact players in the NBA. Like others have said, (with respect to Thabeet—who may very well be taken by #5 or #6) I’d rather have a 7’3" role player than a 6’3" one.
Also, like others have said, it might be wise to aggressively move up to get Rubio, if he’s the guy. Trade Mike Miller’s contract, trade Pekovic, trade the #18 pick, do whatever it takes, if he’s going to be an impact player and the guys sitting there at #5 are not.
If Rubio's going to be an impact player
why the eff would the team with the 2nd pick trade him for Mike Miller, Pekovic, and the 18th pick?
It’s great to say that the Wolves should get an impact player or a star player, but the reality is that other teams with more money to spend and in more desirable locales are trying just as hard as the Wolves to get better. So the team’s options are extremely limited, and rely at least as much on luck (before and after the draft) as they do on scouting and cap management.
yep..
….Rubio will not be trade-upable. If he’s the real deal, and there are only 2 sure real deals in the draft, the Wolves don’t have what it takes to move up. I think they have a lot of assets to move around beyond the first 2 slots, but not with the top guys.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
I wasn't proposing a specific trade...
we would clearly have to give up the 5th pick and whatever other assets we could. If it’s Washington, they might do it for cap relief (Mike Miller).
If we could keep Love and Jefferson, and not give up any future 1st Rounders, I would support a move to get Rubio. Some of those teams that will potentially be sitting at #2 already have point guards, and won’t want Rubio.
But that's the thing...
Not everyone is concerned about getting better right now — they’re concerned about staying financially solvent. The Wolves might not get something for nothing, but there’s a a decent chance they can repeat the Carney deal with them giving up more to get more.
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 15, 2009 3:15 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm betting
the Wolves are leaning more toward the “staying financially solvent” than they are to “getting better right now.” The Carney thing was a nice little inconsequential aside. But in terms of bringing back a long contract that’s in the seven-digits, I’d be shocked.
The players you cite to prove your point
actually disprove it. Other than Duncan, who was drafted first overall, none of the guys you list were considered Superstars coming out of college, and that was when they had 3-4 years of D1 ball (or play at a high level overseas) on which to be judged.
Here are the pick placement of each of the other Superstar players you name:
Stockton: 16th pick
Malone: 13th pick
Williams: 3rd pick, but only a 2nd team All-American
Parker: 28th pick
Ginobli: 2nd rounder, 57th overall
Boozer: A FLIPPING SECOND ROUND PICK
So if you saw all those guys play and knew for sure that they’d become superstars, I’m humbly submitting your name as a dark horse candidate for the Wolves GM job.
Please do...
sounds like they’re having some trouble finding willing candidates:)
My point is that you don’t build around role players. If we’re talking about how Utah and San Antonio have climbed to contender-status, I don’t think it was around role players as much as superstar/hall of fame talent.
I don’t think Curry will ever reach that caliber as a player.
Therefore, I don’t think we should try to build around him.
I also don’t think Love will reach the caliber of guys like Duncan and Malone (or Boozer, but he’s clearly a step behind the other two).
So, I also hesitate to consider him a guy that you “build around” or make untouchable in trade talks.
If we have a guy like that, it’s Jefferson, but that’s a whole ‘nother conversation and I recognize his flaws. In this draft, where we’ll probably be sitting, it seems like DeRozan and Jennings are more likely to be a franchise NBA player in three or four years than Stephen Curry is.
If we already had the superstars penciled in the lineup, then taking Curry as a support player who likely will fill a useful role might be the better move. I just think we need to think homerun with the 5th pick and single/double with the 18th or whatever else we have.
So
I talked to the Wolves—they’re interested in you, but they want to know who your “homerun” is for the 5th pick?
You know your hoops inside-out, especially as it relates to the Wolves. But they have no choice but to draft the surest thing at the 5thish pick. TodayThis afternoon, I’m going with Harden first, and Curry second.
Plus, if they ever have the chance to get an established Superstar in a trade, they’re going to need solid players to send back (see Garnett, Kevin). Busts and Projects with Tremendous Upside aren’t going to do it.
Jennings was the top-rated high schooler in the nation, last year...
so maybe he’s a good bet. I just haven’t ever seen him play a game, so it’s hard to say for sure.
I’ve seen a little of DeRozan. He’s a freak athlete, has size and strength to be an impact pro and seems to have good fundamentals on his shot. Very few guys with that description are less than “good” NBA players. The super-skilled ones end up like Kobe and D-Wade (LBJ deserves his own category for freakishness, I think) and the somewhat skilled ones end up in the Jason Richardson/Richard Jefferson category. Look at how “raw” Anthony Randolph was claimed to be, last year, and he’s already looking like a bright young player.
I think we can get a player at #18 that’s every bit as solid as Curry. Ty Lawson, Jrue Holiday, Gerald Henderson…somebody like that will probably fall that far (not all of them, obviously). I think that pick gets set aside for a solid player, the first one is a swing for the fences, and the Boston pick is our designated BJ Mullens “DeAndre Mulligan” pick for the big body with no basketball skills. Nothing fancy, but it’s needed on this roster (unless we draft Thabeet at #3, 5 or 6).
Wasn't Gerald Green a Freak Athlete??
with a jumper. I like Derozan better since he plays more of a team game- but I think this analysis is a tad simplistic. Derozan could be a great NBA player- he just has too many holes in his game at this time for me to confidently say he will be.
Lawson’s not falling to 18
Holiday was pretty non-productive to place a lot of trust for him to be a long-term answer at the point.
Henderson’s a clear 2- this says nothing about other holes in his game.
I do think this is a solid argument not taking a PG at 6 since they’re looks to be more quality PG’s avalible at 18 then wings. I’m just really tempted to by Curry’s skill-set as complement to Big Al and K.Love.
I tend to see the Maynor, Flynn, Collison types as more backups than starters though.
by Jose Cordoba on May 15, 2009 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions
Lawson...
…will go in the top 10 in this draft. I’ll say it over and over again: God forbid that Portland gets a hold of the guy.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
One Option
Might be to assume an terrible NY Contract (Curry or Jefferies) to move up from 18 to 8. Then you could draft a Combo of Derozan/Harden and Lawson/Curry. I’m not sure if this is the best use of Cap Space- but it would be an option to consider.
by Jose Cordoba on May 15, 2009 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions
trading with the knicks
it would have to be a draft day trade because the knicks cant trade this years picks
Yeah, Gerald Green was a great athlete...
but also a bonehead on the court. Just look at the headband and streetball moves. When I watched DeRozan, the main concern was that he wasn’t quite assertive-enough on offense. Not exactly the problem with GG.
I don’t know where Lawson is getting pick, and frankly, I’m not super-enamored with him, either. I just see that Ford doesn’t have him going Top-14 in his Mock Machine thing, so I figured it’s possible he slips to us. If he does, and we didn’t take a PG at #5/6, he’d be a good value at that 2nd spot.
Couple things with Holiday: (1) he was a freshman playing with Darren Collison. Not exactly an ideal situation to show off your point guard skills. (2) Russ Westbrook got a little bit lost in the UCLA shuffle until he got a chance to work out for pro teams. I have a hunch he’ll get drafted before Lawson does. Either guy would be good for the Wolves with that 18th pick.
I agree on Holiday...
And would add that his freshman season was better than Westbrook’s (who came out after his soph season). He’s working out with David Thorpe’s crew, and they think he’s going to be good.
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 15, 2009 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions
I really like Thorpe's commentary
on ESPN, but I’ve already learned to discount his take on any players who are clients of his (and rightfully so):
Potential draft pick: Hey, Thorpe, here’s $10,000 to make me good enough to move up a few slots in the draft.
Thorpe: Thank you. Now I’m going to tell Chad Ford how you’re overrated, and that your athletic skills and character are non-existent.
Potential draft pick: Wait, wuht?
You're right
about a pedestrian PG likely to be around at 18. And if not, they can always go the Hinrich/Felton/Ramos/A. Miller route via trade or free agency.
I’m with you on everybody but Henderson at 18 (do not want). The sad, sad, thing about this draft is that after Mullens, there isn’t even a PROJECT big man, let alone a solid starter.
This is why...
drafting at 5 this year, you go for potential. If you swing and miss, at worst you have missed out on a solid role player.
Grab Harden or DeRozan!
I agree...
…but the problem with this draft is that the big time player probably doesn’t exist. That being said, if I had to make a bet on who could make the jump from average starter to big time player (i.e. the #2 option on the Wolves), it would be Curry.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
I would take that bet.
Give me Rubio or Harden.
by College Wolf on May 15, 2009 10:47 AM CDT up reply actions
I have no clue..
…about Rubio and I sort of agree with Harden, but then there’s the Foye question. Ultimately, Harden, if he would be as good as we hope he is, would have to replace Foye and they’d still be looking for a point.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
PG
We have a ton of other picks and assets. If we take Harden I would think they could still get a PG at some point in the draft. At least I’d hope so. Hell, trade Foye for a point. Trade Miller. Trade everyone except Gomes, I don’t care :-)
by College Wolf on May 15, 2009 10:57 AM CDT up reply actions
I'll take a Harden...
…Calathes draft depending on where the top pick lies. I also want to see them take Victor Claver with the 28th pick.
http://acbtv.acb.com/video/925
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Works for me.
I still want Rubio, but Harden-Calathes-Whoever is nothing to complain about.
by College Wolf on May 15, 2009 11:12 AM CDT up reply actions
I didn't mean
that “whoever” is implying Victor Claver is a stiff… just that I don’t have high expectations for whomever is taken 28th. Harden and Calathes alone would already be a solid draft.
by College Wolf on May 15, 2009 11:13 AM CDT up reply actions
Yeah...
Theoretically I don’t have a lot of time. I am slacking at work. I really need to get to that other stuff….
by College Wolf on May 15, 2009 11:49 AM CDT up reply actions
You and me both
Something about “lots to do” that drives me to this site even more than usual.
I’m a small, weak man.
I know that this is an exception, but have you taken a look at the Cavs guards? I know we don’t have a Lebron, but there is a little blurb about the decision to get Williams and what to do about West in todays SNT.
Also about him getting his shot off against bigger, faster, more physical players. . .How did he do playing outside of conference. I don’t think you can just score 44 on OU by walking on the floor. (I’m just using that as a reference, I didn’t see the game)
Physical stats:
Curry 6’3 185
FLynn 6’0 185
Paul 6’0 175
Del West 6’3 180
Mo Will 6’1 190
Foye 6’4 213
Nash 6’3 178
Kidd 6’4 210
Those were just the ones I perused quickly.
Sometimes the obvious is hidden.
by frankenhoops on May 15, 2009 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions
There is no way
that Curry is 6’3". No chance.
by College Wolf on May 15, 2009 10:33 AM CDT up reply actions
I look forward to the predraft workouts/measurements.
by College Wolf on May 15, 2009 10:33 AM CDT up reply actions
Point remains
The perception is that he’s small, but the truth is that even if he’s only 6’ 1", his size is still on par with regular NBA point guards.
Bigger question is whether or not he’s as quick or explosive as other NBA guards. That I don’t know.
One other thing I realized—Nash is a terrible defender, but I’d take him on the Wolves in a heartbeat because he facilitates everyone around him, and if you leave him alone he can kill you by scoring. Curry will never be the distributor Nash is/was, but do you really think Jennings is going to do better? For crying out loud we had Bassy play a very serviceable point guard for us, and his only problem is that he can’t shoot.
One other last thing about McCants being a bench player. McCants’ talent is that of a starter at worst, and potentially that of an All-Star. His undoing was being a headcase and being coached/utilized poorly (and getting hurt). But that guy had the ability to play, crazy and misunderstood or not.
by biggity2bit on May 15, 2009 10:42 AM CDT up reply actions
No
“One other last thing about McCants being a bench player. McCants’ talent is that of a starter at worst, and potentially that of an All-Star.”
- That’s insane, sorry.
by College Wolf on May 15, 2009 10:48 AM CDT up reply actions
I think he definitely has..
…starting level talent and a 16th man’s head.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
McCants
CWolf, we’ll agree to disagree about Shaddy, and also about Love. I think everyteam in the league would love to have Love, and I think by the end of next year he would start for most teams in the league as well. He makes everyone better. He rebounds as good or better than anyone else in the league. He’s the kind of glue every team needs. And he’s smart enough to know what he’s bad at and improve it, something he showed during the season last year.
I kind of get the sense that there are two schools of thought being discussed here: the Jazz/Spurs/Rockets mode of drafting and team play, where the system is pre-eminent and you find the best players for the team; and the Superstar approach where you really on one or two absolutely fantastic and dominant players (like KG, Kobe, Lebron, CP3, etc.) to carry most of the load and then you surround them with what parts you can and hope that their talent will carry you through any leftover deficiencies.
The way the Wolves are constructed, and especially with this draft and FA class, I just don’t think that there’s a superstar out there, let alone the two that we’d need to make that model work. I think, like the Twins, the Wolves can’t rely on drafting KG’s and instead need to emulate the Spurs, Jazz, and Rockets (especially the Rockets—how impressive are they this post-season?). So in that light, Love probably won’t ever be a superstar, but I don’t think that diminishes his value because I don’t think the Wolves can or should be a team like the Cavs or Lakers.
by biggity2bit on May 15, 2009 11:53 AM CDT up reply actions
HELP WANTED!
Projected stats analyst to do a comparision on Bassy vs Curry. I think most of us agree that the offense seemed to flow better with Bassy running the point. Could Curry do as good or better, based on the fact that he can shoot? Just throwin’ that out there. . .
Sometimes the obvious is hidden.
by frankenhoops on May 15, 2009 12:09 PM CDT up reply actions
Well...
For starters, almost everyone is listed taller than they truly are. Foye is truly only 6’2" (predraft measurements) and Craig Smith is only like 6’5.5". Foye was listed at 6’4" and Smith at like 6’7".
Secondly, have you actually SEEN Curry with your own eyes!?!? You are going to tell me he’s 6’3"???? Not a chance.
by College Wolf on May 15, 2009 10:43 AM CDT up reply actions
Nope
Go listen to Bill Simmons’ podcast with Dork Elvis Daryl Morey. He says that they found that 2/3 of prospects are listed taller than they actually are (they have the numbers down to a fraction of an inch), but 1/3 are actually taller than their listing (he points to lazy college SIDs, and that kids are still growing in their late teens—something that has been speculated with regard to Curry).
Ok, so not *everyone* is listed taller...
but a good rule of thumb is that if a player LOOKS short (foye, Curry) then they probably aren’t as tall as listed. We’ll see with the pre-draft measurements.
by College Wolf on May 15, 2009 10:52 AM CDT up reply actions
Thanks..
….come on over to the dark side, the water’s warmer. Embrace the Curry. In a draft where Jordan Hill is a projected top 5 pick, a 7’3" monster can’t play on 1/2 of the court, and a 6’6" point guard shoots under 30% on his jump shots, embrace the Curry.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Those are
Perhaps some of the best reasons to embrace the Curry. In last year’s draft, Curry probably would have been slotted more accordingly (teens), but in this year’s draft—which is long on players with one thing going for them and two things not going/highly questionable—Curry is as good a spice as you’ll find after pick 3 or 4.
Nevvvvvveeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
At least not today. We’ll see.
by College Wolf on May 15, 2009 9:05 AM CDT up reply actions
Yes, yes, yes
The complaints about Curry are like complaining about the Vikings quarterback situation. Okay, he has flaws and question marks. What else should the team do? Because every other player (including Griffin) has flaws and question marks. And don’t give me this “They should just trade down”—that takes two to tango, and unless some other team is seeing something in a pick that the Wolves don’t, the team isn’t going to get much in return.
I get the concerns that drafting him could be a sequel to a movie we’ve already seen
(Foye II—The Electric Boogaloo). But Harden (my next favorite pick at the five spot) doesn’t share many of the same concerns.
well put...
…if they draft at 5, they better brace everyone for a pragmatic decision. There will be no idealism at that point in the draft.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
I will say
- Detractors seem to think he can’t play the point where supporters tend to think he can. I don’t love the comparsion to Foye for besides the reasons SNP stated- Curry seems to be a better decision maker with the ball.
*An argument can be made this team doesn’t need a PG with the Ball in his hands for 20 seconds. Hopefully you work the Ball to Al, and K-Love and Mike Miller can even handle some of these responsibilities.
*Oh how I would love to surrond Al and Kevin with a big-time shooter like Stephen Curry
- I agree with Poor Dick and College Wolf that Harden would also have to be under serious consideration at the 5.
*The Upside Picks are probably a couple years (Evans/Derozan) away from seriously contributing to this team with skills that we don’t know if they’ll ever develop holding them back. I think Evans is a much bigger question mark as to whether he can play a capable 1 in the NBA.
Here I come. . .
. . .‘cause I heard the dark side has cookies. I think I have narrowed down my choice at five to Curry and Harden. I agree with biggity that in a normal draft, Curry ( and others) would be slotted more to thier projected spots. I also think that last years draft is too fresh in our memory and comparing our possible #5 picks to last years #5 pick ( the incomparable Mr Love) is like shooting ourselves in the foot just because the gun we have today doesn’t match up to the one we had last. Draft the BPA and needs be darned. I know there has been discussion that we need talent more than anything, so if Curry projects to the best TALENT, not upside, then pick him. If Harden does, then pick him. If Thabeet does, pick him. (I don’t like him at all though)
Sometimes the obvious is hidden.
Only as a PG and even then with Hesitation
Looking at this excellently prepared data, I think it’s clear Stephen Curry can shoot and be an efficient contirubtor to an NBA offense. He has a great midrange and long distance game, and a good enough handle to be good on the pick and pop. His problems at Davidson was that he wasn’t great at beating his man off the dribble and dirving by defenders and taking it to the basket. So I essentially have two issues with Curry I want to address.
(1) How effective will his Pick and Pop game be if defenders don’t respect his ability to drive by you. They will crowd him near the screen and dare him to drive by. I think his shooting % in transition of 41% speaks more about his ability to finish at the rim with athleticism more than it does his team reliance on his skills. If a league average big contesting his shot throws off his attempts to finish at the hoop, his pick and pop skills become far less desirable. What you may have with Curry is just a lethal mid and long rnage shooter which is a still a valuable asset to a basketball team.
(2) Perimiter Defense. Telfair, Foye, and Miller at the 1-3 are the worst defending perimiter players of any team in the league. I think Brewer coming back will definitely help out, but I would be more excited to add a two way player. Somebody like DeRozan who shoots an amazing 2 Point FG% has prototypical size and athleticism at the 2 makes me more sense to me. Ideally if we can find a PG that is a better disteributor and defender than Curry a lineup of PG, DeRozan, Brewer, Love, Al with a Foye off the bench as instant offense seems a lot better route to go in this draft.
In conclusion, if their was a way to grab Jennings or Rubio + DeRozan in this draft, I would salivating. Jennings for his speed and Rubio for his vision, either one would solve our problem of needing a perimeter player to help break down the defense. I don’t think Curry solves this problem; however, that doesn’t take away what he does do well.
good stuff...
…I think the defensive question is the biggest one in terms of the Wolves. Foye is the elephant in the room here. If they want to keep him in the starting lineup, then Rubio, Hinrich, or Evans have to be the other guard. I would love to see the Wolves start Brewer at the 2 if they could get Curry or Jennings.
As for the pnr/pnp, I think Curry + Love = a problematic option for defenses. If Love can develop his midrange game and continue to show that he can put the ball on the floor, and if Curry has a legit hesitation game, then it will work out just fine.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Excellent point on Brewer at the 2
He may not have the bulk to guard the bigger versatile 3’s such as Odom off the top of my head. I know it’s impossible for us to evaluate Euro prospects in the same depth as the statistics don’t translate the same way, but Brandon Jennings has to be the wildcard. Him and Curry have similar builds and albeit different games, in that Jennings shot is still developing, but he is quicker and more athletic than Curry. Effectively evaluating both Jennings and Rubio are going to be the short term challenge for our new front office.
More Derozan
1. He’s a great athlete but not considered a great defender at this point in time. We can’t automatically equate the two using Rodney Carney and Gerald Green as examples. He could perhaps develop into this type of player. He isn’t considerd to have great defense awareness. This is to say nothing of current holes in Offensive game.
2. Jennings has great speed and a good handle. Kind of like a Certain Wolves point guard. Bassy though has seemed to have way more of a skill-set in running an Offense.
by Jose Cordoba on May 15, 2009 2:43 PM CDT up reply actions
My Jennings viewing is pretty much limited to youtube...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgaUIpNyM78&feature=channel
There’s a few jumpers in there, and he’s got a much better J than Bassy will ever have. Like 99% of pros with good shooting form, the whole “I do this for a living” thing will eventually make him into a good percentage shooter.
Bassy can’t finish in the paint, either. Jennings is (from the video evidence, there) not going to have the same issues with getting blocked all the time by guys that pretty slow in helping from the weakside.
Comparsion Bassy/Jennings
Forgive me for not being confident in a shooting line of around 38% from the field with 23% percent from three. He was quite non-productive in Europe this past year. As discussed here in the past their are serious holes in his game (Ability to run an offense, shooting, defensive fundamentals) that make me really hesistant to pick him. If you were to say who would you rather have for next season- It would be Bassy without even thinking about it.
by Jose Cordoba on May 15, 2009 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions
True, but I would hope you would take the guy with what, 4 (or is it 5?) years of NBA experience if you were pressed to pick one for next season.
As to Jennings, I’m no expert by any means, but I would guess that he was probably stuck shooting a lot of outside shots that, if he’s smart, he won’t be taking in the NBA. Stateside, the handchecking rules, deeper 3pt line and defensive 3 second rules make it much easier to take it to the hole. I’ll leave it to the scouts to assess if he’s ready to make the leap, but if they have that confidence in him then there are plenty of reasons to believe he can succeed in the NBA despite not dominating overseas.
If Jennings has good shooting form, he could be shooting 10% from downtown, and I wouldn’t care. These young guys haven’t ever worked on their 23-foot jumper. Why would they be good at it yet? Thankfully for Jennings, he’ll get to play basketball for a full-time job and he’ll use his good form to become a very good shooter. It happens with every pro ball-player with good shooting form. Unfortunately for Wolves fans, Bassy has a broken jumper and he’ll always struggle, there.
Xand1 makes a good point about the experience. No rookie point guard in next year’s crop is going to be better than Bassy, right away. I’m thinking 1-2 years down the road. Haven’t seen Jennings play a single game, so I can’t comment one way or the other on defense and running an offense. If he’s played point guard his whole life, he’s probably better than Curry in that regard. The video clips certainly show him to be quicker and savvy with the rock in his hands.
Watching that Jennings video...
…reminded me that Jennings is probably only the 2nd best point guard to come out of Oak Hill Academy in this draft (Ty Lawson being #1) and the 3rd best this decade (see Rondo, Rajon). That’s quite the high school program.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
I should clarify
Jennings has more long-term value than Bassy. At the same time- Bassy has shown himself quite a bit more adapt at running an Offense and creating for others than Jennings.
Could Jennings develop into a better shooter- you would obviously hope so taking him Number 6. Rajon Rondo would be a pretty decent example in this regard. I’m just making the point their are serious questions about his game.
by Jose Cordoba on May 15, 2009 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions
Euro League vs. NCAA
Jennings played in the Euro League, the top league for Europeans. I think it’s also safe to say that the competition he faced as a 19 year old was far more difficult than any of NCAA brethren. That doesn’t excuse his poor lines, but it may help explain things.
True
He did have poorer shooting lines than Bassy as a 19 year old in the NBA. He was also a bench-warmer at this level. Without a doubt he is a highly risky pick.
by Jose Cordoba on May 15, 2009 4:52 PM CDT up reply actions
Those are good points
Win Shares over at Wages of Win has Sebastian Telfair as the worst Timberwolf on the court during the 2008-2009 season account for -2 Wins. The only thing Bassy is above average for PG’s is assists. This was our worst position last year.
Unless you consider the fact
that Telfair had by far the best Plus/Minus of any player on the team that played more than 50% percent of the minutes.
I also wouldn’t put WOW as a tremendous authority unless you consider Mike Miller a Top 20 player in the NBA. I certainly value their opinion but I wouldn’t hold this method up as perfect.
by Jose Cordoba on May 15, 2009 6:45 PM CDT up reply actions
I put more stock into their method
than + / – which doesn’t do anything for me. That being said the one lacking part of WOW or PER is that it can’t factor in defense. I understand that + / – is the only current statistic besides steals and blocks and rebounds that can give you part of the picture, but I think it’s too dependent on too many factors.
Mike Miller could be considered to me a top 20 all around offensive player, but when we look at his defense, you realize he gives it all right back, and hence can’t be considered a top 20 player. It’s part of the picture for me, but not the complete picture. Bassy is also similarlily defense deficient.
True Plus/Minus
is by no means a perfect use of figuring out Basketball value. The examples of Big Al- Last Year or K.Love this year as examples. Bassy’s never going to be great in such metrics as win shares and PER due to the factoring in of Field Goal Percentage/ Rebounding and ability to get to the line. At the same time- It would be hard to deny he performed as clearly the Team’s best point this season. Their is something to be said in this regard for the plus/minus stat. A second example would be Brian Cardinal whose value setting screens and on D isn’t going to be fully measured by his other metrics. I’m not saying these guys are great players- only that these metrics don’t encompass their true value.
by Jose Cordoba on May 15, 2009 8:19 PM CDT up reply actions
My Take On Derozan
I Live in Seattle and have season tickets to Washington Husky Basketball so I may have a bit more exposure to Pac-10 b-ball than others, so I thought I would give my take. I don’t know how much stock you can put in comments like “he isn’t considered a great defender.”
DeRozan matured every month in the season while never forcing the issue and shooting a ton of shots. He Played within his talents and was not a “jacker” in the sense he let the game come to him. Similar to Derrick Rose last year when their was a noticeable difference in his split after the 2nd week in February, DeRozan saved his best for last.
He started the year 2 for 24 on 3 points shots, and finished 4 of 12. During his six games in March he averaged 19.2 Pts, 6.9 Reb, 2.3 Ast, 1.7 TO, and .7 Steals a game while shooting 58% from 2 and 30% on 3 Pointers.
Head to Head with James Harden, another guy people on this board are advocating, DeRozan played better D than anyone all season against Harden. They played against each other 3 teams due to their matchup in the Pac-10 tourney and Harden averaged 9 Points on 35% shooting for the 3 games.
Gerald Green was an athlete not a basketball player, DeRozan is a basketball player that is also an athlete. He’s a better shooter than green, plays within himself, and has shown steady improvement. He is the guy with STAR potential in this draft IMO.
Few Points
1. Gerald Green was considered a better shooter than Demar Derozan coming into the league.
He shot 37% from 3 as a 21 year old. This is quite solid for the marvel- he was. If you read DX’s Profile of Gerald Green coming into the league he was considered a quite well rounded prospect.
2. I don’t think anyone accused Derozan of being a jacker. It’s also been acknowledged on here that he improved quite a bit as the season went along.
3. As far as not being a great defender- DX acknowledges that he’s laterally quite quick and clearly has a high motor- they also point out that he’s lacking in instincts on this end of the court.
4. Could he be a star? Perhaps- he has a lot of upside. There are also questions about his handle, three-point shooting ability, and instincts that have raised questions from observers. If he doesn’t improve in these areas- he could end up as a Rodney Carney-type.
by Jose Cordoba on May 15, 2009 4:18 PM CDT up reply actions
I respect your points
1. DeRozan shows good form on his jumpshot, shot 53% from 3 in High School, and hit a very high % of his 2 point shots. I think it’s a solid bet that he improves his outside shooting. It’s not like Evans where his shot just isn’t there, DeRozan has good mechanics and eextending his range seems like a better bet than completely teaching a prospect how to shoot.
2. DX says he’s lacking in instincts. How do I challenge that point. I guess the only thing I can say is the Tim “Cash under the table” Floyd plays some crazy defensive alignments at times, and besides shot blockers, it’s tough to know how someone translates from playing crazy zone in college to Man-to-Man and situational Defense in the pros.
3. Their were questions about Dwayne Wade’s handle coming out of college in that he committed too many turnovers in college, not trying to compare the two under any stretch, but he was not asked to be a ball handler, with Hackett and Lewis both starting, he was the 3rd ballhandler on most sets.
No reason you can't compare him to D-Wade...
he’s got that type of natural ability. Wade played three years at Marquette and became a great player there. DeMar had a very good freshman year and would probably be an All-American if he stayed another year or two at USC.
If every athletic prospect gets the “Gerald Green” comparison (and that happens with pretty good regularity on this board) there’s not much you can do. Green was a bust—he hasn’t learned how to be an effective NBA player, despite natural gifts. Weigh that example against the overwhelming majority of special athletes who exceeded their expectations (Jordan, Bryant, Wade, Richardson, Jefferson, Maggette, Carter, Garnett, Ellis, Stuckey, list goes on…) and I think that drafting guys with size and athleticism is usually a wise decision. Since DeRozan improved a fair amount in his freshman year and showed some identifiable skills, his upside is high-enough and realistic-enough to warrant a high draft choice.
I would disagree with this
In that their have been plenty of NBA players who are great athletes lacking in functional basketball skills: Rodney Carney, Marcus Banks going Older School- Qyntel Woods, Kedrick Brown. They’re have been plenty of busts that are great athletes in the NBA. If Derozan’s natural skills were anywhere near a comparsion of Jordan, Bryant, or Wade it seems curious DX would have him ranked as a Mid-First Rounder in a weak draft till about a month ago.
I’m not trying to just bash Derozan- I’m only pointing out he’s far from a sure thing. For Reasons I’ve stated earlier. I’m also wish to point out people complaining about Win Total last year probably aren’t going to see a lot for about 2 years from Derozan.
I wouldn’t be devasted or upset with picking him. I just think Curry looks to be a better pick at this time.
by Jose Cordoba on May 15, 2009 7:01 PM CDT up reply actions
DeRozan shot 52% from the field as a Freshman
None of the other guards on your list even approached that. Yes DeRozan is an athlete, but that shouldn’t take away from his skills.
As for previous draft rankings, it’s not like he came out of nowhere, he was the #3 ranked player in his HS Class ahead of Jennings and Evans.
Looking at Draft Express rankings from January 2008 through October 2008 he was a Top 2 or 3 pick, then he dropped to 10th in December 08. Why did he lose the star potential that he always had? Because he didn’t adjust to the College game instantly as a freshman. He does finally adjust at the end of February and puts together a more impressive run IMO than Evans’ leading his team to the PAC-10 tourney title and getting MOP as a Freshman.
He’s never been just an athlete, and shooting , rebounding, and efficient use of his game in a team concept shows he has a good basketball IQ, not like Carney who shot 42 for Memphis in College.
Derozan
-Has plenty of positivies you’ve mentioned many of them (Hard-Worker, Great Athlete, Doesn’t force shots, Good Offensive Rebounder) – Their are clear reasons why he might be considered for the Number 6 pick. There are also concerns that needs to be cleaned up for him to really be an effective NBA player. My personal preference is Curry on account of Shooting Ability, Shot-Creation, and Facilatating.
by Jose Cordoba on May 15, 2009 8:10 PM CDT up reply actions
I would be happy with either Curry or DeRozan
just as long as its not Thabeet or to a lesser degree Tyreke Evans
Agree
I prefer Curry to Derozan- but have much more serious questions about the the two young mention.
by Jose Cordoba on May 15, 2009 9:55 PM CDT up reply actions
On the Curry topic, I have a quick point to make (apologies if this has been touched on), which is that it is important to note that just because quick slashing PG’s are the flavor du jour it doesn’t mean a guy with an entirely different skill set can’t be effective. I love slashing players and think it’s a great thing to have in a PG, but shooting is about as translateable a skill as there is in basketball, and if you have a guy that can shoot from midrange like it’s a layup combined with even average PG skills then you have a very valuable player.
Look at the (past and continued) success of big, sweet-shooting PGs like Chauncey, Cassell and a guy who is probably Curry’s closest comp: Mike Bibby. Those guys still get it done despite all being 30+ years old and not having great athleticism. Why? They’re all smart enough to run a team and they’re deadeye shooters who destroy teams on pick and roll plays. I see Curry as having the potential to be very much in that mold.
Someone earlier made asked how Curry will succeed running the point in the NBA when “athletes like Foye failed.” All I have to say that is that Foye could easily be a great starting PG if physical attributes alone determined success. The problem is they don’t. Skills and smarts make you good, athleticism just boosts your floor. Foye’s problem is that he’s, for lack of a better word, a dumb player. He makes mistakes and has poor court vision, and that’s what makes him better as a 2. Curry doesn’t have Foye’s athleticism, but I think he’s miles ahead in smarts and basketball IQ. So yeah, if Mike Bibby can have a productive career as a PG, I see no reason to automatically say Curry will suck because he’s not incredibly athletic.
Also, didn’t Hackett guard Harden when their teams met? I distinctly remember reading how Hackett hounded him into some atrocious shooting nights..
Yes
Hackett, Lewis and DeRozan all rotated on Harden. Floyd’s gameplan was to take him out of the game, in fact, that was Floyd’s gameplan against most teams in the pac 10, i.e. lock down on the opponents best player and let the other guys beat you. That is why they couldn’t beat Washington, MSU and other deep teams where there was no clear cut lead dog to shut down. Clearly Harden’s poor performances against USC can’t all be placed at the feet of DeRozan.
Here's the best YouTube I could find of that game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0iNRCEhFAA
Floyd typically tries to muck it up as much as possible. As for DeRozan, I’m really, really hoping for a Curry/DeRozan draft. I think the Wolves absolutely need to walk away with one of these players with their top pick if it’s out of the top 2 (and I’m conceding the Rubio thing here).
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
That would be a great draft
I just don’t see how the Wolves make that happen. Taking a top 2 pick off the table, all media reports suggest the Knicks have a man-crush on Curry. if that is true, that means we need to either take curry at #5 and hope Derozan slips far enough to trade back into the Top 10 with a team like New Jersey, Milwaukee or Charolotte, or take Derozan and trade with Golden State and pick back to back. I don’t know what we’d offer besides Miller and taking back bad contracts to make that happen. That’s quite a risk.
Miller...
….Pekovic, Cardinal, and the future Utah pick for a 1st rounder and a bad contract/functional player. It would probably have to be with the Warriors, Toronto, or Washington.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Even if we can't swing for Curry
I reallly don’t think a Nick Calathes at #18 would be a bad fallback option if we go with a DeRozan or Harden at #5. Good passer, good shooter, more size than curry. He is seriously underated and I’m hoping it stays that way so he is available at 18.
I think that'd be overpaying...
Especially with teams wanting to dump salary.
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 15, 2009 11:21 PM CDT up reply actions
Excellent Video
Lots of highlights of things his critics state are negatives, great form on his shot, elevation, good anticipation on a steal, help defense getting a block, and a drive from the perimiter into a jump stop with a nice fadeaway 8 foot jumper in the lane. Good stuff.
This is how I feel about Rubio:

I have no idea how to place him in the draft. I still maintain that we fans have no context in which to place him and that we know more about a guy like Calathes than we do about him, but there has to be something behind all the hype, right?
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Yeah, it's called
statistics and they have them in Europe too! Man, you’ve got about as much sophistication to your b-ball knowledge as anyone out there, but you seem to have a brain cramp when it comes to recognizing the greatness of the numbers he’s put up at such a young age over there. Yeah, Euroball is different and all, but at some point data is data. You seem to do a great job reconciling Curry’s numbers in a mid-major conference vs. Reddick in the ACC. Can’t you do the same with Rubio?
by Rascal Flatts on May 16, 2009 8:57 PM CDT up reply actions
No...
….it’s too small of a sample size to make a call without additional scouting and stats. I’ve been reading up on how generic EL stats transfer to the NBA but there just aren’t that many players with Rubio’s track record. One of the things I look for in college stats is player type. I have no idea how to do this with Rubio. Is he just a player that excels in EL ball with zones and transition? How does he do in 1-on-1 situations? Stuff like that. In college ball there are literally hundreds of players who have made all sorts of jumps in all sorts of systems with all sorts of numbers. There haven’t been any Rubios or Jennings before and while I could put up their stats on the site I really don’t know much about them like I do with college ball.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
BTW:
Are the Wolves going to work out any players anytime soon?
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Hopefully
we work out a few more players then just one!
Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?
by the Real Thor on May 16, 2009 9:27 AM CDT up reply actions

by 




















