Thu, 26 Mar 2026 03:12:27 -0700WeeblyWed, 24 Jun 2015 17:39:45 GMThttp://www.nbafocus.com/risk-analysis-in-the-nba/the-14-best-prospects-in-the-2015-nba-draft
The 2015 NBA Draft seems pretty uncertain, which is no surprise. There's a lot of very good prospects - but that doesn't mean they'll turn into very good NBA players. It always worth reminding ourselves of that.

By this point any serious draft observer has an overload of information to sift through. With the explosion of online draft analysis, there literally is more material than ever before (it's amazing how much has changed in half a decade.) Sometimes having so much information about a prospect is helpful - but just as often it tends to mislead us. The more we think we know, the more stunned we are when a prospect totally defies expectations. That'll be the case for at least a few of these guys, just like it is every year. Here's some concise thoughts on who I think the 14 best prospects are:

1. Karl Towns 
Towns' upside is higher than most scouts give him credit for. He might be closer to Tim Duncan than Al Horford. Either of those projections is worthy of the first pick. Very impressive the first half of his freshman season, Towns transformed into the clear star of his loaded Kentucky team by the end of the year. This gradual transition, which coincided with Towns taking a more focal role in the offense, was subtle. But watching Towns as the season wore on, and looking at his numbers, gives us a strong indication that Towns is a future perennial All-Star. 

One of the best things about Towns is there's not much to dislike - he's big, a very good defender, and already capable of scoring effectively in the paint and from the perimeter. Supposedly he's also an excellent shooter, and highly coachable. Towns played within the system at Kentucky, and his individual exploits were often overshadowed by his team's overall dominance. None of that matters much, though, when projecting his NBA future. He's the safest pick in the draft, and could turn into one of the better players in the league.

2. D'Angelo Russell 
Russell is an electric playmaking guard. He's probably my favorite player in the class. However, making a 6'5", 190 pound guard - with a two point field goal percentage under 50% - the first pick is too risky a proposition. But watching Russell, I see many traits of a future superstar. The way he handles things on the court is impressive. Russell and Towns are clearly the two best prospects in the draft, in my opinion.

Russell's feel for the game is superior to most NBA players. He's a fantastic passer, and a gifted scorer. There's a reason the Stephen Curry comparisons were floated out there - Russell has a similar flair. Ohio State wasn't good this season, and Russell often shouldered too heavy of a load for the Buckeyes. Like with Towns, his team's situation ultimately means little when projecting his future. I view Russell as more of a shooting guard than a point guard, and regardless of position, he figures to be an All-Star. He has an advanced feel for things, and it should be fun to watch Russell's innate sense for the game mature in the NBA. 

3. Jahlil Okafor
Okafor is a highly advanced offensive post savant. His moves and touch around the basket are already elite. How great an offensive player he becomes in the NBA will probably depend on how the faster speed of pro players affects his arsenal of moves around the basket. Judged on size alone, Okafor should be terrific. If he can adjust to the quickness of the NBA game his team will soon be able to focus their offense around him - which can only be said for a few other centers in the league. There's no guarantee this happens, however. 

Defense, we all know, is a potential problem for Okafor. For having a huge 7'5" wingspan Okafor was surprisingly ineffective blocking shots, a telltale sign he won't be that good defensively. With an offensive game this strong, Okafor doesn't need to be superb defensively to turn into an All-Star. He just needs to be adequate. With his size, I've a feeling he'll get there.  

4. Myles Turner
After the first three prospects the level of uncertainty dramatically increases as to who the best prospects are in this draft. The next five players I think are all pretty close to each other. There are several big men with enormous upside, which makes this class potentially very rewarding, and also risky as hell. NCAA basketball no longer caters to showing the impact a dominant center can bring to the game. Andre Drummond, for instance, was strangely unexciting to watch during his one year at UConn, despite his enormous body and innate athleticism. As soon as Drummond got to the NBA these traits became a tremendous asset, and he rapidly became one of the better young players in the league. 

Myles Turner is someone who could follow in Drummond's footsteps. Turner has superior physical tools: he's an athletic 6'11'', 240 pounds with a 7'4'' wingspan. He put up excellent per-minute numbers when framed in the historical context of freshman centers playing at a competitive school like Texas. Turner rebounded, blocked shots and scored well in limited minutes, despite playing in a system that rarely catered to his strengths. He also proved he could shoot from the perimeter. 

Turner is not likely to be picked in the Top-5, and maybe not even the Top-10, which surprises me. He has been scrutinized over his running style, but that seems unimportant if Turner's long-term health prognosis projects to be fine (and for this analysis I'm assuming it does.) His numbers, skills and measurements are too good to be dismissed. I expect Turner to end up being one of the best players from this draft, health permitting. 

5. Willie Cauley-Stein 
Cauley-Stein measured slightly larger than Turner at the draft combine, and is widely regarded as the best defensive prospect in this draft. Possessing terrific agility and speed for a seven footer, Cauley-Stein's defensive skills obviously translate to the next level. He has the real potential to become one of the league's best defenders. 

However, Cauley-Stein's strength lies so much on the defensive end that it's a bit difficult to project his role in the NBA. Ideally, he becomes a Tyson Chandler type of player, but in order for Cauley-Stein to do that, he'll have to play with much more consistency than he displayed at Kentucky. The good news, as we mentioned, is the NBA game allows skilled seven footers the ability to showcase their superior skills on a regular basis. I like Cauley-Stein, and think he can reach that Chandler level if his medical outlook appears alright - but otherwise he doesn't deserve to be ranked this high, with so many other excellent prospects still on the board.

6. Kristaps Porzingis 
I have a very hard time knowing where to rank Porzingis. No player has received more positive buzz the last few weeks, and the praise makes sense. Porzingis legitimately has more in common with Dirk Nowitzki than probably any prospect since Kevin Durant. It's unlikely he comes close to approaching that echelon of NBA player - but the potential certainly is there. 

Porzingis is 7'2" with a 7'6" wingspan, and surprisingly explosive. He has that high, smooth release that only a few seven footers have ever possessed. And, by all accounts I've read, he's a gym rat. Nowitzki was not Nowitzki when he entered the NBA in 1999. He had a weird, awkward transition as he got acclimated to the physicality of the NBA. Even Durant, in 2007, had a relatively rough transition into the league. Their unique bodies and skill sets had to adjust.

Porzingis, too, is likely to have a rough transition. He has greatly benefited from playing at the highest level of European basketball for a few years, and he put up very decent numbers there this season. I don't think he'll be a bust in the NBA - although I wouldn't be surprised if he was. I think Porzingis will constantly work on refining his game, and become a very good NBA player. He could be great. There's undoubtedly a ton of risk selecting him very early with other safer prospects available, but I understand why a team might take the gamble. 

7. Emmanuel Mudiay
Mudiay is almost as tough to rank as Porzingis. The fact he played in China, and was hurt for most of the year, makes Mudiay difficult to judge. I might have him ranked too low. This is different than the Dante Exum scenario last year; Mudiay should be a much better NBA player. He's skilled, put up good numbers overseas, and is actually probably a safer pick than the three big men listed before him. 

My main question with Mudiay is this: how athletic is he, really? He's obviously an excellent athlete, but is he a great one? If Mudiay is athletic like John Wall is athletic, then he'll be one of the best players in this draft. Some reports say Mudiay possesses that level of superior athleticism. But I kind of doubt it. When you watched John Wall at Kentucky it was obvious he was on another level physically than everyone else. When you watched Mudiay in China, he simply looked strong and fast. That leads me to believe that Mudiay will follow a career path more similar to another player he's often been compared to, Jrue Holiday. Holiday is a solid starting NBA point guard. That's good - but the thing is there's a lot of solid starting point guards in the NBA. So while Mudiay projects to be a fine player, I think it's unlikely he'll turn into  a great one.

8. Justise Winslow 
It's a positive reflection of this draft class that Winslow is ranked as low as this. A risk-adverse team would certainly have him ranked much higher. Winslow had a great freshman year at Duke, and looks to be one of the safer picks in the draft. In the very least, he should be a solid pro for a long time. Winslow plays with frenetic energy and fills up the box score in a multitude of ways - he appears to be a "winner," for what it's worth. His upside is quite high, although I have some doubts he'll get there because of his average size, and think he's more likely to be sort of like Michael Kidd-Gilchrist.

Winslow plays with such energy that most college players just couldn't compete with him physically. But that's not going to be the case in the NBA. Winslow is 6'6", 225 pounds, and he'll be a wing player professionally. Even in today's "smaller" league, Winslow is not exceptional from a physical standpoint when compared to his fellow NBA wings. Winslow's good at many things, but it's unclear if he's great at anything. He can defend, score, shoot and pass at a high level - but can he do any of these things on a superior level in the pros? If he can figure that out, Winslow could end up being an All-Star. He's certainly young enough to think such progression is possible. 

9. Stanley Johnson 
Johnson just turned 19 years old, is already a physical powerhouse - he's a muscular 6'7", 240 pounds - and was a major contributor to an excellent Arizona team. Like Winslow, Johnson put up solid numbers across the board. So the upside is obviously there, although I have no idea if he'll come close to reaching it.

Johnson is just beginning to understand how to use his body on both sides of the ball. It's feasible to think he could develop into a Ron Artest type of player (albeit probably never with the defensive chops of Artest at his peak.) But Johnson is so young...and I just don't know. He could be an excellent pro, or turn into nothing more than a solid bench player. Neither scenario would surprise me. Regardless, Johnson has too much talent and size to be picked much later than here.

10. Delon Wright 
Wright is maybe the most underrated player in the draft, and a prospect I really like. He's a potential steal later in the first round or early in the second round. A 6'5" point guard, the younger brother of Dorell Wright, Delon put up fantastic numbers the last two seasons. Frankly, his whole time at Utah, Wright never looked that much like a college player. He has a maturity and feel for the game that always seemed professional; in college he was a man among boys.

There are a few criticisms of Wright that will probably keep him out of the lottery, but none are warranted. Wright is a poor outside shooter - but his three point shot has improved, and he's always had a very high two point field goal percentage. The other big knock against Wright is he's already 23 years old - but so what? Ever since he came to Utah, at age 21, he's been kicking everyone's ass. Now he's just a bit older, and that might be a good thing. I think Wright is going to have a long and solid NBA career, and there's a chance he could turn into a star. In a draft without a lot of "sleepers," this is the most probable candidate.

11. Mario Hezonja
My enthusiasm for this draft class starts to wane here. Many people love Hezonja as a prospect, and the reason why is he's an extremely athletic 6'8" wing who can shoot. What gives me pause is the numbers don't back this up all that much. Hezonja is  indeed a terrific shooter, but his field goal percentage is the only noticeably above average statistic I see. Hezonja plays in a very tough professional league, so I can understand he's not going to be putting up huge per-minute statistics - but at the same time his lack of any noticeable output makes me believe he'll never become a star in the NBA. It's not easy to take so much responsibility on the court, even with superior athleticism. I expect Hezonja to be a lot more like Gerald Green than Paul George.
 
12. Frank Kaminsky
Kaminsky is kind of like Porzingis without the perceived upside. He's 7'1" and can legitimately shoot. Wouldn't it be ironic if Kaminsky ends up the All-Star, and Porzingis the bench player? I doubt that happens, though. I question Kaminsky's fluidity and ability to defend in the pros, and see him more as a nice complementary piece for a team, as opposed to a star.

13. Robert Upshaw
Upshaw has two strikes against him: character issues and a potential heart ailment. He also averaged 18 points, 13 rebounds and 7 blocks per 40 minutes in 19 games for Washington. Those are eye-popping numbers, and why Upside deserves to be selected rather early, reported problems notwithstanding. 

14. Kelly Oubre
Oubre was highly touted coming out of high school, and never put it all together in his one year at Kansas. But his numbers were decent enough, and Oubre's the kind of player that's fluidly athletic, so it's easy to imagine he'll be able to turn into something down the road. Or not. He probably deserves to be taken at the tail end of the lottery.

After these 14 guys I view the 2015 draft as basically a crapshoot. I usually don't feel such lack of clarity after only 14 players. But that's okay. Even though I think it's a crapshoot doesn't mean there won't be several excellent future NBA players picked later in the first round and second round. There might even be a star or two. As always, uncertainty is king.

]]>Wed, 13 May 2015 15:49:28 GMThttp://www.nbafocus.com/risk-analysis-in-the-nba/per-numbers-for-the-2014-15-rookie-class
Here's a quick PER review for the 2014-15 rookies. For those unfamiliar with what I'm talking about, rookie PER is an excellent objective indicator of whether a player has a chance of turning into an NBA All-Star. When we took an early look at these numbers in December they were very inauspicious; things gradually improved as the season went on. 

The benchmark PER to aim for is 15+ for big men, 13+ for point guards and wing players. If a player is going to turn into a very good player, there's an excellent chance he's going to hit that benchmark as a rookie. Here's some interesting PER findings for notable rookies who played at least a few hundred minutes. Let's start with the two most "experienced" rookies:

Nikola Mirotic was the only rookie who consistently contributed positively the entire season; his PER was 17.9 in 1,654 regular season minutes. A Euroleague veteran and already 24 years old, Mirotic might not have the upside of some of these other rookies, but he already is a good NBA player and should get better. 

Nerlens Noel started his rookie year quite poorly, which was a surprise given he really was a second year player. However, he made tremendous strides as the season wore on - Noel has already become a dominate defender - and finished with an acceptable 15.0 PER. He still looks to have as much upside as any player from the 2013 Draft. 

Now let's look at the first 10 picks from the 2014 Draft; the numbers aren't that pretty:

Andrew Wiggins initially had a bad couple of months adjusting to the NBA, but like Noel, he showed pronounced improvement as the year went on. Wiggins won Rookie of the Year with a PER of 13.9. I'm not sure he should have been the first pick in the 2014 Draft, but Wiggins certainly looks like he'll someday be an All-Star. 

Jabari Parker had a perfectly acceptable 14.5 PER in 738 minutes before he went down with a season-ending knee injury in December. His rookie PER for a combo forward is fine; Parker would be selected in the Top-3 if the draft was done over, even with his injury.

Joel Embiid did not play a single minute and remains as enticing and risky of a prospect as ever. 

Aaron Gordon had an 11.4 PER in a rookie season that saw him miss considerable time because of injury. Gordon looks like he will be a fine player, particularly defensively. But his low PER strongly indicates he is unlikely to ever become a star.

Dante Exum had a terrible 5.7 PER. He looks to be a bust. With a PER that low, Utah should try their best to trade Exum now, while he still has some perceived value. 

Marcus Smart had an unimpressive 11.0 PER, although he showed the defensive prowess that we expected. It looks like many of us overrated Smart's potential. His offensive deficiencies make it unlikely he will ever reach an All-Star level, but his strong defense makes him a useful, effective player. 

Julius Randle was hurt in his first game and did not play the rest of the season. 

Nik Stauskas had a tepid 7.5 PER and, unsurprisingly, seems to have been a bad selection with the 8th overall pick in the draft. 

Noah Vonleh only played 259 minutes and had a PER of 13.2. It's still too early to get much of a feel for Vonleh's potential. 

Elfrid Payton would probably be the first point guard selected if the 2014 Draft was held again; his 13.8 PER was solid and his defensive upside is high. Payton arguably outplayed every player taken before him during his rookie year. 

Here are some other notable PER numbers from the rookie class: 

Jordan Clarkson was the 46th pick in the 2014 Draft, but he had a very impressive 16.9 PER - an exceptional number for a rookie guard. Any rookie guard who puts up that high of a PER deserves attention. It looks like the Lakers got themselves a second round steal.  

Mitch McGary did not play that much for Oklahoma City, only 485 minutes, but he looked good when he was on the floor. He had a 16.6 PER. 

Jusuf Nurkic turned heads from the beginning of the season, and finished with a PER of 14.8. He has big-time potential, and missing the PER benchmark by that small a margin is not a big deal. Nurkic would probably go in the top half of the lottery if it were held today. 

T.J. Warren quietly showcased his ability in limited minutes for Phoenix and finished with a decent 14.0 PER.

]]>Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:26:16 GMThttp://www.nbafocus.com/risk-analysis-in-the-nba/quick-playoffs-preview1
A few big picture thoughts on the playoffs:

- As of yesterday morning, Cleveland was slightly edging Golden State as the favorite to win the Finals, and because the Cavs play in a weaker conference those odds are not a huge surprise. At the same time, if the Warriors and Cavs do end up squaring off in the Finals, I expect Golden State to win.

The Warriors have been the best team in the NBA all season. They are historically great. Not many of us saw this coming, but the massive improvements compared to last year are real. Golden State is arguably the best offensive and defensive team in the league, as well as the fastest paced - in other words, they're a frigging juggernaut. Their two concerns - besides health, obviously - are the tough conference, and the fact that the Warriors have played so well this year they really haven't been punched in the mouth yet. They've had a magnificent, virtually turmoil-free season. I expect for Golden State to be challenged, but I don't expect any team to beat them in a seven game series.

- That said, there obviously are other excellent teams out there. Cleveland is the favorite in the East, but Atlanta could certainly challenge them if they get their mojo back. Chicago, too, could pose problems for the Cavs, if all their stars are somewhat aligned - which seems unlikely.

Cleveland has been on a great run the last few months, but this team still has serious concerns. David Blatt has not lived up to my high expectations - Kevin Love has never looked comfortable, and the defense is shaky. Cleveland has LeBron James, but Vegas might be placing too much on him in anointing the Cavs as favorites. I see an excellent, but flawed, team. Obviously, the playoffs might change my opinion.

- The Western Conference is brutally competitive, as we all know, but Golden State's main challengers - the Spurs and Clippers - have to play each other in the first round. I think that works as another advantage for the Warriors. There's some superb teams in the West, but Golden State appears to be a cut above this year.
     ]]>Wed, 18 Mar 2015 20:33:44 GMThttp://www.nbafocus.com/risk-analysis-in-the-nba/the-unusual-first-time-all-stars-of-2015
Six players were first-time All-Star selections in 2015. Framed in a historical context there were a lot of unusual aspects to these players becoming All-Stars that I found interesting. Let's look at where the new All-Stars were drafted, and the expectations we had for them based on their early years in the NBA:

DeMarcus Cousins (drafted 5th in 2010) Cousins finally made an All-Star team, and his selection, judged historically, is certainly the least surprising of the six first-time selections. I always make a big deal out of rookie PER (future All-Star big men usually have a PER of 15+ as rookies, and future All-Star guards/small forwards usually have a PER of at least 13.) Cousins' PER was only 14.6 as a rookie, and while he did not miss the big man PER benchmark by much, it's nonetheless surprising because his PER has been over 20 every season since then. Everybody thought Cousins would become an All-Star if his head was in the right place, so him finally making the team is expected.

Klay Thompson (drafted 11th in 2011) Thompson's vastly improved play this season is one of the main reasons Golden State has gone from being a good team to a great one. Thompson, drafted in 2011, is the first player drafted in the early teens to become an All-Star since Kobe Bryant, Peja Stojakovic and Steve Nash - all who were drafted way back in 1996. That's pretty amazing, and very relevant to consider when it comes to NBA drafting methodology.

The drop-off in talent immediately after pick #10 has been very significant since the 1997 Draft. While the 9th and 10th picks have yielded a bounty of future All-Stars, the picks immediately after have produced no All-Star players except Thompson:
  
Pick #9: Seven different All-Stars drafted there since 1997 

Pick #10: Six different All-Stars drafted there since 1997

Pick #11: One All-Star drafted there since 1997 

Pick #12: Zero All-Stars drafted there since 1997

Pick #13: Zero All-Stars drafted there since 1997

Pick #14: Zero All-Stars drafted there since 1997

Pick #15: Zero All-Stars drafted there since 1997

So do not let anyone tell you that there is no difference between the 10th pick and 12th pick in a NBA Draft; recent history indicates there is a huge difference. Top-10 picks are much more important than a pick anywhere else in the draft, and late lottery picks are generally overvalued.

Jeff Teague (drafted 19th in 2009) Teague has progressively gotten better every year in the league, and now he's brilliantly orchestrating a fantastic Hawks team. What's interesting is how inauspiciously Teague began his career. His 11.0 rookie PER is very low for a future All-Star, and his gradual ascent was impossible to see coming. Since 1992, Mo Williams and Steve Nash were the only two eventual All-Star point guards who posted a lower rookie PER than Teague. I think projecting a young point guard's long-term potential is probably harder than any other position, and Teague provides testament to that.

Kyle Lowry (drafted 24th in 2006) The strangest thing about Lowry's star turn is his unusual career path, a story of persistence which was well-documented by Jonathan Abrams last September. It's odd to be selected as an All-Star starter after being mainly under the radar for nine years. Statistically, Lowry always put up promising numbers, although few could have guessed he would ever achieve as much success as he has. Lowry was selected 24th in the 2006 Draft; Rajon Rondo was picked 21st that same year. 

Jimmy Butler (drafted 30th in 2011) Like Thompson, Butler unexpectedly greatly improved this season. He becomes the third 30th pick to make the All-Star Game drafted since 2001 (Gilbert Arenas and David Lee are the other two.) As we know, late first round and early second round picks quite often provide teams with cheap, quality talent. Still, even in this day and age, many NBA front offices refuse to take this part of the draft as seriously as they should, which is ridiculous. The Josh Huestis debacle last year was just the latest example of how superficially many teams view this underrated part of the draft.

Butler was solid upon his arrival to the NBA, although his 12.5 PER in 359 rookie minutes fell slightly below the PER benchmark. What has been shocking this year is his offensive development - before he recently got injured, Butler was the best player on a good Bulls team. He's a fascinating player to watch going forward. Will this end up being his best statistical season, or is this dominance something we should expect from him over the next half decade? Regardless of that answer, Butler is deserving of a max contract this summer. 

Kyle Korver (drafted 51st in 2003) Korver's selection, from a historical perspective, is the craziest of the six. A guy drafted 51st overall, going on his twelfth year in the league, is not supposed to become an All-Star. But he has, and it's an amazing story. Korver is having his best year in an ideal situation for his talents. He has shattered all expectations one could have placed upon him given where he was drafted, and his early pro career. He had only a 10.1 PER as a rookie. 

Again, it's incredible Korver reached a crescendo like this. Players picked at the end of the second round, and undrafted free agents, obviously have the most difficult time sticking around the league, let alone becoming a dominant force in it. When it happens, the player deserves a lot of praise. Some critics thought Korver was not deserving of his All-Star selection, but that should not take away from the fact that he has had an incredibly illustrious NBA career given where he was drafted.

]]>Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:36:41 GMThttp://www.nbafocus.com/risk-analysis-in-the-nba/a-few-observations-on-the-top-freshman-prospects
I have been confining my 2015 NBA Draft analysis to Twitter because I generally agree with what has been said about the top of this draft. I wonder if there is more of a consensus this year because "advanced" statistical models are becoming en vogue, or whether it is just coincidence that there has been so much agreement about who the top prospects are. My guess is it's the latter situation.

Bypassing analysis for now on the top international prospects (Emmanuel Mudiay, Kristaps Porzingis and Mario Hezonja) and the best upperclassmen (Willie Cauley-Stein, Kris Dunn and Delon Wright) let me quickly share with you a few of my observations of the top freshman prospects:

Jahlil Okafor - Many people seem to think Okafor is a future superstar and no-brainer #1 pick, but sober analysis gives a different impression - his standing as a top prospect is really on similar footing to Mudiay and a few other freshman standouts. Okafor is undoubtedly an elite player on the offensive end. His dynamic post game is incredibly advanced for a freshman, and it's hard to see that not translating well to the NBA. There are, however, legitimate defensive concerns with Okafor. He often seems slow reacting defensively, and has not put up the high total of blocks most future NBA superstar centers accumulate in college. Okafor should certainly be a good pro, but the expectations of him being the next Tim Duncan are probably a tad overblown. In reality, Okafor is likely to be the first pick because he has size, obvious talent and seems to be the safest selection. If Okafor turns into a healthier, slightly better version of Brook Lopez or Al Jefferson no one should be disappointed, and that seems like a realistic possibility.

D'Angelo Russell - Russell has had a great freshman year, and the comparisons to Stephen Curry and James Harden are not that far-fetched. This is a dynamic offensive guard. He seems more suited to play shooting guard than point guard in the NBA, but like Harden, has superior passing abilities for his position. Statistically, Russell has probably put up better numbers across the board than any freshman prospect (the only thing he doesn't do is block shots.) If Russell continues to play as well as he has, should he be taken first? Possibly. But as we know, size almost always wins at the top of the draft, and a 6'5" guard weighing less than 185 pounds is an unlikely candidate to be selected first.

Karl Towns - Towns plays on such a great Kentucky team, with so many good players, that he is probably the hardest freshman prospect to fairly gauge. Is playing with all this talent helping or detracting from our ability to judge his NBA future? I can't answer that question, and I doubt anything that happens the rest of the season will provide much clarity in that regard. Towns, in many ways, looks to have a higher upside than Okafor. He is a more well-rounded player. His offensive numbers are a bit on the low side, but that is maybe a byproduct of the team Towns plays on. Many of us have waited for Towns to step up his game - kind of like Anthony Davis did as a freshman - but if it never happens it doesn't necessarily mean anything. His long-term potential is perhaps greater than anyone in the draft, but there is also a palpable sense of risk with him being selected first.

Myles Turner - Turner is both a perplexing and enticing prospect, as his numbers and game tape indicate. Turner is huge - almost 7 feet and 250 pounds - and he is beginning to learn how to use his above-average athleticism. That alone means he need to be drafted early. Defensively Turner has shown flashes of real dominance, while offensively he has been scattered and erratic. But Turner can definitely shoot the ball from the perimeter. There is a lot to like here, and the positives far outweigh the negatives in terms of his long-term potential. Guys who can expertly defend the paint in the NBA, while having an outside game, are valuable assets. 

Stanley Johnson - The most impressive thing about Johnson is his size - he is a ripped 6'8", 240 pound small forward at 18 years old. I feel like Johnson's incredible physicality is still somewhat underrated, and projects very well for him at the next level. He lives up to the billing of being an athletic freak. Johnson has been a key part of one of the better teams in the country, and has posted solid numbers for a freshman put in such a situation. He probably deserves to be selected in the top half of the lottery.

Jakob Poeltl - Another prospect whose size has been vastly underrated is Poeltl - any seven foot freshman who puts up decent numbers against sound competition needs to be taken in the lottery, and Poeltl has done exactly that. I'm surprised most mocks don't have him being drafted higher. Poeltl's skills are more developed than scouts give him credit for; his situation reminds me of Steven Adams' freshman year at Pitt a few years ago, and Poeltl might be a better prospect. 

Justise Winslow - I like Winslow more than some freshman prospects I did not talk about (like Tyus Jones, Kelly Oubre, Kevon Looney, etc.) mainly because I really appreciate the way Winslow plays -  he has a kind of reckless intelligence in his game, if that makes any sense. Michael Kidd-Gilchrist is an easy comparison, but it does seem apt. All these freshman are so young, and so much can change quickly, but it appears like this is a solid group of prospects.

]]>Fri, 30 Jan 2015 15:35:58 GMThttp://www.nbafocus.com/risk-analysis-in-the-nba/playoff-seeding-home-court-does-not-matter-until-it-matters
It's been a pretty crazy and entertaining regular season so far. Kudos if you predicted that Atlanta or Golden State would have such incredibly impressive years. As always: the more we think we know, the more we realize we know very little. 

The Western Conference has been ridiculously competitive and deep, while the Eastern Conference has been more solid up top than we expected. Meanwhile, many pundits' preseason favorites - teams like the Bulls, Thunder, Spurs, Clippers and especially the Cavs - have sometimes struggled. 

In of itself, excellent teams having regular season problems is not that significant an issue (although the extent of Cleveland's problems has been stunning.) The best NBA teams - the very top teams in the league each year - usually rise to the occasion when stakes become highest, even if they have doldrums during the course of the regular season. 

But this year might be a little different. Maybe. 

With so many good teams in both Conferences - especially out West - there is a chance that some of the preseason favorites will get poor playoff seeds. This could be an interesting development, and contrasts intriguingly with recent data indicating that home-court advantage is less vital than ever before.

I have never been a believer in the overriding importance of home-court advantage once the playoffs start. It's obviously nice to have the best record in the Conference, but it's not essential. In my opinion the very best teams usually find a way to win, regardless. 

However, the plain fact of the matter is that to make it to the NBA Finals a team basically needs to be one of the top four playoff seeds in its respective Conference. Since the playoffs expanded to the 16 team format in 1984, only two teams lower than the fourth seed have advanced to the Finals: the Knicks in the strike-shortened 1999 season, and the Rockets in 1995. 

We can discount the Knicks' strange success in 1999 right away - that season was bizarre, only 50 games long and pretty much the definition of fluky. Which leaves us only that superb Houston team in 1995 as a true example of a team having their playoff seeding not matter. 

The Rockets in '95 were the defending champs and playing in a brutal Conference (four teams had 57+ wins in the West that year; this year looks to be similar.) Houston managed to win just 47 games, but still had probably the league's best player in Hakeem Olajuwon. They also had traded for Clyde Drexler midway through the year. That veteran squad was the 6th seed but proceeded to take down the top three seeds in the Western Conference, and then smash the top-seeded Orlando Magic in the Finals. They saved their best, obviously, for when it mattered most.
  
The '95 Rockets stand as the great exception to the seeding rule. To make the Finals every other team of the last thirty years - except for that freak Knicks team - has been a top-4 seed. 

There is a decent chance either the Cavs or Bulls will not be a top-4 seed. Same goes for the Spurs and Clippers. And it seems very unlikely the Thunder will be able to secure a top-4 seed. Could any of these teams make the Finals in spite of being a low seed - or will the home-court disadvantage eventually wear them out? 

Playoff seeding seemingly does not usually matter this much, but with so many high winning percentages in 2015, this year could be different. It's something to keep an eye on, when so many teams are on track to win over 50 games. The concept of home court-advantage being important in the playoffs will be put to the test many times this Spring.

]]>Wed, 17 Dec 2014 14:36:13 GMThttp://www.nbafocus.com/risk-analysis-in-the-nba/a-disappointing-start-for-the-rookies
Jabari Parker’s season ending injury is the latest bad sign for this year’s rookie class. While a third of the way through a rookie season is far too early for any kind of serious assessment, this year’s class has been a big disappointment so far. While there is no need to overreact, there are a few things worth noticing.

First of all, the only two 2014 prominent draftees with a PER around 15 are Parker and Aaron Gordon. Both are injured. The only other rookie (who has played more than a handful of minutes) with an above league average PER is 23 year old Euroleague veteran Nikola Mirotic.  

As I constantly stress, rookie PER is probably the easiest way to project chances at future stardom. So far, the returns for this group have not been promising. While there is plenty of time for the numbers to go up, a couple of rookies’ subpar early performances stand out as possible red flags:

Nerlens Noel currently has a PER around 10, despite really being a second year player, and performing well in summer league and preseason. For a big man with excellent defensive skills, Noel’s slow start is quite discouraging; he often has looked completely lost offensively.

Andrew Wiggins has a PER under 10, and like Anthony Bennett last year, such a low mark is pretty much unacceptable for a #1 overall pick. Wiggins certainly has had his moments, but already it is looking like he might have been a reach as the first selection in the draft.

Dante Exum, after playing well the first few games of his pro career, has seen his PER plummet down to 8.5 – a very inauspicious number for a top-5 pick. Exum is obviously young and inexperienced, but as Harlan Schreiber covered last year in regards to Giannis Antetokounmpo, a low PER is not a good sign even if you are a teenager.

Perceptions of a draft class do not really mean anything until the prospects actually play NBA games, and so far most of these rookie performances have been underwhelming. Before we get too excited about the 2015 NBA Draft, it’s worth taking these objective rookie statistics to heart. Drafting the right guy, as always, is hard. Expectations often do not meet reality.

]]>Tue, 25 Nov 2014 16:41:38 GMThttp://www.nbafocus.com/risk-analysis-in-the-nba/the-uncertainty-surrounding-the-rising-salary-cap
The salary cap dramatically increasing over the next few years is big news. The cap is likely to slightly rise next year, and then substantially increase all the way up to around $90 million (or more) for the 2016-17 season. No one knows the actual numbers yet, and a potential work stoppage in 2017 will further muddle the already murky waters. Right now the cap is about $63 million.

With so much cap uncertainty comes great risks for NBA rosters, as well as the potential for great reward. Perhaps the best mindset a NBA team can adopt is to acknowledge they don’t really know what lies ahead in terms of these higher cap numbers, and then still try to move forward with as much intelligence and guile as possible. Essentially, the general guidelines for roster management will be the same, but player salaries will likely increase across the board.

Correspondingly, many NBA teams have already been trying to sign/extend their good but not great players (like Rudy Gay, Eric Bledsoe, Klay Thompson, Ricky Rubio, Kemba Walker, Alec Burks, Nikola Vucevic and Kenneth Faried) to "reasonable" long-term deals before these new, higher cap numbers go into effect over the next few seasons.

These teams are all taking calculated risks and they know it. It’s much easier for me to say that Denver got a good deal with Faried's new contract than Utah got with Burks, but the major cap hikes makes it slightly less of a concern than usual – as long as these players continue to stay healthy and produce at expected standards. But that is always a risky assumption.

That “if” is always there, especially for the caliber of player that just got big deals. For instance, what if Vucevic or Faried hurts his back or knee and is never the same again? What if Burks does not improve? What if Bledsoe, Rubio or Walker never become above average starting point guards? What if Gay regresses, or Thompson is not as good as many people think? These are all highly relevant questions moving forward.    

Health and production are the two most important components in judging any NBA player. For good but not great NBA players this is particularly true – because you can go from being very good to mediocre in the blink of an eye in the NBA. Legitimate stars can perform less effectively and still provide superior production, but that is not the case for the vast majority of players in the league. If you are only an average NBA player, but are being paid a lot over the next four or five years, you quickly become an unwanted, negative asset. The same type of player can be had for a fraction of the price.

Very good players – that nonetheless are not stars – are clearly going to take up a lot of cap space on most NBA rosters, even when cap numbers substantially increase. Extending such players now has benefits – especially if they can improve and turn into genuine stars – but the risks are also obvious, and cannot be glossed over. I have a feeling during free agency next summer this fact will be largely ignored, and perhaps we are already guilty of doing it now. 


]]>Mon, 27 Oct 2014 21:58:20 GMThttp://www.nbafocus.com/risk-analysis-in-the-nba/predicted-records-for-14-15-regular-season
The always fun (and futile) activity of predicted records for each NBA team for the upcoming season... 

I still see Cleveland beating Oklahoma City in the Finals, but with Durant's injury OKC's playoff seed could potentially turn out to be harmfully low - that's something to keep an eye on in the competitively tight Western Conference. I already went over the big picture for each team a few months ago. Rest assured, in the NBA, the only thing certain with the regular season is uncertainty. While we usually know who the best teams are, how the regular season plays out is almost always surprising.

1. Cleveland   60-22

2. L.A. Clippers   57-25

3. San Antonio  55-27

4. Chicago  55-27

5. Houston  52-30

6. Oklahoma City  51-31

7. Golden State  49-33

8. Memphis  48-34

9. Dallas  48-34

10. Toronto  47-35

11. Portland  46-36

12. Washington  45-37

13. Miami  44-38

14. Detroit  44-38

15. Phoenix  43-39

16. Charlotte  41-41 

17. New York  40-42

18. Atlanta  40-42

19. Brooklyn  37-45

20. New Orleans  37-45

21. Boston  35-47

22. Denver  32-50

23. Minnesota  31-51

24. Indiana  31-51

25. L.A. Lakers  30-52

26. Milwaukee  29-53

27. Sacramento  29-53

28. Orlando  28-54

29. Utah  27-55

30. Philadelphia  14-68

]]>Tue, 30 Sep 2014 12:16:46 GMThttp://www.nbafocus.com/risk-analysis-in-the-nba/in-defense-of-great-offense
The last few years have seen an added emphasis put on how well individual players defend their position, and that's probably a good thing. But it also poses a problem. That's because, inevitably, if we focus too much on a subject, it tends to get overblown.

I feel we have reached that point in how we judge most NBA defenders. There are only a few dominant lockdown perimeter defenders in the league. Usually the value between a good defender and a mediocre one is not as significant as we tend to imagine, especially with wing players. A lot of us seem to be forgetting this.

For example, Bill Duffy recently claimed that Klay Thompson, his client, was probably the best shooting guard in the NBA, in large part due to his defensive abilities. For those of us who have watched the NBA for a long time, such an assessment is absurd. Thompson is a good offensive and defensive player, but not much more than that. In a league where stars rule, Thompson is unlikely to ever develop into an elite player, let alone the best at his position. 

I have no issue with Duffy trying to get Thompson paid, but what surprised me is how many folks seemed to agree with Duffy. Solid "two-way" players, like Thompson or Lance Stevenson, are now sometimes considered to be more valuable than vastly superior offensive players, like James Harden.

And that is ridiculous. 

Because in the NBA, when you look at what teams win championships, still the most important thing is having stellar offensive talent, and such talent is rare. Defense is mightily important, but ultimately you need exceptional offensive star power to be a championship-level team. This has always been the case, and why a fantastically talented guard like Harden is so valuable. 

Players that are truly exceptional offensively are the rarest commodities in the NBA. They are the guys who can get you buckets, no matter what the circumstances. Great offense, when all is said and done, will usually beat great defense. 

San Antonio was a very good defensive team this past season, but few of us focused on that, because their offense was great. The spectacular Spurs renaissance of the last few years is mainly because of a great offense. 

The Spurs struggled offensively for a few seasons following their 2007 championship run, and most of us thought they were done as serious contenders for this reason alone, despite still being excellent defensively. It is only their surprising offensive resurgence over the last several years that has made the Spurs an exceptional team again. San Antonio's defense was always excellent, but it did not really matter without a stellar offense. 

The Spurs were fortunate enough to have the stars and coaching to make such an unlikely offensive transfiguration possible; most teams don't have that luxury. Average offenses in the NBA, like the Spurs had five years ago, do not win championships. 

The Celtics of the Kevin Garnett years are another great recent example of this. Only in 2008, with Paul Pierce still in his scoring prime, was the Boston offense good enough to win it all. The Celtics had battle-tested, superior defensive teams in the postseason for a solid half decade - but fell painfully short of winning championships in 2010 and maybe 2012 because their offensive lackluster was so glaringly apparent. 

A championship team needs to have a great offense when it counts the most. The offense does not need to be showy, but it needs to work. A superstars' scoring superiority becomes most apparent in the postseason. It often does not look pretty, but the best offensive players find a way to consistently score even in the hardest situations. Teams without these kind of players eventually fail in the playoffs. 

This is the nature of how the NBA works. It's a team game, but it comes down to exceptional individual star offensive performers pulling their team through. It's a battle of attrition, where only the strongest are left at the end, and it's fascinating to watch. The reason Michael Jordan is arguably still more famous than any other American athlete is because he epitomized this wonderful NBA postseason narrative better than anybody ever has.

NBA teams can improve defensively by making adjustments, and highly gifted players like Harden can improve defensively by sheer effort. But teams miraculously improving their offense in the playoffs without star power is damn near impossible. This is why Thompson will probably never approach Harden's value. Harden is a star player; Thompson is not.

Teams don't win NBA championships without being very good defensively, but that misses the larger point. You need to be able to score well in the playoffs to be exceptional, and you need stars to make that happen against an advanced level of competition. Good "two-way" players aren't enough in that setting; you need the very best kind of offensive talent, and that is what every team should covet.
 ]]>