Author: John Paulsen (Page 700 of 937)

Barstool Debate: Who is the worst #1 pick in the NBA’s modern era – Kwame Brown or Michael Olowokandi?

As long as there have been barstools, there have been men sitting on those barstools arguing about sports. This week, John Paulsen and Anthony Stalter debate the worst #1 pick in the NBA’s modern era. Is it the Wizards’ pick of Kwame Brown or the Clippers’ pick of Michael Olowokandi? They’re both bad, but which is the worst?

John: This is a tough call, but I’m going to have to go with Kwame Brown as the worst #1 pick in the modern era of the NBA. In his seven seasons, he has averaged 7.5 points and 5.7 rebounds, while shooting 48.4% from the field, which is pretty pathetic for a guy his size (6’11”). He has turned himself into a decent defender, but he has only averaged 0.7 blocks per game, so he’s at best a backup center in this league. Michael Olowokandi was a truly awful pick, but his numbers (8.3 points, 6.3 rebounds, 1.4 blocks) are a little better. (Boy, his shooting percentage – 43.5% – is even worse than Kwame’s!) Anyway, the Kandi Man managed a couple of decent seasons with the Clippers. He averaged 12.3 points and 9.1 rebounds in the 2002-03 season.

Anthony: I think what makes the case for Olowokandi being the worst No. 1 pick in the modern era is whom he was taken ahead of. When you see the names Vince Carter, Dirk Nowitzki, Paul Pierce, Mike Bibby, Antawn Jamison and Rashard Lewis, it just makes you shake your head at how bad of a pick the “The Kandi Man” was for the Clippers in 1998. He was taken before four All-Stars and even worse, Nazr Mohammed (the last pick in the first round) arguably had a better career.

John: Not to get off topic, but Rashard Lewis does have one All-Star nod to his credit, so the Kandi Man was actually drafted ahead of five All-Stars. Kwame was drafted ahead of four (Pau Gasol, Joe Johnson, Tony Parker and Gilbert Arenas) as well as Tyson Chandler, Jason Richardson, Shane Battier, Richard Jefferson, Zach Randolph and Gerald Wallace, who are all good players in their own right. What makes Kwame the worst #1 pick is the fact that when the Clippers took Olowokandi, there was only one other “big guy” in the top 5 – Raef LaFrentz – and he was more of a face up shooter. The Clippers were desperate for a post presence so they reached for the Kandi Man. The Wizards’ pick of Kwame Brown was followed by the 7’ Tyson Chandler, the 7’1” Pau Gasol and the 6’11” Eddy Curry. The Wizards had four true centers to choose from and they ended up with the one guy who wasn’t going to turn into a player.

Anthony: But wasn’t Olowokandi off everyone’s radar in 1998 until the draft eased closer? If I remember correctly, he kind of worked his way into being a top 5 pick, but wasn’t always viewed as “the guy” of that draft. I don’t know if this helps or hurts my argument, but I read somewhere that Olowokandi picked up the game of basketball just six years before he was drafted. So it appears that the Clippers reached big time on a player whose draft stock was better than his overall potential. My point being, the warning signs on the Kandi Man were pretty obvious, yet the Clippers still reached and wound up with one of the worst No. 1 picks in NBA Draft history.

John: I think what makes the Kwame Brown pick the worst in the modern era is that the guy who was responsible for the selection is regarded as the best player ever to step on the court… Michael Jordan. How could someone so good at basketball be so bad at judging a prospect? Let’s just say that these two guys tied for worst pick in the modern era and leave it at that. I don’t think I can dedicate any more time to Kwame Brown and/or the Kandi Man!


Poll Answers

John Hollinger’s Draft Rater reveals a few surprises

As a former math guy myself, I have a lot of respect for the analytical side of sports and I think that stats can paint a pretty good picture of how a player is performing (or how he will perform). It is by no means the be-all and end-all of judging a player’s value or potential, but it can get you in the right ballpark. If there was one thing I learned while trudging through Calc III, Differential Equations and Advanced Statistics, it’s that numbers are powerful.

ESPN’s John Hollinger developed the Player Efficiency Rating (PER) which takes into account the player’s statistical performance as well as extraneous factors (like the tempo at which his team plays at) to produce a summary statistic of that player’s performance for any given season.

He has recently produced a formula for the draft which forecasts a player’s third-season PER based on his performance in college. He didn’t reveal the details of the formula, which is unfortunate because I’d like to take a more in depth look at it, but he used regression analysis the player’s statistics along with other factors, like height, age, schedule strength and team strength.

When applied to previous drafts, it would have identified late first and second round gems like Josh Howard, David Lee, Rajon Rondo and Carlos Boozer, as well as Udonis Haslem, who went undrafted. Like the real world, there are some clunkers in his system, but it produces a better draft board than the NBA teams themselves, so it’s worth taking note.

Anyway, some of the results were interesting.

1. Michael Beasley is far and away the best player in this draft. His projected third-year PER of 19.31 puts him in the same class as Shawn Marion and Josh Smith, and just below David West.

2. Derrick Rose isn’t even the top point guard in the draft. Due to a so-so start to his freshman year, Rose’s numbers are depressed. D.J. Augustin’s 14.88 third-year PER projects him to be better than the 2008 version of Mike Bibby, but not quite as good as Nate Robinson or Jordan Farmar. (Keep in mind that Hollinger is not advocating taking Augustin over Rose, that’s just how his numbers bear out.)

3. Kevin Love is the real deal. He has the second-highest projected PER in the draft (17.80) which puts him on par with players like Chris Kaman, David Lee and Andrew Bogut.

4. Anthony Randolph is waaaaaaaaaaaay overrated. His projected 9.85 PER reveals what we already knew – the kid is a REALLY risky pick. When Hollinger ran the numbers for Randolph with the small forwards (as some scouts see him at that position), his projected performance rose to 11.78. Better, but still not worthy of a first round pick.

Now it’s not wise to put too much weight on Hollinger’s numbers. Obviously, it’s crucial to have a scouting department pouring through tapes, and it’s prudent to both workout and interview potential draftees. But some of these numbers would give me pause. I was already pushing for the Bulls to draft Beasley, and Hollinger’s numbers are the proverbial icing on the cake. I think Minnesota should take Love, and these numbers support that theory. And I sure as hell hope my favorite team – the Milwaukee Bucks – steers clear of Anthony Randolph and instead drafts Joe Alexander, who projects to be the best wing player in the draft. Hollinger projects him to be as good as Marvin Williams in three years, and I’d take that at #8 in a New York second.

ESPN’s TrueHoop questions Michael Beasley’s motor

Henry Abbott from ESPN’s basketball blog, TrueHoop, has some questions about Michael Beasley’s workout routine.

There are all kinds of moments on this video, when Beasley is on the court not going hard. In one drill, there is a row of chairs around the hoop, each with a ball on it. There are a million such drills. The way I have seen it described, these kinds of drills are essentially a race, to dunk all those balls as hard and as fast as possible.

But Beasley’s walking to get the ball between dunks. Coach Adkins is hollering at him to go hard.

There are other moments like that, when he seems to be jogging lightly when most coaches would want to see a sprint.

I don’t want to read too much into this moment of video.

But he’s definitely doing some resting on the go.

Maybe this is not alarming to anyone but me. Maybe this is a sign that Beasley doesn’t go as hard as he could. Maybe this was an off-day. Maybe it’s a sign he’s too young to feel that kind of urgency.

Or maybe three hours is just too long.

As regular readers know, I played college ball for Bo Ryan at UW-Platteville, and his philosophy is that it’s better to practice hard (and the right way) for an hour and a half than it is to go for three hours and develop bad habits because you’re tired.

I was surprised when I heard Beasley say in the video that he worked out for three hours. There’s no way to practice at full speed for three hours straight, even with breaks. Even in a game situation, players get breathers, either on the bench or during free throws.

There are some questions about Beasley’s character, and he might have had some off-the-court issues, but between the lines the guy is a monster. If I were the Bulls, I’d take him #1.

« Older posts Newer posts »