Tag: 2010 NBA Draft (Page 7 of 7)

Kyle Singler’s problem is positional

Let’s not go off the deep end here. Duke junior Kyle Singler is still having a good year. He’s averaging 17-7-2 and is shooting 38% from long range. Those numbers are virtually identical to his sophomore season. The difference is in his overall FG%, which dropped from 44.1% last season to 40.7% this year.

Having watched at least half of Duke’s games this season — including last night’s 79-72 loss to Maryland — I think Singler is struggling with his accuracy because he is now playing a ton of minutes at small forward. Over his first two seasons, he played mostly power forward and even some center, and while he was at a disadvantage on Duke’s defensive glass, he had a big advantage on the offensive end.

Singler is a classic face-up forward. He has a very nice perimeter game in that he is accurate from long range and can take it to the basket when he gets his defender out of position. And over his first two seasons, he faced a lot of opposing 4s and 5s that weren’t comfortable covering someone on the perimeter. This season, in addition to Lance Thomas, Duke is giving big minutes to Brian Zoubek, Miles Plumlee and Mason Plumlee, which means that Singler is playing more small forward than ever. This allows the defense to cover him with their own small forward, who is generally quicker and far more comfortable defending on the perimeter.

As a result, Singler is getting far fewer good looks on penetration than he has in years past. During his first two seasons, it was relatively easy to get a bigger defender out of position on the wing and drive past him for a layup or short jumper. Now, his defenders are sticking with him on those drives and forcing tougher shots. Hence, the reduction in field goal percentage.

Duke certainly has more size this season, and that’s helping on the glass, but it’s hurting Singler’s efficiency on the other end of the court. It’s a trade-off that Coach K is apparently willing to live with, but I’m guessing that if Singler shoots 41% or less in the NCAA tournament, the Blue Devils won’t be making a Final Four appearance this season.


Photo from fOTOGLIF

An argument for the NBA’s one-and-done rule

You don’t hear this often from anyone not named David Stern, but Brandon LaChance of BullsHome.com says that the NBA should keep its age-limit rule because it allows the NBA to get a better look at prospects. Let’s go point-by-point:

The draft entrance law does hurt the college game. There is no doubt about it. Players leaving after one year hurts a team’s roster and team chemistry. The star player gets all the shine while the rest of the players and the school itself are forgotten. I know who John Wall is but couldn’t list one of his Kentucky teammates.

No offense, but if LaChance can’t name DeMarcus Cousins, Patrick Patterson or Eric Bledsoe, maybe he shouldn’t be commenting about how a rule affects the college game.

If a school has a problem with a player leaving after one year, then don’t recruit the athlete. Instead of Derrick Rose, OJ Mayo or Kevin Durant, go after Tyler Hansbrough.

That’s fine, but there are only so many Tyler Hansbroughs in the world. When you force a kid to go to college for a year, he doesn’t want to be there and he doesn’t want to go to class. It makes a mockery of the so-called “student-athlete.” Basketball programs are going to do what is in their best interests in terms of winning, and under this flawed system that means some will recruit clear one-and-done players like John Wall. You can’t force a flawed system on the NCAA and expect everyone to forgo the best available talent. One-and-done players only have to pass a few credits in their first semester to become eligible to play in the NCAA tournament. They don’t even have to go to a single class in in their second semester. This is ridculous.

One and done gives the NBA and the players a showcase, practice and a scale to place talent. There are millions of college hoops fans turning on their television sets to watch a big game or Sports Center for highlights.

The stud player is showcased to the world. The fans hearing how good he is at the college level will more than likely pay attention to him at the next level. Carmelo Anthony helped Syracuse win a championship in his one year. Anthony did his one year before the rule was a rule. Denver drafted him and their ticket sales went up along with media coverage of the Nuggets. The NCAA showcased his talent for the world to see and the NBA cashed in on it.

Yes, the one-and-done rule gives NBA teams a better look at a prospect, but that’s not the point. It’s wreaking havoc on the college game. High schooler LeBron James went ahead of Anthony in that draft and he’s doing just fine.

Remember a guy named Kwame Brown. Brown was drafted straight out of high school by the Washington Wizards in 2001 with the number one overall pick. He is one of the biggest busts in NBA history. In 2003, his best statistical year, he only averaged 10 points and 8 rebounds. This may not be completely accurate, but if he would have played a year in college, the Wizards may have noticed weaknesses. Brown may have needed the year to further develop. He might have decided to stay longer to develop skills if he couldn’t be a big time performer in the college level.

Ah, yes, the Kwame Brown argument. Yet there are plenty of examples of players that were busts coming out of college. What’s the NBA’s excuse there? On the whole, players drafted straight out of high school have a much higher success rate than those that played in college. In other words, why is the NBA forcing their rule on the NCAA to fix a non-existent problem?

The one and done deal may not be the best solution ever but it is the best now. University’s get one year of excitement and the NBA gets to cash in off of the marketing the NCAA does for the players. I think it is a great system and should stay in place. If the NCAA wants students to stay longer or participate, they have to do something.

What is the NCAA supposed to do? You can’t force a kid to stay in college — the only entity that could do that is the NBA (by requiring any players not drafted straight out of high school to play two years of collegiate ball before entering the draft again). That’s the system I support. Allow players that are good enough to go to the NBA straight out of high school to do so, but if they enroll in college they have to play for two years. That way, the NBA gets a good look at the fringe NBA talent, the NCAA gets some semblance of continuity, and those same kids get an opportunity to develop for two seasons at the college level.

Everyone wins.


Photo from fOTOGLIF

Scout: DeMarcus Cousins is on “big-time meds”

Good find by SPORTSbyBROOKS, who quoted Aran Smith’s scouting report of Kentucky center DeMarcus Cousins. In the report, Smith relays a text he received from a scout about Cousins’ NBA prospects.

“No way…mental issues…he is on bigtime meds i hear…not athletic enough for me talent wise also…but he has been great last month…”

That same scout has since stated that he thinks Cousins will probably go “very high” in the draft, but says he wouldn’t touch him in the top five for fear of off court issues.

Cousins has a well-earned reputation for being immature, and while talent-wise he’s the best big man in this draft, whether or not he’s able to channel his emotion will have a huge impact on what kind of professional career he will eventually have.

I won’t speculate as to what the scout meant by “big-time meds,” but it’s clear that given his attitude and immaturity, Cousins is one of the biggest upside/downside guys in the draft. He literally could be a franchise-changer, both in a good way and in a bad way.

In just 22 minutes of playing time, Cousins is averaging 16-10, 1.7 blocks and is shooting 55% from the field. He’s not great from the free throw line (64%), but he’s not Shaq-bad. He’s a dominant rebounder (think Paul Millsap) even though he’s not an elite athlete. If he can focus his energy on basketball and not get distracted by all the other garbage, then he has a chance to be a very good NBA player one day.

It’s going to be interesting to see where he goes in the draft.


Photo from fOTOGLIF

Lucas: Cavs tanked to get LeBron

Former Cavs coach John Lucas claims that the franchise tanked the 2002-03 season to try to get LeBron James.

“They trade all our guys away and we go real young, and the goal was to get LeBron and also to sell the team,” Lucas told AOL FanHouse. “I didn’t have a chance. … You can’t fault the Cavaliers for wanting to get LeBron. It was hard to get free agents to come there.”

The Cavaliers finished the 2002-03 season with a 17-65 record, tied with the Denver Nuggets for the worst record in the NBA. Cleveland won the NBA’s draft lottery and selected James with the No. 1 pick. Lucas was fired midway through that season.

Gordon Gund, who was then the team’s principal owner but is now a minority owner of the Cavs, denied Lucas’ claims. He also told the Web site that the Cavaliers weren’t for sale during that season. The team didn’t get sold until 2005.

“You don’t try to get the No. 1 pick,” Gund told AOL Fanhouse. “That’s why the lottery was designed. To not allow that. We had a young team that we were developing. … We did not tank the season. … To lose to get LeBron James, we would never do that. I wouldn’t do that. I couldn’t do that.

“In the very last game of the season, we had nothing to gain and we were in sole possession of last place [in the NBA]. But we beat [the Toronto Raptors] and that left us tied with Denver [at 17-65]. … The chances of getting the first pick were only [22.5 percent].”

While tanking at the end of the season is rather commonplace in the NBA, tanking an entire season has been, to this point, unheard of. Even the worst franchises would like to make the playoffs for the first half of the season. It’s not until after the All-Star Game that we generally start seeing teams give up trying to win.

Gund has a point about the Cavs winning the final game of the season, but I’d bet that the Cleveland front office was upset after that victory, as it decreased the chances that the team would win the lottery. It’s not like the GM tells the players to lose games. The players go out and try to win. Like Herm Edwards says, “You PLAY to WIN the GAME!” When teams tank, the front office simply puts the team in the worst position to win. They shut down semi-injured stars and they start giving minutes to young players so they can “evaluate what they have.” They don’t go in the locker room and tell the players to lose the game.

Don’t kid yourself, we’re going to see tanking at the end of this season. John Wall is far and away the best prospect in this summer’s draft, and teams that are out of the playoff hunt will be tripping over each other trying to lose to increase the chances that they’ll win the #1 overall pick in the lottery. The lottery is supposed to eliminate tanking, but even though the chances of winning the #1 pick only increase incrementally with every loss, they still increase. There is still incentive to lose, so teams will lose.

For the ’03 Cavs, there was no upside to winning games late in the season. Every loss meant that they were that much closer to getting LeBron. This is why the lottery system is broken.

The only way to fix it is to give every non-playoff team an equal shot at the #1 pick. This is the way that it used to be, and under such a system, a fringe playoff team will sometimes win the lottery. So be it. Why are we so focused on rewarding incompetence?

Newer posts »