NBA Draft 2007: Small Forwards

Of all the positions, the SFs have been hardest for me to get a handle on. With the other 4, I can point to certain statistics or a combination of statistics that seem to be a pretty good predictor of success. With SFs, that just isn’t there. The reason is because there are two types of SFs out there. There’s the 2.5, who is more guard-like. This player can slide into the backcourt as either a point forward or a SG in a big lineup. Paul Pierce and Richard Jefferson are examples of such a player. Then there’s the 3.5. More of an inside player, he’s a good rebounder and defender. He plays some PF in small lineups. Think Shane Battier, Luol Deng and Lamar Odom. Rating such players against each other is sort of futile, since they’re different types of players. Next year I may even split them, like I did with the combo guards, but it’s a little late for that right now.

I did come up with 4 statistics that do a decent job of predicting success for an SF. The first is adjusted FG pct, which takes the 3-pointers into account. For other positions the FG pct. is enough, but Adj FG pct. seems better for SFs. Perhaps this is because some 3-point shooting ability is a nice thing to have. Another one is P40, which is a given. The last two stats sort of interplay with each other. The first one is RASB-T per 40, which is a combination of all a players numbers other than points per 40 minutes. A diverse game is important for an SF, especially one who doesn’t score that often or that efficiently. The RASB-T40 gives a read on a player’s non-scoring skills. The final one is ASB40, or assists, steals and blocks per 40 minutes. This number is included for the SFs who are more on the SG side of the spectrum and don’t rebound that well. This takes rebounds out of the mix and that’s important to do with some players as being a stellar rebounder is always good, but not totally necessary for success as an NBA SF.

NBA Draft 2007: Power Forwards

With the PFs, rating them turns out to be fairly simple. Or so it seems according to recent history. There are 4 categories that seem to be important: FG pct., points per 40 minutes, rebounds per 40 minutes and the sum of steals and blocks per 40 minutes. I would say that rebounds and FG pct. are probably most important, but the rospect can’t be weak in any one area. It’s also nice of they’re over 6’8”, or at least have real long arms, and play in a strong conference. As is the case with centers, passing and outside shooting are certainly nice skills to have, but there is no trend of successful prospects doing either better than unsuccessful prospects If they don’t do those first 4 things well, the passing and shooting won’t make them anything more than a role player.

This is a strong overall year for PFs. Horford and Noah both look like future stars to me. Brandan Wright also looks good, but he has some work to do.  There are also a few decent prospects behind them who could surprise. Paul Millsap’s surprise success last season could have scouts looking for the next Millsap and give more opportunities to similar players. As is the case in any year where a particular position is strong, there could well be good players available in round 2. That will be the case more than ever this season, as both the centers and SFs are loaded with good prospects also.

Next year could also be a strong year for PFs, as players like Darrell Arthur, Richard Hendrix, Tyler Hansbrough, Josh Heyvelt, Carlos Monroe, Joseph Jones and Joey Dorsey all look like strong prospects who are returning to college.

The numbers below are where each major college prospect ranks against the average numbers of previous groups of players. I’m not sure whether these should be taken seriously or with a grain of salt at this point, but I thought it was an interesting way of looking at things. The numbers for the prospects have been pace-adjusted.

NBA Draft 2007: Centers

A few months ago, as the college season was just getting revved up, I pondered the idea of whether or not the 2007 draft had a chance to become the greatest center draft ever. At the time there were seven to eight centers looking like solid pros while destroying non-conference schedules. Then the conference season started and these monsters, except for Greg Oden and Roy Hibbert, suddenly looked more human and rather ordinary.  Then Hibbert decided to head back to Georgetown and that pretty much killed any best center draft ever chances 2007 may have had. So this isn’t going to challenge 1971 or 1992 for the greatest draft of centers ever. It might make the top ten or even the top five if Hawes can get it going and there is a surprise or two. And this is a much better group than we’ve seen in years, probably since the Shaq-Alonzo draft of 1992. Oden looks like an all-timer and there are enough other decent prospects out there that I suspect one or two will emerge as solid players down the line. The fact that I have 21 centers listed speaks to the strength of this group. I had to cut a few out who may have made the top ten in other years.

This past year I spent a lot of time looking at past prospects to try and see if there was any pattern in the statistics of prospects who became good pros as opposed to players who didn’t. For centers I found the important numbers were FG pct, points, rebounds and blocks per 40 minutes and the ratio of FT attempts to personal fouls. Players who became better pros generally posted higher numbers in these statistics, more so than other ones. Assists don’t seem to matter all that much. Not that passing is a bad skill for a center to have. It’s that there’s no correlation between center prospects being good passers and having pro success. A ridiculously bad A/TO can sink an otherwise decent prospect though.

Playoffthoughts

1.    Finals Fallout: Not the most memorable Finals, to say the least, but let’s see where the participants go from here:

-Cleveland Cavaliers: Obviously, it was a nice year for the Cavs but what happens now?  Cleveland has made steady progress since LeBron James came to town but a Finals appearance at this point seemed decidedly ahead of schedule.  James still looks really raw and the talent around him is not great.  As for future improvements, the team is right up at the salary cap for next year (about $65 million) and has no draft picks.  Moreover, we all know that a lot of cash is committed to overpriced and hard-to-move contracts (Larry Hughes at $12 million, Eric Snow at $6.7 million, Damon Jones at $4.2 million, and Ira Newble at $3.4 million).  So, trades and changes seem pretty unlikely for 2007-08 unless the Cavs are willing to take bad contracts back.

This does not mean the Cavs can’t improve.  LeBron is not yet at his peak and he should keep going up and that’s a huge start.  While I don’t love Hughes, Drew Gooden, Daniel Gibson, or Sasha Pavlovic they all are pretty young and have reasonable shots at improving next year.  Granted, none of the supporting players are potential stars but throw in Zydrunas Ilgauskas and Donyell Marshall and this is a solid core (though really weak at point guard).

The more encouraging point is that there is no team in the East that is clearly better.  Detroit is older and Miami is a threat if Shaq is healthy and they go for broke and overpay for a couple more star-type players but the only other team to surely improve and be at title level in conference is the Bulls.  So, the Cavs should be in the thick of things again next year.

San Antonio Spurs: What else can you say?  They are really good.  The team is actually below the cap going in to next year ($61 million in payroll in total).  They have some decisions to make on Michael Finley (player option at $3.1 million), Fabricio Oberto (player option at $2.5 million), and Bruce Bowen (team option at $4.1 million).  Neither Finley nor Oberto are irreplaceable but the price is right to keep them around one more year.  Finley’s per minute numbers have stayed relatively steady for the last few years and, at age 34, he should be able to continue to be solid for another year.  Oberto looked like a total stiff at first but he has shown himself to be a decent live body and, again, the price is right.

As for Bowen, I keep waiting for the bottom fall out.  He has gradually declined offensively (and even defensively) for several years now and is about to hit 36.  At $4 million, however, there is no way the Spurs won’t keep him.  In the past, Gregg Popovich kept around other vet guys like Avery Johnson and Mario Elie well into to their mid-30s, even where younger players were on the bench.  Like those guys, Pop loves Bowen and a one-year commitment really isn’t too big a deal.

The other discussion centering around the Spurs now is whether they are a “dynasty.”  Opinions have run the gamut and all really skirt around the issue of how one defines the term.  Don consecutive titles matter?  Is it wins per year?  What about longevity of the teams?  Under any definition, clearly, the most impressive dynasty was the Bill Russell Celtics (11 titles in 13 years) followed by the Michael Jordan Bulls (six titles in six straight full seasons).  And even those two could be switched as the Bulls were generally involved in much more grueling playoff formats.  But outside of those two teams, the Spurs four titles in nine years is a run that only the Magic Johnson Lakers have exceeded (five titles in ten years).

The other two knocks on the Spurs have been (a) they have won multiple titles but never back-to-back and (b) they haven’t played great teams on their title runs.  With respect to the first point, titles are titles.  It’s impressive to win two or three in a row (as the Lakers did with Shaq and Kobe) but I think, as a fan or owner, you’d rather have the Spurs’ success record since 1998-99 (four titles in nine years) than the Lakers three-year run of dominance without any other titles.  As for the stregth of competition issue, we already looked at this last week. The premise is correct.  The Spurs have had the easiest routes to the title of other multi-title teams but the difference in opposition is not nearly enough to undermine the Spurs’ greatness.

2.    Ratings: The biggest story of the Finals wasn’t really the games themselves but the reactions of writers all over the country about how the Finals weren’t watchable and how the ratings suffered.  Indeed, the NBA Finals were at their lowest point ever, recording a 6.2 share.  The ratings decline is a reflection of several factors:

-The series was a blowout.

-The gradual decline in network ratings for all shows and all sports broadcasts based upon the ever expanding entertainment and media alternatives for viewers.

-The fact that neither team came from a major television market.

The Spurs are not ratings gold.  Take a look at this ratings chart.  The Spurs 1998-99 Finals was the lowest-rated Finals in the 18 previous years (though the Lakers didn’t really draw much better ratings the next three years).  The Spurs also have the second lowest (2002-03) and third lowest rated Finals as well (2004-05).  Still, that does not tell the whole story.  My sense is that if you magically transported the 2006-07 Finals to the television environment of the 1980s and 1990s, the Spurs would draw lower end of ratings spectrum along the lines of the 1989-90 Finals (Detroit v. Portland).  But in the present context, the Spurs ratings more depressed then they would be in another sports era.

There is also the side issue of whether the major sports are losing fans to the increasingly niche-based entertainment world.  Whereas in 1980 a sports fan had few choices, now virtually any sport/entertainment option in the world is available online or on digital cable.  The bottom line is that media is changing and the real questions for the NBA are (1) whether the fans are following the sport in ways not reflected by traditional broadcast ratings system and (2) how the NBA (and all major sports and broadcast networks) will be affected by this paradigm shift.  The answers will lie in whether revenues continue to grow.  If the revenues grow ratings decline only indicates a shift.  If revenues decline a reassessment will be in order for the NBA suits.

Finally, some have posited that the ESPN/ABC system of shifting the games between the two networks has led to a decline in ratings versus the 1990s when NBC aired all the games on network.  I have no evidence or data on the subject but I, for one, was unsure of the broadcast schedule for ESPN/ABC.  Even if this is true on a larger level, I cannot imagine that the ESPN/ABC factor knocks the ratings down more than few decimal points and that the more significant issues were the ones we discussed above.

Outside of the ratings issue, however, there is no need to change the format of the playoffs.  I know Bill Simmons and John Hollinger, among other, wrote about making interesting changes to the playoffs in the realm of having a league-wide seeding system for the playoffs.  I don’t mind making changes to the system in theory but to seed the team irrespective of conference does more harm then good.  The teams play an imbalanced schedule, skewed to the teams in one’s conference.  So, the teams should be judged against those teams they play more often for the the playoffs.  More importantly, we are one year removed from an amazing playoffs in nearly every round.  Sometimes, playoffs lack intrigue (ultimately, the Mavs’ loss to the Warriors undermined a big Spurs/Mavs showdown) but that’s something that can’t be helped by constant tweaking.  On a fundamental level, you just have to trust the product and have faith that the playoffs will be fun more often than not.

Playoffthoughts

1.    Bowen and LeBron: I thought the last play of Game 3 was called correctly.  With the Cavs down three, Bruce Bowen tried to intentionally foul LeBron James.  James broke free, however, and just missed an open three.  Some had felt that the foul should’ve been called and that the Cavs got somewhat screwed.  Bowen did foul James but the foul was before the shot and would’ve been worth two free throws and would’ve allowed the Spurs to effectively run out the clock.  Unless Bowen totally impeded James, then the play was called right and the Cavs at least got a chance to tie the game.

2.    Le Tony, MVP?: Based upon the regular season meetings and the match ups, I expected Tony Parker to give the Cavs problems but this is ridiculous.  Parker has 24.7 ppg and is shooting 53%.  Parker is an interesting player in many respects.  He was an above-average regular player by age 20 (15.5 ppg, 5.3 apg at age 20 in 2002-03), which is fairly unprecedented for a young point guard.  Parker is now an established quasi-star, a great scorer with some limitations–but he is not much of a passer (Parker never had more than 6.1 apg in season) and he really is a fringe All-Star.

In any case, Parker is the odds on favorite to win the Finals MVP at this point.  This is also interesting because, almost always, the best player wins the NBA Finals MVP.  In the last 16 years, the acknowledged star player always won the MVP and the player, no matter who he is, almost always is a Hall of Famer.  Check all the MVP for the Finals since the award was first given out in 1969:

1968-69, Jerry West, Lakers: West is the only MVP from a losing team but he was the best player on the Lakers and, probably, the best player on the floor in this seven game series versus the Celts.  The stats were limited back then (no blocks, steals, or turnovers were recorded) but West put up slightly better numbers than Elgin Baylor and Wilt Chamberlain and all the Celtics.

1969-70, Willis Reed, Knicks:* Walt Frazier was probably the better player and probably had the better series but this was Willis’ legendary Game 7 where he came back from a torn calf muscle to inspire victory.

1970-71, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bucks*

1971-72, Wilt Chamberlain, Lakers: West was arguably better than Wilt but the two were close enough that Chamberlain’s getting the nod is not shocking.

1972-73, Willis Reed, Knicks: Frazier had clearly passed Reed as the Knicks’ best player by this time but Reed, who was platooning with Jerry Lucas, played well and still had that inspirational status.

1973-74, John Havlicek, Celtics: The Celtics of the 1970s were always very balanced but Hondo was the team’s best player.

1974-75, Rick Barry, Golden State

1975-76, JoJo White, Celtics: Again, balance was the key.  White was probably not quite as good as Hondo or Dave Cowens but White’s MVP was not a huge shocker.

1976-77, Bill Walton, Portland

1977-78, Wes Unseld, Washington: There were plenty of balanced non-star teams in the 1970s (Celtics, Bullets, Sonics).  The Bullets bets player was probably Elvin Hayes but Unseld definitely had a presence defensively and on the boards.  His numbers were not huge in the Finals (9 ppg, 12 rpg, 4 apg) but, like Reed, his aura gave him a little extra push and he was a great player.

1978-79, Dennis Johnson, Seattle: We already covered the 1970s Sonics a few months ago.  The short answer is that DJ was one of the top three players on the team, and none of three were clearly better than the other.

1979-80, Magic Johnson, Lakers

1980-81, Cedric Maxwell, Celtics: Probably the worst player to ever win an Finals MVP so far.  Maxwell was pretty good (18 ppg and 9.5 apg in the Finals) but not nearly as good as Larry Bird or Robert Parish (not to mention Kevin McHale, who was a rookie coming off the bench).

1981-82, Magic Johnson, Lakers

1982-83, Moses Malone, 76ers*

1983-84, Larry Bird, Celtics*

1984-85, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Lakers: Not quite as good as Magic but he was still great and his resurgence after a weak Finals the previous year was the talk of the series.

1985-86, Larry Bird, Celtics*

1986-87, Magic Johnson, Lakers*

1987-88, James Worthy, Lakers: Magic was still the star but Worthy had a huge Game 7 (36 points, 16 rebounds, 10 assists).

1988-89, Joe Dumars, Pistons: Joe D was not quite the star of this team but he led then with 27 ppg and so he got the nod.

1989-90, Isiah Thomas, Pistons

1990-91, Michael Jordan, Bulls*

1991-92, Michael Jordan, Bulls*

1992-93, Michael Jordan, Bulls*

1993-94, Hakeem Olajuwon, Rockets*

1994-95, Hakeem Olajuwon, Rockets

1995-96, Michael Jordan, Bulls*

1996-97, Michael Jordan, Bulls

1997-98, Michael Jordan, Bulls*

1998-99, Tim Duncan, Spurs

1999-00, Shaquille O’Neal, Lakers*

2000-01, Shaquille O’Neal, Lakers

2001-02, Shaquille O’Neal, Lakers

2002-03, Tim Duncan, Spurs*

2003-04, Chauncey Billups, Pistons

2004-05, Tim Duncan, Spurs

2005-06, Dwyane Wade, Heat

*Denotes that player won the regular season MVP as well.

Quite a list.  Only DJ, Maxwell, and JoJo White aren’t in the Hall yet among eligible players and Johnson will probably make it eventually.  Of the newer group, Billups is the only guy who probably won’t make the Hall (Wade is on his way if he stays healthy).  If Parker should get the MVP, he’s probably near the bottom of the list.  He’s better than Cornbread Maxwell but he and JoJo are remarkably similar players (score first point guards), though White was a shooter and Parker is a high percentage drive player.  Still, they are near a dead heat.  In any event, Parker’s going into a nice company, even if he’s not quite the best of the bunch.

Playoffthoughts

1.    Finals Preview: On paper, Cavs-Spurs seems like a mismatch.  Yes, the Cavs are playing very well.  Yes, the Cavs are 2-0 against the Spurs.  But the Spurs are playing at a really high level and the Cavs are weaker at almost every position.  Can we really gleam the winning formula the Cavs two wins against the Spurs?  In fact, the first game was the second game of the season and the later meeting right after New Years (January 2nd).  Here is the recap of those two games:

-November 3, 2006: Cavs@Spurs, Cavs win 88-81: LeBron had a great game (35 pts, 10 rebs, 4 asts) and Hughes was useful (18 pts on 6-15 shooting).  No other Cav scored more than 10 points.  On the Spurs side, Tim Duncan was great (25 pts, 12 rebs) but shot 9-19 from the foul line.  Tony Parker was very good and Manu Ginobili (14 pts) was played to a standstill by Hughes.  Outside of the Big Three, no other Spur broke 5 points.

January 2, 2007:  Spurs@Cavs, Cavs win 82-78: This time, the Cavs did not have any superhuman efforts (LeBron had 19 pts, 5 rebs, and 5 asts).  Parker again had a great game (26 pts) and Dunan had nice raw numbers (18 pts, 15 rebs) but shot poorly from the field (6-15).  The key of the game seemed to be Hughes and Manu.  This time, Hughes (18 pts, 5 rebs, 5 asts) thoroughly outplayed Manu (6 pts on 1-8 shooting).