2009 NBA Draft: Evaluating the "Real" Talent

The NBA Draft provides a unique insight into the values and opinions of NBA executives. The fervor for mock drafts illustrates a certain amount of insight into those who follow the NBA and their opinions about the game and NBA management.

The comments about players predicted to be drafted in the 1st Round of the 2009 NBA Draft say a lot about the NBA. For example:

"One of the most productive players in college basketball. A beast around the basket-- relishes contact and makes a living with an incredibly soft touch and some of the best post moves seen in the NCAA. Gets to the free throw line at a superb rate. Unstoppable motor-a true competitor."

The above was not written about the potential number one pick, but the player currently picked #29, the next to last pick of the 1st Round. Looking objectively at the comments - without taking the player into consideration - what's not to like?

"Productive."

"Competitor."

"Free throws."

"Beast."

"Soft touch."

"Best post moves."

"Unstoppable motor."

If I was picking a post player, that might be the ideal description. On the other hand, here is the description of the #14 player on this mock draft:

"Highly intriguing big man with outstanding natural tools-size, strength, athleticism, great hands, and the ability to play inside. Can finish with either hand around the basket. Pretty instinctive as a scorer. Doesn't always play hard, fails to box out or compete defensively, seems to go through long stretches of unproductiveness. Superbly gifted and appears to have huge potential, but still has a lot to prove as well. Basketball IQ is average. Could be a big steal or a huge bust-all depends on his work ethic and drive."

Look at his keywords:

"Intriguing."

"Natural tools."

"Instinctive scorer."

"Doesn't play hard."

"Fails to box out."

"Fails to compete defensively."

"Unproductive stretches."

"Huge potential."

Obviously, so far, "natural tools" and "potential" carry more weight than competitiveness and productivity. Ironically, the writer seems to question his own choice. He says that this player's chance to be a great player or a draft bust depends on his work ethic and drive, but he questions his work ethic and drive. Why would you gamble a high pick on a player with a questionable work ethic? How do you develop a player's potential if he does not compete or work hard? "Intriguing" might excite the fans more than "productive," but isn't productivity the name of the game? If this player has so many "tools," why is he unproductive? What leads the writer to believe that this will change in the NBA? Is he in a poor system? Does he play for a bad coach? Is he overshadowed by the talent on his team?

This is not unusual. People - including NBA management - get more excited about the new players rather than players that they have seen for years. Everyone gets excited about the new rookie, even though few rookies actually produce. Rookies provide hope in the off-season. "Potential" and "intriguing" offer more hope than "productive." But, do they fulfill their promise? Is the team better with potential than productivity? How many players with questionable work ethics improve and excel in the NBA?

Here is another example in the back court. The first player is currently #23 in this mock draft and continues to fall:

"Extremely experienced point guard with an excellent feel for the game. Very poised, disciplined playmaker who executes in the half-court and gets out in transition well. Reads the floor and is highly unselfish. Terrific man to man and team defender who puts tremendous pressure on the ball. Shoots an excellent percentage from behind the arc, and is very effective off the dribble."

Sounds like a great point guard prospect, right? Who wouldn't want a point guard with "experience," an "excellent feel," "poise," "discipline," "terrific defense," and an "excellent shooting percentage"?

On the other hand, here is the current #8 pick who seems to be gaining momentum and moving up the mock drafts:

"Super athletic combo guard with terrific scoring instincts. Can create his own shot, get to the free throw line and make 3-pointers at a terrific clip. Incredibly aggressive and confident player who burst onto the college scene with a slew of fantastic performances. Needs to improve his point guard skills significantly to play the position full time in the NBA. Decision making looks questionable at times. Has great tools defensively but doesn't always put the effort in. A late bloomer."

His keywords are:

"Athletic."

"Aggressive."

"Confident."

"Questionable decision-making."

"Inconsistent defensive effort."

"Needs to improve point guard skills."

He has a lot of great qualities. If I was drafting a player in the lottery, I would be excited to get an "athletic, aggressive, confident" player. However, is he a point guard? If I need someone to run my team as a point guard, is he the guy? I am not sure I want to give a guaranteed, million-dollar contract to a player with "inconsistent effort" and "questionable decision-making," when decision-making is among the most important skills for a point guard.

Again, it seems like the writer expects NBA management to desire potential and athleticism over productivity. Somehow, the unknown is better than the known. We believe that we can make someone work harder or compete. However, I think competitiveness and work ethic are talents. By this age, these are unchangeable. Now, the writer could be incorrect or there could be something behind the scenes that leaves this impression. However, if the report is true and the higher picks lack consistent effort and competitiveness, these are dangerous picks.

The two lower picks possess the types of qualities which typically lead to successful performers. Those who write mock drafts worry that these two particular players will not translate their skills to the NBA because they are too small or not athletic enough. They prefer the standard athleticism and height. However, plenty of players with the right qualities - competitiveness, hard work, productivity, discipline, feel - have succeeded in the NBA even though they were an inch too small or they lacked a 40-inch vertical jump. However, we have a preconceived idea of what an NBA post player should look like and the physical measurements he should possess, and we ignore those who do not meet this model regardless of productivity and intangibles. This is why players like Paul Milsap, Carlos Boozer, Steve Blake and others last until the second round, while more athletic or bigger players get picked and wash out of the league.

Despite the number of scouts and "experts," we still misunderstand talent identification, as we ignore the important attributes which tend to lead to success and favor those physical qualities which are easy to see and measure.