The Problem with NBA Scouts: An Early Look at the 2009 NBA Draft

Last spring, I wrote about my philosophy for the NBA Draft. I wrote that I would take Memphis' O.J. Mayo as the #1 pick based on his potential to develop into an NBA superstar because he possessed the characteristics like competitiveness, focus and discipline which often determine a player's ultimate success.

I read ESPN's Chad Ford's latest look at the 2009 NBA Draft and the comments that he made, which supposedly reflect those of NBA General Managers, and their thoughts seem to reflect an unwillingness to learn from recent drafts and instead to fall back on the popular perceptions of height, length and upside.

When the NBA instituted its Age Limit, those in favor argued that high school players needed a year of college to develop their skills. However, NBA teams continue to draft on perceptions, not skills. At the end of last season, most viewed Davidson's Stephon Curry as a mid-1st Round pick (15-20). He dominated the post-season last year and almost single-handedly beat eventual champion Kansas. What do scouts want to see? He is a shooter and he shoots as well as anyone, and he can create his own shot. Yet, through most of the season, most mock drafts had six to seven guards rated above Curry. He started the season at #22 on Ford's list. If Curry clearly illustrates the most skill at the college level, and scouts still feel other players should be drafted ahead of him, then why do these players need college? Skill development is not enhancing their draft status; instead, teams value the same talent which was present when they were in high school.

Instead, last year, scouts drolled over Gonzaga's Austin Daye. He looks like an ideal NBA player, sort of a more athletic Dirk Nowitski with more length. He's 6'11 with legitimate guard skills, including his shooting. However, he never seems to perform to the levels that his talent suggests. As Ford writes, "Daye has all the tools of a Top 5 pick, but none of the production."

Fortunately, scouts seem to be learning, as Curry continues to rise and Daye continues to fall. However, opinions about other players are curious.

I like Tyler Hansborough. Last season, I thought Hansborough was a better player than Minnesota's Kevin Love and I cannot understand why people saw Love as a lottery pick (#5), but not Hansborough. As Ford writes, "you still can't find an NBA scout or GM who's sold on Hansbrough's NBA potential."

When Utah's Paul Milsap finished college, he was a two-time NCAA rebounding champion who illustrated strength and athleticism. However, he fell to the second round. Now, he is a huge part of Utah's success. Similarly, all Hansborough does is produce. He scores, rebounds, leads and adds toughness and energy. He will not score with the same rate in the NBA, but he will rebound and play hard. He's similar to a Paul Milsap-type player. He'll be a great off the bench player and if given the opportunity, will produce as a starter down the road. Yet, most teams are likely to pass on him in their attempt to draft a star. Draft Express has guys like Patrick Patterson and Dejuan Blair, smaller players who play the same position, projected ahead of Hansborough. I would hate to be the General Manager who passed on Hansborough to take someone like Patterson. Somehow, NBA personnel fail to learn from picks like Milsap.

Florida's Nick Calathes is one of the best point guards that I have watched this season. He really knows how to play the game. However, scouts are apparently unimpressed. As Ford writes, "Calathes has a lot of talent, but scouts struggle to place him in a position in the pros...As it stands now, he's probably on the first-round bubble."

Why are people so caught up with positions? At this time last season, people did not know what position Oklahoma City's Russell Westbrook or Memphis' O.J. Mayo could play in the NBA. Now, they are two of the top rookie performers. Talent is more important than position. Calathes is a point guard; he would be a perfect back court complement to Monta Ellis in Golden State or Ben Gordon wherever he signs. Nobody defends well when they enter the NBA - Calathes is smart enough, he'll learn to defend at an adequate level. He would excel running a Mike D'Antoni offense or upgrade the Lakers back court in the Triangle offense, yet somehow scouts are unsure where he fits.

Another player "without a position" is Texas' Damion James. Ford says, "Scouts love James' toughness and motor, but he still is a player without a position." Last year, we could say the same thing about Milwaukee's Luc Richard Mbah a Moute, a smallish power forward who performd well at UCLA during his three years, but lacked a true position. Now, Mbah a Moute is a starter who has had several double-doubles as a rookie drfafted in the 2nd Round.

Texas' players, like UCLA's, enter the NBA ready to play: Durant, Aldridge, Gibson and Augustin. James is a player and every NBA team needs players. Like Mbah a Moute, James will likely fall to the 2nd Round and then out-play many players picked ahead of him.

NBA scouts, like college recruiters, concentrate on fitting players into a model. They base their scouting reports on comparisons to current, elite players. Everyone wants a center like Dwight Howard or a shooting guard like Kobe Bryant. However, each draft has only a handful of potential superstars, if that. The 2009 NBA Draft likely has no future superstars; however, it has several very good players like Greg Monroe, Blake Griffin, James Harden, Ricky Rubio, Jrue Holiday and more at the top of the draft.

However, while trying to find a star after the first 5-6 picks, teams miss the players who will be very good players. A couple years ago, the experts loved Chicago's Tyrus Thomas because of his "length," "athleticism," and "upside." The experts pegged him as the next Shawn Marion. In the same draft, the experts were lukewarm about Aldridge and Brandon Roy. Aldridge was too skinny to be a great inside player, while Roy lacked the requisite explosiveness to be a star. Now, Aldridge and Roy are budding superstars and Thomas is an up-and-down player known for a negative attitude.

In the 2009 NBA Draft, some teams are going to overlook solid players like James, Hansborough and Calathes while trying to draft a star in the last half of the first round. They'll choose the player with more upside than Hansborough or more athleticism than Calathes or more length than James, while one of the league's smart franchises like Portland, San Antonio or Utah will draft another solid player who fits with their system and helps maintain their high level of success.

Drafting (or recruiting) is an imprecise science. However, in the search for a star, sometimes the scouts overlook the obvious by discounting production, attitude and personality and overvaluing vertical jumps, length or the way the player looks in a uniform.