Analyzing the combine by draftexpress:
- Thread starter bajaden
- Start date
I thought that was a pretty balanced article in terms of what the combine does and doesn't mean and its limitations, but I didn't always agree with their conclusions. For instance, I think it's really misleading to compare Harden's results to Roy's, and even more misleading to compare his quickness to Paul's. That lane agility drill is more or less completely useless when it comes to measuring quickness.
But back to the Roy comparison. Roy is 1.25" taller, and thus it's not really enough for Harden to match his athletic prowess, he really needs to be MORE athletic to have the same athletic impact on the floor. And he's not. He doesn't jump nearly as high, and while I was as impressed/surprised by Harden's results as anyone else, I think it's still quite a leap to be making Roy comparisons. He's not as athletic as Roy, he's smaller, and Roy isn't even one of the upper tier athletes at the SG position in the league.
But ultimately, if you want any indication of how little these results mean, all you have to do is consider the fact that Harden tested out with a higher vertical than Dwyane Wade. Anyone who wants to try and tell me that Harden can really elevate more than Wade in an NBA game setting is crazy.
But back to the Roy comparison. Roy is 1.25" taller, and thus it's not really enough for Harden to match his athletic prowess, he really needs to be MORE athletic to have the same athletic impact on the floor. And he's not. He doesn't jump nearly as high, and while I was as impressed/surprised by Harden's results as anyone else, I think it's still quite a leap to be making Roy comparisons. He's not as athletic as Roy, he's smaller, and Roy isn't even one of the upper tier athletes at the SG position in the league.
But ultimately, if you want any indication of how little these results mean, all you have to do is consider the fact that Harden tested out with a higher vertical than Dwyane Wade. Anyone who wants to try and tell me that Harden can really elevate more than Wade in an NBA game setting is crazy.
^Harden's no-step was 31.5" and his vertical was 37". Wade's was 31.5" and 35", repsectively.
I also think this should be taken into account when comparing Flynn and the other points in the draft. For instance, you can't tell me that Flynn is more of a high flyer than Teague, I don't care how much higher he tested out.
I also think this should be taken into account when comparing Flynn and the other points in the draft. For instance, you can't tell me that Flynn is more of a high flyer than Teague, I don't care how much higher he tested out.
I think the comparison between Roy and Harden permeates more from their advanced floor game, not athletic abilities. Once Harden disproved some of his negative myths, though (non-athletic) the comparison becomes much more valid.
You're right about the vertical measurement though, it's just a number once you start comparing guys like Wade who measured out less than Harden.
Will Harden start using his athleticism more in the NBA once he is under the control of professional trainers? Perhaps.
I really like Harden as a well rounded (pun intended) basketball player and would be happy if the Kings drafted him. Draft is about talent, after all. I have a feeling OKC will draft him though, he just fits that team perfectly. They can chase a FA rebounder/shot blocker in the next few years and that will be a solid team.
You're right about the vertical measurement though, it's just a number once you start comparing guys like Wade who measured out less than Harden.
Will Harden start using his athleticism more in the NBA once he is under the control of professional trainers? Perhaps.
I really like Harden as a well rounded (pun intended) basketball player and would be happy if the Kings drafted him. Draft is about talent, after all. I have a feeling OKC will draft him though, he just fits that team perfectly. They can chase a FA rebounder/shot blocker in the next few years and that will be a solid team.
Well, Teague is an impressive athlete. Lightning quick and can elevate quickly. He does have a few inches and reach on Flynn, so yes, he can finish a little better. Flynn is a high-flyer though, imo, and he does do in game dunks on breaks and in traffic.
Good chance Teague falls to the 20's. I'd love for the Kings to draft him late.
Good chance Teague falls to the 20's. I'd love for the Kings to draft him late.
I agree that there are similarities in their games, I just think it's going to be really tough for Harden to have that same level of impact without Roy's height and athleticism. He needs to be more athletic because he's smaller, and he's both smaller and less athletic. And I don't think he's ultimately more skilled either. Perhaps he can make up the difference, but I don't see it.
Roy definitely has an advantage all around on Harden at this point. No doubt. But I don't think there is a lot separating their overall game.
Harden is only 19 years old, and I'd love to see what a professional training staff can do with him if he's willing.
To be even in the same ballpark as Roy is encouraging. Roy is five years older and more seasoned. What will Harden become in five years time? Could be interesting.
Harden is only 19 years old, and I'd love to see what a professional training staff can do with him if he's willing.
To be even in the same ballpark as Roy is encouraging. Roy is five years older and more seasoned. What will Harden become in five years time? Could be interesting.
If OKC or Memphis takes Rubio, I'd almost be tempted to go for Harden with pick 4.
Thats assuming he's still on the board though, who knows where Thabeet will land.
There's the issue of him not getting minutes behind Martin of course, but Kevin will probably be injured his requisite 30 games anyways. Plus if Harden shows some major promise we can move Martin, who is both our biggest trade chip and will probably be to old by the time we're a contender again (he's...26 now? Meaning he'll be at least 32 by the time we're legit again
).
Thats assuming he's still on the board though, who knows where Thabeet will land.
There's the issue of him not getting minutes behind Martin of course, but Kevin will probably be injured his requisite 30 games anyways. Plus if Harden shows some major promise we can move Martin, who is both our biggest trade chip and will probably be to old by the time we're a contender again (he's...26 now? Meaning he'll be at least 32 by the time we're legit again
).More seriously--although I've been a Harden skeptic, his better than advertised athleticism, mixed with that Synergy stats article on Draftexpress where it was revealed that Harden was the best finisher at the basket (as well as getting there most often) of his peers, has made me reevaluate my position. If the premise is he must be the equal of Roy or bust, then maybe he's not the guy; however, compared to the rest of the flawed players he would in reality be competing with at pick #4, he appears a safer bet than most.
More seriously--although I've been a Harden skeptic, his better than advertised athleticism, mixed with that Synergy stats article on Draftexpress where it was revealed that Harden was the best finisher at the basket (as well as getting there most often) of his peers, has made me reevaluate my position. If the premise is he must be the equal of Roy or bust, then maybe he's not the guy; however, compared to the rest of the flawed players he would in reality be competing with at pick #4, he appears a safer bet than most.
But I agree with you that Harden is a very good finisher, which should help him in the NBA.
I think it is an open question whether Teague is a point guard. I've seen you question Tyreke Evans ability to play the point--what with his 1-1 assist to turnover ratio. Why is Teague, with similar production in that area, exempt from the same scrutiny? It seems to me their seasons bizarrely mirrored each other: Evans, a ball-dominant shooting guard, struggled until the coach put the ball in his hands, where he eventually flourished. Conversely, the ball-dominant Teague thrived with the ball in his hands and struggled when the coach took it away. My contention would be that the fact they both struggle without the ball in their hands is not evidence that they are point guards but is instead only evidence that they are both ball-dominant.
Number one, I don't agree with you that he's not athletic. I said so months ago and I still say so. The results of the combine, which you now want to just ignore, prove that he is athletic. He's one lousy inch shorter than Roy and has basicly the same standing reach. A measurement that was bandied about before as being important, and now is apparently worthless when the result you wanted wasn't there.
If you want to say that the advantage at this time goes to Roy. I'm fine with that. But all of sudden your talking about Harden like he's a midget, and a athletic invalid. Harden is at average height for a shooting guard. He's as tall as Mitch Richmond, who by the way defended Michael Jordan extremely well. As far as their comparison of Roy and Harden. I think the point they were trying to make is that their style of play is similar. Not that one equals the other.
One thing that I will agree with you on, is that measuring quickness is very hard to do. I think the cone lateral quickness drill simply grades athletic ability while moving laterally. I would equate it to an IQ test, which simply shows one's capacity to learn. It doesn't mean that someone with a high IQ will ever become a genius. Similarly, the lateral movement test doesn't mean that someone who scores high on it will be a great defender because of it. What it doesn't measure is Basketball instincts and reflex action. I would liken it to dragracing. When you get to the top racers the difference between them usually comes down to who reacts the fastest when the light turns green. A player with great instincts and great reflex action can overcome to a certain degree having only average athleticism.
If you want to say that the advantage at this time goes to Roy. I'm fine with that. But all of sudden your talking about Harden like he's a midget, and a athletic invalid. Harden is at average height for a shooting guard. He's as tall as Mitch Richmond, who by the way defended Michael Jordan extremely well. As far as their comparison of Roy and Harden. I think the point they were trying to make is that their style of play is similar. Not that one equals the other.
One thing that I will agree with you on, is that measuring quickness is very hard to do. I think the cone lateral quickness drill simply grades athletic ability while moving laterally. I would equate it to an IQ test, which simply shows one's capacity to learn. It doesn't mean that someone with a high IQ will ever become a genius. Similarly, the lateral movement test doesn't mean that someone who scores high on it will be a great defender because of it. What it doesn't measure is Basketball instincts and reflex action. I would liken it to dragracing. When you get to the top racers the difference between them usually comes down to who reacts the fastest when the light turns green. A player with great instincts and great reflex action can overcome to a certain degree having only average athleticism.
I'm not as concerned about what guys do on offense as much as whether they are competent guarding opposing point guards. Offensively there are any number of guys who have the ball handling and passing skills to be a traditional point guard, whether it's Francisco Garcia, John Salmons, or heck, Brad Miller. The reason those guys can't function playing the one is that they can't hope to keep up with opposing point guards, and they're not quick enough to bring the ball up the floor against quick point guard who are good defenders.
I don't think Tyreke Evans is quick enough to play the point. He's quick for 6'5", he's not quick compared to the 6'1"-6'3" point guards in the league. I think he'd struggle to bring the ball up against good defending point guards, and he couldn't hope to guard them at the other end. I could be proven wrong on that, but I think he's much better suited to be a ballhandling 2 guard, a la Brandon Roy.
Meanwhile, Teague is plenty quick enough. Everyone's beef with him is whether he's a "pure" point guard, which is completely beside the point. He's a point guard, whether or not he's best suited trying to pass or trying to score. He can't guard shooting guards. If he's going to succeed in the NBA it will be probably be as a scoring point guard, but people around here are overly fixated on traditional point guard skills anyway.
I don't think Tyreke Evans is quick enough to play the point. He's quick for 6'5", he's not quick compared to the 6'1"-6'3" point guards in the league. I think he'd struggle to bring the ball up against good defending point guards, and he couldn't hope to guard them at the other end. I could be proven wrong on that, but I think he's much better suited to be a ballhandling 2 guard, a la Brandon Roy.
Meanwhile, Teague is plenty quick enough. Everyone's beef with him is whether he's a "pure" point guard, which is completely beside the point. He's a point guard, whether or not he's best suited trying to pass or trying to score. He can't guard shooting guards. If he's going to succeed in the NBA it will be probably be as a scoring point guard, but people around here are overly fixated on traditional point guard skills anyway.
I think you're taking what I said way too far as I've been pretty complimentary of his all-around skills. All I'm saying is that he's starting at a disadvantage to Roy in height and athleticism. Maybe his skills and his longer reach will overcome that difference. We'll see. But inches make a pretty big difference in the NBA.
And by the way, the reason Richmond guarded Jordan well was because he was the only guy in the league who was strong enough to hand check him and he could thus body him up and keep him in front of him. But hand checking is a foul now. If Richmond and Jordan went head to head with the current rules Jordan would kill him.
And by the way, the reason Richmond guarded Jordan well was because he was the only guy in the league who was strong enough to hand check him and he could thus body him up and keep him in front of him. But hand checking is a foul now. If Richmond and Jordan went head to head with the current rules Jordan would kill him.
Teague hasn't shown the ability to make others around him better by his passing.. I don't think his ball handling ability, and scoring is really a question here. His passing ability, and the ability to see the open players, and make others around him better are the big question marks. If he's there at #23 I wouldn't mind taking a look at him, but no way at #4.
I am not saying his skills are Douby like, but Douby in college could handle the ball and score pretty well too.. He also had PG size, and was quoted as saying that he could make the adjustment.
How much better do you think a scoring PG could make others around him anyway?
I am not saying his skills are Douby like, but Douby in college could handle the ball and score pretty well too.. He also had PG size, and was quoted as saying that he could make the adjustment.
How much better do you think a scoring PG could make others around him anyway?
All of that is up for legitimate debate, and that's fine. I'm just addressing the point that he's not a PG. Whether he's a scoring point or a passing point, he's still a point.
And by the way, three out of the four teams in the conference finals had scoring-oriented point guards, and the other was Rafer Alston.
And by the way, three out of the four teams in the conference finals had scoring-oriented point guards, and the other was Rafer Alston.
Williams has James, Fisher has Kobe, Billups has Anthony...
Plus all three of those point guards make the players around them better. Teague has yet to do that. I will not call Teague a PG until he shows the ability to run a team like a PG should and not take most of the shots. Until then you have Douby.
Plus all three of those point guards make the players around them better. Teague has yet to do that. I will not call Teague a PG until he shows the ability to run a team like a PG should and not take most of the shots. Until then you have Douby.
An assumption on your part, which your entitled to. I don't agree. Richmond had some flaws but he was a good defender who was able to keep his man in front of him. However, I for one wish they would bring back the hand check rule. Just every advantage has been given to the offensive player. Even the ref's interpret the rules in favor of the offensive player. I could go on a rant about the misinterpretation of the rules, but I won't bore you with it.
Semantic battle ahead. . .
Addressing the first bolded: That preference is certainly your prerogative, but I don't think defensive ability is relevant in defining whether a player is a point guard or not. It may or may not be relevant in deciding if a guy is an NBA player, but not if they are or are not point guards. For example, Kobe Bryant or John Salmons may be able to defend the point better than a Steve Nash or Mike Bibby--arguably both also have a stronger handle than Bibby who had on occasion trouble advancing the ball against quicker points--but few would label Salmons or Bryant point guards. Perhaps Magic Johnson would be a Nash level defensive player in the modern NBA due to the better athleticism of the current players, as well as the rule changes that favor the offense. Would people consequently claim Magic was no longer a point guard? I think not. The qualities that most define the word "point guard" must therefore be different.
I don't think it is accurate to make it a binary choice between "pure point guards" and "scoring point guards, where the latter category wraps up everyone from Mike Bibby to Steve Kerr; such a classification is too broad and makes the term muddled to the point of uselessness. A better system (I think something like the following has been written more than once elsewhere) for player classification is needed to paint a more accurate picture.
Say we did a 1 to five scale: 5's would be the pure points who are pass first, pass second, score only when absolutely necessary. John Stockton, Jason Kidd, etc.
4's would be those rare talents that legitimately excel in both abilities: Paul, Deron Williams, Steve Nash, etc
3's would be guys who are at least competent play makers, but may excel or be below average as scorers: Bibby, Steph Curry, Jameer Nelson, etc. This would be the final category I would classify as point guards.
2's are Combo guards-- guys who have a scorers mentality and possess some limited play making ability; though not enough ability to be legitimate point guards: Bobby Jackson, Aaron Brooks, Mo Williams.
1's Mini shooting guards--guys who shoot first, second; and pass begrudgingly when a gun is pointed at their heads: Eddie House, Quincey Douby, Jeff Teague.
I do agree with you that it isn't necessary to possess a pure point in order to field a winning team; however, I think if Jeff Teague is manning the position for us then we would need a player more resembling an Eric Snow or Doug Christie at the two rather than a Kevin Martin.
Addressing the first bolded: That preference is certainly your prerogative, but I don't think defensive ability is relevant in defining whether a player is a point guard or not. It may or may not be relevant in deciding if a guy is an NBA player, but not if they are or are not point guards. For example, Kobe Bryant or John Salmons may be able to defend the point better than a Steve Nash or Mike Bibby--arguably both also have a stronger handle than Bibby who had on occasion trouble advancing the ball against quicker points--but few would label Salmons or Bryant point guards. Perhaps Magic Johnson would be a Nash level defensive player in the modern NBA due to the better athleticism of the current players, as well as the rule changes that favor the offense. Would people consequently claim Magic was no longer a point guard? I think not. The qualities that most define the word "point guard" must therefore be different.
I don't think it is accurate to make it a binary choice between "pure point guards" and "scoring point guards, where the latter category wraps up everyone from Mike Bibby to Steve Kerr; such a classification is too broad and makes the term muddled to the point of uselessness. A better system (I think something like the following has been written more than once elsewhere) for player classification is needed to paint a more accurate picture.
Say we did a 1 to five scale: 5's would be the pure points who are pass first, pass second, score only when absolutely necessary. John Stockton, Jason Kidd, etc.
4's would be those rare talents that legitimately excel in both abilities: Paul, Deron Williams, Steve Nash, etc
3's would be guys who are at least competent play makers, but may excel or be below average as scorers: Bibby, Steph Curry, Jameer Nelson, etc. This would be the final category I would classify as point guards.
2's are Combo guards-- guys who have a scorers mentality and possess some limited play making ability; though not enough ability to be legitimate point guards: Bobby Jackson, Aaron Brooks, Mo Williams.
1's Mini shooting guards--guys who shoot first, second; and pass begrudgingly when a gun is pointed at their heads: Eddie House, Quincey Douby, Jeff Teague.
I do agree with you that it isn't necessary to possess a pure point in order to field a winning team; however, I think if Jeff Teague is manning the position for us then we would need a player more resembling an Eric Snow or Doug Christie at the two rather than a Kevin Martin.
I just don't think you have a very good read on Teague. I guess you think Teague is as bad as House when it comes to penetration and off the dribble quickness. I guess also that you think that Teague can't shoot, just like Douby, and that he can't get his own shot, just like Douby. Both assumptions would be wrong. What separates Teague from both of those guys is he can get his shot anytime he wants because he has mega-quickness. If you want to categorize Teague, just think Jason Terry. In terms of ability, it's a reasonable comparison. The red flag on Teague has nothing to do with ability, it has to do with his character. If he drops in the draft, it's not because teams think he's the next Douby, but that he's a head case they don't want to deal with.