Kings 2009-2010 NBA Draft:

[bajaden]

BB IQ isn't magical; it's innate. It's just like any other form of intelligence. Some have very high mechanical aptitude (innate). Others have incredible math aptitude (innate). And some have great BB IQ (also innate). How would one determine BB IQ without a quantifiable test? How about repeated observations of behavior on the basketball floor to see a player's propensity to learn over the course of games, months, or years? Last year I saw amazing stuff from Tyreke. A mid range game here; a floater there; a post up; a running hook. He's not there in his game where those are consistently parts of his game, but just the fact that he introduced those elements into his game in one season is freaking incredible to me. THAT's what I call high BB IQ.

Kind of interesting. I agreed with the first part of your post. I do think that some people have an ability to understand some things better than others. Thats why some people are inclined to mechanics and others to medicine etc. I do think some of the innate ability comes from having a great interest in whatever your endeavor is. Your always going to have a better understanding of what your interested in than something your not. Thats sort of where the IQ part comes in.

IQ is nothing more than a reference to your ability to learn. Doesn't mean you will, just means the ability is there. It also means that those with a higher IQ learn easier than those that don't. Some people just come armed with a bigger hard drive than others. But like any hard drive, if you don't put anything on it, its worthless.

So to me, basketball IQ is an understanding of the game. Its knowing the game so well that when the coach draws up a play, you don't even have to think about it. You know what to do. Its seeing the floor and knowing what the reaction is going to be to an action before it happens, and knowing what to do if it doesn't happen. Its knowing where to move in a defensive rotation, and how to plug up a hole when someone misses a rotation. Its the ability to learn and understand the game, and do so easily.

But it has nothing to do with the ability to shoot the ball or the ability to make a floater in the key. It does however have to do with knowing when those things will work and not work. Basketball IQ is one thing and being able to execute physcially is another thing. But when you have the ability to do both, then you have the potential to be a great basketball player. There are a lot of coaches in college and in the NBA with great basketball IQ that wern't very good players. Oh they knew how to play, they just didn't have the physical tools to do it.

lastly, if you have the physical tools and the IQ and still don't have the dedication to put in the work, its all meaningless. You'll still be a good player probably. But you'll never be special. You referenced Tyreke. In Tyreke it appears we have someone with the IQ, the physical tools and the dedication. But to my mind, they're three seperate parts. All three important, and all three necessary to be what I would call a superstar. Doesn't mean you will be. Just means it almost impossible to be one without all three.

 

[fnordius]

"Basketball IQ" ?

My great grandfather, on the blue collar side of the family, was a telegraph operator for the railroads. He once looked at the top of a can, and commented that circles were about three times as big around as they were across. He had an 8th grade education. His son went to university, and became a math professor at UC. Who had a higher math IQ, the professor, or the guy who "discovered" pi? Is there any valid answer to that?

Tyreke started out as a basketball idiot; nobody is born knowing the rules of the game. He had the potential to play a much smarter game than a lot of players ever will. But he was taught basketball when he was a little kid, and can probably hardly remember when he started playing.

Hakeem Olajuwon, on the other hand, is someone we could all agree also had a high basketball IQ. But it wasn't always that way. When he turned 15, he'd never touched a basketball and knew nothing about it. Although he took to it like a fish to water, his first year at U. of Houston they wouldn't let him play over 18 minutes a game, and he sat for several games, because he was still too raw. Basketball wasn't second nature to him... yet.

Anyway, my point is that, whatever potential someone has, they aren't going to be *observed* to have a high basketball IQ until they've been playing for a while, any more than my great grandad would be labelled as having an equal math IQ to his son, the prof. You've gotta have both the innate and the learned, and regardless of potential, some draft candidates are a lot farther along on the learning curve than others.

 

[bajaden]

"Basketball IQ" ?

My great grandfather, on the blue collar side of the family, was a telegraph operator for the railroads. He once looked at the top of a can, and commented that circles were about three times as big around as they were across. He had an 8th grade education. His son went to university, and became a math professor at UC. Who had a higher math IQ, the professor, or the guy who "discovered" pi? Is there any valid answer to that?

Tyreke started out as a basketball idiot; nobody is born knowing the rules of the game. He had the potential to play a much smarter game than a lot of players ever will. But he was taught basketball when he was a little kid, and can probably hardly remember when he started playing.

Hakeem Olajuwon, on the other hand, is someone we could all agree also had a high basketball IQ. But it wasn't always that way. When he turned 15, he'd never touched a basketball and knew nothing about it. Although he took to it like a fish to water, his first year at U. of Houston they wouldn't let him play over 18 minutes a game, and he sat for several games, because he was still too raw. Basketball wasn't second nature to him... yet.

Anyway, my point is that, whatever potential someone has, they aren't going to be *observed* to have a high basketball IQ until they've been playing for a while, any more than my great grandad would be labelled as having an equal math IQ to his son, the prof. You've gotta have both the innate and the learned, and regardless of potential, some draft candidates are a lot farther along on the learning curve than others.

I don't disagree with anything you said. Now I have to go look at the top of some cans..

 

[Gilles]

I totally agree. With young players, some of whom are freshman and never touched a basketball before 10th grade, you ARE relying on a crystal ball. The (*gag*) Lakers have Bynum and that Bryant guy because they were successful with their crystal ball. In this year's draft, nobody's going to pick a Jan Vesely, Larry Sanders or Solomon Alabi based on how they play now, none of those guys are NBA worthy now. But in 2 years, any of them could be on their way to being great. Those of you who remember watching Gerald Wallace as a rookie will know what I'm talking about.

Actually this guy can play at least as good as Casspi did this year before his collision with rookie wall. He's contributing heavily on an elite team in Europe.

 

[bajaden]

Actually this guy can play at least as good as Casspi did this year before his collision with rookie wall. He's contributing heavily on an elite team in Europe.

I happened by chance to catch a european game on the NBA channel. I usually don't spend much time watching these games because for the most part I don't really know many of the players. But having nothing to do I decided to watch for a while. It wasn't much later that I was asking who the hell this guy Vesely was. I had never heard much about him at the time, but came away very impressed. He appeared very athletic. Also appeared very thin. Its too bad I couldn't have seen more of him.

 

[bajaden]

I finished listening to an interview with Kenneth Faried. As I've stated before, I really like this kid. He's someone that I think would be a steal in the second round. He's a terrific athlete and a fierce competitor. What he lacks are the necessary skills. Remember, he averaged 13 boards a game. Or one rebound every 2.3 minutes. At 6'8", and with his frame, he's likely to be a SF in the NBA, that in certain matchups could play some at the 4 spot.

When asked what went through his mind when a shot went up and was missed. He said, just go get it. The same thing DeJaun Blair said when he was asked about his rebounding. Faried said what seperates good rebounders from bad one's is toughness. He said that when someone outrebounds him he felt like he had been punked. And no one was going to punk him.

When asked what it would take to keep his name in the draft, he said someone would have to offer him a guaranteed contract. When asked about the second round, he more or less said it didn't matter. If a team offered him a guaranteed contract, he stay in the draft. Obviously all first round contracts are guananteed. He knows he has a lot to learn and said he's willing to work hard. He said he thinks its learning the little things that matter.

This is the kind of player thats the perfect type of second round pick. Loaded with potential and physical ability, and willing to work hard to realize that potential. He's a very tough kid and I think he's the type that could be a lock down defender one day. Bear in mind. He's a kid with few perimeter skills, so patience would be necessary. He's almost Gerald Wallace part two. But I can almost guarantee you that if you throw him into a game right now for 10 minutes, he'll grab you 3 or 4 boards, irritate someone on defense and get you 4 to 6 points on just effort alone.

Anyway, he's someone to keep in mind on draft day. If he stays in. Which leads me to another subject. This new NCAA rule on the date that players have to decide whether to stay in the draft or return to school is the biggest bunch of BS I've seen in a long time. A lot of the teams will still be in the playoffs. On or around may the 5th, most of the GM's or thier counterparts will be headed to europe to scout potential draft picks over there. This gives players not yet commited to the draft, a little under two weeks to find out what their draft status will be. While at the same time trying to get ready for finals. What a bunch of crap!

This has to have been done at the bequest of college coaches. Believe me, I understand that the coaches don't want to lose the John Walls of the world. But college is suspossed to be about helping the kids, not helping yourself and the college. Yes they give out scholarships. Woopie! They also make megabucks off of these kids. What if a kid like Faried goes back to school, because in the short period of time he has, he's not able to arrive at a solid answer as to his draft status. I mean how many workouts can he get in, and how many teams are ready to do workouts right now. And what if then he blows out his knee next year playing for Moorehead St... What does he get out of it? Whats his recourse now?

This new rule sucks and needs to be changed back. I'm suspossed to feel sorry for the coaches because not knowing if a kid is coming back or not affects their recruiting. Give me a break. Shame on the NCAA!!

 

[Kings Faithful]

I can't wait for next season... we could very easily be a good team again NEXT YEAR if we play our cards right this off season. A Wall,Turner,Favors,Cousins signing here... a big name FA signing there... and maybe a little roleplayer signing or trade on the side... you never know. Then again we could just as easily get the 6th pick and draft Donatas Motiejunas or something, not aquire any FA's, and make no trades and come back just as horrible as we were last year.

 

[bajaden]

I can't wait for next season... we could very easily be a good team again NEXT YEAR if we play our cards right this off season. A Wall,Turner,Favors,Cousins signing here... a big name FA signing there... and maybe a little roleplayer signing or trade on the side... you never know. Then again we could just as easily get the 6th pick and draft Donatas Motiejunas or something, not aquire any FA's, and make no trades and come back just as horrible as we were last year.

There you go. First you raise my hopes, and then you dash them.

 

[Emma]

I say reach with Alibi at the 6. Put your chips all in and hope for some unexpected brilliance.

 

[SacTownGrantFan]

I say reach with Alibi at the 6. Put your chips all in and hope for some unexpected brilliance.

What a horrible, horrible idea

We can get a lot better than that

 

[fnordius]

Actually this guy can play at least as good as Casspi did this year before his collision with rookie wall. He's contributing heavily on an elite team in Europe.

Agreed. He still has some rookie about him, though. He's fantastic at racing for a dunk, but other aspects of his offensive game still need work. For example, leading the league in fouls is a rookie trait. I don't think he's ready to be an NBA starter right off the bat, but nobody can deny that he's got great potential and lots of upside left. In under a year, I could see him starting.

I mean, geez, he's only 19.

 

[bajaden]

I say reach with Alibi at the 6. Put your chips all in and hope for some unexpected brilliance.

Gotta disagree on his one. There are several players I'd take over Alabi at 6. Alabi underacheived this year. It wasn't all his fault, but the bottom line is that he doesn't really rebound that well for a guy 7'1" and he gets pushed around in the paint a little too much for me. He also wasn't the best shotblocker in college by a longshot. I would certainly take Epke Udoh before I would take him. Udoh has him beat in just about every catagory. He's a better scorer, and a better rebounder at 9 plus rebounds a game vrs 6 plus rebounds a game. He blocked 3.7 shots a game to Alabi's 2.3 blocks a game. The only advantage Alabi has on Udoh is that he's younger and a little taller. When you think about it, Alabi didn't play a whole lot better than Jerome Jordan, another 7 footer thats projected to go in the second round.

One thing I like to look at is the progression of a player. Now this one is a little unfair because Udoh had to redshirt a year because of transfering from Michigan to Baylor. But none the less, it showed he worked on his game and got better.

Alabi: 7'1" Center
2009: 22.5 MPG - 8.4 PPG - 5.4 RPG - 2.1 BPG - O.4 APG
2010: 25.6 MPG - 11.7 PPG - 6.2 RPG - 2.3 BPG - 0.5 APG

Udoh: 6'10" Powerforward
2008: 26.0 MPG - 6.0 PPG - 5.0 RPG - 2.9 BPG - 0.9 APG
2010: 35.1 MPG - 13.9 PPG - 9.8 RPG- 3.7 BPG - 2.7 APG

I think we can safely say that Udoh showed the most improvment. However he did have an entire season of not playing to work on his game. But he did do that. One of the most impressive improvements was his assist totals. He turned himself from a just OK passing big man to a player that is a good passing big man. When you consider that Baylor played a 2/3 Zone that had him playing away from the basket on defense, and that Alabi played mostly in the post on defense, I think we can say that Udoh is the better rebounder. And while as a shotblocker his numbers are better than Alabi's, you could argue that he played more minutes.

But if you break it down to blocks per minutes. Alabi blocked a shot every 10.9 minutes and Udoh blocked a shot every 9.5 minutes. So he wins that battle as well. Anyway, I think you see my point.

By the way, Alabi may well turn out to be a good defensive player down the road. But I don't see him being much help in the short term. In other words, I don't see him as an immediate impact player.

 

[sc3252]

Ok, I was just looking up last years mock drafts just to see how accurate they are in the early stages. I grabbed this one from ESPN, and it shows how bad mock drafts are even at may 20th. As you can see quite a few picks are all over the place, so in my mind there is no 3-8 as far as consensus. Who knows who we pick since the ideas of who should go 1 through 10 never seem to be spot on at this time.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2009/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=MockDraft-090519

 

[fnordius]

Yeah, the mocks are pretty wretched until after the physicals, tests and workouts, and even then they're only fair until the very last minute (a day or two before the draft). I tend to save my more dire & certain statements, like *PLEASE NOT HAWES*, until the last few weeks before the draft. Prior to that, there's just too much uncertainty, so I stick to eating popcorn.

 

[Chupacabra]

God, i HATE reading what sports writers have to say about basketball. They sound SO STUPID.

 

[bajaden]

God, i HATE reading what sports writers have to say about basketball. They sound SO STUPID.

I've always wondered where some of them get their informantion. Do they actually watch games, or do they just rely on info from people that do? And beyond that, do they talk to any of the teams to find out what direction they might be leaning, or at the very least take a look at the teams roster and record and see what they might need?

I've heard interviews with Chad Ford and he always comes across as knowledgable. But his mock's are all over the place. Gotta agree with fnordius. The best mocks usually don't show up until the last week before the draft. DX comes the closest to being right. Its hard to account for the Al Davis's of the basketball world though..

 

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

If we end up picking six, and Wall, Cousins, Johnson, Turner, and Favors are all gone, I think I take Aldrich. I'd consider Udoh or Davis.

Ive never been a fan of Davis, but if he shows up healthy and big at the combine, AND reports are he has been awesome in workouts, I'd consider him here. Still think I take Aldrich though.

Also, I think Vesely is out of the draft. I read that somewhere..

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I think Vesely is out of the draft. I read that somewhere..

Yes, he gave an interview to draftexpress.com saying he was out of this draft.

 

[FakeInjury]

Next years draft has players that put 2003 to shame. Deep Athletic, Talented. This years draft is a little role player heavy, next years is gonna have some studs.

 

[bajaden]

If we end up picking six, and Wall, Cousins, Johnson, Turner, and Favors are all gone, I think I take Aldrich. I'd consider Udoh or Davis.

Ive never been a fan of Davis, but if he shows up healthy and big at the combine, AND reports are he has been awesome in workouts, I'd consider him here. Still think I take Aldrich though.

Also, I think Vesely is out of the draft. I read that somewhere..

I agree that Davis has to be healthy. Next I want to see his true height and length. To be honest, I think I would lean toward Aldrich simply because he's a center and a good defensive one. Something the Kings need. Thats despite how much I like Udoh. Although I could see Udoh and Thompson or Hawes on the floor together. I think if we were to pick either Udoh or Davis, then you move Thompson to Center.

I wasn't thrilled with Davis throughout the season. His stats wern't bad, but he didn't look that impressive when you saw him play.

 

[bajaden]

Next years draft has players that put 2003 to shame. Deep Athletic, Talented. This years draft is a little role player heavy, next years is gonna have some studs.

We'll see what they look like at the end of next season. Way too early to say how good or bad they are. Kanter seems to be the real deal of all those I've seen. Ironicly, the biggest knock on him is his just average athleticism. It also appears the incoming class is weak in centers. It could be another good pt guard class though. A kid I like that hasn't gotten much press is Abdul Gaddy. A 6'3" point guard for Washington. He's a very talented pt guard. Not as athletic as some of the others, but still someone to keep an eye on.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Next years draft has players that put 2003 to shame. Deep Athletic, Talented. This years draft is a little role player heavy, next years is gonna have some studs.

Good to hear that it's deep. Because we better not be looking at another top pick.

 

[fnordius]

We'll see what they look like at the end of next season. Way too early to say how good or bad they are.

Also, way too early to know how many of them will actually be in that draft. If you look at, e.g., Draftexpress' mock for next year, six of the top nine are still in high school, one's a 17 year old Euro player, one's a Euro player who just turned 20, and then there's Jeff Taylor, a sophomore at Vanderbilt. Unless he totally stinks up the upcoming season, I don't doubt that Taylor will be in next year's draft. As for the others? Hard to guess.

Out of the top 32, only 2 are old enough to drink.

I've been disappointed enough in the past, by guys pulling out of the draft for no particularly good reason, that I'm not holding my breath.

 

[bajaden]

Also, way too early to know how many of them will actually be in that draft. If you look at, e.g., Draftexpress' mock for next year, six of the top nine are still in high school, one's a 17 year old Euro player, one's a Euro player who just turned 20, and then there's Jeff Taylor, a sophomore at Vanderbilt. Unless he totally stinks up the upcoming season, I don't doubt that Taylor will be in next year's draft. As for the others? Hard to guess.

Out of the top 32, only 2 are old enough to drink.

I've been disappointed enough in the past, by guys pulling out of the draft for no particularly good reason, that I'm not holding my breath.

Good points.. I was surprised by how many highschool players are in the top 20. And by the lack of centers. Of course that can all change between now and then. I was surprised that Vesely pulled out of the draft. He looked to be a sure lottery pick. And, its hard for european players to move up in the draft since you don't get to see them as often. I guess he just didn't think he was ready. I was intrigued by him from the one game I saw.

 

[Kingster]

Kind of interesting. I agreed with the first part of your post. I do think that some people have an ability to understand some things better than others. Thats why some people are inclined to mechanics and others to medicine etc. I do think some of the innate ability comes from having a great interest in whatever your endeavor is. Your always going to have a better understanding of what your interested in than something your not. Thats sort of where the IQ part comes in.

IQ is nothing more than a reference to your ability to learn. Doesn't mean you will, just means the ability is there. It also means that those with a higher IQ learn easier than those that don't. Some people just come armed with a bigger hard drive than others. But like any hard drive, if you don't put anything on it, its worthless.

So to me, basketball IQ is an understanding of the game. Its knowing the game so well that when the coach draws up a play, you don't even have to think about it. You know what to do. Its seeing the floor and knowing what the reaction is going to be to an action before it happens, and knowing what to do if it doesn't happen. Its knowing where to move in a defensive rotation, and how to plug up a hole when someone misses a rotation. Its the ability to learn and understand the game, and do so easily.

But it has nothing to do with the ability to shoot the ball or the ability to make a floater in the key. It does however have to do with knowing when those things will work and not work. Basketball IQ is one thing and being able to execute physcially is another thing. But when you have the ability to do both, then you have the potential to be a great basketball player. There are a lot of coaches in college and in the NBA with great basketball IQ that wern't very good players. Oh they knew how to play, they just didn't have the physical tools to do it.

lastly, if you have the physical tools and the IQ and still don't have the dedication to put in the work, its all meaningless. You'll still be a good player probably. But you'll never be special. You referenced Tyreke. In Tyreke it appears we have someone with the IQ, the physical tools and the dedication. But to my mind, they're three seperate parts. All three important, and all three necessary to be what I would call a superstar. Doesn't mean you will be. Just means it almost impossible to be one without all three.

Regarding work ethic, of course. There are mensas driving 16 wheelers right now. Aptitude doesn't necessarily determine achievement. But just as important, there aren't people out there with 80 IQs with doctorates in physics. So, aptitude is going to determine the ceiling.

 

[Bricklayer]

But just as important, there aren't people out there with 80 IQs with doctorates in physics.

I rather doubt that.

 

[bajaden]

Whereas there isn't much going on right now, I thought I would, from time to time talk about players that I think will be sleepers in the upcoming draft. I've already mentioned Kenneth Faried from Moorehead St. So the next guy I would like to mention is a SG/PG from South Florida.

I'm talking about Dominque Jones, a 6'4" SG that can on occasion play PG or at the very least bring the ball up and distribute it. When you watch him play he'll remind you a little bit of Tyreke. At 6'4" he's a plus 200 pounder thats very strong. And like Tyreke, he's good at getting to the basket. He has decent hops, but you'll never mistake him for air Jordan. He playes mostly below the rim. He has a great floater that he uses when confronted by bigs around the basket and he shoots a very high percentage with it. Although he's basicly a shooting guard, he's a good ballhandler and a good passer. He's also an unselfish player.

Most draft boards have him ranked lower than Elliot Williams, another 6'4" SG. And I understand why, since Williams is a much more athletic player and because of that, would appear to have a higher upside. I have Jones ranked ahead of Williams because of what the Kings need. Jones is a better ballhandler and passer than Williams. And while Jones has pretty fair form on his shot, his release is a little slow, and because he doesn't get great elevation or lift on his jumpshot, his release is a little low as a result. Its my opinion that both players have some work to do on their shot. Both are inconsistant in some facet of their offense. For instance, Williams has little or no midrange offense. While Jones doesn't seem to be consistant if forced to shoot while moving with the ball at times.

Where Jones really shines is on defense. He reminds me a lot of a young Bobby Jackson. He never plays off his man. He gets right up on him bumping him with his chest. And although only 6'4", he appears to have long arms and he gets his fair share of steals. He has a non stop motor that never quits.

Right now he's projected all over the place. Some boards have him in the first round and others in the second round. I personally think he's borderline first round. Once the workouts begin and people see what fierce competitor he is, I think he may cement his position in the bottom of the first round. But if he slides into the second round, he's someone the Kings should take a hard look at.

 

[Vlade4GM]

I like Jones too. Him and Randle are the only ones I like in the second round area so far, but it's hard to say who is exactly in the 2nd round range before the draft.

 

[bajaden]

I like Jones too. Him and Randle are the only ones I like in the second round area so far, but it's hard to say who is exactly in the 2nd round range before the draft.

Yeah its really hard to say right now. Once the workouts start and then the combine, we'll start to have a better idea of whose going where. By the way, I noted today that the league office isn't going to release the early entry list until thursday, although the deadline was last sunday. Which means with the new NCAA rule, those players that were undecided whether to stay in the draft or not, now only have 10 days to work out for teams and make their decision. It would have been 13 days if the league would have released the list on monday.

Not to bore you, but the reason for the delay is because there are always pranksters who sumit their names for fun and it takes the league a few days to go throught the list and omit them. It doesn't leave much time for the undecided to make a decision..

 

[Kingster]

Next years draft has players that put 2003 to shame. Deep Athletic, Talented. This years draft is a little role player heavy, next years is gonna have some studs.

Don't worry too much. It's very possible the Kings are in the "top" 5 next year.