Knight vs. Kanter: lessons from previous drafts

[UtahJazzV4FTW]

I was starting to really cool on Knight. If he does end up our pick, now I won't feel so bad...I may even feel good. Great first post.

 

[Favors Flave]

So you like BB at 3?

No but I like him if the jazz get him anywhere after 7 range

 

[bat]

I posted these on another forum. Full game videos of Knight. Both are blow outs so its hard to tell exactly how much this translates, but I thought these were both pretty impressive.

https://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/S...ky-Mens-Basketball-Jan-11-2011-Full-Game.aspx

This video shows a very dominant first half from Knight, excellent passing, control of game tempo, execution of the offense, and gives you an idea of how he scores the ball off of floaters and the long ball, including NBA range threes.

https://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/S...Semifinal-Kentucky-Vs-Alabama-Mar12-2011.aspx

This video has a pretty underwhelming first half, Knight has a slow start to the game, really just runs the team, doesn't try to do too much, stays within the offense, doesn't score any baskets other than a couple of free-throws, but he picks it up big time in the second half. Alabama cuts the lead to 13 points, Knight realizes it's time to take over, goes on a 10 point scoring run my himself on only 4 shots, and ends the game with about 16 minutes left.

The first video gives you a good idea of his passing, really makes me think he has a chance to be a true PG capable of running the Jazz system, and the second video shows you how he will score in the Jazz offense. He hits jumpers off the curl as deep as the college 3, has excellent speed in transition, and makes a very good drive to the basket on a back door cut. He also has a good looking floater that might be a go to shot in the league if he can make it a little more consistently.

Anyways, enjoy the videos, I watched Knight during the year a few times but didn't study his game exclusively because I didn't think the Jazz were really in contention to get him, but now these are fun to look at.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

While I appreciate this post, I'll argue that those select bigmen who were successful were far more impacting on their teams than those apparently low-risk PGs.

And that's the thing of the draft, yes, the probability of finding a quality C is low EVERYWHERE. It gets lower as you go to the lower draft picks. It just happens that its highest probability is where we are picking, so shouldn't we take that chance? Otherwise, when are we going to have a similar opportunity?

- Craig

Yes, that's probably what Portland thought when it took LaRue Martin over Bob McAdoo, Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan, and Greg Oden over Kevin Durrant, when Seattle drafted Sene, when Memphis drafted Thabeet, or what any number other teams thought when they bought into the 'can't teach height' cliche and rolled the dice and lost (and with some frequency as demonstrated in the opening post to this thread).

Highly skilled bigs simply aren't as critical in the NBA as they used to be. Drafting a project or high risk big because "we may not have the opportunity again" is poor reasoning.

 

[Fishsticks]

Much of the discussion on who the Jazz should select with their 3rd pick centered on drafting a big (Kanter) vs. a PG (Knight), with both being consensus top-5 picks. Much was said about their upside, fit, strengths and weaknesses. The truth is that we have no clue how good they will be in this league. However, past drafts give us some idea how PGs and bigs drafted in the top-5 fared in the NBA overall.

In 1998-2008 10 point guards were selected in the top 5 (excluding Jay Williams and Livingston, whose careers were destroyed by the freak catastrophic injuries): Bibby, Francis, Davis, Harris, Williams, Paul, Felton, Conley, Rose, Westbrook. 7 All-Stars and 3 very solid starters, top-3 on their teams - Bibby, Felton, Conley. Conclusion: the NBA scouts and GMs are very good in evaluating point guards in the draft: a consensus top-5 player is almost certain to turn out a star, no possibility of a bust whatsoever.

In 1998-2008 27 bigs went in the top 5: 7 All-Stars (Brand, Gasol, Ming, Bosh, Howard, Martin, Horford) 6 very solid starters (Odom, Chandler, Okafor, Bogut, Aldridge, Beasley) and 14 borderline starters/bench players/out of the league. Given their high draft selection we can register all of them as "busts" (Curry, Oden, Gooden, Olowokandi, La Frentz, Bender, Swift, Fizer, Brown, Skita, Darko, Marvin Williams, Tyrus Thomas, Shelden Williams). Conclusion: it is hard for GMs to predict how well highly touted bigs would transition to the NBA: your chances for success are 50/50.

But Kanter is not a regular consensus top-5 player in the draft - he belongs to a smaller group of bigs who were selected top-5 without any significant NCAA or quality professional basketball experience. There were only 6 of them : Howard, Brown, Darko, Skita, Curry, Bender. One All-Star and five busts. Obviously, the NBA GMs are terrible at judging bigs based only on their play in the high school/ youth tournaments/ bad professional leagues - the chance of success is only 16%.

But maybe the Jazz are better than the rest of the NBA in scouting highly hyped bigs? Not really: they had three 1st round picks - Borchardt, Hoffa (they wanted to draft him originally and soon got him via trade), and Koufus. None of them turned out to be an NBA player at all.

"The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior." In drafting a PG (Knight) the Jazz most likely would acquire an All-Star, in drafting a big based on his high school/youth tournaments PG (Kanter) the Jazz would most likely get a total bust or a flawed bench player.

The only teams who can afford to go after high risk/high rewards bigs are the ones that get high lottery picks year after year (Minnesota, the Wizards, the Clippers). Eventually you will get someone and a superstar 4/5 is much more important than a superstar point guard. But, if you are a quality team that very rarely gets a top-3 pick, go after a sure thing, you cannot afford to miss. Detroit learned it the hard way in 2003.

Great 1st post. Appreciate the effort and insight. Unfortunately you have stumbled onto a board infatuated with kanter. Sick. No stat( or lack there of) or comparison will ever change their mind.

 

[Fishsticks]

Exactly, a good big man can lead to dynasties.

We have a good big man in favors. We dont need to muddle it up by bringing on kanter. He is not the answer and he nor favors are centers.

 

[JimLes]

Empirical evidence? Analysis?

No offense, but this entire post is bullsh*t. You are trying to predict how well a player will turn out based on his draft number and position. That's ludicrous. There are so many variables here, and to statistically analyze a player simply through comparison with other players according to position and draft order is...well, idiotic.

You cannot figure out whether the Jazz should take Kanter by looking at how Kwame Brown or Nikoloz Tskitishvili have panned out because there is no constant between those players. Good grief.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Yes, that's probably what Portland thought when it took LaRue Martin over Bob McAdoo, Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan, and Greg Oden over Kevin Durrant, when Seattle drafted Sene, when Memphis drafted Thabeet, or what any number other teams thought when they bought into the 'can't teach height' cliche and rolled the dice and lost (and with some frequency as demonstrated in the opening post to this thread).

Highly skilled bigs simply aren't as critical in the NBA as they used to be. Drafting a project or high risk big because "we may not have the opportunity again" is poor reasoning.

I struggle to figure out how Kanter is any riskier or any more of a project than Knight.

Knight is anything but a guarantee. And he's anything but a finished project with his very raw PG skills.

 

[Fishsticks]

Empirical evidence? Analysis?

No offense, but this entire post is bullsh*t. You are trying to predict how well a player will turn out based on his draft number and position. That's ludicrous. There are so many variables here, and to statistically analyze a player simply through comparison with other players according to position and draft order is...well, idiotic.

You cannot figure out whether the Jazz should take Kanter by looking at how Kwame Brown or Nikoloz Tskitishvili have panned out because there is no constant between those players. Good grief.

Ok einstein, provide your otherworldy reasoning on why we should take kanter. History repeats itself and this is a historical perspective. Dont be a douche.

 

[Fishsticks]

I struggle to figure out how Kanter is any riskier or any more of a project than Knight.

Knight is anything but a guarantee. And he's anything but a finished project with his very raw PG skills.

You cant be serious. Dude, you have a body of work to evaluate knight and he got better each game. We have so little to look at from kanter that it amazes me that anyone is so high on him. My struggles are with understanding the love for kanter without anything substantial to justify it.

 

[bat]

I struggle to figure out how Kanter is any riskier or any more of a project than Knight.

Knight is anything but a guarantee. And he's anything but a finished project with his very raw PG skills.

His pg skills aren't that raw. He's young, and they need to improve, but for a freshman I'd say his skills are as good or better than they need to be to translate to the next level. He'll figure it out with time.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Ok einstein, provide your otherworldy reasoning on why we should take kanter. History repeats itself and this is a historical perspective. Dont be a douche.

Well history may repeat itself, but it's not pre-determined. To the extent it repeats itself, it's probably because human nature doesn't really change much over time. People generally don't learn from mistakes, either theirs or others. JimLes has a point, looking at past draft trends doesn't in any way imply a specific outcome in this case--Kanter is unique and not the necessarily the duds of drafts past. What it does illustrate, however, is that GMs appear to consistently make similar errors in their evaluation of bigs, possibly at a rate significantly higher than guards. If true, there is probably a reason for it. My guess is that it is at least partially explained by the sentiment expressed in an earlier post--bigs are important, and we may not get the chance again, so let's roll the dice on someone we know who is a project but who may just come up big (you know, high risk high reward kind of stuff). GMs are probably less likely to roll the dice like that on guards or other players. Is there something of potential value in here for KOC? I think so. What does it mean in practice? I don't know enough about Kanter to have a good feel for it. I just hope that KOC does.