Evaluating Evaluation

It's draft season, both in the NBA and the NFL meaning evaluations of players are flying. Everyone, from general managers of the actual teams to amateur scouts on the internet are putting out their reports. Some of those amateur scouts will somehow have better results than those professionals whose very jobs it is to nail those evaluations.

How is that possible? I have no idea and that will become increasingly clear as you read the rest of this post. That is because evaluating talent is as much about who a person is as what they do on the field. Team personnel (and professional media evaluators like Mel Kiper and Todd McShay) get to talk to the draftees, their college coaches and the people around them. The amateurs on the internet? They might know a guy somewhere, but likely they're watching tape and drawing conclusions.

So how is it that the professionals can so wildly miss? Simple. It's hard to evaluate how a human being will grow from the time they are 21 or 22 (or in the NBA's case, 19) over the next ten years of their life, but knowing what to look for is half the battle.

The genesis of this post started a few weeks ago as I heard people talk about evaluating quarterbacks. Talk show hosts and the like love talking about measurables. Carson Wentz from North Dakota State has "prototypical size" and a cannon for an arm. Those are great, but when it comes to the quarterback position, the number one attribute is decision making.

I would rather have a quarterback with an average arm that is smart and decisive than one who has the physical tools and hope that the second guy can figure it out. Everything happens in the NFL at extraordinary speed. The margin for error is nearly non-existent. A quarterback must read coverage, determine where to throw the ball and deliver without hesitation. So long that he can do that, and has a baseline requisite arm to do so, he's going to succeed. The difference in arm strength between average and good isn't enough to make up for the difference in decision making between good and average.

While the decision making trait is unique to quarterbacks, there is another set of mental traits that is just as important as any other physical trait when evaluating talent. It's described perfectly by Redskins GM Scot McCloughan in a Q&A with Bleacher Report's Jason Cole.

You watch five or 10 plays, you can see the physical skills. You can see it pretty quick. If it’s a receiver running a route or a pass-rusher, you can see him drop his hips, that kind of stuff. That’s the easy part. The tough part is figuring out the person. Is he a competitor? What’s his toughness? What’s his mindset? I’ve been around long enough, which is great because I’ve made a lot of mistakes, and I’ve learned from them, but what makes a guy average to good, good to great and great to exceptional? That’s the hard part because the talent is there. Every year, you see guys come out, and they are physically gifted, bigger than life, whatever. But you also see guys who are in the sixth or seventh (round), or they are college free agents, and they play 10 years while the other guy plays two. It’s the "it" factor, and it’s hard to find. It’s really hard to find.

McCloughan's theory is true in other sports as well. Think of the great athletes and what you think of first with them. Whether is Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, Tom Brady, Jerry Rice or any other number of legitimate all-time greats, the first thing you hear about is their work ethic. It's how Stephen Curry elevated himself to the top of the basketball world. He had a set of natural skills that he enhanced by an immense amount of work. He wanted to be great. He loves the game. He put in the work. He is great.

These characteristics can continue to play out into a players career in a negative way as well. While Curry and the others mentioned (and many more) continually improve as they go, other players can't seem to be bothered too.

Josh Gordon led the NFL in receiving in 2013. He's played in five games since. Gordon has been suspended multiple times for failed drug tests, and while reading Gordon's accounts of his downfall creates sympathy and empathy, it also makes you take a step back and go "hey guy...figure it out!" For someone that seems to so clearly understand the circumstances around his peril, he's awful at avoiding it.

That continues to this week's news when it was revealed Gordon is reportedly living with Johnny Manziel, a walking embodiment of a similar theory. (Update: the report, from ESPN, is false according to another report from Pro Football Talk, so credit to back in Gordon's corner if it is. He still did something to have his re-instatement denied. He can appeal August 1st.)

Manziel is a master (well, until this week) of saying the right thing while doing nothing of what he says. Both of them have an optics problem and neither seems particularly interested, based on their actions, of fixing them. I should be perfectly clear here that the Manziel optics problem doesn't include his domestic violence which is a real problem that, if it played out as reported based on his ex-girlfriend's accounts, should land him in jail, nevertheless out of football.

Evaluators need to be able to identify players, or more accurately people, like Gordon and Manziel so they know not to invest vast resources in acquiring them. They also need to know that if they do acquire them with low resources (whether that be a late round pick or a low dollar contract) that they will need to invest a high number of resources to help the player succeed. The results when this is done right can be magical.

Dez Bryant dropped in the draft because he was "high-risk" coming out of Oklahoma State. Bryant has succeeded because he loves football above all else (which is a credit to him and him alone) and because the Cowboys set up a support system to make sure that he had the highest chance possible to succeed as he adjusted to a new life.

Of course the difference between Bryant, Gordon and Manziel is that only one of them has football as their highest priority. In a profession with such a short career span that requires an inordinate amount of physical dedication, that's something an evaluator has to identify.

It's why Kristaps Porzingis will succeed in the NBA and countless other European players haven't. The busts fail for the same reason many American born players have. They just don't love the game. Often these are big men who play because they're big. They can succeed without immense work because their physical stature gives them such an inherent advantage at the lower levels. In order to succeed in the world's highest level professional league, even the most gifted physical players need to have a work ethic to maximize their talent.

Porzingis loves the game. He's had early success and I'll be shocked if he doesn't continue to improve. The same is true for Karl-Anthony Towns. Last year's #1 overall pick has been glued to Kevin Garnett, who is as much coach as he is player at this point, trying to learn what's made the 15-time All-Star successful.

So as you read the latest mock draft to see who your favorite team is going to take, make sure to read the whole scouting report. Don't just look at 40-times and verticals. Take a look at the personality section. Do they love the sport? Do they value being a good teammate? Will they be a positive influence on your team's culture?

If you want to put on your amateur scouting hat, don't just watch a highlight tape. Watch how hard they play. Read and watch interviews with the player to see what kind of answers they give. What's their attention to detail?

If scouting was solely about finding the best physical specimens, it'd be pretty easy. Everyone would have the same lists. However sports are played by human beings which means there are human dynamics at play and the ability to find and project talent is an extremely valuable talent in its own right.

Inevitably, someone will cost themselves their job (and the jobs of those below them) because of ego. General manager X will think he's the one who's got it all figured out. He's the one who can take the physically gifted kid and mold all that "talent" into a great player. What the great talent evaluators have figured out is that "talent" is overrated. They want the guys who can think the game so effortlessly that they don't have to think at all, maximizing the physical ability they have leading to success.

As a fan, just hope that person isn't running your team. If they are, don't worry though. They won't be for long.

How The Mavs Lose the Big Free Agent and Win Free Agency

Half of the teams in the 2014 NBA Draft had eyes elsewhere as they made their selections. The Chicago Bulls traded their two picks for one pick to save cap space. To their credit, they also added a much needed piece in Doug McDermott to a team that desperately needs to add offense. Houston took a draft-and-stash guy in Clint Capela to keep extra cap space clear. The Knicks-Mavericks trade was Carmelo motivated in some way on both sides. Miami traded up for Shabazz Napier in part because LeBron likes him. 

The draft was just step one of these recruiting and cap motivated moves, yet all but two teams are making them in vain. Carmelo and LeBron can only play for one team a piece. 

So what to do if you don't get either of them? Let's call it Plan B.

However before Plan B, we first have to go back and examine the progression of Plan A.

People bashing the "hope plan" because the Mavs still have financial flexibility just don't understand the NBA in 2014. Were the Mavs supposed to have signed Vince Carter to a longer deal? I think when a guy's been hurt frequently during his career and he's going to be 37 when the deal ends, you did a good job. Dirk was signed for as long as he could have been. They timed Marion to end at the same time. That's not some pipe dream hope plan. That's really smart planning.

Then what? Is a team in a big market with great ownership, good players and an eye on a championship supposed to not take a swipe at the best players in the league? No. That'd be epically stupid. The key is to plan if you don't get them, but not trying to acquire them would be fireable offense.

So what's the plan when LeBron goes back to Miami and Carmelo goes to Chicago? Back to Plan B.

There are a lot of quality players who are being tossed around as guys who need to be moved for teams to create max cap space. Let's use Chicago as an example. They'll likely need to dump Mike Dunleavy and his $3 million dollar salary to create room for Carmelo. $3 million for a smart shooter who understands how to play and is good for 15-20 minutes a night? Sign me up!

What about bigger fish though? Oh sorry I forgot that term is despised in Dallas. Let's try "all-star caliber player." 

What if Golden State pulls a miracle and lands LeBron/Melo after completing the Kevin Love trade. In order to pull that off they need to dump Andre Iguadala. Forget signing free agent Luol Deng. I'll take Iguadala. That's probably your best case scenario. There are steps in-between too. If teams are going to salary dump good players, take the good players. Deandre Jordan is being floated out there if the Clippers make a run at LeBron. 

Plan B is simply this: use the cap space reserved for LeBron and Carmelo on multiple players that fit. The Mavs did this last year and made their team markedly better. The difference this year is that there are going to be bargains available as other teams scramble as opposed to signing "leftovers" like Samuel Dalembert. Granted, Monta Ellis fell into this category last year wound up being an incredible bargain, but he was a special case as he was considered damaged goods leaving Milwaukee.

The other thing to look for is restricted free agents. The Rockets likely have a handshake deal with Chandler Parsons that allows them to keep max cap space while he remains unsigned. When they chose not to pick up his option, he stays on their salary cap at the number that would have been so that the team retains his Bird Rights, allowing them to sign him going over the salary cap. Since Parsons was a former second round pick still on his rookie deal, that number is incredibly small. All Parsons has to do is not sign an offer sheet elsewhere, because that large number would replace his cap hold then until the Rockets make a decision on him. So how does that effect the Mavs?

If you're Dallas, wouldn't you offer Parsons a little more than he's probably worth and see if Parsons messes with the Rockets? His agent might push him to. Arn Tellum did this with Brook Lopez a few years ago as the Nets were trying to land Dwight as discussed in this podcast with ESPN's Brian Windhorst and Grantland's Zach Lowe. If Parsons accepts the Mavericks offer sheet, the Rockets then have to basically pick between losing Parsons or giving up their pursuit of Melo. If they give up on Parsons, the Mavs add a really good young player. If the Rockets give up their pursuit of Melo, that's one less team the Mavs have to compete with for him. Since the Mavs are highly unlikely to land Anthony, giving up their own pursuit of him isn't really giving up anything.

The point of all of this is the Mavericks have a ton of options. Clearly number one is to land Carmelo or LeBron, but if they don't, they could make some moves that make this off-season anything but a failure and they could do it by taking advantage of other teams who don't plan quite as well.

Why The 76ers Plan Isn't About Losing

The 76ers Plan: "Don't be good, be great"

The jokes flew Thursday night as the Philadelphia 76ers picked Joel Embiid at number three and Dario Saric at number ten in the 2014 NBA Draft. Embiid is a 7-foot center out of Kansas who has drawn comparisons to Hakeem Olojuwan. Saric was the best European player in the draft and many think he could be one of the top 3 players in this draft when it's all said and done. Seems smart, right?

So why the jokes? Neither player will play this season. Saric won't even be in the United States. He just signed a new deal with his Turkish League team that not only will keep him away this year, but the next year as well. Embiid has a broken navicular bone in his foot, an injury that has crippled more than a few big men over the years. It is highly unlikely he plays this season. 

So the worst team in the league had two picks in the top 10 and took two guys who won't play this year. And it was absolutely the right thing to do.

There is no one in the draft that could make the Sixers remotely competitive this upcoming season. That includes Andrew Wiggins and Jabari Parker who came off the board before Philly was on the clock at number three. In fact the only way the Sixers win anything next year is if LeBron likes he has an irrational love of cheesesteaks. However the Sixers brass has figured out what the rest of the league either refuses to acknowledge or is scared to: there is no point in being on the upper echelon of terrible.

With that knowledge in mind, the Sixers moved to the next step of their plan which was to aim as high as possible when they are ready to be good.

The NBA is the ultimate star driven league. You can make the playoffs without a superstar, but your'e not winning a championship without one. It's happened once since 1980 and that was a 2004 Pistons team that started 5 all-star caliber players in the primes of their careers in the absence of one of the league's best players. Not exactly a bunch of bums. The Sixers know they need stars, so they've drafted guys with the highest upside possible, no matter their floor.

It started last year with Nerlens Noel. He was coming off a torn ACL and didn't play all of last season, but in the worst draft in over a decade, why not take a player with the potential to be one of the best rim protectors in the league? They struck again at #11 with Michael Carter-Williams, a 6'6" point guard with loads of raw skill and a killer instinct. He was raw, but he turned into the rookie of the year (not something to brag heavily about in that rookie class, but something nonetheless). 

That brings us to Thursday where they took Embiid and Saric. If Embiid gets healthy, his unquestioned best case scenario is hall of fame center who plays both ends of the court in a dominant fashion. Talk about a high ceiling. Saric is a very skilled offensive player who makes plays for himself and others. He's not a great defender but on a team with Embiid, Carter-Williams and Noel that shouldn't be a problem. The Sixers also took high upside guys in the 2nd round including Jerami Grant, Carter-Williams teammate at Syracuse who would've been a lottery pick in many drafts with his elite athleticism and KJ McDaniels, a hyper athletic forward out of Clemson who could be a defensive stopper for years to come. They also took a few more European "draft-and-stash" players who they hope will develop into something in the future.

Of course it could all go wrong and in the short term, it's pretty brutal for the fan base. The team they put on the floor I'm not entirely sure could beat some of the all-time great college teams because it included guys who just weren't NBA players. In order to have a shot at the best talent, you have to be really bad and the Sixers took being really bad really seriously.

Long term, Carter-Williams could be soured by all the losing in the short term, develop bad habits and leave Philadelphia to try and reclaim his career. Noel and Embiid could have injury problems or just never be the same players. Saric could decide to stay Europe longer than expected and throw the timing of the whole plan off. There are possibilities in between too, but the Sixers have given themselves a chance.

Few organizations have the patience to do what Philadelphia is doing, but they're doing it right. They know they're not going to be good, so why try to be mediocre? Give yourself the best chance possible to great. That involves multiple shots at getting elite players which means being as bad as possible a few times, and more importantly swinging for the fences on draft picks. They've swung. Come back in three years and let's see if they've made contact.

Other Notes:

The Top - Congrats Cleveland!! You didn't eff it up! The Cavaliers got the player that best fits them, wants to be there and has been thought to be the best prospect in this draft for three years. Clearly the trade for Aaron Afflalo, the number four and number twelve picks was never on the table because there's no way in hell Orlando trades Afflalo for Evan Fournier and a 2nd rounder when they could've gotten #1. In hindsight for Cleveland if they wanted Embiid, that worked out because he wouldn't have been there. Which leads us to...

Things I like

I love what Orlando wound up doing at number four. They add Aaron Gordon there and Eflrid Payton at number ten (via trade with Philadelphia for Saric) to last year's first rounder Victor Oladipo and they're gonna be terrifying defensively if still together in a few years. I don't know how they score outside of transition but good luck scoring on them. I know a lot of Magic fans wanted Dante Exum, but if they now have a terrific base to build around.

My favorite draft of the night was the Celtics. Boston got Marcus Smart, which allows them to eventually trade Rajon Rondo after Smart learns the tricks of the trade from him, and then stole James Young at 17. Opposing point guards are going to hate playing the Celtics. The worst defender you might see all night is Rondo. Smart and Avery Bradley both need to become better shooters if they Celtics are going to win big with them as a backcourt, but they're going to be sensational defensively. Young has every raw skill you want and will get better in Boston under Brad Stevens.

The Bulls got a shooter and cleared cap space. Every bit of cap space is critical in the pursuit of Carmelo Anthony, but even if they don't get him they made their team better.

I liked what a lot of teams did which is kinda the point. It was hard to screw up last night because there were so many options both in players and trades. If you couldn't get what you reasonably wanted, you probably shouldn't have a GM job.

Things I don't like:

The Thunder were one of two teams where I went "what the hell are you doing?" Mitch McGary is a top 10 pick last year, a lottery pick this year if not for injury. That said, they passed on guys who can start for them this year and provide shooting where they DESPERATELY need it in favor of him. Why not draft PJ Hairston? He's their starting two-gaurd next year. Without question. So is Rodney Hood. At best McGary is a backup for Ibaka and Steven Adams. I guess they have Jeremy Lamb, but they still tons more shooting. Fisher's gone. And they were playing Derek freaking Fisher.

The other was the Raptors. When they selected Bruno Caboclo the universal "wtf?" was loud and in unison. Apparently they feared he'd be gone at 37 when they came around again so they took him at 20. ESPN's Fran Fraschilla said on the telecast "he's two years away from being two years away." Well then if someone wants to take him, go right ahead. They must REALLY like him. It's the ultimate upside pick. Maybe Raptors GM Masai Ujiri knows something we all don't. It wouldn't be the first time. However the value they go seemed to be terrible so no matter how good the pick is, it doesn't make sense that they wouldn't trade back at least a few spots. 

The Mavs traded both of their picks to the Knicks in the Tyson Chandler deal. The first pick turned into Cleanthony Early who could've been the backup small forward last year as an upgrade over Jae Crowder. I knew I didn't like those picks being in that trade.

On To Free Agency

Free Agency is going to be absolute madness. Look forward to it. Tomorrow I'll post on how the Mavs can take advantage of teams who are big game hunting. Until then, tweet your thoughts on this column to me @craighoffman and if you liked it, share it with a friend. Thanks for reading and check back tomorrow.

One and done with it

Nearly everyone hates the one and done rule in college hoops. All year we've heard that it's hurt the quality of play in college basketball because there is very limited top-flight talent. That's true. While there have been an inordinate amount thrilling finishes that can be chalked up to this newfound parity, close games don't equate to good basketball. There is no better example than the 5 OT Louisville vs Notre Dame classic from Saturday night. The first 39 minutes were garbage and the overtimes weren't exactly well played despite the undeniable drama.

Now people are upset with the one and done rule for a different reason after Kentucky freshman Nerlens Noel tore his ACL Tuesday night in Florida. The projected #1 pick is out for the season and his status as the #1 pick is more than up in the air. The result is people saying that the NBA is wrong for not letting Noel and others go straight to the league from high school like they used to be able to. "The NBA is preventing them from making a living." 

First and foremost this statement is patently false. The NBA is preventing players like Noel who think they're ready to make the jump to pro ball from going to the NBA, not from making a living playing basketball. Brandon Jennings didn't want to play college basketball and he went to Italy for a year before entering the NBA Draft. He still was a lottery pick when his time came to shake David Stern's hand.

Secondly, the NBA has every right to do this, just like any other company in any other industry. Chances are if you're reading this you're not an NBA player so think of whatever industry you're in. I'll use my industry for comparison's sake and me as a specific example.

The NBA is a business, just like yours

By the time I was completing my junior year in college, I was ready to be a professional radio host. In fact, I was probably better than at least half of the hosts on stations nationwide. However without my degree, I wasn't deemed ready and in fact I would have been deemed a liability having not yet taken a media law class.

If some station had taken a chance on me, there was super potential. Not being in school and getting reps daily, I could have focused solely on my craft (some would argue I did this anyway and to hell with my schoolwork...hi mom!) and grown at a much faster rate than I was. As long as I avoided getting the station sued, it could have easily been a worthwhile investment. It would have been a risk for me not having a degree to fall back on (although, unlike a basketball player my degree would have been in my industry, not something else) but the general accepted standard of broadcast journalism is you have a degree and are of a certain age before you start working as a professional.

Even now, as I'm on the job hunt again, networks like ESPN and CBS have determined that I'm not ready for that stage yet. I don't have the experience. I'm not old enough. I haven't seen enough.

So why is the NBA, the highest level of professional basketball that exists, any different? It's not. Which is why the one and done rule is stupid. It should be two years, when kids have really had a chance to develop, get some bumps and bruises in the college game (or overseas) and are mature enough to handle the independence of NBA life.

The correct rebuttal against this argument is not "LeBron James was ready for the NBA." The correct rebuttal is "if ESPN thought you were ready, they could hire you while the NBA couldn't hire Nerlens Noel." I understand that and fully acknowledge that many high school players have gone on to great NBA careers. From KG to Kobe to Lebron, the examples are there and of course there are also the examples guys who have been mediocre (Sebastian Telfair) or worse (Ndubi Ebi anyone?).

So why is the rule fair? Sports owners have long proven they can't help themselves when it comes to potential. No matter how a CBA is written, owners will find ways to hand out stupid contracts. Why did NBA owners push so hard for shorter contracts in the last negotiations? Because that way when they handed out stupid contracts, they would only kill their franchises for a half a decade instead of a full one. Hell, they had the amnesty clause so they could get out of a bad contract entirely (at least in terms of the salary cap) because there were so many they had already given out.

The Proof

The more time there is to evaluate a player, the less mistakes you'll make so the one and done rule serves as a safety net for the NBA to make more educated investments. Don't believe me? Here are the #1 overall picks since 2007 when the rule took hold: Greg Oden, Derrick Rose, Blake Griffin, John Wall, Kyrie Irving and Anthony Davis. The only bust? Oden who's bust is totally injury related and 1000% magnified by the fact that the guy picked after him was Kevin Durant.

The honest truth is, there have been very few high school guys who have been ready for the NBA. Plenty have had great careers, but with the exception of LeBron, most weren't ready to contribute right away. Making a James go to school for a year and risking they get hurt happens far less than a Kwame Brown coming through where you don't really know what you're getting into.

Want further proof? Fab Melo would have been a top 10 if not top 5 pick purely on potential coming out of school. Scouts needed one year at Syracuse to see he wasn't ready. The same with Dion Waiters whose years under Jim Boeheim helped him come into the NBA ready to contribute and likely on a better career trajectory than if he hadn't been straightened out on the hill. 

Would these two have been better off toiling away on an NBA bench or playing college ball? Unquestionably the latter. While it may have cost them two years of salary, going to school was better for both of their careers and that has nothing to do with their education. This means you can skip the Fab Melo jokes.

Players Play, Owners Own

At the end of the day, it's the owners’ league and they get to make the rules. The players can fight for their rights, but what qualifies you to work is something set by the employer in any industry. It's why the 19-year-old age limit exists and why David Stern wants it upped to 20. Believe it or not, there's a massive jump from playing 20 games against dudes many of whom I could run with in high school to 82 against the best in the world.

Do I feel bad for Noel? Of course. By nearly any account he’s a great kid and there’s a chance he just lost a few million. However this doesn’t make me mad at the NBA for not letting him play. While this overall argument is admittedly up for debate, “who are we made at?” when it comes to Noel shouldn’t be.

We should be mad at the NCAA – the organization that allowed the stanchion Noel ran into to be so close to the court and isn’t paying him a dime. This of course is despite the millions of dollars he’ll make for Kentucky and the “non-profit organization” that they are.

As for Noel, he should quit Kentucky’s team and hire an agent today. There are no rules prohibiting him from rehabbing at Kentucky if he’s not a part of the team and since he’s not going to put on a Wildcat uniform again, he might as well get the best treatment and advice he can. Sound wrong? Feel wrong? If David Stern had his way, that wouldn’t be an option because Noel would be back next year and couldn’t give up his eligibility.

In the end, it's a really dicey issue because athletes have such a limited window for maximizing their earning potential. There's a very strong argument to be made for letting a high school kid make the jump because cutting a year or two off his NBA career means cutting a significant percentage off his max earning potential. Cutting a year off a 10-year career is 10%. That's a lot.

However the NBA is making major investments in these players and they have every right to set the minimum working requirements for their company. It's the elite of the elite. They should have standards.

Now getting mad at the NCAA? I'm all for that.