Cavs:the Blog’s draft profiles on Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Harrison Barnes and Jeremy Lamb arrived in December, January and February. Things change fast with teenaged basketball players though, so time has come to freshen up our thoughts a bit.
Today, I’ll re-visit MKG. I liked him in December and still do today. There exists however, a sentiment that his current inability to shoot makes him unworthy of the fourth pick, let alone second. I’ll estimate that 25% of Cavs fans do not consider MKG as a top-five pick. For what it’s worth, a poll on NBAdraft.net basically falls at 50 – 50 with regards to “MKG vs Barnes”. My understanding of the rationale is that the UK freshman star does not possess the offensive chops to warrant such a high rating. I disagree, and will offer a few points on why.
He played well on offense this year
On a balanced offensive team where six players scored between 10 and 14 points per game, MKG finished fourth in scoring, including a respectable 112 offensive rating on 21.4 usage. His true shooting percentage of 57% derived through beastly finishing in transition, off-cuts and through offensive rebounding. With developing ball-handling ability he attacks the basket, earning five free throw attempts per game; he hit 75%.
Frequently, I see an excuse offered up on behalf of Harrison Barnes, that the NBA game will really open things up for him. The same applies to MKG. In addition to the NCAA three-point line falling one-yard nearer the basket than the NBA distance, Kentucky’s starting line-up featured four non-shooters. Finding open lanes for a driving, cutting slasher will be easier in the better-spaced pro-game.
He will be one of the NBA’s best wing defenders
Within five years, maybe THE best. I don’t know how people can ignore this. Capable of guarding at least three positions and widely regarded as lock-down, his defense presents a completely elite NBA skill. He turns nineteen in September and should be fighting for a place on NBA all-defense teams for over a decade.
At the NBA draft combine, he measured 6’ – 5.75” barefoot, 6’ – 7.5” in shoes, 233 pounds, with a 7’ – 0” wingspan and 8’ – 8.5” standing reach.
Not that this means a ton, but as I perused similarly sized prospects in draftexpress’s database, two of the NBA’s best wing defenders popped up. Luc Richard M’bah a Moute registered 6’ – 5.75”, 6’ – 7.5”, 221 pounds, 7’ – 0.5” and 8’ – 7.5” while Andre Iguodala measured 6’ – 5.75”, 6’ – 6.75”, 217 pounds, 6’ – 11”, and 8’ – 9.5”.
These players are almost identically sized to MKG with one distinction. At 3 and 1.5 years younger, respectively, he already sports an extra 10 – 15 pounds of muscle. Defensively, he could be peak-level-Ron Artest, minus the crazy.
His floor is about as high as anyone in the draft
Draftexpress.com listed MKG’s “worst-case” as Gerald Wallace; a player who over the last seven seasons registered per-36 minute averages of 17 points on 56.5% true shooting with 7.4 rebounds per game. Basically one point every two minutes with above average efficiency, while making one all-defense team. That’s “WORST CASE” according to one reputable source; that rating is also known as “bust-proof” according to me.
He can learn to shoot
As a side note on Wallace, during his freshman year at Alabama he converted 18% of his three-point attempts, despite the NCAA line at a one-foot shorter distance than it is today. Over the last six years in the NBA, he made 34% from long distance.
By all accounts, MKG is one of this draft’s hardest working players, a man with an unquenching desire to improve. I find it unlikely that his three point shooting will not improve to respectable levels. A quick search reveals several other small forwards besides Wallace to improve their shooting.
- Kawhi Leonard knocked-down 20% his freshman year, 29% his sophomore year, and in his first season working in the Spurs system – 38%! With hard work, great coaching and a well-oiled system, he exhibited an overnight transformation.
- Richard Jefferson shot well in college, but his first five NBA seasons featured 32% three-point shooting, before improving to an average of 39% over the last six seasons.
The following players all played NCAA-ball before the three-point line extended to 20’ – 9”:
- Paul Pierce made 30% his freshman year at Kansas
- Danny Green hit 32% his first two NCAA seasons and is now a 42% NBA three-point shooter
- Andre Iguodala bricked 21% his freshman year, before improving to 33% in the NBA, including a career-best 39% last season.
- Jared Dudley started at 31% three-point shooting his freshman season, improved every year thereafter, and now strokes 40+% in the pros.
Shooting isn’t the most revered trait for an NBA Small Forward
Without comparing MKG to several of the players included; eight small forwards made an all-NBA team in the last ten years. Their average three-point shooting percentage in that season was 34.7%, more than one-percent lower than NBA average shooting. As many three-point shooting specialists rated as all-NBA (Peja Stojakovic) as players noted for their stout defense (Ron Artest).
Summary
Once upon a time, Ron Artest was the second-leading scorer on a 60-win team, the lock-down wing defender on a top-3 NBA defense. Early in his age 25 season, his up-and-coming team hit their stride, rolling the defending NBA champs by 15 on their own court. Then he punched a fan and started the brawl that crippled a franchise.
I think Michael Kidd-Gilchrist hits all those high notes, except his story ends without a riot, and instead finishes with a decade-long run of title contention.
Pete,
I laughed at your comment.
In all seriousness, I think the sane Ron Artest comparison is apt.
If he develops his jumper to respectable levels (man that shot is ugly) I think he’ll be another Andre Iguodala. Question is, will any of these other available guys be better?
I agree that we can’t afford not to consider the complete package of skills that each prospect offers. Especially defense, which often doesn’t get treated with the importance it deserves as half the game. And I do think MKG is a very nice prospect, with potential to contribute on both ends.
But people are right to be concerned about his shooting. That’s not just a concern about his individual game, but about the team’s ability to run a good offense. 3-point shooters don’t just produce points efficiently, they also force the defense to spread out to the perimeter, which opens up space inside for slashers and post players. And 3-point shooting has steadily grown in importance since the introduction of the three-point line, as teams and players slowly learned to utilize the shot and embraced it for its higher efficiency and tactical advantages. (Which is why comparisons with older players don’t quite do the problem justice: shooting is more necessary today–and will be even more so by 2016–than it was in 2005.)
In 2012, a lineup with 4 shooters is the offensive ideal (achieved by some teams, like the 2009 Magic). With 3, a talented lineup can still be very effective. A lineup with only 2 outside shooters is inherently limited. We’ve seen Miami, with their unmatchable talent, struggle to score in the halfcourt and resort to unconventional lineups because of this problem. Their overwhelming talent allows them to win, but we’ve seen LeBron win even more with inferior yet complementary players. Are Kyrie and MKG going to be as good as LeBron and Wade? If not, I think Kyrie is going to need an effective offensive system that maximizes his and his teammates’ abilities in order to contend for a title. And that depends on shooters.
Building around Kyrie, MKG, and TT means our best lineups will have a max of two shooters on the floor (unless our center of the future is the next Channing Frye, and who wants that?). That’s a definite handicap. Can MKG’s defense and overall talent superiority overcome that? Maybe. Can he develop a decent outside shot, or can Tristan? Possibly. But looking at his shot, and TT’s percentages, the chances look very slim to me.
(Whether we should pencil in TT as our ‘PF of the future’ is a different issue which I feel conflicted about. But given our hopes for him, it wouldn’t seem wise to count on finding a different ‘PF of the future’ who can shoot from outside.)
Of course the other side of the equation is, what about the other wing prospects? Most of them project as outside shooters, but are they close to MKG in overall talent? Can they be a strong link in a good team defense?
Everything discussed above “begs” the question-how do/can the Cavs address the obvious need to secure a viable, offensive threat at shooting guard. I can’t, for a minute, imagine the Cavs not spending equal time trying to figure out how to secure another pick in the 8 to 12 range to get the SG they need. The idea of waiting for future draft picks to solve this problem just does not make sense. Do we really think Harris/Gibson will fill the void, or the Cavs can sign a credible free agent. No. They have to get a SG this year along with the SF, likely KG or Barnes. And waiting until the 24th pick won’t get it done. One way or another, they will get another pick in the top 12. They have the assets to do it. The pressure is surely on Grant to negotiate the best deal possible without mortgaging future flexibility.
Robin,
I think MKG will probably see more shot-specific coaching from April until next year than he has ever received in his life. Obviously a big part of my post assumes that a combination of long hours and great coaching can make him a 35% three point shooter. There is precedence, as recently as this year with Kawhi Leonard.
Obviously Cleveland needs to find a floor-stretching big man in the next several years. Developing TT’s range at least out to the elbow would be great.
A lineup of Kyrie, a sharp-shooting 2, 35% MKG, elbow-range TT, and stretch-big can spread the court fine during crunch time.
Also, if TT doesn’t develop that 15 footer, he may not be part of future end-of-game line-ups anyways, unless he proves to be an all-defense caliber player at the other end.
James, there really is no need to get a shooting gaurd this year. Regardless of what else happens, we aren’t winning a title in 2013, so the urgency isn’t there. We do need to address it in the next year or two, but as much as people think Free Agency is a hopeless cause, Cleveland has lured in some sought after free agents in the past, and we will do so again in the future. The previous ones didn’t work out too well, but other teams were going after those players too. Will we lure Harden level talent? Maybe not, but I’m sure we can get a capable 3 point shooter at the 2 gaurd spot if we have an otherwise talented team and a city on the rise (if you don’t believe me, I take it you haven’t been downtown in the last month.)
Next years draft would work as well, and Doron Lamb or John Jenkins or whoever else is their with the later picks could work out too. The cavs will have to give up a lot to stay at 4 and move up to 12, not worth selling all our future draft picks for, though if one or two would do it, maybe it would be worth it.