This week, a look at St. Bonaventure’s Andrew Nicholson. The Cavs have worked him out twice, as he fits a pressing team need – a stretch four. The June 9th draftexpress mock included him at #24, making the trek to Cleveland to compliment Kyrie and Tristan.
Andrew Nicholson shoots against Florida State this season (photo by Kevin C. Cox / Getty Images)
Nicholson completed his senior year at St. Bonaventure and turns 23 in December. With barefoot height of 6’ – 8.5” and carrying 234 lbs, he possesses fine size for an NBA power forward. Utilizing a bevy of post moves, solid face-up skills, and a jumper that netted 43% of his threes, Nicholson’s per-forty-minute pace-adjusted scoring ranks 2nd of 21 power forwards in draftexpress’s 2012 database. Combined with 78% free throw shooting, his highly-efficient 64% true shooting ranked 2nd in the Atlantic Ten; impressive for a player that uses nearly 3 in 10 possessions. Despite improvement this year, his rebounding remains marginal, with defensive rebounding percentage ranked 84th in the NCAA and offensive rebounding rate falling at 233rd; relatively disappointing for a first-round-prospect Senior against a non-elite schedule. He utilizes his outstanding 7’ – 4” wingspan to block two shots per game in 30 minutes. Due to middling ball-handling, he turns it over on 18% of his possessions, made even more disappointing by his total of 33 assists in 32 games. Other than his size and length, limited explosiveness and agility pose defensive concerns against the world-class athletes waiting in the NBA.
Game Recaps: During Christmas week against North Carolina State, Nicholson tallied 16 points on 56% true shooting with 6 rebounds in 37 minutes. Ineffective through his two best scoring means, he posted four points on six post plays and two points on three jump shots. The Wolfpack double-teamed him nearly every time he touched the ball, with fairly successful results, forcing five Nicholson turnovers. Subpar reaction time and general inability to hold position allowed NC State center Richard Howell to grab seven of NC State’s thirteen offensive rebounds, compared to Nicholson’s three defensive boards. On defense, bouts of non-alertness resulted in easy NC State buckets, but many high points occurred, too. On several occasions, strong effort running the court in transition provided for blocked or altered shots, and at least twice, smart hedging and recovering by Nicholson thwarted Wolfpack pick-and-rolls. On back-to-back possessions, he obstructed a driving big on a face-up and forced travels. He generally plays below the rim and does not look particularly explosive; I expect his shot-blocking decreases in the NBA, where his length alone will not get it done. In this game against several co-NBA prospects, he registered one block.
In the Bonnies thrilling double-overtime victory over St. Joseph’s in February, Nicholson registered 32 points and 14 rebounds on scintillating 69% true shooting. His three makes from deep came in the final minute of regulation and both overtimes, each hugely clutch for St. Bonaventure to pull out the win. Less effective near the basket, he generated only 11 points on 12 plays from the post, excessively relying on right-handed hook-shots, which he took ten of. Defensively, his play did not appear particularly fast or agile, with marginal “bounciness” and an oafy gait running the floor. Opposing big men drove past him twice, and his help defense frequently featured tardy rotations. On the boards though, he sported constant effort, while also displaying solid lower body strength in defending the post.
Summary: The June 9th Draftexpress mock draft included the Cavs selecting Nicholson, Bradley Beal, Doron Lamb and Festus Ezeli. I am very supportive of this, despite not knowing exactly where to fall with regards to Mr. Nicholson.
Several sources compare him to David West; appropriate in that they measured nearly identical and possess capable back-to-the-basket and perimeter games. An identifying trait for West however is his competitive fieriness. Over Andrew Nicholson’s first three years with the Bonnies, his aggression & toughness were questioned by scouts. Bringing passion to the court every play will help determine whether his career pans out similar to fellow former Atlantic 10 player-of-the-year West, or if he finds obscurity like Justin Harper, last year’s “stretch 4” from the A-10.
While I think limitations exist that keep him from West’s level; Nicholson’s combination of size & skill will provide an effective bench big man for the team drafting him.
Nicholson is also a very bright guy which fits the Cavs mold. That draftexpress mock would be my perfect draft for the Cavs with the possible exception of my liking MKG just a very little bit more than Beal. From the combine Ezeli doesn’t have the extreme size I hoped for but he made up for it with amazing athleticism. Lamb didn’t do as well on the athletic tests and I hope that will drop him to the second round and the Cavs. He is a baller. I’m not thinking Nicholson will drop to the #24 but if he doesn’t maybe a different miracle and Moultrie or Q. Miller might. Someone has to drop.
Nicholson was absolutely dominant toward the end of the year in the A-10 tournament and the first round of the NCAA’s. With his long wingspan and unique skill set he is the type of player that will rise on draft boards as NBA people see him in workouts. He won’t be there at 24.
what limitations does Nicholson possess that would keep him from developing like West? He’s a better shooter, has far better back to the basket moves, has NBA range, a softer touch, has a longer wingspan and is a better athlete.
West is a better defensive player and rebounder that’s for sure but offensively Nicholson is a far more advanced prospect at this point.
Also Nicholson isn’t a great rebounder but he improved dramatically this year. yes he only averaged 8.4 rebounds per game but he was in foul trouble a ton and barely average 30 ppg. West averaged 6 more mpg his senior year. If Nicholson had played 6 more mpg he would of probably average 10 rpg.
Also really this doesn’t matter as nearly everyone agrees Nicholson will go before 24. He’s 6’9.5″ in shoes, had the 2nd largest hands at the combine, a 7’4″ wingspan, so skilled, smart and a very solid athlete. It’s very unlikely he falls to 24. A lot of people think the Sixers like him at 15.
not related at all but #6 is 3 losses away from a victory for Cleveland and okc
One factor that may influence the Cavs’ choice is the role that Omri Casspi plays next year.
Casspi had a tough time adjusting to the Cavs, to a a bench role, and missed a lot of make-able shots.
However, he showed the ability to get to the hoop, grind it out under the basket, and is strong.
Casspi can be the stretch “4″ the Cavs need if his shot comes back.
He’s tall enough, strong enough, tough enough, strong enough, and aggressive enough.
If the Cavs agree, then they may be more inclined to go with big men later in the draft.
I read “tardy rotations” in a very different way than what was intended, and it made me laugh.
After his showing at the Combine it would be a huge surprise if he dropped to 24
Combine results arrived and not only is Barnes the better shooter than MKG but he is the better athlete too. Oh i forgot MKG has those intangibles.
Nicholson had athletic numbers close to Sullinger. If Scott can whip Nicholson into shape, I think he’d by a great complement off the bench to TT. We need someone at the 4 or 5 who can shoot outside the paint. Against smaller teams, Nicholson and TT could play at the same time and be pretty effective.
@ Jorge, yeah the silence from the MKG crowd has been deafening. And the vertical by Barnes was like 6 inches higher than MKG, if I recall correctly. So let’s see, Barnes has a better skill set and is the better athlete and is taller and bigger. Clearly we should take MKG!
In all seriousness, I worry that Barnes is now in play for the #2 pick by Charlotte. Damn…
being a better athlete in uncontested vertical jumps and cone drills is a little different than being a better athlete on a basketball court. Lets not take the combine for more than its worth here guys. That said, I feel a little better about taking Barnes at 4, but would still not take him over MKG.
At this point, I think Barnes or Beal at 4 would be a great draft. I do not see a reason to move up or down, especially in a draft REALLY deep where our stockpile of later picks could actually develop into rotation players. Would hate to throw those away.
Nicholson is an intriguing combination of size, hands, shooting, shot-blocking, and scoring. He probably won’t be there at 24, and I think he’s a player who needs to be in the right environment to thrive. He is a passive enough guy that if you put him on a team with no people to push him and engage him, he’ll end up being a bit of a wallflower. He’s very smart: he got a degree in Physics. He hasn’t tested out quite as well athletically as I would’ve hoped, but he seems to have decent fundamentals when it comes to shooting and defense, but as noted, his rebounding really needs work, he needs some work with his off hand in the post, and needs to learn how to pass. He would CERTAINLY be a an upgrade over Smardo at the 4/5. If he is there at 24, I’d love the Cavs to take him. I don’t know if he’s someone worth trading up into the teens for though.
Also, Bric: Casspi should play zero factor in who we draft this year.
@matt and you conveniently leave out Barnes better skill set, at least offensively. And all the “effort” and “hustle” in the world won’t allow you to jump 6″ higher than another guy. I want the guy who is more athletic because that allows him to make up for mistakes of positioning, etc. The scouts know that is true as well, which is why such a premium is placed on athleticism. I give you last night’s Finals game asthe most recent proof of this.
Again, my fear that Barnes’ amazing combine numbers coupled with his skill set and professional demeanor has made him a no-brainer for Charlotte (which is in North Carolina! Haha!) @ 2…
Btw, I think we can get Taylor from Vandy with our #24 pick and he is very much a MKG-like player only a far better shooter. In fact, if we got he and Barnes, I think that would be a wildly successful draft. Add a guy like Burton inthe 2nd round and it’s almost like ’86 all over again! Haha! Ok, maybe not that good…not to mention that it seems that NO is definitely dangling that #10 pick. Food for thought…
Having a better vertical doesn’t mean you have the timing and coordination to use that vertical to rebound and contest shots without fouling. Running between cones at a fraction of a second faster doesn’t mean you have the ability, instincts, or fundamentals to stay in front of your man any better, or have the handle to get by a defender any better.
Obviously Barnes has a better step back or pull up jumper than MKG, but why do you really desire that when it results in that player shooting 5% worse from the field? MKG is better at defense, is more efficient on offense, gets the rim more naturally, and gets the the free throw line more per shot attempt, where he shoot slightly better than barnes. I’d take that skill set over Barnes any day.
Throw in the “Professionalism” of barnes’ me-first brand image, and yes, give me the team first champ every day of the week.
I think we can all agree that getting Andre Drummond would be the worst case scenario. Having that number 4 pick doesnt seem so bad after all.
Ahh, yes. All those things that Barnes is better than MKG at and the physical stuff is all bunk. Of course. How foolish of me to even bring them up. In fact, they’re so useless I can’t think of a single reason why the NBA even bothers to measure them.
“Gets to the rim more naturally.” Quote of the year. No contest…
Here’s what the “professionals” at DraftExpress have to say about combine numbers:
“Unlike the NFL combine, all parties involved realize that few people put much stock in these results…
Despite our reservations about the data, it still exposes some players who land at the extremes of each test, and gives us the chance to draw from some historical perspective on certain marks. At the end of the day though, the numbers these players posted at the combine are only as valuable as their ability to use them on the floor, and no matter how many times a player runs or jumps beyond his perceived means on test day, if he doesn’t “play to his numbers” in games, he’s not going to magically change his ways at the next level.”
While I think the results showed Barnes is a little more athletic than we give him credit for, it shouldn’t, and won’t, play a significant role in who the Cavs decide to take at #4. While it may inch him up the Cavs’ Big Board a tiny bit, this alone won’t be enough to put him in front of MKG or Beal (if in fact he was considered lower than those two before the combine). Game film, team workouts, and personal interviews will be the main components of a player’s evaluation.
YO MAN GERALD GREEN HAS A HIGHER VERTICAL LEAP THAN MKG LETS TRADE OUR PICK FOR GERALD GREEN
WHATS FRED JONES DOING THESE DAYS, WE SHOULD GET HIM TOO
TEHY BOTH SHOOT 3 PTERS BETTER THAN MKG, THEREFORE COUPLED WITH THEIR VERTICAL LEAP THEY ARE SUPERIOR BASKETBALL PLAYERS IN EVERY FACET OF THE GAME
KJ, get off your high horse. Harrison Barnes was the 4th most important player on his team. He literally couldn’t get remotely close to the rim against Walt Offutt in the NCAA tourney. Offutt’s a real nice defender – he’s also 6’3.
A standing vertical leap does not a great NBA player make. I don’t think anybody’s saying MKG’s a sure thing, but why is Barnes a sure thing all of the sudden?
Exactly carter. KJ, Did you clearly didn’t watch any film of the two players to scoff at MKG getting to the rim better and more naturally than barnes. At the slightest hint of defense barnes takes a step back jumper, he just doesn’t want to go to the rim in a lot of circumstances. And being better at a combine does not make you better at the physicals of playing basketball. Coordination and is just as important. The combine tests running around cones, not running backwards facing your opponent or backing someone down and getting by them off the dribble. And as far as playing the game of basketball is concerned, technique and decision making are also quite important.
Barnes physical abilities didn’t grow since the season ended, he just doesn’t use them as well on a court as MKG does. Read AlexS retort, its a good one. And yes, it would be generous to say the combine amounts to 1% of talent evaluaters’ opinions on players. You think if Drummond’s workouts blow away Anthony Davis’s (even though barnes numbers were better than MKG, they didn’t blow them away) that NO’s is gonna even think once about it?
Either Barnes or MKG would be a good choice. Personally, I’m leaning towards Barnes. I think the Cavs need outside shooting more than someone who can get to the rim.
Imagine a front-court of Varejao, TT, and MKG. None of them have any range on their shot. The only one who could make the D pay for packing the paint would be Kyrie. I think the Cavs would be great in transition, on defense, and rebounding. But the half-court offense would be painful.
The Cavs need to replace the shooting Antwan provided. Barnes would do that better than MKG.
Scuzz, the Cavs need to not be worried about the roster they sport this upcoming year, but be worried about building a team that can contend in the future. Replacing the Hyper-inneficient Antawn with another Hyper-Inneficient player isn’t that great of a strategy. Not that barnes is hyper-inneficient, but 44% your sophomore year ain’t great.
KJ, just another tidbit from DraftExpress.com
“Trying to pinpoint a player’s athleticism based on their combine testing is akin to trying to get a feel for their basketball IQ by watching them play one-on-zero –it simply doesn’t make all that much sense. It does help us get a very general idea of where a player is at in terms of physical conditioning and strength, which often speaks to their work ethic, but rarely sheds much light on what it really aims to portray.
From DraftExpress.com http://www.draftexpress.com#ixzz1xmIeVlA0
http://www.draftexpress.com“
Honestly, I’m not sure how Barnes’ workout proves anything other than that, on paper, he’s good.
I’m admittedly not a huge NCAA bball fan, so I don’t have a ton of ground to stand on when talking about individual players. That being said, I do know that it’s prudent to be wary of any guy who shoots up a draft board because he was a freak athlete. Nearly everything I’ve read, and during the few games I watched, pointed to Barnes being underwhelming and disappointing – maybe 7 times out of 10 that manifests itself in the NBA.
One of the main reasons people were so high on Irving was that, even during his short stint as an NCAA player, he exceeded expectations. Always. I’d much rather have a guy who exceeds expectations than a guy who falls short – to me, the ceiling is always higher on a guy who plays harder and with fire. I have seen no indication that these are traits that Barnes possesses.
To be honest, the guy I wish we could draft (although I see no way we’ll do it) is Thomas Robinson. Like Colin has alluded to on numerous occasions, taking a project at such a high pick could be disastrous. Robinson has the most polish of the sub-Davis guys, at least at that high of a spot. But alas, we have Thompson, so I don’t see that happening.
It’s too bad Sullinger isn’t a few inches taller – he’d be a perfect companion to Kyrie.
It’s comical how much we’re over-analyzing. But I do agree with you 100% about combine measurements not being the end all/be all. Joe Alexander had a ridiculous combine a couple years ago, and was one of the worst lottery picks of the last 5 years. I worry that Miles Plumlee and Myers Leonard will fall into this category. There’s no sure thing on any of these guys, and I go back and forth on all of them. I think we ought to trade down, personally.
Here’s something I thought was interesting. It’s the 2009 draft analysis for James Harden from Chad Ford:
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft/results/players/news/_/id/19221/james-harden
“Apr 8 Update: Harden declared for the draft today. He’s expected to hire an agent, ending his college eligibility. Harden is arguably the best scoring 2-guard in the country. Rock-solid strong, he has an excellent perimeter game and all the old-school tricks that make him tough to stop. However, a late-season swoon, including a terrible performance in the NCAA tournament, has done some damage to his draft stock. For most of the year, he looked like a lock for a top-5 pick. Now there are bigger question marks as teams take a closer look at his athleticism and size. Still, it’s hard to see him slipping out of the lottery. Look for him to land anywhere between 5 and 13 on draft night.
Mar 23 Update: Harden has been far and away the biggest disappointment in the tournament. Known as one of the best and most reliable scorers in college basketball, he delivered two huge duds for ASU. He scored just nine points on 1-for-8 shooting versus Temple and followed that up with 10 points on 2-for-10 shooting against Syracuse. It’s too early to tell how this will affect Harden’s stock, but we’ll be watching closely. He was also inconsistent in Pac-10 play this season and some scouts are concerned that he lacks the explosive athleticism to create his own shot in the pros. Harden has usually overcome his physical limitations with craftiness, but it seems like more defenses are figuring out how to stop him.”
Notice how he had a really bad NCAA tournament performance. Also, notice how scouts are concerned that he lacks explosive athleticism and won’t be able to create his own shot. Harrison Barnes is getting these same criticisms now. Obviously, Harden has turned out fine. I think it’s one less reason to be anxious over drafting Barnes.
I won’t have any problem taking barnes at 4, I have a problem with people saying take barnes over MKG because he jumps higher at a combine. I also don’t know a lot of people saying Barnes will have trouble creating for himself, the guy has a go to step back jumper, the type of shot you can get whenever you want. I think people question his ability to consistently drive to the rim, something he wasn’t as good at in college as harden was. But yes, over-analyzing a couple games just cause they are in the tournament is foolish, especially when the whole team was adjusting to losing their point guard.
All I saw from MKG was a lot of fast break points off of a stellar defensive team anchored by one of the best defensive big men of the past decade. Barnes averaged 6 pts more a game as a freshman than MkG. To assume there is a huge drop off between the two is kind of ridiculous. His combine results proves he does have that explosiveness capability and I think that was a concern. Yes, Barnes did not improve all that much his sophomore year and he had a bad tournament. But to downgrade from the dream pairing with kyrie we thought last year to a bad 4th pick is illogical.
Why do people keep referring to Barnes as the 4th option their team? He led the team in PPG.