Part Two: What Does "Best Player Available" Really Mean To The Milwaukee Bucks?

The Bucks should take the best player available at pick #10. We can all agree with that, right? In reality, how could you not agree. What Bucks fan would want anything less than the best player available for the tenth pick? Nobody, that's who. But does anyone actually want to have a discussion about what the heck "best player available" actually means? We all recite this notion of "best player available" as a true draft strategy and nod our heads in agreement, because it's hard to disagree with something so simple and straightforward. The important question conveniently sidestepped by the basic "best player available" credo is the question of true player value within the context of an actual NBA team. Part One examined the Bucks roster, and now Part Two examines the available draft prospects. Enjoy!

Part One of this series explored the strengths and weaknesses of the Bucks roster, and laid out my argument for why I think the Bucks should be pursuing a player that mitigates their offensive deficiencies rather than draft a player that may slightly improve their team strengths in rebounding and defense. This Part Two focuses on which prospects actually seem like the best fits for the Bucks.

Just to make sure we are all on the same page, here is the relevant portion of my primer for draft analysis as stated in Part One:

I still see the general logic to the best available player approach, which typically manifests in a tiered draft chart to ensure need is not unnecessarily prioritized at the expense of potential, but there are limits to how far the tier approach can go in the modern NBA...To me, it feels more useful to think of player roles as a set of on court assignments rather than a positional label like PG or PF. This way you get a more realistic feel for what a player can provide relative to their skills and build, rather than trying to impose traditional positional labels that inject an unnecessary set of biases and assumptions into the equation...The lines have been blurred so much that the tiers approach can only segment players into rough groupings rather than precise tranches. This is where my idea of finding a niche for a prospect to maximize their talent and skills comes into play.

When it comes to opportunity, I see three types that generally exist for first round prospects: ...(2) for picks 10-20, the opportunity is often poorly defined and prone to fluctuation, because you are dealing with a team in NBA Hell (a state of perpetual late lottery picks or low playoff seed) that is adding a mediocre talent to a team already filled with average players and is likely trying to win enough games to squeak into the playoffs and avoid the lottery...This is a generalization to be sure, but I think we can all agree the current iteration of the Bucks belongs in that nebulous second group for the sake of this discussion. The opportunity for any player they add in the draft will be almost completely up in the air, and the best chance for such a player to make an immediate and meaningful impact will be highly dependent on how the player's skills fill team deficiencies and how the player's weaknesses are mitigated by team strengths.

I have parsed the phrase "best available player" into two separate segments to effectively answer the question at hand: (1) to me, the "best player" portion implicates the team environment the prospect will enter into upon being drafted, so I broke down the strengths and weaknesses of the current Bucks roster in Part One, and (2) the "available" portion refers to the prospects likely still on the board when the Bucks pick at #10, so I will now review the projected NBA skills of these prospects with the help of Draft Express in Part Two.

(2) The "Available" Element: Who Will Likely Be Available at Pick #10 For The Bucks?

If you have made it this far, I am sure a thought has crossed your mind that goes a little something like this: "Is he seriously going to argue that the Bucks should draft Jimmer or a soft Euro big man? Really? He couldn't possibly be heading there...could he? Won't Brew Hoop's Mitchell Maurer send him an angry, all caps e-mail listing the reasons they can never work together again? Won't Power(less) Forward and other Brew Hoop followers threaten to never read his articles again? This is surreal..." Just to end the suspense now, yes, I am perfectly comfortable with the Bucks taking Jimmer or a perimeter-oriented Euro big man at #10. I have grouped the prospects potentially available at pick #10 into three groups: seemingly bad fits, seemingly good fits, and wild cards.

The word "seemingly" is employed for two reasons: (1) I have not seen all of these players play in a meaningful basketball game, and (2) just like everyone else, I have never seen any of these players play a single minute of NBA basketball...so it's impossible to make definitive pronouncements about any of these players. I have also limited the list of prospects to players assumed to be taken somewhere in the #7-14 pick range, including: Alec Burks, Tristan Thompson, Kawhi Leonard, Jimmer Fredette, Bismack Biyombo, Jordan Hamilton, Marcus Morris, Markieff Morris, Jan Vesely, Jonas Valanciunas, and Donatas Motiejunas. I have included my own thoughts along with bullet points summarizing important things I noticed in the Draft Express scouting reports, but I urge you to follow the links for a more complete and detailed look at each player by following the links to Draft Express coverage of each player. Euro players get direct quotes from Draft Express, because I have seen a few of them play a game or two, but I wouldn't even know where to begin for a useful scouting report and I can't pretend I contributed at all to filtering the content (but again, I encourage you to follow the links for the full breakdown by Draft Express). 

Seemingly Bad Fits:

a. Kawhi Leonard - This long and athletic prospect offers two NBA-ready skills: rebounding and perimeter defense. The Bucks do not have a particular need for either of these skills, especially from a swingman. Might Leonard offer a slight upgrade over Salmons or Delfino for rebounding and perimeter defense? Perhaps, but he would almost certainly downgrade the position with his lack of readiness to contribute to an NBA offense. Here is a summary of some relevant bullet points from his Draft Express scouting reports:

• Leonard lacks a go-to offensive skill.According to Synergy Sports Technology, no single offensive situation accounted for more than 17% of his touches, with Spot-Ups, Isolations, Put Backs, Fast Breaks, Cuts, and Pick and Roll situations each accounting for anywhere between 8-18% of his total possessions. He has slightly below-average efficiency in all of these areas.
• His most notable weakness is his lack of jump shooting ability.He struggled with his shooting, connecting on just 32% of his catch and shoot jumpers and 28% of his pull-ups last season. As with all players noted for their hand size, there are questions about Leonard's ability to develop a reliable jump shot.
• High effort player. Leonard does not look a power forward, but his exceptional wingspan (rumored to be around 7-2) and giant hands certainly allow him to rebound like one. If nothing else, Leonard's rebounding is a clear-cut NBA caliber tool.
• In terms of his fit defensively, Leonard is essentially a plug and play option. His length, versatility and intensity are ideal, and with additional strength and experience he could be a terrific team defender. The team drafting Leonard would optimally let him defend comparable sized and athletic forwards, since matching him up against stretch fours and pure shooters would take away from his ferocious rebounding.

b. Marcus Morris - I really want to like Carmelo Antho...er, I mean Marcus Morris, more than I do right now, but I can't quite convince myself he can be the next Carl Landry, let alone the next Carmelo Anthony. Does anybody really want an undersized guy with PF skills who measures out under 6'9'' and has a short wingspan? Even Bucks director of player personnel Billy McKinney referred to Marcus as a "hybrid forward" after his workout with the team. He has a nice post package at the college level, but guys like him (Carl Landry) have trouble playing the post-up SF/undersized PF game consistently in the NBA, and the efficiency in that area experiences a dropoff. The thing that may set Marcus apart and make him a better player than his brother is his ability to step away from the hoop and hit midrange jumpers in pick and roll situations, but the Bucks already have Ersan Ilyasova, Drew Gooden, and Larry Sanders to take those types of shots and it is unlikely Morris would represent a serious upgrade in that area. If Marcus can split time at SF, he still doesn't have 3-point range or isolation scoring ability, so it's not clear he would offer an upgrade over any of the Bucks swingmen in the next few years. Here are some observations summarized from Draft Express scouting reports:

• Marcus has been extremely efficient at the college level. He mixed his usage equally between jumpers, finishes at the rim, and post ups, and ranked near the top in efficiency among all college players in those areas according to Synergy Sports.
• He has shown a capability to face up opponents as well as back them down and turn to either shoulder for a finish, displaying good footwork, body control, and touch. He can work comfortably, confidently, and effectively from the low post, mid-post, and the perimeter. He will inevitably need to make some adjustments to overcome his lack of size and strength to score over bigger power forwards in the NBA, but the tools are there for him to find some level of success.
• The biggest question-marks regarding Morris's NBA potential are based on his ability to compete on the glass at the NBA level and effectively mix it up with the bigger, stronger, and more athletic matchups he'd be facing on a nightly basis defensively. Pulling down just 6.6 defensive rebounds per-40 (a career high), Morris provides just an average presence on the glass, lacking the size, length and explosiveness to go out of his area regularly for extra possessions.

c. Markieff Morris - Markieff measures out more like a true PF, at over 6'9" and with arms nearly 2.5" longer than his twin brother (Draft Express points out that Markieff's measurements are nearly identical to former Kansas big Darrell Arthur). Unfortunately, Markieff is not nearly as developed offensively as his brother, and although he has improved as a spot-up jump shooter he still lacks an NBA-ready post game. If you could combine the size of Markieff with the skill of Marcus, you'd have one hell of an NBA prospect from the Morris family. It is hard to see how Markieff offers a substantial upgrade over anyone on the Bucks roster, especially at the overloaded PF spot. I think most draft experts seem to agree that Markieff would be a reach at #10, so this is my quick summary of what Draft Express has to say about why Markieff is the inferior prospect compared to his brother:

• It is safe to say that Morris wasn't hampered by his lack of a go-to-move on the college level, but it will be important for him to refine his post-game if he wants to see touches consistently in one-on-one situations with his back to the basket on the NBA level as he doesn't create shots for himself from the midrange.

d. Tristan Thompson - Thompson is a slightly undersized PF that is a hard-working banger of a player who may excel in the transition game at the NBA level, and interestingly he measures out similarly to Josh Smith (though not with the same elite athleticism). He would probably offer slight upgrades in offensive rebounding and defense for the Bucks with his length, athleticism, and motor, but he is a decidedly underwhelming defensive rebounder and his offensive game is nowhere near ready for show time. He is simply not ready to make positive contributions to an NBA offense in half-court sets, as Draft Express explains:

• His overall inefficiency is curious for a post player with a 54.6% FG and a reputation for playing with energy, but the problem stems from his lack of developed offensive basketball skills. He has been able to mask issues with his footwork, instincts, and lack of true post moves by out-hustling and overpowering college opponents, but the jump to taking on NBA defenders with similar physical traits will likely expose the flaws in his game to a greater degree.
• He is not great off the dribble either. Most of his moves dissolve into an array of contested fall-away shots and jump hooks, low percentage shots that he does not appear to have the touch to consistently knock down. He resorts to this offense against bigger and more athletic post players, in particular, which suggests he may similarly struggle if he cannot further develop his post game at the next level.
• He is a very unreliable shooter and failed to earn many chances to take jump shots within the Longhorn's offense. Most slightly undersized power forwards in the NBA are reliable spot-up shooters, but at this point, Thompson is miserable at best. He attempted only a handful of shots at Texas and the results were mixed, marked by inconsistent shooting mechanics that must be completely overhauled at the next level.

Seemingly Good Fits:

a. Alec Burks - He is the odds-on favorite of Bucks fans, and with good reason. Burks is a young, long, and athletic combo guard who had an opportunity to develop and refine his offensive skills as the undisputed star of his college team. There is a legitimate flaw in his game right now, which is his long-range shooting (he shot 29% from college 3-point range last season), but he has shot the ball well in workouts and likely still has potential to develop in that area.

The mitigating factor that makes him such a good fit for the Bucks is that he has a well-developed isolation skillset he can use to create open shots for himself and teammates. The man scores efficiently enough to offer an immediate upgrade to the Bucks and provide his talents at a position of need (as a true SG prospect). Burks' ability to operate in wing-isolation sets and to create opportunities with the ball in his hands in pick and roll situations would take some pressure off of miscast creators like John Salmons and Carlos Delfino, allowing both vets to play more off the ball to slash or spot-up shoot in the corners. If the Bucks are not going to use Corey Maggette, then Burks offers a clear and immediate upgrade on the offensive end of the floor. Here is a snapshot of what Draft Express had to say: 

• Burks is a shot creator, a skill that is highly coveted at the professional level. Over two-thirds of his offense is generated by himself, be it in isolation situations, in transition or in pick-and-roll opportunities. He ranksnear the top among draft prospects in free throw attempts, and he converts those free throw attempts at a high percentage as well.
• He is capable of breaking down defenders with either hand, creating driving lanes with his good handles quick first step, and deceptive second gear. He shows off his excellent speed in the open floor and combines that with body control and ball-handling skills to separate from opponents and get to the rim.
• Despite being a big-time scorer with a college offense dependent on his ability to create open looks, Burks is also a team player who is both willing and capable of making the extra pass. He was often asked to create and finish shots for his team (particularly late in the shot clock), but he is also a nice weapon in a half-court offense thanks to his solid court vision and good basketball IQ.
• Furthermore, he has enough of a handle to log minutes at the PG position. When Colorado's starting point guard went to the bench, Burks manned the position and handled the role well.

b. Jimmer Fredette - The Bucks PGs are probably the worst offensive positional group on the team, so I'm not sure why people automatically dismiss the thought of adding a skilled shooter like Jimmer. I understand if people are afraid he might not be the best value at pick #10, but it's not clear that he wouldn't be a good value at #10. He would offer an immediate and substantial upgrade on offense at PG for the Bucks, and both his measurements and his skills compare favorably to Steph Curry. He can probably shoot better than the combined shooting skill of Jennings and Dooling. He has legitimate NBA 3-point range, a strong mid-range game, a strong ability to shoot off the dribble (going in either direction and off of either foot), he is comfortable creating his own shot against taller and more athletic defenders, he is comfortable creating his own shot against traps and double teams, he understands floor spacing and when to give the ball up to open teammates when the defense over-commits to him, and he knows how to get open. These are all relevant and game-ready NBA skills.

Furthermore, there is little doubt that Jimmer can effectively and efficiently run NBA-caliber pick and roll in half court sets, which is an invaluable skill at the PG position. I feel he could step in from day one and provide value as a 6th man type scoring guard for a team in desperate need for outside shooting and efficient pick and roll execution. In short, I cannot think of a good reason why Jimmer Fredette would not provide the same things that Luke Ridnourdid for the Bucks during his two seasons with the Bucks (if still not quite the level of efficiency Ridnour displayed in the 2009-10 season), when given the same opportunity to compliment Jennings and create with the ball in his hands over short spurts of play. I have heard the concern that Jimmer will not be able to play defense in the NBA, but I am not ready to completely bury the guy before he steps foot on an NBA court. Especially considering the following factors: (1) PGs usually don't have a positive impact on defense in the NBA, because the rules are stacked against them, (2) Jimmer would initially be matching up against backups as a 6th man, and could take the worst offensive guard on the court if necessary, and (3) the tape on him playing defense in college might be misleading, as he was often asked to play the full 40-minutes while creating every single bit of offense for BYU against double and triple teams, so the fact that he may have been strategically conserving his energy for offense cannot be completely discounted.

He may never develop into an all-star level starter, but I also don't think he can possibly be a complete bust. He simply has too many NBA-ready offensive skills to fail completely, and that is why he would be a great fit for the Bucks if Burks is off the board. He couldn't play for Skiles you say? Well a rather meh defender named Luke Ridnour played big minutes for Skiles in his two seasons with the team, and it's not unreasonable to think Fredette would not provide the same things that Ridnour did for the Bucks during his time with the team. For anyone left unimpressed by the Ridnour comparison, how much different is Fredette in size, skill set, and noted deficiencies when compared to former Skiles-system scorer and closer Ben Gordon? Just things to toss around your head to fight off the temptation to scream at the computer screen and shoot me an angry comment. Here is what Draft Express has to say about his offensive game: