2016 NBA Draft

Reports: Nets send Young to Indiana

HANG TIME, N.J. — Good news for the Boston Celtics: The Brooklyn Nets are trading one of the only legit NBA players they have left on their roster.

The Vertical’s Adrian Wojnarowski reports Thursday afternoon that the Nets and Indiana Pacers have reached a deal on a trade that would send Thaddeus Young, one of the only decent players left on the Nets’ roster, to Indiana.

As is the case with the three-team deal that the Pacers struck on Wednesday to bring in point guard Jeff Teague, the trade probably won’t take place until July, when cap space is opened up. Young has two more years left on his contract plus a player option for 2018-19. Though the Pacers will still be on the Draft board at No. 20 on Thursday night, it will be the Nets’ selection to make.

Indiana’s starting lineup for next season is looking like Teague, Monta Ellis, Paul George, Young and Myles Turner. That unit could help the Pacers improve offensively, where they’ve ranked in the bottom 10 each of the last three years.

The Nets gain more than $10 million in cap space in the deal, but they take a step backward on the floor. Young and Brook Lopez formed a solid frontline, but now Lopez is the only real starter left on the roster (though second-year forward Rondae Hollis-Jefferson has a ton of potential). New Nets general manager Sean Marks is building from the ground up, but without control of his own first round pick until 2019.

That’s because the Celtics have the Nets’ first round pick in 2018 and can swap picks with Brooklyn in 2017, thanks to the Paul PierceKevin Garnett trade of 2013. Boston already has the No. 3 pick in Thursday’s Draft from the same trade and that 2017 pick swap looks even more valuable than it did before the Nets agreed to this trade. Although the picks are a sunk cost for Brooklyn, everything the Nets do affects the Celtics, who look like the real winners in the Young deal.

Analytics Art: Are Ingram-Durant Comparisons Valid?

By Ben Leibowitz, Special to NBA.com

Duke University standout Brandon Ingram is projected to be the No. 2 (potentially No. 1) overall pick in the 2016 NBA Draft. The slick-shooting 18 year old has drawn comparisons to former No. 2 overall pick Kevin Durant, and not just because of their standing as top prospects entering the draft.

By the eye test, it seems an apt evaluation: both play the small forward position, and both boast a physical build similar to that of a praying mantis — tall, slender, lanky, all limbs.

But is it fair to stack Ingram up against a Kia MVP, four-time scoring champion and five-time All-NBA First Team member?

Below is a comparison of each guy’s stats during their one-and-done seasons in college — Ingram at Duke, Durant at Texas.

It becomes clear rather immediately that Durant, at least statistically, was the superior college player. He averaged more than eight additional points per game compared to Ingram, and he also notched double-digit rebounds.

However, context is key. While Durant did average a whopping 25.8 points per game for Texas, he was the unquestioned go-to scorer. The 2006-07 Longhorns only had two other players post double-digit scoring: A.J. Abrams (15.5 PPG) and D.J. Augustin (14.4 PPG).

On the other hand, Ingram wasn’t even Duke’s leading scorer — that distinction belonged to guard Grayson Allen. The Blue Devils finished the season with five players scoring in double figures. By comparison, Mike Krzyzewski’s crew featured a far more balanced offensive attack that didn’t rely so heavily on one superstar to get the job done. So while Ingram’s scoring output was inferior, there are some factors at play making that outcome understandable.

Moreover, Ingram’s efficiency from the field was impressive for someone his age. He sunk 41 percent of his 3s, launching 5.4 attempts per game.

Ingram wasn’t particularly fond of the right corner, but he splashed triples at rates well above average at the top of the arc and from the left corner during his only collegiate year.

Both Ingram and Durant hoisted about the same number of 3-point shots per game — 5.4 for Ingram, 5.8 for Durant — but it was a larger chunk of Ingram’s offensive repertoire. His 3-point rate (the percentage of field goal attempts that were 3-pointers on a team possession basis) finished at 40.3 percent. Durant, meanwhile, launched treys 31.4 percent of the time, per Sports Reference — so he didn’t lean on the outside shot nearly as much. That could certainly mean Durant entered the NBA with more polish on the offensive end, but it shouldn’t overshadow Ingram’s own scoring ability.

There’s little question Ingram can score at a high level, much like Durant. His reliable 3-point stroke seems a surefire indicator that he’ll contribute at the next level. Whether he’s the next Durant remains to be seen.

At this juncture, the Durant comparison should be viewed as Ingram’s best-case NBA scenario — what he could become at his absolute ceiling. The good news for either the Philadelphia 76ers or Los Angeles Lakers? Ingram’s floor seems to be remarkably high, too.

This article was originally published on PointAfter, a partner of NBA.com.

Ben Leibowitz is a writer for PointAfter, a sports data aggregation and visualization website that’s part of the Graphiq network. Visit PointAfter to get all the information about NBA PlayersNBA Historical Teams and dozens of other topics.

Morning shootaround — May 17

NEWS OF THE MORNING

Curry, Warriors fall in Game 1 | Bosh, Heat face uncertainty | Vandeweghe: No changes ‘imminent’ to Draft lottery | TNT’s Smith won’t get Rockets gig

No. 1: Curry can’t save day in Game 1  Golden State fans awaken this morning undoubtedly in a state of shock or disbelief after their Warriors blew a 14-point lead in Game 1 of the Western Conference finals. The eventual 108-102 loss to the Oklahoma City Thunder has the Warriors trailing in a playoff series for the first time in the 2016 postseason. Perhaps more shocking to Golden State fans, though, is that the reigning Kia MVP, Stephen Curry, couldn’t save the Warriors’ bacon as Game 1 wound down. Marcus Thompson II of the Bay Area News Group has more one what Curry and the Warriors must do better come Game 2:

There were several moments Monday night that called for Stephen Curry to put on his cape and save the day. There were several times when past practice made you believe the Warriors would turn on the jets.

But Curry never pulled off the magic that he so often does, no matter how hard the home crowd begged. And the Warriors never woke up.

In what has been a rarity this season, Curry didn’t shine the brightest in this meeting of stars. He finished with 26 points, 10 rebounds and seven assists. But it wasn’t enough to cover his seven turnovers, his 1-for-6 shooting in the fourth quarter, and his questionable decision making.

In what has been a rarity this season, the Warriors were not the team to get it downe down the stretch. Monday was their first loss to one of the league’s top four teams when fully healthy.

“I do think we lost our poise a little bit,” coach Steve Kerr said, “and that had a lot to do with the quick shots. I think we were trying to rectify the situation in one or two plays instead of letting it play out. So that’s something we’ve got to get better with.”

Is Curry’s right knee an issue, or was it the Warriors’ game plan to use him as they did?

Curry still has pain, he said, but it’s tolerable. It’s not 100 percent, he said, but it’s good enough.

In Game 1, Curry spent a lot of time off the ball. The Thunder responded as other teams have, grabbing and holding Curry away from the sight of the officials. When Curry didn’t get the ball, Draymond Green or Klay Thompson became the one-on-one players.

Late in games, the ball in Curry’s hands might allow him to get a better rhythm and allow him to set up for his teammates. It forces the Thunder to adjust their defense to stop him and could result in him getting some free throws. Curry went to the line only twice in nearly 40 minutes Monday.

“We have to heighten the sense of urgency and heighten the sense of ball possessions and pace and flow,” Andre Iguodala said after scoring six of the bench’s 16 points. “It’s good to get hit in the mouth. That’s when it really shows.”

Was Game 1 a sign that Oklahoma City has found the formula to beat the Warriors?

The Thunder were the Warriors’ toughest foe during the regular season. Even though the Warriors swept OKC, all three games were closely contested. Neither San Antonio, Cleveland, Toronto nor the Los Angeles Clippers could stake such a claim. And Monday, OKC played with a comfort that suggested a feeling of superiority.

The Thunder got better as the game wore on. The Thunder made adjustments, fixed their ills. It was the OKC point guard — not the Warriors’ popint guard — who took charge of the game.

“There were several key (plays) in the second half when we kind of lost our momentum,” Kerr said. “Careless passes. Didn’t have the flow to whatever set we were running. And I thought we lost our aggressiveness and momentum offensively. A lot of that had to do with his speed and aggressiveness.”

Or was this the Warriors not bringing it like normal? Was their demise their own doing? Did the weight of their historic chase finally catch up with them?

In their mind, they played out of character. They failed to live up to their standard.

Famed trainer’s take: NBA combine assesses prospects too narrowly

As NBA scouts, coaches, general managers and other staffers descended on Chicago for the league’s annual Draft Combine, the process of poking, prodding, measuring and timing the nation’s top pro prospects began in earnest.

But at least one authority on what it takes to excel as an NBA player remained unconvinced the participating teams would learn much of anything.

Tim Grover, famed trainer of Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade and other NBA notables, offered a contrarian view on his blog at attackathletics.com. Grover contends that the NBA scouting staffs fall in lockstep in how they assess players at the combine, more because they can than because it yields empirical evidence for who can play and who cannot.

This might be met with equal skepticism from NBA personnel departments, who wouldn’t miss this annual roundup in Chicago and risk putting themselves at a disadvantage relative to the other 29 teams. But they’re kidding themselves if they think the numbers generated at the combine will make or break a player’s career or their team’s draft success. Grover writes in part:

This is for all the guys who firmly believe that their entire lives would have been completely different—wealthier, happier, sexier—if only they had been given the rare and awesome ability to jump.

Let me make you feel better: I don’t test my players’ vertical jump. I’ll test it if someone asks me to, if a player or team really wants to know, but to me, it’s a shallow prediction of what an individual can actually accomplish as a competitive athlete, a measure of talent, not skill. Talent and skill aren’t the same thing; the world is full of talented people who have never achieved anything.

When I started working with Michael Jordan in 1989, his vertical jump was 38 inches. By today’s standards, that might not even get you drafted in the top ten; Andrew Wiggins reportedly had a 44” vertical jump before he was drafted No. 1 overall in the 2014 NBA Draft. Eventually we got MJ up to 42”—and then 48”—using the training program which later became my book “JUMP ATTACK.” But we weren’t specifically training for vertical jump; we trained for overall explosiveness and skill, and the vertical increase was just a by-product of the training.

It’s just a number. You know those people in school who always got good grades but were complete dunces in real life? Same principle here: If you train for a one-dimensional test, you’ll be a one-dimensional athlete. The truth is, the ability to jump straight up into the air one time in a completely controlled situation doesn’t indicate what you can do during a game.

Can you do it with two guys in your face and another waiting to clock you when you come down? With the game on the line and lights in your eyes? Falling backwards? What about the second or third jump? That’s what I want to see. Game results, not test results. MJ and Kobe scored more than 30,000 points in their careers; I’m not a stat guy but I’m pretty sure most of those points didn’t come from dunks.

I’m not just picking on testing vertical jump here. Draft Combines are supposedly designed to measure athletic ability, but cones don’t weigh 400 pounds and move at lightning speed. Everyone gets excited about a guy who runs a fast 40. But how often do you have a game situation where you’re running 40 yards in a straight line unopposed? It’s a test of speed and acceleration: that’s talent. I want to see skill.

Show me you can explode for five yards, stop, cut, avoid the defense, change direction, and keep going…while maintaining that speed. Ask Jerry Rice: you don’t get to be the best by sprinting alone down an open field.

The NBA Draft Combine includes a 185-pound bench press test. What are we proving there, how hard you can fire a chest pass? If you’re an NBA player on your back in the middle of a game pushing something away, you either need a referee or an ambulance. I want to see overall strength in competition, not while you’re lying on a bench. Kevin Durant couldn’t do one rep at his pre-draft Combine. Looks like things worked out well for him.

Look, there’s always going to be someone who jumps higher or runs faster than you. But if you’re a golfer who only works on your drive, now you’re Happy Gilmore. You can do one thing. If you can only dominate the vertical jump competition or the bench press, congratulations, now you’re a great vertical jumper or bench presser. It doesn’t make you a skilled and competitive athlete.