“Raw” and Useless Buzzwords
Your guide to deciphering the language behind the NBA Draft
With the NCAA tournament coming upon it’s closing date, and as playoff hopes slip from the grasp of NBA Franchises; fans, GM’s, and future players alike look to the draft as the next logical step in progression. From what we know (or what we think we know), this draft class seems to be overflowing with talent. There are, however, no guarantees in the guessing game that the NBA draft has become. While there are some similarities, the NBA draft is a different ballgame completely from that of the NFL. There is a scouting combine for the NBA much like the NFL, but to be honest no one really cares that much about the NBA’s version. The best way to become a first round pick in the NBA is to play really well in college and show a lot of promise as an NBA talent. The best way to become a first round pick in the NFL is to have Mike Mayock discuss the shape of your ass for a moment or two.
Now with that out of the way, it’s time to break down and analyze some of draft analysts favorite words, and find out what they really mean after all is said and done.
“Gamer” The term Gamer is supposed to represent someone who eats, drinks and sleeps basketball. So much so that you can see their love for the game on the court. Players like Marcus Smart, Tony Allen, PJ Tucker, Patrick Beverly, Kenneth Faried and others have all been given the “gamer” knack. Notice anything in common with all those players?
All a bit undersized for their positions, all elite defensive players and all have better rebounding numbers than you might suspect. A gamer is just a hustle player; a guy who looks like he’s trying really really hard to get your team a win. It’s difficult to be 7'2 and have it look like you’re putting in a lot of effort when rebounds just fall into your hands and you can block shots by turning around really fast.
Prospects Most Likely to Fall Under this Category: Miles Bridges, Jawun Evans, Sindarious Thornwell, OG Anunoby, Josh Hart.
“Intangibles” For the love of god, someone please explain to me what this is. For years I’ve been hearing about intangibles. Do you want to know who had intangibles? Adam Morrison.
Sorry, two time NBA Champion Adam Morrison. My apologies.
From my understanding, intangibles in the world of Basketball is offering something to your team that can’t be measured by any statistic. I have problem with this. In today’s NBA, there is a statistic for everything. There is no instance of your impact on a basketball court that can’t be shown at some level by a statistic. Unless of course you mean your leadership abilities. Which is its own category. A category that should be called Leadership Abilities. There is nothing intangible about today’s NBA.
Despite all that, when a scout or analyst says a player has intangibles it doesn’t mean anything great or terrible. There are tons of players who’ve had “intangibles” and had great careers, there are plenty who haven’t. There’s just no guarantee either way.
Prospects Most Likely to Fall Under this Category: Lonzo Ball, Nigel Hayes, Justin Jackson, Josh Hart, Caleb Swanigan.
I love you, Adam. I’m sorry. Lets just continue on.
Go Zags.
“Raw” This one is always interesting to me as they use it a lot in NFL draft coverage as well. In short, if you’re a raw prospect you’re just not very good yet. You might be really good, but probably not right away. Or at all. You probably got away in college by being more talented or athletic than everyone else. A lot of these raw players lack the technical skills to walk into an NBA locker room and be effective immediately. A lot of these prospects are really great athletes, which helps scouts fall in love with them before they can really think about what their future in the league might be.
It’s hard to project players that aren’t ready yet. Anytime I see someone say “if he could just develop a shot…” my stomach does front flips. That’s the biggest what if in basketball. There’s been a lot of great athletes come through the league that just couldn’t keep up with the technical aspects of it, while some got proper training and flourished. A raw talent can only be as good as his development, and that’s half the battle. Anthony Randolph is a great example of a prospect who had so much potential and showed flashes, but ultimately fizzled out. The league is undefeated, if you’re not good, they figure something out.
On the other side of that argument is a guy like Zach LaVine. The potential was so clear when you watched LaVine play at UCLA during the 2013/2014 season, but it wasn’t a guarantee he’d turn out. Before tearing his ACL, LaVine was averaging 18.9 PPG at only 22 years old. There are two sides to the raw argument, pray you end up on the right side of it.
Prospects Most Likely to Fall Under this Category: De’Aaron Fox, Lauri Markkanen, Jarrett Allen, Frank Ntilkina, Justin Patton, Dennis Smith Jr.
“Low Floor” A lot of teams want to talk about potential, upside or what a player can be if everything goes right. Well what if that doesn’t happen? If everything goes wrong, how well can a certain player be? Josh Jackson from Kansas has a low floor. The worst-case scenario for Jackson is that he becomes one of the better perimeter defenders on a bad team and plays at least eight years in the NBA barring no major injuries. That’s a low floor.
You will see a lot of low floor players with upside (like Jackson) go early in the lottery, and in the tail end of the first round. The 8–20 range is for teams swinging for upside and trying to hit home runs. A lot of them strike out. Teams that are already in playoff contention might just want to find rotational guys to help solidify their rosters, and most projected top five prospects have pretty low floors anyway.
Prospects Most Likely to Fall Under this Category: Lonzo Ball, Josh Jackson, Markelle Fultz, Justin Jackson, Caleb Swanigan, T.J. Leaf, Luke Kennard.
“It Factor” Agh yes, Skip Bayless’s two favorite words aside from Lebron and Manziel. It Factor is a bit like intangibles, but much less infuriating. There are two parts to having the It Factor. If he wants the big shot, doesn’t get nervous under pressure, rises up when he’s needed to and can lead a team through adversity and hopefully to a W, he’s got the It Factor. The other half is the swagger that comes along with it. You see it in some of the biggest stars in the game.
That’s the It Factor. The player knows he’s good, the player guarding him knows he’s good, and if he has to take over the game for his team he can do it. Finding someone who has it isn’t all that hard. The boys separate themselves from the men pretty quickly. When the clock is winding down and your team is down by two; the guy that pulls up for three, blindly, for no apparent reason and cashes it, that’s it. Bill Simmons calls it irrational confidence. You don’t need to be an elite NBA player to be an irrational confidence guy. Jason Terry, Robert Horry, JR Smith, Manu Ginobli all have the It Factor. Every team needs a few guys that aren’t scared of the last shot in crunch-time, and this might be the draft to find them.
Prospects Most Likely to Fall Under this Category: Malik Monk, Lonzo Ball, Markelle Fultz, Malik Monk again, Miles Bridges, Malik Monk a third time.
On June 22nd, 2017 the landscape of NBA basketball might change drastically for the next 15–20 years. Or, it might not. It’s hard to predict the future. The 2012 NBA draft was heralded as the most talent filled draft since Lebron’s in 2003. Aside from Anthony Davis, Damian Lillard and a few others, it’s really failed to live up to the grand expectations we all had for it. On the other hand, the 2011 draft was seen as a weaker class.
That class produced Kyrie Irving, Klay Thompson, Kemba Walker, Jimmy Butler, Kawhi Leonard, Isiah Thomas and more. So who really knows? What we think we know and what we will come to find out over the next decade or so are probably worlds apart. What we do know, is that all these words, terms and phrases we apply to these players don’t really hold any weight. At the end of the day we’re all just swinging in the dark.
