Minnesota Sports Forum

I've mentioned this in other threads, but I thought it deserved its own thread as we head into this year's draft. I've thought a lot lately about the attributes common to all (or nearly all) of the best NBA players today and in the past. I looked at a sample of 60 elite NBA players, past a current, and reflected on the attributes they had coming into the League - characteristics that were obvious when they were drafted or that became apparent very soon after they came to the NBA. I found the following 4 attributes in nearly all of them:

1. Very high basketball IQ - (i.e., quick, instinctive reaction, seeing plays develop before they're executed)
2. Hyper competitive drive -(intense, unwavering competitive drive to win & dominate)
3. Elite positional skill set (highly developed skills for their respective positions)
4. Either above average size or elite athleticism - (don't need both)

Of the four, I'd say that IQ and competitiveness are the most important.

I won't list the 60 players I sampled. My list includes current players like James Harden, Kawhi Leonard, Kevin Durant, Kyrie Irving, Luka Doncic, Donovan Mitchell, Jason Tatum, Giannis, Steph Curry, Damian Lillard, Ja Morant, Anthony Davis, Nikola Jokic and Jamal Murray. It also includes past players like Magic, Bird, Stockton, Malone, Dirk Nowitzki, Dwayne Wade, and Scottie Pippen,

I couldn't come up with a single great past player who didn't turn out to be hyper-competitive. It wasn't necessarily obvious that Scottie Pippen had that quality when he was drafted, but it became clear over time as you watched the way he defended. He didn't just defend, you could see that he set out to dominate his opponent defensively when he stepped on the court. One of my favorites was when he and Jordan were fighting over who got to defend Toni Kukoc. The jury MIGHT still be out on the competitiveness of some of the current top players like KAT, Tatum, Booker and even Kevin Durant, but the vast majority of current elite players like Giannis, Kawhi, Harden, Lillard and Curry have been hyper competitive players form the moment they came to the NBA.

The only great player, past or present, I came up with who didn't clearly have a high basketball IQ was Shawn Kemp. But he had all the other attributes as he was hyper competitive, highly skilled for his position, above average in size and extremely athletic. Some might say that Allen Iverson didn't have a particularly high basketball IQ, but I would disagree. Otherwise, all the other great players I thought of have very high basketball IQs. Magic Johnson and Larry Bird are the most obvious examples. Some examples among current players are Steph Curry, Kawhi Leonard, Luka Doncic, Jamal Murray and Nikola Jokic.

Skill level is sometimes given short shrift when evaluating draft prospects. Instead, skills are viewed as something that can be developed over time after reaching the NBA. But I the history shows that the players who become great are those who came into the League with highly developed skills important for their positions. Magic and Bird are again two obvious examples - Magic's passing, playmaking and ball-handling; Bird's passing, playmaking and shooting. Because MJ was such a great high-flying athlete, it's easy to overlook the fact that he came into the League as an exceptional ball-handler, and very good mid-range jump shooter. MJ's sidekick, Scottie Pippen, came into the League as an exceptional ball-handler and very good passer for his size and position. That's probably because he had been a PG before his late growth spurt in college. I always like prospects like Scottie Pippen and Anthony Davis who had late growth spurts and, therefore, developed ball-handling and other skills beyond what you'd normally see in players their size.

So the question I'll pose here for this year's draft is who among the top prospects appear to have really high basketball IQs, super-competitive drive, high skill level and either good size or elite athleticism. The only player in this year's draft who clearly checks all those boxes for me at the moment is Haliburton. By all accounts, he has a super high IQ, elite passing/ball-handling skills (very good shooting skills) and excellent length for his position. I'm not sure about his competitiveness, but from what I've read he has a lot of drive to get better and a great worth ethic. Moreover, I've never seen or heard anyone questioning his motor or passion for the game.

I might add some others to this list by tomorrow as I think more about it. For example, I love Okoro's motor and believe his has that hyper-competitiveness that all the great ones have. I've heard that he also has a very high basketball IQ and he's certainly an elite, powerful athlete. Wiseman has both elite size and elite athleticism. He's obviously very smart, but I'm not sure yet about his basketball IQ, which I see as something very different from the high intelligence level that Wiseman obviously has. I'm not sure yet whether he has the hyper-competitiveness either, but I feel much better about his motor than I do LaMello's or Anthony's. Toppin seems to have a high basketball IQ and great competitive drive. He also seems to have good length and strength/size position along with great athleticism. I'm not sure about his skill level, although he appears to be a very good perimeter shooter and good passer. His ball-handling seem seems shaky, but that's not as important for his position.

Thoughts?

Okoro vs. Edwards is a great contrast. Do you take the first guy that is an absolute lock-down defender and intense competitor and hope you can mold him into a good offensive player - skills that can be hard to develop at this stage - OR do you take Edwards who has some undeniable skills but questionable decision making and effort levels? Which lump of clay do you believe is more mold-able - the guy that needs to improve a couple of key skills or the guy that needs to improve on a couple of key behaviors?

I think unless the guy is so supremely skilled that you just sort of ignore the motor/behavioral stuff (e.g. Ben Simmons at LSU is a perfect example of this), you gotta err on the side of effort/IQ.

Q12543 wrote:Okoro vs. Edwards is a great contrast. Do you take the first guy that is an absolute lock-down defender and intense competitor and hope you can mold him into a good offensive player - skills that can be hard to develop at this stage - OR do you take Edwards who has some undeniable skills but questionable decision making and effort levels? Which lump of clay do you believe is more mold-able - the guy that needs to improve a couple of key skills or the guy that needs to improve on a couple of key behaviors?

I think unless the guy is so supremely skilled that you just sort of ignore the motor/behavioral stuff (e.g. Ben Simmons at LSU is a perfect example of this), you gotta err on the side of effort/IQ.

That's the question and I land in the same place as you -- err on the side of effort/IQ. Even though great players rarely develop skills they didn't already have when they came to the NBA, there are some some who have. Kawhi wasn't much of a perimeter shooter before coming to the NBA and he's now a very good shooter and one of the top three players in the NBA. Paul George wasn't a good ball-handler when he came to the NBA, but he's developed into a good one and a great player.

Okoro is a particularly interesting prospect. He has elite competitive drive and a very high basketball IQ by all accounts. Importantly, his competitiveness and high IQ show up on both sides of the ball. He's also an elite athlete. So he's elite or very high caliber in 3 of the 4 areas I listed. Yet, he's not totally bereft of offensive skills. Yes, he shooting is pour, but he's a very skilled finisher at the time and he's actually a good ball-handler who is very effective at scoring on dribble penetration. His only weakness seems to be perimeter shooting. I thought Bruce made a persuasive case for Okoro's relatively poor perimeter shooting, i.e., the fact that he's been such an effective scorer going to the hole that he just hasn't been called up on to take many perimeter shots. In a way that is commendable because it shows his high basketball IQ and competitiveness - that is, playing to his strengths rather than forcing things that aren't as effective and that could hurt his team's chances of winning.

As you can see, I've been gravitating heavily towards Okoro lately. My only hesitation with him all along has been the fact that we already have two poor shooting defensive wings in Okogie and Culver. If we had drafted Tyler Herro instead of Culver last year, I'd consider Okoro the perfect prospect for the Wolves and would probably be wanting us to trade down and take him.

As for Edwards, there are just too many red flags regarding competitiveness and IQ. You can't have the kind of hyper-competitive as that all great NBA players have and show almost no interest in playing defense while also disappearing entirely from games or long stretches of games as Edwards has. And high IQ players don't take so many terrible, contested shots. Watching that Georgia-Michigan State game a couple weeks ago, cemented my view of Edwards as a substantial bust risk. No one with his physical ability should go more than half of an important game against a tough opponent having absolutely no impact with showing minimal effort. I still think he'd be a better pick than LaMello Ball, but for me the choice between those two is just matter of picking your poison.

Yes, the downside of prioritizing high motor/effort guys is that they just may not develop the skills. Okogie and Culver are two great kids that play hard and try to make good decisions. Both seem really coachable and they give a shit about defense......but that doesn't make them good. At least not yet.

To be honest, I think the Wolves already have their Isaac Okoro in Jarrett Culver. Frankly, I'd have Culver over Okoro in this class. Okoro has an advantage in physical strength and thickness, but I'd likely give Culver the edge in everything else.

Camden wrote:To be honest, I think the Wolves already have their Isaac Okoro in Jarrett Culver. Frankly, I'd have Culver over Okoro in this class. Okoro has an advantage in physical strength and thickness, but I'd likely give Culver the edge in everything else.

I think that's why Lip ultimately doesn't think he's a good fit - we already have Culver and Okogie.

Q12543 wrote:

Camden wrote:To be honest, I think the Wolves already have their Isaac Okoro in Jarrett Culver. Frankly, I'd have Culver over Okoro in this class. Okoro has an advantage in physical strength and thickness, but I'd likely give Culver the edge in everything else.

I think that's why Lip ultimately doesn't think he's a good fit - we already have Culver and Okogie.

For sure, and guys like Okoro are needed throughout the league. I guess my point was really just that we should appreciate Culver more than we do despite the areas of weaknesses he showed in his rookie season. I really do think he'll be much improved this year -- that is if Minnesota holds on to him.

I wouldn't say it's necessarily an indicator of a great NBA player, but I do think players that have backgrounds or history of playing multiple sports tend to have a ton of tools to their advantage. Different sports require different skills and mentalities -- some of which you won't develop by strictly playing one sport your entire life. They also prepare individuals for different scenarios and environments. If I were conducting a pre-draft interview, one of the first couple of questions I'd ask would center around that.

Camden wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

Camden wrote:To be honest, I think the Wolves already have their Isaac Okoro in Jarrett Culver. Frankly, I'd have Culver over Okoro in this class. Okoro has an advantage in physical strength and thickness, but I'd likely give Culver the edge in everything else.

I think that's why Lip ultimately doesn't think he's a good fit - we already have Culver and Okogie.

For sure, and guys like Okoro are needed throughout the league. I guess my point was really just that we should appreciate Culver more than we do despite the areas of weaknesses he showed in his rookie season. I really do think he'll be much improved this year -- that is if Minnesota holds on to him.

I agree, Cam. That's why i was troubled by the report that the Wolves were considering trading Culver to move up from 17 to 6. Culver realty came on strong down the stretch on the offensive end and was really good for a rookie most of the season on the defensive end. I don't like the idea of giving up on a player after his rookie season - not when that player has the high IQ and competitive motor that I believe Culver has.

Camden wrote:I wouldn't say it's necessarily an indicator of a great NBA player, but I do think players that have backgrounds or history of playing multiple sports tend to have a ton of tools to their advantage. Different sports require different skills and mentalities -- some of which you won't develop by strictly playing one sport your entire life. They also prepare individuals for different scenarios and environments. If I were conducting a pre-draft interview, one of the first couple of questions I'd ask would center around that.

That's an interesting theory and I think you're on to something. Do you have some examples of elite NBA players who excelled in or at least played other sports? Two who come to my mind are Allen Iverson who was a star cornerback in high school and Hakeem who played soccer.