NBA Draft 2012: Why Rivers, Barnes and Jones III Are Likely Busts

The term “bust” is tossed around too loosely when talking about the NBA draft. The draft is such a hit-and-miss thing after the lottery that only the worst players drafted that late in the process should be considered busts.

There’s also context. Stromile Swift was drafted second overall in 2000, but a look at that draft suggests that any player available at No. 2 that year would not have lived up to the status of that high a pick. Three years later, in the 2003 draft, Darko Milicic was a much bigger bust at No. 2 because he was drafted right before three perennial All-Stars.

This article isn’t going to look at players like Thomas Robinson and Andre Drummond, who I feel are slightly overvalued players in a draft where the talent drops off pretty drastically after Anthony Davis. 

The three players I’ll analyze here all come in as much-hyped phenoms, but have yet to show anything in the way of NBA talent. I rate all three as likely busts.

Austin Rivers: As a shooting guard bound for the draft, Rivers needed to show he could do three things: Score often and efficiently, be athletic enough to handle the defensive grind of the NBA and not turn the ball over too often.

For scoring I look at two numbers: points per 40 minutes (P40) and two-point field goal percentage (2PP). The P40 should be over 20.0 for a college shooting guard, and the 2PP should be over .500.

History tells us players who fall short on one count or another generally don’t make it as pros. Rivers fell short on both as a freshman, finishing at 18.4 and .477 this year. The P40 number is pace-adjusted, as are all the per-40-minute numbers used from here on out.

For defense I look at two numbers: steals per 40 minutes (S40) and combined rebounds, steals and blocks per 40 minutes (RSB40). A prospect’s S40 should be over 1.4 and the higher the better. The RSB40 should be over 7.0 and preferably higher. Rivers came up short again with a 1.2 S40 and 5.1 RSB40.

To weed out players with a turnover problem, I look at their assist-turnover ratio (A/TO). While this stat has been overused a lot in the past when determining a guard’s value, it is true that any shooting guard prospect with an A/TO below 0.8 in college has struggled in the NBA. Rivers is about average here, at 0.9.

Compared to successful shooting guard prospects of the past, Austin Rivers comes up way short. But before I condemn Austin Rivers as the second coming of Reece Gaines, there are some things working in his favor.

The first is that he’s just a freshman, and these benchmarks work better with upperclassmen. Because he has a lot more development left as a player than a senior like William Buford, that has to be taken into account. He also improved slightly during the season, and that has to be considered a positive.

To get an idea of where he stands, I look next at history. I look for other freshmen shooting guards who posted similar numbers to Rivers, but bucked the trend and had NBA success. There have been several players similar to Rivers over the years, and the majority of them were never even a blip on anyone’s draft radar.

I narrowed the list down to players who were drafted in the top 60. In order of NBA accomplishment, they are: Jamal Crawford, Dana Barros, Terry Dehere, Trajan Langdon, Jim Farmer, Brian Oliver, Tony White and Milt Wagner.

We have a couple of players who were clear successes in Crawford and Barros. Crawford has played over 25,000 minutes and won a Sixth Man of the Year award. Barros had some good seasons and even got himself into an All-Star game.

Dehere, Langdon and Farmer were all first-round busts. Oliver, White and Wagner were second-round picks who played the minimal NBA minutes expected of second-round picks.

The fact that Crawford and Barros were able to make themselves into useful players after a similar start is a hopeful sign for Rivers. That both have been at least slightly overvalued as players tells me that while Rivers is capable of playing a long career, it’s extremely doubtful he’s going to become an All-Star.

It’s also worth noting that Crawford and Barros came into the league as point guards. Crawford developed into more of a scoring threat as his career evolved. Barros was more of a combo guard.

Rivers has shown little in the way of potential to play the point. For that reason, I have my doubts he can duplicate what Crawford and Barros accomplished after their equally unimpressive freshmen seasons.

What Rivers does have going for him is youth. Right now, among 2012 shooting guards, he ranks behind the likes of Brad Beal, Jeremy Lamb and Dion Waiters. I would even place him behind Tony Wroten, simply because Wroten has more upside.

The single best thing a player like Austin Rivers can do for his career is to develop a deadly outside shot. This skill helps players with a low college RSB40, like Hubert Davis and Steve Kerr, stick around the league for many years.

Bottom line for Austin Rivers’ NBA prospects—best-case scenario: Jamal Crawford, worst-case: Milt Wagner.

Harrison Barnes: As a small forward, Barnes needs to show slightly different skills than Rivers. Scoring often and efficiently is important, as it is for every prospect. For small forwards it has also always been important to have a more diverse game.

An ability to pass has always been a good thing. Rebounding and defensive skills also help. Historically, the best NBA small forwards scored well as college players, but also flashed other skills.

In evaluating small forward prospects, I look for a P40 of at least 18.0 and a 2PP of at least .500. Barnes is at 22.2 and .469. He scored often, but not efficiently. He was especially inefficient during tournament games, which should have been the time a player of his stature steps up.

The other numbers I use for small forwards are sort of a mix and match of rebounds, assists, steals and blocks per 40 minutes. I have found that an ability to do something other than scoring is important for any small forward, but it can vary.

An R40 of at least 7.0 and preferably higher is a good start. Barnes just misses at 6.8. He’s also low when it comes to assists, steals and blocks, with 3.1 combined. That’s an especially low number, because 5.0 has always been my cut-off for prospects.

In a nutshell, Harrison Barnes is a high-volume scorer and that’s all. He doesn’t score very efficiently, nor does he offer much in the way of defense, rebounding or passing. That makes him a very weak NBA prospect. If he hadn’t come in as the top overall prep player in 2010, I doubt anyone would even be discussing him as a potential NBA player right now.

Looking at history, I can’t even locate a small forward who can be for Barnes what Jamal Crawford and Dana Barros are to Rivers.  Players with combined steals and blocks per 40 minutes less than 2.0 and a two-point FG percentage less than .500 have rarely become successful NBA players.

Those who have could do one of two things well. Either they were excellent passers like Jalen Rose and Sean Elliott or could shoot the lights out like Dennis Scott and Jason Kapono. Barnes does neither of these things. His A40 is a low 1.5, and his A/TO is an equally low 0.6.

Barnes is a decent three-point shooter, around 35 percent for his college career. But he isn’t going to be drafted as a gunner. Like Rivers, the best thing he could do for his career is develop a deadly outside shot.

Barnes has been the same player for two seasons now after coming to North Carolina as the top player in his class. He’s a sophomore, but is also a player with 2,200 minutes of college experience who has shown little in the way of improvement during that time.

I don’t see much evidence at all that Harrison Barnes is an NBA player. I feel it would be crazy to draft him mid-lottery where most mocks have him going now.

There are several intriguing under-the-radar small forwards available this year: Jae Crowder, Ken Horton and John Shurna to name a few. Any team looking to address the small forward position in the 2012 draft best take a pass on Barnes and look for a bargain in Round 2.

The best-case scenario for Barnes would be a player similar to Nick Young. That’s an overvalued player who scores enough points on a bad team, and the GM decides to hand him a ridiculous contract that keeps him in the league for a while. Worst-case, but realistic, is that he plays less than 1,000 minutes in his career.

Perry Jones III: I like analyzing power forwards because they are pretty easy in comparison to other positions. There are some nuances to consider with small forwards, but with power forwards things are more cut-and-dried.

For scoring, I look at the same numbers I do for the other positions: P40 and 2PP. Successful power forward prospects have historically been over 18.0 and .580. Jones falls short at 17.4 and .520.

Scoring is important, but not totally essential for power forwards. A few have been able to forge long, effective careers with defense and rebounding. Unlike shooting guards and small forwards, scoring is secondary to these two skills for power forwards.

The numbers I look for are a R40 of at least 10.0  and preferably higher and a combined steals and blocks per 40 minutes (SB40) of 3.5. Jones also falls short in both categories at 9.9 and 1.9, respectively. 

There have been successful players who fell short in one or two of these areas. Carlos Boozer came in with weak defensive numbers, but also was a great college rebounder and hit 65 percent of his shots. Ryan Anderson also had low defensive numbers and a low 2PP, but was a solid rebounder and three-point shooter.

Both used those skills to become effective NBA players. There is nothing in Jones’ statistics that would suggest he has such a skill set.

The list of power forwards who overcame weak sophomore numbers to become stars begins and ends with Juwan Howard and Michael Cage. Howard posted much better numbers his junior year for Michigan’s Fab Five team after Chris Webber went pro while Cage became a great rebounder in the NBA after a slow start in college. 

It is possible Jones will be a late bloomer like Cage. His skills are obvious every time I watch him play. It is also possible that Jones can develop an outside shot that will keep him in the league as a stretch-the-defense power forward, but that seems like a reach at this point.

The best shooting power forwards were either already great shooters in college, like Anderson or Pat Garrity, or they developed an outside shot later in their careers and stayed in the league that way. Sam Perkins would be a good example of such a player. Right now, Jones has neither the outside shot nor the skills necessary to stay in the league and develop one.

Jones’ best-case scenario of the next Juwan Howard is not the sort of situation any team should want to get themselves into. Howard was an overvalued player who made too much money for what he produced and killed the Wizards' salary structure because of it.

More likely, Jones will slide down the draft board and have a short career. Teams that pass on this guy should look at a player like Andrew Nicholson or Tony Mitchell.