Austin Rivers: Why Doc Rivers' Son Will Be a Bust in the NBA

He's like the pro sports version of Willow Smith: People talk about her because she's the offspring of pop culture royalty, but on her own, is she really that impressive?

Austin Rivers gets his fair share of attention for being the son of Celtics coach Doc Rivers. He's a good basketball player—great, even—but are the massive holes in his game being ignored because of his lineage?

It seems like if it were anyone else, he'd fall out of the lottery because of those holes, maybe all the way to the bottom of the first round. But not Rivers, who seems to be entrenched somewhere in the middle to the end of the 2012 lottery. Most prognosticators even have him ahead of Jeremy Lamb, Terrence Ross and Tony Wroten.

By all indications, Rivers is a good player. He's decent offensively and with the ball, he has a more-than-decent crossover move. His numbers—15.5 points per game, 3.4 rebounds—are OK, at best and, somewhat alarmingly, he averages more turnovers (2.3) than assists (2.1).

Compare Rivers' numbers with some of the other available shooting or combo guards on the board:

Bradley Beal: 14.6 points per game, 6.5 rebounds, 2.2 assists, a better ball-handler and passer.

Jeremy Lamb: 17.7 points per game, 4.9 rebounds in the Big East, one of the best conferences in basketball this year.

Terrence Ross: 15.3 points, 6.5 rebounds per game, with more athleticism and more skill from beyond the arc.

Now, to be fair, Rivers is billed as a combo guard. But is expending a lottery pick on a player you intend on turning into a point guard a good idea when that player averages fewer than three assists a game? Especially when he turns the ball over more frequently than he sets up his teammates?

A possible defense for that: He takes shots himself rather than passing. But it's not like that's a positive trend for a prospect who might have to transition into a point guard.

Rivers needs to get a lot better at a lot of things before he's worthy of a lottery pick: He needs to learn how to play on a team instead of on the one-man Austin Rivers show, he needs to start playing defense, he needs to be a better athlete. The list goes on.

And not many of those things can really be taught—not if the player isn't receptive, which Rivers might not be.

It's pretty clear he wants to be the star of the show, but in his one year in college—playing against his peers instead of against high-schoolers, all of whom he could destroy—it was unclear whether or not he really has the goods to be the star. And "unclear" is not something on which teams should be willing to expend a lottery pick. Not when that player has a history of selfishness, an average build and average athleticism.

The point here isn't that Rivers isn't good. He's obviously good, and he's definitely a first-rounder. The point is that there isn't a lot to suggest he's worth a lottery pick.