Lack of Analysis Leads the Way in NBA Draft Coverage

The NBA Draft is by far my favorite of all the drafts. It moves quickly, there are always a fair amount of trades, and the New York crowd is awesome. How many other places boo just at the uttering of the name “Isaiah Thomas”? It’s fantastic.

What killed me last night were the sheer volume of inane comments and lack of in-depth analysis. However, it doesn’t stop there. This year, more than ever, we saw the analysis brought down to the lowest of the low. This was epitomized in one particular section shown after each player was drafted. Let’s take a look.

On Jerryd Bayless, “Must Improve: Passing.”

On Brandon Rush, “Must Improve: Assertiveness.”

On Brook Lopez, “Must Improve: Rebounding.”

On Mareese Speights, “Must Improve: Conditioning.”

On Shan Foster, “Must Improve: Dribbling, Passing.”

On Serge Ibaka, “Must Improve: Experience.”

It’s not that the player bios aren’t interesting, but that they don’t seem to add enough value to justify the creative dollars spent in developing them. This piece was just the worst offender, because it doesn’t tell the viewer anything.

As a fan, I find the way they brought this down to the most basic of levels almost offensive. Largely, it doesn’t make sense. The categories used are too generic to give any real information about the actual player being selected. What was worse, for the most part these pieces weren’t explained any further.

Let’s take Brook Lopez. He’s seven feet tall, I’m sure he can rebound. In fact, I know he can because I watched him do it in college. It’s not that he needs to improve his rebounding in general, but that he needs to improve his positioning, his ability to box out bigger players, and his read on the ball. That would give me something. Dumbing it down doesn’t provide any real information.

With Shan Foster, as well as several other guards, the consistent point on this section was the need to improve their dribbling or passing. Again, it’s not the dribbling. It might be the ability to go left or go right. It could even be the way they do or do not get to the basket or the lack of strength in going through a crowd. However, it isn’t the basic point of dribbling the ball.

Passing was another one that bothered me because the comment is likely “open floor passing” or “entry passes” or “needs to get better angles.” Those would help. Simplifying it down to “Passing” just demeans the player and the audience.

When watching the draft, I want to know about these guys. For most people, there is a vested interest of some degree. Many are watching to see whom their professional team will take, but there are those that are trying to see where a particular player they followed in college will land.

The analysis being done doesn’t shed any light for those with the understanding of the game that many watching actually have. I want it to add value. Someone watching isn’t going to take what is said and be able to translate why they need to improve in those areas.

Jay Bilas is supposed to be the Mel Kiper of this team. I want him to tell me that it’s more than these generic statements. Now, in the NFL it is easier because of the time between picks. But rather than the senseless banter between Jeff Van Gundy and Mark Jackson or the questions Stu Scott is throwing out there, why not bring something to the table?

We see footage on the foreigners, so why are we getting nothing on the American players? It likely starts with needing someone at the table like the NFL has in Ron Jaworski, someone who breaks down films to the nth degree. That isn’t evident at this point.

However, these guys know the game, at least at some level. Treat the audience like they do too.