SI Video on Bender

[steve]

I'm waiting to see a video that impresses me. One where he goes against real competition. Yi Jialan had a similar video like this one at this time too.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

This is just incredibly untrue. I'm supposing you've never played high level sports or trained with professionals over an extended period of time. Training in today's world is so much more than lifting weights and absolutely increases all athletic functions. Furthermore most trainers work to enhance genetic strengths.

I guess you'll enlighten us then?

His versatility is legit. It could turn him from a good player to a great one and I think it raises his floor considerably.

It means you can play close to the basket, especially defensively, and not be an embarrassment. Means you need to rebound, challenge shots, and be strong enough to body up players your size. If you can't do this (and the jury is still out), you're a glorified Ryan Anderson or Kelly Olynyk.

I'm not sure what to say about your list of playoff PFs. Many of those don't have the talent level to be mentioned in the same sentence with the 3rd pick. The most notable ones rebound and/or block shots.

I know you can't be convinced, but the playoff power forwards are proof positive of what works in the modern NBA. They are key cogs in the modern NBA offense in order to open the court up, even if they aren't scoring a lot.

If that forward can also shoot, attack closeouts, and distribute on pick-and-rolls, the offense becomes even more deadly. If they can switch on defense (because the switching neutralizes the stretch fours strength while also not losing solid defense on ball), then that scheme is extremely frustrating for offenses.

The key for Bender will be whether or not he can take advantage of matchups, and whether or not he can hold his own on defense against the minimal postup attempts in the modern NBA. I think he can. I also would like to have someone who can defend the rim in help situations. Again, I think he can learn that.

I'm not sure how any of this relates to what I said. I think it goes without saying that today's PF should be able to step 15 feet away from the basket and not be a complete dud that doesn't affect the game. That's not the point.

But if you simply dismiss all my concerns about Bender with "I think he can learn", I'm guessing you can't be convinced either.

I don't dismiss them. I'm trying to redefine what it means to be a successful power forward according to the modern NBA. In the past, banging and rebounding were the necessary qualities for a successful power forward, and shooting was a nice secondary skill. Every playoff team had bangers for power forwards, and if you had a soft, stretch four, it was a major liability.

Today, it is exactly opposite. The primary power forward skills necessary to be successful in the NBA are shooting, distributing, and defensive versatility. Secondary skills are post defense and rebounding. In today's NBA, teams like the Nets, Clippers, Jazz, Grizzles, Nuggets, Bucks, and Sixers (Wizards too until they traded for Morris) are considered fundamentally flawed if they have bangers with little or no perimeter skills. The Spurs (and to a lesser extent Clippers) prove that it is possible to still be successful in that brand of basketball, but you must have elite players, or outliers at their position.

Successful basketball is not a static thing. It is ever-changing. If we don't evaluate players based on their potential for success in the modern NBA (rather than doing it the "right way" like how old school guys think modern basketball isn't true basketball), then we are building a fundamentally flawed team.

Bender has the primary abilities to be successful as a modern 4 and has shown some ability (and tons of potential) to be successful in the secondary abilities.

[PhoSita]

What Bender offers is the ability to go "small' -- i.e. play a guy with ball handling, passing, and shooting ability at a position traditionally occupied by less-mobile, less-skilled big men -- without actually sacrificing height or length on defense. 

Offensively, his height should also be an advantage against other "small" lineups since he'll have an easier time shooting over small ball fours and even fives.

I suspect that teams that are able to field lineups that have the characteristics of "small ball" without actually being "small" will be among the most successful in the entire league over the next decade or so.

One need only go back and watch what Oklahoma City was able to do against the Warriors with Durant at the four to see what I'm talking about.

I agree with this. That's what makes Davis and Towns the future of the NBA. There are literally two 7 footers who can switch onto anyone anytime on defense and defend the rim while still being able to shoot outside, attack closeouts, and distribute to teammates.

Davis, Towns, and now Bender.

Cousins isn't quite seven feet, but he's shown some ability to do this, too.  Then there's Ibaka as well, who plays bigger than 6'10''.  Plus there's Durant.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

What Bender offers is the ability to go "small' -- i.e. play a guy with ball handling, passing, and shooting ability at a position traditionally occupied by less-mobile, less-skilled big men -- without actually sacrificing height or length on defense. 

Offensively, his height should also be an advantage against other "small" lineups since he'll have an easier time shooting over small ball fours and even fives.

I suspect that teams that are able to field lineups that have the characteristics of "small ball" without actually being "small" will be among the most successful in the entire league over the next decade or so.

One need only go back and watch what Oklahoma City was able to do against the Warriors with Durant at the four to see what I'm talking about.

I agree with this. That's what makes Davis and Towns the future of the NBA. There are literally two 7 footers who can switch onto anyone anytime on defense and defend the rim while still being able to shoot outside, attack closeouts, and distribute to teammates.

Davis, Towns, and now Bender.

Cousins isn't quite seven feet, but he's shown some ability to do this, too.  Then there's Ibaka as well, who plays bigger than 6'10''.  Plus there's Durant.

I don't think Cousins can consistently defend on the perimeter. Other than that, he is in.

Ibaka can do this some, but his offensive game is pretty limited to spot-ups. He is not a true distributor.

Durant may as well be 7 foot with his arms. He fits this bill by the spirit of the law, even if he doesn't by the letter. I suppose Davis isn't technically 7 foot either.

[footey]

Bender's slot will be decide tomorrow, Saturday and Tuesday, when he performs his 3 workouts. 

[droopdog7]

This is just incredibly untrue. I'm supposing you've never played high level sports or trained with professionals over an extended period of time. Training in today's world is so much more than lifting weights and absolutely increases all athletic functions. Furthermore most trainers work to enhance genetic strengths.

I guess you'll enlighten us then?

His versatility is legit. It could turn him from a good player to a great one and I think it raises his floor considerably.

It means you can play close to the basket, especially defensively, and not be an embarrassment. Means you need to rebound, challenge shots, and be strong enough to body up players your size. If you can't do this (and the jury is still out), you're a glorified Ryan Anderson or Kelly Olynyk.

I'm not sure what to say about your list of playoff PFs. Many of those don't have the talent level to be mentioned in the same sentence with the 3rd pick. The most notable ones rebound and/or block shots.

It's pretty amazing that you ignore the very obvious.  Most of your concerns come down to strength.  And you're right, he is not very strong at the moment.

However, among all the uncertainties that go with drafting someone into the NBA, here is one thing I am positive about.  Bender WILL get stronger as he matures.  The kid is 18 and somehow you expect him to compete with grown men psychically?  Sure, some people can do it but many need time.

Take a look at KG, who was also thin when he was drafted.  In his second year he average 39 minutes and 8 rebounds.  By his ninth year he was averaging 39 minutes and 14 rebounds.  Indeed, his rebounding numbers progressed steadily upwards for his first nine years (as he matured physically).

[kozlodoev]

I don't dismiss them. I'm trying to redefine what it means to be a successful power forward according to the modern NBA. In the past, banging and rebounding were the necessary qualities for a successful power forward, and shooting was a nice secondary skill. Every playoff team had bangers for power forwards, and if you had a soft, stretch four, it was a major liability.

Today, it is exactly opposite. The primary power forward skills necessary to be successful in the NBA are shooting, distributing, and defensive versatility. Secondary skills are post defense and rebounding. In today's NBA, teams like the Nets, Clippers, Jazz, Grizzles, Nuggets, Bucks, and Sixers (Wizards too until they traded for Morris) are considered fundamentally flawed if they have bangers with little or no perimeter skills. The Spurs (and to a lesser extent Clippers) prove that it is possible to still be successful in that brand of basketball, but you must have elite players, or outliers at their position.

Successful basketball is not a static thing. It is ever-changing. If we don't evaluate players based on their potential for success in the modern NBA (rather than doing it the "right way" like how old school guys think modern basketball isn't true basketball), then we are building a fundamentally flawed team.

Bender has the primary abilities to be successful as a modern 4 and has shown some ability (and tons of potential) to be successful in the secondary abilities.

That's an awful lot of words just to imply that because Draymond Green exists, everyone should be starting a Draymond Green.

I have already conceded that you need to be able to do something with the ball outside of 15 feet to be a successful PF. However, there's no way that a PF that has mediocre rebounding and post defense won't be considered just as fundamentally flawed. Heck, even most PFs that lack inside scoring game typically are viewed as limited.

[Pucaccia]

http://www.si.com/nba/video/2016/06/15/who-is-dragan-bender-si-films

Interesting 10 minute video on Bender. Shows a bit more of his backstory.

Excellent video! Thanks for the post.  Did any of you see the other video shorts by SI. Pretty good stuff.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

I don't dismiss them. I'm trying to redefine what it means to be a successful power forward according to the modern NBA. In the past, banging and rebounding were the necessary qualities for a successful power forward, and shooting was a nice secondary skill. Every playoff team had bangers for power forwards, and if you had a soft, stretch four, it was a major liability.

Today, it is exactly opposite. The primary power forward skills necessary to be successful in the NBA are shooting, distributing, and defensive versatility. Secondary skills are post defense and rebounding. In today's NBA, teams like the Nets, Clippers, Jazz, Grizzles, Nuggets, Bucks, and Sixers (Wizards too until they traded for Morris) are considered fundamentally flawed if they have bangers with little or no perimeter skills. The Spurs (and to a lesser extent Clippers) prove that it is possible to still be successful in that brand of basketball, but you must have elite players, or outliers at their position.

Successful basketball is not a static thing. It is ever-changing. If we don't evaluate players based on their potential for success in the modern NBA (rather than doing it the "right way" like how old school guys think modern basketball isn't true basketball), then we are building a fundamentally flawed team.

Bender has the primary abilities to be successful as a modern 4 and has shown some ability (and tons of potential) to be successful in the secondary abilities.

That's an awful lot of words just to imply that because Draymond Green exists, everyone should be starting a Draymond Green.

I have already conceded that you need to be able to do something with the ball outside of 15 feet to be a successful PF. However, there's no way that a PF that has mediocre rebounding and post defense won't be considered just as fundamentally flawed. Heck, even most PFs that lack inside scoring game typically are viewed as limited.

The list of playoff power forwards from earlier in this thread, both starters and backups, would beg to differ with your assessment. It's not just about Green. It's about the entire NBA.

[mmmmm]

I can talk myself into the merits of selecting Murray or Hield.  Those guys can shoot the lights out, at least, and this team needs that.  I'm just not sure either will ever be a full time player due to lack of playmaking and weakness defensively.

Brown and Chriss are physical specimens.  Selecting either would be a huge vote of confidence in the coaching staff and the infrastructure the Celts have in place to get the most out of a raw prospect with major tools and major weaknesses.

I could understand selecting Dunn if Danny thinks he's the third best player in this draft and a future top 5-10 player at the point guard position.  BPA is the way to go, and this is an increasingly point guard driven league.

Bender just makes the most sense to me.  I think he will take a year or two to become a rotation player beyond 15-20 minutes a night, but I think even if he doesn't develop his skills a great deal from where they are now, a guy with his size and length who can shoot the ball provides a lot of value, especially if he can defend stretch fours.  If he reaches his potential, I think he could be a borderline All-Star who makes big plays at both ends and allows a team to field the most dangerous modern lineups. 


I have a feeling the pick will either be a swing for the fences with Chriss or Brown, or a "guard logjam be-danged" pick with Kris Dunn.

My thinking is running along the same lines on all these choices, though I tend to think that the strongest probability is still that Danny makes a trade.

[TheSundanceKid]

I'm waiting to see a video that impresses me. One where he goes against real competition. Yi Jialan had a similar video like this one at this time too.

How are you defining real competition? Because even the Israeli league is a better quality than many college conferences. It is certainly more comparable to the NBA in terms of age and physical profile. No one can seriously argue that 18-23 year olds have the same physical maturity as fully grown men right?

There is still a huge bias toward the American system which I'm not sure is legit. There is top talent in the collegiate system that could make it in the Euro leagues during their freshman year but most take 4 years just to develop to a level where they can get a job in the Euro leagues. No one claims it to be NBA standard but it's certainly above most NCAA ball

[JBcat]

Lately Ive seen Bender compared to kelly and Mirotic a ton, but everything Ive read suggests this kid will be a better defensive than offensive player. Kelly and Mirotic were just the opposite.

Kelly is underrated defensively.  I'm not an advanced stats guy but plenty of people have explained on here during last season how Kelly was pretty good defensively particularly at the center spot I believe.  Not all defense is shot blocking and rebounding.

I do think Kelly strives and suffers depending on the matchup offensively it seems.  Kelly is mobile but doesn't have the greatest first step, nor does have an aggressive mentality consistently. Maybe he thinks about his short arms too much. Lol  Anyway I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert on Bender but I see some similarities other than Bender seems to move a little better, and is longer from the clips I've seen.  I'm not sure he's worthy of the 3rd pick. Glad it's not my call. 

[kozlodoev]

The list of playoff power forwards from earlier in this thread, both starters and backups, would beg to differ with your assessment. It's not just about Green. It's about the entire NBA.

The list of power forwards you provided is as follows:

Love? Frye? Green? Barnes? Patterson? Carroll? Ibaka? Deng? Williams? C Zeller? Dirk? Harris? George?

Love and  Ibaka (and even Dirk) have more inside than outside skills. Zeller and George didn't play PF except in spot minutes. Guys like Frye, Harris, Carroll, Williams, and Deng are simply mediocre/bit players. I'm not sure what this list is indicative of, except that the best PFs from the lot are competent inside players.

[Celtics4ever]

I'm waiting to see a video that impresses me. One where he goes against real competition. Yi Jialan had a similar video like this one at this time too.

Me too.

I don't dismiss them. I'm trying to redefine what it means to be a successful power forward according to the modern NBA. In the past, banging and rebounding were the necessary qualities for a successful power forward, and shooting was a nice secondary skill. Every playoff team had bangers for power forwards, and if you had a soft, stretch four, it was a major liability.

Today, it is exactly opposite. The primary power forward skills necessary to be successful in the NBA are shooting, distributing, and defensive versatility. Secondary skills are post defense and rebounding. In today's NBA, teams like the Nets, Clippers, Jazz, Grizzles, Nuggets, Bucks, and Sixers (Wizards too until they traded for Morris) are considered fundamentally flawed if they have bangers with little or no perimeter skills. The Spurs (and to a lesser extent Clippers) prove that it is possible to still be successful in that brand of basketball, but you must have elite players, or outliers at their position.

Successful basketball is not a static thing. It is ever-changing. If we don't evaluate players based on their potential for success in the modern NBA (rather than doing it the "right way" like how old school guys think modern basketball isn't true basketball), then we are building a fundamentally flawed team.

How successful was Bender's last season?   Oh, that is right, it was not , he could not get playing time.  If he can't get it against that competition, how do you expect him to get in the NBA.   He has worse stats than Porzingas, worse athletic test results.

Success has eluded him.   As far as evaluating him for potential, I simply do not see as much as you do.   I think it is pretty easy to impress you, on this one.   Tall and a pulse, in this case.   Those plays won't cut it in the NBA.  I agree with you a lot but I think your off on this one.

I am afraid because he has not answered that "if" overseas.   So how will he do it here against better competition? better athletes?   Guys who can't make in the NBA go to Israel to play for crimminy's sake and he did not dominate there.

I hope DA makes a trade and let's someone else take Bender.   A fool and their money are soon parted as are a GM and a draft pick.   

That's an awful lot of words just to imply that because Draymond Green exists, everyone should be starting a Draymond Green.

His comparison of himself to Draymond Green is just words and farsical.   Green bangs, he loves contact and this kid dreads and plays on the wing.  Green is an instigator of the highest order, this kid would end up in the hospital if he instigated once.

You want a comparison that is more apt, Mirza Teletovic but I think it far likely that he will end up like Darko or Exum, who like Dragan hide from scrunity. 

If he wows in the workout and Danny Ainge signs off him then fine.  I could care less what Austin Ainge thinks about him.

[BornReady]

I'm waiting to see a video that impresses me. One where he goes against real competition. Yi Jialan had a similar video like this one at this time too.

How are you defining real competition? Because even the Israeli league is a better quality than many college conferences. It is certainly more comparable to the NBA in terms of age and physical profile. No one can seriously argue that 18-23 year olds have the same physical maturity as fully grown men right?

There is still a huge bias toward the American system which I'm not sure is legit. There is top talent in the collegiate system that could make it in the Euro leagues during their freshman year but most take 4 years just to develop to a level where they can get a job in the Euro leagues. No one claims it to be NBA standard but it's certainly above most NCAA ball

I think we're looking at apples and oranges here
As both leagues are not comparable to NBA level which is the highest
Both have pros and cons

Euro- older, stronger, more developed skilled competition,more tough  but pace and athleticism of players is different and less likely to receive playing time for younger players

NCAA - you generally have a good sense of prospects because of the previous comparisons of the years  players have been evaluated, more familiarity, players at similar age to make a comparable baseline, more likely to receive playing time, athleticism of players but more soft league, and generally less skilled players