#3? Dang.

The NBA Draft lottery was held last night, and the Wolves ended up with the 3rd pick. For those unfamiliar, the draft lottery puts the top three draft picks up for grabs amongst the NBA teams who did not make it to the playoffs. The teams with the worst records supposedly have more ping pong balls in the lottery, giving them a greater chance of winning the top pick. However, the team with the worst record only has a 25% chance of winning; meaning they also have a 75% chance of "losing" the lottery. After those first three picks are determined by drawing, the remaining order is determined by win-loss record.

Since the NBA has a letter opening ceremony instead of actually drawing the ping pong balls on live TV, people have accused the NBA of fixing the lottery to get star players on big market teams. This year is no different as Timberwolves fans are whining that it was fixed to send the top two players to Chicago and Miami. Only having a 1.7% chance to win, Chicago made a big jump to take the first spot, but Miami actually had the worst record in the league and fell a spot to #2. On top of that, Miami is one of the worst sports cities in America when it comes to attendance (and look who's at the bottom of this list)(oh, and read point #13 on this one).

If these conspiracies were actually true, how would you explain Portland and Seattle getting the top two spots last year? They play in small markets, and the Sonics are actually about to move to Oklahoma City; a veritable hub of media exposure. Or what about the 1992 draft that Wolves fans continually agonize over? The top two picks were sent to two other small market cities: Orlando and Charlotte. We need to relax here. The NBA is not out to get the Timberwolves.

So what do the Wolves do with this pick? Jim Souhan thinks they should trade down.

Begin mini-rant:

And this is why it sucks reading the Star Tribune columnists. Don't get me wrong, I do think they have good writers on staff, but there's not enough of them. In order to provide balanced coverage of all of the major stories and sports franchises in the area, they assign columnists to cover areas they don't have much knowledge or interest in. Jim Souhan and Pat Reusse do great pieces on the Vikings and Twins, but their columns covering the Wolves, Wild, and Gophers sound like they were pieced together from the obnoxius user comments section on the paper's website. It's like they write those asinine columns to spite their editor who's forcing them to meet their quota of Wolves, Wild, and Gophers coverage.

OK, mini-rant against the Star Tribune is over. On to why I don't agree with his idea (except for the part about using this pick to help unload Marco Jaric's bad contract, and he also believes that the Wolves should draft Beasely if he happens to fall down to #3):

Trading down is a wise move for the NFL draft. Football is played with 22 starters on offense and defense, along with all sorts of situational players that are subbed in on certain plays. It's good to build up your team's depth through the draft by acquiring as many picks as you can. If the player you originally wanted is no longer on the board and the next guy on your list of needs isn't projected to be picked that high, you can trade your high pick with another team looking to move up for multiple lower picks.

This doesn't work as well for the NBA, though. There are less players on that see the court and one elite player can have a huge impact on the team. You still need depth, but the Wolves already have a roster full of guys who are not superstar material. These are the ones that need to be molded and developed into solid role/bench players. Adding multiple lower picks would only add to this pool. What the Wolves need is another elite player to take them to another level.

Now the usual consensus in most NBA drafts is that there are one or two players projected to be instant superstars. After those top couple picks are gone, it's a crapshoot. There are lots of guys who are drafted for their all around athleticism and potential; not on their overall basketball skill. This draft is no exception. There is Derrick Rose, Michael Beaseley, and everybody else.

The thing that makes it interesting is the ever-increasing buzz surrounding OJ Mayo, a shooting guard from USC. He didn't blow anybody away with his stats last year, but not every college player does. They often play within coaches systems that don't rely on some of the isolation play that the NBA uses. There's even a current rumor that was cited in Souhan's column and elsewhere saying that the Miami Heat might take Mayo if the Chicago Bulls take Derrick Rose.

That scenario would put Michael Beasely right in the Timberwolves' laps. We already have a star power forward in Al Jefferson who can score at will in the low post. Beasely has more of an outside game (38% from 3-point land) that would work well playing alongside Al. The only thing I wonder is how he'll develop as an NBA defender? This could be the difference between drafting a Rasheed Wallace or an Antoine Walker (who we already have on our roster). The experiment of playing both Beasely and Jefferson together may not work out, but these would be valuable trade assets in a few years if they still continue to develop as individuals.

If the conventional wisdom of the past few months holds up and the top two picks are Rose and Beasely, then the Wolves should select Mayo. He doesn't fill a "need" position like a center or point guard would, but he is clearly a very talented player and appears to be the best available at this point. We already passed up on Brandon Roy two years ago because we had drafted Rashad McCants the year before; and we all know how that worked out.

NCAA Men's Basketball Player of the Year: White Guy vs. Black Guy

ESPN.com has an article debating who's the NCAA basketball player of the year; Tyler Hansbrough or Michael Beasley. There were 11 different writers making their case for their pick. After reading the first writer's case, I immediately thought, "OK, they're all picking Hansbrough because he's that hard working white guy that isn't as talented as Beasley, but he has more 'heart'." As I read along, my gut feeling was right.

Here are some of the phrases that these writers used to describe Hansbrough's intangibles:
"unyielding leader of a title-contending Tar Heels team"
"the toughest and most relentless player in the country"
"the ultimate teammate that will do anything to win"
"his will exceeds his considerable skill"
"Hansbrough's heart is bigger"
"Hansbrough has had the bigger impact"
"the only player in the country who plays hard all the time"
"He is what college basketball is all about"
"player who has worked insatiably to improve himself and maximize his potential"
"simply plays harder than anyone else"
"continued to play with even more passion and purpose (if that's possible)"
"he always seems to make the plays when they matter most"
"He is tough, committed to the cause of the Tar Heels winning and desperately wants to be in a Final Four and compete for a national championship"
"Hansbrough has been too valuable, too genuine and too dominant to deny him this honor"
"Nobody in the country plays harder or better in the biggest games than Psycho T"

If I presented this to my ex-girlfriend, she would immediately start hollering that all these writers were racist. Everybody and everything always seemed to be racist to her. I'm not sure how, but she could probably also argue that this article was sexist, too. Based on the quotes I provided above, I would have to agree that it feels like race is a factor, but I'm not going to label these writers as racist. They're just kind of lazy. Instead of them all defining what makes a NCAA Player of the Year, they just keep repeating the same nonsense: both of their stats are similar, and Michael Beasley is the more talented player, but Tyler Hansbrough "plays harder" and therefore is the winner.

As I mentioned earlier, all of these statements comment on traits that are intangible. This means that it is harder to prove these statements one way or the other. However, after reading through every writer's comments, I began to see some proof. Instead of just saying that Tyler Hansbrough has more heart and hustle, Dana O'Neil lays it out like this:

But the player of the year isn't the guy with the most prodigious talent. It is the player who lives the cliché, who puts a team on his back and carries it to greatness. This year that player is Tyler Hansbrough. Down to its third point guard, North Carolina dropped just two games and while the Tar Heels were waiting on Ty Lawson, Hansbrough shone. In the six games without Lawson, Hansbrough averaged 29 points and 10.7 rebounds. Despite Beasley's Herculean efforts, Kansas State remains at best an NCAA tourney bubble team. Carolina, on the other hand, has hovered in the top five all season, and Hansbrough has never had a bad night, reaching double figures in every game and recording double-doubles in 16.

Mark Schlabach further sways me with this:

How valuable has Tyler Hansbrough been for the Tar Heels this season? After point guard Ty Lawson went down with a severely sprained ankle in early February, Hansbrough stepped up and prevented North Carolina from taking a big step back. In the six games Lawson missed, Hansbrough averaged 29 points and 10.7 rebounds. North Carolina won five of those contests, even as their big man was constantly facing double and triple teams.

These actually give some good, hard evidence as to why Tyler Hansbrough should be the player of the year. They cite stats and W-L record during a stretch of games when another key teammate was injured and also use the team's record as part of the selection criteria. It's kind of like how a lot writers vote for the MVP in the NBA. Kevin Garnett won the MVP in 2004 when the Timberwolves were the top seed in the Western Conference, and there is talk he may be an MVP candidate this year with Boston sitting on top the Eastern Conference. The three years in between, there was not any serious consideration for the award. It's not like he was playing any different. He putting up similar stats, but his team was failing to make the playoffs. How "valueable" can you really be then? You could have taken KG out of the lineup those years, and I'm pretty sure we would have gotten the same result: no playoffs.

So I'm going to go ahead and agree with the writers who anoint Hansbrough as the player of the year. After sifting through some of the nonsense, it becomes clear. These are both players who put up exceptional numbers and were leaders of good teams. One team is looking at a #1 seed in the NCAA tournament and the other is on the bubble. One team plays in arguably the toughest conference in the country, while still posting a 30-2 record, while the other team is in an arguably weaker conference and posts a 20-11 record. Yes, you could argue that North Carolina has more all-around talent to push the team to greater heights, but Hansbrough still puts up stats that are similar to Beasley's. If there were more talented players surrounding him, you'd think he would have less impressive stats, mostly points per game. But he doesn't.

Lastly, out of the three writers who voted for Beasley, none of them really gave me a good reasons to think that he was indeed the player of the year. One of the writers basically just put together an NBA scouting report:

Beasley is the nation's third-leading scorer (26.9 points per game) and top rebounder (12.6). He has 12 30-point games, three 40-point games and leads the nation with 25 double-doubles. At 6-foot-10 and 235 pounds, Beasley is as skilled as a 6-5 wing. He can score inside with either hand on turnaround jumpers or on power moves through contact. He can drive from the wing and shoot the 3 with ease. He is a terrific rebounder because he can rebound out of his area, and he will not accept box outs when pursuing the basketball. Also, Beasley possesses great confidence and toughness. He competes at all times and has a tremendous basketball IQ. Many times during the course of the season, Beasley received the ultimate compliment from opponents by facing junk defenses, which might slow him down, but still couldn't stop him from recording staggering numbers.

This tells me that he is indeed a great ball player and will probably be an exceptional NBA prospect, but it does nothing to convince me that he should be the NCAA Player of the Year. Tyler, you have my vote, and not just because you are a white guy who "hustles" and "plays with heart".

*****

Good night for Minnesota basketball: Gophers win on a Blake Hoffarber buzzer-beater to advance to the semi-finals in the Big Ten tournament, and the Timberwolves get a win on the road against the Oklahoma City...I mean Seattle Supersonics.