Derrick Favors on his Spurs interview

by

Derrick Favors does not speak Russian, but he’s willing to learn.

Yesterday Steve Kyler reported that the Spurs had interviewed Derrick Favors during this year’s draft combine. The situation is strange so far as the Spurs draft at 20 and Favors is currently the consensus No. 3 pick.

The Favors interview is reminiscent of another unlikely player interview: last year the Spurs interviewed DeJuan Blair as part of the Draft Combine process.

If that doesn’t make sense, then note this. Teams are  limited to 8 player interviews per day, and it’s uncommon for teams to interview more than, say, 15 players over the course of the combine. The idea is to spend a significant amount of time with a handful of players. The Spurs must be selective. They interview those players for whom they have a serious interest.

The Spurs selected at 37 last year, and Blair was a consensus lottery pick. It’s still uncertain whether the Spurs were interested in moving up for Blair or if they just suspected he might slide into the second round. But the time they spent with Blair was, perhaps, the most valuable moment of their 2009 Draft Combine.

What’s up with Favors? Are the Spurs trying to move up, or do they suspect Favors will slide toward the 20th overall pick? No one is sure.

And Favors isn’t offering any theories of his own.

“They were just asking about basketball, trying to get to know me better,” Favors said.

But Favors isn’t naive.

“I thought it [the Spurs’ decision to interview him] was odd at first. But as I talked to them and got to know them, I thought maybe they’re trying to get at me.”

Favors described the interview as “basketball-related,” suspecting the Spurs were simply trying to get a sense of his basketball IQ. Â He didn’t think there was anything noteworthy about the interview, except that the Spurs were drafting later than other teams seeking his time.

It would be easy to read too much into the mere fact of a player interview. Teams are here to talk, and maybe the Favors interview is just an example of the Spurs doing their due diligence. That’s likely the case. But, at a minimum, it’s something to note as we inch closer to the draft.

I was able to speak with each of the following players to confirm the Spurs had sought them out for an interview: James Anderson, Xavier Henry, Luke Babbitt, Paul George, Damion James, Stanley Robinson, Gordon Hayward and, of course, Derrick Favors. Â This is not to say the Spurs didn’t interview others, but all of those players are certain interviewees.

←  Older Comments
 →
  • bduran

    Well, I’m still not big on Paul George, too much “athletic potential” too little statistical accomplishment.

    I like Pondexter, not as much as James or Babbitt, but I wouldn’t be upset if he’s our take.

    I hadn’t looked at Sanders Jim, but after seeing your post I looked him up on Draft Express and I really like him. He has only been playing basketball four five years and he was able to produce at a high level in college. Efficient scorer, low turnovers, great rebounder and shot blocker. I’m still hoping for Splitter and so we’d need to take a 3 in the draft, but if it becomes clear he’s not coming I would be really excited if we drafted Sanders.

    In fact this reinforces my desire not to trade up for Favors. If a guy like Sanders is available at 20, I’d rather not trade all the way up to get him.

  • Jim Henderson

    bduran
    May 24th, 2010 at 6:51 pm

    Babbit’s a nice player, but he simply does not have the lateral quickness to defend the SF spot at the NBA level, nor the size at the PF spot. His tenacity and energy to crash the boards, as well as his offensive game, particularly his spot up shooting, with range, are admirable qualities, but I don’t believe that his full repertoire really fits the defensive needs that the Spurs ideally look for in their wing players. Even offensively, his lack of speed with his first step off the dribble will limit him offensively against tough NBA level SF defenders. He might be able to work himself into a nice role player, in the right situation, over the next few years, but I don’t see him as a good fit for the Spurs at this time.

    I do like James. In fact, his game is fairly similar to Pondexter. Of course, they both play SF. Let me briefly tell you why I like Pondexter just a little better. Pondexter’s “overall” SF skills are just a bit better (passing, ball-handling, creating his own shot). Granted, James does appear to have the edge in rebounding, and spot-up shooting, with range, but Pondexter is also quite competent in these areas. I personally just value more, for a SF, the skills of passing, ball-handling, and the ability to create his own shot off the dribble. In particular, however, this is what I love the most about Pondexter: in each of the past 2 years, he has improved in his production in almost every major category; PPG., FG%, 3-point %, FT%, RPG., steals, and blocks. Obviously, that tells me that he has steadily improved in all areas of his game in the past two years, but more importantly, it shows me that he takes his game seriously, and is willing to learn & be coached.

    That said, I do like James as well, and I would actually like to switch him & George in terms of my order of preference. I do agree that George is probably not as “NBA ready” as Pondexter or James, and that my interest in him is based more on potential. In the final analysis, I’m elated that this years draft is as deep as it is with quality players, pretty much all the way through the first round. In fact, I would be quite content with picking up any of the four that I listed with the 20th pick. I think all of them have a shot at being solid NBA players at some point. Who knows, one of them might become a star someday!

    “In fact this reinforces my desire not to trade up for Favors. If a guy like Sanders is available at 20, I’d rather not trade all the way up to get him.”

    For one thing, I doubt New Jersey (if available) gives him up. Second, he’s only 18, and is “hoped” to be a Chris Bosh type, eventually. Also, there’s still some risk that he’ll become what the hype suggests (<40% of top five picks in the drafts between 1997 & 2007 become all-star, or close to all-star caliber players). Plus we'd have to give up too much in terms of more "known quantities". I'd rather stick with Blair, develop him as a Boozer type PF, and focus more on drafting more of a "defender-type" big that can play center. And that's what I see as a possibility for Sanders. The guys at nbadraft.net have him listed at 6'10", 222 lbs., at age 21.

    http://www.nbadraft.net/players/larry-sanders

    Get him in the weight room over the next couple of years, get him on a special diet to EAT weight inducing foods, and get 25 pounds on him, mostly muscle. At that point I see him as a Theo Ratliff in his prime someday, hopefully within the next three years. In the mean time he could help in the rotation with some length & shot-blocking.

  • doggydogworld

    Pondexter looks a lot more like Gee than Hairston to me. It’s not at all clear to me he’d get playing time ahead of either.

    I don’t see anyone in this draft who can help the Spurs next year.

  • bduran

    Jim,

    “In the final analysis, I’m elated that this years draft is as deep as it is with quality players, pretty much all the way through the first round. In fact, I would be quite content with picking up any of the four that I listed with the 20th pick. I think all of them have a shot at being solid NBA players at some point.”

    Agreed.

    The reason I like James better than Pondexter is that I’m not sure we need much of a creator on our team at the wing. We need a guy who can defend, rebound, and score when given the opportunity and I think James fits this better. He has more than an “edge” in rebounding. He averaged 3 more in 2 fewer minutes. James was a monster on the glass. I think it’s safe to say James will never be able to create his own shot very well at the NBA level, but Pondexter is no guarantee in that department either. Ultimately, I think James fits our needs and is safer, even if Pondexter has a potentially higher ceiling.

    I agree Babbitt will never be an elite defender, but I think he can be adequate (I know, not ideal for us) and he has one of the better offensive games of any SF in the draft. Plus he’s good on the boards. Ultimately, I agree that he’s not a perfect fit for us but I’d still be happy with him.

    Like I’ve said before, drafting is such a crap shoot that I’ll feel better if we draft players with known quantities. This means production and Babbitt and James where both very good producers in college. When you start drafting on what players could turn into vs. what they are now it’s more of a gamble. The payoff could be bigger but you’re more likely to get a bust. Combine that with the fact that we could really use some help right away and I say go with the known quantities if available.

    BTW, one of the reason I think Sanders is so interesting is that he seems to fit both the known quantity and huge potential categories. The guy produced well in college and has only been playing 5 years and he made a big leap in his last year. He has a chance to be really good.

    If we can’t get Splitter for the MLE, you think there’s any chance we could work a trade involving his rights and Sanders?

  • Tyler

    Like Jim said, there is a lot of depth in this draft. Really, after the top 5, the player you can get at #6 isn’t much different than the player you can get at #26 in my mind.

    Also, there are always late 1st round picks available. Most times, they can essentially be bought with cash. So if we like a guy, and he falls into the late 1st, there’s always the opportunity to grab him.

    In regards to Pondexter and D. James, the two are really similar - size, skill set, weaknesses, etc. If it comes down to either, this is where the interviews can make or break it. If you feel one is a harder worker, then you’d go with him over the other. Really all about feel at that point on the part of the FO. Having said that, after watching both players over the last 4 years and looking at their stats over their college careers, both look like hard workers; guys who are willing to work to get better. I’d be happy with either.

    Also, in regards to the draft, I really think you need to simply take the best player at #20, regardless of position. Say we sign Splitter, yet we like Sanders the best, I would still draft Sanders. If you think he’s the best player at that point, take him and sort the rest out later. The last thing you want to do is reach for a guy because he fills a need, then realize he’s not good enough. You’ve then wasted a draft pick, yet still have an area of need. So, regardless of what happens with Splitter (or anyone else), I would be in favor of taking the best available player.

    There’s an interesting 3 part blog post on the type of player you can expect to get with a draft pick at Eight Points, Nine Seconds - What does a draft pick get you? It might shed some light on what we can reasonably expect from the #20 pick if we choose to keep it….

  • Jim Henderson

    bduran
    May 25th, 2010 at 5:52 am

    “Like I’ve said before, drafting is such a crap shoot that I’ll feel better if we draft players with known quantities. This means production and Babbitt and James where both very good producers in college. When you start drafting on what players could turn into vs. what they are now it’s more of a gamble.”

    Agreed, but you do have to look at how a player’s athletic attributes will translate to the NBA level. Personally, I would almost always draft players that have the physical ability & attitude to play really solid defense at the NBA level, because the phrase “defense wins championships” is more that just a cliche, it’s a fact backed up by history. And the fact is, the Spurs need to upgrade their defense by any means, including through the draft, to contend again.

    Tyler
    May 25th, 2010 at 9:08 am

    “Also, in regards to the draft, I really think you need to simply take the best player at #20, regardless of position. Say we sign Splitter, yet we like Sanders the best, I would still draft Sanders.”

    I agree, although I’m not a “purest” on this strategy. For example, if we were to draft a guard, that player would need to be more than a fraction “better” than a comparable player at the forward/center position, in my view. We simply have more youth/depth/talent in the back court than in the front court.

  • doggydogworld

    “the player you can get at #6 isn’t much different than the player you can get at #26…”

    Here are the last 10 years’ picks at each spot:

    #6: DerMarr Johnson, Shane Battier, Dajuan Wagner, Chris Kaman, Josh Childress, Martell Webster, Brandon Roy, Yi Jianlian, Danilo Gallinari and Johnny Flynn.

    #26: Mamadou N’Diaye, Samuel Dalembert, John Salmons, Ndudi Ebi, Kevin Martin, Jason Maxiell, Jordan Farmar, Aaron Brooks, George Hill and Taj Gibson.

    I like the sixes better, but not by as much as I expected. Interesting.

  • Tyler

    @Jim H.

    Agreed.

    Another important thing to remember is how the FO projects that player to perform within our system. For example, a player that excels in Phoenix might not enjoy the same success in the Spurs’ system.

    @doggydogworld

    I really meant that statement in terms of this year’s draft, not necessarily over the history of the draft, but it seems we arrive at similar conclusions.

  • Tom S

    As nice as it would be to get rid of Richard Jefferson, because he has that ETO (early termination option) in his contract, he can’t be traded before July 1. If not for that, it might be a little easier to package him in a draft day trade. All I know is that this off-season will be an interesting one either way it goes. I know the Spurs have something up their sleeves, and all we can do is just sit back and watch it all unfold.

  • bduran

    “but you do have to look at how a player’s athletic attributes will translate to the NBA level.”

    Hmm, maybe. According to Dr. Berri a player’s NBA success (WP48 is the measure for success I believe) is only 10% explained by his draft position (excluding the first pick where teams tend to do better). 40% of success is explained by college production (PAWS40). So it seems to me that maybe GMs focus too much on what a player can do vs what he’s already done. Now, they have a really hard job. At 40% it’s not like college production is doing a stellar job of predicting NBA success. It’s extremely hard to predict NBA success unless you’re a Lebron, Duncan etc.

    Here’s how I’m looking at the draft. We have to have some faith in our FO. So as long as they pick someone who had good college production I’m going to trust that they’ve got the other stuff figured out. Last year they drafted Blair, with a monster WS40 of 21.6 his last year in college. Highest of any player his year. The year before they took Hill with a WS40 of 12.6. This year the highest WS40 among college guards was Evan Turner’s 12.6. So I feel good about our pick this year.

  • Jim Henderson

    Buddahfan
    May 23rd, 2010 at 8:36 am

    “Pop may consider making another run, he made an offer three years ago, for Amir Johnson who is a an unrestricted free agent”

    I hope you’re right. I really like Amir Johnson.

    “Here’s how I’m looking at the draft. We have to have some faith in our FO. So as long as they pick someone who had good college production I’m going to trust that they’ve got the other stuff figured out.”

    Hey, there’s no question that college production is a very important variable. And as far as the FO, I’m sure they’ll make a good decision. That said, if any of the guys I listed, along with Babbitt, are still on the board at pick #20, I just don’t see the Spurs pulling Babbitt’s number. He just doesn’t have the defensive capabilities that we need from our wing players. But we’ll see.

  • Jim Henderson

    Tyler
    May 25th, 2010 at 1:30 pm

    “Another important thing to remember is how the FO projects that player to perform within our system.”

    That’s right. In fact Babbitt would probably be a better fit with Phoenix.

  • bduran

    “I hope you’re right. I really like Amir Johnson.”

    Me too, but i’m not sure he’s a good fit for us.

    “That said, if any of the guys I listed, along with Babbitt, are still on the board at pick #20, I just don’t see the Spurs pulling Babbitt’s number.”

    I think you’re right about fit and would be fine with this outcome except if they took Pondexter over Babbitt. He’s my last choice among the players we’ve discussed. I’d only want him if he was the only one left.

  • Jim Henderson

    bduran
    May 26th, 2010 at 5:26 am

    “Me too, but i’m not sure he’s a good fit for us.”

    Why not? He’s 6’9″, an athletic, great shot-blocker, has started to add a mid-range jumper to his game, and is still just 23 years old.

    “I think you’re right about fit and would be fine with this outcome except if they took Pondexter over Babbitt. He’s my last choice among the players we’ve discussed. I’d only want him if he was the only one left.”

    Okay, but what’s wrong with Pondexter? His only “weakness” that I can see is his long-range shooting. And even with that, you can see that his shooting mechanics, and results, are strong enough for him to improve that area of his game rather quickly. Look at what Hill did. And I think Pondexter can do the same, and the rest of his game is very strong for a pick at number 20. Regarding Babbitt: you appear to be valuing “shooting” and “rebounding” at the college level over anything else. Is that not correct?

  • bduran

    “Okay, but what’s wrong with Pondexter?”

    Below average college production. I know this doesn’t mean he can’t have a great NBA career (I think I remember Dave Berri saying both Nash and Deron Williams were below average in college), but it doesn’t help his chances.

    As for Amir Johnson, I’m only worried about him playing alongside Blair. I really like him but I don’t want to take a big who can’t play alongside Blair. According to his shot chart he only took 44 shots not at the basket, and he took 274 at the basket. Looks like his jumper is still a ways off. Still, I think he’s going to be great for someone.

  • Jim Henderson

    bduran
    May 26th, 2010 at 5:37 pm

    ““Okay, but what’s wrong with Pondexter?”

    Below average college production.”

    How do you come up with below average “college production” for Pondexter?

    Pondexter is higher than James in the following categories:

    ppg.
    FG%
    FT%
    apg.

    Pondexter:

    PER - 28.2
    Pts./Pos. - 1.24
    EFF - 21.2

    James:

    PER - 28.6
    Pts./Pos. - 1.18
    EFF - 21.7

    Those are some pretty comparable stats.

    James has more TOTAL rebounds, 10.3 to 7.4, but GREAT rebounding from a SF is not a priority. Also, Pondexter is adept at offensive rebounding. Three of his 7.4 rebounds pg. are offensive. For James, 3.1 out of his 10.3 rebounds pg. are offensive.

    James excels in WS40; 15.6 to 12.3 for Pondexter (I know you love this stat, but again, I think you’re giving too much weight to it). Babbitt has a 12.6 WS40, slightly better, but a lower PER than Pondexter. Points per 40 minutes: Pondexter 23.9, James 23.8, Babbitt 23.6. James ranks 2nd on the Draft Express rankings for all seniors; Pondexter is ranked third (Stanley Robinson is 1st). On the top 100 prospects list, James is ranked 16, Pondexter 26, and Babbitt 39.

    From the Draft Express write-up on Pondexter:

    “Despite operating out of an area of the floor that doesn’t lend itself to high scoring efficiency, Pondexter is posting a very high 63% TS% this season, evidence of his wise shot selection (Babbitt is at 62%, and James at 58%). Pondexter is also turning the ball over on just 12% of his possessions (Babbitt & James at 13%), a very low number for someone who generates so much offense through individual shot creation.”

    Pondexter is clearly an efficient scorer (particularly for a player that does not have a great three as of yet), has a good handle on the ball off the dribble, makes smart decisions with his possessions, and shows excellent instincts and court awareness.

    I just don’t see how you rank him as “below average in college production”. It’s simply not the case.

  • bduran

    Jim,

    You’re right, I read the wrong stat line for him at DE, I thought his WS40 was sub 10. Your numbers are correct. 12.6 is above average for his position.

  • SPURSGERMANY

    He has two mocks in moment
    after we showed our interests the other team picked on our spursnose.

    But i think Pop,Buford are just putting some smoke they are going after the other big guy down the draft number….

  • Pingback: 2010 NBA Mock Draft | San Antonio Spurs Select Damion James()

←  Older Comments
 →