James Harden had a nice little season but let's not get it twisted: Manu Ginobili (his most popular comp) has had at least eight better ones.
I believe Ibaka has a lot of room for improvement. He's the same age as Ibaka but history proves that big man develop more slowly than perimeter players. To wit, Ibaka has never had an opportunity to be "The Man"; meanwhile that was the entire reason Harden went to Arizona State.
It is unfortunate Ibaka has been largely reduced to a spot-up shooter on the Thunder. That said he's still turned into one of the best pick-and-pop players in the NBA (seriously, look up the numbers at Hoop Data: he ranks 7th in FG% from 16-23 feet at 46 percent and ranked 20th last season at 42 percent).
In Game 2 (I believe), one play was telling to me with regards to Ibaka's potential. The Heat blew up a Thunder pick-and-roll, and the ball was dumped off to Ibaka in the post. Late in the shot clock, isolated, Ibaka had to make something happen. He used his superior athleticism to get to the other side of the rim and convert a reverse layup. That is a play I think he can do a whole lot more of given the opportunity.
He shot over 73 percent at the rim in '10-11 and nearly 70 percent this season. A mobile big man who can finish, block shots
and make the defense pay for leaving him undefended at 18 feet? I would unquestionably give him the max over Harden.
Harden is immensely valuable offensively for his unique ability to finish (over 70 percent at the rim) and stretch the floor (58.5% eFG on 4.7 attempts per game) but he does not offer the overwhelming athleticism or high motor you want on the defensive end. He is also closer to a finished product than Ibaka. If you doubt this, again, history is on my side: perimeter players tend to peak around age 24. Another knock against Harden is that seemingly the bulk of his production comes against opponents' second units.
He is, like Ibaka, a huge beneficiary of playing off of Durant/Westbrook, but unlike Ibaka that is a much larger concern because Harden's value is coming from his offensive capabilities. How does that change when you put him in the starting lineup and send him against the LeBron James' of the world?
theboredone is right in that Harden cannot garner blow-bys. I wrote what amounted to nearly play-by-play notes of Game 1 and 2, and it was astonishing how many possessions were simply blow-bys by James, Wade, Westbrook or Durant. That is where most of the value of being an elite NBA player stems from: being able to create easy opportunities.
Again, this is where the Manu comp comes into play. That's fine; Manu
was a max player in his prime. But two key differences: one, Manu was a plus defensive player; two, Manu's mid-range game was superlative.
A point saved is as valuable as a point earned. Manu creates turnovers by forcing steals and drawing charges. Harden does not. To be fair, that does not mean that he
will not. Yet he's playing 30 to 33 minutes per game. He does not (or is not) exerting the energy when coming off the bench; how will he do this when made a feature option? This is the main reason I do not feel he is worth a max contract.
As far as Michael-Kidd Gilchrist is concerned, I cede to Hollinger (I do not and never will watch college ball):
As I noted with Leonard a year ago, wing players -- especially bigger ones -- with strong Draft Rater marks virtually never fail. Of the eight players to rate above 13 in the past decade, the worst among them was Josh Childress. Five of the players have played in an All-Star Game, and Rudy Gay may play in an All-Star Game soon. The seventh player is Leonard.
This year, we have two names to add to that list: Dion Waiters and Michael Kidd-Gilchrist. Kidd-Gilchrist is probably the safest pick on the board -- a big wing who plays defense, has strong stats and comes with no character questions. From a risk-aversion perspective alone he should be a top-five pick; I have him third on my board after Robinson.
