2014 NBA Draft Lottery

PBT Mock Draft: With the No. 1 pick, the Cleveland Cavaliers select… Andrew Wiggins

28 Comments

It’s more fun to write about drama. It’s more fun to say, “There is no consensus No. 1 pick, this could go any direction.”

Reality is, as long has been expected, Andrew Wiggins likely goes No. 1. Most scouts grade him out as the top prospect, only Joel Embiid’s back might change that. The real fun question becomes who goes next? And through the rest of the first round?

This is the first mock of the season at PBT — our draft expert Ed Isaacson of NBADraftBlog.com and Rotoworld rightly believes you can’t really do a mock until you know the draft order. Now we do. So he has compiled a mock for Rotoworld and PBT.

The draft order will shift on team’s boards as they work guys out closer to the draft and our future mocks will reflect that. Also, per Isaacson, “Team needs were taken into account in a very broad way at this point, but these selections are based on who I believe each team will take, as of today.”

1) Cleveland – Andrew Wiggins, F, Kansas

The top prospect in this class, Wiggins has a combination of skill and athleticism which will allow him to make an immediate impact in the Cavaliers’ lineup, while still having a lot of untapped potential to make him a strong pick at number 1. The combination of Kyrie Irving and Wiggins, with a hopefully improved Dion Waiters and Anthony Bennett, could give Cleveland a dominant scoring group.

2) Milwaukee – Jabari Parker, F, Duke

Ideally, Joel Embiid will be given a clean bill of health, and I would put him in this slot. However, until that happens, Parker becomes Milwaukee’s best option at number 2. Parker will give them an instant boost in scoring, and the ability to play him inside or out should give the coaching staff plenty of lineup options.

3) Philadelphia – Joel Embiid, C, Kansas

Embiid’s health will be one of the most talked about aspects of this draft over the next month, and what teams are able to find out will help determine who is going to pick him. In this scenario, he falls to the 76ers and instantly gives the Sixers a dominant rim-protecting duo in Embiid and Nerlens Noel. It also gives them two very raw offensive players, though Embiid may be a bit further along.

source: Getty Images4) Orlando – Marcus Smart, G, Oklahoma State

The addition of Smart will not only give the Magic a much needed point guard presence (I am a non-believer in the Victor Oladipo, point guard campaign), but in combination with Oladipo, they will have a potentially very good defensive duo in the backcourt. Dante Exum may be the other option here, but I am not sold yet that he could be an NBA point guard, and taking him will likely keep the Oladipo experiment going. The Magic are much better off getting the point guard and defensive stopper in Smart.

5) Utah – Dante Exum, G, Australia

The lottery’s mystery man this year, Exum has good size and he is skilled for his age. He hasn’t really faced top-level competition and many teams will be getting a real close look at him for the first time in the coming weeks. As mentioned above, I’m not sold on Exum as a point guard, but he could become a solid complement next to last year’s first round pick, Trey Burke, in the Jazz backcourt, with the potential for maybe some short stints running the point.

[MORE — Ed Isaacson’s top underclassman of the 2014 NBA Draft]

6) Boston – Noah Vonleh, F, Indiana

Personally, I have Julius Randle rated higher than Vonleh, but with Jared Sullinger already in the fold and coming off a good season, the longer Vonleh would make more sense with this pick and he could play alongside Sullinger. Also, Vonleh’s ability to shoot from the perimeter would allow Sullinger to operate around the basket, where he is most comfortable.

7) Los Angeles Lakers – Julius Randle, F, Kentucky

The Lakers are looking at a complete rebuild during Kobe Bryant’s final years with the team, and while a higher pick could have secured their future a bit more, Randle has the ability to make an immediate impact next season. Randle is a strong post player who is very agile for his size, and he can be a terror on both the offensive and defensive boards. He won’t provide a very good defensive presence yet, but he will be a double-double threat from the get-go and a nice piece to start the Lakers’ rebuilding.

8) Sacramento – Doug McDermott, F, Creighton

This is a stretch in terms of where I have McDermott’s value, but Sacramento would be an ideal spot for him to bring his scoring strengths. He can provide a much needed consistent perimeter shooter, which would open up space for the ever-improving DeMarcus Cousins to operate in. Concerns about McDermott’s defensive ability have been blown out of proportion and he understands the game well enough to cover up his deficient areas.

9) Charlotte – Jusuf Nurkic, C, Bosnia

Big-bodied with still-developing skills, Nurkic could be the Hornets’ big man of the future. I wouldn’t expect him to come over right away, but with Al Jefferson’s contract up in a couple of years and Bismack Biyombo a continued disappointment, it may be tough for the Hornets to pass up on this opportunity that could pay off down the road.

10) Philadelphia – Nik Stauskas, G, Michigan

Having taken Joel Embiid at number 3, the 76ers can use the 10th pick to shore up the backcourt alongside Michael Carter-Williams. Stauskas will give the Sixers an immediate deep threat, while also giving them another playmaker in the backcourt.

source: Getty Images11) Denver – Rodney Hood, G/F, Duke

The Nuggets have some crowding at the shooting guard position, but Hood has the ability to slide over to the other wing and give them another long-range threat. He has great size and is very good running the floor, giving Ty Lawson another target in the open floor.

12) Orlando – Dario Saric, F, Croatia

The Magic shored up their backcourt with Marcus Smart at number 4, and they can look to add another strong offensive weapon in the highly-skilled Saric. While it isn’t known yet whether Saric will come to the NBA right away, he could be a very good addition to the Magic’s core group of young players in the near future.

13) Minnesota – Aaron Gordon, F, Arizona

Kevin Love is certain to find his way out of Minnesota at some point in the next year, and while Gordon isn’t really a replacement; he will provide an extremely athletic forward who can run the floor and rebound, as well as guard multiple positions. He still has a lot of work to do on the offensive end, but he will certainly bring a little excitement to the Timberwolves.

14) Phoenix – James Young, G, Kentucky

This season’s surprise NBA team, the Suns were supposed to be in rebuilding mode, and fell just shy of the playoffs. They may not be able to keep rising star Eric Bledsoe, who may command too much money, but Young will give a different type of presence to the backcourt. He has good size and should be a good shooter, though he needs to become much more consistent. He runs the floor well and should provide a nice complement to Goran Dragic in the Suns’ backcourt.

15) Atlanta – Gary Harris, G, Michigan State

I consider Harris to be the best shooting guard prospect in this class, but I can see teams looking at other options ahead of him, so he falls here to Atlanta. Harris will be able to provide some scoring and defense right away for the Hawks, but the real payoff could come long-term as he continues to hone his skills. Tremendous value if they can get him at number 15.

[MORE — Ed Isaacson’s Top 10 seniors in the 2014 NBA Draft]

16) Chicago – Tyler Ennis, G, Syracuse

Ennis will help provide stability at the point guard position for the Bulls as Derrick Rose comes back from another knee injury. This to me is the Bulls playing it safe, though I rate Elfrid Payton ahead of him as a point guard prospect. Coach Tom Thibodeau should be able to help Ennis build his defensive ability, and his ability to protect the ball will work well in their offense.

source: Getty Images17) Boston – Elfrid Payton, G, Lousiana-Lafayette

Rajon Rondo’s career with the Celtics will end sooner rather than later, and Phil Pressey certainly isn’t the answer as his replacement. Payton will remind many of a young Rondo with his ability to rebound well for his size and a strong ability to get into the lane and create. He needs to work on becoming a more consistent shooter, but he will improve. Payton will also provide a strong defensive presence on the perimeter, which will make him very popular with coach Brad Stevens.

18) Phoenix – T.J. Warren, F, North Carolina State

With their second of three first-round picks, the Suns can elect to add another offensive weapon in Warren, one of the NCAA’s top scorers this past season. Warren loves to find holes in the defense to get his shot and he will find plenty of them with Dragic at the point. He is also able to seek out mismatches when he is a smaller defender on him, setting up in the low or mid-post area for a quick shot.

19) Chicago – Adreian Payne, F, Michigan State

Payne will give Chicago a strong inside-outside scoring presence with very good size and the underrated athletic ability. Payne showed steady improvement throughout his college career and while his ceiling may not be much higher, he is ready to contribute from Day One for a Bulls team that needs scoring.

20) Toronto – K.J. McDaniels, F, Clemson

McDaniels is one of the more underrated players in this draft class, and he could end up being a steal for the Raptors here. He will provide a tremendous defensive presence on the wing for a team that really needs it. McDaniels is also a strong slasher and rebounder, as well as an improving shooter. I have him slotted here now, but by the draft, he could be bordering on being a lottery pick.

source: Getty Images21) Oklahoma City – Kyle Anderson, F, UCLA

Anderson is the toughest player to project in this class with his unique skill set. He has high level vision and passing skills to go along with an improving jumper, but at 6’9, he will be playing at the forward position. What he does provide coaches with is the ability to mix and match lineups and to find him spots on the floor where he can be most effective. I ‘m not sure anyone knows who he will defend in the NBA, but his skills are tough to pass up at number 21.

22) Memphis – Clint Capela, F, Switzerland

The Grizzlies may have just a year or two left with the current core, but there aren’t likely to be any college players who bowl them over in this spot, so Capela could be a good future piece when the team looks to replace player in a year or two. He has very good size and athletic ability, though he needs time to continue to develop his skills and toughness.

23) Utah – Glenn Robinson III, F, Michigan

The Jazz added some talent to their backcourt at #5 with Dante Exum, and now they can add some potential scoring and athleticism at the wing with Robinson. While he didn’t take the step forward that many expected last season, Robinson is still developing as a player and worth a shot at number 23. Also, Robinson should have an added comfort level being reunited with his old Michigan teammate, Trey Burke.

24) Charlotte – Jerami Grant, F, Syracuse

Taking Nurkic at number 9 was a step towards securing Charlotte’s future in the frontcourt, but adding Grant should pay off some quicker dividends. Grant’s skills may still be developing, but he is a high-level athlete who should help on defense and on the boards fairly quickly. If he can develop his offensive skills well, he will be a nightmare match-up for many defenders.

25) Houston – P.J. Hairston, G, Texas Legends

He may not have played for the Rockets’ D-League team last season, but the team does know the value of players developing there, and with Hairston they get a player who is already adjusted to spending time in the D-League, but he also has some very good long-term potential. The Rockets’ offense can never have enough shooters and Hairston is a very good one. He could be make an impact by the end of year one if given a chance.

26) Miami – Zach LaVine, G, UCLA

LaVine may be one of the most polarizing picks in this year’s draft. Some see his elite athleticism and see a huge future. Others, like me, see an AAU player who happens to be out of high school now. There’s no doubting that there is potential in LaVine, it’s just very far off. Miami would be a nice place for him to develop long-term, and there’s no real risk taking him at this point of the 1st round.

27) Phoenix – Kriztaps Porzingis, PF/C, Latvia

This is the Suns’ third first-round pick and a great place for them to take a chance on a draft-and-stash candidate with big potential. Long and athletic, Porzingis’ skill is developing rapidly and he can be ready in two years to come over and give the Suns some added depth to their frontcourt.

28) Los Angeles Clippers – Jordan Adams, G, UCLA

The third player from UCLA taken in this first round, Adams is the best scorer in the group with the type of game that will allow him to get plenty of points at the NBA level. He loves to operate in the mid-range area, but he has the skill to post up smaller guards and get easy buckets. He’s improving as a long-range shooter and the Clippers don’t need to rush his development.

29) Oklahoma City – Shabazz Napier, G, Connecticut

Russell Westbrook isn’t going anywhere, but the Thunder may not be able to hold on to Reggie Jackson long-term, so they can get a solid back-up in Napier who will be able to step in and take the role on quickly, if necessary. Napier is a winner and should fit easily in with the Thunder’s culture.

30) San Antonio – Spencer Dinwiddie, G, Colorado

The Spurs can really go in many directions here, but the first idea that popped into my head was taking a chance on the injured Dinwiddie. He should be recovered from his knee injury by the start of next season, but the Spurs won’t need to rush him into action. He can give them a big guard with some point guard abilities who can get to the basket easily against smaller defenders.

Report: Steven Adams suffered testicular contusion

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK - MAY 22:  Draymond Green #23 of the Golden State Warriors drives against Steven Adams #12 of the Oklahoma City Thunder in the second quarter in game three of the Western Conference Finals during the 2016 NBA Playoffs at Chesapeake Energy Arena on May 22, 2016 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. NOTE TO USER: User expressly acknowledges and agrees that, by downloading and or using this photograph, User is consenting to the terms and conditions of the Getty Images License Agreement.  (Photo by Ronald Martinez/Getty Images)
Ronald Martinez/Getty Images
Leave a comment

When Draymond Green kicked Steven Adams in the groin, it did more than create mass debate about the appropriate punishment.

Green hurt Adams badly, it sounds like.

John E. Hoover of The Franchise Tulsa:

Once you finish wincing, take a moment to appreciate how tough Adams is. He kept playing in the game and then came out in Game 4 throwing bullet passes.

Thunder on verge of completing hardest-ever run to Finals

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK - MAY 24:  Russell Westbrook #0 of the Oklahoma City Thunder drives against Stephen Curry #30 of the Golden State Warriors in the third quarter in game four of the Western Conference Finals during the 2016 NBA Playoffs at Chesapeake Energy Arena on May 24, 2016 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. NOTE TO USER: User expressly acknowledges and agrees that, by downloading and or using this photograph, User is consenting to the terms and conditions of the Getty Images License Agreement.  (Photo by Ronald Martinez/Getty Images)
Ronald Martinez/Getty Images
Leave a comment

Ten teams in NBA history outscored opponents by at least 10 points per game in the regular season.

Seven won the championship.

One was eliminated by another (Bucks by Lakers in 1972).

And the Thunder are one win from knocking out their second of the 2016 playoffs.

After beating the Spurs (+10.6) in the second round, Oklahoma City has built a 3-1 led on the Warriors (+10.8) in the Western Conference finals. If the Thunder advance, they will have faced the toughest competition en route to the Finals since the NBA adopted a 16-team playoff in 1984.

Oklahoma City’s three opponents – Mavericks (42-40), Spurs (67-15) and Warriors (73-9) – collectively won 74.0% of their games. That’d top the 1995 Rockets, who beat the 60-22 Jazz, 59-23 Suns and 62-20 Spurs – a group that went a combined 73.6%.

Houston faced such tough competition, in part, because it entered the playoffs as a No. 6 seed. The third-seeded Thunder are just excelling at the right time in a year that featured two all-time great teams in Golden State and San Antonio.

No other finalist comes within five percentage points of Oklahoma City. The 2009 Magic currently rank second at 68.7%.

Here’s every finalist since 1984 – plus the 2016 Thunder – sorted by the combined winning percentage of their playoff opponents:

Sheet 2

Finalist First round Second round Conference finals Opponents’ combined win percentage
2016 OKC DAL 42-40 SAS 67-15 GSW 73-9 74.0%
1995 HOU UTA 60-22 PHO 59-23 SAS 62-20 73.6%
2009 ORL PHI 41-41 BOS 62-20 CLE 66-16 68.7%
2002 LAL POR 49-33 SAS 58-24 SAC 61-21 68.3%
2010 BOS MIA 47-35 CLE 61-21 ORL 59-23 67.9%
2006 DAL MEM 49-33 SAS 63-19 PHO 54-28 67.5%
2005 SAS DEN 49-33 SEA 52-30 PHO 62-20 66.3%
2001 LAL POR 50-32 SAC 55-27 SAS 58-24 66.3%
2014 SAS DAL 49-33 POR 54-28 OKC 59-23 65.9%
1997 CHI WSB 44-38 ATL 56-26 MIA 61-21 65.4%
2011 DAL POR 48-34 LAL 57-25 OKC 55-27 65.0%
2008 LAL DEN 50-32 UTA 54-28 SAS 56-26 65.0%
2004 LAL HOU 45-37 SAS 57-25 MIN 58-24 65.0%
1999 NYK MIA 33-17 ATL 31-19 IND 33-17 64.7%
2011 MIA PHI 41-41 BOS 56-26 CHI 62-20 64.6%
1991 LAL HOU 52-30 GSW 44-38 POR 63-19 64.6%
1998 UTA HOU 41-41 SAS 56-26 LAL 61-21 64.2%
2012 OKC DAL 36-30 LAL 41-25 SAS 50-16 64.1%
2010 LAL OKC 50-32 UTA 53-29 PHO 54-28 63.8%
2007 SAS DEN 45-37 PHO 61-21 UTA 51-31 63.8%
1993 CHI ATL 43-39 CLE 54-28 NYK 60-22 63.8%
1990 POR DAL 47-35 SAS 56-26 PHO 54-28 63.8%
2015 GSW NOP 45-37 MEM 55-27 HOU 56-26 63.4%
2000 LAL SAC 44-38 PHO 53-29 POR 59-23 63.4%
1994 HOU POR 47-35 PHO 56-26 UTA 53-29 63.4%
2009 LAL UTA 48-34 HOU 53-29 DEN 54-28 63.0%
2006 MIA CHI 41-41 NJN 49-33 DET 64-18 62.6%
2003 SAS PHO 44-38 LAL 50-32 DAL 60-22 62.6%
1998 CHI NJN 43-39 CHA 51-31 IND 58-24 61.8%
1992 POR LAL 43-39 PHO 53-29 UTA 55-27 61.4%
2015 CLE BOS 40-42 CHI 50-32 ATL 60-22 61.0%
1999 SAS MIN 25-25 LAL 31-19 POR 35-15 60.7%
2004 DET MIL 41-41 NJN 47-35 IND 61-21 60.6%
1997 UTA LAC 36-46 LAL 56-26 HOU 57-25 60.6%
1996 CHI MIA 42-40 NYK 47-35 ORL 60-22 60.6%
2013 SAS LAL 45-37 GSW 47-35 MEM 56-26 60.2%
1994 NYK NJN 45-37 CHI 55-27 IND 47-35 59.8%
2005 DET PHI 43-39 IND 44-38 MIA 59-23 59.3%
1992 CHI MIA 38-44 NYK 51-31 CLE 57-25 59.3%
1986 HOU SAC 37-45 DEN 47-35 LAL 62-20 59.3%
2012 MIA NYK 36-30 IND 42-24 BOS 39-27 59.1%
1988 DET WSB 38-44 CHI 50-32 BOS 57-25 58.9%
2014 MIA CHA 43-39 BRK 44-38 IND 56-26 58.1%
1993 PHO LAL 39-43 SAS 49-33 SEA 55-27 58.1%
1996 SEA SAC 39-43 HOU 48-34 UTA 55-27 57.7%
1990 DET IND 42-40 NYK 45-37 CHI 55-27 57.7%
1987 BOS CHI 40-42 MIL 50-32 DET 52-30 57.7%
2008 BOS ATL 37-45 CLE 45-37 DET 59-23 57.3%
2000 IND MIL 42-40 PHI 49-33 NYK 50-32 57.3%
1989 LAL POR 39-43 SEA 47-35 PHO 55-27 57.3%
2001 PHI IND 41-41 TOR 47-35 MIL 52-30 56.9%
1985 BOS CLE 36-46 DET 46-36 PHI 58-24 56.9%
1989 DET BOS 42-40 MIL 49-33 CHI 47-35 56.1%
1986 BOS CHI 30-52 ATL 50-32 MIL 57-25 55.7%
2003 NJN MIL 42-40 BOS 44-38 DET 50-32 55.3%
2007 CLE WAS 41-41 NJN 41-41 DET 53-29 54.9%
2002 NJN IND 42-40 CHA 44-38 BOS 49-33 54.9%
1995 ORL BOS 35-47 CHI 47-35 IND 52-30 54.5%
1991 CHI NYK 39-43 PHI 44-38 DET 50-32 54.1%
2013 MIA MIL 38-44 CHI 45-37 IND 49-32 53.9%
1984 BOS WSB 35-47 NYK 47-35 MIL 50-32 53.7%
1988 LAL SAS 31-51 UTA 47-35 DAL 53-29 53.3%
1985 LAL PHO 36-46 POR 42-40 DEN 52-30 52.8%
1984 LAL KCK 38-44 DAL 43-39 PHO 41-41 49.6%
1987 LAL DEN 37-45 GSW 42-40 SEA 39-43 48.0%

For a historically good team, Warriors are losing historically badly

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK - MAY 24:  Head coach Steve Kerr of the Golden State Warriors speaks to the media after their 94 to 188 loss to the Oklahoma City Thunder in game four of the Western Conference Finals during the 2016 NBA Playoffs at Chesapeake Energy Arena on May 24, 2016 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. NOTE TO USER: User expressly acknowledges and agrees that, by downloading and or using this photograph, User is consenting to the terms and conditions of the Getty Images License Agreement.  (Photo by J Pat Carter/Getty Images)
J Pat Carter/Getty Images
1 Comment

When the 62-win Jazz followed a Game 2 loss with a 96-54 setback to the Bulls in the 1998 NBA Finals, Utah coach Jerry Sloan offered a blunt assessment:

They ate us alive.”

If that was the case, what should we say about these Warriors?

We’ve never seen anything like Golden State, which won a record 73 games. So, obviously, we’ve never seen a  team so good lose so badly in the playoffs – by a combined 52 points in its last two games.

We’ve also never seen a 67-win team stumble so badly in consecutive postseason games. Or a 65-win team. Or even a 60-win team.

In NBA history, 85 teams have won 60 games in a season or the equivalent with a shorter schedule. None had lost consecutive playoff games by a combined 50 points until the best of the bunch – the 73-9 Warriors – did it Games 3 and 4 of the 2016 Western Conference finals.

Golden State’s 133-105 and 118-94 losses to the Thunder undercut the 1998 Jazz, who lost by a combined 47 in their two games against Chicago.

The next-best team to lose consecutive playoff games by 52 was the 2014 Thunder, who went 59-23 and dropped 122-105 and112-77 contests to the Spurs.

Here’s every team that won at least 60 games or the equivalent with a shorter schedule, sorted by record, with the point margin of its worst two-game stretch in the playoffs:

image

Team Worst consecutive playoff games Net PTS
2016 GSW (73-9) OKC 133, GSW 105; OKC 118, GSW 94 -52
1996 CHI (72-10) SEA 107, CHI 86; SEA 89, CHI 78 -32
1997 CHI (69-13) UTA 104, CHI 93; UTA 78, CHI 73 -16
1972 LAL (69-13) LAL 108, MIL 105; MIL 114, LAL 88 -23
1967 PHI (68-13) SFW 117, PHI 109; PHI 125, SFW 122 -5
1973 BOS (68-14) NYK 129, BOS 96; NYK 98, BOS 91 -40
2016 SAS (67-15) OKC 111, SAS 97; OKC 95, SAS 911 -18
2015 GSW (67-15) MEM 97, GSW 90; MEM 99, GSW 89 -17
2007 DAL (67-15) GSW 109, DAL 91; GSW 103, DAL 99 -22
2000 LAL (67-15) LAL 120, IND 118; IND 120, LAL 87 -31
1992 CHI (67-15) CLE 107, CHI 81; CHI 105, CLE 96 -17
1986 BOS (67-15) BOS 106, HOU 103; HOU 111, BOS 96 -12
1947 WSC (49-11) CHS 81, WSC 65; CHS 69, WSC 53 -32
2013 MIA (66-16) SAS 113, MIA 77; MIA 109, SAS 93 -20
2009 CLE (66-16) ORL 99, CLE 89; ORL 116, CLE 114 -12
2008 BOS (66-16) CLE 108, BOS 84; CLE 88, BOS 77 -35
1971 MIL (66-16) MIL 91, LAL 73; LAL 118, MIL 107 7
1950 SYR (51-13) MNL 91, SYR 77; MNL 77, SYR 69 -22
2009 LAL (65-17) LAL 103, DEN 97; DEN 120, LAL 101 -13
1987 LAL (65-17) LAL 107, BOS 106; BOS 123, LAL 108 -14
1983 PHI (65-17) PHI 104, MIL 96; MIL 100, PHI 94 2
1960 BOS (59-16) PHW 128, BOS 107; BOS 119, PHW 117 -19
2006 DET (64-18) MIA 98, DET 83; MIA 89, DET 78 -26
1997 UTA (64-18) HOU 118, UTA 100; HOU 95, UTA 92 -21
1996 SEA (64-18) UTA 98, SEA 95; UTA 98, SEA 95 -6
1965 BOS (62-18) BOS 129, LAL 123; LAL 126, BOS 105 -15
2006 SAS (63-19) DAL 113, SAS 91; DAL 104, SAS 103 -23
1994 SEA (63-19) DEN 110, SEA 93; DEN 94, SEA 85 -26
1991 POR (63-19) LAL 106, POR 92; LAL 116, POR 95 -35
1990 LAL (63-19) PHO 117, LAL 103; PHO 114, LAL 101 -27
1989 DET (63-19) DET 96, MIL 94; MIL 94, DET 88 -4
1985 BOS (63-19) LAL 109, BOS 102; LAL 136, BOS 111 -32
1982 BOS (63-19) PHI 99, BOS 97; PHI 119, BOS 94 -27
1972 MIL (63-19) LAL 115, MIL 90; LAL 104, MIL 100 -29
2012 SAS (50-16) OKC 102, SAS 82; OKC 109, SAS 103 -26
2012 CHI (50-16) PHI 109, CHI 92; PHI 79, CHI 74 -22
2014 SAS (62-20) OKC 106, SAS 97; OKC 105, SAS 92 -22
2011 CHI (62-20) MIA 85, CHI 75; MIA 96, CHI 85 -21
2009 BOS (62-20) ORL 83, BOS 75; ORL 101, BOS 82 -27
2005 PHO (62-20) SAS 111, PHO 108; SAS 102, PHO 92 -13
1998 UTA (62-20) CHI 93, UTA 88; CHI 96, UTA 54 -47
1998 CHI (62-20) IND 107, CHI 105; IND 96, CHI 94 -4
1995 SAS (62-20) HOU 111, SAS 90; HOU 100, SAS 95 -26
1993 PHO (62-20) SAS 111, PHO 96; SAS 117, PHO 103 -29
1988 LAL (62-20) DET 111, LAL 86; DET 104, LAL 94 -35
1986 LAL (62-20) HOU 112, LAL 102; HOU 117, LAL 1092 -18
1985 LAL (62-20) BOS 148, LAL 114; LAL 109, BOS 102 -27
1984 BOS (62-20) BOS 124, LAL 121; LAL 137, BOS 104 -30
1981 BOS (62-20) PHI 110, BOS 100; PHI 107, BOS 105 -12
1981 PHI (62-20) BOS 109, PHI 86; PHI 99, BOS 98 -22
1968 PHI (62-20) BOS 122, PHI 104; BOS 114, PHI 106 -26
1962 BOS (60-20) LAL 129, BOS 122; LAL 117, BOS 115 -9
1950 ROC (51-17) MNL 78, ROC 76; MNL 90, ROC 84 -8
1950 MNL (51-17) MNL 68, SYR 66; SYR 91, MNL 85 -4
1949 ROC (45-15) MNL 80, ROC 79; MNL 67, ROC 55 -13
2011 SAS (61-21) MEM 91, SAS 88; MEM 104, SAS 86 -21
2010 CLE (61-21) BOS 97, CLE 87; BOS 120, CLE 88 -42
2007 PHO (61-21) SAS 88, PHO 85; SAS 114, PHO 106 -11
2004 IND (61-21) DET 83, IND 65; DET 69, IND 65 -22
2002 SAC (61-21) LAL 106, SAC 102; LAL 112, SAC 106 -10
1998 SEA (61-21) LAL 92, SEA 68; LAL 119, SEA 103 -40
1998 LAL (61-21) UTA 112, LAL 77; UTA 99, LAL 95 -39
1997 MIA (61-21) CHI 75, MIA 68; CHI 98, MIA 74 -31
1991 CHI (61-21) CHI 112, PHI 100; PHI 99, CHI 97 10
1980 BOS (61-21) PHI 102, BOS 90; PHI 105, BOS 94 -23
1967 BOS (60-21) BOS 121, PHI 117; PHI 140, BOS 116 -20
1999 UTA (37-13) POR 97, UTA 87; POR 81, UTA 75 -16
1999 SAS (37-13) NYK 89, SAS 81; SAS 96, NYK 89 -1
1964 BOS (59-21) SFW 115, BOS 91; BOS 98, SFW 95 -21
1949 MNL (44-16) WSC 83, MNL 71; WSC 74, MNL 65 -21
2015 ATL (60-22) CLE 114, ATL 111; CLE 118, ATL 88 -33
2013 OKC (60-22) MEM 99, OKC 93; MEM 87, OKC 813 -12
2006 DAL (60-22) MIA 98, DAL 96; MIA 98, DAL 74 -26
2003 DAL (60-22) POR 103, DAL 99; POR 125, DAL 103 -26
2003 SAS (60-22) LAL 110, SAS 95; LAL 99, SAS 95 -19
1996 ORL (60-22) CHI 121, ORL 83; CHI 93, ORL 88 -43
1995 UTA (60-22) HOU 123, UTA 106; HOU 95, UTA 91 -21
1993 NYK (60-22) CHI 103, NYK 83; CHI 105, NYK 95 -30
1981 MIL (60-22) MIL 109, PHI 98; PHI 116, MIL 99 -6
1980 LAL (60-22) LAL 108, PHO 105; PHO 127, LAL 101 -23
1975 BOS (60-22) WSB 100, BOS 95; WSB 117, BOS 92 -30
1975 WSB (60-22) GSW 92, WSB 91; GSW 109, WSB 1014 -9
1973 MIL (60-22) GSW 100, MIL 97; GSW 100, MIL 86 -17
1973 LAL (60-22) CHI 96, LAL 86; CHI 98, LAL 945 -14
1970 NYK (60-22) BAL 127, NYK 113; BAL 102, NYK 92 -24

1. Lost next game, 113-99

2. Lost next game, 103-98

3. Lost the next game, 103-97.

4. Lost the next game, 96-95

5. Also lost to the Knicks, 103-98 and 102-93

Report: Seton Hall guard Isaiah Whitehead to stay in NBA draft

NEW YORK, NY - MARCH 12:  Isaiah Whitehead #15 of the Seton Hall Pirates reacts against the Villanova Wildcats during the Big East Basketball Tournament Championship at Madison Square Garden on March 12, 2016 in New York City. Seton Hall Pirates defeated Villanova Wildcats 69-67.  (Photo by Mike Stobe/Getty Images)
Mike Stobe/Getty Images
Leave a comment

Update 2: Nevermind the nevermind. Adrian Wojnarowski of Yahoo Sports:

 

Update: Nevermind. Zagoria:

 

Isaiah Whitehead entered the 2016 NBA draft without an agent.

But it doesn’t appear he’ll return to Seton Hall.

Adam Zagoria of SNY.tv:

Isaiah Whitehead will announce his future plans on Thursday, with sources telling SNY.tv he will remain in the NBA Draft.

Whitehead looks like a second-round pick, though more likely to go undrafted than climb into the first round. However, this draft is particularly wide open. It takes just one team to like a player.

A 6-foot-5, 21-year-old score-first guard, Whitehead too often guns himself out of efficiency. He uses his strength and first step well to create separation for his pull-up jumper and has quality range on it. But, despite occasional impressive-looking finishes at the rim, his overall conversion rate in the paint is horrific. He’s not impressive enough outside to offset that.

His size would be a plus at point guard, but he lacks the distributing skills to play that position in the NBA any time soon. I don’t see what separates him as a shooting guard.