Well, this is a concern. With the Spurs now officially with the second pick, it seemed likely that Ace would be there for them. (Though we can’t rule out the possibility of Nico Harrison being stupid and not taking Flagg first.)
Tom Orsborn on Bluesky reports: “Ace Bailey measured 6-7 1/2 after Rutgers listed him at 6-10.”
Maybe we shouldn’t get too ahead of ourselves. It’s possible this isn’t some kind of wasting disease (what terrible timing that would be for him, by the way). It is possible Rutgers just didn’t put his real height down because sometimes people do that.
Bailey looked to be a small forward, as much as that exists nowadays, with a nice off-ball pedigree, noticeable athleticism, streaky but fun shooting, defensive upside, and size. Size is important. Size can dictate who you can match up with effectively on defense. Your height and wingspan helps you get the ball above defenders when attacking the rim. How big you are matters in a sport where everyone is really, really tall.
Suddenly, the Spurs are not adding nearly as much height next to Victor Wembanyama if the take Bailey. Suddenly the super fun lineup of De'Aaron Fox, Stephon Devin Vassell, Bailey, Wemby looks a little more flawed. Sure, Wemby’s height makes up for a lot of things, but it goes from being “sure fine good” to “kinda small” quite rapidly. A 6-foot-10 Ace Bailey fits in much better than a 6-foot-7 one.
This doesn’t necessarily mean the Spurs will pass on him. He still had a more than impressive college season — best net rating on a team with Dylan Harper, good rebounding, force as a driver when someone else is setting up the action, all that stuff was there. The bad stuff, like his decision-making, shot selection, handle, strength, and consistency (...which aren’t terrible by the way! Everyone has flaws!) can be worked on. It’s difficult to imagine a better franchise to work on these things with than the San Antonio Spurs.
“We can fix him.” That kind of thing.
Ace Bailey could be a lot less appealing to the Spurs as a 6-foot-7 wing
Numbers, man. Aren’t they fun? You can multiply them, draw them on a chalkboard, use them to lie to people … all sorts of fun things.
Unfortunately, you can’t teach height. I’ve heard that saying before. I decided to put it in an article. I hope my parents are proud of me. For this one thing in particular. I think in general I’ve done okay in their eyes. If you see them, maybe ask on my behalf. Don’t tell them I asked, but just kind of slip it into conversation. Maybe get some problem points for me to work on and a quick outline of how I can approach them going into the next fiscal quarter. Great. Excellent work everyone. Back to the grind.
You see certain numbers are meant to mean things. For example, I am 38 years old, if you can believe that. That 38, as much as I wish it were different, is largely out of my control. It’s just going to keep going up until it doesn’t. That number is more or less a fact. Just there. A fairly static symbol. Until it changes every 365 days.
366 on a leap year.
That’s kind of how height is supposed to work, too. After you’re done growing, you usually stay the same height for a long while. Once you get older, things happen, but before those things happen nothing happens. Once you reach a certain age, if you’re six-foot, you stay six foot. It can maybe go up, but going down? Pssh. Never.