Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: John Hollinger Big Man Draft Rater

  1. #1
    Member Whtwudusay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    McDonough, GA
    Age
    36
    Posts
    109

    Default John Hollinger Big Man Draft Rater

    Didn't see this posted yet and thought some might find it interesting.

    He isn't high on Randolph - at all. He also doesn't sound too sold on Koufos or Jordan. I left the final chart off of the copied text because it was difficult to read. It's there in the link.

    Anyhow - it's just more information for everyone to chew on.

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft...t&lid=tab1pos1

    Draft Rater: Which big men will become the best pros?

    By John Hollinger
    ESPN Insider

    The Finals just ended, so I guess the draft must be tomorrow.
    OK, not quite, but it's just around the corner. And so it's time to bust out the calculator for the new and improved version of my Draft Rater.

    Some of you might have read my draft preview a year ago, in which I took a look at players' college stats and projected what their pro performance might be.

    That model worked reasonably well, which is to say that it appeared to be an improvement on the actual picks that were made in the draft. On the other hand, it still spat out several Picks That Will Get You Fired (Paul Davis, anyone?), and it seemed to have a particular problem with frontcourt players.

    That's partly because of a weakness in the data: In the five-year sample I was using, nearly all the stud big men sidestepped college and went straight to the pros. Nonetheless, it gnawed at me, because it seemed like something more systematic could work better than the ad hoc formula I arrived at a year ago.

    Indeed, I've found something does work better. This year I changed approaches and used regression analysis to project a Year-3 player efficiency rating (PER) for every player.

    Year 3 is significant because it is decision time for most players -- by then a team needs to either give a player an extension, pick up his fourth-year option, or cut him loose.

    Doing it this way has several advantages, the biggest being that it makes year-to-year comparisons really easy -- we can see with one glance, for instance, that the 2004 draft was an incredibly bad one for college bigs. A projected PER is also a much more useful piece of info than the raw number my system churned out last time. Finally, using regression analysis means improving the method in future years is as simple as pushing a button once we have a new year's worth of data in the system.

    A few technical notes before we get started. To combat against fluke years (up or down), I smoothed out sharp PER increases or decreases between Years 2 and 4 -- in other words, if his PERs between Years 2 and 4 were something like 18, 14, 19, I didn't use 14 for his Year 3 PER -- I smoothed out the three years and gave him a 17.

    The formula considers 16 variables: height, age, schedule strength, team strength, and the usual individual stats (assist ratio, turnover ratio, usage rate, pure point rating, defensive rebound rate, FTA/FGA, 3A/FGA, PER, blocks per minute, steals per minute, field-goal percentage and 3-point percentage). Note that two variables -- offensive rebound rate and free-throw percentage -- didn't make the cut as they were found to be almost completely irrelevant in determining pro success for big men.

    Also, testing showed that looking at multiple seasons improved accuracy quite a bit. As a result, all of a player's seasons count on his record.

    OK, now on to the good stuff. On Friday we're going to look at the big men: power forwards and centers. On Monday, we'll break down the perimeter guys. It's important to note that I use a separate regression for each, as some variables that turned out to be very important for perimeter players didn't matter so much for bigs, and vice versa.

    Our data goes back to 2002, with the caveat that the 2002 guys have only one year of data, and so the projections for that year are less reliable. As you'll see, most of the players that my old system liked (or hated) my new one does as well, but at the margins, there's a significant improvement in reliability. And as you'll see in a minute, there is a massive correlation between a player's projected PER and where he's eventually drafted.

    Top 10 rated big men from 2002 to 2007
    Player Projected Yr. 3 PER Draft Year
    Drew Gooden 18.17 2002*
    Carlos Boozer 17.91 2002*
    Kevin Durant 17.47 2007
    Michael Sweetney 17.04 2003
    Marvin Williams 16.79 2005
    Greg Oden 16.74 2007
    Joakim Noah 16.70 2007
    Sean May 16.27 2005
    Tyrus Thomas 16.21 2006
    Brandan Wright 16.11 2007
    * based on one year of data
    As I mentioned above, the regression produces a projected Year 3 PER for each player in the draft. To get an idea of what that number means, consider the results from past seasons:

    Eleven bigs from 2002 to 2007 have had a Year 3 projection of 16.0 or greater (see chart). Of these, 10 were lottery picks, and the 11th was Carlos Boozer, who, obviously, should have been a lottery pick. (Two of the players rated above 16.0 -- Kevin Durant and Marvin Williams -- could just as easily be considered perimeter players. Based on their size, college position and possible future pro position, I put them with the bigs.)

    It's also worth noting that three of the top 10 ratings came from one-and-done guys in the 2007 draft, making clear how the ranks of college bigs suffered from 2002 to 2006 because of players like Dwight Howard and Amare Stoudemire jumping straight to the pros from high school.

    Twelve of the 14 bigs with a rating between 14.0 and 16.0 were first-round picks, and nine of them went in the lottery. Of the ones who didn't, one was Udonis Haslem, the highest-rated undrafted player for the past six years and one who clearly should have been selected. The other is Nick Fazekas, who played well in limited minutes last season, but can't exactly be called a success story yet.

    This range is also where we get the only two Picks That Will Get You Fired that my system churned out: Nick Collison outrated Chris Bosh in 2004, and Shelden Williams ranked ahead of LaMarcus Aldridge in 2006. No, this system ain't perfect either ... but look back at the actual drafts that took place, and it's a big improvement.

    Below 14.0, things get dicey. Eight of the 16 players between 13.0 and 14.0 were first-round picks, with two of them (Aldridge and Chris Kaman) becoming established starters. On the other hand, several players in the 13s were mediocre to awful (Ryan Humphrey, Lawrence Roberts, Patrick O'Bryant and the aforementioned Paul Davis).

    Below 12.5, a player has virtually no chance of being a first-round pick -- only six of the 63 prospects I looked at broke through into Round 1, and only one of them had any business being selected that high. The five lowest-rated first-rounders since 2002 are Marcus Haislip (9.23) Melvin Ely (10.17), Hakim Warrick (11.84), David Harrison (12.05) and Rafael Araujo (12.12). Of those, only Warrick turned out to be a real contributor.

    Similarly, below 12.5 a player faces long odds in establishing his career regardless of where he's selected. Only Warrick, Brandon Bass, Carl Landry, Ryan Gomes, Darius Songaila, Matt Bonner and Brian Cook have become legitimate rotation players with a projected PER that low.

    If below 12.5 is dicey, below 10 is virtually impossible -- Dan Gadzuric is the only one to do anything remotely substantial with a rating that low. As you'll see in a minute, that will become important for this year's draft.

    So there's a definite hierarchy here. Above 16.0 is a definite lottery pick. Between 14.0 and 16.0 is a possible lottery pick and definite first-rounder with some star potential. Above 13 is still a potential first-rounder, but one fraught with risk. Below 12.5, we're looking at second-rounders and fringe players. Below 10, you might as well forget it.

    And here they are, the centers and power forwards in the 2008 draft:

    The Sure Thing
    Michael Beasley, Kansas State, 19.31
    Beasley's rating is the highest of any player going back to 2002, and it's the best by a pretty sizable margin. Obviously, this isn't new information -- nobody doubts this guy's talent level.

    But he might be even better than people realize. His numbers were superior even to Kevin Durant's from a year ago, and Durant had everyone gaga over his performance as a college freshman.

    Somehow Beasley didn't resonate quite as strongly, perhaps because of concerns over his character, but if he keeps his head on straight he's going to be insanely good.

    The Certain High-Lottery pick
    Kevin Love, UCLA, 17.80
    I've heard the concerns about Love being out of shape and a poor defender, but a big guy with this high a skill level is way too good a proposition to pass up. In fact, Love outrated both Oden and Durant from a year ago (though Oden, remember, was playing with one good hand for part of the season). Basically, you're looking at the second coming of Brad Miller in terms of skill level for his size, but with a higher ceiling.

    Incidentally, we again see the impact of one-and-done players (and the new rule requiring high school players to go to college) -- Love and especially Beasley would likely have bypassed college earlier this decade, and they're by far the two highest-rated big men in this draft.

    Potential lottery picks
    Darrell Arthur, Kansas, 15.82; Marreese Speights, Florida, 15.02
    Players in the 15s are solid pros more often than stars, but these guys still should be useful pieces worthy of a high-to-mid first-round pick.

    I can't tell you why Kansas played him only 24.7 minutes per game, but the numbers say Arthur is the third-best big guy in this draft. There are concerns that he might be a tweener, but he was a good college scorer who blocked shots.

    Speights has only one full college season under his belt, but he's a huge post player who might be more of a factor in the NBA game than he was in college. But he would have been better off joining the league about 10 years ago, when it featured a more post-oriented, half-court game.

    Solid first-rounders
    Brook Lopez, Stanford 14.21; Roy Hibbert, Georgetown 14.05
    Taking Lopez third overall, as some have suggested, is clearly too high, but he's first-round material and should be a solid pro since he can post up and shoot from midrange.

    Hibbert surprises me, because I wasn't that impressed when I watched him, but if Aaron Gray can find a place in the league you have to figure Hibbert can too.

    Fringe first-rounders
    Kosta Koufos, Ohio State, 13.32; Darnell Jackson, Kansas 13.17; DeAndre Jordan, Texas A&M, 13.17; Richard Hendrix, Alabama, 12.95; Jason Thompson, Rider, 12.77; D.J. White, Indiana 12.63; Trent Plaisted, BYU 12.61
    Now things start getting dicey. The teams who take the top six big men have a good chance of getting themselves a player, but the history of big men in the projected PER range of 12.5 to 13.5 is a decidedly mixed bag -- you can pretty much forget about stardom once you get this low. That's probably why all but two of these guys are between 20 and 41 on Chad Ford's board.

    Of note here are Koufos and Jackson. Koufos could go in the lottery, but doesn't have the numbers to back up being selected that high. At the other end, Darnell Jackson appears to be a potential second-round steal.

    The Riff-Raff
    Walter Sharpe, UAB, 12.45; Joseph Jones, Texas A&M 12.36, J.J. Hickson, N.C. State, 12.31; JaVale McGee, Nevada, 12.25; James Gist, Maryland, 12.23; Sasha Kaun, Kansas, 12.09; Robin Lopez, Stanford, 12.08.
    This is where things really shift in terms of a player's chances of sticking in the league.

    Below 12.5, players face long odds in establishing a career -- forget becoming stars, these guys will just be trying to get to a second contract. Generally, players in this range should be second-rounders, as we're talking about the 14th-to-20th-rated college big men.

    Three highly-touted bigs show up surprisingly low here. Robin Lopez has been talked up as a mid-first-rounder, but doesn't appear to have the goods to back it up. Hickson and McGee also are seen as late first-rounders. Any of the three would be among the lowest-rated players taken in Round 1 in the past few years.

    Better Update That Passport
    Greg Stiemsma, Wisconsin, 11.96; Joey Dorsey, Memphis, 11.87; James Mays, Clemson, 11.79; Aleks Maric, Nebraska, 11.73; David Padgett, Louisville, 11.51; Ryan Anderson, California, 11.43; Charles Rhodes, Mississippi St., 11.11; Shawn James, Duquesne, 10.97; Will Thomas, George Mason, 10.84; Will Daniels, Rhode Island, 10.61; Othello Hunter, Ohio State, 10.45; Kentrell Gransberry, South Florida, 10.42; DeVon Hardin, California, 10.39; Brian Butch, Wisconsin, 10.20; Darian Townes, Arkansas, 10.25, Longar Longar, Oklahoma 10.10.
    Chances are we won't see any of these players get a second contract, but one or two might defy the odds.

    The only one seen as a potential first-rounder is Hardin, but his stock has dropped for the same reason that his rating is so low -- his college production never kept up with his reputation.

    Between Me and the Scouts, One of Us Will Look Like an Idiot
    Anthony Randolph, LSU, 9.85
    Yes, this is true. Seen in many quarters as a high lottery pick, Randolph has virtually nothing in his statistical record to justify such a lofty selection.

    In particular, his woeful ball-handling numbers are a major red flag. Randolph had more turnovers than any prospect except Beasley and Thompson, but those two players had every play run through them; I'm still waiting to find out Randolph's excuse.

    Additionally, his 49.9 true shooting percentage is alarmingly bad for a guy who is supposed to dominate athletically.

    He can block shots, and the fact his team was such a mess probably didn't help his numbers any, but gambling on Randolph with a high first-round pick looks like the basketball equivalent of hitting on 19 in blackjack. Hey, maybe the dealer throws out a 2 and everyone thinks you're a genius, but chances are you're going to bust.

    It appears he's going to be drafted in the middle of the first round at worst, but even that appears to be a terrible mistake -- there is no track record whatsoever of a player rated this poorly achieving pro success.

  2. #2
    Member Speed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Brownsburg
    Posts
    8,493

    Default Re: John Hollinger Big Man Draft Rater

    I completely agree, with this assessment.

    A couple of highlights.

    Beasley is awesome, I think he's the next Charles Barkley.

    Love is Brad Millerish, but I think he's going to be stronger and one of the best big men passers the league has seen in awhile and he's going to be one of the smartest guys in the league basketball wise next year, also he'll be one of the strongest guys in the league in 3 years. He still has limitations in height and quickness.

    Darrell Arthur and Speights are the next best, one offensively and one defensively.

    Lopez is where he should be, NOT at 3.

    Randolph is a bust and wasted pick waiting to happen. I've changed on him, I thought I saw some Lamar Odom, but T Bird, I think wrote something that struck a cord with me. He doesn't love the game or maybe even care about it. I think he just came out for the draft because those around him were excited about it. Probably the same reason he's kept playing so far.

  3. #3
    Call me Kauffie Kaufman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    New Haven, Connecticut
    Posts
    3,453

    Default Re: John Hollinger Big Man Draft Rater

    Nice to see DJ White in the fray.
    "Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman

  4. #4

    Default Re: John Hollinger Big Man Draft Rater

    Very interesting, and Speights didn't grade out to diminish still being my pick for BIG MAN for the Pacers.

  5. #5
    Member Taterhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    1,281

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: John Hollinger Big Man Draft Rater

    I really don't think this guys sytem he's come up with is a very good way to rate big guys. I mean look at his list of highest rated players. He even admits neither Marvin Williams or Kevin Durant should be in the group, so take them out. Now look at it, the highest rated player is Drew Gooden for goodness sake, rated higher than Carlos Boozer. If you take out Durant, Mike Sweetney is #3. I mean come on! He then admits to rating Nick Collison and Shelden Williams ahead of Lemarcus Aldridge and Chris Bosh. These are pretty huge misses. He acts like proclaiming Paul Davis a bad pick was a shocker, and he was a 2nd round pick anyways. And, he definately doesn't have a rating that went against conventional wisdom at the time that came out true in the end. In fact, his system seems to pump out as many "busts" as the draft itself.

    I think it's obvious his system has no way to account for potential improvement, merely bases it on what the numbers are now.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,436

    Default Re: John Hollinger Big Man Draft Rater

    Simply using college stats to rate someone's chances of success in the NBA is classic Hollinger stuff.

    If you just go by the numbers, I'm sure guys like Byron Houston, Joe Smith and Ed O'bannon would have scored well in his evaluation as well.

  7. #7
    Pacer Junky Will Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,042

    Default Re: John Hollinger Big Man Draft Rater

    Quote Originally Posted by Taterhead View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think it's obvious his system has no way to account for potential improvement, merely bases it on what the numbers are now.
    He claims it's just another tool, so what's wrong with that?

  8. #8
    How are you here? Kegboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Northside Bias
    Posts
    12,951

    Default Re: John Hollinger Big Man Draft Rater

    Quote Originally Posted by Will Galen View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    He claims it's just another tool, so what's wrong with that?
    When it's all he ever writes, and ESPN labels him an expert, I have a problem with it. I don't think the man even watches basketball, he just plays around in Excel all day.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

  9. #9
    Member Taterhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    1,281

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: John Hollinger Big Man Draft Rater

    Quote Originally Posted by Will Galen View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    He claims it's just another tool, so what's wrong with that?
    There's nothing wrong with it Will, I just don't see how it is an effective tool. And if it's not any better than an educated guess, then I just really don't see the point in it, that's all.

Similar Threads

  1. The PD NBA Best Pick Left in the Draft 4
    By Hicks in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-30-2008, 08:33 PM
  2. The PD NBA Best Pick Left in the Draft 2
    By Hicks in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-24-2008, 09:42 PM
  3. The PD NBA Best Pick Left in the Draft
    By Hicks in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-23-2008, 10:23 AM
  4. The PD NBA Draft
    By Jose Slaughter in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 05-21-2008, 04:55 PM
  5. Top Draft Prospects
    By Will Galen in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-18-2008, 11:41 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •