Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42

Thread: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

  1. #1
    Pacer Junky Will Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,051

    Default Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

    This is interesting as always. But it's just another yardstick to measure players by.

    I must say Lawson looks as strong as his camp measurements revealed. He bench pressed 180 pounds 14 times. For comparison, Blair was at 18, Terrence Williams was at 9, Jordan Hill 11, Earl Clark 5, Curry 10.
    -------------------------

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft...ftRater-090618

    Updated: June 18, 2009, 1:41 PM ET
    Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst


    By John Hollinger
    ESPN Insider


    Streeter Lecka/Getty ImagesNorth Carolina guard Ty Lawson has the top spot in this year's Draft Rater.

    The truth about analytical methods is that once in a while you'll get a result that flies in the face of the conventional wisdom. When that happens, it means one of two things: (1) that the analytics saw something that everybody else couldn't see, or (2) that everybody else saw something the analytics couldn't see.

    And in the case of two particular players in this year's NBA draft, it will be very interesting to find out the answer.

    The draft is Thursday, June 25, and now that we know who's in and who's out, it's time to unveil this year's Draft Rater -- a statistical projection of the top NBA prospects coming out of the college ranks.

    To review for the uninitiated, the Draft Rater looks at a player's college production in a variety of metrics and a few other salient facts (such as his height, birth date and years of college experience), and from that projects what a player's Player Efficiency Rating will be when he reaches his peak.

    The basic idea is to use the NBA's past to predict its future. The Draft Rater looks back at prospects from past drafts and then, using regression analysis, identifies which attributes were determinants of pro success and which weren't.

    My database of college players goes back to 2002, which is still a bit limited, but with each year the rater is getting smarter because it has more information to work with -- not only an extra year of drafts, but an extra year of pro seasons from each of the prospects.

    This year, several subtle changes helped reduce the error rate when back-tested on previous drafts. First, I ran a separate regression for each of the three position categories -- point guards, wings and bigs -- something that wasn't really feasible when I started doing this. But now that the pool of prospects is large enough, this method has produced greater accuracy.

    Second, instead of tying the projection to a player's third-year PER, I used a more general descriptor of what his peak value was -- allowing me to minimize the impact of fluke seasons and better adjust for some players who entered the league young and didn't max out until their fourth or fifth season. (Some of these players will perform much better than projected, but keep in mind that it's all relative. For more on why the projections seem low, see this explanation.)

    Using those changes, I was able to reduce the standard error in the projections from last year's 4.0 to this year's 2.8. This means nothing to 98 percent of you, but the number geeks in the crowd will recognize that this is still quite large -- as you might expect when you're trying to project what a 19-year-old will do when he's 25.

    Nonetheless, it does represent a significant improvement from a year ago.

    The one area where the method still appears to struggle is with one-and-done freshmen, and this speaks to a more general problem: Information is the key to making this thing work, and the more information we have, the better. For players who leave after their first year, the picture is often incomplete, whether we're using a statistical model or traditional scouting.

    I bring this up because last year, in particular, was a rough one for the projection system. First, it was an unusual rookie class in general because nearly every player taken in the first round was at least somewhat productive; generally, a draft will have 10 to 12 impactful players and the rest will be filler, but this past season blew that standard away.

    Moreover, a number of those players played only one college season, and while the rater had an accurate view of a few (such as Kevin Love and Michael Beasley), it missed the boat on some who performed extremely well (including Derrick Rose to an extent, and O.J Mayo, Anthony Randolph and Eric Gordon).

    Gordon is perhaps easier to understand because he was playing hurt at Indiana and his primary skill (shooting) didn't show through statistically, but that doesn't excuse the others.

    One important thing to point out is that the Draft Rater is rating "pro potential," which is sometimes different from "pro performance," depending on the professionalism and work ethic of the player involved. In other words, the fact that Michael Sweetney and Shawne Williams rated very highly in previous seasons isn't necessarily a damnation of the system.

    Rather, their off-court habits are the type of thing every general manager has to take into account when evaluating players, and something that is usually invisible when looking at their college performance.
    That said, before last season the Draft Rater had performed extremely well.

    From 2002 to 2007, there were 15 players who were (a) among the first 10 collegians drafted and (b) excluded from the top 12 by the Draft Rater. In other words, these were the college players the Draft Rater thought were drafted too high. Of those 15, not one has played in an All-Star Game.

    The only two who have started a significant number of games over the long term have been Kirk Hinrich (who was 13th in the Draft Rater in 2003) and Charlie Villanueva.

    Who were the other 13 top-10 picks not favored by the Draft Rater? Spencer Hawes, Acie Law, Fred Jones, Melvin Ely, Marcus Haislip, Fred Jones, Jarvis Hayes, Rafael Araujo, Ike Diogu, Channing Frye, Randy Foye, J.J. Redick and Patrick O'Bryant.

    In other words, when the Draft Rater has suggested avoiding a player, that's turned out to be good advice.
    And the Draft Rater has also spotted some of the biggest steals in recent years:

    Carlos Boozer was the 26th collegian taken in 2002; Draft Rater had him second.
    Josh Howard was 17th in 2003; Draft Rater had him fifth.
    Danny Granger was the 13th collegian in 2005; Draft Rater had him third.
    Rajon Rondo was the 16th collegian taken in 2006, but Draft Rater had him second.
    Rodney Stuckey was the 14th collegian chosen in 2007; Draft Rater had him fifth.
    • And last year, two players the Draft Rater had rated much higher than others did, Mario Chalmers and George Hill, had productive rookie seasons.

    So, most of the time, when the Draft Rater puts a player in the top five, there's a good reason.

    All of which leads us to 2009, and whom the Draft Rater likes and doesn't like.

    This year, the Draft Rater is closer to the general draft consensus than usual, with two glaring exceptions that I referenced above.

    Let's get to them:
    The pleasant surprise: Ty Lawson

    There are two players who are neck-and-neck for the top spot in this year's Draft Rater. You could easily guess that one of them is Blake Griffin, but most folks never would have guessed that the other is Lawson.

    Lawson, who is coming off an electric performance leading North Carolina to the championship, grades out highly for several reasons: Though he's short for a point guard, his shooting numbers (47.1 percent on 3-pointers), strong assist rate and microscopic turnover ratio (9.1, first among point guard prospects) all point to him as an NBA keeper.

    The Draft Rater puts Lawson slightly ahead of Griffin for first, but this doesn't mean a team should take Lawson first -- the standard error in the projections for point guards is higher than it is for big men, which means random noise could be putting Lawson ahead just as easily as court performance. If the consensus is that Griffin is the better player, I don't think Lawson's statistical record alone is strong enough evidence to refute it. Additionally, we've heard questions about Lawson's work ethic and injuries.

    But the rating is emphatic enough for me to say Lawson should be at the top of the college point guard ladder, ahead of Jonny Flynn, Jrue Holiday, Jeff Teague and Co. (If you're wondering about Ricky Rubio, I'll have more on him next week.)
    The unpleasant surprise: DeMar DeRozan

    I'd be hard-pressed to name a potential high lottery pick through the years that the Draft Rater has been less excited about. I rated 90 prospects for this draft, and DeRozan ranked 54th among them. Two of his teammates -- Daniel Hackett and Taj Gibson -- outranked him, as did assorted other non-entities like Kevin Rogers, Chinemelu Elonu and Ben Woodside. I'll wait here while you Google them.

    Why? Because there really isn't anything in DeRozan's statistical profile that makes you think "NBA star." He rarely took or made 3-pointers and he had a strongly negative pure point rating, which are two powerful indicators for a wing player, and his numbers in other areas were unimpressive, too. In particular, he was a bad free-throw shooter, which indicates that his outside shot might not ever be a strong suit.

    Some scouts I have talked to have compared DeRozan to Rudy Gay in terms of being an NBA athlete but having a questionable motor, but that comparison falls flat, according to the Draft Rater: Gay was the top-rated player in his draft class, while DeRozan is nowhere close. And while he's supposed to be a great athlete, he didn't show it on the court often enough: His rebound, block and steal totals were all very ordinary.

    As I mentioned above, one-and-done players sometimes fool the system -- they're the youngest, least experienced guys in the pool, and, thus, a major factor is how much they improve post-draft rather than just how good they are pre-draft.

    Nonetheless, I'd back away from DeRozan if the 12 relatively safe guys at the top of the Draft Rater are still on the board.

    Speaking of which, let's take a look at the collegians for 2009.
    Rankings: The Top 12

    Top 12-Rated Collegians For 2009

    Player School Draft Rater
    1. Ty Lawson North Carolina 16.34
    2. Blake Griffin Oklahoma 16.21
    3. Tyreke Evans Memphis 15.02
    4. Austin Daye Gonzaga 14.24
    5. Stephen Curry Davidson 14.18
    6. Nick Calathes Florida 13.66
    7. DeJuan Blair Pittsburgh 13.56
    8. Danny Green North Carolina 13.28
    9. Jonny Flynn Syracuse 12.99
    10. James Harden Arizona St. 12.97
    11. Hasheem Thabeet Connecticut 12.90
    12. Earl Clark Louisville 12.88

    For starters, let's talk about two of the players who play multiple positions -- this matters now that we're rating players in part based on position.

    Stephen Curry graded out at 14.18 as a wing, but only 12.86 a point guard. Either way it puts him in the top dozen players, but by this rating he's a much better prospect if he's able to defend against wings.

    The difference for Earl Clark was less dramatic, but he rated slightly better as a wing than as a big man (12.14), which would have dropped him from 12th to 15th.

    A couple other names on here are likely to raise eyebrows:

    Austin Daye may not have had a great season, but the Draft Rater looks favorably upon a 6-11 small forward who can shoot (assuming he can play the 3 in the NBA). His numbers were strongest in the categories that project best to the pros, including 42.9 percent on 3s and 2.1 blocks per game, which is why he moves all the way up to No. 4 on this list.

    Nick Calathes is under contract in Greece but still will be draft-eligible, and he rates higher than the hot point guards most teams are discussing in the top 15. Though knocked for his athleticism, he had high rates of rebounds and steals and a strong 2-point shooting percentage. Teams in luxury tax trouble should look particularly hard at him since he can be stashed in Europe for a year or so.

    Danny Green is the other surprise on this list. He's rated highly every year I've done this, so seeing him doesn't shock me anymore, but he's received little attention nationally. Still, he's a great shooter who can defend and he rates as the third-best wing after Daye and Tyreke Evans.
    Rankings: 13 To 25

    Collegians: No. 13 through 25

    Player School Draft Rater
    13. Jrue Holiday UCLA 12.73
    14. Jeff Teague Wake Forest 12.50
    15. Gerald Henderson Duke 12.17
    16. Paul Delaney UAB 11.85
    17. Aaron Jackson Duquesne 11.83
    18. Darren Collison UCLA 11.80
    19. Terrence Williams Louisville 11.80
    20. Leo Lyons Missouri 11.53
    21. Eric Maynor VCU 11.35
    22. John Bryant Santa Clara 11.30
    23. DeMarre Carroll Missouri 11.18
    24. Tyler Hansbrough North Carolina 11.11
    25. Wayne Ellington North Carolina 11.04

    This part of the list is an interesting mishmash of potential sleepers and potential busts. In general, players in this range have some kind of NBA career but can always count on getting some quality time with the family during All-Star Weekend.

    We're awash in point guards in this draft and the six of the top nine names in this section play the position. The lesson is this: If you're in the market for a point guard, one will fall to you and they're more or less the same after the first couple.

    Down at No. 13, Holiday is a bit of a surprise -- given that he's projected to go higher -- but he has the two characteristics that produce the greatest error rate in the Draft Rater: he's a point guard and he's played only one year.

    In other words, his real value might be much higher or much lower, and since the consensus is much higher, it wouldn't bother me to use a top-8 pick on him.

    Delaney and Jackson are second-round sleepers at the point, but since projections for point guards are a bit more volatile, perhaps they shouldn't really be this high. The other "who's he?" on the list, Bryant, is a 6-11, 275-pound center from Santa Clara who could have a fine 10-year career as a third center in the Greg Kite/Aaron Gray mold.

    Rankings: Potential Disappointments

    Collegians: Other Notables

    Player School Draft Rater
    26. Jordan Hill Arizona 10.97
    28. B.J. Mullens Ohio State 10.81
    30. James Johnson Wake Forest 10.63
    31. Chase Budinger Arizona 10.51
    45. Derrick Brown Xavier 9.55
    48. DaJuan Summers Georgetown 9.38
    51. Jodie Meeks Kentucky 9.35
    52. Sam Young Pitt 9.34
    54. DeMar DeRozan USC 9.26
    62. Toney Douglas Florida St. 8.56
    68. Patrick Mills St. Mary's 8.36
    83. Jack McClinton Miami 6.64

    And here's where we get the players the Draft Rater is down on.

    Several potential first-round picks don't pass muster here, with short, shoot-first combo guards in particular bearing the brunt of the Draft Rater's wrath -- Jack McClinton, Patrick Mills and Toney Douglas were the three lowest-rated "name" prospects, and Jodie Meeks didn't fare a whole lot better.

    The other big surprise down here is Jordan Hill, who could go as high as No. 4 but rates 26th in the Draft Rater. Hill had solid rebounding and scoring numbers, but his percentages weren't off the charts and his poor assist and turnover numbers were a red flag.

    Though one might think that ball-handling categories wouldn't matter for a power forward, apparently they do -- pure point rating (a measure of how a player passes and handles the ball) is a pretty strong success indicator for frontcourt players, and only four prospects rated worse than Hill.

    One of those players was Mullens, who was the absolute worst at -2.85. Everyone concedes he's a project, so perhaps it's not such a big surprise to see him down this low. But the Draft Rater is saying that maybe even the middle of the first round is too high to be taking the risk on him.

    Pitt's Sam Young also graded out extremely poorly. He had the worst pure point rating of any wing player, and the other thing that hurt him is that he's one of the oldest prospects in the pool. How old? He's 19 days older than six-year vet Darko Milicic and a full half-decade older than Jrue Holiday.

    John Hollinger writes for ESPN Insider. To e-mail him, click here.
    Last edited by Will Galen; 06-18-2009 at 02:21 PM.

  2. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Will Galen For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Member BobbyMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Homeless Traveler
    Posts
    1,215
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

    Interesting....now to see how this compares to the draft and then to the season. Keep it up!

  4. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    3,656
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

    I recall Hollinger doing something similar to this in the past and the results, while far from perfect, were more reliable than how the actual draft went down. Was it last year? Does anyone know what I'm referring to?

  5. #4
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    42
    Posts
    25,665

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

    If there is a Player that breaks into the Top 10 that will knock some other prospect out...based off of many of the "glowing" workout reports that's been written about him.....I'm guessing it's going to be Lawson.

    Some Team that is sick of playing for ping pong balls and is ready to start competing that needs a PG between the 5th to 10th spots is going to bypass a PG with high potential but isn't ready to contribute for Lawson.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  6. #5
    Whale Shepherd cdash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    The Sprawl
    Age
    29
    Posts
    18,486

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

    Quote Originally Posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I recall Hollinger doing something similar to this in the past and the results, while far from perfect, were more reliable than how the actual draft went down. Was it last year? Does anyone know what I'm referring to?
    Read the article, he addresses that. In short, last year was a rough year for the Draft Rater.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to cdash For This Useful Post:


  8. #6

    Default Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

    While it's just one statistical analysis, it's making me feel a lot better about wanting Lawson. Bad news for Johnson though. I'm not really sure where the questionable work ethic thing is coming from for Lawson...anyone ever heard anything specific about that before? Or is that just pre-draft rumblings?

    I'd still be surprised to see him go before us. It will be interesting for sure. Danny Green would be a steal in the 2nd round!

  9. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    3,656
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

    From 2002 to 2007, there were 15 players who were (a) among the first 10 collegians drafted and (b) excluded from the top 12 by the Draft Rater. In other words, these were the college players the Draft Rater thought were drafted too high. Of those 15, not one has played in an All-Star Game.

    The only two who have started a significant number of games over the long term have been Kirk Hinrich (who was 13th in the Draft Rater in 2003) and Charlie Villanueva.

    Who were the other 13 top-10 picks not favored by the Draft Rater? Spencer Hawes, Acie Law, Fred Jones, Melvin Ely, Marcus Haislip, Fred Jones, Jarvis Hayes, Rafael Araujo, Ike Diogu, Channing Frye, Randy Foye, J.J. Redick and Patrick O'Bryant.

    In other words, when the Draft Rater has suggested avoiding a player, that's turned out to be good advice.
    And the Draft Rater has also spotted some of the biggest steals in recent years:

    • Carlos Boozer was the 26th collegian taken in 2002; Draft Rater had him second.
    • Josh Howard was 17th in 2003; Draft Rater had him fifth.
    • Danny Granger was the 13th collegian in 2005; Draft Rater had him third.
    • Rajon Rondo was the 16th collegian taken in 2006, but Draft Rater had him second.
    • Rodney Stuckey was the 14th collegian chosen in 2007; Draft Rater had him fifth.
    • And last year, two players the Draft Rater had rated much higher than others did, Mario Chalmers and George Hill, had productive rookie seasons.

    So, most of the time, when the Draft Rater puts a player in the top five, there's a good reason.
    This is very impressive. I'd say take the best available prospect at #13 (I prefer Blair) and then try and make a move to land Danny Green late in the 1st round. He's too complete a player to be any worse than a great backup GF.

  10. #8
    Expect Delays blanket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,810

    Default Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

    Does he make the complete list available?

    I'd be interested in seeing the rankings for all players, particularly in considering players who might be available with our 2nd round pick.
    "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
    -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

  11. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,443

    Default Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

    Quote Originally Posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I recall Hollinger doing something similar to this in the past and the results, while far from perfect, were more reliable than how the actual draft went down. Was it last year? Does anyone know what I'm referring to?
    Last season, he had Anthony Randolph rated as one of the worst prospects in the ENTIRE draft (not just the 1st round) based on his college numbers.

    Of course Mr. StatHead never bothered to acknowledge this at the end of the season.
    http://48minutes.net/2009/04/03/digg...eresting-list/
    Last edited by d_c; 06-18-2009 at 03:36 PM.

  12. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    3,656
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

    Quote Originally Posted by d_c View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Last season, he had Anthony Randolph rated as one of the worst prospects in the ENTIRE draft (not just the 1st round) based on his college numbers.

    Of course Mr. StatHead never bothered to acknowledge this at the end of the season.
    http://48minutes.net/2009/04/03/digg...eresting-list/
    Like I said, it's not perfect. He missed on Randolph and he'll miss on others in the future. So will GMs, likely at a higher rate than Hollinger's formula. Even if they break even, all that would show is that a proper statistical analysis is roughly as accurate as the "experts" evaluations. I'm not understanding your apparent vitriol towards Mr. StatHead.

    Also regarding Randolph, or more specifically one-and-done freshman, Hollinger had this to say...

    The one area where the method still appears to struggle is with one-and-done freshmen, and this speaks to a more general problem: Information is the key to making this thing work, and the more information we have, the better. For players who leave after their first year, the picture is often incomplete, whether we're using a statistical model or traditional scouting.

  13. #11
    100 Miles from the B count55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,772

    Default Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

    Quote Originally Posted by d_c View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Last season, he had Anthony Randolph rated as one of the worst prospects in the ENTIRE draft (not just the 1st round) based on his college numbers.

    Of course Mr. StatHead never bothered to acknowledge this at the end of the season.
    http://48minutes.net/2009/04/03/digg...eresting-list/
    But he did in this very article:

    Moreover, a number of those players played only one college season, and while the rater had an accurate view of a few (such as Kevin Love and Michael Beasley), it missed the boat on some who performed extremely well (including Derrick Rose to an extent, and O.J Mayo, Anthony Randolph and Eric Gordon).

  14. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,443

    Default Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

    Quote Originally Posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Like I said, it's not perfect. He missed on Randolph and he'll miss on others in the future. So will GMs, likely at a higher rate than Hollinger's formula. Even if they break even, all that would show is that a proper statistical analysis is roughly as accurate as the "experts" evaluations. I'm not understanding your apparent vitriol towards Mr. StatHead.

    Also regarding Randolph, or more specifically one-and-done freshman, Hollinger had this to say...

    The one area where the method still appears to struggle is with one-and-done freshmen, and this speaks to a more general problem: Information is the key to making this thing work, and the more information we have, the better. For players who leave after their first year, the picture is often incomplete, whether we're using a statistical model or traditional scouting.

    Hollinger seemed pretty confident about his methods (even for 1 and done players) when he wrote this a year ago.

    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.

  15. #13
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,756

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

    Lord knows I'm not a Hollinger fan, but you're busting his nuts over one very bad mistake.

    It doesn't pretend to know much about evaluating talent based on observations. He's a number cruncher, and tries to find formulas that work. There's always going to be those that don't fit. There's always going to be the surprise, or the bust. One player doesn't throw out the entire rating. It's a tool used to evaluate their potential, not the rule.

  16. #14
    Member naptownmenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    4,657

    Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

    This has been extremely interesting to me because of Ty Lawson being ranked #1.

    For a college PG, he had incredible productivity, better than any other college PG in this year's draft. I understand that's a huge contributing factor but I'm curious to know how he rates or compares to PGs drafted in the past 6 or 7 year sample of data that the Draft Rater used to come up with these rankings.
    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Larry is not coming back, he didn't have a meeting with Orlando for not reason, yeah he is coming back to the NBA but not to the Pacers, the notion that he is a taking a year off and then come back is absurd.
    Quote Originally Posted by Trader Joe View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    GOOD GOD THAT'S LARRY BIRD'S MUSIC!

  17. #15
    Pacer Junky Will Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,051

    Default Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

    Quote Originally Posted by blanket View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Does he make the complete list available?

    I'd be interested in seeing the rankings for all players, particularly in considering players who might be available with our 2nd round pick.
    Complete list? This was the whole article. But there are way more than enough players to cover the second round. He rates 83 players.

  18. #16
    Expect Delays blanket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,810

    Default Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

    Quote Originally Posted by Will Galen View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Complete list? This was the whole article. But there are way more than enough players to cover the second round. He rates 83 players.
    He only lists 37 of the players. I'd like to see the full list of 83+ players. Do you see this and I don't?
    "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
    -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

  19. #17
    Pacer Junky Will Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,051

    Default Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

    Quote Originally Posted by blanket View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    He only lists 37 of the players. I'd like to see the full list of 83+ players. Do you see this and I don't?
    Sorry! I saw the 83 and didn't look any further. No, what's up above is the total list in the article.

  20. #18

    Default Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

    Quote Originally Posted by naptownmenace View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    This has been extremely interesting to me because of Ty Lawson being ranked #1.

    For a college PG, he had incredible productivity, better than any other college PG in this year's draft. I understand that's a huge contributing factor but I'm curious to know how he rates or compares to PGs drafted in the past 6 or 7 year sample of data that the Draft Rater used to come up with these rankings.
    I compared his stats/measurements to CP3 just for comparison's sake, and he compared quite favorably. That obviously doesn't mean that he's the next Chris Paul, but it's encouraging anyway. He also had better A/TO and shooting %s, while being substantially stronger that TJ Ford out of college. If we can trade Ford I think Lawson may be our best pick.

  21. #19
    Pacer Junky Will Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,051

    Default Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

    Quote Originally Posted by ESutt7 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If we can trade Ford I think Lawson may be our best pick.
    I agree with that, but why would someone trade for Ford and his $8.5 m contract when this draft is loaded with point guards.

  22. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    1,078

    Default Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

    Geez - this is the second recent article from a reputable source that has Lawson atop the PG crop. Draftexpress had him #1 in pure PG rating (his score was double that of anyone else).

    I have been against Lawson in the past, but I'm really starting to warm up to him at #13. He is short, but his strength and weight is exceptional for the position.

    I agree too that I think he could be our guy. Like Lawson - Danny, Rush, and Roy weren't all that hyped up before the draft - they all turned out terrific.

    Also, I agree with you guys on trading TJ if we go PG (especially an NBA ready PG like Lawson). I like Danny Green and Hansborough in the mid/late 1st round.

    OKC, Portland, Minnesota, and Dallas all need a PG, all have expirings to match up, and all have mid/late first rounders.

  23. #21

    Default Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

    Quote Originally Posted by Will Galen View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I agree with that, but why would someone trade for Ford and his $8.5 m contract when this draft is loaded with point guards.
    Perhaps a "win now" kind of team. You never know, trades are made all the time, but I agree that it may not be easy. But, a team like Washington, Miami, maybe Philly if they don't resign Andre... we'll just have to see what happens. TJ may be one of the best PGs available via trade. Kirk and Rafer are the other two I know of that could be available.

    Could Portland be interested if they don't like how Blake has worked out? I know they have Bayless being "groomed" but they may be looking to capitalize or "accelerate" their progress this season. Sergio is rumored to be traded too. They're interested in Hedo but I'd guess he remains in Orlando. Maybe they look to upgrade the PG spot instead? IDK...

  24. #22

    Default Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

    Quote Originally Posted by purdue101 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Geez - this is the second recent article from a reputable source that has Lawson atop the PG crop. Draftexpress had him #1 in pure PG rating (his score was double that of anyone else).

    I have been against Lawson in the past, but I'm really starting to warm up to him at #13. He is short, but his strength and weight is exceptional for the position.

    I agree too that I think he could be our guy. Like Lawson - Danny, Rush, and Roy weren't all that hyped up before the draft - they all turned out terrific.

    Also, I agree with you guys on trading TJ if we go PG (especially an NBA ready PG like Lawson). I like Danny Green and Hansborough in the mid/late 1st round.

    OKC, Portland, Minnesota, and Dallas all need a PG, all have expirings to match up, and all have mid/late first rounders.
    Haha you beat me to Portland. I think it's kind of funny too that the UNC guys could all be targets of ours. Hansbrough comes in tomorrow I believe.

  25. #23

    Default Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

    Portland has cap space to play with...so couldn't they send us someone they don't use like Webster (a backup 2/3 that could shoot and may fit in with JOB) and the rights to a pick for TJ Ford? Wouldn't that be a feasible deal for both sides? Or do you think we'd demand more for TJ?

    Perhaps Count can help us out with how Portland's contract situation is and if they could absorb enough money to trade a decent backup for TJ's contract?

    Given how much trouble LA had with Brooks, and how much trouble they had with Portland, wouldn't adding a player like Ford to the Blazers give the Lakers fits? He had 21 and 8 in his 1 game vs. the Lakers. Just a thought.

  26. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    1,078

    Default Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

    Quote Originally Posted by ESutt7 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Portland has cap space to play with...so couldn't they send us someone they don't use like Webster (a backup 2/3 that could shoot and may fit in with JOB) and the rights to a pick for TJ Ford? Wouldn't that be a feasible deal for both sides? Or do you think we'd demand more for TJ?

    Perhaps Count can help us out with how Portland's contract situation is and if they could absorb enough money to trade a decent backup for TJ's contract?

    Given how much trouble LA had with Brooks, and how much trouble they had with Portland, wouldn't adding a player like Ford to the Blazers give the Lakers fits? He had 21 and 8 in his 1 game vs. the Lakers. Just a thought.
    I believe you're correct - the salaries don't have to match up as they can absorb the difference due to their cap space.

    Webster, Blake, and Outlaw all make about 4 a year - I would trade TJ for any of those three and Portland's first. TJ makes 8.5. We could use that difference to sign JJ and then take our team option on Quis. Quis as an expiring would have awesome value come next Feb.

  27. #25
    Pacer Junky Will Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,051

    Default Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

    Quote Originally Posted by ESutt7 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Portland has cap space to play with...so couldn't they send us someone they don't use like Webster (a backup 2/3 that could shoot and may fit in with JOB) and the rights to a pick for TJ Ford?
    The problem with that is if we trade Ford it's because we can get someone in the draft, and Portland won't be under the cap until the new season starts.

    I guess we could agree to a trade during the draft and do it later.

Similar Threads

  1. Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...
    By Major Cold in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 2039
    Last Post: 06-27-2008, 11:43 PM
  2. Hollinger: Augustin over Westbrook
    By himikey in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-23-2008, 02:31 PM
  3. The PD NBA Best Pick Left in the Draft 9
    By Hicks in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-20-2008, 10:05 PM
  4. Top Draft Prospects
    By Will Galen in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-18-2008, 11:41 PM
  5. Good article on the draft
    By Will Galen in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-28-2007, 07:58 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
  •