Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

2010 Draft comparision chart (update thur 02/21/10)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 2010 Draft comparision chart (update thur 02/21/10)

    If you’re like me you watch or read about a player and then want to compare their stats. Doing so usually involves a lot of clicking back and forth. I decided I wanted to look at the top picks stats side by side so to speak so I made this graph. The stats are taken off of ESPN’s top 100 list, and Draft express. * Italian league, #1 Euro league, #2 Adriatic league


    Name............................
    age
    grd
    pos
    ht
    wt
    gms
    min
    to
    pf
    a/t
    fg%
    ft%
    3p%
    blk
    rb
    stl
    ast
    pts
    1
    John Wall
    19
    F
    pg
    6'4
    185
    26
    34.3
    4.0
    1.9
    1.6/1
    .463
    .782
    .347
    0.6
    4.1
    1.9
    6.3
    16.8
    2
    Evan Turner
    21
    J
    sg
    6'7
    205
    22
    33.9
    3.8
    2.6
    1.5/1
    .541
    .718
    .258
    0.8
    9.3
    1.9
    5.8
    19.5
    3
    DeMarcus Cousins
    19
    F
    c
    6-11
    260
    27
    22.4
    2.0
    3.2
    1/2.1
    .545
    .637
    .167
    1.7
    10.1
    1.0
    1.0
    16.1
    4
    Derrick Favors
    18
    F
    pf
    6'9
    215
    27
    26.0
    2.2
    2.7
    1/2.1
    .597
    .586
    .000
    1.9
    8.5
    0.9
    1.0
    11.5
    5
    Wesley Johnson
    22
    J
    sf
    6'7
    198
    27
    34.0
    2.6
    2.1
    1/1.1
    .511
    .781
    .404
    1.8
    8.7
    1.6
    2.3
    16.0
    6
    Ed Davis
    20
    So
    pf
    6'10
    215
    24
    26.9
    1.9
    1.8
    1/2.1
    .578
    .659
    .000
    2.7
    9.2
    0.4
    0.9
    12.9
    7
    Al-Faroug Aminu
    19
    So
    sf
    6'8
    205
    25
    31.6
    3.1
    2.9
    1/2.2
    .468
    .707
    .288
    1.6
    11.0
    1.5
    1.4
    16.8
    8
    Cole Aldrich
    21
    J
    c
    6-11
    245
    27
    26.7
    1.4
    2.6
    1/1.4
    .558
    .697
    .000
    3.8
    10.1
    0.7
    1.0
    11.6
    9
    Donatas Motiejunas *
    19
    EU
    pf
    7'0
    220
    18
    20.4
    2.1
    2.6
    ?
    50.8
    68.3
    27.8
    0.1
    4.3
    1.6
    0.5
    9.3
    10
    Greg Monroe
    19
    So
    pf
    6'11
    250
    25
    33.9
    3.4
    2.5
    1/1.1
    .516
    .639
    .261
    1.7
    9.4
    1.4
    3.6
    15.7
    11
    Patrick Patterson
    20
    J
    pf
    6'8
    245
    27
    32.7
    1.0
    1.6
    1/1
    .574
    .646
    .404
    1.0
    7.6
    0.5
    1.0
    14.8
    12
    Hassan Whiteside
    20
    F
    c
    6'11
    225
    27
    24.8
    1.7
    2.6
    1/5.9
    .540
    .594
    .667
    5.3
    8.6
    0.6
    0.3
    13.0
    13
    Solomon Alabi
    21
    So
    c
    7'1
    245
    26
    25.8
    1.9
    2.2
    1/3.5
    .560
    .829
    .000
    2.5
    6.6
    0.5
    0.5
    12.3
    14
    Jan Vesely #1
    19
    EU
    c
    6'11
    240
    13
    22.7
    1.2
    4.2
    ?
    57.1
    57.1
    42.9
    0.3
    4.7
    0.8
    1.2
    7.2
    14
    Jan Vesely #2
    19
    EU
    c
    6'11
    240
    20
    21.6
    1.2
    3.3
    ?
    54.8
    67.3
    20.8
    0.6
    3.3
    1.0
    1.1
    7.8
    15
    Stanley Robinson
    21
    Se
    sf
    6'9
    215
    27
    34.4
    2.2
    1.5
    1/2.1
    .514
    .651
    .364
    1.2
    7.5
    1.0
    1.0
    15.6
    16
    Avery Bradley
    19
    F
    sg
    6'3
    180
    27
    28.5
    1.6
    2.5
    1.3/1
    .461
    .481
    .414
    0.5
    3.0
    1.3
    2.1
    12.6
    17
    James Anderson
    20
    J
    sg
    6'6
    195
    26
    34.0
    2.2
    2.7
    1.2/1
    .471
    .805
    .360
    0.7
    6.1
    1.3
    2.5
    22.8
    18
    Ekpe Udoh
    22
    J
    pf
    6'10
    240
    26
    35..1
    2.3
    2.4
    1.1/1
    .482
    .669
    .300
    4.3
    10.5
    0.7
    2.7
    13.4
    19
    Larry Sanders
    21
    J
    pf
    6'10
    220
    25
    27.0
    1.8
    3.1
    1/1.9
    .563
    .667
    .250
    2.6
    9.1
    0.6
    1.0
    15.4
    20
    Eric Bledsoe
    20
    F
    pg
    6'1
    190
    26
    30.3
    3.5
    2.2
    1/1.1
    .442
    .679
    .375
    0.3
    3.0
    1.4
    3.3
    10.7
    21
    Xavier Henry
    18
    F
    sg
    6'7
    220
    27
    27.0
    2.0
    2.0
    1/1.2
    .442
    .769
    .400
    0.4
    4.2
    1.6
    1.7
    13.6
    28
    Willie Warren
    20
    So
    pg
    6'4
    210
    21
    32.3
    3.8
    2.3
    1.1/1
    .438
    .795
    .309
    0.1
    3.3
    1.0
    4.1
    16.3
    29
    Trevor Booker
    22
    Se
    pf
    6'7
    240
    26
    29.9
    1.8
    1.7
    1.3/1
    .518
    .617
    .269
    1.5
    8.2
    1.5
    2.3
    15.3
    31
    Mason Plumlee
    19
    F
    pf
    6'10
    230
    21
    14.9
    1.3
    2.7
    1/1.3
    .459
    .515
    .286
    0.9
    3.4
    0.6
    1.0
    4.6
    36
    Gani Lawal
    20
    J
    pf
    6'9
    229
    27
    26.4
    2.4
    2.1
    1/5.3
    .522
    .599
    .000
    1.5
    9.3
    0.5
    0.4
    13.9
    37
    JaJuan Johnson
    21
    J
    pf
    6'10
    215
    26
    30.3
    1.8
    1.8
    1/2.5
    .519
    .732
    .000
    2.0
    7.0
    0.8
    0.7
    14.8
    40
    Jarvis Varnado
    21
    Se
    pf
    6'9
    210
    27
    30.9
    2.0
    2.4
    1/2.2
    .563
    .624
    .000
    5.0
    10.9
    0.6
    0.9
    13.2
    42
    Craig Brackins
    22
    J
    pf
    6'10
    230
    27
    35.0
    2.1
    1.8
    1.1/1
    .417
    .754
    .319
    1.1
    8.4
    0.8
    2.3
    16.5
    58
    Luke Babitt
    20
    So
    sf
    6'9
    220
    26
    36.7
    2.3
    2.5
    1/1.2
    .512
    .898
    .406
    0.9
    9.7
    1.1
    1.9
    21.6





















    Name............................
    age
    grd
    pos
    ht
    wt
    gms
    min
    to
    pf
    a/t
    fg%
    ft%
    3p%
    blk
    rb
    stl
    ast
    pts

    Danny Granger
    -
    -



    30
    30.0



    .524
    .755
    .433
    2.0
    8.9
    2.1
    2.4
    18.8

    Derrick Rose





    40
    29.2



    .477
    .712
    .337
    0.4
    4.5
    1.2
    4.7
    14.9

    Dwayne Wade





    33
    32.1



    .501
    .779
    .318
    1.1
    6.3
    2.5
    4.4
    21.5

    Brandon Roy





    33
    31.7



    .508
    .810
    .402
    0.8
    5.6
    1.4
    4.1
    20.2




















    Last edited by Will Galen; 02-23-2010, 04:34 PM.

  • #2
    Re: 2010 Draft comparision chart

    Good work!


    I will say that height/weight is very sketchy at this level. You'll watch 2 guys where one is supposed to be smaller and it won't look like it when they cut to those floor level shots (like FTA, the huddle, etc).

    Some of these might be outdated as well. DraftExpress has Patteron at 6'9", ESPN has him at 6'8".

    Of course this stuff is often intentional to either help the prospect or for some other gimmick or advantage.


    Then you have the aspect of competition level when it comes to the actual stats. Almost no NBA prospect is going to have poor stats. But I would never try to compare Garcia and Seattle facing Cal-whoknowswhere to Monroe facing UConn or Nova.

    I have been thinking that we need a breakout thread from the prospect thread which only contains weekly summaries. The discussion thread is really intimidating for the non-followers because it's so big. Maybe that kind of weekly summary could go here since I assume you are going to want to update the stats as well.

    Maybe if all the major prospect contributors limited themselves to one post here a week with only the top 20 guys, plus 5 fliers perhaps, and only 1-2 lines per guy max. I think that would be more useful for the casual prospect followers.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 2010 Draft comparision chart

      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
      Good work!


      I will say that height/weight is very sketchy at this level. You'll watch 2 guys where one is supposed to be smaller and it won't look like it when they cut to those floor level shots (like FTA, the huddle, etc).

      Some of these might be outdated as well. DraftExpress has Patteron at 6'9", ESPN has him at 6'8".

      Of course this stuff is often intentional to either help the prospect or for some other gimmick or advantage.


      Then you have the aspect of competition level when it comes to the actual stats. Almost no NBA prospect is going to have poor stats. But I would never try to compare Garcia and Seattle facing Cal-whoknowswhere to Monroe facing UConn or Nova.

      I have been thinking that we need a breakout thread from the prospect thread which only contains weekly summaries. The discussion thread is really intimidating for the non-followers because it's so big. Maybe that kind of weekly summary could go here since I assume you are going to want to update the stats as well.

      Maybe if all the major prospect contributors limited themselves to one post here a week with only the top 20 guys, plus 5 fliers perhaps, and only 1-2 lines per guy max. I think that would be more useful for the casual prospect followers.
      I agree, you should open another thread. call it weekly update draft 2010 or something like that
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 2010 Draft comparision chart

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        . Maybe that kind of weekly summary could go here since I assume you are going to want to update the stats as well.
        I'll try to update each week following Sundays games.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 2010 Draft comparision chart

          for me ET did you see ET is the best prospect in the whole draft, he can play multiple positions either the 1 or 2, for the pacers at least he could be the best prospect JWall is to young and is a bit of a drama queen, what if he starts to cry the same way he is doing with his coach?
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 2010 Draft comparision chart

            It goes without saying that you need to put college numbers in context, but OSU has played a pretty challenging schedule, i.e. the Big 10 is very solid this year. Having said that, check out E. Turner against the big boys; #1 in scoring, #1 in steals, #2 in assists, #4 in FG pct., and #8 in rebounding - and OSU has him running the point this year! Mighty impressive.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 2010 Draft comparision chart (update thur 02/21/10)

              Bump for update

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 2010 Draft comparision chart (update thur 02/21/10)

                I didn't realize Greg Monroe averages the number of assists that he does. That's an interesting stat to me

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 2010 Draft comparision chart (update thur 02/21/10)

                  Thanks Will, I normally don't give a whip stich about College players....

                  But this season....


                  Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 2010 Draft comparision chart (update thur 02/21/10)

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    Thanks Will, I normally don't give a whip stich about College players....

                    But this season....
                    same here
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 2010 Draft comparision chart (update thur 02/21/10)

                      I wonder how much Bird will emphasize age on his draft board. I am sure it won't matter if we have a top 3 pick but what if we have a 4th-8th pick? Favors vs. Aldrich scenario.
                      Last edited by Gamble1; 02-22-2010, 08:47 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 2010 Draft comparision chart (update thur 02/21/10)

                        Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                        I wonder how much Bird will emphasize age on his draft board. I am sure it won't matter if we have a top 3 pick but what if we have a 4th-8th pick? Favors vs. Aldrich scenario.
                        I think that Aldrich would get drafted by a team like Detroit, they need a center bad and he could be really good for them
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: 2010 Draft comparision chart (update thur 02/21/10)

                          Jonathan Givony of Draft Express posted a terrific description of Ed Davis just a couple days ago:

                          http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Ed-Davis-1354/

                          "With his season coming to a close following a broken wrist that will keep him out of action for 6-8 weeks, this is as good a time as any to summarize the performance of North Carolina big man Ed Davis.

                          Coming into the season with massive expectations after flashing brilliant glimpses of potential playing a small but important role en route to winning a national championship, the general consensus amongst NBA teams and the mass media is that Davis had somewhat of a disappointing sophomore campaign—especially when considering how badly his team has underachieved.

                          Digging deeper, though, and seeing the glaring offensive limitations he showed as a freshman, it was pretty obvious that Davis was always going to need time to develop into the player many envision him becoming down the road.

                          Looking at his physical profile, Davis continues to sport an outstanding frame that is still at least 2-3 years away from fully filling out. His wingspan is outstanding on top of that, and allows him to play much bigger than his size.

                          He displays a strange blend of athleticism, on one hand running the floor extremely well and being fairly explosive around the rim, but on the other lacking a significant amount of fluidity and reactivity, being somewhat upright and clearly on the mechanical side. From time to time you’ll see him make some extremely impressive plays, but for the most part it’s difficult to describe him as being a great athlete at this point in time, at least in terms of his ability to actually utilize his athleticism.

                          Offensively, Davis remains extremely raw, being mostly limited to finishing plays in the immediate area around the basket and having a difficult time creating his own shot. His lack of strength makes it tough for him to establish position deep in the post and finish through contact in traffic, something that forces him to settle for difficult shots outside of his comfort zone. His footwork is raw and he avoids his right hand like the plague (he’s left-handed), not looking all that impressive when forced to improvise on the fly, and having a very difficult time against more physical defenders.

                          You’d like to see him develop somewhat of a mean streak to compensate for his average skill-level, as it would make it much easier for him to get on the floor in the NBA early on in his career. That’s not really the type of player he is, though.

                          On the flip side, Davis’ length makes him a terrific target for his (very streaky) guards to lob the ball into the paint to, and he finishes well around the basket for that same reason, getting amazing extension on his jump-hook shot, being able to elevate from long vantage points, and showing excellent touch around the rim. He draws fouls at a good rate and converts on a solid 66% of his free throws.

                          Facing the basket, Davis has a long ways to go, as his ball-handling skills are close to non-existent and he lacks significant range on his jump-shot. He’s taken only four jumpers all season long according to Synergy Sports Technology, and you can tell why for the most part when looking at the ones he did attempt.

                          Davis must continue to work on honing his perimeter game and become at least a respectable mid-range shooter to reach his full potential down the road, as he’s probably not going to make a living as a banger early on in his career. At the moment he’s obviously more of a center than a power forward on the offensive end of the floor, which made him a less than ideal front-court pairing at North Carolina with the similarly interior oriented Deon Thompson.

                          Now that we’ve had 23 games to evaluate him in a fairly significant role, it’s easier to confidently assert that he’s more likely to emerge as a complimentary scorer than as a real go-to guy. With that said, he has some truly excellent attributes that he brings to the table—as he’s a team player, an unselfish guy, fairly smart and executes his team’s offense very well. These are exactly the things you would expect being the son of a former NBA player, and is precisely what you want to see from an excellent role-player.

                          Defensively and as a rebounder is where Davis shows the most potential, thanks to his rare combination of fundamentals and physical tools. He ranks as one of the best shot-blockers in college basketball, being a major presence in the paint with his terrific length and timing, and should be able to make big strides as a post-defender and rim-protector as he continues to add strength to his frame. His wingspan allows him to go well outside of his area for rebounds as well, again being very productive in this area on both ends of the floor with his 12.4 rebounds per-40 minutes pace adjusted.

                          On the downside, Davis tends to get pushed around by older and stronger players, giving up deep position in the paint at times in the process. His perimeter defense is just average, as he’s mobile enough to get out and hedge screens defending the pick and roll, but is a little too upright in his stance to stay in front of big men laterally who can attack him off the dribble. Once again, the impression you get from watching him play is that he may be better suited (at least initially) for the center position rather than the power forward spot you often see him projected at.

                          While many would contend that Davis is being overrated if considered a high-lottery pick like most NBA draft services have ranked him all season long, counter to that argument is that there just aren’t many big men available (either in free agency or the draft) with his physical tools, intangibles and potential.

                          With that said, there is no question that whichever team drafts him will need to be patient with the way they bring him along, as he’s clearly not ready at this stage to play a major role in the NBA. You have to wonder how much different of a player he’ll be once he’s able to put on a good 15-20 pounds to his terrific frame, though, as it should make things considerably easier for him on both ends of the floor.

                          Davis’ untimely injury puts him in a bit of a difficult spot, as he needed to have a strong showing in March in order to give his NBA draft stock a boost. He’ll now have a tough decision ahead of him this spring in terms of deciding whether or not to enter his name in the draft, as he probably could have fooled an NBA team into drafting him way too high last year purely based on upside, but won’t be afforded the same luxury if he decides to come back for another season and again doesn’t “live up to expectations.”

                          Another year at North Carolina under Roy Williams and highly respected strength and conditioning coach Jonas Sahratian may not be such a bad thing for his long-term development, especially since he’ll be able to move to his natural position at the 5-spot with Deon Thompson graduating, but it also comes with a significant amount of risk. Considering that his background is fairly different than most NBA prospects, he’s in a position to make the right decision.
                          "


                          "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

                          - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: 2010 Draft comparision chart (update thur 02/21/10)

                            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                            I think that Aldrich would get drafted by a team like Detroit, they need a center bad and he could be really good for them
                            Ironically, Detroit picked him up on my 2k10 association, and he's been a 6 point, 14 rebound, 1 block wonder. I, for one, don't get it.
                            "I keep wondering the same thing. Last week they had the 4th worst record in the league, had an 11.9 percent chance of winning the lottery and were in line to land a franchise type player like Derrick Favors or DeMarcus Cousins. This week? They have a 1.7 percent chance of winning the lottery, have the 8th worst record and are in line to draft Cole Aldrich or Greg Monroe. Way to go Jim O'Brien. Rest Danny Granger the rest of the season (if it isn't too late) and give Josh McRoberts lots of minutes. That ought to do it." - Chad Ford on winning meaningless games

                            Way to go Jim, you may have just put our franchise back another 4+ years.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: 2010 Draft comparision chart (update thur 02/21/10)

                              Originally posted by Thesterovic View Post
                              Ironically, Detroit picked him up on my 2k10 association, and he's been a 6 point, 14 rebound, 1 block wonder. I, for one, don't get it.
                              He is a really good center, Aldrich is not fast but he is quick enough to get in place to block shots and is also really good rebounding the ball and scoring close to the basket, they guy is strong, his only issue is that he can't hit a jump shot or free throw to save his life, his form is horrendous, but in general the guy is a really good center.
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X