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

Hollinger's draft rater

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

  • Hollinger's draft rater

    Not necessarily the most successful of Hollinger's inventions, but it's a fun read, in case someone is interested.

    At 26, the Pacers apparently have a hard choice between Leonard Meyers, Terrence Ross, Perry Jones III, Arnett Moultrie and Moe Harkless. Not bad, I say!

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft...ba-draft-rater


    2012 NBA Draft Rater

    Which players will end up being draft steals, busts? (PER Diem: June 18, 2012)

    By John Hollinger | ESPN.com INSIDER

    It's possible that mere moments after David Stern hands off the Larry O'Brien Trophy to Micky Arison or Clay Bennett that he will be in Newark, N.J., announcing that the New Orleans Hornets are on the clock. The Finals are slated to end June 26 (or really, the morning of June 27 if you factor in the ceremony, the interviews, the analysis and all the responsibilities of the players and the league), and the NBA draft is on June 28.


    This is why we need to interrupt this riveting NBA Finals for a moment to talk about a bunch of 19-year-olds who have never played a professional game before.


    That's right: It's Draft Rater time. I've developed a tool that analyzes college stats to predict NBA performance and have refined it over the past several years. It's something we can use to help identify draft steals and busts.


    To review, last season was a pretty good one for the Rater. The 2011 pick with the top chance of success (Kyrie Irving) won Rookie of the Year, three other players it rated highly (Kawhi Leonard, Jon Leuer and Nikola Vucevic) provided great value for their draft position, and long-time favorite Daniel Green emerged as a starter on the West's best regular-season team.


    Meanwhile, the Rater was down on Jan Vesely, Josh Selby and Jimmer Fredette. The biggest whiff was on MarShon Brooks, whom it rated as a late second-rounder but was a solid late first-round pick by the Nets. The others were players nobody else rated highly either; Isaiah Thomas, for instance, was No. 57 on my board. It was probably too optimistic about Tristan Thompson as well; he had the highest raw rating of any player but struggled at times as a rookie.


    I made a few minor tweaks compared to a year ago -- most notably, I ditched the "Howland" variable, even though it was statistically significant, because it felt like an "overfit" (fitting the model to past results that may not necessarily be predictive) and I had enough significant variables without it. Otherwise, it's basically same as it ever was -- a giant regression model that gets incrementally smarter as we fill it with more data each year and one that I've segmented by position. It's still less predictive with one-and-done players, whom it sees less of statistically before they turn pro, and it's not perfect -- we're trying to project what 19-year-olds will be like at 25, a profoundly inexact science.


    Nonetheless, let's zoom back out to the big picture and go through the results from this year's Draft Rater, because I think you'll see that a few points remain paramount.



    1. Anthony Davis is obviously the best player




    Good thing we came up with this neat model, because I don't know how we could have discerned this information otherwise. Yes, this is a one-star draft. Davis blew up my Draft Rater, as expected, but just as notable is the huge gap between him and the next place on the list.


    Davis rates several points ahead of every other player on the board. In fact, the difference between Davis and the No. 2-rated player, Jared Sullinger, is greater than the gap between Sullinger and No. 16 Bradley Beal. And Sullinger's rating comes with asterisks that don't afflict Davis.



    2. Remember, we're projecting PER




    This gets extremely important when you look at the next few players that Draft Rater highlights and when you look back at some of the players Draft Rater has fawned over mistakenly in recent seasons. In each, you'll notice a huge propensity toward defensively lacking power forwards -- players like Michael Beasley, Charlie Villanueva and Tyrus Thomas, who had some of the best marks in recent seasons.


    That's not a failure of Draft Rater as much as a failure of what I've asked it to do: project NBA PER from college stats. It did that; Beasley, Villanueva and Thomas all have excellent career PER marks. They just aren't very good in spite of those numbers due to their defensive shortcomings and questions about their fit in the team concept.


    So let's take a closer look at two relatively short, stocky power forwards who are among the next names on the list: Sullinger and Draymond Green. Will these guys put up numbers? Very likely. Will they be able to guard their position? That is a much more open question and why they won't go as highly as Draft Rater places them. Green, in particular, is a massive defensive question mark.


    This applies to a lesser extent to the next several players. Terrence Jones and Royce White, who also has anxiety issues that may affect his draft position, are much more offensive players who are an inch short for the power forward spot, and Furkan Aldemir of Turkey -- who rates as a mid-first-rounder although he probably won't be taken until the middle of the second round -- has defensive shortcomings too.


    At least that makes it easy to pick out the second-best big man this year: Thomas Robinson of Kansas, who has no such defensive shortcomings and should be able to score effectively with his athleticism around the rim.


    Also warranting looks later in the lottery are two project-level bigs with more upside, especially at the defensive end: Andre Drummond and John Henson. Henson has a slightly higher rating, but as a 7-foot center, Drummond is virtually certain to be the higher pick.


    Finally, a sleeper among bigs is Henry Sims of Georgetown. He is not a great athlete and will struggle defensively, but he is a high skill guy who could be a second-round steal.


    Bigs: The Best

    Name College/Country Rating
    Anthony Davis Kentucky 22.23
    Jared Sullinger Ohio State 16.86
    Thomas Robinson Kansas 15.20
    Draymond Green Michigan State 14.84
    Terrence Jones Kentucky 14.28
    Royce White Iowa State 14.07
    Furkan Aldemir Turkey 12.87
    John Henson North Carolina 12.11
    Andre Drummond Connecticut 12.05
    Henry Sims Georgetown 10.38





    3. High-rated wings usually deliver




    As I noted with Leonard a year ago, wing players -- especially bigger ones -- with strong Draft Rater marks virtually never fail. Of the eight players to rate above 13 in the past decade, the worst among them was Josh Childress. Five of the players have played in an All-Star Game, and Rudy Gay may play in an All-Star Game soon. The seventh player is Leonard.


    This year, we have two names to add to that list: Dion Waiters and Michael Kidd-Gilchrist. Kidd-Gilchrist is probably the safest pick on the board -- a big wing who plays defense, has strong stats and comes with no character questions. From a risk-aversion perspective alone he should be a top-five pick; I have him third on my board after Robinson. (See below for how I would rank the prospects, regardless of their Draft Rater numbers.)


    I have Waiters fourth for similar reasons. His size, 6-foot-4, is more of a concern, but whatever team made him a promise did a wise thing. Waiters projects as the best small wing since Dwyane Wade, and he'd be a steal if somebody got him in the Nos. 8-10 range currently being discussed.


    The other wing everybody is sleeping on is Quincy Miller of Baylor, who put up a strong mark despite coming off an ACL injury. He has more questions marks because of the knee and his bony build, but he is long and can score. The stories of him slipping have me baffled, because he rates as a top-10 pick.


    Two other wings who will be drafted highly don't rate as strongly: Beal and Harrison Barnes. Most players in their range turn out to be solid, but this part of the pool doesn't produce many stars. I'd be more comfortable taking these two in the later part of the lottery.


    Doronand Jeremy Lamb added to the perpetual confusion between the two by posting virtually the same rating, although this may be the only one that had Doron rated higher. Jeremy is likely to go 15 picks sooner given his higher ceiling, but Doron could be a great pickup in the late first or early second round as a Courtney Lee clone who hits 3s and defends.


    The other wing worth a first-round look is Memphis' Will Barton, whom most have slotted as a second-rounder and who rates as a nice sleeper.


    Perimeter Players: The Best

    Name College/Country Rating
    Dion Waiters Syracuse 14.12
    Kendall Marshall North Carolina 13.84
    Michael Kidd-Gilchrist Kentucky 13.58
    Marquis Teague Kentucky 13.18
    Quincy Miller Baylor 12.94
    Tony Wroten Washington 12.21
    Bradley Beal Florida 11.65
    Kostas Sloukas Greece 11.51
    Harrison Barnes North Carolina 11.11
    Will Barton Memphis 10.90
    Doron Lamb Kentucky 10.65
    Jeremy Lamb Connecticut 10.50





    4. The point guard conundrum




    Point guard is the hardest position to draft because so much depends on improvement once the player turns pro. Unless it's an overwhelming talent such as Chris Paul or Irving, the smarter play is usually to draft this position late and hope for the best.


    This year, several point guards rate as first-round talents, and there is little to separate them. North Carolina's Kendall Marshall is the highest rated of the bunch and the safest pick, but he offers the least upside. Often compared to Mark Jackson because of his size, acumen and lack of athleticism, he is a solid mid-first-round pick. A poor man's version of Marshall might be Kostas Sloukas of Greece, who has solid translated Euroleague stats but will be a late second-rounder if he's drafted at all because of his questionable athleticism.


    On the other hand, Marquis Teague of Kentucky and Tony Wroten of Washington have talent to spare and star upside. The question is whether each can harness it. Teague was plagued by turnovers, especially early in the year, but he is an athletic scoring point guard in the mold of his older brother, the Atlanta Hawks' Jeff Teague. Wroten, meanwhile, is enormous for a point guard (6-6) and can really see the floor, but he can't shoot and has lots of character questions.


    Among Marshall, Wroten and Teague, it really is dealer's choice as to how much risk you're willing to take on for the reward. By the mid-first round I start liking Wroten's star potential quite a bit, but others may wish to play it more safely.



    5. The rest of the bigs




    In the tail end of the first round and throughout the second, we're sorting through several big men with fairly weak Draft Rater résumés. The Rater is a particularly harsh judge at the center position, where it frowns on the prospects of four centers with first-round aspirations -- Tyler Zeller, Meyers Leonard, Fab Melo and Festus Ezeli -- and flat-out mocks Miles Plumlee, who is off-the-charts bad with a 2.49 Draft Rater projection.


    Plumlee aside, the other four are probably worthy of late first-round picks despite any misgivings, simply because size is such a rare commodity. Even if they can become just decent backup centers, taking them low in the first round makes sense. Two other 7-footers, Garrett Stutz of Wichita State and Robert Sacre of Gonzaga, shape up as solid second-rounders if we apply similar reasoning.


    At the power forward spot, Perry Jones III is rated several notches lower than most, while two other likely first-rounders, Andrew Nicholson and Arnett Moultrie, rate as second-round picks. Also of note is Croatian forward Leon Radosevic as a decent second-round value play.


    Bigs: The Rest

    Name College/Country Rating
    Perry Jones III Baylor 8.77
    Leon Radosevic Croatia 8.77
    JaMychal Green Alabama 8.73
    Drew Gordon New Mexico 8.39
    Tyler Zeller North Carolina 8.23
    Andrew Nicholson St. Bonaventure 8.22
    Quincy Acy Baylor 8.16
    Fab Melo Syracuse 7.73
    Garrett Stutz Wichita State 7.68
    Mike Scott Virginia 7.50
    Robert Sacre Gonzaga 7.37
    Cameron Moore UAB 7.03
    Meyers Leonard Illinois 7.02
    Mitchell Watt Buffalo 6.77
    Festus Ezeli Vanderbilt 6.54
    Arnett Moultrie Mississippi State 6.42





    6. Potential perimeter busts




    One player that Draft Rater isn't crazy about is Damian Lillard of Weber State, who compiled strong numbers but did so against a weak schedule and is much older than most of the prospects at his position. He not only failed to outrank the top point guards above but also rates behind the less-heralded Tyshawn Taylor of Kansas. No. 6 clearly seems a stretch for Lillard, who looks more like a mid-to-late first-rounder in this analysis.


    On the wings, a few potential first-rounders also fare poorly. Moe Harkless of St. John's had one of the worst ratings of any first-round prospect. While the error rate on one-and-done players has been higher, the difference between Harkless and the other lottery candidates is well outside the standard error of the Rater.


    In addition to Harkless, first-round prospects John Jenkins and Jeffery Taylor of Vanderbilt fared poorly. Another first-round prospect from overseas, Evan Fournier of France, didn't play in the Euroleague this year and thus has no projection. Subjectively, I'm not sold on him -- he's basically a slashing scorer who isn't athletic enough to score that way in the NBA -- but he at least has the benefit of being only 19.


    One player gathering momentum is Kostas Papanikolaou of Greece, who shapes up as a solid second-round stash pick. Two other wing prospects -- Austin Rivers and Terrence Ross -- shape up about where we'd expect as mid-to-late first rounders, but after those two, the pool thins out quickly.


    A final sleeper to watch is Maryland point guard Terrell Stoglin, another guy who would make a great second-rounder.


    Perimeter Players: The Rest



    Name College/Country Rating
    Tyshawn Taylor Kansas 10.19
    Austin Rivers Duke 9.85
    Terrell Stoglin Maryland 9.82
    Damian Lillard Weber State 9.75
    Kostas Papanikolaou Greece 9.26
    Terrence Ross Washington 9.12
    William Buford Ohio State 8.58
    J'Covan Brown Texas 8.49
    Jordan Taylor Wisconsin 8.19
    Reggie Hamilton Oakland 8.18
    Maalik Wayns Villanova 8.02
    Hollis Thompson Georgetown 8.01
    Tony Mitchell Alabama 7.91
    Jae Crowder Marquette 7.90
    Jared Cunningham Oregon State 7.76
    John Jenkins Vanderbilt 7.76
    Khris Middleton Texas A&M 7.68
    Scott Machado Iona 7.57
    Tornike Shengelia Republic of Georgia 7.33
    Moe Harkless St. John's 7.15
    Tu Holloway Xavier 7.14
    Orlando Johnson UC Santa Barbara 7.11
    Darius Miller Kentucky 6.65
    Jeffery Taylor Vanderbilt 6.59





    7. Making my board




    Knowing everything we know, here is how my board looks heading into draft day. This is taking into account everything from the Draft Rater as well as what we know about the players' red flags, defensive pluses and minuses and one or two subjective calls:

    1. Anthony Davis
    2. Thomas Robinson
    3. Michael Kidd-Gilchrist
    4. Dion Waiters
    5. Andre Drummond


    6. Quincy Miller
    7. Jared Sullinger
    8. Terrence Jones
    9. John Henson
    10. Royce White


    11. Bradley Beal
    12. Harrison Barnes
    13. Tony Wroten
    14. Kendall Marshall
    15. Marquis Teague


    16. Draymond Green
    17. Jeremy Lamb
    18. Damian Lillard
    19. Austin Rivers
    20. Doron Lamb


    21. Furkan Aldemir
    22. Will Barton
    23. Tyler Zeller
    24. Evan Fournier
    25. Tyshawn Taylor


    26. Meyers Leonard
    27. Terrence Ross
    28. Perry Jones
    29. Festus Ezeli
    30. Fab Melo


    31. Kostas Sloukas
    32. Henry Sims
    33. Terrell Stoglin
    34. Kostas Papanikolaou
    35. Moe Harkless


    36. Leon Radosevic
    37. JaMychal Green
    38. Andrew Nicholson
    39. Drew Gordon
    40. Garrett Stutz


    41. Robert Sacre
    42. Arnett Moultrie
    43. William Buford
    44. Jae Crowder
    45. Jared Cunningham


    46. Jordan Taylor
    47. John Jenkins
    48. Orlando Johnson
    49. Jeffrey Taylor
    50. Tomas Satoransky


    51. Quincy Acy
    52. Maalik Wayns
    53. Tornike Shengelia
    54. Scott Machado
    55. Mike Scott


    56. J'Covan Brown
    57. Reggie Hamilton
    58. Khris Middleton
    59. Tony Mitchell
    60. Miles Plumlee

  • #2
    Re: Hollinger's draft rater

    Originally posted by ballism View Post

    At 26, the Pacers apparently have a hard choice between Leonard Meyers, Terrence Ross, Perry Jones III, Arnett Moultrie and Moe Harkless. Not bad, I say!
    I could deal with that.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Hollinger's draft rater

      Originally posted by IndyPacer View Post
      I could deal with that.
      It's too bad Hollinger and the whole stat revolution doesn't have more weight yet.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Hollinger's draft rater

        Originally posted by ballism View Post
        Not necessarily the most successful of Hollinger's inventions, but it's a fun read, in case someone is interested.

        At 26, the Pacers apparently have a hard choice between Leonard Meyers, Terrence Ross, Perry Jones III, Arnett Moultrie and Moe Harkless. Not bad, I say!
        Eh, I think you're reading Hollinger's list wrong. The Pacers should actually look for top rated talent who possibly might be available at 26. From Hollinger's list, that should include Quincy Miller, Terence Jones, Wroten, Teague, Green. If you believe Hollinger anyway, any of those guys should be good value at 26.

        Would be interested to see p4e's take, since 2 of his guys (Lilliard and Machado) aren't rated too highly.

        That said, Hollinger himself states that his model isn't foolproof. It's just another way to rate players.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Hollinger's draft rater

          Originally posted by wintermute View Post
          Eh, I think you're reading Hollinger's list wrong.
          yes, it was a joke obviously. Hollinger is rating talent, not predicting their actual draft position.

          But if someone had the time/will to cross check Hollinger's list with Chad Ford's actual predictions of who might be available to us at 26, especially his top 100 list, and post results, that would be fun to see.
          Last edited by ballism; 06-19-2012, 03:14 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Hollinger's draft rater

            I hate the PER stat by itself now he is trying to project PER. I dont know I like Hollinger but his stats are a bit much.

            It is funny that he thinks Lillard will have a bad PER the most efficient players in college basketball last year. I am guessing it is due to competition(that is what he lists in the article he really doesnt give any other reason. Wonder what Rodney Stucky was rated a few years ago)

            and like he said his system missed on players last year. His job is to write articles on his stats it is interesting but I dont like PER at all very very flawed stat.

            also how can Kostas Papanikolaou be considered a bust?? No one thinks he can play in the league can it get worse?? Is he gonna stop being good enough to play overseas


            I do like Henry Sims as a draft sleeper though.


            I do have to go back and watch tape on Watiers I wasn't that impressed with him like everyone seems to be. I see him being very OJ Mayo ish he isn't near the athlete of a Wade or Eric Gordon IMO. Yes he could score but I dont see him as being the best small guard since Wade(Eric Gordon ring a bell).

            But anyone who thinks stats at the college level can predict NBA success is mistaken and even Hollinger himself will tell you that. (I would like to see all the stuff that goes in when projecting this doubt he will share that though)

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Hollinger's draft rater

              Quincy Miller and Marquis Teague are looking mighty good at 26 now.
              First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Hollinger's draft rater

                Originally posted by ballism View Post
                yes, it was a joke obviously. Hollinger is rating talent, not predicting their actual draft position.

                But if someone had the time/will to cross check Hollinger's list with Chad Ford's actual predictions of who might be available to us at 26, especially his top 100 list, and post results, that would be fun to see.
                I use my own system for compiling a draft board based on a "special" averaging of the most popular sites (DX, NBAdraft, ESPN, SI). I added Hollinger and got the list below. (Adding his list doesn't change the overall ordering a whole lot, but he does decrease the overall "value" of some of the supposed top picks.) Note that the ratings denote where the consensus thinks a player "should be" selected. Thus, if you want a certain player and he remains available well after the "should be" rating, you likely will be pleased if we select him (or trade up to select him) after he falls past that slot.

                1 A Davis
                4 T Robinson
                7 M Kidd-Gilchrist
                9 A Drummond
                11 B Beal
                14 D Waiters
                15 D Lillard
                17 J Sullinger
                17 J Lamb
                18 J Henson
                18 T Jones
                18 A Rivers
                19 M Leonard
                20 T Zeller
                22 K Marshall
                22 T Ross
                23 P Jones
                24 Q Miller
                24 M Teague
                24 R White
                25 A Moultrie
                25 F Melo
                26 M Harkless
                27 T Wroten
                27 A Nicholson
                28 D Green
                29 W Barton
                29 E Fournier
                30 D Lamb
                30 J Taylor
                31 F Ezeli
                32 T Taylor
                32 J Jenkins
                32 J Cunningham
                32 D Miller
                35 O Johnson

                EDIT (6/19): Updated after Chad Ford's June 19th mock with Sullinger medical concern.
                Last edited by DrFife; 06-19-2012, 04:35 PM.


                "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


                • #9
                  Re: Hollinger's draft rater

                  Chad Ford's tier article comes out next week (hopefully someone posts it)I always like that one a bit. He gets his info stright from GMs and what not always my favorite predraft read.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Hollinger's draft rater

                    If we have a shot at Perry Jones III we better take it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Hollinger's draft rater

                      Why do you want PJ3 so much he isnt what we need wont play 4 because he is to pussy of body contact and we already have a 3 in danny
                      Counting down the days untill DJ Augustin's contract expires.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Hollinger's draft rater

                        Originally posted by PGisthefuture View Post
                        If we have a shot at Perry Jones III we better take it.
                        Originally posted by Hypnotiq View Post
                        Why do you want PJ3 so much he isnt what we need wont play 4 because he is to pussy of body contact and we already have a 3 in danny
                        i was really high on perry jones until i read an article comparing him to tim thomas.

                        That did it for me. Given all the things said about him both good and bad, it seemed a pretty good comparison. and really soured me.

                        Now if he's available at #26 . . .

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Hollinger's draft rater

                          I still think PJIII has a better chance of reaching his potential with the Pacers than elsewhere. Pacers already have a young core that works very very hard. I would expect that to rub off on PJ.

                          However, PJIII definitely scares me. How can a guy with his talent not improve from last year? Ugh.
                          First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Hollinger's draft rater

                            PJIII reminds me of Lamar Odom. If he's there at 26 you gotta take him.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Hollinger's draft rater

                              Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
                              I still think PJIII has a better chance of reaching his potential with the Pacers than elsewhere. Pacers already have a young core that works very very hard. I would expect that to rub off on PJ.

                              However, PJIII definitely scares me. How can a guy with his talent not improve from last year? Ugh.
                              I will say that he improved, and at times he looked like he could be the top pick in the draft but his consistency is not there, it is like he can not catche the flow of the game nd determine when he should be doing what, attacking, facilitating, defending tight or loose. I guess you could basically say that he has horrible in game adjustments.

                              As far as growth to me he seemed more like a leader this year than last, and even though it was not great, his shot selection improved.

                              He had spans where he consistently put up or came close to putting up double doubles but he did not always show that.

                              I think if he can go to a team where he has a set role and he can stick to that role then he can be a pretty good NBA player.
                              Why so SERIOUS

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X