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

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

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

  • 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, 02:21 PM.

  • #2
    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!

    Comment


    • #3
      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?

      Comment


      • #4
        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

          Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
          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.

          Comment


          • #6
            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!

            Comment


            • #7
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                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

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

                  Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                  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, 03:36 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

                    Originally posted by d_c View Post
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

                      Originally posted by d_c View Post
                      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).

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

                        Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Draft Rater: Prospects 1st to worst, by John Hollinger

                              Originally posted by blanket View Post
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X