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

Pre-draft workouts

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

  • Re: Pre-draft workouts

    Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
    Speaking of wingspans has anyone heard of this high schooler, Beejay Anya?

    The kid is 16 and is 6'8 with a unbelievable wing span of 7 feet 9 inches. I hope IU is recruiting him.
    They are. How serious, I don't know. But I've seen his name mentioned a few times with Indiana.

    Comment


    • Re: Pre-draft workouts

      Originally posted by cdash View Post
      They are. How serious, I don't know. But I've seen his name mentioned a few times with Indiana.
      They gave him a offer


      http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketb...ay-Anya-120869

      Comment


      • Re: Pre-draft workouts

        Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
        .
        Wonder if it's a clean bill of health.
        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


        • Re: Pre-draft workouts

          Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
          Tom Crean offers everyone. Seriously, he throws around offers like a 77 year old grandpa throws around Werther's caramel treats.

          Comment


          • Re: Pre-draft workouts

            I really want Reggie Jackson here also.


            Oh, and I want no iu talk in my thread, iu sucks

            Comment


            • Re: Pre-draft workouts

              Draft Rater: Who will be good in pros?
              EmailPrintComments
              Here's Hollinger's statistical draft rater. He does not like Marshon Brooks.

              By John Hollinger
              ESPN.com

              http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft...ftrater-110620



              Howard Smith/US Presswire
              Many experts think Kyrie Irving is the best prospect in the 2011 draft. What does the Draft Rater say?
              It's a fool's errand, but let's do it anyway.

              Yep, it's time for the Draft Rater. There are inherent limitations in trying to pore through a player's statistics and project what he'll be capable of five years down the road. The things the stats don't tell us -- about his dedication, eating habits, off-court life, the system his team runs, and 10,000 other things -- badly outnumber what the stats do tell us.

              Yet, surprisingly, the stats seem able to tell us quite a bit. That's the premise behind the Draft Rater, my annual data-driven guide to the draft, and this year we have better clues than ever as to how it can help us and how it can't.

              To review, my Draft Rater is a regression analysis comparing 16 variables to a player's NBA player efficiency rating, using the average of their top three seasons in their first seven years as a pro. Some haven't played three seasons yet or won't ever, so we take their career PER. We've also set a PER floor of 4.0 for those who couldn't make the league, and 5.0 for those who barely made it.

              I've once again rebuilt it from the bottom up this year. Along with this year's revisions, the Rater was already getting smarter every year as it got more data and more NBA results from players already drafted. As a result, we can see with greater specificity which statistics translate to the pro game and which ones don't.

              Second, we've seen the particular ways in which it fails. The most obvious one is on all the squishy stuff -- character, dedication, conditioning, etc. Michael Beasley, Michael Sweetney and DeMarcus Cousins all got huge marks from the Draft Rater, but one could justify passing on them on draft day given the other red flags. Similarly, we don't have a good measure for injury-proneness either -- Curtis Borchardt, Brandan Wright and Greg Oden, take a bow.

              But more particularly, in back testing this year's Draft Rater, it's become obvious where it succeeds and where it falters. To wit:

              • One-and-done gives it trouble. This isn't a fatal weakness, but players who stay only one year don't give the Rater enough information to develop a reliable estimate ... especially ones who improve rapidly through their freshman season, as Derrick Rose did in his one season at Memphis. Rose still finished with a strong rating, but if we'd based it solely on the second half of his freshman season it would have been much higher.


              • UCLA messes it up. For some reason, every Ben Howland product massively outperformed his estimate as a pro. This is over a period of seven years involving 13 NBA prospects, and all of them except Josh Shipp outperformed; many of them did so by wide margins. Given the consistency of the disparity, I included a "Howland" variable in this year's model. One can argue that this is a case overfitting the model to past results, so we'll see how it projects this year with Tyler Honeycutt and Malcolm Lee.

              • It's way better with perimeter players. This is probably the biggest realization from looking at back data on the draft rater. Perimeter players with high ratings all become stars. All of them. The big guys? Not so much. Some of them have become superstars -- Love, Blake Griffin, Chris Bosh. Many others, however, have merely been decent players. A couple with fairly high ratings haven't been able to play at all.

              I believe there are two reasons for this.

              The first is off the court. Looking back, if I could tag the stats with additional variables like "doesn't like basketball," "space cadet" or "pothead," I could make the projection for big men considerably more accurate.

              This isn't a factor for perimeter players because it's very difficult to have such glaring red flags and succeed as a wing or a point guard -- there are too many other people of the same size and too many skills required that can be developed with only a certain level of dedication.

              For big men it's a different game, however, especially at the college level. The biggest and most athletic ones can dominate the glass and shoot 65 percent on dunks and layups without developing much of anything else in the way of basketball skills.

              Top-rated point guards, 2002-2011
              Player Rate
              Chris Paul 15.28
              Kyrie Irving 15.21
              Jordan Farmar 14.80
              Jrue Holiday 14.04
              T.J. Ford 13.65
              Jay Williams 13.38
              Russell Westbrook 13.24
              Mike Conley 13.07
              Jameer Nelson 13.05
              Derrick Rose 12.99
              John Wall 12.89

              Second, I believe the stats translate better for perimeter players because it's very hard to get true one-on-one post-up chances at the college level, but this is a major part of the diet for most NBA big men -- especially the ones that are drafted in the lottery. So for perimeter players, the college stats are a much more apples-to-apples translation.

              • It skews higher for big men. This, in retrospect, is not a "problem" as much as something to keep in mind. In any draft, most of the early picks are big men, and there's a good reason for this -- first because size is rare, and second because bigs in general have a greater disparity between good and bad.

              Second, historically power forwards have had the easiest time racking up a solid PER, and most of the big men on the board on draft day are power forwards rather than centers. As a result, in any given season there will be more highly rated bigs than perimeter players.

              So, to review, it ain't perfect. But we can still learn a ton from it. Let's take a look at this year's Rater and see what it says about the top college prospects:

              Kyrie Irving is the one sure thing
              If I had to put my money on one player in the draft becoming a star, it would be Kyrie Irving.

              OK, no shock there.

              But here's the logic -- Irving's rating of 15.12 is the best of any perimeter player. While he compiled that in just 312 minutes, his low minute total actually hurts him in the Draft Rater (minutes played are a positive indicator of future success). And he's in pretty exclusive company. The other perimeter players to post a rating of more than 15 all became stars -- since 2002, the six perimeter players to do so are Chris Paul, Carmelo Anthony, Kevin Durant, Dwyane Wade, Danny Granger and Rudy Gay. Based on those comparables, I like my chances if I'm Cleveland.

              Top-rated point guards, 2002-2011
              Player Rating
              Chris Paul 15.28
              Kyrie Irving 15.21
              Jordan Farmar 14.80
              Jrue Holiday 14.04
              T.J. Ford 13.65
              Jay Williams 13.38
              Russell Westbrook 13.24
              Mike Conley 13.07
              Jameer Nelson 13.05
              Derrick Rose 12.99
              John Wall 12.89

              Two more perimeter players to like
              If I had to peg two other perimeter players that I would guarantee to at least become solid rotation players, it would be Kemba Walker and Kawhi Leonard. While this year's draft doesn't project to have a lot of star talent at the perimeter positions, Walker and Leonard are the two who rate above 12 -- which, historically, has been a guarantee of at least being decent.

              Of the 13 point guards to rate above 12, the list includes Paul, Jordan Farmar, T.J. Ford, Jay Williams, Russell Westbrook, Mike Conley, Jameer Nelson, Derrick Rose, John Wall, Frank Williams, Ty Lawson, Ray Felton and Darren Collison. Jay Williams had a bad injury, of course, but of those 12 only Frank Williams couldn't play. The others were all decent-to-great, which means Walker, at 12.75, looks fairly bust-proof.

              Similarly, of the 14 wings to rate better than 12, the list includes Durant, Wade, Anthony, Granger, Gay, Luol Deng, Josh Childress, Mike Dunleavy, Dajuan Wagner, Rashad McCants, Evan Turner, Delonte West, Caron Butler and Ben Gordon. Only Wagner and McCants failed, and each pretty clearly had NBA talent. So Leonard, at 13.21 with no injury or character red flags, looks like a very, very safe play.

              Top 10 wings, 2002-2011
              Player Rating
              Kevin Durant 17.67
              Dwyane Wade 17.05
              Carmelo Anthony 16.63
              Danny Granger 15.43
              Rudy Gay 15.10
              Luol Deng 14.46
              Josh Childress 13.37
              Kawhi Leonard 13.21
              Mike Dunleavy 12.95
              Dajuan Wagner 12.72

              The mystery man
              Tyler Honeycutt of UCLA is the player I'm most interested in watching in this draft (and this coming season). His rating of 12.56 rates him as a quality rotation player on the wing and a lottery pick.

              However, much of his rating stems from the fact that he's a Howland product; eliminating that fact from the database knocked him down several pegs. Again, if we're guilty of overfitting the model to past results, he shouldn't be this high. He's projected to go late in the first round right now and could represent good value based on the overachieving history of other players from his school. Since I'm still apprehensive about the UCLA adjustment I have him 13th on my board.

              Two Euros to watch
              My Euroleague translations say two players in this year's draft, Jonas Valanciunas and Nikola Mirotic, would be rotation players immediately if they came to the States. Valanciunas rated higher, with a translated PER of 14.70 (albeit in limited minutes) compare to 13.66 for Mirotic. Of perhaps more importance is that Mirotic is contractually bound to stay in Europe for a few more years. He'd be a top-10 pick on my board if it weren't for that; as it is, I've dropped him behind all the players I consider relatively safe bets.

              Translated PER from Euroleague games
              Player Rating
              Jonas Valanciunas 14.70
              Giorgi Shermadini 14.63
              Nikola Mirotic 13.66
              Jan Vesely 10.72
              Bojan Bogdanovic 10.40

              The other top European prospect, Czech forward Jan Vesely, doesn't grade out nearly as well. His first-year PER translates to 10.72; while one supposes he would improve further from that point given his youth and athleticism, it still makes him somewhere south of a sure thing. I've listed him as a top-20 pick based on potential and the general weakness of this draft, but taking him in the top five or 10 would be a mistake.

              Two other internationals who warrant mentioning are Giorgi Shermadini and Bojan Bogdanovic. Shermadini, a 7-footer from the Republic of Georgia, forecasts as a sleeper with a 14.63 translated PER; however, he played in just 249 minutes, so we should take that with a grain of salt. He's an intriguing second-round play nonetheless. Bogdanovic is a more traditional second-round hopeful -- probably not good enough to play in the NBA now, but maybe he improves on somebody else's dime over the next few years.

              No numbers here
              There are four international men of mystery in this draft who did not play in the Euroleague last season and thus have no translated stats for me to discuss: Bismack Biyombo, Enes Kanter, Donatas Motiejunas, and Davis Bertans.

              Fortunately, I've seen all three at the Hoop Summit the past two seasons. Biyombo has scouts worried because he can't shoot at all, but he's a dominating defensive force in the paint; at the absolute worst he's going to be better than Ekpe Udoh. I slotted him 11th on my board, behind all the players the Draft Rater is really gung-ho about. He's going to be a rotation player based on defense and rebounding alone; the question is if he can finish enough plays at the basket to start.

              Kanter is sort of the anti-Biyombo; He's not much of an athlete and will be suspect at the defensive end, but has such a high skill level offensively that he's going to score relatively easily. A good comparable might be fellow Turk Mehmet Okur, except Kanter is probably more skilled with the ball.

              Motiejunas and Bertans are worthwhile choices later in the first round; each is high on skill but suspect in terms of strength and athleticism. An American who was last seen in Europe, Jeremy Tyler, falls into the same category.

              Two point guards on the fence
              Brandon Knight could go as high as the third pick, while Jimmer Fredette is also a likely lottery selection. Draft Rater is pretty lukewarm on both of them. Knight rates at 10.02 and Fredette rates at 10.45; unheralded Norris Cole of Cleveland State has a better rating than both. Each projects to have a career, but probably as a third guard or marginal starter.

              Draft Rater top-rated perimeter players
              Player Rating
              Kyrie Irving 15.14
              Kawhi Leonard 13.21
              Kemba Walker 12.75
              Tyler Honeycutt 12.56
              Jordan Hamilton 11.90
              Alec Burks 11.87
              Klay Thompson 10.88
              Norris Cole 10.85
              Jimmer Fredette 10.45
              Chris Singleton 10.15
              Brandon Knight 10.02
              Darius Morris 9.57
              Brad Wanamaker 9.57
              Reggie Jackson 9.45
              Damian Saunders 9.20

              In Knight's case, as a one-and-done we have to acknowledge that the system hasn't rated players like him as accurately, although it has done very well with guards as a whole. Fredette has a slightly better rating in a larger body of work.

              Among point guards to rate between 10 and 11, the historical comps aren't great: One All-Star (Rajon Rondo), one really good player (Kyle Lowry), several halfway decent players (Luke Ridnour, D.J. Augustin, Jerryd Bayless, Mario Chalmers), and some end-of-bench filler (Darius Washington, Marcus Banks).

              I moved Knight up to 12th on my board to reflect that his one-and-done status may result in his being undervalued; on sheer rating he'd be in the 20s. Fredette I've left at 19 ... two spots behind Cole.

              Guards who don't make the cut
              Probably the most suspect candidate, according to Draft Rater, is Marshon Brooks; his 7.88 rating was 27th among perimeter players. The Providence guard put up huge stats, but his average is hugely padded by two factors: First, the Friars played the fastest pace of any major Division I team; second, Brooks played nearly every minute of every game, averaging 36.5 per game -- remember, they play only 40 in college. Let all the air out and his numbers look a lot more ordinary -- his usage rate, which is his most alluring stat, ranks only ninth among prospects. Given his age (22 and five months) and his relative inefficiency, I'm not sure there's a ton to see here. Draft Rater sees him as a second rounder.

              Kansas' Josh Selby rated even worse -- 7.69, 30th among perimeter players. I moved him up my board a bit to account for his one-and-done status, but his raw numbers were rather poor. In particular, a point guard with a -1.11 pure point rating should send talent evaluators shrieking. It was easily the worst of any point guard prospect, and worse than all but five wings as well.

              The big man conundrum
              As I noted above, the Draft Rater has been really solid on perimeter players. On interior players, the results have been a bit more scattered. The problem has been "false positives." It has picked out all the guys who could play; it has just picked out a lot of other guys a long with them.

              Top rated bigs, 2002-2011
              Player Rating
              Kevin Love 20.78
              Michael Beasley 18.36
              Greg Oden 17.69
              Tyrus Thomas 17.25
              Blake Griffin 17.14
              Andrew Bogut 16.90
              DeMarcus Cousins 16.86
              Michael Sweetney 16.70
              Tristan Thompson 16.21
              Curtis Borchardt 16.01
              Derrick Williams 15.97
              Greg Monroe 15.77
              Jared Jeffries 15.65
              Chris Bosh 15.57
              Derrick Favors 15.51

              For that reason, we want to tread a little more carefully with the frontcourt players. However, two players in particular warrant our attention: Tristan Thompson and Derrick Williams.

              Thompson and Williams had the highest ratings of any player in the Draft Rater this year, and while that doesn't come with the same assurances it does for Kyrie Irving, they both appear to be very solid prospects. Of the 13 players who rated at 15.5 or above in previous iterations, most were very successful as pros, and the ones that weren't tended to fail due to injuries and lack of professionalism -- issues that shouldn't be factors for Thompson and Williams. The one true miss was Jared Jeffries.

              The other strong frontcourt prospect is Tobias Harris of Tennessee with a rating of 14.83. Of the 19 big men to rate between 13.5 and 15.5, a few were dogs, but two became All-Stars (Al Horford and Carlos Boozer) and most became quality players.

              Things start getting more iffy at the next level, where we get into the Jon Leuers and Nikola Vucevicses. Also included in that group is unheralded Greg Smith from Fresno State, who could end up as a second-round steal.

              Draft Rater: Top-rated big men
              Player Rating
              Tristan Thompson 16.21
              Derrick Williams 15.97
              Tobias Harris 14.83
              Jon Leuer 13.47
              Nikola Vucevic 13.32
              Greg Smith 12.93
              Jordan Williams 11.87
              Rick Jackson 11.65
              JaJuan Johnson 11.54
              Malcolm Thomas 11.29
              Marcus Morris 10.93
              Matt Howard 10.49
              Trey Thompkins 10.44
              Kenneth Faried 10.25
              Jamie Skeen 10.17
              Markieff Morris 10.03
              Justin Harper 9.58

              Big men who rated between 12 and 14, as those three did, have been a mixed bag: Nearly all had careers and some were very good, but several were career backups and a few were just flat-out bad. Of the 29, two became All-Stars (LaMarcus Aldridge and David West), and 15 of the 29 became top-eight rotation players.

              Similarly, those who rated between 11 and 12 -- as Malcolm Thomas, Jordan Williams, Rick Jackson and JaJuan Johnson do -- were very much a mixed bag. The takeaway here is to put more credence on scouting reports with players in this range; I've done that on my draft board. Lacking strong evidence one way or the other in this range, we'll go with the subjective opinions.

              At the back end, two players who rate surprisingly weak are Marcus and Markieff Morris of Kansas. Historically, big men who rate between 10 and 11 are career backups. Of the 23 who did so, only David Lee became a star; five others became top-eight rotation players, and the rest were bench filler or didn't make the league at all. Based on that information, they're late first- or early second-round selections. On my board, I have the Morrises ahead of the other players in the 10-12 range, but it's tough to justify putting them ahead of similarly rated perimeter players.



              Summing it up
              Which takes us to the final step -- my draft board. Based on all the information from Draft Rater, the projections of the Europeans, what I've seen in the past three Hoop Summits, and using the general consensus of draftniks as a tie-breaker with the close calls, here's how my board of the top 60 looks.

              But first, if you're looking for the CliffsNotes version of my Draft Rater, here are the five big takeaways:

              • Marshon Brooks, Josh Selby and the two Morrises appear overvalued.
              • Brandon Knight, Jimmer Fredette and Jan Vesely are overvalued, but not as strongly.
              • Kyrie Irving and Derrick Williams are, rightly, the top two players on the board.
              • Tristan Thompson and Tobias Harris are undervalued.
              • Jon Leuer, Norris Cole and Greg Smith are your sleepers.

              And now, my top 60 heading into Wednesday:

              My board
              [+] Enlarge
              Brendan Maloney/US Presswire
              Tristan Thompson rises all the way to No. 3 in the Draft Rater.
              1. Kyrie Irving
              2. Derrick Williams
              3. Tristan Thompson
              4. Jonas Valuncianas
              5. Kawhi Leonard
              6. Enes Kanter
              7. Kemba Walker
              8. Tobias Harris
              9. Alec Burks
              10. Jordan Hamilton
              11. Bismack Biyombo
              12. Brandon Knight
              13. Tyler Honeycutt
              14. Jon Leuer
              15. Nikola Vucevic
              16. Chris Singleton
              17. Jan Vesely
              18. Klay Thompson
              19. Norris Cole
              20. Iman Shumpert
              21. Nikola Mirotic
              22. Jimmer Fredette
              23. Donatas Motiejunas
              24. Greg Smith
              25. Marcus Morris
              26. JaJuan Johnson
              27. Markieff Morris
              28. Davis Bertans
              29. Kenneth Faried
              30. Jeremy Tyler



              31. Jordan Williams
              32. Bojan Bogdanovic
              33. Darius Morris
              34. Giorgi Shermadini
              35. Reggie Jackson
              36. Rick Jackson
              37. Brad Wanamaker
              38. Damian Saunders
              39. Nolan Smith
              40. Malcolm Thomas
              41. Travis Leslie
              42. Trey Thompkins
              43. Malcolm Lee
              44. Charles Jenkins
              45. Cory Joseph
              46. E'Twaun Moore
              47. Josh Selby
              48. Jacob Pullen
              49. Justin Harper
              50. Jimmy Butler
              51. Matt Howard
              52. Jamie Skeen
              53. Jereme Richmond
              54. Keith Benson
              55. D.J. Kennedy
              56. Marshon Brooks
              57. Isaiah Thomas
              58. Andrew Goudelouck
              59. Lavoy Allen
              60. Shelvin Mack

              Comment


              • Re: Pre-draft workouts

                I honestly could not read all that. Shelvin Mack will not be the worst player in this draft though.

                Comment


                • Re: Pre-draft workouts

                  From Ken Berger:

                  The Pacers appear to be comfortable with either Thompson or Fredette with the 15th pick, but if neither is there, they’d take Markieff Morris, sources say.
                  http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.co...38893/30162715

                  I don't know which Thompson he's referring to here.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pre-draft workouts

                    Is Alec Burks slipping? His camp reportedly called the Knicks today asking if they'd be interested in a workout. Likely covering their bases
                    I watched Burk on ESPNU the other night at 4am the kid has incredible court vision and has very high Bball IQ i hope he slips.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X