Of all the positions, the SFs have been hardest for me to get a handle on. With the other 4, I can point to certain statistics or a combination of statistics that seem to be a pretty good predictor of success. With SFs, that just isn’t there. The reason is because there are two types of SFs out there. There’s the 2.5, who is more guard-like. This player can slide into the backcourt as either a point forward or a SG in a big lineup. Paul Pierce and Richard Jefferson are examples of such a player. Then there’s the 3.5. More of an inside player, he’s a good rebounder and defender. He plays some PF in small lineups. Think Shane Battier, Luol Deng and Lamar Odom. Rating such players against each other is sort of futile, since they’re different types of players. Next year I may even split them, like I did with the combo guards, but it’s a little late for that right now.

 

I did come up with 4 statistics that do a decent job of predicting success for an SF. The first is adjusted FG pct, which takes the 3-pointers into account. For other positions the FG pct. is enough, but Adj FG pct. seems better for SFs. Perhaps this is because some 3-point shooting ability is a nice thing to have. Another one is P40, which is a given. The last two stats sort of interplay with each other. The first one is RASB-T per 40, which is a combination of all a players numbers other than points per 40 minutes. A diverse game is important for an SF, especially one who doesn’t score that often or that efficiently. The RASB-T40 gives a read on a player’s non-scoring skills. The final one is ASB40, or assists, steals and blocks per 40 minutes. This number is included for the SFs who are more on the SG side of the spectrum and don’t rebound that well. This takes rebounds out of the mix and that’s important to do with some players as being a stellar rebounder is always good, but not totally necessary for success as an NBA SF.

 

This is probably the best group of small forward prospects ever in one draft. I count 12 players who are worthy of a first round pick in most drafts. This means there will be some very good SFs available in round 2. Durant is a certain star. The 3 behind him, Wright, Green and Brewer, are also potential stars depending on their ability to step up their scoring. Toss in Al Thornton who also looks great and several young sleepers and strong role players and the strength of this group become obvious.

 

Here is each major college player with his pace-adjusted numbers and how they stack up against players of the past in the four statistics I mentioned earlier:

 

 

NCAA Freshman SF prospect	Adj FG Pct.	P40	RASB-T per40	ASB40
Kevin Durant	.600	27.3	14.2	5.4
All-Star	.556	20.1	11.9	6.0
Rotation Regular	.546	17.9	10.8	5.1
Thaddeus Young	.584	18.8	8.4	4.9
Journeyman	.548	16.9	9.9	5.2
Never made it	.541	16.7	10.8	5.0

 

 

NCAA Sophomore SF prospect	Adj FG Pct.	P40	RASB-T per40	ASB40
All-Star	.609	21.3	11.4	6.4
Julian Wright	.558	16.9	14.6	6.9
Rotation Regular	.564	19.2	11.4	5.2
Marcus Williams	.552	19.5	9.6	4.8
Wilson Chandler	.541	19.2	11.5	4.5
Journeyman	.552	19.0	10.8	5.1
Never made it	.561	19.0	10.5	4.7

 

 

NCAA Junior SF prospect	Adj FG Pct.	P40	RASB-T per40	ASB40
All-Star	.625	22.4	11.7	6.0
Jeff Green	.607	18.0	11.3	6.5
Rotation Regular	.588	21.1	11.4	5.8
Corey Brewer	.587	18.3	10.2	7.2
Dominic McGuire	.532	16.1	16.4	9.2
Nick Young	.622	21.1	5.5	2.8
Journeyman	.555	19.9	10.9	5.1
Never made it	.573	19.9	10.4	4.7

 

NCAA Senior SF prospect	Adj FG Pct.	P40	RASB-T per40	ASB40
All-Star	.622	23.5	12.6	6.4
Rotation Regular	.585	22.0	11.5	5.7
Al Thornton	.609	25.5	10.4	4.3
Reyshawn Terrry	.665	17.0	11.5	5.3
Jared Dudley	.674	19.6	10.7	4.9
Morris Almond	.625	31.6	7.5	3.7
Curtis Sumpter	.575	22.4	9.9	3.5
Demetris Nichols	.646	20.9	8.0	4.4
Journeyman	.555	21.0	10.9	4.9
Alando Tucker	.543	24.5	8.6	4.0
Quinton Hosley	.531	16.4	11.5	4.2
Nate Carter	.504	20.1	9.6	2.8
Never made it	.563	19.8	10.7	4.9

 

 

1. Kevin Durant, Texas: What’s left to say here? There has never been a freshman SF this good. Larry Bird and Dr. J didn’t play college ball as freshmen and they’re the only two players who put up numbers comparable to this at the college level. Durant scores often and efficiently from both inside and out. He rebounds and blocks shots better than almost all PFs and gets more steals than most guards. He’s capable of playing any position from SG to center either offensively or defensively. As a freshman he took a questionably-coached, moderately talented, young team to the NCAA tournament. It is simply impossible not to bubble over with superlatives when discussing Durant as a prospect.

The question isn’t whether or not he will be an all-star. He will. The question is whether he’ll be mainly a scorer like Dominique Wilkins or Bernard King; or will he become a transcendent all-time great who leads his team to multiple championships like Bird, Erving or Jordan? That one is still up in the air, but it will probably center on Durant’s ability to become a better passer. The truly great players were also great passers. Whether they played center, PF, SF or SG, great players who win multiple championships are players who can not only score, but can also find the open teammate. Durant wasn’t especially good at this his freshman year, averaging a low 1.4 A40. So the question becomes: Can he improve this? Is this something that’s typical of a young player on a team with few scoring options or is this a sign of a selfish player who tries to do everything himself? Here’s a look at some all-time greats and their A40 numbers during their first NCAA season compared to their pro careers. I used a fairly wide range of players, but no PGs for obvious reasons.

 

Player	A40 1st NCAA season	Career high A40	Career A40
Mark Aguirre	2.9	5.4	4.1
Charles Barkley	1.6	5.4	4.3
Larry Bird	4.7	7.6	6.6
Vince Carter	2.9	5.0	4.4
Tom Chambers	0.8	3.2	2.7
Adrian Dantley	2.0	4.7	3.3
Alex English	1.0	5.7	4.6
Julius Erving	3.7	5.7	4.6
George Gervin	3.9	4.2	3.1
Elvin Hayes	0.3	3.1	1.9
Grant Hill	3.6	7.5	5.7
Dan Issel	0.5	4.3	2.8
Michael Jordan	2.3	8.0	5.5
Karl Malone	0.5	5.2	3.8
Chris Webber	2.8	6.0	4.6
Dominique Wilkins	1.8	3.9	2.8
James Worthy	2.6	4.8	3.7
Kevin Durant	1.4	?	?

 

Every player, with the exception of George Gervin upped his NBA career assists from his first college season. Several of them fairly significantly. That’s not a huge surprise. The good news for Durant is that players who were poor passers their first year, English and Malone, became good passers as pros. Players who were only so-so passers at this time, Jordan and Barkley, became great passers as pros. I don’t think this is a huge issue and it may not be an issue at all. I’d like to see him pass better, but he’s still just a teenager and considering his talent, work ethic and skills, one would almost expect Durant to become one of the better passing forwards in the NBA within a few years.

 

I believe Kevin Durant is the best player in this draft. He has the ability and potential to become an all-time great who dominates the league like few players can. Everything I’ve read about him suggests he has the crazy work ethic that will be required for any jump to superstardom. I read where he wasn’t much of a weightlifter. That can be fixed with a few hours in the weight room a few days a week. I’ll add that a player who can dominate college ball like Durant did as a freshman, without having lifted weights at all could be downright scary once he bulks up a little. He’s young and there are many different things that could happen during his career, some of them bad. But any team that has a chance to draft a player as potentially good as this should go ahead and roll the dice on him. I expect Kevin Durant to be rookie of the year in 2007-08. I believe that over the course of his career he’ll appear in several all-star games and become a regular on all-NBA teams. If he’s fortunate enough to land in the right situation, he’ll win multiple championships and MVP awards before he’s done.

 

2. Julian Wright, Kansas: If you look at this group of SFs and their per40 numbers, Julian Wright is the 3^rd best rebounder and shotblocker, the 2^nd best at steals and 5^th at assists. He’s also 2^nd in FG pct. It’s the scoring part of the game where he has problems. He’s 16^th in points per 40, 12^th in Adj FG pct. and 18^th in 3-point pct. So he does everything well, except the scoring.

 

That would be a big deal, except for two things: He’s still just a sophomore and the team he plays for features a coach who prefers a perimeter offense and 3 guards who are solid pro prospects. It’s no wonder he doesn’t take many shots, let alone 3-pointers. His low P40 of 16.9 isn’t really a huge issue. Shane Battier was at 15.4 as a sophomore and Ron Artest was at 16.9. There have been other all-stars, like Grant Hill, Vince Carter and Richard Jefferson who were below 19 P40 as sophomores. Considering Wright’s situation, it’s not a huge surprise that he doesn’t score that often. He did drop 33 point on Missouri and he put up 21 on both Florida and Kentucky, two pretty strong defensive teams.

 

While the low P40 isn’t a concern, what could be is a couple of other numbers. First one is he doesn’t shoot the 3-pointer very well at all. The other is his percentage of getting to the line per FG attempts is on the low side. This accounts for a low Adj FG pct. and points per shot number. It shows he doesn’t get many extra points, only 2-point baskets. Here’s Wright compared to other sophomore SFs who also had their scoring suppressed by playing for talented teams:

 

Player	P40	FTA/FGA	3-point pct.	Adj. FG pct.
Shane Battier	15.4	.469	.415	.732
Grant Hill	18.5	.453	.000	.611
Richard Jefferson	18.6	.377	.425	.605
Ron Artest	16.9	.316	.374	.608
Jalen Rose	18.1	.354	.320	.519
Vince Carter	18.9	.316	.336	.639
Julian Wright	16.9	.344	.231	.558

 

With the exception of Rose, who was more of a point forward in college, all these SFs were more efficient scorers than Wright as sophomores, at least going by Adj FG Pct. He’s on the low end with the other two numbers also. I can’t say he will improve his scoring, but it is possible. A quick perusal of stats finds Grant Hill, Rasheed Wallace, Antawn Jamison, Antoine Walker, Pat Garrity, Eduardo Najera, Raef Lafrentz and Ryan Gomes as recent players who were poor 3-point shooters as college sophs, but became good shooters later in their careers. There’s no reason Wright couldn’t join this group. As for the other parts of his game, it could just be a matter of getting into an offense that involves him a little bit more often.

 

One thing to remember with Julian Wright is that his whole game shouldn’t be based on whether or not he can become a great, or even good scorer. He’s already a strong defender, rebounder and passer. He’s looks very much like a player who won’t need to score in order to be valuable. That makes him a better value as a high draft pick, because scoring is probably the one skill easiest to develop. I’d worry more about a player who was strictly a scorer with no other skills. Those players usually aren’t successful. With Wright a team is getting a player who is already likely to be a very good complementary player. Whether or not he becomes a star depends on how well his scoring develops. While that may or may not happen, it’s hardly something I’d doubt he can do. Wright, Green and Brewer are all very close as prospects. I prefer Wright, because he seems to have more potential than the other two.

 

3. Jeff Green, Georgetown: Green is an interesting prospect. He’s obviously very skilled, but he brings a game that’s much closer to the SG side of the SF spectrum, even though he has PF size. This makes me wonder if he can handle playing some SG. For the first part of the season, Green was point forward for the Hoyas, averaging over 5 APG. This changed after the Rutgers game on 1/17. He became a much more aggressive player on offense and the Hoyas benefited greatly from this change:

 

Jeff Green	FG Pct.	P40	R40	A40	TO40	FGA40	Georgetown Record
1st 17 games	.507	15.6	8.1	5.0	4.4	10.8	12-5
Final 20 games	.516	19.8	8.0	3.3	2.4	14.7	18-2

 

Makes the fact that he attempted only 5 shots in the national semi-final loss against Ohio State a little puzzling, but I digress. What’s impressive is that he maintained his other numbers and was actually a more efficient passer, though he didn’t pass the ball as often, while he became a more aggressive scorer. What’s most impressive is that he did what he needed to do for his team to improve. Roy Hibbert also improved quite a bit in the second half and deserves some credit for the strong finish.

 

While Green did step up his scoring to the benefit of his team, he still didn’t score a whole lot of points, at least by prospect standards. His 19.8 P40 down the stretch when he got more aggressive, still falls just short of the 19.9 that the most marginal of prospects average. Because of this, I’m not sure I see him as a big scorer in the pros. He’s never shown an aggressive scorer’s mentality and seems content playing the all-around game. He’s an excellent 3-point shooter for a player of his size, but he doesn’t get to the line all that often and that hurts his overall efficiency.

 

In a way, he’s a lot like Julian Wright. He offers a strong all-around game, but won’t be a star at the next level until he becomes more of a scorer. Neither has shown much inclination to be a great college scorer, though Green’s percentages are a little more promising. I still rank Wright ahead of Green, because Wright is a better rebounder and defender. He has a higher floor and ceiling because of this. Like Wright, Green will be a valuable player whether he scores a lot of points or not. Like with Wright, the team that drafts him can take point to the fact that players like Battier, Jefferson, Carter and Artest became stars without having been great college scorers.

 

4. Corey Brewer, Florida: One of the better prospects out there. Brewer’s strength is defense. He can defend most SGs and SFs and probably a few PGs and PFs. Such a player is pretty valuable on that alone, but Brewer is also a decent passer and scorer. The Scottie Pippen comps are probably a reach at this point, but they’re not out of the question. I really don’t trust Brewer’s scoring and rebounding numbers as being all that accurate as a reflection of his real ability. Florida played a style where every player was as content to set up a teammate as they were to score themselves. That kept Brewer’s scoring number a little low. Playing with two of the best rebounders in the nation definitely kept his rebounds low.

 

I guess my main question here would be how good of an offensive player will Brewer be in the pros? The table below compares him to players who like Brewer were closer to the SG end of the SF spectrum coming out of college and, also like Brewer, played on a talented roster for a college powerhouse.

 

NCAA SF Prospect	FG pct.	3-pt. pct.	P40	R40	A40	S+B40	TO40
Grant Hill	.482	.390	19.5	7.7	5.8	3.4	3.4
Paul Pierce	.513	.339	26.9	8.8	3.4	2.9	2.8
Vince Carter	.591	.411	20.0