NBA Draft 2010: Small Forwards

I’m not sure it would be accurate to call these guys wing players, because some actually played more inside. The thing they have in common is they’ll probably need to show they can play some SG, because they’re short or slight for a SF. Or because doing so would enhance their value.

Player	AFG	P40	R40	A/TO	ASB40
Marqus Blakely	.543	20.0	10.8	1.1	9.3
Landry Fields	.519	24.5	9.7	1.1	5.7
Paul George	.506	20.5	8.8	0.9	7.4
Kevin Palmer	.522	23.7	6.5	0.6	6.5
Tyler Smith	.573	17.1	6.8	2.8	7.8
Lance Stephenson	.462	17.5	7.6	1.0	5.0

I’ll get into what makes for a successful SF prospect a little more in the next post. For now let’s just say that with a weak class of SGs, teams with a need on the wing might be looking to players like this for help. Players are listed in order of preference.

Paul George, Fresno State: Right now George could be listed with either the SGs or SFs. I prefer him here, at SF because his size and skills suggest as much. That’s not to say he couldn’t excel at SG though. The best thing about George is his defensive numbers. Not too many sophomore SFs have topped 2.0 S40 and 1.0 B40 as George did this past season. Those that did have had a solid record of NBA success:

NCAA Sophomores	AFG	P40	R40	S40	B40	A/TO	ASB40
Todd Day	.564	27.1	7.5	3.3	1.3	1.1	8.1
Lionel Simmons	.486	23.9	11.6	2.1	2.3	0.8	7.1
Cedric Henderson	.544	23.4	10.7	2.8	1.7	0.5	5.8
Paul Pierce	.525	23.2	9.6	2.4	1.1	0.7	6.6
Terrence Morris	.589	20.9	9.7	2.0	3.1	0.8	7.3
Danny Manning	.600	20.8	7.8	2.6	1.5	1.0	7.0
Vince Carter	.582	18.9	6.5	2.1	1.1	1.8	6.7
Malik Sealy	.528	18.9	7.2	2.3	1.0	0.9	5.1
Quincy Lewis	.513	18.2	5.9	2.9	1.0	1.0	7.2
Robert Horry	.538	17.9	8.5	2.1	2.0	0.9	6.7
Walt Williams	.534	16.9	5.6	2.3	1.4	1.2	9.7
Ron Artest	.538	16.9	7.3	2.4	1.4	1.5	8.7
Shane Battier	.639	15.4	8.2	3.0	2.0	1.7	7.4
Paul George	.506	20.5	8.8	2.7	1.0	0.9	7.4

This is a pretty solid group. There are some perennial all-stars, a couple of players who never caught on and some very good role players. Statistically George measures up well with this group everywhere except scoring efficiency. Right now I can’t say whether or not that will be an issue, but it certainly places him below the Manning/Pierce/Battier level at this point.

Since were looking at George as both a SG and SF, here are successful sophomore SGs who hit 2.0 S40 and 1.0 B40:

NCAA Sophomores	2 pt	3 pt	P40	S40	B40	A/TO
Michael Jordan	.550	.447	25.9	2.8	1.0	0.7
Dwyane Wade	.505	.346	24.4	3.4	1.5	1.2
Doug Christie	.509	.262	23.5	2.7	1.4	1.2
Willie Anderson	.508	n/a	20.1	2.6	1.6	0.7
Francisco Garcia	.524	.325	21.7	2.5	1.8	1.7
Corey Benjamin	.639	.293	29.5	2.9	1.0	0.8
Jeff Trepagnier	.572	.269	17.3	2.6	1.6	0.7
Lawrence Moten	.538	.336	21.8	2.2	1.1	0.9
Chris Clack	.518	.239	18.2	3.8	1.5	0.7
Richard Roby	.472	.356	22.5	2.7	1.2	1.2
Paul George	.485	.353	20.5	2.7	1.0	0.9

This group here is a little different. There are 2 truly great players, but a lower rate of overall success. Moten and Clack were both 6’4” college SFs who couldn’t transition to the NBA backcourt. Trepagnier never scored frequently enough and Roby never scored efficiently enough that they would be considered much of a prospect. George is 6’9”, so he doesn’t have the height problems that likely held these players back. He scores enough, but just like with the list of SFs, he comes up a little short on efficiency. Improving his efficiency and lowering a high TO rate will be the two keys for George.

The thing I like best about Paul George is that he’s a high floor/high ceiling player. Looking at his numbers, at the very least he’ll be the type who can fill the role of a 3^rd or 4^th option, giving a team solid defense, spectacular dunks and a decent outside shot. Such players can be pretty valuable and for that reason George is a safe lottery pick based on his floor alone. The big “if” here is whether or not he can harness his natural ability enough to improve the efficiency and lower his high TO rate to the point that he’s a 20+ PPG guy and an all-star. He seems to have that type of ability. Right now I’d bet on him being the super role player who never quite puts it together as an all-star, but the fact that he can be seriously looked at as a potential all-star should push him into the top 10 of this draft.

Landry Fields, Stanford: A player who took the long road to get to where he is. Fields spent his first couple of seasons as a mediocre 3-point shooter in support of a team led by the Lopez brothers. As a junior he was the 3^rd option behind seniors Laurence Hill and Anthony Goods. He busted out his senior season as one of the best players in the nation. Here are his season-by-season numbers:

Landry Fields	2 pt	3 pt	Adj FG	P40	R40	A/TO	ASB40
Freshman	.431	.303	.444	11.9	11.8	0.9	3.1
Sophomore	.369	.355	.449	12.9	6.5	1.2	4.9
Junior	.547	.368	.548	16.5	8.7	1.1	4.8
Senior	.521	.337	.519	24.5	9.7	1.1	5.7

His first couple of seasons saw roughly half of his FG attempts come from behind the arc. That changed to about 26% and 16% as a junior and senior respectively. This is a case of a player’s efficiency improving dramatically after he stepped into a role better suited to his talents. While it is normal and right to downgrade players who didn’t emerge as prospects until their senior seasons, circumstances like this should be taken into account. The positive things about his career are he can fill it up when asked, is a good rebounder for a player his size, doesn’t have an issue with TOs and is a decent enough 3-point shooter. The number that is of biggest concern is the .519 adjusted FG pct. That is low for successful SFs, at least ones who enter the league as seniors. But it isn’t so low that I’d definitely dismiss him. The list of semi-successful players who, like Fields, were this low and didn’t bring extraordinary defensive or passing skills includes Johnny Newman, Tony Campbell, Don McLean, Ruben Patterson and Matt Harpring. Not exactly Dream Teamers, but certainly the type of career someone like Fields would take.

As far as where Fields ranks, I would have to say the second round is a good place to start considering him. He isn’t a future star by any stretch and wing players who don’t have that going for them just aren’t worthy of the first round. The careers of the 5 players I listed above seem like a likely career scenario for Fields. That would be a SF who is good enough to find a place in a rotation and possibly stick in the league for a long time, but would need to find the right situation to catch on as a starter.

Tyler Smith, Tennessee: Smith was dismissed from the Tennessee team in early January following misdemeanor drug and weapons charges. He’s been playing in Turkey for a couple of months and seems to be doing pretty well there. Smith looked like a terrific prospect to me as a sophomore, but has seen his career sputter since then. Here are his three seasons at Tennessee:

Tyler Smith	Adj FG pct	P40	R40	A/TO	ASB40
Sophomore	.556	18.3	9.0	1.5	7.1
Junior	.471	20.3	6.7	1.6	5.0
Senior	.573	17.1	6.8	2.8	7.8

As a soph he was an excellent role player who showed a variety of skills while scoring efficiently. As a junior he moved into the lead scorer role and didn’t fare so well there as his efficiency and defense suffered. He got back to his sophomore numbers as a senior, but his season was cut off prematurely. His senior numbers are probably a little inflated, because they were put up against a non-conference schedule.

The big negative I see here is simply the fact that when Smith was asked to become the lead scorer on the team he just didn’t get the job done efficiency-wise. That has always been a pretty big deal for prospects. Smith excelled as the 2^nd or 3^rd option, but didn’t get it done as the lead guy and that has never been a good sign. He does have some ability though and it wouldn’t surprise me if he got into the league for a time. During his career he has been a very efficient scorer in a supporting role, one of the better passing forwards in the game and a player who can put up strong numbers in both rebounds and steals. At best he’s potentially a good role player, but not much else.

Lance Stephenson, Cincinnati: I doubt I’d even give this guy a mention if it weren’t for the fact that he came in as a highly-touted phenom and seems likely to be drafted. I have him rated here instead of SG, because this is were his skill set puts him. The only real strength I see here is he’s an above-average rebounder for a player his size and that really isn’t saying much. There have been both SGs and SFs who scored less often than Stephenson did as a freshman who later went on to long NBA careers, but they typically showed at least one of three traits as a freshman. These are the traits and players who fit them:

• A high ASB40: Billy Owens, Ron Artest, Shane Battier and Gerald Wallace.
• Efficient overall scoring: Danny Manning, Vince Carter and Mike Dunleavy.
• An ability to shoot the lights out: Glen Rice, Dell Curry, Michael Finley, Dennis Scott and Chuck Person.

Stephenson has shown little in any of these areas. His ASB40 is a barely-acceptable 5.04. If we’re calling him a SG, his 1.3 S40 is a huge negative. He doesn’t score often or efficiently enough from inside or behind the arc. The best I can say about his chances is he is ahead of where Tyrone Corbin, Monty Williams, Malik Sealy and Derrick McKey were at the same point in their careers. He’s also close to Trevor Ariza and Richard Jefferson. But I could have said the same thing about hundreds of other NCAA freshmen who will never get the close look that Stephenson is getting now.

I can’t completely dismiss Lance Stephenson as a prospect. There is some skill here and as a freshman he still has room to grow. It appears he’s going to get an opportunity to play somewhere and that is the most important thing. But players who are where he is now rarely make much of an impact. Considering the glut of talent at the position and general lack of demand for 6’5” wing players who can’t shoot, I can’t imagine why any team would use a draft pick in round one or two on Lance Stephenson.

Marqus Blakely, Vermont and Kevin Palmer, Texas A&M Corpus Christi: A couple of small college players who deserve a at least a mention. Blakely led the Catamounts in minutes, points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks. He hit .561 on 2-pointers, which was down from his career high of .618 he hit as a freshman and .613 as a junior. He was pretty much a dominator at this level, which is a good thing for any small college player to be. Kevin Palmer is kind of a late arrival as a prospect. He only emerged in this, his senior season. He put up some nice numbers this year, but remains a little raw. Both players are small to be forwards, though Blakely comes in with a 7’1” wingspan that should help compensate for that. Neither has shown the type of shooting range that will probably be necessary for a long stay in the league, though Palmer has been notably better than Blakely from behind the arc. To get an idea of what it takes for a small college SF to make it, here’s a table showing 4 small college SFs who made it and 4 who didn’t:

Player	Adj FG pct	P40	R40	A/TO	ASB40
Wally Szczerbiak	.583	26.3	9.2	0.9	5.6
Bobby Phills	.502	32.3	5.4	0.8	6.3
Reggie Lewis	.519	28.3	10.3	0.5	5.2
Sam Mitchell	.516	26.8	8.8	0.7	4.4
Eulis Baez	.576	18.2	9.0	0.8	7.1
Dana Jones	.563	20.6	10.9	1.3	6.6
Zakee Wadood	.468	19.1	10.3	1.0	9.7
Spencer Nelson	.629	22.3	11.0	1.9	8.9

This is limited to players I pulled from a quick scan of my files, but I’m guessing it covers small college SFs pretty well. Jones and Nelson actually played at mid-majors, but none of these guys played college ball in a major conference and including these two helps make my point. The strength of the four players who made the league and played a lot of minutes was scoring a lot of points in college. In this case all were over 26 P40. The strength of the bottom 4, who had no impact whatsoever in the league, was their all-around game. All were strong rebounders or passers with a high ASB40. None of them scored anywhere near as frequently as the 4 successful players. The bottom 4 players were better as a group at everything other than scoring frequency. The point is historically it has been better for small college SFs to be scorers first and foremost and leave the grunt work to others. The players who scored at good, but not great, levels and do the grunt work just haven’t been as successful. Both Blakely and Palmer are good scorers/grunts and because of this they face long odds. This isn’t to say one or both can’t make it. I’d go so far to say I’d be happy if my team brought either one in as a UFA. But both are fighting history and history usually wins.