Would Hibbert Have Mattered?

by Harlan Schreiber

In one of the more amazing games of the playoffs, the Pacers almost knocked off the Heat at home.  Up by one point, with 2.2 seconds left, the Pacers were faced with how to best defend the Heat.  As we all know now, the Pacers chose to sit Roy Hibbert and play Sam Young, a perimeter defender, instead of their big shot blocker.  Would Hibbert have made a difference?  Maybe…Let’s take a look at the final play and see what we can gleam:

-The Heat had Shane Battier inbound the ball near half court and David West guarded that pass.  West played up on the pass but allowed Battier pass the ball towards the three point line and denied any passes toward the foul line or the corners.

-The Heat put in shooters Norris Cole and Ray Allen at opposite ends of the base line.  George Hill was on Cole and Sam Young played Ray Allen.

-Chris Bosh was at the top of the key with Tyler Hansbrough on him.

-LBJ stood at the foul line elbow with Paul George guarding him.

-The Heat then ran a motion play to get someone open.  Allen ran from the baseline across the three point line around Bosh (who was also cutting to the corner vacate by Allen) and in front of James.

-As Hansbrough switched to Allen near the foul line, James ran a quick curl and Hansbrough’s presence actually slightly blocked George from defending the pass.

-When James caught the pass near the top of the key after the curl, George stepped up almost adjacent to LBJ’s right side, giving James an open lane on the left.  In an even race to the basket with George, James glided to the basket easily for a basically uncontested layup.

-The motion play had vacated the paint of any help defenders.  The closest help defender was Young, who had been sort of guarding Bosh in the corner.  LBJ was going too hard and too fast for Young to get there in time or do anything.

Having seen how the play worked out, where would Hibbert had made a big difference?  If Hibbert was man on man with Bosh, he probably would’ve had to switch onto Allen (as Hasnbrough did) and would not likely have been a factor on the play.  If they had Hibbert just guard the paint and not tightly stay with a small faster player, Bosh (or some other Heat player) would’ve had a wide open jumper.  This scenario would’ve been preferable to LBJ’s wide open layup but also not an ideal (the ideal would’ve been Cole or Allen shooting a contested long jumper).

In the end, no matter what the Pacers did with Hibbert, the game was lost when George overplayed James.  Had George given James a few feet cushion, this would’ve force LBJ into a makeable but lower percentage jumper.  Even if Hibbert was somehow guarding the rim on the play, blocking a wide open James would be tough and, though Hibbert could conceivably block him (just ask Carmelo Anthony), it is most likely that James would’ve gone to the foul line.  This is better than the actual result but not great either.  Actually, the best move would’ve been to put the long armed Hibbert on the inbounds and deny a clean pass to anyone (particularly LeBron).  This is easier said than done but, with 2.2 seconds left, the harder the Pacers made the commencement of the play, the harder it would’ve been for the Heat to execute.  Frank Vogel made some mistakes hear but the notion that Hibbert in the paint would stop James is not very likely.

NBA Draft 2013: The Lesser PGs

by Ed Weiland

I already took a look at Trey Burke and Michael Carter-Williams, who are the top two PG prospects this year. My next piece after this one will cover a trio of small college guards, CJ McCollum, Nate Wolters and Ray McCallum, who I wanted to look at separately. This group is what you might call the lesser PGs. These players have shown enough for a mention, but come up short as prospects. These are the type of prospects with whom I have to pick through stats to convince myself they’re serious prospects. All have something to like about them though and deserve a look.

One thing to keep in mind with PGs is that it has become much easier to play the position in the NBA in the 10 years since the hand check rule. Going back to the 2004 draft there have been several PGs drafted outside the lottery outperforming their draft position. The quick list includes Jameer Nelson, Chris Duhon, Monta Ellis, Rajon Rondo, Kyle Lowry, Aaron Brooks, Ramon Sessions, George Hill, Mario Chalmers, Darren Collison, Jeff Teague, Ty Lawson, Jrue Holiday, Eric Bledsoe, Grievis Vasquez, Jeremy Lin, Norris Cole, Goran Dragic and Isaiah Thomas.  A good number of higher picks like Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Derrick Rose, Russell Westbrook, Stephen Curry and Kyrie Irving have all become superstars. There still have been busts like Jonny Flynn, disappointments like DJ Augustin and 2^nd round picks we never hear from again like JamesOn Curry. But the recent trend has been that PGs have been good bargains on draft day. For that reason it wouldn’t be a huge surprise if one or more of these players had some sort of impact in 2014. Of course the flip side of this trend is that with only a limited number of NBA PG spots available, the recent glut of good PGs entering the league could make it tough for the PG classes of the next few years to find a spot. Here are the numbers:

	2PP	3PP	P40	A40	S40	A/TO	RSB40
Shane Larkin	538	406	16.3	5.1	2.2	2.0	6.6
Pierre Jackson	490	359	22.1	7.9	1.7	2.1	5.9
DJ Cooper	510	364	18.0	9.1	2.6	2.0	6.9
Dennis Schroeder	436	402	19.3	5.3	1.5	1.3	5.6
Lorenzo Brown	465	263	14.0	8.2	2.2	2.1	7.8
Tony Johnson	568	460	17.7	6.4	2.6	2.1	7.9
Payton Siva	476	288	12.5	7.1	2.8	2.2	5.8
Myck Kabongo	458	296	15.2	5.8	2.1	1.7	7.3
Phil Pressey	408	324	13.6	8.1	2.0	2.0	5.9
Tray Woodall	561	369	16.2	7.2	1.8	2.3	5.6
Anthony Marshall	543	369	11.9	6.6	1.4	2.1	6.5

Prospects are listed in order of how I would draft them, all other things being equal.

Shane Larkin, Miami: He’s the best of the remaining prospects because he’s younger and was still improving as his sophomore season ended. Larkin really came on strong as the year progressed. While his overall stats are good, but not great, his scoring numbers were pretty impressive in the last couple of months. It’s no coincidence that the rise of the Hurricanes coincided with Larkin’s improvement.

Shane Larkin	2PP	3PP	P40	A40	S40	A/TO	RSB40
Freshman	394	323	11.5	3.9	2.4	1.4	6.4
Nov-Jan	500	410	14.8	4.5	2.5	1.8	7.6
February	614	457	16.5	5.8	2.0	2.4	5.4
March	556	365	19.4	5.7	1.8	2.0	5.7

As a freshman Larkin wasn’t even on the draft radar. He started, but was just a role player with Durand Scott being the main guy in the backcourt. This year Larkin took over the role of top Hurricane and led them to the ACC championship and a tournament 2 seed. The numbers still show a player who is substandard on defense, as would be expected for a player under 6’0” as Larkin is. Offensively there’s a lot of promise here. When the year ended he was still improving as a scorer, both in frequency and efficiency. He was also improving as a passer. Because his sophomore season was something of a transition year when Larkin took over as the lead Hurricane from Scott, the stats might even be a little suppressed. Add that to his youth and Larkin is definitely a prospect who should perform better than his college numbers. Probably not much better though. He’s still very small by NBA standards and that usually means an NBA reserve.

Pierre Jackson, Baylor: Players that score and pass in the 22.0 P40 and 7.9 A40 range with a lower RSB40 are generally successful only if they surpass .500 on 2-point percentage and 2.0 on S40. Jackson hits neither mark. Because Jackson did top .500 and 2.0 as a junior and his low number this year was mainly due to a January slump, he’s probably a better prospect than his senior numbers suggest. Here are the monthly breakdowns:

Pierre Jackson	2PP	3PP	P40	A40	S40	A/TO	RSB40
Junior	502	408	17.6	7.5	2.3	1.7	6.1
Nov-Dec	511	367	22.0	7.0	2.4	1.8	6.5
January	370	353	21.1	6.4	1.2	1.7	6.2
February	569	317	20.9	8.0	0.9	1.7	4.3
March	478	400	23.8	10.0	1.7	3.5	6.3

The monthly numbers give a little more hope than the overall numbers. The fact that his horrible January slump happened is bad, but it is only one month. I like Jackson because for all but one month of his NCAA career he looked like a solid NBA PG prospect. He is small, at 5’10”. But he has more potential than the rest of the 2013 senior PGs to stick and even excel as a reserve NBA PG.

DJ Cooper, Ohio: Cooper has been on the radar for a few years. His defense and passing numbers have always been terrific. As I showed in the Carter-Williams piece, this is a big deal. His scoring has been only moderate volume and poor efficiency, which has always lowered his prospects. This year he upped his efficiency to the point where he has to be taken more seriously. Here are his career numbers:

DJ Cooper	2PP	3PP	P40	A40	S40	A/TO	RSB40
Freshman	427	319	14.5	6.6	2.8	2.2	9.1
Sophomore	440	299	16.8	8.0	2.5	2.2	8.2
Junior	394	307	17.8	6.9	2.8	2.0	7.4
Senior	510	364	18.0	9.1	2.6	2.0	6.9

He wasn’t included in the 8-8 club from the MCW article, because he played at a smaller college and that list was limited to major college players. The important thing to take from this is his efficiency improved as a senior from both outside and inside. I’m usually wary of players who improve as a senior. In Cooper’s case there was an important change to the team in the senior year that could have been responsible for the improvement. Jim Christian replaced John Groce as the Bobcat coach. After Groce was hired at Illinois I recall reading a quote of his (which unfortunately I can’t find now, but I did make a mental note of at the time) where he said something along the line of he let DJ Cooper fire away and that probably hurt his efficiency, but he felt it was best for the team. I can’t remember the exact quote, but that was the context. The fact that Cooper improved his efficiency while shooting less as a senior suggests that his early inefficiency could have been a result of the system he played in.

The above is an example of me picking through stats and information to try and prop up a prospect. Cooper has proven he’s an NBA-level passer/defender. I also like the fact that the team made 2 tournaments and won 3 tournament games in the 4 years he played at Ohio as their best player. But it’s a stretch to think one year of decent offense after 3 poor seasons, no matter what the circumstances were, makes his offense good enough to play NBA PG. He’s also small, which is a trend with this group. I do like Cooper as a 2^nd round sleeper, because of the defense, passing and the slight chance that the offense he flashed as a senior is his real level of ability.

Dennis Schroeder, Germany: Schroeder has just appeared on the draft radar following something of a meteoric rise in Europe. The mocks have him on the fringes of the lottery. The numbers for Schroeder were posted playing for a German team called the NY Phantoms. I’m not sure of the level of this league compared to the NCAA. I can say that there isn’t much here that’s wildly impressive and his low 2PP and RSB40 are both serious red flags.

I suspect a lot of his recent buzz is due to his newness, a decent performance in the Nike Hoops Summit and the fact that there are no great PG prospects this year. He gets some points for his youth, but I don’t see that he’s a much better prospect than the rest of this group.

Lorenzo Brown, North Carolina State: In the Michael Carter-Williams piece I pointed out that major college PGs who have the 8.0 mark in both A40 and RSB40 in the same season have always gone on to long NBA careers. Brown hit 8.2 A40 and 7.8 RSB40 this past year. He fell short of the 8-8 club, but he was pretty close. Close puts him with the likes of Derrick Phelps and Reggie Geary when it comes to PG prospects, but it also shows NBA-level athleticism. He’s also a wildly inefficient and infrequent scorer. He’s only displayed spotty ability to hit a 3-pointer. This makes Brown a longshot and a tough player to draft in round one. It doesn’t help that he’ll be 23 before next season starts.

Brown has great defensive/passing skills and that’s an asset few PG prospects have. Should he add a decent offensive game, Lorenzo Brown would be a solid NBA player. There are worse plans than drafting this guy in round two and hoping for such a transformation. Considering his age and the fact that he has shown little offensive ability in 3290 NCAA minutes, it’s quite a stretch to think he can get there.

Tony Johnson, Lafayette: This is the type of player I would just like to see get a shot. The stats look terrific. He passes every important benchmark, except for P40 and he’s close enough there. The negatives are he posted these numbers at a small college, is only 6’0” and he didn’t hit the radar until his senior year. Here are his stats:

Tony Johnson	2PP	3PP	P40	A40	S40	A/TO	RSB40
Freshman	522	125	9.6	3.4	2.2	1.4	6.8
Sophomore	589	340	10.7	4.8	1.9	2.0	7.7
Junior	617	438	11.5	6.1	2.3	3.2	6.6
Senior	567	468	17.7	6.4	2.6	2.1	7.9

In 4 seasons at Lafayette, Johnson has been a very efficient scorer who has done everything you would ask a PG prospect to do. He’s small and the competition he posted these numbers against wasn’t exactly top notch. But he played in the same conference as CJ McCullom, who looks like he’ll be drafted in the lottery. He’s worth a look and is definitely a sleeper to stick around as a reserve.

Payton Siva, Louisville: There are 3 things to like about Siva. He’s a great passer and has been for 4 seasons. He’s a good ball hawk, averaging well over 2.5 S40 for his college career. I also like that he was a key player on an NCAA championship team. While he’s good at pressuring the ball, his size and low RSB40 suggest his defense at the NBA level will be judged as pesky at best. Offensively he hasn’t shown much, hitting under .300 from behind the arc in his last 3 seasons.

Like the others here Siva has a chance to stick as an NBA reserve. It would be big for him if he develops a 3-pointer. He looks like he’s capable of running an NBA offense and his experience playing pressure defense should help him. I would put Siva close to the level of Jackson. Both are under 6’0”. Both are seniors coming from major programs. Both led their teams to a championship as seniors, though Siva’s NCAA championship brings a lot more cred than Jackson’s NIT.  Both seem to play with a lot of confidence and it wouldn’t surprise me if either one emerged as a semi-useful reserve NBA PG as early as next year.

Myck Kabongo, Texas: Coming out of high school two years ago Kabongo was ranked as the #11 prospect in the country, well ahead of Michael Carter-Williams (21^st) and Trey Burke (84^th). That and his youth give him some intrigue. The problem is his stats are weak, especially on the scoring side. He doesn’t score a lot of points and is inefficient from both sides of the arc when he does. Kabongo is a developmental pick. His youth and status as a top prospect means there’s some upside here, but there’s little in the stats that suggest he’ll realize whatever potential made him a top prospect coming out of high school.

Phil Pressey, Missouri: Pressey struggled this year with an increased load on offense. Because he’s one of the better passers in the nation he’s worth a look. His sophomore year was better, but not up to the level that would make him a good prospect.

Tray Woodall, Pittsburgh: Woodall is a 5^th-year senior who turned 24 after the season. He has been slow to develop his offense, but it finally got there this past year. He’s an excellent passer, but defensively he’s very weak. His high end is a reserve, but his solid senior season gets him a mention here.

Anthony Marshall, UNLV: A senior who put up decent offense and passing numbers for the first time in his career. I’m always wary of seniors who suddenly emerge. He’s a long shot to be sure, but he has good size at 6’3” and that gives him an edge on what is a short group of PGs.

A Closer Look At Eric Murdock

by Harlan Schreiber

Two of the biggest stories basketball stories of the last two months are the firing Mike Rice at Rutgers for abuse and the recent commitment of newest high school basketball prodigy Andrew Wiggins to Kansas.   While these stories seemingly have little common ground, old school NBA enthusiasts will recognize 1980s and 1990s players figured in both stories (Eric Murdock and Mitchell Wiggins).

The man behind the Mike Rice story is former point guard Eric Murdock.  Murdock was director of player development at Rutgers and apparently was a whistle blower in giving over videotapes of Rice screaming homophobic slurs at the players, shoving players, and throwing balls at the players.  Today, we’ll look at Murdock and his interesting (from a stats guys perspective) career.

Murdock played point guard for Providence from 1987-91.  Providence wasn’t particularly good at that time (19-13 and 7-9 in the Big East in 1990-91) but Murdock was great as a senior (25.6 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 5.3 apg, and 3.5 spg).  The Jazz drafted Murdock 21^st in the 1991 draft and he was a solid backup behind John Stockton for 10 mpg in 1991-92 (13.6 PER).  Jerry Sloan lost confidence in Murdock late in the season and Sloan barely played him in the playoffs.  In the playoffs, Murdock played 11 total minutes, despite the fact that the Jazz would go to the Conference Finals (this was fewer minutes than even fellow rookie Corey Crowder and bench fixture Bob Thornton).

After the season, the Jazz traded Murdock and Blue Edwards (a competent swingman) to Milwaukee for Jay Humphries (a 30-year old starting point guard who had a 16.5 PER) and Larry Krystkowiak a hustling but undersized power forward.  In short, the Jazz dumped Murdock, a player with potential, to have role players who wouldn’t make mistakes while they played with Stockton and Karl Malone.

The 1992-93 Bucks were bad (28-54) but Murdock took the starting job and put up really impressive numbers (14.4 ppg, 7.6 apg, 3.2 rpg, 2.2 spg, 19.3 PER).  The Bucks regressed in 1993-94 to 20-62 but Murdock held onto the starting job and played even better (15.3 ppg, 6.7 apg, 3.2 rpg, 2.4 spg, 20.3 PER).  Murdock’s minutes were identical both years but he made a big jump in threes (from .261% to .411%) that propelled him over 20 PER.

After the season, the Bucks’ drafted Glenn Robinson overall and now had a team of Murdock, an emerging Vin Baker, and Robinson going into 1994-95.  At 26 in 1994-95, Murdock’s career appeared to be heading straight upwards and now was on the brink of being a very good player.  In fact, Murdock was fourth in point guards in PER (behind Mark Price, Stockton, and Kevin Johnson, and ahead of Rod Strickland, Mookie Blaylock, and Gary Payton among others).  Had Murdock put up these numbers in the present day, the advanced stats community would have seen him as one of the more underrated players in the NBA.

Murdock suffered an eye injury in the 1994 pre-season and struggled a bit and fell to 13.0 ppg, 6.4 apg, 2.9 rpg, 1.5 spg, and 17.3 PER.  The big drop off was in shooting (from .468% to .415%) and it seemed that if he could bounce back to more normal shooting levels he would continue to excel.  The unreported story at the time was that Murdock lost minutes to Lee Mayberry (who started 50 games at the point).  Mayberry was slightly younger than Murdock and was a player with few major weakness but no great strengths.   Mayberry was a decent passer and defender but could score or create free throws at all.  Mayberry’s 1994-95 numbers (5.8 ppg, 3.4 apg, 1.0 rpg, and 9.9 PER 21.3 mpg) should not have convinced the Bucks that he was a viable alternative to Murdock.  That coach Mike Dunleavy was playing Mayberry so much was (and is still is) a little bewildering.

Nevertheless, the addition of Robinson to Baker and Murdock improved the Bucks to 34-48 and gave reason for optimism in 1995-96.   Leaving camp in 1995-96, despite all the evidence to the contrary, Dunleavy decided the Mayberry should be starting at the point.  Murdock, for his part, did not step up to the challenge and put up a 10.4 PER in 20 mpg for 9 games.  Murdock shot 36% and the team went 3-6 over that stretch.

It is not clear if the Bucks’ were annoyed with Murdock or just wanted a center but Dunleavy then traded flipped Murdock and Eric Mobley to the expansion Vancouver Grizzlies for languid big man Benoit Benjamin (who was at the time average at best).  Murdock’s value had plummeted from underrated top ten point guard to chit in a trade for remains of Benjamin (who Vancouver had gotten for free in the expansion draft).

Murdock played 64 games as a backup to Greg Anthony in Vancouver and put up 9.1 ppg, 4.5 apg, 2.4 rpg, 2.0 spg, and a 16.2 PER in 23.1 MPG.  Not a bad performance but the Grizz were so bad that Murdock had now reached confirmed journeyman status.   Murdock signed with Denver to back up Mark Jackson in 1996-97 but was cut after 12 games (despite an 18.1 per in 10 mpg) and went over to Europe for the rest of the season.

In 1997-98, Pat Riley and the Heat signed Murdock to back up Tim Hardaway.  Murdock was basically the same player he had been in Vancouver and the end of his time in Milwaukee.  He put up a 15.7 PER in 17 mpg and reestablished himself as an NBA player for the moment.  Murdock spent the next two years as a backup point guard in New Jersey and with the Clippers but his shot had declined enough that he only put up PER in the 12.5 range those two years.  He did not play in the NBA again after his 1999-00 season with the Clippers.  While guys like Mitchell Butler, Anthony Goldwire, Kevin Ollie, Mike James, and Derek Fisher lasted forever in the NBA as back up guards, Murdock was done in the NBA at age 31.  Murdock spent some time in the minors and Europe before giving up playing in or around 2003 (it’s a little hard to find the Euro stats to know when exactly he stopped playing).

I hadn’t really thought about Murdock much since the late 1990s until I saw he had leaked the tape of Rice acting like a total jerk.  The question has become now whether Murdock was a good Samaritan, opportunist, or something in between.  Murdock did not release the tape until after the school let him go and he is apparently pursuing a wrongful termination suit, so the argument could be made that Murdock’s motives are less than pure.  On the other hand, Basketball-Reference indicates that Murdock made over $11 million in his NBA career and, if he was careful financially, he probably wouldn’t need the headache of a lawsuit unless he really felt wronged.  Nor is there any record of Murdock being anything other than a good pro.

I’m not casting judgments either way, but Murdock’s dispute with Rutgers can easily be spun as pure or unsavory.  In either case, it’s hard to feel too bad for Rutgers for allowing Rice to go on with his idiotic coaching methods.

As for Murdock, he may be in the media vortex now for the Rice situation but whenever I hear his name, I only wonder: (a) how he could’ve gone from 25-yearold with a 20.3 PER to cut by a lottery team in three years and (b) why Dunleavy thought Mayberry was anywhere near as good player.

I wondered if another young guard has ever fallen so quickly so fast without injury issues.   Since 1979-80, I couldn’t find another guard with a PER of 20 or over fall out of regular playing time without injuries (T.J. Ford put up 20 PER at age 24 but had spinal issues).  As far as I can tell, Murdock should’ve enjoyed a Mookie Blaylock-type career but nothing but bad luck had him out of the NBA way too quickly.

NBA Draft: Michael Carter-Williams

by Ed Weiland

Carter-Willams as a prospect is the opposite of the other top PG prospect this year, Trey Burke. Burke is 6’0”, which is small even by PG standards. Carter-Williams is tall for a PG, listed at 6’6”. Burke is a good offensive player who is limited defensively.  Carter-Williams is dominant defensively and erratic on offense. Burke could probably step right in and play decent NBA PG right now, but has little upside because of his size and weak defense. Carter-Williams is very much a developmental project, but his upside is much higher than Burke’s. When the two squared off in the national semifinal Burke’s Wolverines won, but both players had their worst games of the tournament.

Carter-Williams had his issues with scoring efficiency this year, but he also posted some very impressive numbers in defense and passing. He finished with an 8.3 A40 and a 9.1 RSB40. These are totals few players have ever put together in the same season. Here’s a look at other NCAA major college PGs who posted an A40 over 8.0 along with an RSB40 over 9.0:

	2PP	3PP	P40	A40	S40	A/TO	RSB40
Gary Payton	569	333	27.3	8.6	3.7	2.2	9.1
Jason Kidd (Frosh)	537	286	16.4	9.6	4.8	2.0	11.3
Jason Kidd (Soph)	545	362	19.0	10.3	3.6	2.1	11.8
Andre Miller	519	286	13.3	8.3	2.4	2.1	9.3
Jamaal Tinsley	404	242	13.4	8.1	3.2	1.6	10.7
Michael Carter-Williams	441	297	13.5	8.3	3.1	2.2	9.1

Payton’s numbers were posted in his senior season, Tinsley’s his junior, Miller’s his sophomore. This is some pretty fast company Carter-Williams finds himself with. We have a couple of top 10 all-time PGs.  Also there’s Andre Miller, who is still going strong at 36 and Jamaal Tinsley, a solid player who the league just doesn’t know how to quit. Even if I were to lower the standard to 8.0 RSB40 along with the 8.0 A40, the players added to the list—Rod Strickland, Randy Brown, Ray Felton, Kenny Anderson, Brevin Knight, Greg Anthony and Pooh Richardson—are all players who went on to long NBA careers.

The good thing for Carter-Williams here is all PGs who have shown the ability to pass and defend this well, have had some level of long-term NBA success regardless of how impressive or poor their offensive numbers were.  Tinsley, Brown, Felton, Knight and Richardson all fell short of the .500 2-point percentage benchmark in college ball, but still went on to long careers because of their extraordinary defense/passing combination.  To repeat, any player who posted 8+ A40 and RSB40 in a season playing for a major college has gone on to play a long NBA career. That Carter-Williams is part of this club makes him an excellent long term NBA prospect.

This isn’t to say his inefficient scoring isn’t a problem. Carter-Williams scored only 13.5 P40 with percentages of .441 and .297. Those are very poor prospect numbers. No team wants to use a lottery pick on the next Randy Brown or Brevin Knight. Likewise no team wants to draft a player who will sit on their bench for 3 years then watch him develop into a star elsewhere. Here are the numbers of a couple of other big PGs in their sophomore seasons who developed their games significantly in subsequent years:

	2PP	3PP	P40	A40	S40	A/TO	RSB40
Gary Payton	514	397	15.3	7.8	2.4	2.2	6.3
Chauncey Billups	425	401	23.4	5.9	2.6	1.7	8.7
Michael Carter-Williams	441	297	13.5	8.3	3.1	2.2	9.1

Both Payton and Billups were better scorers at this point in their careers and Carter-Williams has yet to show consistent 3-point ability. I post this comp not to suggest that Carter-Williams is a future HOFer just waiting to bust out, though that is a far high end possibility. But it is important to know that players aren’t always complete as college sophs and there is a history of big PGs developing their games quite a bit after their sophomore seasons.

Another thing to note is that Carter-Williams’ scoring skills are probably a little better than they appear in the cumulative stats. Here are his monthly breakdowns from this year compared with his freshman year:

Michael Carter-Williams	2PP	3PP	P40	A40	S40	A/TO	RSB40
Freshman	450	389	10.4	8.0	3.0	3.4	9.8
Nov-Dec	455	256	15.1	12.5	3.9	2.5	10.8
January	339	313	13.4	6.7	2.6	1.8	7.9
February	481	304	14.0	6.1	3.2	2.2	8.7
March	473	350	11.6	6.5	2.6	2.0	8.4

His freshman season was only 269 minutes, the majority of which were logged in November and December when the schedule is always easier. He also topped 8.0 A40 and 9.0 RSB40 as a freshman, which is impressive. There was a lot of variance during his sophomore year. He started off as a dominator, before a brutal shooting slump in January really brought his efficiency down. The good part here is that he adjusted and improved his efficiency from both inside and outside the arc during the season. A 2-point percentage in the 47-48% range in February and March, when the schedule is much more difficult isn’t a huge negative. That he improved while maintaining solid passing and defensive numbers is actually pretty impressive. The bad part is even at his best the P40 remained low.

In Michael Carter-Williams we have a player who is almost certain to have a long NBA career based on his stats. His raw skills give him an outside chance to eventually become one of the top PGs in the league and a perennial all-star, which is something that can be said about only a few prospects each year. That makes him an intriguing prospect. Right now his arc is somewhere between journeyman and perennial all-star.  Because I generally prefer upside in prospects I would have to rank him as the top PG available in the 2013 draft. The only reason to draft Trey Burke ahead of him would be if it were for a team that absolutely needed immediate help at PG and the draft was the only place they could fill this need.

That isn’t to say there’s no risk in drafting such a player. Any team taking Carter-Williams has to realize that he’s a developmental pick with who won’t have much immediate impact and may never reach his full potential. I certainly understand why a team would pass on such a player. In 1997 the Celtics drafted future great PG Chauncey Billups with the 3^rd overall pick. Billups was traded in February of his rookie year for veteran Kenny Anderson who gave the Celtics 3 so-so years. That’s not much of a payoff for the 3^rd overall pick. Billups’ early career is why, despite the upside, drafting Michael Carter-Williams too high in the lottery could become a similar draft day disaster.

NBA Draft 2013: Trey Burke

by Ed Weiland

I’m going to start the 2013 draft previews with the PGs and work my way from the perimeter to the bigs. Burke is the Wooden award winner and possibly the top PG available, so he seems like a good player to start the 2013 analyses with. With Marcus Smart going back to school Burke is generally considered the top PG out there. He led Michigan into the championship game and that boosted him from the fringes of the lottery into the top 5 in most mocks. David Thorpe at ESPN (insider) made the case for Burke as the top overall pick. Even the overly contrarian and stat-focused Ed Weiland got briefly swept up in the Trey Burke frenzy, placing Burke 3^rd overall in his post-Tournament top 60.

Before I get into Burke’s prospects here’s a quick recap of the statistical benchmarks that have historically separated the best successful PG prospects: 2-point pct. over .500, P40 over 18.0, A40 over 5.0, S40 over 1.5, A/TO over 1.4 and RSB40 over 6.5. A minimal ability to hit a 3-pointer is also important. With 2PP,  assists, steals and RSB40, the higher over the benchmark, the better the prospect becomes. Each benchmark a prospect falls below is considered a red flag and makes it more likely he’ll fail in the NBA. Burke only misses one benchmark, with a RSB40 of 6.2. That in itself doesn’t kill him as a prospect, but it does bring him down a notch.

What I like to do with prospects is compare them to past prospects with similar stats. In Burke’s case the skills that stand out on his resume are scoring and passing. He was over 20 points and 7 assists per 40 minutes this past season. Those are pretty impressive totals that few sophomore PGs have ever matched. Here are past NCAA PGs who also surpassed 20 and 7 in either their freshman or sophomore seasons, along with Burke’s numbers from this year.

	2PP	3PP	P40	A40	S40	A/TO	RSB40
Strickland, Rod	584	533	20.0	8.0	2.5	2.3	7.3
Bibby, Mike	526	387	21.5	7.1	3.0	2.6	7.1
Lawson, Ty	582	361	20.1	8.2	2.5	2.4	6.9
Anderson, Kenny	544	410	21.8	8.6	2.4	2.1	8.3
Douglas, Sherman	556	327	21.3	9.3	2.1	2.4	5.4
Williams, Jason	483	403	21.5	8.4	3.3	1.5	7.3
Knight, Brevin	470	373	20.4	8.1	3.4	1.9	8.3
Norris, Moochie	483	424	24.5	9.3	3.1	2.9	9.1
Singletary, Sean	456	362	23.3	7.2	2.1	1.6	6.7
Tyler, BJ	494	365	21.1	7.5	2.7	1.8	7.1
Hannah, Stefhon	478	385	20.9	7.5	2.7	1.8	7.1
Thomas, Chris	416	385	20.5	7.6	2.0	1.7	6.6
Burke, Trey	506	384	21.5	7.7	1.9	3.0	6.2

I try to list players in order from best to worst. Ty Lawson is something of a guess at this point and could finish anywhere in the top 5 of this group before he’s done. The two statistics here that separate the successful players from the not so successful ones are 2-point percentage and A/TO. The more successful PGs posted a 2PP well over .500 and an A/TO over 2.0. The others missed on both, one or the other. Burke topped both numbers, though his .506 2PP is on the low side and suggests he may struggle some on offense. It’s also important to note that Burke has the lowest defensive numbers of any player in this group.

Next I want to take a look at the progression of Burke’s career at Michigan. Here are the numbers posted by Trey Burke comparing his freshman season to a month-by-month breakdown of his sophomore season:

Trey Burke	2PP	3PP	P40	A40	S40	A/TO	RSB40
Freshman	490	348	17.6	5.4	1.1	1.7	5.7
Nov-Dec	620	383	22.1	9.2	1.4	3.8	5.6
January	481	351	21.3	8.0	2.1	3.9	6.3
February	532	442	23.2	6.6	1.7	2.9	5.4
March	400	362	20.7	6.9	2.3	2.1	7.1

The most important thing to take from this list is Burke improved pretty dramatically between his first and second college season. He improved his scoring, efficiency, passing and defense by quite a bit. This is a very impressive feat. Improvement is always a good thing for a prospect. If nothing else it suggests both a solid work ethic and the intelligence to adjust one’s game.  Especially impressive is how his defensive numbers went from being substandard for a prospect during his freshman season to strong in March of his sophomore season when the competition was the most intense.

On the downside is the only time he was truly dominant as a scorer was during the non-conference schedule of his sophomore season, when the competition is generally much weaker. For that reason there are still legitimate concerns as to whether Trey Burke will bring enough offensively to become a solid NBA starter. Also a concern is that his best month defensively was also his worst offensively. The question that arises from this is whether concentrating more on defense hurt his offense and if he is capable of playing both at the level an NBA starter needs to at the same time.

Trey Burke is something of a mixed bag. In addition to the overall improvement, the optimist would point out that he had some excellent months where he flashed the ability to score, pass and defend at the level of successful NBA PG prospects. The pessimist would point out that overall the defense was soft and the offense was inefficient except for one brief stretch.

One more thing before I wrap this is a quick look at other PGs who were Wooden Award winners: Phil Ford, Jay Williams, TJ Ford, Jameer Nelson and Jimmer Fredette. What to take from this list is that PGs who have taken the Wooden award and were drafted in the top 10 have been much more likely to disappoint than succeed. This is a small sample and shouldn’t be weighed too heavily. But it might show that, at least for PGs, winning the Wooden can add undeservedly to their draft stock. The idea that Trey Burke is a top pick simply because he was voted the top player in the nation is just a wrongheaded assumption. Just as wrongheaded is any suggestion that his leading Michigan to the title game makes him a top prospect. Bobby Hurley and Mateen Cleaves are past examples of tournament success being a poor way to judge PG prospects.

In the final analysis I just don’t see a great NBA career in Trey Burke’s future. He even has some potential to become a bust. The only skill where he’s shown consistent proficiency is as a passer. Both his offensive and defensive numbers are a mix of mild promise and red flags. I like that he’s a smart player who obviously works hard at improving his game, but he has some physical limitations that can’t be ignored. I see Burke’s high end as an ordinary NBA starter. The player I have compared Burke to most often has been Darren Collison. After looking at his career and the skills he displayed more closely, I have my doubts that Burke will even be that good.

About Hoops Analyst:

Hoops Analyst is the premier destination for in-depth basketball analysis, insight, and commentary.