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:

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:

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:

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.

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.

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:

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.

In fact, the Knicks, as the two seed in the East have nearly an identical SRS rating (3.73) to the West’s eight seed Rockets (3.69).  That stat is a beat of a cheat because the six seed Warriors (1.32) and seven seed Lakers (1.49) have worse point differentials than Houston.  Still, no one would seriously contest that the Rockets, Lakers, and possibly the Warriors could beat any East team not named the Heat in a seven game series.  Nevertheless, Heat’s lack of competition is not necessarily a bad thing for their competitive juices.  In fact, the Lakers spent most of the 1980s blowing away Western playoff pretenders before battling with the Celtics or 76ers in the Finals and it did not affect them Lakers adversely.   With all that said, let’s take a look at the NBA match ups and see how we will get to the Finals most people expect.  As always, we also will look at each series from an historical perspective and review the most recent playoff match up between each franchise.  

Eastern Conference

1. Heat v. Bucks: The Bucks will make a nice facsimile of a speed bump in the first round for the Heat.  Though the Bucks actually beat the Heat one time this year, they have no one to guard LeBron (Larry Sanders?) and the Bucks play at a fast pace, which allows Miami those spurts that just destroy most opponents.   Worthy of note, J.J. Redick has not blended well in Milwaukee and has only shot .318% from three so far, despite being 39% for his career.  Expect a sweep.  Miami wins 4-0.

Last time they met in the playoffs: Milwaukee and Miami have never met in the playoffs before.

2. Knicks v. Celtics: In theory, the Celts vet team is scary.  The Knicks’ success this year as a decent defensive team that shoots very well seems fragile and Boston’s defensive ability combined with its ability to turn it on in the playoffs indicate that they could give the Knicks a run.  The game plan would be to knock Carmelo Anthony off his game (Honey Nut Cheerios style?) and score just enough to take the series.  Kevin Garnett, however, does not look healthy and there really is no other second scorer behind Paul Pierce.  When good teams get old, it tends to happen quite quickly (see, e.g., Pistons of 1980s, Rockets of 1990s, etc.).  It was a remarkable run in Boston and it lasted several years longer than I thought it would but I think it is finally over.  Knicks win 4-1.

Last time they met in the playoffs: Tables turn quickly in the NBA.  In 2010-11, the Celts were the three seed and the Knicks were 42-40 and barely in the playoffs.  New York played hard but lost the first two games in Boston by a total of five points.  Back in New York, Chauncey Billups hurt his knee during Game Three and Boston proceeded to blow away New York and sweep the series.

3.  Pacers v. Hawks: Did you know that Pacers were first in the NBA in defense?  I knew they were good but this team really jumped to the next level this season.  Unfortunately, they have no go to scorer right now.  David West kind of fills the role but the Hawks have precisely the players who can guard him in Josh Smith and Al Horford.  Yet, the Hawks have their own problems (very little scoring and almost no depth without Louis Williams).  The Hawks have some pieces to give Indiana problems but, ultimately, Atlanta will have too much trouble scoring on the Pacers to win this series.  Indiana wins 4-2.

Last time they met in the playoffs: You have to go back all the way to 1995-96 to find their last match up.  It was a very similar series to this one, as Indiana was the three seed and Atlanta the six seed then too.  The Hawks were a decent team (Steve Smith, Christian Laettner, and Mookie Blaylock) with no bench at all and the Pacers were a quasi-contender with Reggie Miller, Rik Smits, and the Davis Brothers.  Reggie Miller had fractured his eye socket and missed the first four games of the series, which the teams split.  Miller came back for the deciding Game 5 and scored 29 points (he shot only 7-17 but was 13-15 from the line) but lost 89-87 to a balanced Hawks team.

4.  Nets v. Bulls: The Nets and Bulls are mirror images.  The Nets score well and defend sporadically, while the Bulls defend very well but score really poorly.  Assuming we won’t see Derrick Rose, this will be a very close series.  As an aside, I would not bring Rose back this late in the year anyway.  The Bulls aren’t likely to get past the Second Round with or without him anyway, so why risk an injury for nominal benefit?

The Bulls are 3-1 against the Nets this year, though three of the games were decided by less than three points.  In the battle of contrasts, the Nets have defended well enough but the Bulls’ defense has kept them at 90 points or under every single game.  For the Nets to win, they’ll need someone to really explode offensively (Deron Williams?).  If the Bulls could score at all, they would run away with the series.  Match ups aside, SRS likes the Nets (1.25) significantly better than the Bulls (-0.01).  In all, this series is a coin toss but I’ll go with the Nets’ star power as the difference.  Nets win 4-3.

Last time they met in the playoffs: It has been a while since a young John Calipari brought his up and coming eight seed Nets against Michael Jordan’s final Bulls team in 1997-98.   The Bulls needed overtime to win the first game.  The Nets had a bunch of young studs (Kerry Kittles, Sam Cassell, and Keith Van Horn) but they were led that game by Chris Gatling and Sherman Douglas before MJ scored 39 to pull it out.  Game 2 was also relatively close (96-91) before the Bulls came to Jersey and won easily to sweep the series.

Western Conference

1. Thunder v. Rockets: This will be a fun series on many levels.  First, of course, is James Harden playing his old team.  After that, it is also clear that the Rockets are better than their record and really should be a six seed but for a poorly timed slump at the end of the year.  Their expected win loss is 50-32 and they are first in pace and sixth in offense.  As for OKC, their pace is fast (10^th) and they are the best offensive team in the NBA.  In the three games between these teams, the winning team topped 120 points each time.  Alas, the Thunder beat Houston by about 30 points in two of those games so I don’t expect Houston to put up too much of a fight.  Thunder win 4-1.

When they last met in the playoffs: The Rockets have never played the Thunder in the playoffs but have met them as the Sonics several memorable times.  Most recently, the vintage Clyde Drexler/Charles Barkley/Hakeem Olajuwon Rockets met the vintage Gary Payton/Shawn Kemp/Detlef Schrempf Sonics in the Second Round of the 1996-97 playoffs.  Seattle was down 3-1 before roaring back to force a Game 7 in Houston (both teams were 57-25 that year).  All of the usual suspects played well in Game 7 but the difference might have been Matt Maloney, the Rockets’ rookie starting point guard (his first year post-college he was undrafted and played in the CBA before hooking up with the Rockets in 1996-97), who scored 15 points and hit three three-pointers.  Maloney was outmatched by the Rockets the previous two games (he shot 2-12 and 1-10 from three in that losing stretch).  Maloney parlayed that decent season into a long term deal where he made over $17 million.  He was the starter for the Rockets for one more season before crashing with injuries and losing his job to Cuttino Mobley in 1998-99.  Maloney then bounced around as a role player for a few more years until 2001 (and a cameo in 2002-03).

2.  Spurs v. Lakers: A few weeks ago, this series could have been interesting.  Even as it stands, Tim Duncan v. Dwight Howard and Tony Parker v. Steve Nash sound worth watching.  Of course, Nash is hurt and he couldn’t guard Parker when he was healthy anyway.  More troubling, few of the Lakers play any defense.  Howard’s numbers are down but he is still the only formidable defender.   Contrast that with Duncan, who had reduced minutes but was excellent in those minutes (24.4 PER and a league leading defensive rating of 95).  If Howard can’t win the battle with Duncan, the Lakers have little chance of making up the ground elsewhere.  Spurs win 4-1.

When they last met in the playoffs: It’s actually been quite a while since the rivals of the 00s have played.  Their last meeting was in 2007-08 when the Kobe/Pau Lakers beat them 4-1 to go to the NBA Finals.   This wasn’t a particularly memorable series, with the Lakers going up 3-1 to take away any real drama.  As for the Lakers/Spurs overall competition in the last few years, here is the breakdown of their playoff meetings:

-2007-08:  Lakers beat Spurs 4-1 in the Conference Finals

-2003-04:  Lakers beat Spurs 4-2 in the Second Round

-2002-03:  Spurs beat Lakers 4-2 in the Second Round

-2001-02:  Lakers beat Spurs 4-1 in the Second Round

-2000-01:  Lakers beat Spurs 4-0 in the Conference Finals

-1998-99:  Spurs beat Lakers 4-0 in the Second Round

Six meetings in ten years and the Lakers controlled most of them.  Interestingly, the winner of this series made the NBA Finals every single time.  That probably won’t happen this year.

3.  Nuggets v. Warriors: The 2012-13 Nuggets have the most wins and best SRS rating of any Denver team since they came to the NBA.  Yet, there are some reasons to be concerned that they aren’t quite a title contender.  Denver has ridden superior depth in the regular season but that depth is less of a factor in the playoffs when rotations contract a bit.  In addition, Danilo Gallinari’s absence hurts.  They will need Wilson Chandler to shoot much more and take Gallo’s minutes.

Watching Denver play another fast paced team in the Warriors will also be a good series that few are talking about.   Denver took three out of the four in the regular season, with the Warriors only winning by one point in their victory.   The Warriors chance of winning revolves around Stephen Curry and their three-point shooting (.403%, best in the NBA).  I don’t see GSW having the athleticism to ultimately stop the Nuggets.  Denver wins 4-1.

When they last met in the playoffs: Surprisingly, the Nuggets and Warriors have never met in the playoffs before.

4.  Clippers v. Grizzlies: Do you realize that every single First Round out West is much more interesting than those in the East?  It’s not that the East games are terrible but they are all rather blah.  Nets/Bulls and Hawks/Pacers might be okay but would you really rather watch those than OKC/Houston or Lakers/Spurs?  But the best series of the First Round is Clipps and Grizz, two 56-win teams facing off with somewhat different styles.

The Grizz are the slowest team in the NBA and a great defensive team (2^nd in the NBA).  The Clipps are much more balanced (4^th on offense and 8^th on defense).   On the surface, the Clipps have a more going for them: (1) they have a much better point differential than Memphis, (2) they beat Memphis 3-1 for the season, (3) they probably have the two best players in the series in Chris Paul and Blake Griffin, and (4) they beat the Grizz last year in the First Round.  Yes it is hard to discount Memphis when it can throw good players at every position and have some nice matchups (Marc Gasol v. DeAndre Jordan) and have players in Mike Conley and Zach Randolph who could complete with Paul and Griffin.  Still, the series will be tight but the factors seem to favor the Clipps.  Clippers win 4-3.

When they last met in the playoffs: We all remember last year’s seven game series won by the Clipps when the Grizz blew a huge lead in Game 1 and lost Game 7 at home.

Incidentally, the last time (and only other time) two 56-win teams met in the 4-5 series in the First round was 1997-98 when the Suns (Jason Kidd, Antonio McDyess, Penny Hardaway, and Danny Manning) played the Spurs with a rookie named Tim Duncan and his buddy David Robinson.   TD played quite well and the Spurs won the series rather easily (3-1).

Second Round

-Heat beat Nets, 4-1

-Knicks beat Pacers, 4-3

-Thunder beat Clippers, 4-1

-Spurs beat Nuggets, 4-1

Conference Finals

-Heat beat Knicks, 4-1

-Thunder beat Spurs, 4-1

NBA Finals

-Heat beat Thunder 4-2

-Does this injury end the Lakers’ season?

Well the Lakers are in the driver seat to make the eight seed still if they win their remaining games two games.  Kobe’s presence would’ve given the Lakers a puncher’s shot of upsetting the Spurs or Thunder but that’s about it.  Even with Kobe, the Lakers are a poor defensive team (20^th in the NBA) and they have no one to match up with either Russell Westbrook or Tony Parker.   The Lakers are 0-2 against the Spurs (with one more game to play) and 1-3 against the Thunder.  So, the injury is disappointing on many levels but probably changes nothing for this season.

-Did heavy minutes cause this injury?

There really is no way we can answer this question but we do know that Kobe had averaged a ton of minutes the last few weeks.  In the past seven games, Kobe did not play fewer than 41 minutes in any game and hit 47 minutes four times (and would’ve hit that number in the Warrior game if he hadn’t gotten hurt).  For the season, Kobe has averaged 38.6 minutes per game, which was basically the same number as last season and fewer than in 2009-10.  That sounds like heavy time but Michael Jordan played even more minutes at age 34 than Kobe did (38.8 mpg).

As for Achilles tears, I’m no doctor but WebMD indicates they can be caused by both a single isolated rauma or overuse.  So, we can’t preclude the possibility that Kobe’s injury might have have been caused by being  run too hard the last few weeks.  We will never know the answer unless the Lakers let someone review the MRI of the tear to tell whether they are consistent with a sudden injury or wear and tear.  Given all this, I’m agnostic on this question but do come away wondering whether Bryant should’ve been monitored a bit more carefully.

-Can Kobe still be Kobe next year?

Again, I’m no doctor but news reports believe it’ll take 9-12 months to recover and that he could lose a little lift afterwards.  The only other big time players I can remember suffering this injury had mixed results.

Dominique Wilkins tore his Achilles on a similar play at age 32 in 1991-92.  He returned the following year with no problems at all and even had a better PER.  Here are the stats for comparison (on a per-36 minute basis):

-(pre-tear) 1991-92: 9.5 fgs, 20.6 fgas, .464 FG%, .289 3FG%, 7.9 ftas, 6.6 rebs, 3.6 asts, 1.2 stls, 0.5 blks 2.7 tos, 26.5 pts. 22.2 PER

-(post-tear) 1992-93: 10.1 fgs, 21.5 fgas, .468 FG%, .380 3FG%, 8.5 ftas, 6.6 rebs, 3.1 asts, 1.0 stls, 0.4 blks, 2.5 tos, 28.8 pts, 24.3 PER

As can be seen, Wilkins was basically the same player after the tear.  His numbers looked better because his three point shooting drastically improved (this was a fluke) but he was still able to get to the line and do all the other athletic things he was able to do before the injury.

The other recent(ish) case of a star player tearing an Achilles was Patrick Ewing during the 1998-99 playoffs (right before the Knicks famously went on a tear to the NBA Finals without him).  At the time, Ewing was 36 and really slowing down as a player.  He returned for the 1999-00 season and was not quite the same but close (his PER dropped from 19.4 to 16.9 the next season).  Of course, Ewing was older and already declining rapidly, so it is hard to say how much of the decline at that age can be attributed to the injury.  In any event, the Wilkins and Ewing cases give us optimism for Kobe.  If an older and slower Ewing could still play post tear, there is no reason to think Kobe won’t likely have a few good seasons left.  The rub, though, is that even if Kobe does come back close to his 2012-13 ability, he won’t be back until January (unless he tries to return insanely early) and there is a shot that the thin Lakers will be so mediocre without him (even assuming that Dwight Howard returns) that they will too far behind in the seedings to make a playoff run.

2.  Louisville and the NBA: Louisville recently ran through the NBA tournament with relative ease.  Despite this, they don’t have too much NBA talent (Gorgui Deng is the only projected first round right now).  Of course, you don’t need an NBA star to win in college if you are as deep as Louisville is.  The question I wondered is where each of the NCAA champs ranks in terms of NBA talent.  Let’s take a look at all the titlists since the NCAA went to the 64-team tournament back in 1984-85 and assess which title teams had the best NBA talent:

Group I:  Nothing but role players

-1984-85, Villanova (3 NBAers): Had one solid pro in Ed Pinckney, a decent pro in Harold Pressley, and fringer Dwayne McClain.

-1986-87 Indiana (3 NBAers): Well, barely three NBA players.  Steve Alford played a few seasons off the bench and Keith Smart had only two NBA games.  The best NBA players was Dean Garrett, who didn’t make it in the NBA until age-30 in 1996-97.

-1992-93 North Carolina (4 NBAers): No stars in this group.  George Lynch had the best NBA career as a good bench guy and Eric Montross took up space for a while.  Derrick Phelps and Matt Wenstrom played a combined 14 NBA games.

-1993-94 Arkansas (3 NBAers): Similar to 2012-13 Louisville…lots of college talent but not too many NBA impact players.  Croliss Williamson was the best player and had a good NBA career while Corey Beck played on the fringe and Clint McDaniel had even less NBA time.

-1994-95 UCLA (6 NBAers): Despite so many pros, none made much impact at all.  Ed O’Bannon was the only high draft choice but his knees prevented him from playing as a small forward.  George Zidek, Tyus Edney, and J.R. Henderson, and Toby Bailey all hung around briefly.  Of this entire group, only Edney played much at all and he was out of the NBA by age 28.

-2001-02 Maryland (4 NBAers): Maryland never turned out a star.  Chris Wilcox has been decent and Steve Blake is a role player.  Juan Dixon and Lonny Baxter played a bit but have been gone from the NBA for some time now.

-2004-05 North Carolina (6 NBAers): Volume is here but quality is weak.  Raymond Felton is pretty good and Marvin Williams solid.  Sean May and Rashad McCants were busts and David Noel and Jawad Williams were fringers.

-2007-08 Kansas (6 NBAers): Another high volume/low quality NBA group.  Darrell Arthur looks promising and Mario Chalmers is a bona fide NBA starter.  Brandon rush looks solid (though he missed most of the year with a knee injury). Cole Aldrich is struggling to make it in the NBA.  Sherron Collins and Darnell Jackson are fringers for now.

-2009-10 Duke (4 NBAers): It is too soon to tell but the group looks okay but unspectacular so far (Kyle Singler, Nolan Smith, Miles Plumlee, and Lance Thomas).

-2010-11 Connecticut (2 NBAers): Kemba Walker looks solid but it is not clear how Jeremy Lamb will be.

Group II: Some solid pros

-1985-86, Louisville (4 NBAers): The Cardinals had four NBA players but no stars.  Pervis Ellison (who was a freshman star), stayed four years and was drafted first overall in 1989 but injuries prevented him from being too good.  Billy Thompson was pretty good for a few years and Milt Wagner was a fringe player.  Kenny Payne was a 19-year old freshman who barely played that season but worked his way to be drafted later (though he didn’t really stick in the NBA either).

-1987-88 Kansas (2 NBAers): We mentioned that you don’t necessarily need an NBA star to win an NCAA title.  The Jayhawks showed that a star can’t hurt.  This team was mostly Danny Manning (another top pick in the NBA draft) plus future GM Kevin Pritchard, who played 94 NBA games over a five-year career.

-1989-90 UNLV (3 NBAers): It felt like this team was an NBA roster but only three players made it (Larry Johnson, Greg Anthony, and Stacey Augmon) and they all stuck pretty well.

-1998-99 Connecticut (3 NBAers): Rip Hamilton was the star of the team and is still playing.  Khalid El-Amin played a bit for a terrible Bulls team and Jake Voskuhl took up space for a eight years.

-1999-00 Michigan State (4 NBAers): Jason Richardson and Morris Peterson had nice NBA careers (Richardson’s is still kind of going now).  Mateen Cleaves had a few seasons and Charlie Bell worked hard and got some overly generous contracts as a result.

-2002-03 Syracuse (2 NBAers): Not much quantity here but Carmelo Anthony is nice quality.  Hakim Warrick has been a decent player too.

-2003-04 Connecticut (6 NBAers): The core of this team has been very good in the NBA (Ben Gordon and Emeka Okafor).  Charlie Villanueva is serviceable enough (despite complaints about non-scoring portions of his game).  Marcus Williams, Josh Boone, and Hilton Armstrong were all first round picks but only a few years.

-2005-06 Florida (5 NBAers): Al Horford and Joakim Noah look like very good pros and Corey Brewer is a decent bench player.  Chris Richard and Taurean Green were fringers.

-2006-07 Florida (6 NBAers): Florida amazingly returned the same group the next season but added Marresse Speights.

-2008-09 North Carolina (6 NBAers): The book is still open on this team.  For now, Ty Lawson is a potential star.  Ed Davis, Danny Green, Tyler Hansbrough, and Wayne Ellington look like potential role players and might be starters in the right situation.  Tyler Zeller might be a solid backup big man.

-2011-12 Kentucky (6 NBAers): Anthony Davis a potential star and Michael Kidd-Gilchrist could run the gamut as a pro.  Who knows what exactly Doron Lamb, Terence Jones, Marquis Teague, and Darius Miller will be?  Could move up with time.

Group III:  Could almost field an NBA team

-1988-89 Michigan (5 NBAers): This was the first huge NBA class.  Glen Rice was the best player but Loy Vaught and Terry Mills had nice careers.  Rumeal Robinson and Sean Higgins hung around for a few years and Demetrius Calip was a fringers.

-1990-91 Duke (5 NBAers): Grant Hill was the big star on this team and Christian Laettner had a very nice pro career.  Bobby Hurley was drafted high but struggled and had a big injury that knocked him out of the NBA early.  Antonio Lang and Brian Davis made NBA cameos.

-1991-92 Duke (6 NBAers): In addition to the five players from the previous year, freshman Cherokee Parks would go on to be a decent pro for a few years.

-1995-96 Kentucky (9 NBAers): Pitino’s best recruiting came in the mid-1990s when the Wildcats were dripping with NBA quality.  Antoine Walker was the star of the team but even the role players stuck (Walter McCarty, Tony Delk, Mark Pope, Nazr Mohammed).  Derek Anderson was a nice pro and Ron Mercer was anticipated (though he was a bust).  Finally, Wayne Turner and Jeff Sheppard made cameos.  What a loaded team.

-1996-97 Arizona (5 NBAers): If you wondered how Kentucky ever lost in the mid-1990s you need only look at the backcourt for this team (Jason Terry, Mike Bibby, and Michael Dickerson).  Two of these played at or near All-Star levels and Dickerson would’ve been a starter for a decade but for injuries.  Miles Simon and A.J. Bramlett had cameos.

-1997-98 Kentucky (5 NBAers): Not quite as loaded as they were two years before but Mohammed, Sheppard, and Turner were still around.  Throw in Jamaal Magloire and Scott Padgett, both of whom had nice NBA careers.

-2000-01 Duke (4 NBAers): Many a title team can squeeze out for NBAers but all of these Duke players were quality in the NBA (Shane Battier, Carlos Boozer, and Mike Dunleavy) or would have been but for a  motorcycle accident (Jay Williams).

The strength of the draft remains the center position. There are a lot of promising centers in this draft. It’s a diverse group of young, veteran, defensive-minded and offensive-minded. None are perfect, but all are promising. I count 14 center prospects who are worthy of a first round pick. Most are young and have a wide career arc at this point, meaning there will be some tough choices. There are also a lot of good wing players, making this draft potentially very good, but also full of players with bust potential. It should play out something like the 2001 draft has.

Players are listed in order of how I would draft them, all other things being equal. I didn’t include players who seem highly unlikely to declare for the draft.

1. Nerlens Noel, C Kentucky: The best player available is a guy who wasn’t playing for a team that didn’t make the tournament. When Noel played he dominated defensively as few freshmen ever have. That makes him an easy choice as the top pick.

2. Otto Porter, SF Georgetown: Not the tournament he wanted, but the fact is he dragged a team with mediocre talent to a 2 seed.  I moved him up to #2 because he’s probably the surest bet in the draft to become a star on some level.

3. Trey Burke, PG Michigan: I’m on board with this guy as the top PG prospect in the nation. His defensive numbers have been rising steadily all season. In March, when the competition was the most intense, Burke’s RSB40 was a perfectly respectable 6.9. His S40 was a solid 2.2. Add that to his superb offensive and passing numbers and Trey Burke is suddenly looking like a seriously good prospect.

4. Victor Oladipo, SG Indiana: I’ve had my little flirtation with Victor as a potential superstar, but that’s starting to cool. It isn’t just the low P40. In the loss to Syracuse, Oladipo showed no inclination to be the guy who carried the team on offense. Rather than taking the ball and trying to make something happen, he was content to sit back and let the likes of Sheehy and Watford take the lead. Wade, Jordan or other top SGs would have never fell back into a supporting role while their team was going down. There’s still a lot to like here. His main skills are great defense and super-efficient offense

5. Anthony Bennett, PF UNLV: He really isn’t my favorite type of player. He’s something of a tweener forward with poor defensive numbers. The best of such players was Glen Robinson. The biggest bust has been Michael Beasley.

6. Mitch McGary, PF-C Michigan: As a PF he grades out pretty well. Not so much as a center. He was the X-factor during the tournament that changed Michigan from a young, talented bunch to one of the best teams in the nation. I’ll kick him into the top 10 for now. Like his teammate Burke, he was a monster in 11 March games. Defense is still kind of weak, but everything else is solid.

7. Kelly Olynyk, C Gonzaga:  For now I’m going to stick with Olynyk over the youngsters. Incredible offense and improved defense make him a pretty good prospect.

8. Willie Cauley-Stein, C Kentucky: He announced he’s going back to college next year and it should be a good situation for him if he does, what with all the young perimeter talent preparing to don Kentucky blue next year. I’ll keep him in the rankings for now, due to the fickle history of prospects making such decisions.

9. Cody Zeller, PF-C Indiana:  Another good offense/weak defense player. Like Oladipo it was disappointing that he stepped aside rather than trying to take the game over in the loss to Syracuse. As is the case with every player it is best not to let one very visible game, be it good or bad, have too much effect on the evaluation process.

10. Isaiah Austin, PF-C Baylor: Austin’s freshman year has been very erratic and his overall numbers are unimpressive. But there were games when he was dominant. Considering his skill/size combination that makes him a worthwhile top 10 gamble.

11. Steven Adams, C Pitt: Strong defense, promising offense. He’s also flashed enough promise to spend a lottery pick.

12. Rudy Gobert and Lucas Noguiera: Because I still can’t see much of a difference here, I’m going to just keep them together. I find myself leaning toward Noguiera as a better prospect, because he’s been a better rebounder and passer. He also has more upside. Gobert has the size advantage. These are the only two foreign player who I consider draftworthy.

13. Jordan Adams, SG UCLA: The case could be made that Adams is the best SG prospect in college ball. The only weakness in his game is he didn’t shoot the trey that well, at .307. He’s also a very young freshman who won’t turn 19 until after the draft.

14. Michael Carter-Williams, PG Syracuse: What I like about Carter-Williams is he made some changes to his game during the year that made him a better player. He shot less, but more efficiently. He had fewer TOs. He’s still more athlete than basketball player.

15. Marcus Smart, PG Oklahoma State: As is the case with a lot of the big guys, drafting Smart is a gamble. His freshman year he showed some promise and his ceiling is pretty high. He’s already a great defender. As a PG he’s an inefficient scorer with shaky passing skills. High ceiling to be sure, but right now he’s just another Iman Shumpert.

16. Eric Moreland, PF Oregon State: There are some obvious issues here, the biggest being he has to get bulkier. There’s also the question of why he struggled to stand out on a very mediocre team. You can’t ignore how productive he was however, and the fact that similar players have a solid history of success.

17. Alex Len, C Maryland: He remains similar to the freshmen bigs. His talent is obvious, but his numbers say career backup. He’d be an upside draft pick, but could offer a big payoff.

18. Kyle Anderson, SF UCLA: I remain a fan of this guy even though his offense has been terrible all year. The UCLA guys are group I’m going to need a little more time to wrap my head around.

19. Jeff Withey, C Kansas: Withey looks like more of a sure thing to become a useful player than most of the freshmen bigs. Upside is limited.

20. Gorgui Dieng, C Lousiville: I feel Dieng will slowly move up the ladder as the evaluation process drags on and he could even find himself in the lottery. His numbers aren’t great, but the success of Louisville started last year when he was able to cut his fouls down and stay on the court longer. Championship teams usually produce at least one solid NBA player regardless of stats. Dieng is the Cardinal most likely to be that guy.

21. Ben McLemore, SG Kansas: There are two problems with McLemore as a prospect. The first is the sub 20.0 P40. While this is a big deal, the fact that he’s a freshman makes it less so. The fact that he’s a 21 year-old redshirt freshman makes it more problematic. The other is the 1.24 S40. This is an extremely low number for any SG prospect and is the main reason I have him down here near the bottom of round one. In his defense, he does have one of the better B40 numbers for SGs, 0.84. That suggests his defense will be good enough, as does the fact that he’s a good rebounder for a SG. But it’s hard for me to put him ahead of the likes of Oladipo, Adams and even Caldwell-Pope, let alone in the top 3 overall, when these huge question marks are out there.

22. Kentavious Caldwell-Pope, SG Georgia: Numbers took a tumble in March as he shot more often with much less efficiency. He remains a decent SG prospect.

23. PJ Hairston, SG North Carolina: Starting in February, Hairston started to live up to his hype as a top 15 prospect. The 2013 SG class is becoming an intriguing group.

24. Reggie Bullock, SF North Carolina: He had a great start, but took a backseat when Hairston emerged. He remains a solid SF prospect.

25. James Ennis, G-F Long Beach State: Ennis and Bullock are two of the many SF prospects who are under the radar. They’ll be bargains once teams have depleted all the promising young centers and guards.

26. Khem Birch, PF UNLV: Birch is a great shot blocker and that’s always good. His other numbers are decent.

27. Mike Muscala, C Bucknell: Multi-skilled center. His low 2-point pct. is a big negative.   

28. CJ McCollum, G Lehigh: The injury probably won’t hurt his stock that much, because he had put himself on the map last year. I see him as a decent 3^rd guard, but after Damian Lillard’s surprising rookie year I may be rethinking small college guards.

29. Nate Wolters, G South Dakota State: What I said for McCollum also applies to Wolters.

30. Shane Larkin, PG Miami: Larkin hits all the statistical benchmarks, other than P40, which is a good thing for a young player. He’s small and isn’t exactly dominating, which projects him as something less than an NBA starter.

31. Cory Jefferson, PF Baylor: The one big void in the 2013 draft is the PF position. That void could see a player like Jefferson rising up the boards.

32. Adreian Payne, PF-C Michigan State: Payne has improved quite a bit during the year and is now one of the better PFs available.

33. Robert Covington, SF Tennessee State: Another bargain SF. Covington posted first round numbers last year, but was slowed by injury this year.

34. Zeke Marshall, C Akron: He’s always been a good shot blocker, which of course is the single most important thing any center prospect can do.

35. Doug McDermott, F Creighton: Low ASB SF. Such players are one of the stories of this draft. McDermott is an extreme such player, finishing in single digits in both steals and blocks. What makes him a prospect is he’s hit 49% of his 3-pointers for 2 years running now. He’s also a good enough rebounder that it isn’t crazy to think of him as a stretch 4.

36. Glenn Robinson III, SF Michigan: A low ASB40 SF. I pushed him up the board because of Michigan’s tournament success. It’s part of my process of wrapping my head around this team. I also wanted to bunch him with the other low ASB40 SFs. He isn’t a great prospect though. Teams looking for a SF best wait until round 2 and when players like Bullock, Ennis and Covington will be bargains.

37. Shabazz Muhammad, SF UCLA: Another low ASB40 SF. He’s also an inefficient scorer with an A/TO barely over 0.5. The only thing keeping him on the top 60 is the possibility that the Howland effect suppressed his numbers.

38. Alex Poythress, F Kentucky: The last of the low ASB40 SFs, unless you want to add Ohio State’s Deshaun Thomas to the list. To recap, such players rarely make it. The intriguing thing about Robinson III, Muhammad and Poythress is all have flashed some stellar, even dominant offensive skills.

39. Ed Daniel, PF Murray State: Good energy guy who could probably help an NBA team. Not on the level of Faried or Millsap as a small college PF prospect though.

40. Taylor Smith, F Stephen F. Austin: Great PF numbers, with SG size. If he can add some bulk he might become a good energy guy.

41. DJ Seeley, G CS-Fullerton: All things considered, he’s my favorite candidate to become a decent sniper/defender. The scoring percentages are over .500 and .400. His S40 is 2.4. He could probably handle the point in a pinch. He also comes with the usual reservations 5^th-year seniors bring.

42. Tony Mitchell, PF North Texas: He has declared, so we’ll see what happens. The good includes great defensive numbers and a stellar all-around season in 2012. The bad is he fell apart this year when the spotlight was on.

43. DJ Cooper, PG Ohio: Has the potential to become a solid reserve PG.

44. Reginald Buckner, PF Mississippi: He remains one of my favorite bargain picks in the draft even though his 2-point pct. fell under .600 for the year. He’s one of the best defenders available.

45. Archie Goodwin, SG Kentucky: I have never really looked at the question of whether it’s best for a player to join a basketball superpower as part of a top recruiting class or go to a lesser team where he might have more chances to stand out. In Goodwin’s case, I suspect there were better choices than Kentucky.

46. Lorenzo Brown, PG North Carolina State: A player you draft with the hope he can eventually learn to shoot. If that happens, he’ll be a pretty good NBA player.

47. Andre Roberson, F Colorado: A great rebounder/defender with spotty scoring abilities. While I was very intrigued with his potential coming into this year that has waned as his offense just didn’t improve.

48. Maurice Kemp, SF East Carolina: He got himself back into the top 60 with a strong finish that led ECU to the CIT championship. Stats are great, but he’s only done it for one season, is thin at 180 lbs and has struggled from behind the arc.

49. Solomon Hill, SF Arizona: Another solid, well-rounded SF. I’d like him better if he grabbed more rebounds.

50. Jackie Carmichael, PF Illinois State: Wrapping up a decent career. He’s good enough to stick as an inside reserve in the right situation.

51. Leonard Washington, F Wyoming: He brings enough good things that he’s worth a look. That’s a common thread with all the small college PFs this year. None really excite me as prospects, but there are a lot of decent ones out there who are worth a look. There will be enough good PFs available in round 2 and the UFA market that it would be silly to burn a first rounder on the likes of Mason Plumlee or James Michael McAdoo.

52. Trevor Mbakwe, PF Minnesota: Basic tough inside guy. Age and off-court issues are there.

53. Alex Oriakhi, PF-C Missouri: The transfer was a good thing for him. I like his numbers, but because of his so-so 3 seasons at UConn some time and thought is required before I move him up too far.

54. Arselan Kazemi, PF Oregon: The best rebounder available.

55. Jarred Berggren, PF-C Wisconsin: He might be the top stretch big available. He knocks down the trey, plays defense and rebounds adequately.

56. Patric Young, PF-C Florida: A strong February had him as a bubble first rounder. A weak March has him back in his usual spot.

57. Mason Plumlee, PF-C Duke: There’s some potential here as an energy guy.

58. Gregory Echnique, C Creighton: Great per minute numbers and a .657 2-point pct. That makes him something of a prospect. The fact that he’s a low-minute player is a negative.

59. Tony Johnson, PG Lafayette: Johnson is the type of player us statheads will like more than we should. He’s a super-efficient scorer with a decent RSB40, A40 and A-TO. That usually makes for a solid PG prospect. The negatives are he’s small, has a low P40 (17.1), and he didn’t emerge as any sort of a prospect until his senior season while playing in the Patriot League. He has shown enough that he’s a decent prospect to become a useful reserve.

60. Jamaal Franklin, SG San Diego State: He has a lot of talent, but is also inefficient, TO-prone and looks more like a forward than a guard.

In order to achieve success in basketball or any sports, professional athletes must possess tough psychological attributes. Sport psychologists believe that peak performance requires not only physical ability but also psychological skills. Did you know that by spending 30 minutes of playing Partypoker online you could improve your psychological skills necessary to achieve success in your desired sport? Athletes possess good physical abilities and incredible mental toughness in order to defeat their opponents. By playing poker, you’re able to develop your focus and determination through a game that you enjoy playing.

According to licensed psychologist and avid poker player Dr. Stephen Bloomfield, poker is a competition in which stress and your responses to stress can make you successful in sport. Whether you’re a novice or a professional poker player joining the 2013 WPT Lucky Hearts Open in Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino-Hollywood, having tough mental skills allows you to handle stress and remain focused on the competition, as well as dealing with various distractions during the game. In basketball, players are exposed to personal fouls involving a player saying offensive things to distract his opponent. By playing poker, you develop a sense of concentration that allows you to maintain focused and resist external variables.

Aside from focus, another important psychological attribute you must develop is determination. With determination, all realistic personal goals can be attained such as grabbing the next championship title or making more rebounds than in your previous games. In poker, players are highly committed to win either by having the best hand or by bluffing their way to win the next big pot. By setting realistic long-term and short-term goals, you can achieve greater heights in poker, basketball, or any sport in which you participate.

Successful basketball players and professional athletes engage themselves in various brain training activities to strengthen their psychological attributes. If you learn how to manage your attention and to establish achievable goals, then you’re one step closer to becoming the next Most Valuable Player in NBA.

I look for a few things when trying to predict the tournament winner. The first and most obvious is that the team is one of the very best in the nation. The next is that it’s a veteran team with a core that has been together at least a couple of years and preferably longer. The team should win their conference tournament. Finally I look for teams with quality big men. Other things are nice, particularly a coach who has a history of success. Those have been the easy to spot characteristics of recent NCAA champions. Kentucky was an exception last year, winning with so many freshmen. In the case of the Wildcats, their overall talent ended up trumping everything else. There are no Kentuckys this year.

Upsets

The upsets on the first weekend are what the tournament is all about. Here are the games I see as potential shockers, listed in order of most likely to happen.

Belmont over Arizona: I doubt a lower seed has ever screamed “pick me” as loudly as the 2013 Belmont Bruins. This is a senior-laden team going to their third consecutive tournament. There’s very little chance such a team will suffer from a case of being just happy to be here. More likely, after consecutive round one exits, they’ll see this as their last chance to do something truly special as a Belmont Bruin and come out firing. Arizona, like the entire PAC-12, is a team in transition. They recovered nicely from a down year in 2012, but are still a work in progress. The team is good and won’t be an easy out, but is built with more of an eye toward 2014 than anything. Before the seedings came out I saw Belmont as a team likely to pull off a first round upset and Arizona as a likely round one upset victim. The fact that they’re squaring off makes this upset pick an easy one to make.

Minnesota over UCLA: UCLA is in a similar situation to Arizona. A nice recruiting year has gotten them back into the top 25, but it’s just one step. They’re still a young, inexperienced team that lacks quality bigs and has only one season playing together. It doesn’t help the Bruins that likely NBA draftee Jordan Adams will be out. Minnesota is a tough, veteran group that’s still standing following a rugged Big 10 season. They should prevail.

New Mexico State over Saint Louis: I’m not sure how Sim Bhullar, the Aggies 7’5” freshman center, slipped under my prospect radar all year. That has been fixed. I feel he’ll be a load for the small Billikens to handle. NMSU has gone 18-2 since a 6-8 start. They’re a young team, which is certainly a negative, but they really seem to be getting it together at the right time. Saint Louis is the type of small, scrappy, overachieving team that just doesn’t do well in the tournament. This looks like an upset to me. Take NMSU all the way to the Sweet 16.

St Mary’s over Memphis: The Gaels were not only shoved into a play-in game as an 11 seed, but more than any other team they had to endure talk radio gasbags across the country ranting against their inclusion as if it’s some sort of life and death tragedy. From what little I know about athletes I’m certain such things will put a chip on the collective shoulder of this team. That should give them enough of an edge to get them past a Memphis team that their pretty much in the same class as anyways. So how come the first round games don’t involve only 16 seeds? Can anyone answer that one for me?

San Diego State over Oklahoma: In the original post I made a mistake and put South Dakota State as beating Oklahoma. That won’t happen, because it’s San Diego State playing Oklahoma. I’m still going with the upset. Nate Wolters and the Jackrabbits will come up short against Michigan. Apologies for the original error.

Oregon over Oklahoma State: We all know a 12 beats a 5 every tournament. The Ducks are my #12 pick for 2013. While the Ducks are a PAC-12 team, they do have the size and experience edge on OSU that should swing this game their way.

Bucknell over Butler: Last year a small Missouri team was ousted by a small college team with a 7-footer headed for the NBA. A similar scenario is at play here. Butler is a good, well-coached team, but I don’t think they’ll have an answer for Bucknell’s Mike Muscala.

Creighton over Duke: This is a projected round 2 matchup. The Blue Jays have the look of a team that could surprise with a nice run. They have that size/experience combination that works well in the tournament. They have a likely first round draftee and possible Wooden award winner in McDermott. Duke is a good team that’s capable of a nice run, but they’re also a team that has had their share of problems in early rounds of recent tournaments. I feel Creighton will have what it takes to knock them off.

More 2013 Tournament thoughts

The selection committee didn’t do Gonzaga any favors. After round one the Zags’ worst case scenario is a very good Pitt team that’s wildly under rated as an 8^th seed. Following that is always tough Wisconsin. Should they get past the Badgers, waiting for them will be an Ohio State team that might be playing better than any team in the country right now. Gonzaga burst onto the national scene in the ’99 tournament as a surprise Elite 8 team. Since then they’ve been a tournament regular, but haven’t advanced past the Sweet 16. This year is their best ever chance to do that. I feel these Zags will have what it takes to make their first Final 4, mainly because I don’t see that any potential opponent has the size to stop Olynyk. It won’t be an easy road though.

Indiana and Kansas both face a tough round 2 matchup. For the Hoosiers it’s the winner of NC State/Temple. Both are big, veteran teams that have played in multiple tournaments. Following that the Hoosiers have Syracuse or UNLV, two teams talented enough to beat any team in the nation on any given day. Kansas is looking at the North Carolina/Villanova winner. Both are scrappy teams that are hard to put away. Carolina particularly brings unneeded drama for the Jayhawks.

Syracuse is a tempting Final 4 choice. They have as much quality size and NBA-level talent as any team in the tournament. That and they’re the team that won’t stop jumping off the brackets and into my mind as a team I should be watching. But when I see them playing Indiana, visions of Victor Oladipo abusing Michael Carter-Williams keep coming up, so I have to go with the Hoosiers.

I have no clue what to make of Miami. Any team that wins both the ACC regular season and tournament is a good team, even in what was a down year for the conference. They lack any serious pro prospects. They do have several good college players and more quality size than most teams. They’re one of the oldest teams in the tournament, but have no tournament experience. My best guess is they hit the Sweet 16 before a very good Marquette team eliminates them.

The 2-4 seeds I see as no threat would be Saint Louis, Kansas State, New Mexico, Michigan and Georgetown. All but New Mexico suffer from the lack of size and/or experience that typically sinks such teams. In the case of the Lobos, they’re just seeded too high at #3. For all these teams I see the Sweet 16 being as far as they advance.

First Round winners: I guess it’s really the second round and the play-in games are the first round, but whatever…Louisville, Missouri, Oregon, New Mexico State, St. Mary’s, Michigan State, Creighton, Duke, Gonzaga, Pitt, Wisconsin, Kansas State, Belmont, New Mexico, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Kansas, North Carolina, VCU, Michigan, Minnesota, Florida, San Diego State, Georgetown, Indiana, North Carolina State, UNLV, Syracuse, Bucknell, Marquette, Illinois, Miami.

Sweet 16: Lousiville, New Mexico State, Michigan State, Creighton, Gonzaga, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Ohio State, Kansas, VCU, Florida, Georgetown, Indiana, Syracuse, Marquette, Miami.

Elite 8: Louisville, Michigan State, Gonzaga, Ohio State, Kansas, Florida, Indiana, Marquette.

Final 4: Louisville, Gonzaga, Florida, Indiana.

Championship: Florida over Louisville. I give the Gators a slight edge for a few reasons. The first is I just like their talent better. I give Young and Murphy a slight edge over Dieng and Behanan inside. I feel the veteran Gator backcourt will deal with the Cardinal defense adequately enough. The fact that Louisville is a bad 3-point shooting team scares me. I know Florida finished the season with some conference losses. The same thing happened in ’06 and ’07 when the Gators won back-to-back titles. The scary thing about picking Florida is that they lost their conference championship game. That’s a bad sign, but one I’m going to overlook, because the coach seems like a guy who plays every game with an eye on getting his team ready for the tournament. The bottom line is the way this season has played out so far reminds me of the way ’06 and ’07 did for the Gators. That’s enough to make the Florida Gators my pick as the 2013 NCAA champion.

Teams need to keep this in mind with the 2013 draft. There’s a lot of upside in this draft, but very little in the way of sure things. It remains an extremely hard one to figure out. Typically things are pretty well set at this point. This year things are still kind of muddled as we head into the conference tournaments. The main reason for this is the freshmen bigs. As inconsistent as the likes of Steven Adams, Willie Cauley-Stein and Isaiah Austin have been, all have flashed signs of brilliance. It’s hard to pass on talented 7-footers and the surprising success of Andre Drummond will make it even more difficult this year. In addition to the young bigs we have Victor Oladipo and Otto Porter, who both show signs of NBA superstardom, but also might be nothing more than very good role players. If Marcus Smart, Kyle Anderson and Michael Carter-Williams ever figure the offensive part of the game out all are potential top picks. Cody Zeller and Anthony Bennett could also put themselves into the top pick discussion should they finish strong. I’m hoping the tournament clears things up somewhat.

For this top 60 I decided to omit any players who seem extremely unlikely to declare for the draft. This being small college underclassmen like Bernard Thompson and Alan Williams and very low minute freshmen like Brice Johnson. This way the focus stays on the 2013 draft. Players are listed in order of how I would draft them all other things being equal.

1. Nerlens Noel, C Kentucky: I’m really pulling for the Bobcats win the lottery, because I like the paradox of Michael Jordan deciding on whether or not to draft a Kentucky center coming off knee surgery. MJ should ignore any old grudges he might be harboring and draft Noel. The injury shouldn’t change Noel’s status as the top overall pick. Players have come back strong from torn ACLs before. Noel is a young freshman who was going to involve some developmental time anyway. Leading up to the injury, the most impressive thing about Noel is how much he improved his offense since his college career started. Starting in January he hit .644 on 2-pointers, improved his blocks and kept all his other numbers steady. Nerlens Noel remains a potential NBA superstar. The injury is a setback, but it should keep a team from drafting this guy

2. Victor Oladipo, SG Indiana: I’m going to keep him at #2 for now. I’m still in the process of wrapping my head around what we have here. He’s a great defender and his scoring efficiency has been otherworldly for a SG. His numbers have the impressive look of some of the great SGs ever. The big negative is he has yet to prove he’s the big time scorer that all great SGs have been.

3. Anthony Bennett, PF UNLV: His defensive numbers rebounded after heading downward in January. That puts him ahead of the inconsistent young centers.

4. Otto Porter, SF Georgetown: Otto Porter should get the Wooden award. He has taken a team that suffered a significant loss when Whittington was ruled ineligible and has them on the verge of a top seed. He has improved his numbers during a tough Big East schedule, which is an impossibly difficult task. Porter has the look of a star NBA SF. In this muddled draft he’s about as sure a thing as there is.

5. Kelly Olynyk, C Gonzaga: So what happened in the past month that possessed me to move a guy from the round one bubble to the top 5? He started playing much better defense. He was at 1.2 B40 in November and December and improved to 2.9 in February. That number is still a tad low, but good enough that it makes Kelly Olynyk and darn good prospect when combined with his unstoppable offense.

6. Willie Cauley-Stein, C Kentucky: Cauley-Stein does the two most important center things very well. He hits well over 60% on 2-pointers and blocks well over 3 shots per 40 minutes. That’s what nudges him ahead of Adams and Austin.

7. Steven Adams, C Pitt: Good prospect, but his offense hasn’t been steady like Cauley-Stein’s. What I like best about Adams is his defense has improved during the season. Improvement is good, because it shows a player is learning, adjusting and doing what’s necessary to get to the next level.

8. Isaiah Austin, PF-C Baylor: His rookie year has been a two steps forward/one step back process. He started slowly, but in late December and January he had a stretch where he was looking real good. In February he backslid a little. The fact that we’ve seen flashes of brilliance in this multi-skilled 7-footer is good and keeps him in the lottery. Austin is a project, but the payoff could be huge.

9. Cody Zeller, PF-C Indiana:  Zeller remains a good offense/weak defense type with enough upside that he’s a top 10 mainstay.

10. Alex Len, C Maryland: I dropped Len too far last month. He really should be listed with the other frosh centers, as he’s the same age as most of them and has posted stats that show similar promise.

11. Rudy Gobert and Lucas Noguiera: I’m just going to repeat what I’ve been saying about these two all season. Similar players. Both are incredibly efficient inside scorers and good shot blockers. Both come up short as rebounders. Both seem likely to be lottery picks. In a very deep group of center prospects either one could drop or rise to near the top.

12. Kentavious Caldwell-Pope, SG Georgia: It’s time to put this guy on the list of top SGs. His 3-pointer, a weakness coming to the season, has been improving all year to the point where he’s consistently at 40%. I never root against a prospect, but going into the season I was sort of hoping to be able to use the clever nickname “Can’tplayvious Caldwell-Pope” to describe him. He’s been so good that I can’t do that now. Opportunity missed. He’s KCP and is on pace to be a pretty good NBA SG.

13. Kyle Anderson, SF UCLA: It’s been rare for a freshman SF to post non-scoring numbers as impressive as Anderson’s have been. His scoring has been weak, but has steadily improved. I have no problem keeping him in the lottery for now, but eventually he’ll need to score the basketball.

14. Jordan Adams, SG UCLA: Of the UCLA trio of perimeter freshman, Adams has gone unnoticed following a fast start. His numbers are just too good to ignore though. Another factor to consider with Adams is that UCLA guards drafted by the NBA have consistently outdone their college stats during the Howland era. That group includes Farmar, Afflalo, Westbrook and Collison. Adams has posted better stats than any of those four.

15. Marcus Smart, PG Oklahoma State: I decided to move Smart ahead of Carter-Williams, despite the fact that Carter-Williams had a much better month. Smart is more than 2 years younger than MCW and that’s a pretty big deal. Like Kyle Anderson, he does need to get the offense going at an efficient level a lot more consistently than it has been.

16. Michael Carter-Williams, PG Syracuse: In January he was erratic and there was a temptation to write him off. In February he shot the ball less frequently and more efficiently, which is a good sign.

17. Reggie Bullock, SF North Carolina: Bullock is making the most of his chance to be the star. I’m not sure if it’s because he’s finally getting an opportunity or if he just improved that much. Either way he’s posted great numbers for a SF prospect. It’s possible that 5 years from now we’ll all be wondering what Roy Williams was thinking by playing Bullock in a supporting role to Harrison Barnes and Tyler Zeller.

18. Eric Moreland, PF Oregon State: Moreland is a player whose numbers are too good to ignore. The fact that he’s the 6^th leading scorer on a sub-.500 team is a huge negative. I tend to veer pessimistic on players from non-tournament teams, which also hurts Moreland’s stock in my view. But there have been few players with the combination of rebounding, shot blocking and scoring efficiency stats that Moreland has posted this year. The vast majority of such players experienced long NBA careers.

19. Trey Burke, PG Michigan: I find myself liking Burke a lot more than I probably should. He has the low RSB and that’s always a bad sign. Darren Collison is the only recent PG prospect to post a low RSB40 and go on to become a solid NBA player. Brandon Knight and Avery Bradley may also break through, but history suggests such players are reserves at best. Meanwhile there have been first round PGs with low RSBs like Jonny Flynn, Jimmer Fredette, Austin Rivers and Kendall Marshall who have all struggled. Burke is a better player than all those guys and I would look at his high end as more like a Collison. The thing to remember about Collison though is he’s on his 3^rd team in 4 season, so it’s hard to call Burke a potential NBA starter.

20. Jeff Withey, C Kansas: Where a lot of this draft’s center prospects have a pretty wide range in the direction their careers might go, Withey is more of a certainty. His high end is a decent NBA reserve whose strength is defense.

21. Ben McLemore, SG Kansas: I’m having trouble warming to him as easily as others have. While he doesn’t score with anywhere near Oladipo’s efficiency, he is a pretty good scorer. In February he dropped below 20.0 P40 which has always been a bad thing for SG prospects. I wouldn’t mind the low P40 so much if he were posting the dominant defensive stats like Oladipo, but his S40 has been dropping to dangerously low levels too.

22. Mitch McGary, PF-C Michigan: A freshman who has played something less than starter minutes, but has been pretty impressive as a rebounder and defender.

23. Khem Birch, PF UNLV: Birch has been pretty solid, especially as a defender. He could be moved up about 10 spots based on stats. I remain leery of him because of his untidy exit from Pitt a year ago. The more he just shuts up and plays, the more distant a memory that becomes. But such incidents just aren’t a good sign.

24. Mike Muscala, C Bucknell: A center with as many skills as Muscala has should be able to find a role with some team. He’s one of the best rebounders in college ball. He’s a good shot blocker. He’s the best passing big man available this year. He can hit a 3-pointer. The downside is his 2-point pct. has never been much better than 50%. That’s a big negative for any center prospect, no matter what other skills he brings. 

25. Patric Young, PF-C Florida: Young’s rebounding and shot blocking numbers have improved enough that he’s now a pretty good prospect.

26. Nate Wolters, G South Dakota State: Wolters has been killing it the past couple of months after starting the season in something of a slump. That and the fact he can play the point makes him the lead jackrabbit in a strong group of small college guard prospects this year.

27. Cory Jefferson, PF Baylor: I’ve been running hot and cold on Jefferson in what has been a bust out year for him. I knocked him down a tad too much in January and now I’m not sure why. Perhaps because of the struggles of his team or his age. Now I feel he’s a legit first rounder with solid, if unspectacular PF numbers.

28. Andre Roberson, F Colorado: Another player I like more than I probably should. Roberson has some dominant numbers, but has never been a big time scorer. He does have 3-point range and great defensive skills, which is a nice combination to bring to the NBA of the twenty-teens.

29. DJ Seeley, G CS-Fullerton: Seeley has made himself a decent prospect in his final college season. He’s a good combo guard who has the potential to become a useful NBA sniper/defender. The fact that it took him this long, he’s 23 years old, and his career included a transfer is a negative. But based solely on his numbers there are few guards who are better prospects.

30. James Ennis, G-F Long Beach State: Statistically he’s been as good as any SF in the country. I’m always leery of players who emerge as seniors, so his draft case will require further research before I shove him too far up the list. But like Seeley he’s a very good prospect based solely on statistics from the 2012-13 season.

31. Doug McDermott, F Creighton: His scoring prowess will get him drafted. His inability to do anything else will keep his NBA role limited.

32. Zeke Marshall, C Akron: He’s always been a good shot blocker, which of course is the single most important thing any center prospect can do.

33. Tony Mitchell, PF North Texas: I’m not sure what happened to the player he was last year. I don’t know if he got lazy or if the mighty Sun Belt conference figured him out. But the player who looked like a lottery pick last year is gone. In his place is a marginal prospect worth a look once round 2 starts based on his defensive skills and his great freshman year. Mitchell is a reminder of what should be called a Clifford Rozier rule with prospects. That a transfer is not a good thing for a prospect to have on his resume no matter how good the stats look.

34. Shabazz Muhammad, SF UCLA: His low ASB40 has actually improved a tad, but is still nowhere near where it needs to be. I can forgive the low numbers a little bit, due to the Ben Howland factor, but Muhammad’s are too ridiculously low to think a different system would have mattered. Players like Muhammad stick around the league only as 3-point specialists.

35. Lorenzo Brown, PG North Carolina State: Similar prospect to Smart and Carter-Williams in that his ceiling is pretty high. What knocks him down to 2^nd round status is he’s a junior, but is the age of most seniors, 22. His numbers aren’t quite on the level of the other two and his high TOs are a concern. He’s a gamble that might pay off, but that becomes more unlikely as time passes.

36. Ed Daniel, PF Murray State: Daniel may get some buzz as another Faried going into the draft. He has the silly hair, but he isn’t as good as Faried. He might become a useful bench energy player though.

37. CJ McCollum, G Lehigh: The fact that he was killing it from behind the arc before the injury really helps his prospects, because that had been a weakness coming in. He brings a scorer’s mentality that should make him a good 3^rd guard. I don’t see much evidence he can handle the point, but I said the same thing about Damian Lillard last year.

38. Gorgui Dieng, C Lousiville: Dieng’s numbers aren’t impressive, but I can’t shake the notion that he’s better than his numbers.

39. Alex Poythress, F Kentucky: He’s like Muhammad and McDermott in that his painfully low ASB40 should take him out of any top prospect discussion. Like Muhammad that number has improved slightly, but nowhere near enough. While the ASB improved slightly, the impressive scoring efficiency he flashed early on has disappeared. In his defense I’ll say that Kentucky probably hasn’t been an easy place for a freshman to play this year. They were a group of players thrown together with high expectations, following a championship team. That couldn’t have been an easy thing to step into. I can’t say whether the circumstances affected the numbers of players like Poythress and Goodwin.

40. Robert Covington, SF Tennessee State: He’s been playing better since his return from surgery, but still isn’t scoring at the efficiency he was last year. I would have liked to have seen him play better, but I think the drop in efficiency can be blamed on the injury. He’s a SF who has proven to be an effective scorer from inside and out, with solid defensive numbers. He could be a bargain in round 2.

41. Taylor Smith, F Stephen F. Austin: Smith has become prominent enough that I no longer get “Did you mean Taylor Swift?” when I google him. Smith is a senior getting big minutes in division 1 for the first time. He’s hitting over 70% on 2-pointers for two years running now. He has great defensive and rebounding numbers. Problem is he’s 6’6” 215 and looks more like an undersized small college PF than anything. His stats are reminiscent of recent small college surprises Millsap and Faried. His lack of bulk will be a problem though.

42. DJ Cooper, PG Ohio: Cooper’s solid senior season has made him an intriguing sleeper. The PGs in the 2013 draft are shaping up as a flakey bunch. They’re talented, but each one comes with a red flag. Any team looking for PG help in the draft may do well to go big in round one and take a round 2 flyer on a player like Cooper.

43. Reginald Buckner, PF Mississippi: Buckner can boast the PF statistical trifecta of a 2PP over .600, R40 over 10.0 and B40 over 3.0. Such players have a decent history of success. He isn’t much of a scorer and that’s always a negative, but big guys who can defend, rebound and put in easy layups always have a place.

44. Solomon Hill, SF Arizona: Nice all-around player who doesn’t score that often. I like Hill better than some of the other low-scoring/multi-talented SFs, because Hill has 3-point range which is becoming almost a necessity for such players

45. Ray McCallum, G Detroit: After the success of Damian Lillard, I expect small college guards to get a little more attention this year. McCallum is right there with the better known McCollum and Wolters. He’s more of a PG than the other two and that should help his case. The biggest negative is that he isn’t a super high volume scorer like McCollum, Wolters and most small college guards who made the successful jump to the NBA in the past.

46. Allen Crabbe, SG California: Crabbe, a junior, has always been a decent scorer. This year his defense has improved enough that he’s a decent NBA prospect.

47. Mason Plumlee, PF-C Duke: I see Plumlee as an energy player and not much more than that. The fact that his defensive numbers are weak makes him a big risk in round 1, where most mocks have him projected.

48. Jordan Bachynski, C Arizona State: He’s a great shot blocker and that’s a good skill to have. His high turnovers make him a risk.

49. Fuquan Edwin, SG Seton Hall: Edwin has that defense/sniper potential that has been a big thing for NBA wings lately. The other part of that equation is low turnovers and that’s an area Edwin has struggled with.

50. Jackie Carmichael, PF Illinois State: Carmichael is a strong rebounder/defender with substandard offensive numbers. There are no concerns with size, age or a transfer that some of the other 3^rd tier PF prospects bring. There’s little about him that blows me away either.

51. Leonard Washington, F Wyoming: Going through the PF checklist, Washington looks pretty solid. He’s a good rebounder and defender who has hit over 60% of his 2-pointers for 2 seasons now. There are some worries though. He’s a 5^th-year senior with a transfer in his past. He launches way too many 3-pointers, 78 at a .176 clip this year. He’s smallish for a PF, at 6’7” 230. Any team that can accentuate his positives while eliminating the negatives could make a decent player out of this Mr. In Between.

52. Archie Goodwin, SG Kentucky: His numbers are pretty terrible for a prospect, but at some point I have to nod to his youth and skills and say that drafting such a player has more potential payoff than drafting an undersized 5^th-year senior who is coming off the best year of a so-so career. A recent successful precedent here is Lance Stephenson, who came out after an unimpressive freshman season and is now a solid reserve with the Pacers.

53. Glenn Robinson III, SF Michigan: Take what I said for Goodwin above and sprinkle in the ASB40 comments I made about Muhammad and Poythress and you’ll get an idea of how I feel about Robinson III.

54. Trevor Mbakwe, PF Minnesota: He just keeps coming up as a decent prospect. He’s older than the 5^th-year seniors on the list and has those off court issues, but his numbers remain solid for a PF prospect. The fact that Cody Zeller had his worst game against this guy doesn’t hurt either.

55. Alex Oriakhi, PF-C Missouri: At UConn he was something of an afterthought for 3 seasons. His stats were OK, but not good enough that I’d take him seriously. As a senior at Missouri he’s hitting 60% of his FGs, getting to the line more often and rebounding better than ever.

56. Terell Parks, PF Western Illinois: He’s listed as a PF-C. In college that usually means he’s an undersized center. He’s 6’8” which means he’s a PF in the NBA. His numbers are solid, particularly on defense, which is the single most important skill for a big guy to bring.

57. Arselan Kazemi, PF Oregon: While Anthony Bennett is the only true PF worthy of the lottery, the 2013 draft should feature a lot of PFs that are good late round 2 gambles. Kazemi makes the list because he’s one of the nation’s top rebounders.

58. Aaron Craft, PG Ohio State: His numbers took a big dive this year as he attempted more FGs and got more involved in the offense. That pushed him out of the first couple of top 60s. But he remains a decent passer and a great defender. He keeps coming up huge as a defender in big games. He’s never put it all together as a complete PG prospect, but he has shown enough skills at different times in his 3 years that he has to be mentioned.

59. Gregory Echnique, Creighton: He’s always been a player with great per minute stats, which of course has made him one of my favorites. February was a really bad month for him though. I still like him a lot as a pick in the second round.

60. Elias Harris, F Gonzaga: There are a lot of directions I could go with #60. Pierre Jackson, Tony Johnson, Jamaal Franklin, Carrick Felix, Chris Udofia, Brandon Davies, Keith Rendleman and Jordan Henriquez would all be worthy of the mention I just gave them. I could go for some shock value and mention one of two Johnny-come-latelies from LSU, Andrew del Piero and Charles Carmouche. I think Harris is the best choice though. He plays on the nation’s top ranked team and has been a solid 4-year starter. He hasn’t always been consistent, but definitely has the skills to be a decent NBA stretch 4.

Another difference this January is the list is almost as muddled now as it was at the beginning of January. This is a time when a top 10 should be taking shape. Noel is a pretty solid #1, but after him things could change a lot in the next month. Players are listed in order of how I would draft them, all other things being equal, based on stats through 1/31/13

1. Nerlens Noel, C Kentucky: Noel is good and improving. He toys with opponents on defense. As freshmen centers go, he’s a great passer. His offense is getting better. Noel is an easy choice as the top pick.

2. Victor Oladipo, SG Indiana: Settling on a #2 is tough with this class. A month ago I had Michael Carter-Williams here and he had a very erratic January. Oladipo is equally shaky as the 2^nd pick. He’s a junior who has posted some nice numbers his first couple of years, but hasn’t really broken out offensively until this year. Typically when juniors or seniors play over their career norms it’s a hot streak that cools off by January. That’s what happened with the likes of Fuquan Edwin and Jack Cooley. This January Oladipo got better. He was already a dominant defender, but this year his offense has been out of this world. He’s hitting .687 on 2-pointers and over .500 on treys. He’s the 2^nd leading scorer on the top ranked team in the country. The pace he’s on puts him at on track to become an NBA star. The fact that he’s kept it going well into the Big 10 schedule means we have to take him seriously.

3. Otto Porter, SF Georgetown: A solid player who might even be better than his numbers suggest, as the Georgetown system has suppressed statistics in the past.

4. Isaiah Austin, PF-C Baylor: Austin stepped up his game nicely in January. Rather than a 7-footer playing a small man’s game, he started to rebound like a stud and blocked shots at a higher rate. His offense still needs work. Talented, productive 7-footers are rare and Austin looks like he becoming one of those. That makes him a top 5 pick.

5. Steven Adams, C Pitt: A solid freshman who just keeps chugging along. He’s been posting solid, if unspectacular numbers and has shown steady improvement.

6. Willie Cauley-Stein, C Kentucky: Cauley-Stein was playing great until an injury sidelined him for a few weeks. He and Noel might be the best pair of center prospects on the same team since Horford and Noah.

7. Cody Zeller, PF-C Indiana:  Zeller’s rebounding has been much improved and that makes him a better prospect than ever. His offense slipped a little, but is still pretty solid. Still waiting to see the 3-point prowess he’s rumored to possess. He grades out much better as a PF than a center.

8. Kyle Anderson, SF UCLA: Anderson has posted excellent numbers in every category other than scoring. In general I give young prospects a break on offense, as it is historically the easiest skill to develop. Anderson’s offensive improvement has been a case of one step forward, one step back. Because SFs with this much ability are rare and valuable, he remains in the lottery

9. Michael Carter-Williams, PG Syracuse: Remains a dominant passer and defender. His already shaky offense fell off the table in January. Right now I’m willing to buy into his potential. I’d like to see him shoot less and concentrate on playmaking and defense. He’s leading one of the most talented rosters in the country, so that shouldn’t be a problem.

10. Anthony Bennett, PF UNLV: Bennett is a great scorer from inside and out and solid rebounder, but a weak defender. In general these players don’t make great pros. The best such player has been Glenn Robinson, a notable recent bust is Michael Beasley.

11. Marcus Smart, PG Oklahoma State: Smart is in the same boat as Anderson and Carter-Williams. He shows signs of dominance, but has to improve his offense before he’s a complete prospect. As a freshman he’s still a solid prospect. If he’s still the same player as a junior, not so much.

12. Rudy Gobert and Lucas Noguiera: A couple of foreign centers. Similar players. Both are incredibly efficient inside scorers and good shot blockers. Both come up short as rebounders. Both seem likely to be lottery picks. Right now I like the 4 freshmen centers in my top 6 and Zeller better than both these guys, but that could change. What’s news is that the impressive 2013 center class extends overseas.

13. Trey Burke, PG Michigan: Burke’s defensive numbers improved in January. This is a big deal, because as a passer and scorer there are few better PGs in the country. If he continues to crank the defensive numbers upward he could become the top PG available.

14. Ben McLemore, SG Kansas: Comparing the top 2 SGs, Oladipo has much better numbers than McClemore and is only 9 months older. That makes Oladipo the much better prospect. That isn’t a knock on McClemore, a solid SG prospect himself. It’s just that decent SGs are so plentiful that only potential stars should be drafted in the top 5.

15. Mitch McGary, PF-C Michigan: Another Michigan guy whose stock improved in January thanks to improved numbers on defense.

16. Eric Moreland, PF Oregon State: A player with very strong numbers. Moreland is a strong rebounder and shot blocker who has been hitting over .600 on 2-pointers and even has flashed some 3-point ability. He’s also only the 5^th-leading scorer on a .500 team, which makes me wonder if his numbers are something of a fluke.  Because this isn’t a great year for forwards in general and PFs in particular, a player like Moreland could stand out.

17. Jeff Withey, C Kansas: A great shot blocker. His other numbers aren’t special, but there are no red flags either.

18. BJ Young, G Arkansas: A talented player who has regressed some following a promising freshman year. He’s more of a PG this year after playing more SG as a freshman. His 3-pointer hasn’t been falling, but that isn’t a huge concern.

19. Alex Len, C Maryland: Len really fell off in January after a great start. His age is closer to that of a freshman, so he has a little more upside than the typical soph.

20. Fuquan Edwin, SG Seton Hall: Edwin has faded but he’s still a top notch defender who can drill the 3-pointer. That’s a nice combination for a SG to bring.

21. Andre Roberson, F Colorado: A player with a lot of skills. He’s one of the best rebounders in the nation. While he’s SF size that’s still a lot better than being one of the worst rebounders in the nation. He’s a solid defender and is hitting .406 on 3-pointers. The problem is he’s a low volume scorer and that has always been a big negative for prospects.

22. Tony Mitchell, PF North Texas: Mitchell has really slid following his break out as a freshman last year. He’s still a strong rebounder and dominant defender, which are both good things. He can shoot the 3-pointer better than most big guys and that also helps his case. But he also is hitting barely over .500 on 2-pointers, while playing for a sub-.500 team in a conference that could charitably be called mid-major. Those are a couple of big negatives.

23. Briante Weber, PG VCU: I mentioned Weber as a player to watch a month ago. He had posted dominant defensive and passing numbers, with very little offense. He had a poor January. I still feel he’s a player to watch because he’s incredibly dominant as a defender and dominance is what carries over to the next level.

24. Brice Johnson, F North Carolina: A young player with some impressive numbers. Johnson is raw and needs to put on a lot of bulk. Could go either way at this point.

25. Alex Poythress, F Kentucky: A wildly efficient scorer with pathetic defensive numbers, no passing skills and high turnovers. Generally that’s a bad combination for a prospect. The problem for Poythress is it’s incredibly difficult to improve on weak defensive numbers. I rate him high because of his youth and incredibly efficiency numbers.

26. Jordan Adams, SG UCLA: He has fallen off the radar since Muhammad arrived and became the top option. His numbers are still pretty strong for a frosh SG though.

27. Jordan Bachynski, C Arizona State: I could see a team talking themselves into this guy ahead of Withey. He’s a great shot blocker who improved his offense. He’s also old for a prospect and turns the ball over too often.

28. Kelly Olynyk, C Gonzaga: He’s something of an evil twin to Bachynski and Withey. His offense has been incredible, while his defense is lacking. All 3 look like they could become useful pieces in a center rotation.

29. Shawn Long, PF Louisiana-Lafayette: PF is the weakest position in the 2013 draft. Long is one of the more impressive ones out there. He has flashed some nice skills in his first college season, but his inside offense is weak.

30. Gorgui Dieng, C Lousiville: I like Dieng more subjectively than objectively. I’m impressed more by his defense whenever I watch him play and by the fact that his improvement is what fueled Louisville’s run to the final four last year. His numbers are good, but not great for a center prospect and he’s 23. Like the other older centers in this draft I see his high end as that of an effective part of an NBA center rotation.

31. Mike Muscala, C Bucknell: Another good, multi-skilled center. Muscala can hit an outside shot, rebounds well and defends adequately. The fact that he’s a weak inside scorer playing in a small conference is a pretty big negative. Still his many skills make him another potentially useful center rotation guy.

32. Reggie Bullock, SF North Carolina: Bullock is having something of a break out year. This was a top 20 prospect stuck in a supporting role his first two seasons, so his emergence isn’t all that surprising.

33. Kentavious Caldwell-Pope, SG Georgia: Sophomore who meets all the SG benchmarks. The biggest thing for KCP will be keep the efficiency at this level, or even improve on it. That was a weakness last year.

34. Doug McDermott, F Creighton: A great scorer, but his weak defensive numbers are a big red flag. Because he’s such a great scorer, I could see him becoming a useful NBA gunner if nothing else. But prospects with an unbelievable offense/incredibly weak defense skill set typically don’t make much of a ripple.

35. James Ennis, G-F Long Beach State: Ennis could be a player to watch. A senior who spent his first couple of seasons at junior college. Ennis joined a senior-laden team in 2012 as a junior and didn’t stand out. This year he’s taken a lead role on the 49ers and has been very impressive.

36. Derrick Marks, G Boise State: A solid combo guard. Because he’s just a sophomore there is some potential for improvement. His high steals are his most impressive statistic.

37. CJ McCollum, G Lehigh: Out for the season, which is a tough break. I doubt it will affect his draft stock much, because he put himself on the map last year with an impressive tournament performance in the win over Duke. As a prospect he’s OK, but not great. I will say that small college guards have been a tough group for me to get a feel for the past few years. I hit on Jeremy Lin, but missed on Damian Lillard. McCallum is a good defender, but has never hit over .500 on 2-pointers and that’s a huge negative.

38. Nate Wolters, G South Dakota State: In the same boat as McCollum. He’s a superstar at the small college level. He might be able to make the jump, but his numbers, while good, don’t have the look of a surefire star.

39. Archie Goodwin, SG Kentucky: He had a very inefficient January, but is still young and talented. The biggest concern is a low number of steals. He could be in a tough spot should he return to Kentucky next year. Three top HS perimeter players have committed to joining the Wildcats as freshmen next year and Goodwin may not get as many offensive looks as he has as a freshman.

40. Shabazz Muhammad, SF-SG UCLA: This is more of a nod to his hype as much as anything. As a prospect Muhammad is becoming Harrison Barnes. He’s a high-volume scorer with little in the way of other skills and unimpressive efficiency. Like Barnes he seems likely to be drafted in the top 10. If that happens he is going to get the opportunity to succeed that most players won’t, which is a huge advantage. It is also very possible he’ll plummet in the mocks like Perry Jones III did last year. Either way he’s currently wildly overhyped as a prospect and not a player who should be drafted in the top 5.

41. Carrick Felix, G-F Arizona State: An impressive player, but I’m not sure where he fits as a prospect. At 6’6” 195, he’s SG size but is more impressive as a SF prospect. He scores very efficiently, but not often enough. He’s a solid defender and is 3-pointer is falling at an acceptable rate for the first time in his career. I like the fact that he made serious improvement as a senior. That’s always a great sign for a prospect.

42. Nick Johnson, G Arizona: He’s a good defender and has shown potential as both a PG and a scorer. It looks like there’s some potential here as an NBA sniper/defender, but he needs to score more often before I consider him much of a prospect.

43. Jamaal Franklin, SG San Diego State: Talented, but erratic as a scorer.

44. James Southerland, SF Syracuse: His breakout senior season was derailed by an academic suspension. He might be returning soon and if plays at the same level upon return, he’s a decent prospect who will move up the list.

45. Reginald Buckner, PF Mississippi: He reminds me of Taj Gibson statistically. He doesn’t score much, but is very efficient when he does. He’s a decent rebounder and a good shot blocker. Definitely worth a look in round 2.

46. DJ Seeley, G CS-Fullerton: Fifth-year senior who has been lighting it up. He’s a good candidate to become a useful sniper/defender.

47. Zeke Marshall, C Akron: Marshall has gone full circle from over rated to under rated. He came to Akron with some high expectations. He was a good college player, but never looked like a much of a prospect his first three seasons. He slowly fell off the prospect radar. Now he’s playing the best basketball of his career and should be getting noticed again.

48. Khem Birch, PF UNLV: Transferred after his freshman season at Pitt didn’t go so well. He’s playing well and has put himself back on the prospect map. A transfer is something of a red flag to begin with. In Birch’s case, the fact that he blasted ex-teammates on his way out makes that flag a little bit redder. If he continues his solid play at UNLV and gets along with teammates, we can assume he and Pitt were just a bad match and it is better for both sides that he’s out.

49. Gregory Echenique, C Creighton: Echenique has surpassed every important benchmark for centers the past couple of seasons and is on pace to do the same this year. He’s short at 6’9” and is a 5^th-year senior. But he looks like he has what it takes to be a useful inside banger.

50. Lorenzo Brown, PG North Carolina State: Brown is like Michael Carter-Williams and Marcus Smart, only older and not as dominant. His defense and passing are solid, but his offense is too inefficient.

51. Alan Williams, PF UCSB: A sophomore who is flashing some Faried-type of potential as an energy guy. His offense needs a lot of work, but he’s one to watch.

52. DJ Cooper, PG Ohio: Cooper spent 3 years as a good passing/solid defense/inefficient offense PG. This year he’s shooting less and hitting over .500 on 2-pointers for the first time in his career. It’s possible the coaching change at Ohio had a positive effect on his numbers. If he keeps this up, he’ll move up the list. Small player whose high end is probably an NBA reserve.

53. Bernard Thompson, SG Florida Gulf Coast: As is the case with Alan Williams at #48, Thompson is an unheralded sophomore posting some impressive numbers. Should both players continue at this level and make some improvements, they’ll shoot up the list. Such players could go either way at this point. I like to mention these guys, but should add the warning that one bad month could knock them back into oblivion.

54. Robert Covington, SF Tennessee State: Last year Covington looked like a first-rounder. This year he has struggled and just returned after missing 10 games to knee surgery. If we blame this year on the knee and look at his junior numbers, Covington would be a bargain this late.

55. Ray McCallum, G Detroit: McCallum is just a notch behind fellow small college combos McCollum and Wolters. In May I’ll sort out their prospectworthiness in more detail.

56. Mason Plumlee, C Duke: Plumlee has some potential as an energy player. The fact that he’s older than a typical senior and isn’t much of a shot blocker knocks him down to round 2.

57. Leonard Washington, F Wyoming: Combo forward whose making a case for himself in his 5^th-year senior season.

58. Ed Daniel, PF Murray State: An undersized PF some team could talk themselves into as a Faried type. His strong senior season has moved him past Jamelle Hagins as the top undersized small college PF.

59. Tony Johnson, PG: A senior who is worth mentioning. He doesn’t score much, which is never a good thing for a small college point guard. He is a good passer with strong defensive numbers. As a scorer he’s always been very efficient. He seems to have the skills to become a useful reserve.

60. Arselan Kazemi, PF Oregon: A great rebounder and ball hawk. What concerns me is he doesn’t block many shots. Such a skill has always been a staple of great energy players. Still any player who is one of the top per minute rebounders in the nation who hits close to 60% of his FGs and has more steals than most guards is worth a look. 

(a) What would the outcome be of just leaving the Grizz roster intact?

Memphis had a tougher call than most teams.  Usually, the team making such a decision is clearly a contender or an also-ran.  Memphis is exactly on the cusp between good team and potential title contender, which makes the call even more difficult (in the case of OKC, the Thunder felt that Harden was a cherry on the contention sundae and not absolutely necessary to go back to the Finals).  Memphis probably had an outside shot at making the Conference Finals if everything broke right with Gay on the roster.  Of course, it is also quite possible (but not likely) that the Grizz would lose in the first round.  Depending on how much financial flexibility the franchise had, it wouldn’t have been crazy to let the season ride and see how far the team could go with the same core as the last few years. The fact that Memphis already was pretty set on giving away Mareese Speights and still traded Gay tells us that the Grizz have little to no wiggle room on finances and someone had to be traded.

(b) If you are going to trade someone, is Gay the guy?

This depends on how good you think Gay is and what the market is for the players who might be traded.  Well, let’s look at the Grizz expensive players and look at the options:

-Rudy Gay, age 26, 17.2 ppg, .438 eFG%, 5.9 rpg, 2.6 apg, 14.3 PER (contract: two more years at $37.1 million)

-Zach Randolph, age 31, 15.8 ppg, .483 eFG%, 11.6 rpg, 1.4 apg, 18.7 PER (contract: two more years at $34.3 million)

-Marc Gasol, age 28, 13.7 ppg, ,489 eFG%, 7.5 rpg, 3.6 apg, 19.6 PER (contract: two more years at $30.6 million)

All are talented but have weaknesses.  Gay’s are most evident: he is mostly a scorer, his efficiency is way down this year, and is the most expensive of the three.  His shooting this year, however, may be an anomaly as he his career eFG% is right in line with Randolph and Gasol of 2012-13.  Randolph is the oldest of the three and, while still good, he is down from his pre-2011-12 numbers and it is possible he might never be the dominant force he was before.  As for Gasol, he continues to be a mini-Arvydas Sabonis (minus the rebounding) and is going nowhere.  As between Gay and Randolph, trading Gay makes sense given his down numbers, bigger money, and the fact that his core skill (scoring in volumes) isn’t that hard to replace.

(c)  What about the return for Gay?

Ed Davis is a very nice young prospect at age-23 and a nice potential eventual replacemet for Randolph (per-36 min: 14.5 pts, .549 eFG%, 9.9 rebs, 18.1 PER).  For now, Davis will make a nice third big man for the Grizz and is better than the recently departed Speights.  Losing Gay’s ability to create shots, though, is a gaping hole that isn’t filled by role players like Tayshaun Prince or Tony Allen.  The Grizz already have the second rated defense in the NBA already, so Prince will at least keep the team at the same level but there isn’t much room for improvement in that area.  Conversely, offensively, the Grizz are slightly below average with Gay (17th) and swapping Gay out for Prince could really hurt.   The Grizz will have to find some sort of scorer cheaply somewhere and/or Mike Conley’s shots are going to have to go way up because there are no other perimeter players on the roster who can create shot.  On the plus side, losing Gay won’t hurt the Grizz from three.  The Grizz have made (and taken) the fewest threes in the NBA and are not that good percentage wise either (.344%, which ranks 24th).  Gay was a big part of the problem (.310% from three so far).  The more efficient Prince (.434% this year) will help but he’ll have to step up his frequency (only 53 attempts from three this year versus 129 for Gay).  In all, it is fair to say that the Grizz didn’t gut their team but the Davis/Prince probably makes them a bit worse than they were before.  This isn’t a bad deal considering it was forced by circumstance.  The Grizz are still a playoff team and could still be a four seed after this deal if Prince can step up his scoring.

(d)  What is Toronto doing?

I know Bryan Colangelo is under pressure to show improvement but this deal won’t quite get it done.  Currently the Raptors are 16-30 and 12th in offense and 26th in defense.  So, they traded their best young big man prospect to pair Gay, another a low efficiency scorer, with DeMar Derozan?  The problem here is defensive sieves like Andrea Bargnani and Jose Calderon and not getting a high volume scorer.  Gay won’t hurt the defense and he’s much better than Landry Fields/Mickael Pietrus types but it doesn’t fix the core problem and I’m not sure I’d blow cap room for a  minor upgrade to a non-playoff team when there are much bigger fish to fry.  I probably would have stood pat with Davis and tried to move Bargnani.  Not a terrible move but it seems more like trying to make a splash without much thought put into whether it will fix the core issues.