HOOPSANALYST

This group is pretty deep and pretty strong. There are four or five who can probably step right in and start, and several others who are good enough to find a role somewhere. Before I rank the players, I added a chart that compares their final seasons in college. In this chart the players are listed in no particular order. The first three columns are shooting percentages. The others are points, rebounds, assists, steals, turnovers and FT attempts per 35 minutes of play, assist/TO ratio and points per shot. Below are the player comments, where I list the players in my own subjective order, based on the order I’ take them assuming nothing about the current composition of the team that will eventually draft them. Below that is the list of how the players rank in the system I’ve been using for a couple of years now.

player	fgpct	3pct	ftpct	P35	R35	A35	St35	TO35	ast-to	fta35	PPS
Paul, Chris	0.451	0.474	0.834	15.34	4.53	6.66	2.39	2.80	2.38	5.88	1.54
Jack, Jarrett	0.514	0.442	0.866	15.47	4.82	4.51	1.80	3.42	1.32	4.42	1.56
Felton, Raymond	0.455	0.440	0.701	13.37	4.47	7.17	2.07	3.72	1.93	3.86	1.41
Diener, Travis	0.420	0.405	0.838	20.70	4.10	7.30	1.41	2.64	2.76	6.75	1.46
Brown, Dee	0.499	0.434	0.772	14.54	2.92	4.97	1.96	2.05	2.42	2.22	1.44
Robinson, Nate	0.463	0.385	0.782	17.15	4.03	4.75	1.82	2.12	2.24	5.20	1.41
Brooks, Darren	0.456	0.394	0.794	16.08	5.56	4.60	2.82	2.61	1.76	2.98	1.16
Miles, Aaron	0.457	0.500	0.788	9.75	3.70	7.54	1.75	3.21	2.35	2.97	1.48
Rivera, Filberto	0.460	0.373	0.853	14.01	2.79	7.43	1.36	2.30	3.23	4.41	1.49
Williams, Deron	0.433	0.364	0.677	13.28	3.86	7.17	1.03	2.96	2.42	2.61	1.19
Lucas, John	0.451	0.431	0.905	17.32	2.43	4.00	1.07	1.57	2.55	2.49	1.29
Gilchrist, John	0.426	0.383	0.742	13.87	5.11	5.47	1.50	2.61	2.10	4.72	1.30
Krauser, Carl	0.411	0.394	0.750	15.69	4.74	5.76	1.73	4.13	1.39	6.37	1.42
Ukic, Roko leni	0.442	0.299	0.854	18.34	2.75	4.31	1.87	2.75	1.57	6.25	1.42
Roberson, Anthony	0.456	0.388	0.900	20.85	2.42	2.86	0.82	2.08	1.38	3.35	1.33
Ewing, Daniel	0.427	0.347	0.692	15.22	3.13	3.98	1.96	2.95	1.35	3.23	1.19
Thomas, Chris	0.346	0.344	0.891	13.53	4.73	6.40	1.97	2.86	2.24	3.61	1.09

1. Chris Paul, Wake Forest 73.67: Not much not to like here. Paul does everything a PG needs to do and does it well. Paul can drive, dish and shoot and do all three extremely well. The thing I like best about Paul is he looks to pass first, but still can be an effective scorer when he needs to be, hitting around 47% from both inside and outside the arc and getting to the line for 6 FT attempts per game for his career. He rebounds extremely well for a player his size and is among the national leaders in both steals and assists. The times I’ve seen Paul play, I’ve noticed he struggles with taller players guarding him and this will most definitely be a problem at the next level. He had some bad games vs. Illinois and Arizona this past season and has struggled mightily in all four of his games vs. Georgia Tech during his career. All three teams feature defensive guards with good size. On the positive side, Paul has always played Duke, a team with a great defensive backcourt, pretty well. Plus, even in the games where he struggled from the field, Paul usually contributed something positive in the way of assists, steals or a higher than normal number of points off free throws. I’m guessing Paul will be a player in the Stockton mold, though it’s too much of a reach to call him another Stockton. What I mean by that is he’ll be a player who will be a traditional point guard, looking to pass first and score second. He’s able to score when needed, but his main job on the court will be to get the ball to his teammates. Paul did an excellent job of this during his two seasons at Wake and there’s little reason to think he won’t continue.

2. Jarrett Jack, Georgia Tech 68.64: Look at Jack’s numbers from the last couple of seasons:

Season	FGA/PG	FG Pct.	3 pt. att/game	3 Pct.	FTA	PPG	APG	TOPG	PPS
2003-04	8.4	.456	2.5	.316	5.1	12.5	5.6	3.1	1.49
2004-05	10.0	.514	3.3	.442	4.4	15.5	4.5	3.4	1.56

In 2003-04, Jack was a good passing point guard, with OK scoring skills. In 2004-05, Jack was an excellent scoring PG, but not so good at passing the ball. All his scoring numbers improved, while his assists dropped and his TOs increased. If you could somehow combine the scorer of ’05 with the passer of ’04, you’d have one hell of a player. The troubling thing is, there was no player on the Tech roster who picked up the assists that Jack lost, meaning Jack was still the primary ball distributor, but didn’t really do that part of his job. While this is not a good thing for a PG, the fact that Jack was the most efficient scorer on the Tech roster probably makes it OK. Either way, Jack is a good player and should make a fine NBA PG. He has good size and plays hard on both ends of the floor.

3. Raymond Felton, North Carolina: Felton had an excellent season as a junior after a couple of mediocre years. This was the first year put of the numbers of a real prospect. The difference was he started to hit the three-pointer:

Season	PPG	APG	TOPG	2 pt. FG Pct.	3 pt. FG Pct.	PPS
Frosh	12.9	6.7	3.7	.484	.358	1.19
Soph	11.5	7.1	3.4	.497	.313	1.29
Junior	12.9	6.9	3.6	.468	.440	1.41

Everything about Felton’s game his junior year was roughly the same. His passing became slightly more steady and he took fewer shots, but the ability to consistently hit the 3-pointer is what took Felton from marginal prospect to likely lottery selection. His ability to continue to hit the outside shot at a decent rate will determine whether he’s ultimately a starter or a reserve in the NBA. My guess is that he’ll be an OK, albeit somewhat streaky NBA shooter. He became a better shooter as the year progressed, so it seems like the .440 was the result of something more than just a fluke or a hot streak. The rest of the game is strong. Felton can dish as well as any and he’s superquick. The NBA is going to see more running and gunning, and that should help Felton’s chances.

4. Deron Williams, Illinois: Williams’ ticket will be defense. The offense, at least the scoring part, is pretty weak. He has shot in the low .400s his entire college career, though he has been decent at hitting three pointers, .374. That’s going to be a problem, as players generally need to shoot better than Williams has and get to the line more often than Williams has in college to make it as an NBA PG. I’ve heard Jason Kidd mentioned as a possible comp to Williams. It seems right. Both are big, strong point guards with mediocre shooting ability. But the fact is Kidd wasn’t a poor shooter at Cal:

Player	PPG	APG	FG Pct.	3 Pt. Pct.	FTA per game
Kidd	16.7	9.1	.472	.362	5.6
Williams	12.5	6.8	.433	.364	2.5

This is for each players’ final college season. I think it shows clearly Williams isn’t the player Kidd was at this point in their careers and any team drafting Williams and expecting another Kidd is going to be disappointed. That’s not to say Williams will be a flop. His ball distributing skills are the best part of his offense, which is obviously a good thing for a PG. The defensive numbers don’t look that impressive, but that’s deceiving. Williams shut down both Salim Stoudamire and Francisco Garcia in the tournament. He also kept Rashad McCants in check in the championship game. He’s big enough that he can guard most SGs and probably some SFs. But that weak shooting ability is going to hurt him, unless he can improve. Right now he looks to me like a defensive-minded third guard. He might start, but it would have to be the right situation, that being a team with a lot of scorers.

5. Roko-Leni Ukic, Croatia: Ukic is 20 years old and has been playing for KK Split in Europe. He looks like a pretty good prospect. He’s 6’5” and is a pretty good scorer. His assist totals seem low, but European official scorers are much more stingy in handing out assists than Americans, so he’s probably a decent enough passer. Biggest problem is he can’t seem to hit better than 30% on his three-pointers. I doubt this will be a huge deal, since Ukic hits his two pointers at a consistent 55% the past couple of seasons and his height should allow him to post up smaller guards. Might wait another year before coming out. Right now he’s rumored to be a second rounder and that could send him back to Europe. With the crowd at PG so thick this season, Ukic might secure a better spot next year. That said, he looks to me like he’s worth a mid- to late first round choice.

6. Filiberto Rivera, UTEP: Rivera is probably the sleeper of the group. He’s an extraordinary ballhandler. He had more assists per minute than any player here and the best assist/TO ratio by far, 3.37:1. He doesn’t look to score that often, but he’s averaged an excellent 1.5 points per shot during his college career, which is as good as any PG in the nation. Rebounds aren’t a huge deal for a PG, but it should be noted that Rivera doesn’t get very many, even for a PG. I don’t think he’s soft, as he was named to the WAC all-defensive team as a junior, but if your counterpart at PG is outrebounding you by a couple a game that’s a bad thing. He’s also on the slight side and that’s going to hurt him some. But he can run an offense as well as any player here and that should get Rivera a fairly prominent role on some team.

7. Travis Diener, Marquette: At barely over 6’ and 165 lbs, Diener is also slight by NBA standards. He hit only about 42% of his shots at Marquette, which suggests he’ll have some trouble scoring in the NBA. It should be noted however, that it was a strong 42%. More than half of his attempts were three pointers, which he hit at a stellar 41% for his college career. Plus, he knows how to get to the line, where he converts well over 80% of his shots. The total package is a much more efficient scorer than your typical 42% shooter. Diener is also one of the better pure PGs in this group, dishing out over 7 assists per game as a senior. Diener’s size will be a definite drawback and will probably keep him as a backup. But he’ll do enough good things that he’ll help some team off the bench.

8. Darren Brooks, Southern Illinois: Brooks is one of those guys I dig up every season. His numbers and size look fine and, in Brooks’ case, he’s been a winner. The draft will come and go without his name being called and he’ll never be heard from again outside of some NBDL outpost. Brooks’ biggest strength is his defense. He pile up a ton of steals and blocks a lot of shots for a guard. His offense is sort of weak. Both scoring and passing are only so-so, but good enough that he could probably get by as a third or fourth guard who can play either backcourt position and specializes in defense.

9. Nate Robinson, Washington: Robinson’s numbers don’t look much like those of a short guy. It seems that such players are usually either mad bombers, like Keydren Clark, or high assist and steals guys like Brevin Knight was at Stanford. Robinson’s line looks like that of your normal borderline first round draft pick PG. While Robinson played mostly SG at Washington, he flashed enough ballhandling, passing and penetrating skills that it’s safe to assume he can handle the point. His height is both a blessing and a curse. It will probably restrict his role to one of those annoying, hard to contain speedy players coming off the bench. But the quickness that comes with being under 5’8” in a game played by much taller men makes Robinson a unique weapon who could probably be used in short spurts to energize his team and give the opponent trouble with his speed.

10 & 11. Monta Ellis and Louis Williams: I put both the prepsters together here, because they seem like such similar players. Both are short SGs who are almost certainly going to have to play the point if they’re going to cut it. Both are listed at 6’2” and are probably shorter. In the NBA, players 6’2” and under have to either play at least some point, have crazy scoring ability or be strong defenders. Even then their contributions usually come at the cost of a high number of missed shots, as was the case with Ben Gordon with the Bulls this past season and Iverson with the Sixers every season. Point guard is the one position where I’d agree with the stay in school crowd. In college an athletic player like Williams or Ellis can get away with playing the point while learning the position, because with their superior athleticism they’re usually still making a positive contribution to team success. In the NBA bringing a high schooler in to learn the point is a lot more shaky, because most coaches aren’t going to throw a teenage rookie into the fire at a position that’s totally new to him. Unlike college, all NBA players boast superior athleticism, so the idea of learning a new position, especially one with as many nuances as point guard, is a difficult proposition. The on-the-job training that’s essential for any rookie learning any position in the NBA will have to come at garbage time for both Ellis and Williams and that can’t be the best thing for their careers. Please note also that their situations are different from those of Sebastian Telfair and Shaun Livingston last season. Those two players came in as PGs, not SGs. Now I’m not in the business of advising anyone on a life decision such as when to declare for the draft. If Ellis, Williams and their families and advisers have weighed all the options and decided that this is their best move, then they should make the leap and I wish them all the best. But the fact is at their height, neither is much of a prospect if they can’t handle the point. And the NCAA is a much better place to learn how to play the point than the NBA.

12. Dee Brown, Illinois: Despite possessing unmatched speed, Brown was mainly deployed as a gunner this past season, taking 228 three pointers and 131 two pointers. This was also evident in the fact that he got to the line for less than 3 FT attempts per game. He was sort of the opposite of Diener in that his offensive game isn’t as efficient as the FG pct. might suggest. He has been a strong passer his entire career, averaging close to 5 assists per game while Williams did most of the playmaking. Since he’s going to have to play the point in the NBA, we could get a better handle on Brown if he were to return to Illinois for his senior season and take over as the full time PG. After breaking his foot in the camps, Brown reportedly is leaning in that direction.

13. Aaron Miles, Kansas: He’s small and has never been a big time scorer. He has never even averaged double figures in scoring during his college career. He’s never been a particularly efficient scorer either, until his senior season. Like Felton, this was almost completely due to a newfound ability to hit the three-pointer:

Season	2 point pct.	3 point pct.	PPS
Frosh	.433	.289	1.17
Soph	.490	.245	1.16
Junior	.436	.333	1.20
Senior	.426	.500	1.48

Unlike Felton, Miles ability as a gunner seems a little shaky. He only took 80 attempts as a senior and he was pretty weak before that. Miles strength never was his scoring though. It’s always been his passing ability. He’s averaged around 7 assists per game and has always posted an assist/TO ratio of at least 2:1. His best chance would seem to be as a steady backup who will mainly be asked to hold the fort while the regular PG takes a breather.

14. John Lucas, Oklahoma St.: A good, steady player. Lucas isn’t a great distributor for a PG, but doesn’t commit a bunch of turnovers either. The scoring is steady, but unspectacular. Like most OSU players his defense is sound and more based on strong fundamentals and positioning rather than on piling up steals. John Lucas is your typical good college player. As a pro, he’s probably no more than a third point guard. A guy who makes the roster because he’s a smart, steady player. This season however, Lucas could get lost in the shuffle because there are more PG prospects than normal.

15. Daniel Ewing, Duke: Ewing played PG for the first time this past season and he did OK. His only chance of making it would be as a defensive stopper. The offensive game was good, but isn’t on a par with what one would want from a top PG prospect. That fact that he has played both backcourt positions and is a strong defender should get Ewing work though.

16. John Gilchrist, Maryland: Another good college player, who will probably be overmatched in the pros. Gilchrist’s numbers are OK, but not special. I wasn’t very impressed with Gilchrist the few times I watched him play. When the games came down to crunch time, he seemed to think it was better for him to go it alone and try to win the game by himself. That’s fine if you’re MJ, but a marginal NBA prospect like Gilchrist should be more concerned with running the offense and setting up his more talented teammates than taking everything on himself. On the positive, he has good size and is pretty strong, so if he gets in the right situation he probably has the ability to be an asset on defense.

17. Carl Krauser, Pittsburgh: Like Diener, Krauser’s offense is much more efficient than his low, .411, FG pct. would indicate. He hits a lot of threes and gets to the line a bunch. Two things bother me about Krauser though. First and most important is he commits an unacceptable number of turnovers, despite not having a large number of assists. Next is he led the Panthers in FG attempts:

Player	FGA/G	Fg Pct.	PPS
Krauser	11.2	.411	1.42
Troutman	9.2	.566	1.63
Taft	9.4	.580	1.41
Gray	2.9	.576	1.48

Krauser was hardly a mad bomber. He was actually a pretty efficient scorer. But he really needed to get the ball to the big guys more than he did. Taft in particular, with all his talent, probably could have benefited quite a bit had Krauser looked to pass more than he did. Like Gilchrist, Krauser has some talent and if he can change the way he plays he’ll have a much better shot at making it.

18. Anthony Roberson, Florida: Roberson has played more like a shooting guard than a point guard. He was also a better player his sophomore season than this past—junior—year:

Season	PPG	APG	TOPG	FG Pct.	3 pt. Pct.	PPS
Soph	17.9	3.6	2.2	.462	.425	1.38
Junior	17.5	2.4	1.8	.456	.388	1.33

The difference isn’t huge, but Roberson was a better player as a soph. I’m not certain what happened, other than he just had an off year. Walsh was the leading assist guy at Florida this season. You know the line by now. At only 6’1” and being a good, but not great scorer, Anthony Roberson is going to have to play a better point than he has, even as a sophomore, if he’s going to make it. Roberson also checked in with very low totals in all the hustle stats, rebounds, steals and blocks, suggesting his game is on the soft side.

19. Chris Thomas, Notre Dame: The poster boy for coming out when your value is at its highest point. For Thomas that best chance probably would have been after his freshman season. He’s got some strong PG skills, but just doesn’t score efficiently enough to think he can make it. As a senior Thomas shot below 35%. His career high was .403 as a sophomore.

These ranking are strictly by the numbers and obviously in need of a little tweaking. They’re based on the players’ per 35 minute numbers at the top, plus adjustments for level of competition, height, age and team success. Like all similar rankings of basketball players they can’t take everything into account and don’t consider the specific needs of any team that might be drafting the player. I use them more as a starting point than a destination in determining any player’s potential.

Chris Paul 73.67
Jarrett Jack 68.82
Raymond Felton 68.07
Travis Diener 66.54
Dee Brown 65.41
Nate Robinson 63.24
Darren Brooks 61.98
Aaron Miles 60.23
Filiberto Rivera 57.31
Deron Williams 55.92
John Lucas 54.81
John Gilchrist 54.25
Carl Krauser 53.61
Rono-leni Ukic 53.46
Anthony Roberson 53.18
Daniel Ewing 49.48
Chris Thomas 41.39