This is a solid group. The talent here isn’t crazy good as it is with the SFs this year, but it is a nice deep class headed by potential all-stars Adams, Hairston and Harris. While the players are ranked, I bunched them into 5 groups: The top 4, the young guys with potential, the best of the rest, the small college stars and four other players worth a mention. Here are the numbers:
|
SG Prospects |
2PP |
3pp |
P40 |
S40 |
RSB40 |
A/TO |
| Jordan Adams |
551 |
356 |
22.9 |
3.1 |
10.7 |
1.6 |
| PJ Hairston |
550 |
358 |
27.0 |
1.9 |
6.6 |
0.5 |
| Gary Harris |
507 |
352 |
21.1 |
2.3 |
7.9 |
1.6 |
| Nik Stauskas |
500 |
442 |
20.7 |
0.7 |
4.5 |
1.8 |
| Zach LaVine |
494 |
375 |
15.3 |
1.5 |
5.8 |
1.6 |
| James Young |
470 |
349 |
17.0 |
0.9 |
6.2 |
0.9 |
| CJ Wilcox |
522 |
391 |
20.8 |
1.1 |
6.5 |
1.5 |
| Markel Brown |
525 |
379 |
18.7 |
1.1 |
7.9 |
1.8 |
| Jordan McRae |
502 |
351 |
23.5 |
0.9 |
6.5 |
1.2 |
| JJ Mann |
524 |
390 |
20.9 |
2.4 |
8.0 |
1.5 |
| Taylor Braun |
510 |
414 |
22.1 |
1.9 |
8.8 |
2.0 |
| Troy Huff |
512 |
302 |
26.8 |
3.3 |
13.2 |
0.6 |
| Spencer Dinwiddie |
515 |
413 |
18.9 |
2.0 |
6.2 |
2.1 |
| Fuquan Edwin |
502 |
333 |
19.5 |
3.6 |
8.5 |
0.9 |
| Sean Kilpatrick |
506 |
348 |
24.7 |
1.7 |
6.9 |
1.2 |
| Jordan Clarkson |
500 |
281 |
19.5 |
1.2 |
5.7 |
1.3 |
Prospects are listed in order of how I would draft them, all other things being equal.
Jordan Adams, UCLA: In his Mock Draft 7.0, Chad Ford wrote that Adams might be the least athletic SG in the draft. I’m not sure how that is measured, but it certainly isn’t athleticism as measured on court production.
PJ Hairston, Texas Legends: I like Hairston better than Harris, because Hairston has been more dominant at his best. He rebounded nicely from a weak freshman year in 2012 to finish 2013 looking like one of the better SG prospects in recent years:
| PJ Hairston |
2PP |
3PP |
P40 |
S40 |
RSB40 |
A/TO |
| Freshman |
390 |
273 |
16.7 |
1.1 |
8.0 |
1.1 |
| Soph Nov-Jan |
458 |
384 |
24.6 |
1.9 |
10.3 |
1.2 |
| Soph Feb-Mar |
514 |
407 |
23.3 |
2.3 |
9.5 |
1.2 |
| D-League |
550 |
358 |
27.0 |
1.9 |
6.6 |
0.4 |
As a freshman he was a very inefficient scorer, but his defensive numbers were decent. As a sophomore he improved his game enough that for the last two months of the season he posted numbers that would put him with the best SGs ever. Unfortunately he ran afoul of the NCAA and North Carolina team rules and was suspended and eventually removed from the team without playing a minute of college ball this past year. We never got to see if he could maintain this level of excellence for an entire season.
In the NBDL this year he was an excellent scorer, but his other numbers dropped off. The 0.5 A/TO would be a red flag had it been posted in NCAA ball. Because he has 2 NCAA seasons >1.0, I think it is safe to chalk this up to being a fluke of playing in the D-league. The fact that he scored so frequently and efficiently still bodes pretty well for his prospects.
Should the suspension affect his draft position? It would have been better if it didn’t happen, but I don’t see it as a huge deal. The brushes with the law included marijuana possession and traffic violations, with both charges being dismissed. Both seem more like youthful indiscretions than a sign of future troubles. The NCAA problems stemmed from his using rental cars that were paid for by some guy named Fats. This seems to me like a case of poor judgment more than anything. Speeding while in possession of weed and associating with anyone named Fats are a couple of things high-profile NCAA athletes should strive to avoid. But I don’t see where either incident makes him a bad guy.
For two months late in the 2013 season PJ Hairston played NCAA SG at a level only the best players reach. He scored often and efficiently while posting an RSB40 close to 10.0. That makes him a sleeper to really bust out in the NBA. The negatives are there, including a very poor freshman season and some poor choices in the off season. If what we saw in the final 2 months of the 2013 season was the real PJ Hairston, he is a potential NBA all-star.
Gary Harris, Michigan State: After struggling his freshman year, Harris improved across the board as a soph and vaulted into the lottery. Sophomore prospects with numbers like Harris posted have succeeded more often than not and some have even reached all-star status. My concerns are that his numbers are solid, but hardly dominant and his freshman year numbers were a little soft.
| Gary Harris |
2PP |
3PP |
P40 |
S40 |
RSB40 |
A/TO |
| Freshman |
497 |
411 |
17.6 |
1.8 |
5.5 |
0.9 |
| Sophomore |
507 |
352 |
21.1 |
2.3 |
7.9 |
1.6 |
I would call his numbers solid, but not great. As a scorer and defender he hits the benchmarks, but doesn’t obliterate them like the best SG prospects should. He’s a good passer, but that only ticks his value up a small amount. He does get points for improving the weak areas of his game.
Harris is a decent score in the middle of round one. He improved his game where he needed to. He hit all the right benchmarks and did so playing against one of the toughest schedules in the nation. I don’t see him as a dominant NBA player and while he has a ceiling of an all-star, that’s a remote, high end thing at this point. He projects more as a solid, usable starter.
Nik Stauskas, Michigan: Stauskas emerged as Michigan’s best player as a soph, leading the team in scoring and assists. He looks like he has the chops to become a top zone-buster, having hit 44% on 390 trey attempts in his 2-year career. The scary statistic for teams drafting him is his low S40 and RSB40. I have always said SGs should be over 7.0 RSB40 and 1.4 S40. Stauskas isn’t close to either at 4.5 and 0.7. This benchmark hasn’t always applied to shooters though. Going back to Steve Kerr and Hubert Davis and current players like JJ Redick, Jodie Meeks and Jamal Crawford, players who can consistently drill the trey always have a chance to excel in a role, regardless of their college defensive numbers. In addition to being great shooters in college, one thing these players had in common with Stauskas is a low TO rate. For this reason I feel Stauskas will do pretty well as a pro in the role he’s drafted for, a 3-point gunner.
Another reason to think Stauskas might become even better than that is a developing trend of Michigan players under Bielein outperforming their college numbers in the pros. Right now there’s a small sample size, but both Trey Burke and Tim Hardaway Jr. played better as rookies than would have been expected going by their numbers. It is possible we’re seeing the start of a phenomenon similar to what happened at UCLA under Ben Howland where several guards went on to excel in the NBA despite poor to middling prospect numbers. That’s something to keep an eye on and a reason to tick the stock of Stauskas up a notch or two.
I see Stauskas as a solid prospect. Any team looking to add a “pure shooter” in this draft should have him at the top of their list. At the very least he projects to become an effective shooter off the bench. His high end? I don’t know that even my rosiest lenses could help me see him as a potential Reggie Miller or Allan Houston who consistently scores 20+ PPG with just enough defense to remain a starter. More likely he becomes a valuable offensive weapon whose weak defense keeps him as a role player for most of his career.
Zach LaVine, UCLA: Covered in an earlier piece with teammate Adams. It should be fun watching these two develop. Their respective careers will represent the battle between scouting and analytics in player evaluation. I hope both players grasp the enormous responsibility fate has placed on their shoulders.
James Young, Kentucky: Young is in a similar position as LaVine. Both are talented freshmen whose statistics weren’t very impressive. Both played on crowded rosters where it was unlikely either one was going to get a chance to really shine. As is the case with LaVine I feel the proper ranking for Young is right here, behind the top players but ahead of the seniors who I would call the best of the rest. Drafting James Young is a risk I wouldn’t take in round one. He’s all upside with very little production. If he develops at all it will take some time and may even happen with a team other than the one that drafts him.
CJ Wilcox, Washington: Wilcox has the Huskie factor on his side. Washington guards have fared pretty well in the NBA over the last several years. For this reason I feel elevating Wilcox to top of the “best of the rest” group of players is justified.
Wilcox and the next 2 players, Brown and McRae, all posted a low rate of steals. This is offset by a high rate of blocks. Other than the low S40 he hits all the right benchmarks. Like most of the other seniors on the list his improvement has been steady. As with every late bloomer he comes with some risk, but is well worth a 2nd-round or UFA look.
Markel Brown, Oklahoma State: Brown’s numbers don’t exactly stand out, but there enough intriguing tidbits here and there to think he can become a useful contributor. He doesn’t score a lot of points, but he has improved his efficiency from inside and out during his 4 seasons. His S40 is low, but his B40 is high for a guard at 1.1. That makes me think he’ll be a solid defender. I also like that he has a very low turnover rate. There are also a lot of negatives with Brown, but he’s good enough for a 2nd round look.
Jordan McRae, Tennessee: McRae had a nice break out year as a senior. He’s similar to Brown and Wilcox in that he has a low S40, but a high B40 for a guard. These 3 are really kind of interchangeable. All have the potential to become decent reserves, but will need to find the right spot and do all the right things.
JJ Mann, Belmont: Mann spent his first three seasons as a supporting player to guards Kerron Johnson and Ian Clark who led the Bruins to 3 straight NCAA tournament appearances. With the 2 stars gone this was Mann’s year to sparkle and he took full advantage. As the lead guy, Mann was stellar on both offense and defense. He led a team that was in a rebuilding season to the NIT.
Obviously any player like this is a long shot, but I like Mann as a late 2nd round pick. He checks all the statistical benchmarks comfortably. He has hit the 3-pointer at a solid .390 for 2 consecutive seasons. He is a late bloomer, but he really didn’t get a chance to shine until his senior season.
Taylor Braun, North Dakota State: Another good small college prospect. Braun did not have a good tournament, shooting just 5-25 in his 2 games and that hurts his stock. Otherwise his season was pretty strong. Like Mann, Braun hits all the benchmarks comfortably. He’s tall enough at 6’7” to play SF and a good enough passer that he might be able to handle some point. He’s also a lights out shooter. Like any small college senior he’s a risk because there are legit questions about the level of competition. But like JJ Mann, he has flashed enough skills that he’s well worth a late 2nd-round look.
Troy Huff, North Dakota: Huff has posted some great defensive and rebounding numbers, but is a little shaky on offense. He scores a lot, but this was the first year he topped a .500 2PP and he has never been consistent from behind the arc. It looks like he was something of a black hole on offense, taking a lot of shots with a low number of assists. He’s worth a UFA look because his defensive numbers are terrific and if he can develop a 3-pointer to go with that he can become a valuable player.
Spencer Dinwiddie, Colorado: He was in the middle of a break out year as a junior when a torn ACL ended his season in mid-January. His numbers were good, but not great and they were posted mostly against a non-conference schedule so they almost certainly would have faded had he stayed healthy. He’s a good enough passer that PG is a possible position and he has been over .400 on treys 2 of his 3 seasons. His defensive numbers have always been too low. His 2PP topped .500 only this past year when he only played half a season. He’s worth a look, but not as early in the draft as he’s being mocked.
Fuquan Edwin, Seton Hall: Edwin has always been a great ballhawk, but an erratic scorer. He has some potential as a sniper/defender. He hit .412 on 3-pointers as a junior, but regressed to .333 this past year. If he can get the shot to fall more consistently he has a chance to stick around.
Sean Kilpatrick, Cincinnati: Kilpatrick has been a solid player for 4 seasons who has posted consistently decent numbers. In 2014 he stepped up his offense to become the 15th leading scorer in the country and he did it while keeping his efficiency the same. While his numbers are solid, Kilpatrick is 24 and that knocks him down a few notches as a prospect.
Jordan Clarkson, Missouri: Clarkson doesn’t measure up statistically to the others on this list as a prospect. I list him because he’s crept into the first round of some of the mocks. His defensive numbers are anemic and offensively he hasn’t shown much consistency during his 3-year career. That he’s a transfer is also a negative. I’d pass on this guy.