Of all the positions, the SFs have been hardest for me to get a handle on. With the other 4, I can point to certain statistics or a combination of statistics that seem to be a pretty good predictor of success. With SFs, that just isn’t there. The reason is because there are two types of SFs out there. There’s the 2.5, who is more guard-like. This player can slide into the backcourt as either a point forward or a SG in a big lineup. Paul Pierce and Richard Jefferson are examples of such a player. Then there’s the 3.5. More of an inside player, he’s a good rebounder and defender. He plays some PF in small lineups. Think Shane Battier, Luol Deng and Lamar Odom. Rating such players against each other is sort of futile, since they’re different types of players. Next year I may even split them, like I did with the combo guards, but it’s a little late for that right now.
I did come up with 4 statistics that do a decent job of predicting success for an SF. The first is adjusted FG pct, which takes the 3-pointers into account. For other positions the FG pct. is enough, but Adj FG pct. seems better for SFs. Perhaps this is because some 3-point shooting ability is a nice thing to have. Another one is P40, which is a given. The last two stats sort of interplay with each other. The first one is RASB-T per 40, which is a combination of all a players numbers other than points per 40 minutes. A diverse game is important for an SF, especially one who doesn’t score that often or that efficiently. The RASB-T40 gives a read on a player’s non-scoring skills. The final one is ASB40, or assists, steals and blocks per 40 minutes. This number is included for the SFs who are more on the SG side of the spectrum and don’t rebound that well. This takes rebounds out of the mix and that’s important to do with some players as being a stellar rebounder is always good, but not totally necessary for success as an NBA SF.
This is probably the best group of small forward prospects ever in one draft. I count 12 players who are worthy of a first round pick in most drafts. This means there will be some very good SFs available in round 2. Durant is a certain star. The 3 behind him, Wright, Green and Brewer, are also potential stars depending on their ability to step up their scoring. Toss in Al Thornton who also looks great and several young sleepers and strong role players and the strength of this group become obvious.
Here is each major college player with his pace-adjusted numbers and how they stack up against players of the past in the four statistics I mentioned earlier:
| NCAA Freshman SF prospect | Adj FG Pct. | P40 | RASB-T per40 | ASB40 |
| Kevin Durant |
.600 |
27.3 |
14.2 |
5.4 |
| All-Star |
.556 |
20.1 |
11.9 |
6.0 |
| Rotation Regular |
.546 |
17.9 |
10.8 |
5.1 |
| Thaddeus Young |
.584 |
18.8 |
8.4 |
4.9 |
| Journeyman |
.548 |
16.9 |
9.9 |
5.2 |
| Never made it |
.541 |
16.7 |
10.8 |
5.0 |
| NCAA Sophomore SF prospect | Adj FG Pct. | P40 | RASB-T per40 | ASB40 |
| All-Star |
.609 |
21.3 |
11.4 |
6.4 |
| Julian Wright |
.558 |
16.9 |
14.6 |
6.9 |
| Rotation Regular |
.564 |
19.2 |
11.4 |
5.2 |
| Marcus Williams |
.552 |
19.5 |
9.6 |
4.8 |
| Wilson Chandler |
.541 |
19.2 |
11.5 |
4.5 |
| Journeyman |
.552 |
19.0 |
10.8 |
5.1 |
| Never made it |
.561 |
19.0 |
10.5 |
4.7 |
| NCAA Junior SF prospect | Adj FG Pct. | P40 | RASB-T per40 | ASB40 |
| All-Star |
.625 |
22.4 |
11.7 |
6.0 |
| Jeff Green |
.607 |
18.0 |
11.3 |
6.5 |
| Rotation Regular |
.588 |
21.1 |
11.4 |
5.8 |
| Corey Brewer |
.587 |
18.3 |
10.2 |
7.2 |
| Dominic McGuire |
.532 |
16.1 |
16.4 |
9.2 |
| Nick Young |
.622 |
21.1 |
5.5 |
2.8 |
| Journeyman |
.555 |
19.9 |
10.9 |
5.1 |
| Never made it |
.573 |
19.9 |
10.4 |
4.7 |
| NCAA Senior SF prospect | Adj FG Pct. | P40 | RASB-T per40 | ASB40 |
| All-Star |
.622 |
23.5 |
12.6 |
6.4 |
| Rotation Regular |
.585 |
22.0 |
11.5 |
5.7 |
| Al Thornton |
.609 |
25.5 |
10.4 |
4.3 |
| Reyshawn Terrry |
.665 |
17.0 |
11.5 |
5.3 |
| Jared Dudley |
.674 |
19.6 |
10.7 |
4.9 |
| Morris Almond |
.625 |
31.6 |
7.5 |
3.7 |
| Curtis Sumpter |
.575 |
22.4 |
9.9 |
3.5 |
| Demetris Nichols |
.646 |
20.9 |
8.0 |
4.4 |
| Journeyman |
.555 |
21.0 |
10.9 |
4.9 |
| Alando Tucker |
.543 |
24.5 |
8.6 |
4.0 |
| Quinton Hosley |
.531 |
16.4 |
11.5 |
4.2 |
| Nate Carter |
.504 |
20.1 |
9.6 |
2.8 |
| Never made it |
.563 |
19.8 |
10.7 |
4.9 |
1. Kevin Durant, Texas: What’s left to say here? There has never been a freshman SF this good. Larry Bird and Dr. J didn’t play college ball as freshmen and they’re the only two players who put up numbers comparable to this at the college level. Durant scores often and efficiently from both inside and out. He rebounds and blocks shots better than almost all PFs and gets more steals than most guards. He’s capable of playing any position from SG to center either offensively or defensively. As a freshman he took a questionably-coached, moderately talented, young team to the NCAA tournament. It is simply impossible not to bubble over with superlatives when discussing Durant as a prospect.
The question isn’t whether or not he will be an all-star. He will. The question is whether he’ll be mainly a scorer like Dominique Wilkins or Bernard King; or will he become a transcendent all-time great who leads his team to multiple championships like Bird, Erving or Jordan? That one is still up in the air, but it will probably center on Durant’s ability to become a better passer. The truly great players were also great passers. Whether they played center, PF, SF or SG, great players who win multiple championships are players who can not only score, but can also find the open teammate. Durant wasn’t especially good at this his freshman year, averaging a low 1.4 A40. So the question becomes: Can he improve this? Is this something that’s typical of a young player on a team with few scoring options or is this a sign of a selfish player who tries to do everything himself? Here’s a look at some all-time greats and their A40 numbers during their first NCAA season compared to their pro careers. I used a fairly wide range of players, but no PGs for obvious reasons.
| Player | A40 1st NCAA season | Career high A40 | Career A40 |
| Mark Aguirre |
2.9 |
5.4 |
4.1 |
| Charles Barkley |
1.6 |
5.4 |
4.3 |
| Larry Bird |
4.7 |
7.6 |
6.6 |
| Vince Carter |
2.9 |
5.0 |
4.4 |
| Tom Chambers |
0.8 |
3.2 |
2.7 |
| Adrian Dantley |
2.0 |
4.7 |
3.3 |
| Alex English |
1.0 |
5.7 |
4.6 |
| Julius Erving |
3.7 |
5.7 |
4.6 |
| George Gervin |
3.9 |
4.2 |
3.1 |
| Elvin Hayes |
0.3 |
3.1 |
1.9 |
| Grant Hill |
3.6 |
7.5 |
5.7 |
| Dan Issel |
0.5 |
4.3 |
2.8 |
| Michael Jordan |
2.3 |
8.0 |
5.5 |
| Karl Malone |
0.5 |
5.2 |
3.8 |
| Chris Webber |
2.8 |
6.0 |
4.6 |
| Dominique Wilkins |
1.8 |
3.9 |
2.8 |
| James Worthy |
2.6 |
4.8 |
3.7 |
| Kevin Durant |
1.4 |
? |
? |
Every player, with the exception of George Gervin upped his NBA career assists from his first college season. Several of them fairly significantly. That’s not a huge surprise. The good news for Durant is that players who were poor passers their first year, English and Malone, became good passers as pros. Players who were only so-so passers at this time, Jordan and Barkley, became great passers as pros. I don’t think this is a huge issue and it may not be an issue at all. I’d like to see him pass better, but he’s still just a teenager and considering his talent, work ethic and skills, one would almost expect Durant to become one of the better passing forwards in the NBA within a few years.
I believe Kevin Durant is the best player in this draft. He has the ability and potential to become an all-time great who dominates the league like few players can. Everything I’ve read about him suggests he has the crazy work ethic that will be required for any jump to superstardom. I read where he wasn’t much of a weightlifter. That can be fixed with a few hours in the weight room a few days a week. I’ll add that a player who can dominate college ball like Durant did as a freshman, without having lifted weights at all could be downright scary once he bulks up a little. He’s young and there are many different things that could happen during his career, some of them bad. But any team that has a chance to draft a player as potentially good as this should go ahead and roll the dice on him. I expect Kevin Durant to be rookie of the year in 2007-08. I believe that over the course of his career he’ll appear in several all-star games and become a regular on all-NBA teams. If he’s fortunate enough to land in the right situation, he’ll win multiple championships and MVP awards before he’s done.
2. Julian Wright, Kansas: If you look at this group of SFs and their per40 numbers, Julian Wright is the 3rd best rebounder and shotblocker, the 2nd best at steals and 5th at assists. He’s also 2nd in FG pct. It’s the scoring part of the game where he has problems. He’s 16th in points per 40, 12th in Adj FG pct. and 18th in 3-point pct. So he does everything well, except the scoring.
That would be a big deal, except for two things: He’s still just a sophomore and the team he plays for features a coach who prefers a perimeter offense and 3 guards who are solid pro prospects. It’s no wonder he doesn’t take many shots, let alone 3-pointers. His low P40 of 16.9 isn’t really a huge issue. Shane Battier was at 15.4 as a sophomore and Ron Artest was at 16.9. There have been other all-stars, like Grant Hill, Vince Carter and Richard Jefferson who were below 19 P40 as sophomores. Considering Wright’s situation, it’s not a huge surprise that he doesn’t score that often. He did drop 33 point on Missouri and he put up 21 on both Florida and Kentucky, two pretty strong defensive teams.
While the low P40 isn’t a concern, what could be is a couple of other numbers. First one is he doesn’t shoot the 3-pointer very well at all. The other is his percentage of getting to the line per FG attempts is on the low side. This accounts for a low Adj FG pct. and points per shot number. It shows he doesn’t get many extra points, only 2-point baskets. Here’s Wright compared to other sophomore SFs who also had their scoring suppressed by playing for talented teams:
| Player | P40 | FTA/FGA | 3-point pct. | Adj. FG pct. |
| Shane Battier |
15.4 |
.469 |
.415 |
.732 |
| Grant Hill |
18.5 |
.453 |
.000 |
.611 |
| Richard Jefferson |
18.6 |
.377 |
.425 |
.605 |
| Ron Artest |
16.9 |
.316 |
.374 |
.608 |
| Jalen Rose |
18.1 |
.354 |
.320 |
.519 |
| Vince Carter |
18.9 |
.316 |
.336 |
.639 |
| Julian Wright |
16.9 |
.344 |
.231 |
.558 |
With the exception of Rose, who was more of a point forward in college, all these SFs were more efficient scorers than Wright as sophomores, at least going by Adj FG Pct. He’s on the low end with the other two numbers also. I can’t say he will improve his scoring, but it is possible. A quick perusal of stats finds Grant Hill, Rasheed Wallace, Antawn Jamison, Antoine Walker, Pat Garrity, Eduardo Najera, Raef Lafrentz and Ryan Gomes as recent players who were poor 3-point shooters as college sophs, but became good shooters later in their careers. There’s no reason Wright couldn’t join this group. As for the other parts of his game, it could just be a matter of getting into an offense that involves him a little bit more often.
One thing to remember with Julian Wright is that his whole game shouldn’t be based on whether or not he can become a great, or even good scorer. He’s already a strong defender, rebounder and passer. He’s looks very much like a player who won’t need to score in order to be valuable. That makes him a better value as a high draft pick, because scoring is probably the one skill easiest to develop. I’d worry more about a player who was strictly a scorer with no other skills. Those players usually aren’t successful. With Wright a team is getting a player who is already likely to be a very good complementary player. Whether or not he becomes a star depends on how well his scoring develops. While that may or may not happen, it’s hardly something I’d doubt he can do. Wright, Green and Brewer are all very close as prospects. I prefer Wright, because he seems to have more potential than the other two.
3. Jeff Green, Georgetown: Green is an interesting prospect. He’s obviously very skilled, but he brings a game that’s much closer to the SG side of the SF spectrum, even though he has PF size. This makes me wonder if he can handle playing some SG. For the first part of the season, Green was point forward for the Hoyas, averaging over 5 APG. This changed after the Rutgers game on 1/17. He became a much more aggressive player on offense and the Hoyas benefited greatly from this change:
| Jeff Green | FG Pct. | P40 | R40 | A40 | TO40 | FGA40 | Georgetown Record |
| 1st 17 games |
.507 |
15.6 |
8.1 |
5.0 |
4.4 |
10.8 |
12-5 |
| Final 20 games |
.516 |
19.8 |
8.0 |
3.3 |
2.4 |
14.7 |
18-2 |
Makes the fact that he attempted only 5 shots in the national semi-final loss against Ohio State a little puzzling, but I digress. What’s impressive is that he maintained his other numbers and was actually a more efficient passer, though he didn’t pass the ball as often, while he became a more aggressive scorer. What’s most impressive is that he did what he needed to do for his team to improve. Roy Hibbert also improved quite a bit in the second half and deserves some credit for the strong finish.
While Green did step up his scoring to the benefit of his team, he still didn’t score a whole lot of points, at least by prospect standards. His 19.8 P40 down the stretch when he got more aggressive, still falls just short of the 19.9 that the most marginal of prospects average. Because of this, I’m not sure I see him as a big scorer in the pros. He’s never shown an aggressive scorer’s mentality and seems content playing the all-around game. He’s an excellent 3-point shooter for a player of his size, but he doesn’t get to the line all that often and that hurts his overall efficiency.
In a way, he’s a lot like Julian Wright. He offers a strong all-around game, but won’t be a star at the next level until he becomes more of a scorer. Neither has shown much inclination to be a great college scorer, though Green’s percentages are a little more promising. I still rank Wright ahead of Green, because Wright is a better rebounder and defender. He has a higher floor and ceiling because of this. Like Wright, Green will be a valuable player whether he scores a lot of points or not. Like with Wright, the team that drafts him can take point to the fact that players like Battier, Jefferson, Carter and Artest became stars without having been great college scorers.
4. Corey Brewer, Florida: One of the better prospects out there. Brewer’s strength is defense. He can defend most SGs and SFs and probably a few PGs and PFs. Such a player is pretty valuable on that alone, but Brewer is also a decent passer and scorer. The Scottie Pippen comps are probably a reach at this point, but they’re not out of the question. I really don’t trust Brewer’s scoring and rebounding numbers as being all that accurate as a reflection of his real ability. Florida played a style where every player was as content to set up a teammate as they were to score themselves. That kept Brewer’s scoring number a little low. Playing with two of the best rebounders in the nation definitely kept his rebounds low.
I guess my main question here would be how good of an offensive player will Brewer be in the pros? The table below compares him to players who like Brewer were closer to the SG end of the SF spectrum coming out of college and, also like Brewer, played on a talented roster for a college powerhouse.
| NCAA SF Prospect | FG pct. | 3-pt. pct. | P40 | R40 | A40 | S+B40 | TO40 |
| Grant Hill |
.482 |
.390 |
19.5 |
7.7 |
5.8 |
3.4 |
3.4 |
| Paul Pierce |
.513 |
.339 |
26.9 |
8.8 |
3.4 |
2.9 |
2.8 |
| Vince Carter |
.591 |
.411 |
20.0 |
6.6 |
2.5 |
2.7 |
1.4 |
| Richard Jefferson |
.479 |
.344 |
16.5 |
7.9 |
3.9 |
2.3 |
4.3 |
| Tayshaun Prince |
.468 |
.340 |
21.1 |
7.8 |
2.0 |
2.9 |
2.4 |
| Jalen Rose |
.461 |
.355 |
22.1 |
6.3 |
4.4 |
1.5 |
3.0 |
| Mo Peterson |
.465 |
.425 |
23.1 |
8.3 |
1.7 |
2.0 |
3.0 |
| Mike Dunleavy |
.483 |
.378 |
21.3 |
8.9 |
2.5 |
3.7 |
2.2 |
| Roshown McLeod |
.494 |
.411 |
25.8 |
9.4 |
2.3 |
3.2 |
2.9 |
| Corey Brewer |
.475 |
.336 |
18.3 |
6.4 |
4.1 |
3.1 |
3.5 |
I was hoping this would shed a little light on which types of SFs are and aren’t successful, but it really doesn’t say too much. The only thing I can tell from this is an ability to pass the ball in college seems to be important for success in the pros for this type of player. Even Vince Carter, who didn’t pass the ball a lot, had very few TOs. This bodes well for Brewer, as passing is one of his strengths. The players he resembles most are Jefferson and Prince, but I’m not sure that’s as important as the fact that he’s more similar to the successful players than the Dunleavys and McLeods.
As an offensive prospect, Brewer’s a little mixed. The fact that he can pass is great, but the .475 and .336 aren’t that impressive and those numbers are pretty similar to his soph numbers, indicating they’re probably close to his real ability. That would seem to make Brewer an offensive player somewhere between Tayshaun Prince and Richard Jefferson. Even if he’s a little closer to Prince than Jefferson offensively—and I don’t feel that will be the case, but it’s possible—it’s hard not to like Brewer. The defense is strong and he seems like the type who can develop a better offensive game. Another thing I love about Brewer, and all the Gators, is that he knows how to play team ball. Regardless of what might be expected of him by media and fans, his teammates are going to love having him on their side. While I don’t see a surefire all-star, I see a versatile player with strong defense and passing skills, along with great intangibles. Should a team need more of a perimeter player for their SF, Brewer would be a better choice than either Wright or Green.
5. Al Thornton, Florida State: Al Thornton has been a great college scorer. He’s hit 53% of his FGs and 43% of his treys fairly consistently over his 4-year career. As a senior he pushed his P40 to an impressive 25.5. He’s also a solid rebounder and defender. The problem is his TOs. He has the lowest A/TO, 0.28, of any SF prospect this year. Actually it’s a lower A/TO than just about any SF prospect ever. I’m not sure how much of a problem this will become, because there isn’t much history of players with such a low A/TO combined with a good scoring average. There have been players with A/TOs similar to Thornton’s: Desmond Mason, Cedric Henderson, Maceo Baston and Tim James. But none of these players were the scorer that Thornton has been either inside or from the perimeter. There are also several players with comparable A/TOs who never made the league. It really doesn’t make sense to compare Thornton to those guys, because Thornton is considered a better prospect than any of them and he will make the league.
Another thing to point out is that while Thornton’s A/TO is historically low, if his TOs are compared against his FGAs and assists, he doesn’t look so bad:
| Player | TO/(A+FGA) | A/TO |
| Alondo Tucker |
.097 |
1.22 |
| Nate Carter |
.134 |
0.62 |
| Kevin Durant |
.143 |
0.46 |
| Keena Young |
.155 |
0.67 |
| Thaddeus Young |
.155 |
0.94 |
| Curtis Sumpter |
.161 |
0.40 |
| Marcus Williams |
.172 |
0.84 |
| Nick Young |
.178 |
0.56 |
| Jared Dudley |
.178 |
0.56 |
| Al Thornton |
.180 |
0.28 |
| Morris Almond |
.188 |
0.34 |
| Jeff Green |
.192 |
1.23 |
| Corey Brewer |
.200 |
1.17 |
| Reyshawn Terry |
.212 |
0.91 |
| Julian Wright |
.213 |
0.90 |
| Quinton Hosley |
.223 |
0.58 |
| Dominic McGuire |
.277 |
0.87 |
In general it’s better to be a little lower here, but it’s not a huge deal. Players have become all-stars with a TO/AFGA of more than 0.20. This shows that Thornton is fairly normal among this group when it comes to taking care of the ball, despite the high A/TO. For this reason, I doubt it’s a huge concern.
I like Thornton better now than I did when I started this. I’m not surprised at all that he’s rising in some of the mocks as teams get a closer look at him. The most similar recent player to Thornton would be Keith Van Horn. Both can play either forward position, both can score from inside or out and both had a high number of TOs. Thornton might be a little superior defensively. I could see Thornton becoming a player at about Van Horn’s level, without the injuries hopefully. Probably not quite an all-star, but a pretty decent player nonetheless. Since Thornton is as ready as any player to step right in and play, I’m guessing he’ll have one of the better rookie seasons in 2007-08.
6. Jared Dudley, Boston College: Dudley’s numbers as a senior were pretty gaudy and earned him some hardware. They’re a little misleading, because he played almost every minute, averaging 38.4 per game, but impressive nonetheless.
The thing about Dudley is he’s been the same player during his four seasons in college, with one exception. As a senior he was a much more efficient scorer than he’s ever been. In his first three seasons he shot around 48% and 33%. Not bad, but not enough to lift numbers that are on the soft side in other categories past borderline prospect status. As a senior he increased his percentages to .562 and .443. This is good, because he upped his percentages quite a bit. But because it was so far above his previous levels it might be nothing more than a player on a hot streak. Breaking down his games, it’s hard to see any streaks the occurred within the season that may have boosted his percentages. It’s more a collection of games with great and poor shooting performances randomly sprinkled throughout. That’s a sign there’s some legitimacy to the improvement, though I have a hard time believing the .562 and .443 is real.
Even with the improved efficiency, Dudley isn’t a great prospect. He didn’t score a lot of points for a prospect and his other numbers are just average. He is versatile and could probably play some SG, which will help his cause. I see him as a bench guy whose long term future will be determined by whether he can continue to hit a reasonably high percentage of his shots as he did for the first time his senior season.
7. Reyshawn Terry, North Carolina: Terry has had an odd career. He spent his first two seasons averaging only 4 minutes per game, while sitting behind a group that won a national title and sent 5 players into the NBA. As a junior he emerged from their shadows to average 14.3 PPG and put himself on the map as a prospect. His senior year he was back to deferring to the stars, this time one of the great freshman classes ever. But he also improved the weaknesses in his game to the point where he’s probably a better prospect now than he was after his junior year.
What makes him a more impressive prospect than the numbers suggest is they were compiled while playing on a talented team. The 17.0 P40 is probably suppressed quite a bit by his situation, as Terry was the 5th option on this team. His percentages suggest he’s a legitimately good scorer though and he’s was the Heels’ best 3-point shooter, hitting .437 which is right in line with his career.
Defensively I have some concerns about Terry. Opposing SFs lit up Carolina pretty good at times this past season. Dudley and Thaddeus Young each had 2 20-point games, Jeff Green dropped a 22/9 on them in the regional final and DJ Strawberry hit 12-18 shots against the Heels en route to his best game of the year. I can’t say that all these points were scored against Terry. He averaged only 21.5 minutes per game, so it’s likely a large percentage of them came when Ginyard or Green were on the court. But I thought it was worth mentioning.
The defensive concerns mentioned, Terry remains a strong prospect. He was able to put up strong numbers while playing on a loaded roster. He has the characteristics of a player who’s likely to be a better pro than his college numbers suggest. He played on talented teams and was a very efficient scorer. That said, the fact that he never was anything resembling a star in college is a huge negative. Right now, I have to think Terry plays a similar role in the pros to the one he played in college: A strong supporting player.
8. Marcus Williams, Arizona: Williams had a tough sophomore season. With few experienced inside players on the roster, he was asked to handle some inside duties this year. When freshman PF Jordan Hill got into the rotation at the end of January Williams was able to play more perimeter, but he then started on a shooting slump that lasted the rest of the season. Not a great year for Marcus Williams, but he went ahead and signed an agent, so he’s in for good.
Right now Williams doesn’t look like a great prospect. His numbers are all pretty low and I can’t use the argument that he played on a talented team, because the Wildcats just weren’t all that good. Here are his numbers before and after the 1/24 game. That’s when Jordan Hill stepped into the rotation and gave them another big guy inside, allowing Williams to move to his more natural outside position.
| Marcus Williams | FG pct. | 3 pt. pct. | P40 | R40 | A40 | TO40 |
| Through 1/24 |
.520 |
.333 |
22.2 |
9.3 |
2.1 |
3.4 |
| After 1/24 |
.449 |
.229 |
16.4 |
6.0 |
3.4 |
2.9 |
Williams was a decent player before the lineup switch, but hardly a PF. After the switch he was fine for a few games, but went into the tank the last 3 games, hitting less than 35% of his shots and only 1 of 9 treys, which killed his final numbers.
Marcus Williams has some positives. As a freshman he hit .435 on 69 treys. He helped out his team by switching to an unnatural position and still played pretty well while doing so. At times during his short career he’s been an above average shooter, scorer, passer and rebounder for a SF. With his age, this all makes him a somewhat of a sleeper to have a pretty decent pro career. The problem is he has never looked like a good prospect over the course of an entire season. I understand that this may have not been the best situation for him. I also understand that he’s only had 2 seasons of college ball and had a decent chance to emerge as a star at Arizona had he stayed his final 2 seasons. But I would need to see more before invest too high a draft choice in him.
As a player he looks like someone who will be able to play both SG and SF. A reserve at first, but I could see him developing into a starter in a few years. It’s just hard to get a real good read on him from his career and the best option when ranking a player like this is to put him between players you’re fairly certain will be at least useful and the ones who won’t.
9. Thaddeus Young, Georgia Tech: Young’s freshman year was all over the board. One game he’d check in with a clunker against a team he should have dominated like St. Francis PA or Winston-Salem. Later in the year he put up back-to-back 20+ point efforts against Carolina and Maryland. His season had a maddening inconsistency that didn’t have much rhyme or reason. When the numbers are added up, they show a player who plays a little soft, has potential to be pretty good, but would be a gamble if taken too high. He’s an OK scorer, but the other numbers are weak. He’ll be a better scorer if he can start getting to the line more often. His FTA40 of 2.96 is by far the lowest of any player here. Watching him play, he seems like he has the talent to be a dominant perimeter defender. He’s quick and has long arms. But that wasn’t the case his freshman year.
I will say this about Young: I’d rather see a prospect show some flashes mixed in with poor performances as a youngster, than just steady, but mediocre play. The flashes show the player he could become. In some cases a player needs some time to play though the tough spots, figure out how to avoid them and develop more consistency. The problem Young faces is college is a better place to figure this out, because he’d be on the court as the team’s star. In the pros his inconsistency will keep him on the bench and the court is always a better place to learn. Should he get buried on the bench early, which seems pretty likely at this point, it could get him in a rut that will take a few years and a few trades to get out of.
So Young is a gamble. He obviously has 1st round talent, but will probably need at least a year before he’s ready to contribute much and possibly another two or three before we really see what sort of player he’ll become. Any team drafting him needs to factor in this time commitment to him. If I were to guess how he’ll turn out, right now I wouldn’t be too optimistic. I could see him becoming a decent scorer, but a low-efficiency one who isn’t all that valuable. Right now he shows no inclination to do the other things like defense and rebounding that can make such a player more valuable.
10. Morris Almond, Rice: Almond is a scorer. As a senior he scored often and efficiently. He hit 45% of his 3-pointers over the past couple of seasons. Only Carl Landry, a PF, got to the line more often than Almond among prospects this past season. That’s pretty impressive for a wing player. The other numbers are weak. The TOs are high, he doesn’t pass the ball that often and his defensive numbers are nothing special. But there have been very few players who have scored over 30 points per 40 minutes in recent NCAA history, so I’d have to think this ability will get Almond into the league. Here’s some of the other 30+ scorers who played SG or SF and how they compare with Almond:
| Player | P40 | FG pct. | 3-point pct. | R40 | A40 | TO40 |
| Glenn Robinson |
35.6 |
.483 |
.380 |
11.9 |
2.3 |
4.8 |
| Bonzi Wells |
31.4 |
.490 |
.373 |
8.7 |
4.5 |
4.7 |
| Kevin Martin |
31.9 |
.474 |
.336 |
6.2 |
2.2 |
4.0 |
| Shawn Respert |
30.5 |
.473 |
.474 |
4.7 |
3.6 |
3.5 |
| Ed Gray |
31.3 |
.461 |
.302 |
5.1 |
2.7 |
4.2 |
| Bubba Wells |
35.2 |
.520 |
.423 |
7.9 |
2.5 |
3.5 |
| Henry Domercant |
33.1 |
.458 |
.477 |
8.1 |
3.3 |
2.8 |
| Morris Almond |
31.6 |
.483 |
.456 |
7.9 |
1.4 |
4.1 |
Of this group only Robinson became any sort of a star. Bonzi Wells had his moments, but was more disappointing than anything. Kevin Martin is a decent player, but may not get much better than he is now. The rest were done in by being too short or they just couldn’t make the transition from small college to the NBA. While Almond is a more efficient scorer at this point than all these players, he’s also a more erratic passer than all of them. Robinson’s success shows a player doesn’t need to be a great passer to succeed, but it certainly is a good skill to have. Other than that, there aren’t too many revelations in this table. He doesn’t have the low rebound40 that probably helped do in Gray and Respert. He played in Conference USA, which offers stiffer competition than what Bubba Wells and Domercant faced. CUSA isn’t quite the NCAA heavy it was, but Almond dropped 28 on Oregon and 44 on Vanderbilt, both sweet 16 teams. I doubt the lesser competition will be a huge issue.
I didn’t put Almond with the SGs, because of the TOs. He seems like more of a forward to me. Almond has great scoring ability and I’m sure that will be enough to get him drafted. It’s going to have to be, because there’s little else he does well. His role is going to be one of bringing instant offense off the bench. That’s not an easy role for a rookie to fall into, so I wouldn’t be too surprised if he disappeared on a bench his rookie season. Long term he offers enough as a scorer that I could see him sticking in the league for awhile–mostly as a reserve though and only as long as his shot keeps falling.
11. Dominic McGuire, Fresno State: He rebounds like a PF, blocks shots better than most centers and dishes over 3 APG. The problem is he can’t score. Not often or efficiently and that’s obviously a problem. He also isn’t very good at holding onto the ball when he does have it, as the table in the Al Thornton comment shows.
There are signs he could become a decent scorer. He gets to the line more often than most SFs, at least per FG attempt. He hit over 50% of his 2-point shots, but only .299 on 67 treys. Even if he never gets the scoring thing, I would think his defensive and rebounding skills will get him a job somewhere in the league. The few players who have posted a RASB-T40 of 15+ have a good record of success:
| Player | RASB-T40 | FG Pct. | P40 |
| Shawn Marion |
16.4 |
.529 |
22.8 |
| Shane Battier |
15.7 |
.539 |
12.4 |
| Danny Granger |
17.2 |
.524 |
25.1 |
| Ryan Bowen |
18.5 |
.603 |
21.0 |
| Terrence Morris |
15.8 |
.432 |
17.7 |
| Chris Daniels |
15.7 |
.538 |
13.7 |
| Domenic McGuire |
16.4 |
.471 |
16.7 |
Battier’s numbers are from his freshman season, hencs the low P40. The other seasons are junior and senior years. Morris and Daniels are the two players here who didn’t have much impact. Daniels never made the league and Morris played sparingly for 3 seasons. They’re the two who weren’t great college scorers, like McGuire. That certainly doesn’t bode well for McGuire’s chances, but it’s worth noting that athletically he’s probably superior to both players and was set back some after transferring from Cal. Both Morris and Daniels had more college experience at this time and had to be considered more complete players than McGuire. In some ways McGuire has the look of a player ready to bust out should he stick around college another year.
I can’t think too highly of a player who wasn’t a big time scorer in college. Such players rarely become anything other than end-of-bench scrubs in the NBA. There are reasons to think McGuire will be different. He’s started to work on an outside shot and I could see him becoming a James Posey type if that develops. But until the scoring happens, he’s destined for the end of the bench. His athleticism and length will get him drafted and probably a roster spot, but until he becomes a better scorer, the PT won’t happen.
12. Nick Young, USC: Young improved his outside shooting and overall scoring efficiency enough as a junior that a spot in round one seems fairly secure. His non-scoring numbers were pretty weak though. Actually ‘pretty weak’ is putting it kindly. Nick Young’s non-scoring numbers are historically weak. The 5.5 RASB-T40 is the lowest number I’ve seen in a junior or senior SF or SG prospect that made the league, even as a journeyman. For the stars, the lowest was Jalen Rose at 7.7, and Rose is a much better passer than Young. Here are some other players with RASB-T40 numbers below 7 in their junior or senior seasons:
| Player | Adj. FG Pct. | P40 | RASB-T40 |
| Michael Dickerson |
.510 |
23.8 |
5.9 |
| Jason Kapono |
.628 |
20.1 |
6.9 |
| Chris Crawford |
.525 |
17.4 |
6.7 |
| Cedric Henderson |
.593 |
17.3 |
6.9 |
| Cedric Neloms |
.472 |
22.2 |
6.2 |
| Nick Young |
.622 |
21.1 |
5.5 |
Kapono seems like the best comp to Young at this point. Both can score both efficiently and often. Both bring offense, but little else. What a team needs to look at with Nick Young is whether the shooting skills he flashed in 2006-07 are for real. His first two seasons he hit less than 33% on 158 shots. As a junior, he hit 44% on 100 shots. The junior year is a small enough sample that it could be a fluke. I’m guessing the 44% is closer to real than the 33%, because he was pretty steady throughout the season, but it should be a concern.
The Kapono comp is probably pretty close to what to expect from Young as a player. A deadly scorer when he’s left alone, but a player with few other skills. Kapono has found a role in Miami’s rotation and Young will eventually do the same with some team. I am a little amazed by the pre-draft hype he’s getting though. Drafting him in the first round of a deep draft seems like a huge mistake to me. The fact that his offense may not be as good as it seems and his non-scoring game isn’t impressive at all, I’d look elsewhere for wing help before I considered him in round 1.
13. Alando Tucker, Wisconsin: Tucker fits the great college player mold. That’s not a good thing to be at this point. He scored a lot of points for a team that was ranked in the top 5 for most of the season. He even got some national POY buzz for awhile. But his numbers just don’t measure up as a prospect. His only skill is scoring and he did that more in quantity than in efficiency. In 4 seasons he’s never averaged over 1 steal or block per game. He’s a below-average rebounder and he’s not a good shooter. Another negative is his size, only 6’6”. That can work in the NCAA, but not in the NBA if scoring is the only thing you do.
Tucker is up against it. Players with his stats and size rarely succeed. I suspect he could play some SG, but his numbers suggest he’ll struggle there also. He not a passer or a shooter, so he’ll need to work on those skills if that’s his eventual position. Since he’s already logged over 4000 minutes of ball at the NCAA level without developing these skills, I have serious doubts he has what it takes to develop them in the NBA.
14. Wilson Chandler, DePaul: Chandler has shown enough in the way of SF skills, that it’s better to put him here than with the PFs, which was his college position. He’s a decent outside shooter and passer. He’s probably too small and a little weak at rebounding to make it as a PF. Chandler isn’t a great prospect. His scoring efficiency is the lowest in this group and he needed a late run to up his 3-point pct. to .333. Improving that is probably going to be the key to his success, because the only place I would see him fitting in is as a combo forward.
With younger players there’s always a little more in the way of hope. Chandler has shown better passing and shooting skill than most big men and his defense seems strong enough. He looks like he’s versatile enough to play both forward positions, albeit as a reserve, but that’s still a plus. I see him as a combo forward whose success will depend on whether or not he can develop a more effecient offensive game both inside and out.
15. Curtis Sumpter, Villanova: A 5th-year senior, Sumpter is an OK prospect. He brings good rebounding and a nice outside shot as his strengths. He’s a little weak as a scorer, but has hit near 40% of his treys over his last 2 seasons. He’s also been close to 50% on his 2-pointers and has gotten to the line more often than most, so I doubt he’ll be overwhelmed in the NBA. His other numbers aren’t terrible, but you’d like to see more out of a prospect. I’ll also mention that he could have been slowed a little this season after missing the previous year with an injury. His scoring efficiency was down a little from his sophomore and junior years, while all other numbers were pretty similar. In that sense he might be a bit of a sleeper.
Sumpter looks like he could put together a decent career as a backup. That outside shot is a nice thing for a player like him to bring. The fact that he’s a 5th-year senior might even help him get some PT this season. Not a great prospect at this point, but a guy who can play. He’ll probably need the right situation.
16. Demetris Nichols, Syracuse: After 3 unimpressive seasons, Nichols stepped up with a senior season that was strong enough to get him noticed as a prospect. His strength is mainly as a shooter. He hit .417 on treys, by far the best mark of his career. The non-scoring numbers are pretty weak. Not Nick Young weak, but poor enough that Nichols will have to be a pretty good scorer to overcome it. That’s where I have a problem with him as a prospect. There’s evidence that his senior season was somewhat of a fluke. That his decent numbers were fueled by an early hot streak against a weak non-conference schedule:
| Demetris Nichols | FG Pct. | 3-point Pct. |
| First 3 seasons |
.403 |
.315 |
| Non-conference Schedule |
.505 |
.488 |
| Conference Schedule |
.411 |
.381 |
As always, I’ll note that numbers generally decrease against the tougher competition of a conference schedule. This was especially the case with Syracuse, whose soft non-con was responsible for sending them to the NIT. While Nichols definitely improved his shooting as a senior, it fell off quite a bit once the competition got tough. He started looking a lot more like the non-prospect he had been for three seasons. So basically Nichols has looked like a pro prospect for 1 short stretch against a weak schedule.
I still give Nichols an outside shot of making it as a reserve. He did continue to hit the trey pretty well and he has that scorer’s mentality. But he has some stiff competition against a loaded field of SFs this year and that might hurt him more than anything.
17. Quinton Hosley, Fresno State: Hosley had a down year as a senior. His teammate McGuire moved past his as a player. He might be more of a SG. He’s listed as a G-F, but in Fresno’s 6-man rotation he played mostly SF, or the big guard in a 3-guard offense. I’m listing him here, because his biggest strength is rebounding, which is a forward thing.
The impressive numbers on his resume are that he rebounds as well as most PFs and he averaged over two SPG and 1 BPG as a junior. This suggests he has pretty good defensive potential. That’s a good thing for him, because his FG pct. has been in the low .400s for a couple of seasons and he isn’t much of a 3-point shooter.
His only chance of making it would be as a perimeter defender. At 6’6” 210, he probably won’t be drafted for his rebounding prowess. He does show some Bruce Bowen/Raja Bell type potential and for that reason he has more intrigue than some of the other lower tier prospects. But until he can hit the outside shot the odds remain against a player with numbers like his.
18. Nate Carter, Oklahoma: After transferring from Cal-Riverside for the 2005-06 season, Carter was a part-timer for his junior year and started his senior year the same way. Once the conference schedule started, Carter really got things going, averaging 16.2 PPG and 6.9 RPG while shooting .500 over the final 19 games and putting himself on the map as a prospect.
Carter isn’t great prospect, but I think he’s worth mentioning for a couple of reasons. First, his numbers once the conference season started are a slightly more impressive .520, 21.3, 10.1 and 2.5; which are still a little weak, but better. They’re also a little more impressive, because they were posted in a strong conference without the benefit of a non-conference patsy schedule that often boosts a prospect’s numbers. Second is I feel he’s a better scorer than he has shown. In two seasons at Riverside, he hit .346 on 104 treys, but only attempted 30 in two seasons at Oklahoma. He gets to the line often, hits a high percentage of his FTs and has been over 1.40 in points per shot his entire career. He just looks like a guy who really could have excelled as a scorer in the right situation, but never quite found it in his NCAA years.
As a pro his high end would be a bench scorer. He hasn’t shown enough in the way of defense that I’d think he could ever break through and start, but he’s shown enough that as a scorer he could probably help a team. He’s a longshot, but worth a look.
19. Chris Oliver, Radford: One of those players who is worth mentioning here, because he does some things well, but really isn’t a great prospect. Oliver put up some decent scoring numbers, though he’s not a very good shooter and strong rebounding and defensive numbers. With a player from a smaller conference I always like to point out that they should be pretty dominating and Oliver wasn’t. But he did show some defensive ability, averaging almost 2 SPG and he’s a strong rebounder. He’s too small to play PF, but might find a role as a defensive stopper.