A few months ago, as the college season was just getting revved up, I pondered the idea of whether or not the 2007 draft had a chance to become the greatest center draft ever. At the time there were seven to eight centers looking like solid pros while destroying non-conference schedules. Then the conference season started and these monsters, except for Greg Oden and Roy Hibbert, suddenly looked more human and rather ordinary. Then Hibbert decided to head back to Georgetown and that pretty much killed any best center draft ever chances 2007 may have had. So this isn’t going to challenge 1971 or 1992 for the greatest draft of centers ever. It might make the top ten or even the top five if Hawes can get it going and there is a surprise or two. And this is a much better group than we’ve seen in years, probably since the Shaq-Alonzo draft of 1992. Oden looks like an all-timer and there are enough other decent prospects out there that I suspect one or two will emerge as solid players down the line. The fact that I have 21 centers listed speaks to the strength of this group. I had to cut a few out who may have made the top ten in other years.
This past year I spent a lot of time looking at past prospects to try and see if there was any pattern in the statistics of prospects who became good pros as opposed to players who didn’t. For centers I found the important numbers were FG pct, points, rebounds and blocks per 40 minutes and the ratio of FT attempts to personal fouls. Players who became better pros generally posted higher numbers in these statistics, more so than other ones. Assists don’t seem to matter all that much. Not that passing is a bad skill for a center to have. It’s that there’s no correlation between center prospects being good passers and having pro success. A ridiculously bad A/TO can sink an otherwise decent prospect though.
As far as the rankings go, instead of putting the players in order according to a rigid ranking system, I’m going to compare their numbers to those of prospects from the past 12 seasons at a similar time in their careers and see where their numbers stack up at this point in their careers against the average prospect who went on to become an all-star, rotation regular, journeyman or a player who never made the league. Since these stats are averages of players and there’s quite a difference between some of the prospects in each category, I’m not sure how much this is going to tell us. I’ll post the numbers for each position and we’ll see how things work out. I still rank the players subjectively and look behind the numbers some in the comments following the tables. I included only players from major colleges in these tables. Players from smaller colleges and foreign leagues are ranked and commented on, but comparing their numbers to previous major college players would be an apples and oranges thing and that would tell us a whole lot.
| NCAA Freshmen Centers | FG Pct. | P40 | R40 | B40 | FT/PF | A/TO | PPS |
| Greg Oden |
.616 |
22.1 |
13.5 |
4.6 |
2.3 |
0.3 |
1.63 |
| All-Star |
.541 |
15.3 |
12.4 |
4.3 |
1.2 |
0.6 |
1.40 |
| Starter/Rotation Regular |
.541 |
15.3 |
10.6 |
3.9 |
1.1 |
0.4 |
1.38 |
| Spencer Hawes |
.532 |
20.0 |
8.5 |
2.3 |
1.4 |
0.8 |
1.27 |
| Journeyman |
.522 |
14.7 |
9.7 |
2.8 |
1.1 |
0.4 |
1.36 |
| Never made it |
.505 |
15.3 |
10.4 |
2.1 |
0.9 |
0.5 |
1.29 |
| NCAA Junior Centers | FG Pct. | P40 | R40 | B40 | FT/PF | A/TO | PPS |
| All-Star |
.547 |
21.2 |
11.6 |
4.3 |
2.2 |
0.9 |
1.46 |
| Randolph Morris |
.592 |
23.3 |
11.3 |
3.0 |
2.6 |
0.5 |
1.60 |
| Starter/Rotation Regular |
.562 |
20.6 |
12.1 |
3.4 |
2.0 |
0.9 |
1.48 |
| Sean Williams |
.548 |
14.9 |
8.5 |
6.2 |
1.7 |
0.5 |
1.58 |
| Journeyman |
.529 |
17.4 |
11.3 |
2.7 |
1.7 |
0.9 |
1.44 |
| Never made it |
.538 |
17.6 |
10.3 |
2.6 |
1.4 |
1.0 |
1.37 |
| NCAA Senior Centers | FG Pct. | P40 | R40 | B40 | FT/PF | A/TO | PPS |
| All-Star |
.556 |
19.6 |
12.8 |
4.0 |
2.5 |
0.7 |
1.56 |
| Herbert Hill |
.640 |
22.1 |
10.8 |
3.6 |
1.5 |
0.5 |
1.49 |
| Aaron Gray |
.565 |
20.0 |
13.7 |
2.5 |
1.8 |
1.1 |
1.38 |
| Starter/Rotation Regular |
.561 |
19.3 |
11.6 |
2.9 |
1.9 |
1.0 |
1.48 |
| Kyle Visser |
.584 |
22.2 |
9.7 |
1.8 |
3.0 |
0.3 |
1.63 |
| Journeyman |
.533 |
19.5 |
10.9 |
3.2 |
1.9 |
1.0 |
1.47 |
| Ivan Radenovic |
.507 |
17.1 |
8.6 |
0.7 |
2.4 |
1.0 |
1.58 |
| Courtney Sims |
.570 |
19.2 |
10.4 |
2.2 |
1.6 |
0.5 |
1.60 |
| Daryl Watkins |
.544 |
10.7 |
10.0 |
4.5 |
1.0 |
0.5 |
1.48 |
| Never made it |
.539 |
18.1 |
10.9 |
2.3 |
1.6 |
0.9 |
1.42 |
| Antanas Kavaliauskas |
.554 |
16.8 |
8.8 |
0.9 |
1.1 |
1.0 |
1.37 |
| Ian Vouyoukas |
.517 |
18.1 |
10.8 |
2.5 |
1.6 |
0.6 |
1.37 |
1. Greg Oden, Ohio State: It’s no surprise that Oden is far above the average freshman center no matter how well they did as pros. But we knew he had the potential to be an all-timer even going into the season. The question we should be asking about Oden is how he compares to other great centers. Here’s his freshman season against the freshmen years of the greatest centers of recent years:
|
Centers |
FG pct. |
Points/40 |
Reb/40 |
Assists/40 |
Points/shot |
| Greg Oden |
.616 |
22.1 |
13.5 |
0.9 |
1.63 |
| Patrick Ewing |
.631 |
17.6 |
10.5 |
0.9 |
1.62 |
| David Robinson |
.623 |
23.0 |
11.9 |
0.7 |
1.55 |
| Shaquille O’Neal |
.573 |
19.8 |
17.1 |
2.7 |
1.42 |
| Hakeem Olajuwon |
.607 |
18.2 |
13.5 |
0.8 |
1.60 |
| Alonzo Mourning |
.603 |
18.6 |
10.3 |
1.0 |
1.71 |
| Tim Duncan |
.545 |
13.0 |
12.7 |
1.2 |
1.47 |
Duncan played more PF in the pros, but was a center in college. Oden fits right in with this crowd. He’s third in FG pct, third in points scored, third in rebounds and second in points per shot. That he led his team to the championship game, before losing to an all-time great team only adds to his legend. The other question that must be asked about Oden is: Are there any other centers out there who were similarly great as freshmen before either flaming out or leveling off? I didn’t find any as good, but a few who were close. They’re listed below with Oden:
|
Centers |
FG pct. |
Points/40 |
Reb/40 |
Assists/40 |
Blocks/40 |
Points/shot |
| Greg Oden |
.616 |
22.1 |
13.5 |
0.9 |
4.6 |
1.63 |
| Andrew Bogut |
.577 |
16.4 |
13.0 |
2.9 |
1.8 |
1.44 |
| Adonal Foyle |
.559 |
19.2 |
14.0 |
1.4 |
5.5 |
1.38 |
| Yinka Dare |
.551 |
17.6 |
14.8 |
0.1 |
4.0 |
1.44 |
| Erick Dampier |
.588 |
20.3 |
14.8 |
1.4 |
3.8 |
1.52 |
| Todd MacCulloch |
.675 |
23.5 |
12.8 |
0.4 |
3.1 |
1.60 |
None are quite at Oden’s level, but all put up some impressive numbers as NCAA freshmen. I should say that Foyle put up his numbers against weaker competition in the Patriot League. Dampier played just 678 minutes and MacCulloch only 410, while Oden logged 925 after missing the first seven games. Bogut remains a young pro with promise. But the question here would be: Is there any chance Greg Oden becomes a player like one of these five? I’m guessing not. Foyle’s lack of pro success can be explained away by the small college thing and the fact that he’s short. Dare and MacCulloch were both unathletic big men whose college success was probably based more on being big than anything. Such a skill doesn’t translate well to the pros without some athleticism and that’s no problem with Oden.
I see no reason to doubt Oden’s chances for long term greatness. In the pantheon of great pro centers, there are five–Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Hakeem and Shaq—who stand above the rest. Oden has a chance to join this group and there haven’t been too many centers you could say that about. While we can’t say for sure Greg Oden will join that elite group, the fact that we can mention the possibility without hearing snickers says a lot about the talent Greg Oden is. There have been questions raised about his motivation and love of the game. I have no opinion on that, other than to say he should probably get used to it, because it’s something every great big man hears in seasons he doesn’t win a championship. As for where he’ll rank once all is said and done with his career, my gut feeling is that his career will be more like that of Patrick Ewing or David Robinson than the top 5. There will be a different dynamic for Oden, because there are no other great centers in the league right now. It’s a league in an era of great SFs and SGs and it’s anyone’s guess whether Oden will dominate because of this and win multiple championships or become sort of a dinosaur. One thing that can’t be denied is that great big men win championships. With the exception of the Jordan dynasty, this has been pretty constant whether the play has been fast and furious or slow and deliberate. For this reason, it’s hard to see Greg Oden as anything but a player who will bring at least a championship or two to Portland, Seattle or whatever team he spends most of his career with.
2. Yi Jianlian, Goangdong Tigers: What could be the most important issue with Yi is his age. He’s anywhere from 18 to 22, depending on the source. There was even one rumor that had him at 24, but that doesn’t seem reliable. The age question is a big deal here’s a look at how China’s two most prominent NBAers looked at age 19 and 21 compared to Yi’s 2006-07 season:
| Player age 19 |
FG Pct. |
PPG |
RPG |
APG |
| Wang Zhi-Zhi |
.547 |
16.6 |
7.3 |
1.0 |
| Yao Ming |
.573 |
21.3 |
14.5 |
1.7 |
| Yi Jianlian |
.585 |
24.9 |
11.5 |
1.1 |
| Player age 21 |
FG Pct. |
PPG |
RPG |
APG |
| Wang Zhi-Zhi |
.575 |
21.9 |
6.1 |
0.8 |
| Yao Ming |
.708 |
32.6 |
19.0 |
2.9 |
| Yi Jianlian |
.585 |
24.9 |
11.5 |
1.1 |
As a 19 year-old, he’s closer to Yao, though not quite the rebounder. As a 21 year-old, he’s closer to Wang, though he’s definitely a superior player. I’m not calling him the next Yao or the next Wang, but they’re the only two players who played in the same league at the same age as Yi. It will obviously be important to know whether or not he put up numbers like Yao, a huge success, or Wang, a relative flop who was back in China a few years later. It’s also important to note that Yi isn’t similar to either one as a player. While Yao and Wang are both inside players, Yi looks like more of a quick center-PF, who can handle the ball and score from inside and out in addition to being able to handle the board work. That he still rebounds like a PF or center makes him an impressive prospect, if he put up these numbers as a 19 year-old.
There’s one more issue to address though and that’s the level of play in China. It’s not as a good as the top levels of Europe and South America, let alone the US. China was beaten soundly by every good team they faced in the World Championships last summer. During these games Yi averaged 6.2 PPG, 5.7 RPG and shot only .421. The Chinese league is basically at the level of a small college conference. A top prospect should dominate that league, so Yi’s numbers have to be looked at with that in mind.
The age question will be the big one with Yi. I’ve been told by unreliable sources that in cases like this the player is usually the older age. I can’t say whether this is true or not, because this could also be a rumor being floated by some underhanded GM looking to draft Yi with a lower selection. Either way, he looks like a pretty decent player. If he really is 19, he looks like a player worthy of a top five pick. He should become a star if that’s the case. If he’s 21 or 22, he looks like a player capable of having a decent NBA career, but not a dominant force and perhaps nothing more than a reserve C-PF.
3. Spencer Hawes, Washington: Hawes has some work to do. Specifically he needs to rebound much better before he can be considered a good prospect. As a freshman he averaged 8.53 rebounds per 40 minutes. The only center or PF prospect in the past 15 years who averaged under ten rebounds per 40 as a freshman and still made an all-star team during his NBA career was Theo Ratliff. Ratliff was more of a shot blocker than anything else and he only made the all-star team in 2001 because there were no real centers in the East at that time. Other Centers and PFs who have gone on to the NBA after freshman seasons of less than ten rebounds per 40 while playing a significant number of minutes include Stromile Swift, Ike Diogu, Pat Garrity, Jason Caffey, Andrew DeClerq, Juwan Howard, Jim McIlvaine, Jelani McCoy, Calvin Booth, Vitaly Potapenko, Bill Curley and Lari Ketner. Not a group any prospective draft pick would want to be compared with. Some of these players have gotten big contracts, but those contracts were usually mistakes.
In Hawes’ defense, he’s a better passer than any of these players and he’s probably on track to become a better scorer than all of them also. The rebounding number could be a little low, because he plays alongside a PF, Jon Brockman, who is a terrific rebounder. There’s also the fact that he was ill and injured for some of the season. I can’t say what effect, if any, this had on his numbers, but here are his splits for conference and non-conference games:
| Spencer Hawes | FG pct. | P40 | R40 | B40 | A/TO |
| Non-conference games |
.621 |
25.3 |
9.7 |
4.0 |
0.7 |
| Conference games |
.490 |
18.6 |
8.4 |
1.7 |
0.8 |
He was much better in the non-conference portion, but that’s usually a given for big men. His rebounds were still a little low, considering the Huskies played only two major colleges during this stretch, Gonzaga and LSU. These splits are pretty extreme though, so I could buy into the idea that illness wore him down some as the season wore on. I still see a player who’s a weak rebounder and the fact that he wore down does make me wonder how he’ll handle an 82-game schedule.
Right now it’s hard for me to get a handle on Hawes as a pro. I have to rank him ahead of Hill, Gray and the other seniors, because he has some upside and they’re all nothing more than career reserves. He definitely has the potential to be a strong scorer and passer, but he also looks like he might develop into the type of player who looks good, but is a little over rated and will be given a contract that could become an albatross to his team. Not a good thing, but he fits the profile. He’s a center and they’re almost always overpaid, because there’s a constant shortage of good ones. He scores a lot of points, but hasn’t been all that efficient doing so. That’s another characteristic of a player who gets a bad contract. Plus, as a freshman there’s going to be at least one and possibly two or three developmental years before the team drafting him is certain of what exactly they have, so when it’s time to pay him there still might be a little guesswork involved on how good he actually will become. With Hawes there are a lot of question marks and the eventual payoff doesn’t seem that big to me. For that reason, I wouldn’t spend too high a pick on him and I certainly wouldn’t expect much in the way of immediate help.
4. Herbert Hill, Providence: Hill is a prospect who was pretty much invisible until this season as a fifth-year senior. In general players in their fifth season aren’t good prospects, simply because it rarely takes that long for a player to develop into something similar to the NBA player they’re going to become. Hill could be an exception to that rule though. His numbers fit in between those of all-stars and the solid players. The rebounding is a little low, but everything else is strong.
A look at some of Hill’s career splits suggests that this might be a player who just took a little longer than some others to get his career going. Once the conference games started Hill stepped up his scoring and rebounding, but was also less prone to foul. This is important as I’ll show later. Unlike many players, Hill was arguably better during the conference schedule. Look at his per 40 minute numbers from his sophomore and junior years compared to his senior splits:
| Herbert Hill |
Min. |
FG Pct. |
P40 |
R40 |
A/TO |
B40 |
PF40 |
| Sophomore |
442 |
.576 |
12.9 |
9.1 |
1.1 |
4.0 |
5.9 |
| Junior |
498 |
.586 |
19.1 |
10.2 |
0.4 |
4.1 |
4.6 |
| Sr. Non-Con games |
355 |
.731 |
22.3 |
10.4 |
0.6 |
3.8 |
4.5 |
| Sr. Conference games |
637 |
.598 |
22.0 |
11.1 |
0.4 |
3.5 |
3.6 |
Hill played only 28 minutes as a freshman, so I didn’t include those numbers. If you look at each category, he was always a high percentage shooter and a good shot-blocker. Beginning with his junior year, he was also a good scorer and rebounder. There were two reasons he didn’t play more minutes as an underclassman, he was sharing time at center with Randall Hanke until this season and he was foul-prone. He seems to have fixed the foul problem during his senior year and was averaging 35 minutes per game for the conference part of the schedule. So he was already producing on a per minute basis at the level of a decent prospect going into his senior season. This fact was hidden because too many fouls kept his minutes low. Once he learned to stop fouling so often, his minutes improved and his stock went from nobody to prospect.
There are still some issues with Hill. He will be 23 at the start of the 2007-08 season and while we have to credit him with a good work ethic for fixing the flaws in his game and making himself a good prospect, the fact that he’s 23 makes him a less desirable draftee than a similar player who is 21 or 22. Another quibble is he doesn’t get to the line as often as a good college center should and this hurts his efficiency.
Hill looks like a player who will eventually be a strong reserve at both center and PF and might start in the right situation at either position. Being 23, he could probably help out right away, and since he’ll likely be playing low minutes, any fouling problems won’t be as serious. Another thing I like about Hill is that he did improve his game noticeably. That’s the sign of a player who wants to play in the pros. The fact that he has shown a willingness to improve his game and he can play two positions make him a prospect worthy of a mid-late round 1 selection even in this loaded draft.
5. Randolph Morris, Kentucky: I know he’s not in the draft because Knicks have already pulled him through that loophole, but I wanted to weigh in anyway and rank him against the rest of this group. Morris looked like a real prospect for the first time as a junior. He did everything a good center prospect should do well. He hit over 60% of his shots, rebounded and blocked shots at a decent rate and got to the line a lot more often than he was whistled for fouls.
He wasn’t dominating, but he did everything right and rarely had a bad game. He’d probably have gone in the middle of the first round this year if not for his free agency status. As a pro, I expect he’ll take a year or two before he can work himself into a rotation, be it with the Knicks or some other team. With the perpetual center shortage, he could easily eventually find himself starting for some team in a year or two. He’ll have some big games and show an occasional flash of brilliance. He’ll also have periods where he’ll slump, get destroyed by smaller players and be benched. He’ll probably stick around the league for several years, simply because he is a center, but I doubt he’ll ever be anything more than just usable as a player.
6. Kyrylo Fesenko, SK Chekassy: I haven’t seen too much in the way of numbers on this guy, but from what I have seen he looks pretty impressive. His biggest strength seems to be rebounding and he has some numbers there that look almost dominant, averaging over 17 per 40 minutes. He also hit over 60% of his shots, is a decent shot blocker and gets to the line frequently. He doesn’t seem to have much in the way of finesse skills at this point and won’t score too much. so any immediate help he offers would be as a banger. But he’s the only foreign center prospect without any weakness in the important in rebounding, shot blocking and FG pct., which are three of the important stats. I never claim to know too much about the foreign players, but Fesenko looks good enough to me that a late first round draft pick on him is a gamble well worth taking.
7. Aaron Gray, Pittsburgh: Gray was the best per minute rebounder of all center prospects this year and that in itself makes him a prospect on some level. That he’s also the best passing big man and upped his FG pct. to a decent .565 as a senior suggests that he might be a pretty strong prospect. In the big three categories of FG pct, points and rebounds, Gray does well. As a shot blocker and efficient scorer, he’s not so good.
The rap on Gray has been that he often gets dominated by other centers. There’s the game in the ’05 tournament where Patrick O’Bryant outplayed him and there was his 1-13 against Roy Hibbert in this year’s Big East tournament. But I wanted to take a look at all his games against players who are legitimate center or PF prospects and see how well he stands up defensively. The idea being anyone can have a bad game, and most did against Roy Hibbert. But if he holds most prospects to below their averages, his defense isn’t a huge concern.
| Aaron Gray | FG Pct. | PPG | RPG |
| Prospects vs. Gray |
.577 |
15.1 |
7.8 |
| Gray vs. Prospects |
.503 |
12.7 |
7.2 |
| Prospects overall |
.598 |
12.7 |
7.8 |
| Gray all games |
.565 |
13.9 |
9.5 |
This was Gray in 13 games against players I would classify as pro prospects. Included are Kentrell Gransberry, Roy Hibbert, Hasheem Thabeet, Herbert Hill, Dave Padgett, Brian Butch, Marrio Boggan, Stephen Lassme, Spencer Hawes and Lorenzo Mata. All these players are prospects on some level and play center or PF. I can’t say that Gray defended each player in each game, but this is what these players did vs. Pitt. It shows that in games vs. Pitt, center and PF prospects scored more often, but slightly less efficiently than they did in other games. They rebounded about the same. Gray performed significantly worse when matched against a team with a big man prospect. He shot barely over 50%, and the scoring and rebounding were both down noticeably.
This doesn’t bode well for Gray. Defense is the most important thong for an NBA center to do. That Gray not only couldn’t hold these players as a group below their season averages, yet struggled himself when matched up against them says he’s going to have problems in the pros. Even the scrubs in the NBA are better than most of these guys. If Gray can’t keep Brian Butch under control, he’s not going to make much of an impact at the next level.
This isn’t to say Aaron Gray is without uses. He’s a very good rebounder and any team could use such a player in their rotation. His passing skills aren’t a bad thing to have around either. As I showed here and as anyone who has watched him play knows, the defense will likely be a problem that will most likely keep him out of any NBA starting lineups.
8. Daryl Watkins, Syracuse: Watkins is a prospect with some good defensive potential. He blocks a lot of shots and averages over a steal per game, which is impressive for a center. What I also like about him is he’s a decent rebounder. He’s not great, but does well enough that he won’t hurt a team on the boards when he’s out there, like Sean Williams might or Hilton Armstrong, a draftee from last year, would. Offensively he’s a zero. He doesn’t look to score and doesn’t score all that efficiently when he does. He’s not much of a passer either. But he is a player who can offer strong defensive play for a few minutes off the bench and that should get him work somewhere in the league.
9. Sean Williams, Boston College: I’ll talk about the prospect first and the situation second. Williams the prospect has plenty to like about him. He was the nation’s leading shot blocker before his suspension in his first season getting major minutes. He was hitting 55% of his shots, even though he had taken on a much larger role on offense. He’s a weak rebounder and has never been a big time scorer, so right now he looks like nothing more than a defensive specialist. As a defender, his play against other prospects was mixed. He shut down Darrell Arthur and held Herbert Hill in check. He also gave up 24 pts and 11 boards to Stephen Lassme and 20 points to Kyle Visser. But there’s no doubt that BC was a better team with Williams in the lineup:
| Boston College | Record | Point Differential |
| With Williams |
13-4 |
9.4 |
| Without Williams |
8-8 |
0.6 |
The without Williams numbers aren’t all conference games, they include the first two games against small college opponents New Hampshire and Vermont. BC played one of the tougher non-conference schedules around, so I don’t feel these numbers are too skewed. It’s clear the Eagles were a much better team with Williams on the court. I’m still somewhat leery of him as a prospect. His only real strength is shot blocking and very few players have made the league, let alone become stars on their shot blocking skills alone. With no proven ability to score or rebound, I can’t see Williams making a huge impact.
His case as a prospect is also going to be hindered by a couple of suspensions that eventually led to an early exit from Boston College. The first suspension, back in 2005, was for marijuana possession. I’m not sure what caused the two suspensions this season, but I don’t think he was in any trouble with the authorities, so they may not be a huge deal. The problem is he can’t seem to stay out of trouble and players who have these type of problems in college, often bring the baggage to the pros. In Williams’ case, I don’t see that he’s good enough to be worth the trouble.
10. Stanko Barac, Sroki Prima: He’s pretty light at a listed 220 lbs. and his strength might be 3-point shooting, which is never a good sign for a center. But he also rebounds and blocks shots at a decent enough rate, 10.2 and 3.1 per 40 minutes, that he fits in here and is more impressive than the foreign centers other than Fesenko. He might become a better inside player if he puts on some bulk and that’s something which is always doable.
11. Alexandr Rindin, Ural Great: He’s 7’4” and blocks shots at a pretty good rate. He’s also 22 and very raw. That’s not like being 18, a great shot blocker and very raw. But size is always worth a gamble late in round two. I doubt he’ll develop into much of a player, but he’s definitely worth a look.
12. Kyle Visser, Wake Forest: Visser had a senior year similar to fellow prospect Hebert Hill in that he emerged as a serious prospect after three seasons of being a part-timer. Like Hill he was likely kept on the bench by foul trouble during his first 3 seasons:
| Kyle Visser |
Min. |
FG Pct. |
P40 |
R40 |
A/TO |
B40 |
PF40 |
| Freshman |
359 |
.538 |
14.5 |
8.3 |
0.2 |
1.6 |
6.8 |
| Sophomore |
251 |
.594 |
16.2 |
7.8 |
0.4 |
3.0 |
6.7 |
| Junior |
583 |
.453 |
11.4 |
9.8 |
0.7 |
2.7 |
5.0 |
| Senior |
899 |
.584 |
22.2 |
9.7 |
0.3 |
1.8 |
3.3 |
This shows Visser stepping things up quite a bit as a senior. He was also very adept at getting to the line, which made him a very efficient scorer. It also suggests that Visser is a little weak as a prospect. Where Hill was a pretty solid player getting low minutes his first 3 seasons, Visser wasn’t a particular good player, at least as far as being a prospect. He’s never been a good rebounder, shot blocker or passer. He was a strong scorer in 251 minutes his soph season and for his entire senior year. But even if you make the argument that like Hill, Visser needed about 1,200 minutes of NCAA game time to become the player he is. The problem with that is the player he became just isn’t all that impressive of a prospect. There’s also the fact that Visser’s game took a serious dive once the conference games started:
| Kyle Visser | Min PG | FG Pt. | PPG | RPG | BPG |
| Non-Conference Games |
28.8 |
.650 |
19.0 |
8.2 |
1.5 |
| ACC Games |
29.2 |
.531 |
15.5 |
6.8 |
1.3 |
Most players, especially big men, see their numbers take a dip when the conference games start. In that sense, this isn’t a huge deal. But in Visser’s case, it might be. For one, the ACC wasn’t exactly thick with great big men. The only time he’s looked like a good prospect during his 4 years at Wake was the 13-game non-conference schedule his senior year.
Kyle Visser just doesn’t look like a great prospect to me. With Hill and Gray I can point to things they do and have done against major competition that says they can help out an NBA team in some capacity. Even Sean Williams looks like he’s able to offer some defense. With Visser, his only dominance ever came against a weak part of the schedule. He was very dominant in that time, but it just doesn’t add up to him being a great prospect. He might latch on somewhere as a third center for a few years, but his numbers are just too weak to think he’ll have any impact.
13. Marc Gasol, Akasvayu Girona: Probably the best known of the foreign centers, because of brother Pau. Marc is a different player, a more traditional center. He’s also nowhere near as good. He’s been a good inside scorer, but his rebounding and shot blocking numbers are too weak to think he’ll have much of an impact.
14. Courtney Sims, Michigan: His numbers look decent, but most are in the category of just barely making it. He’s always been an efficient inside scorer, but that might be the only thing he has going for him. A few more things to know about Sims: He commits a lot of fouls and TOs. In three games against Oden he was worse with each game, finishing with a 2-9 performance in the conference tournament. He was destroyed by Hibbert in a preseason game. Almost all of his dominating performances came against teams from small colleges, including three of his five double-doubles and three of his four 20+ point games.
Sims doesn’t look like much of a prospect to me. Most of the inside scoring ability he flashed was against weak competition. His defense and rebounding are nothing special and his passing is weak. Right now he has a slight chance of landing on an NBA roster, but is more likely headed for some minor league.
15. Ivan Radenovic, Arizona: Radenovic is one of those role players who hasn’t put up very good numbers in college, but does some things well enough that he could find himself a role. He doesn’t really measure up as a prospect, especially in the power categories of rebounding, FG pct. and shot blocking. Radenovic does have a decent outside shot up to 15 feet out and has hit a decent .317 on 183 career treys. So he fits the profile of a C-PF who would be good at drawing the defense out of the paint. He’s a guy who might be a good changeup for a low post center. He’s also a good passer and might be able to help right away, since he’s experienced, coming off 4 seasons as a regular at a major program. Radenovic’s high end is a 10-15 minute role player. His weak rebounding and defense will keep him from amounting to anything more than that and it’s unlikely he’ll make the league at all.
16. Antanas Kavaliauskas, Texas A&M: As the chart shows, Kavaliauskas’ numbers really don’t match up well with those of a typical prospect. The power numbers are especially weak. He did improve some in the last couple of months and that gives him a glimmer of hope, since it was done against strong competition. It’s probably too little, too late, but his rebounding numbers the last two months were solid enough that paired with his strong passing and outside shooting abilities he’s not as long a shot to make it. He’s still a long shot though.
17. Ryvon Covile, Detroit: A very good rebounder and that’s going to have to be his thing, because the rest of his game is pretty weak. I guess he reminded some of Paul Millsap at one of the camps, but that comp is a little shaky. When a player like Millsap emerges, the next few drafts teams will be looking for the next Millsap. Covile probably fits the profile best, being a strong rebounder from a smaller college. But Millsap was better at everything, including rebounding and he did it at a higher level playing at Louisiana Tech. There’s some indication that Covile is a better defender than his low blocks number suggests, but he’s also only 6’9”, so that could be lost in translation to the pros. He’ll have to make it as a rebounder off the bench who can also play a little PF.
18. Boomer Herndon, Belmont: A sleeper. Herndon didn’t even start for Belmont, but put up some excellent per minute numbers for the second season in-a-row. There are a ton of negatives here though: The fact that he washed out at Tennessee before transferring; that he plays for a small college and was ineffective against major conference teams; He’s not great at getting to the line and this makes him a less efficient scorer than he should be and most important: there had to be a reason he played only 16.5 minutes per game. He’s worth a look, because of the terrific numbers he put up. But there are too many question marks for me to think he has a real chance.
19. Ian Vouyoukas, St. Louis: There was good and bad for Vouyoukas his senior season. The good is he upped his rebounding to the point where you would call him a mediocre rebounder. I know it doesn’t sound good, but it’s better than continuing to be a poor rebounder. The bad is he decided to become a part-time outside shooter, which dropped his FG pct. from a barely acceptable .548 to a poor .517. He blocks some shots and he’s a better passer than most centers. If you take the 5-23 on 3-pointers out of the equation, Vouyoukas does look like more of a prospect. Not a great thing, but it’s something. All things considered he’s going to have to step up his game in a couple of areas in the minor leagues if he expects to play in the NBA.
20. Craig Bradshaw, Winthrop: He’s worth mentioning, because he’s probably the best 3-point shooter in this bunch. He’s hit .367 on 289 career attempts. While his FG pct. looks weak, he’s been around 58% on 2 pointers the past couple of seasons. So he’s a decent scorer all the way around. But the fact that he was a weak rebounder and defender in a small conference makes him a long shot to even become a niche player.
21. James Hughes, Northern Illinois: He’s a decent shot blocker and hits a good percentage on his shots, but that’s about all he does well. Shot blocking is a sign of good athleticism and leaping ability, but players rarely get into the league on that skill alone. I doubt Hughes will be an exception in what’s a pretty loaded class of big men.