As I mentioned in a previous piece on Jae Crowder and Ken Horton, SFs are a difficult bunch to gauge. It’s best that they score both often and efficiently and possess as many other skills as possible, be it passing, rebounding or defense. With that in mind I thought I’d just throw as many stats out there as I can before getting into the individual player evaluations. First are the prospects’ scoring percentages. I included adjusted FG percentage, which is basically a way of factoring 3-pointers into regular FG pct.
| Player |
FG Pct |
2PP |
3PP |
Adj FG % |
| Buford, William |
0.419 |
0.453 |
0.358 |
0.483 |
| Harkless. Moe |
0.445 |
0.500 |
0.202 |
0.463 |
| Murphy, Kevin |
0.444 |
0.460 |
0.416 |
0.518 |
| Hummel, Robbie |
0.417 |
0.440 |
0.383 |
0.495 |
| Joseph, Kris |
0.421 |
0.467 |
0.345 |
0.486 |
| Miller, Quincy |
0.447 |
0.475 |
0.348 |
0.485 |
| Middleton, Khris |
0.415 |
0.485 |
0.260 |
0.455 |
| Miller, Darius |
0.474 |
0.569 |
0.376 |
0.566 |
| Mitchell, Tony |
0.450 |
0.505 |
0.311 |
0.494 |
| Shurna, John |
0.463 |
0.482 |
0.440 |
0.560 |
| Taylor, Jeffery |
0.493 |
0.533 |
0.423 |
0.570 |
| Thomas, Scott |
0.435 |
0.494 |
0.371 |
0.524 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Next are per 40 numbers, adjusted for pace.
| Player | P40 | R40 | A40 | S40 | B40 | TO40 | ast-to |
| Buford, William |
16.98 |
5.82 |
3.12 |
0.99 |
0.27 |
2.52 |
1.24 |
| Harkless. Moe |
16.59 |
9.31 |
1.56 |
1.72 |
1.56 |
2.65 |
0.59 |
| Murphy, Kevin |
23.44 |
5.95 |
2.62 |
0.96 |
0.24 |
3.72 |
0.70 |
| Hummel, Robbie |
20.52 |
8.99 |
2.36 |
0.82 |
1.50 |
1.15 |
2.06 |
| Joseph, Kris |
16.64 |
5.84 |
1.88 |
1.68 |
0.77 |
1.85 |
1.02 |
| Miller, Quincy |
17.23 |
7.98 |
2.32 |
1.10 |
1.05 |
2.89 |
0.80 |
| Middleton, Khris |
19.03 |
7.16 |
3.26 |
1.37 |
0.36 |
3.11 |
1.05 |
| Miller, Darius |
14.92 |
4.13 |
3.08 |
1.24 |
0.49 |
2.18 |
1.41 |
| Mitchell, Tony |
17.24 |
9.25 |
2.39 |
1.31 |
1.85 |
2.45 |
0.98 |
| Shurna, John |
22.32 |
6.01 |
3.11 |
1.38 |
1.86 |
1.76 |
1.77 |
| Taylor, Jeffery |
20.09 |
6.91 |
2.14 |
1.59 |
0.55 |
2.73 |
0.78 |
| Thomas, Scott |
14.69 |
7.81 |
3.81 |
2.73 |
0.49 |
2.80 |
1.36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a pretty solid group. There aren’t any potential superstar SF coming out of the 2012 draft, but when we include Kidd-Gilchrist, Barnes, Crowder and Horton, prospects I addressed earlier, there are a lot who are good value picks in the late 1st or 2nd round. Players are listed in order of how I would draft them all other things being equal.
John Shurna, Northwestern: There’s a lot to like with Shurna. He’s one of the better players not being mentioned in most of the mocks. Going down the SF checklist Shurna is: an excellent passer; has hit close to 44% on almost 400 3-pointers the last couple of seasons; a player with solid defensive numbers; a player who hit over 50% of his 2-pointers until his senior year; a guy who measured 6’10” in shoes. This isn’t just a senior season development either. Shurna has been posting strong prospect numbers for 3 seasons now.
Players who put up numbers like Shurna has during his career generally have some sort of impact in the NBA. For that reason I like him as a prospect. But there are two stats that keep me from going too overboard on him. His career 2-point percentage has dropped from 55% his first couple of seasons, to .523 as a junior, to .489 this past year. The other problem is he’s a poor rebounder.
Because of these two things, I doubt he’s much more than a good bench player. The big impact SFs are usually much better rebounders than Shurna has been. What he looks like is a guy who can become a useful rotation player. His specialty is the 3-pointer, but his passing and defense will be good enough to get him on the court a lot. He’s a good value pick starting in late round one.
Tony Mitchell, Alabama: Mitchell is coming off a rough year. His numbers, which had the look of a late first-rounder his sophomore season, were down. In February he was suspended from the team, so he now has the “character issues” tag around his neck. He measured in at less than 6’5” without shoes, so he has the height problem I mentioned in the earlier piece on Jae Crowder.
The good thing about drafting Mitchell in round two is a team will be getting a super-athletic player who is one year removed from being a much better prospect. While no team should be looking to draft players with character issues, at some point the idea of getting a first round athlete in round two has to be appealing. Mitchell would be a solid value pick in round 2.
Kostas Papanikolas, Greece: The most impressive thing about Papanikolas is he’s hit 60% of his 2-pointers more often than not during his career. With young foreign players I look for such dominant stats. He also has 3-point range. The problem is he’s been a low-volume scorer and there’s little to suggest he’s a good passer or defender. He’s a good mid-2nd round value.
Robbie Hummel, Purdue: I had Hummel rated as a late-lottery pick for most of his career. That was before a couple of ACL surgeries. Now he’s a 5th-year senior coming off his worst season and tagged with an injury-prone label. Hummel doesn’t seem like much of a prospect any longer. Here’s a look at his career:
| Robbie Hummel |
2PP |
3PP |
P40 |
R40 |
ASB40 |
A/TO |
| Freshman |
507 |
447 |
16.0 |
8.5 |
6.3 |
1.8 |
| Sophomore |
497 |
381 |
17.3 |
9.6 |
5.1 |
1.9 |
| Junior |
517 |
364 |
20.9 |
9.3 |
5.6 |
2.0 |
| Senior |
440 |
383 |
20.5 |
9.0 |
4.7 |
2.1 |
While he was never that highly-rated by others, I saw Hummel as a multi-skilled player who could put the ball in the basket efficiently. After the surgeries his efficiency tanked and his defensive numbers slid. He looked nothing like the prospect I saw his first 3 seasons.
The surgery obviously had a negative effect. ACL tears can do that. This is an injury that takes longer to return from. Athletes often don’t come back at full strength until a year or two following the surgery if ever. To see if he recovered as his senior season progressed, here’s look at how his year progressed.
| Robbie Hummel |
2PP |
3PP |
P40 |
R40 |
ASB40 |
A/TO |
| Nov-Dec |
433 |
386 |
21.9 |
8.2 |
4.8 |
2.3 |
| January |
404 |
270 |
15.6 |
7.3 |
4.9 |
3.3 |
| February |
486 |
378 |
23.8 |
10.7 |
5.4 |
1.8 |
| March |
423 |
565 |
17.0 |
10.2 |
2.7 |
1.2 |
If you look hard, there is improvement. He scored more often and efficiently the last two months. His ASB40 hit a more prospectworthy level in February before tanking again during his 5 March games. As a senior he never played at the level that had him in my lottery though and that makes him a tough guy to invest a first round pick in.
Drafting Hummel comes with a couple of big risks. The first is whether he can get back to being the player he had been his 1st three seasons at Purdue. He had been a tough, smart low-mistake forward with 3-point range. The other is whether or not injuries will continue to hinder him even if he does return to form. That’s a big risk and isn’t one worth taking until round 2. He could payoff nicely though.
Moe Harkless, St. John’s and Quincy Miller, Baylor: I’m putting these two together, because their cases are similar. Both seem likely to be drafted in round one, possibly the lottery. Both are talented, but raw freshmen whose numbers come up short as far as prospects go. I’m not a huge fan of either one. SFs who post an ASB40 below 5.0, even as freshmen, rarely make much of an impact. Those who do are usually great 3-point shooters and neither of these 2 have flashed such a skill.
I could buy into Miller a little more easily than Harkless. Miller is coming off ACL surgery his senior year in high school and that can affect the numbers. Because Miller is a year removed from being a top 10 prospect and improvement could be expected since he’s another season away from his ACL surgery, he has some intrigue about him. I couldn’t blame a team for taking a chance in late round one.
The problem with me for both players is the numbers just aren’t there. There’s little sign of a dominant player in either case. Harkless and Miller seem more likely to become poster boys for a push to up the draft age another year than NBA stars.
Jeff Taylor, Vanderbilt: He isn’t technically a 5th-year senior, but he is older than most, having turned 23 just after the season. He’s actually a full year older than John Shurna. That makes his improved senior season just a little less impressive. It wasn’t much to begin with, but the fact that he displayed an outside shot for the first time in his career and improved his overall efficiency moves him into the draftworthy category late in round two.
Scott Thomas, Bowling Green: Thomas has always been a good passer and ball hawk, but didn’t score often or efficiently enough to be considered a prospect. As a senior his 3-point started to drop at a 37% clip. Adding this skill makes him semi-intriguing as a wing sniper/defender. Remains a long shot but he’s worth a look as a UFA.
Darius Miller, Kentucky; Will Buford, Ohio State and Kris Joseph, Syracuse: A group of seniors to pass on. None has displayed the scoring prowess or all-around games that even the most marginal journeymen NBA SFs did. None have the upside youth brings like Harkless or Quincy Miller. The idea I’ve read that Darius Miller can become another Danny Green is silly. Green posted dominant defensive numbers in college and was a better 3-point shooter. Miller’s defensive numbers are weak, as are Buford’s and Joseph’s. Shurna and even Hummel are much better options than any one of these players.
Kevin Murphy, Tennessee Tech: He’s been getting some late buzz and has moved into round 2 on the mocks. He must be killing it in the workouts or something. Because of the buzz, I thought I’d weigh in. I’m not a big fan. He’s been an erratic scorer his entire career. His defense is poor and he’s turnover-prone. Bring him in as a UFA for a look, but he isn’t worth a draft pick.
Khris Middleton, Texas A&M: Raw on the level of Harkless and Quincy Miller, only he’s a junior so he doesn’t have upside on his side. Needless to say in this deep group of SFs that makes Middleton a guy to take a pass on.