I like analyzing power forwards. In general they’re an easy, low maintenance bunch. Unlike the small forwards, there isn’t a lot of nuance. It’s fairly simple. If a player can score efficiently, rebound and defend at the college level, he’s a good prospect. If he can’t, he isn’t.
The benchmarks are fairly simple for PFs. If a player posts a 2PP of .580, a P40 of 18.0, a R40 of 10.0 and a SB40 of 3.5, he’s a solid prospect. If he pushes the 2PP over .600, the R40 over 12.0 and the SB40 over 4.0, he’s a likely all-star. It also helps if there’s no turnover problem. The ability to hit a 3-pointer has never been essential for a PF. But the league is changing. Players like Ryan Anderson have become very productive pros using the 3-pointer as the main weapon in their arsenal. I expect such players to become more frequent, which means going forward any ability a PF prospect can show to hit an outside shot should be considered a huge plus. Here are the numbers:
| Player |
2PP |
3PP |
P40 |
R40 |
SB40 |
A/TO |
| Thomas Robinson |
505 |
500 |
21.9 |
14.6 |
2.4 |
0.7 |
| Jared Sullinger |
531 |
400 |
22.8 |
12.0 |
2.9 |
0.7 |
| Andrew Nicholson |
593 |
434 |
24.3 |
11.1 |
3.5 |
0.4 |
| Arnett Moultrie |
555 |
444 |
18.5 |
11.8 |
1.8 |
0.5 |
| Miles Plumlee |
610 |
0 |
12.7 |
13.6 |
2.8 |
0.4 |
| John Henson |
500 |
0 |
17.5 |
12.7 |
4.4 |
1.0 |
| JaMychal Green |
561 |
200 |
19.5 |
10.3 |
3.1 |
0.7 |
| Mitchell Watt |
580 |
324 |
20.9 |
9.7 |
3.6 |
0.9 |
| Ricardo Ratliffe |
693 |
0 |
21.5 |
11.5 |
2.5 |
0.4 |
| Drew Gordon |
539 |
1 |
17.7 |
14.3 |
3.4 |
0.6 |
| Cameron Moore |
499 |
217 |
18.5 |
12.1 |
3.4 |
0.6 |
| Quincy Acy |
576 |
600 |
16.0 |
9.9 |
3.7 |
0.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn’t include Anthony Davis. He gets his own piece tomorrow and he might be more of a center anyways. This group is deep, but not great. The top 4 are players that ideally would fall in the 7-14 range in most drafts. The rest are players that a team should be happy about getting in round 2. I wasn’t impressed enough with the foreign PFs to include any. They just can’t rebound over there this year. Players are listed in order of how I would draft them all other things being equal.
Andrew Nicholson, St. Bonaventure: For 3 seasons Andrew Nicholson had been one of those players on my watch list. His stats were good enough to get a place on my spreadsheet, but not good enough that I ever considered him much of a prospect. He was a good scorer, but didn’t rebound that well and hadn’t been much of a defender since his freshman year. When the calendar turned 2012, something happened with Nicholson’s game that not even the Mayans could have foreseen:
| Andrew Nicholson |
2PP |
3PP |
P40 |
R40 |
SB40 |
A/TO |
| Freshman |
602 |
0 |
19.1 |
9.2 |
5.0 |
0.1 |
| Sophomore |
564 |
0 |
21.3 |
9.2 |
2.7 |
0.3 |
| Junior |
589 |
261 |
24.4 |
8.5 |
2.3 |
0.3 |
| Sr: Nov-Dec |
544 |
167 |
19.9 |
9.6 |
2.7 |
0.3 |
| Sr: Jan-March |
619 |
512 |
26.9 |
11.9 |
4.0 |
0.5 |
On 12/31/2011, Andrew Nicholson was in the middle of an uneventful senior season, well on his way to the D-league. On that night he must have cut a deal with the Mayan god Kisin and became the best basketball player in the nation not named Anthony Davis for the final 3 months. I look forward to 12/21/12 when we all find out whether Kisin will want Nicholson’s soul or just a couple of courtside seats in return.
Most impressive is that the improvement came during the conference season when the vast majority of players see their stats decline. Less impressive is that it took this long for him to get there. There haven’t been too many seniors who put up such numbers. Most players who are this good depart for the NBA well before their senior seasons. Here are a few guys who stuck around 4 seasons and topped .600, 25.0 and 11.0 for the entire season, matching what Nicholson did from January on:
| Player |
2PP |
P40 |
R40 |
SB40 |
| Alan Henderson |
605 |
26.7 |
11.1 |
3.5 |
| Horace Grant |
657 |
25.8 |
11.8 |
2.4 |
| Michael Harris |
637 |
25.4 |
14.4 |
3.1 |
| Andrew Nicholson |
619 |
26.9 |
11.9 |
4.0 |
Grant was an all-star and an integral piece on several championship teams, Henderson a journeyman and Harris too short. Nicholson doesn’t have the height problem that plagued Harris, so he looks like at least a solid journeyman if the Jan-March stats are an accurate reflection of the real Andrew Nicholson that is.
The question that has to be asked is what triggered this sudden improvement? If it was a case of Nicholson working harder, will he continue with the same hard work that improved his game? Or will he revert to the habits that led to his ordinary first three seasons once he signs the contract? If it was just a case of him playing harder, that makes him something of a flake who may not always give it his all. Or maybe he just matured as a player and figured out a few things that made him more productive. If that’s the case, the Andrew Nicholson we saw from the start of 2012 is the real thing and that makes him a pretty good prospect.
Not counting Anthony Davis, who might be more of a center anyways, Andrew Nicholson is the top PF prospect in the 2012 draft. The reason I like him better than Robinson or Sullinger is that at his best, Nicholson was a more dominant player both offensively and defensively. He definitely comes with some risk and concerns, but drafting on upside, I have to put Nicholson at the top.
Thomas Robinson, Kansas: Robinson’s stock has risen throughout the season and the pre-draft process to the point that he’s almost the consensus #2 selection a few days before the draft. Looking at his stats, he’s a one-trick pony, that trick being rebounding, who seems likely to disappoint if drafted that high. But in a draft with a huge void after the top pick, Robinson might still be a solid selection at #2.
First thing to do is look at the stats and see where he stands. Here are similar college players who experienced some NBA success. I looked for players who had a 2PP around 50% and were good rebounders.
| Player |
2PP |
P40 |
R40 |
SB40 |
A/TO |
| Sophomore |
|
|
|
|
|
| Antonio McDyess |
514 |
21.3 |
15.6 |
4.7 |
0.3 |
| Antoine Walker |
493 |
22.5 |
12.4 |
3.5 |
1.2 |
| Leon Powe |
500 |
23.2 |
11.5 |
1.6 |
0.6 |
| Junior |
|
|
|
|
|
| Drew Gooden |
523 |
26.4 |
15.2 |
4.2 |
0.7 |
| Jerome Williams |
515 |
14.3 |
13.2 |
2.1 |
0.5 |
| Thomas Robinson |
505 |
21.9 |
14.6 |
2.4 |
0.7 |
| Senior | |||||
| PJ Brown |
500 |
17.0 |
13.2 |
4.5 |
0.7 |
| Reggie Evans |
497 |
18.4 |
13.3 |
2.5 |
0.5 |
| Chuck Hayes |
522 |
14.9 |
10.6 |
3.9 |
1.2 |
| Ronny Turiaf |
513 |
20.4 |
12.2 |
2.9 |
0.7 |
| Tony Massenberg |
507 |
22.9 |
12.9 |
2.7 |
0.3 |
I separated players between their sophomore, junior and senior seasons. Robinson being a less-experienced junior and 2PP being a percentage that can be improved on, I decided to stay away from freshmen for this analysis. I also stayed away from stretch PFs like Pat Garrity who finished with a low 2PP. Such players stayed in the league because of their shooting ability and I doubt that will become Robinson’s niche. But this is a good time to note that Robinson hit 7 of his 14 3-point attempts.
The three best players in this group, McDyess, Walker and Brown, all posted much better defensive numbers than Robinson. That makes his chances of becoming something more than a journeyman shaky. What Robinson can say is that he’s a better rebounder than any player here and that should be worth something.
It’s worth noting that he was a better inside scorer as a soph and had more impressive defensive numbers as a frosh:
| Thomas Robinson |
2PP |
P40 |
R40 |
SB40 |
| Freshman |
485 |
13.5 |
14.3 |
4.0 |
| Sophomore |
601 |
19.9 |
16.8 |
2.8 |
| Junior |
505 |
21.9 |
14.6 |
2.4 |
He was a part-time player both years, playing 236 minutes as a freshman and 482 as a soph. That makes his numbers less impressive than if they had been posted as a full-timer. It’s hard to call any player a prospect based on numbers posted as a part-timer. They might reflect his real ability, but stats are always more telling if they’re put up as a 30+ minutes per game starter. There is no questioning his rebounding prowess though. This has been a constant throughout his career. Robinson can board with the best of them.
I also have to wonder if his blocks were lower than his ability would suggest because he was playing on a team with a shot blocker in Withey. I can’t say for a fact that he would have gotten more blocks had he played more center, like most college PFs do. Considering Robinson has that 7’3” wingspan, it certainly seems likely. That and the idea that his real inside scoring ability is somewhat better than his .505 mark this past season because of the .601 he posted in 482 minutes as a soph give him a little more intrigue.
Robinson’s numbers say he’s an NBA journeyman. That he comes up short on inside scoring and defense, suggests he’ll become a useful, but limited rebounding specialist off an NBA bench in the mold of Reggie Evans. But there are some extenuating circumstances that suggest he could be something more than that, though still short of an all-star.
Jared Sullinger, Ohio State: Sullinger is kind of similar to Robinson. His 2PP is low, but not terrible. His rebounding is strong, but the defensive numbers aren’t quite there: Here are some previous sophs with a similar stat line:
| Player |
2PP |
P40 |
R40 |
SB40 |
A/TO |
| Danny Fortson |
539 |
29.2 |
13.9 |
2.3 |
0.5 |
| Troy Murphy |
525 |
25.5 |
11.5 |
2.7 |
0.5 |
| Jason Caffey |
527 |
19.9 |
11.9 |
2.2 |
0.3 |
| Jared Sullinger |
531 |
22.8 |
12.0 |
2.9 |
0.7 |
The good news for Sullinger is that there are few players who were at this level as sophs that didn’t make it. Byron Houston, a 6’4” PF, was the only one I could find. This gives Sullinger the highest floor of any player here. He’s a safe bet to stick around the league for a while, though it’s unlikely he’ll be a star. That’s assuming the recent injury news isn’t a big deal.
I don’t know what to make of the fact he was red-flagged for an injury by the league. This doesn’t sound good and isn’t something to be dismissed. The NBA likes to sell all the top draft picks as future stars and are loathe to say anything negative about them publicly. For that reason I have to think this red-flagging of Sullinger is serious and something that has to be weighed when drafting him. I feel this, as much as anything else, is what knocks him below Robinson and Nicholson.
If I’m misreading this and the injury isn’t a big deal, Sullinger is worthy of a top 5 pick in the 2012 draft. His bust potential is low and he still has enough upside that his high end ceiling is a 20-10 guy with weak defense. The injury throws a wrench into things and makes him more of a risk.
John Henson, North Carolina: Henson is the energy guy. If he can become a 15-25 minute per game rebounding/defense maniac, us fans will get the pleasure of watching him morph from a nice, clean cut college kid to an over-tattooed pro with crazy/scary hair who insists on and gets a clause in his contract that gives his pet cougar and best friend Steve two courtside seats for every home game. Or something like that. Players in the role that was perfected by Dennis Rodman are always the ones to add such flair to their game. Henson has a chance to become such a player.
Not a good chance though. I’d like him a lot better if his R40 were closer to 15.0 and his SB40 were closer to 5.0. He was closer to that as a soph, hitting 13.9 and 5.2, so he has more ability than this down year suggests. There’s little in the way of offense here. Henson is definitely a late lottery draftee based on his defensive/rebounding potential. He has some work to do, but there’s enough potential here to think he can become that energy guy who gives a team 15-25 minutes of rebounding and defensive hell every game.
JaMychal Green, Alabama: Green has shown enough during his career that he’s worth a draft pick. His profile is good defender, adequate rebounder and weak offensively. Because his strength is defense, I feel he has a decent chance to stick somewhere. He has enough that I could see him knocking around NBA benches for a time and maybe even getting into a rotation if things went right for him.
Mitchell Watt, Buffalo: Another senior-come-lately. Watt had been a part-time player his first three seasons, mainly because of issues with fouls. He got that under control as a senior and checked in with an impressive year.
As a prospect he still comes up a tad short. His strength is defense and that’s a good thing. He also added a decent 3-point shot to his limited offensive arsenal and is one of the better passing big men available. Both skills add to his value. The biggest negative is he was a below-average rebounder in a small college conference. He’s worth a flyer in round 2 because of his potential to become a defensive specialist with a decent outside shot.
Arnett Moultrie, Mississippi State: Moultrie seems over rated to me. He’s being sold as something of an athletic, multi-skilled big guy. He’s been solidly in round one of most of the mocks. The problem I see is he just isn’t that good. The only stat he has that’s a positive is rebounding, at 11.8 R40. That’s a nice number, but hardly makes him the 2nd coming of Dennis Rodman or even comparable to Thomas Robinson. He has flashed some outside shooting ability, so there’s some potential as a stretch PF.
There are also a couple of non-stat negatives on Moultrie. The first is he’s a transfer from UTEP who sat out a year. Because he started young he’s still the age of most juniors, but transfers don’t have a good history. There’s also the fact that Mississippi State missed the tournament this past year. Players drafted in round one whose teams missed the tournament are more likely to bust.
I can see why Moultrie is intriguing. He has NBA size and length. He shows flashes of a nice inside-outside game. But he hasn’t turned that ability into NBA prospect level production. Upside and potential just doesn’t sell as well after 3000+ minutes of college ball. Moultrie is worth a risk early in round 2, but would be a reach earlier than that.
Ricardo Ratliffe, Missouri: He’s a 5th-year senior who had his best season, which is a negative. Not that he had his best season, but that it took until the point in his career when most players are done with college. He had a great season scoring inside. Whenever a player hits 69% of his shots while scoring over 20 P40, we have to take notice. The only players I found who topped this number while playing 900+ minutes at a major college were Michael Bradley, Larry Johnson and Steve Scheffler. Scheffler was a poor rebounder/defender who didn’t look like a prospect in any way other than the FG pct. Bradley was a stathead favorite after this, his junior year at Villanova and has some similarities to Ratliffe, but was a better prospect. He had transferred after two unproductive seasons at Kentucky. He stuck around the league for a while, but never made an impact. Larry Johnson had a nice career, but was a much better college player than Ratliff across the board.
The fact that he was such a super-efficient scorer with adequate rebounding intrigues me enough that I’d give him a 2nd round look. He looks too much like an undersized center though and his defense is weak, as Kyle O’Quinn exploited in the tournament.
Drew Gordon, New Mexico: Other than Robinson, Gordon is the best rebounder of this group. The rest of his game is substandard and he’s a transfer, which is a negative. His rebounding prowess makes him worth a look in round 2.
Cameron Moore, UAB: Another player who has flashed just enough to intrigue. He has no inside game, but rebounds and defends well enough that he’s worth a look. He also has flashed some 3-point shooting ability. As is the case with a lot of the players here, he’s not a bad get in late round 2.
Miles Plumlee, Duke: Miles would have to be considered strictly a rebounding guy. He’s a good rebounder, but I doubt good enough to carry the rest of his game which is pretty weak.
Quincy Acy, Baylor: He’s never been a great scorer, but he has been pretty efficient on the 2-pointers, including 2 seasons over 60%. His rebounding is a little soft and his defense is only adequate. He’s worth a look, because of decent numbers and length.