NBA Draft 2009: Small Forwards

As a group the SFs have always been the toughest nut for me to crack. The other positions all seem to have a few stats I can look at to make a fairly simple (or so it seems at the time) call on a player’s prospect-worthiness. With SFs there’s really no hard-and fast rule. I just have to look at the entire picture and try to see something good.

Last year I broke them into 2 groups, which is something I think worked OK and I’ll continue doing this year. These players are the true SFs. They’re more like SGs and might even be graded as such in some places. The bigger players, or combo forwards as I started to call them will be done separate and are the type of players who might end up playing either SF or PF. This looks at the first group, the small forwards. Here are what I’ve found to be the important traits of successful SFs: 

• Scoring. This is a given for every perimeter position. A player has to show he can score both often and efficiently. A SF’s efficiency seems to be a little more important than a SG’s. The scoring numbers I look at are P40 and adjusted FG pct. For some reason this is the only group where an adjusted FG pct. seems to be a bigger factor than straight FG pct. or 2 pt pct. in separating prospects. I think this is because it’s important for SFs to be able to score from both inside and out and this stat is a combination of those abilities.
• Passing: This is another skill that seems more important in SFs than most other positions with PG being the obvious exception. I think this is just part of the general theory on SFs that the best ones have to be scorers first and foremost and anything else they do well is a positive. The successful ones almost always have a second skill to scoring and it’s often passing. The numbers I look at are A/TO and ASB40.
• Rebounding and defense. I use a player’s R40 number, but I don’t weigh it as heavily as I might with a PF or C. The other defense is covered somewhat in the ASB40. The same thing applies here as with passing. Anything a SF prospect does well should be considered a good thing. 

Here are some of the best SFs to come out of college in recent years and what their best college season looked like: 

Player	Adj FG pct.	P40	R40	A/TO	ASB40
Carmelo Anthony	.498	24.4	11.0	1.0	5.1
Ron Artest	.538	16.9	7.3	1.5	8.7
Shane Battier	.587	22.8	8.4	1.2	7.1
Vince Carter	.649	20.0	6.6	1.9	5.2
Luol Deng	.520	19.4	8.9	0.8	5.4
Kevin Durant	.536	27.3	11.8	0.5	5.4
Rudy Gay	.495	19.8	8.3	0.8	7.0
Sean Elliot	.547	26.1	8.4	1.3	6.2
Danny Granger	.589	25.1	11.8	1.0	8.6
Grant Hill	.584	22.8	8.1	1.1	8.4
Josh Howard	.539	24.2	10.3	0.7	6.8
Jim Jackson	.535	25.4	7.7	1.2	6.7
Richard Jefferson	.554	18.6	7.4	1.1	7.1
Corey Maggette	.580	24.0	8.7	0.7	6.0
Jamal Mashburn	.555	25.8	10.2	1.2	6.9
Paul Pierce	.549	26.9	8.8	0.9	6.3
Glen Rice	.656	30.2	6.3	1.5	5.9
Glenn Robinson	.535	35.6	11.9	0.5	5.3
Jalen Rose	.519	22.1	6.3	1.5	5.9

For Anthony, Durant, Deng and Maggette these are frosh year numbers, because each only stuck around for 1 season. For Gay and Artest these are soph numbers. The rest are junior and senior numbers. N the scoring categories, most of the players were strong in both totals and efficiency. The freshmen are historically a little weaker in the area of scoring efficiency so they’re given a little leeway here. This table suggests that scoring both often and efficiently is probably the best thing. If a player isn’t doing that, best to have an ASB40 over or near 7.0 and/or some good rebounding numbers. If a player can’t post a R40 of at least 7.0, he best be a damn good scorer. Again these are just guidelines. Since SF roles can vary so much from team to team, it’s hard to nail down a specific thing to look for.

This group is pretty weak overall. The two players I felt were the best, Kyle Singler and Robbie Hummel, both went back to college. There are a few sleepers and intriguing prospects, but none of these players look like they’ll even have a long career as a rotation regular at this point. Here are the numbers:

Player	fgpct	3pct	2 pct	adjpct	P40	R40	A40	S40	B40	TO40	A/TO
Brown, Derrick	0.519	0.431	0.554	0.579	18.67	7.96	2.75	0.97	1.11	2.61	1.06
Budinger, C	0.480	0.399	0.528	0.554	19.33	6.66	3.62	1.53	0.49	2.61	1.39
Cummard, Lee	0.517	0.387	0.558	0.564	20.57	7.59	4.11	1.11	1.11	2.00	2.06
Derozan, Demar	0.523	0.167	0.562	0.531	16.61	6.88	1.75	1.06	0.45	2.50	0.70
Shipp, Josh	0.504	0.433	0.548	0.586	20.36	4.28	2.16	1.82	0.51	2.54	0.85
Summers, D	0.474	0.385	0.552	0.564	18.78	5.68	1.73	1.55	0.93	3.60	0.48
Williams, T	0.431	0.385	0.459	0.504	14.48	9.92	5.79	2.69	0.91	2.69	2.15
Young, Sam	0.502	0.372	0.552	0.554	23.84	7.77	1.38	1.21	1.04	3.04	0.45
Tucker, Dar	0.390	0.284	0.459	0.446	23.04	6.73	1.87	1.75	0.47	3.50	0.53

I tried to tweak the similarity scores, but they’re still not where I’d like them to be. I’ll continue to include them, but the more I do them the less confidence I have that they mean anything. I think some of the comps are interesting, but be sure to take them with a grain of salt. Like everything else in evaluating prospects, there is no simple way of doing it. The rankings below are in order of how I would draft each player all other things being equal. 

1. Demar Derozan, USC: Sometimes when a player finishes fast it should be taken with a grain of salt. It’s either just a fluky hot streak or an illusion that was created by overly excited ESPN analysts and it developed into some sort of groupthink. Joe Alexander last year was a good example of this. This doesn’t seem to be the case with Derozan. Here are his monthly splits from his frosh season:

Demar Derozan	Adj. FG pct	3 pt pct	P40	R40	A/TO	ASB40
Nov-Dec	.487	.000	16.6	6.9	0.5	3.3
January	.563	.167	16.0	7.0	0.1	2.7
February	.486	.250	12.6	6.4	0.3	2.6
March	.599	.300	23.5	8.4	1.3	4.4

The improvement was across the board and seems to be for real. The Trojans played 7 games in March, with Derozan getting 228 minutes. That and the fact that he was considered a top 10 prospect coming in suggests this is real improvement and not just a hot streak or a small sampling error. This is a player who spent most of the season lost and overwhelmed, but eventually figured things out and it started to click for him.

Despite the improvement, he still has a ways to go as a prospect. The .300 on treys is only on 10 attempts, so he clearly needs a ton of work there. His ASB40 improved from impossibly weak to merely bad. Giving Derozan some benefit of the doubt I’ll treat his March numbers like it was his freshman season. Acknowledging that some players need a little adjustment time and that he was a top prospect coming in I don’t think this is too out of line. Another reason for doing this is it’s the only way to make him look remotely like the prospect he’s been hyped to be. If his March numbers don’t stand up to scrutiny, his season-long numbers certainly won’t. So here’s Derozan’s March and his season totals compared to other major college freshmen SFs who also scored over or close to 20.0 P40:

Player	Adj FG pct.	P40	R40	A/TO	ASB40
Kevin Durant	.536	27.3	11.8	0.5	5.4
Carmelo Anthony	.498	24.4	11.0	1.0	5.1
Lamar Odom	.521	20.2	10.8	1.1	7.1
Jamal Mashburn	.516	21.4	11.5	0.8	5.6
Glenn Robinson	.505	26.8	10.2	0.5	5.5
Corey Maggette	.580	24.0	8.7	0.7	6.0
Cedric Ceballos	.457	25.0	10.4	0.4	3.9
Jalen Rose	.528	21.9	5.4	1.2	6.6
Mike Miller	.560	20.2	8.6	0.8	5.9
Tim Thomas	.506	21.6	7.7	0.7	6.2
James Posey	.573	19.9	11.6	0.7	5.3
Rodney Rogers	.585	21.9	10.6	0.6	5.3
Calbert Cheaney	.608	21.3	5.7	0.9	3.8
Marvin Williams	.545	20.4	11.8	0.5	4.1
Lamond Murray	.500	20.8	9.2	0.9	5.9
Todd Day	.498	22.9	7.0	0.7	6.7
Don McLean	.556	23.1	9.3	0.5	2.4
Jumaine Jones	.506	20.0	11.6	0.5	3.1
Rodney White	.530	24.2	8.4	0.5	4.4
Jess Settles	.603	22.5	11.0	0.7	5.7
Dwayne Morton	.603	20.3	5.5	0.6	4.8
Scotty Thurman	.556	24.3	6.1	1.3	5.6
Chris King	.540	20.5	8.7	0.5	3.8
Doug Edwards	.535	20.0	8.7	0.7	4.9
Cedric Neloms	.468	21.1	5.9	0.4	2.9
Demar Derozan (season)	.531	16.6	6.9	0.7	3.3
Demar Derozan (March)	.600	23.5	8.4	1.3	4.4

The good news for Derozan is that 18 of the 25 players, over 70%, got a fairly significant amount of PT in their careers. The bad news is posting either an ASB40 over 5.0 or a R40 over 10.0 to go with the solid scoring seems to be a pretty important thing and Derozan falls short on both counts. The only player to fall short on both numbers who got significant NBA PT was Calbert Cheaney, who frankly was a pretty poor player for most of his career. Keeping in mind that this is for a 7-game stretch in March, not an entire college season makes Derozan seem like a risky pick if drafted to early, say in the lottery. I don’t think it’s terribly out of line to consider his March numbers to be his real level of ability, but all that does is bring him up to marginal at least by these standards.

I’m going to place him a little above marginal, based on his youth and athleticism. This comparison ignores a real bad 3 month run he had under the assumption that it just took him longer than most to adjust. The fact that it took him that long to adjust is a bad sign as is the fact that his defense didn’t improve much when his offensive game did. What I did like about his March numbers is that he was pretty much unstoppable as a scorer during that time. He scored a lot of points at a very efficient rate and also started feeding his teammates effectively. He did this without the threat of an outside shot to keep defenders more honest. So there’s good and bad news in his March numbers. He tops this weak group based on potential, but any team will get more immediate help from a Williams, Budinger or Cummard. My best guess is that he’ll become one of those players who kicks around the league for awhile. He’ll have some good moments and occasionally appear to be on the cusp of breaking out, but will never quite get there. Despite some impressive flashes, his numbers just don’t look like those of a player who makes a big impact.

Most similar players to Demar Derozan:

Damon Key:                    .860

Tariq Abdul-Wahad:        .828

Malik Sealy:                     .824

Craig Smith:                      .811

Glen Sekunda:                   .806

With no player over .900, there’s not much to be gleaned from this. I used only freshmen in this comp. I suppose it’s good news that 3 of the players made some impact, but I suspect Derozan has bigger goals than what they accomplished.

2. Lee Cummard, BYU: In these analyses, I generally go by statistics and little else. Players who put up better stats are generally better prospects. Cummard has some of the best stats I’ve seen for a SF. His numbers are strong enough to make him a legit sleeper to have an immediate positive impact next year. The reason he’s not being looked at more closely or hyped is he’s 24 and being older in this draft process is never a good thing, because there just isn’t as much upside. Older players have a poor history of success coming out of the draft, even if they post strong numbers. Cummard’s numbers have ranged from solid to excellent during his career:

Lee Cummard	Adj FG pct	P40	R40	A/TO	ASB40
Freshman	.532	13.3	6.3	1.5	7.8
Sophomore	.650	12.9	7.7	1.9	7.0
Junior	.655	19.9	8.0	1.6	6.9
Senior	.564	20.6	7.6	2.1	6.3

The efficiency was down some as a senior, because his 3-pointer was a little off. He had been well over .400 for most of his career, but dropped to .387 as a senior. Even with that Cummard is a solid prospect who’s worth taking a chance on. There isn’t one thing he doesn’t do well. He scores often and efficiently. He’s an excellent passer. His defensive and rebounding numbers are very strong for his position. This isn’t a player who just busted out either. He’s been putting up strong numbers for 4 seasons, so there’s nothing fluky or odd about where he stands. He handled an increased offensive load with ease. The only issue with him is his age, which always has been a tough thing for a prospect to overcome. But that doesn’t mean he can’t play. Any team looking for help should check this guy out. His numbers are better than any SF out there and I’m certain he could step right in and help a NBA team. 

Most similar players to Lee Cummard: 

Chris Williams:                .925

Vinnie Del Negro:            .923

Hersey Hawkins:              .922

Scott Padgett                    .918

Kerry Kittles:                    .898 

Scott Padgett and Hersey Hawkins are similar to the same player? That’s why I say please don’t take these comps too seriously. Consider this a test run and we’ll see if we can’t improve them some next year. What’s not surprising is that there are some good players listed here. Since Cummard is older than most prospects, I used only senior seasons as comps. 

3. Terrence Williams, Louisville: Williams is two different players. The non-scoring player is one of the great all-around SFs ever to play college ball. He can pass like a PG, rebound like a PF and might be the best defender at his position in the draft. At a position where versatility is most important this is a big deal. Then there’s Terrence Williams the scorer. He doesn’t score often and he doesn’t score efficiently. Few players with as weak an offensive game as Williams have ever even got draft consideration, let alone played in the league and made an impact. I want to look at Williams from both angles. First a look at Williams with other major college SFs who have posted an ASB40 over 8.6:

Player	ASB40	Adj FG pct	P40	R40	A/TO
Walt Williams	9.7	.534	16.9	5.6	1.2
Mark Davis	9.4	.524	21.4	10.5	1.3
Luke Walton	9.4	.495	17.1	7.9	1.6
Grant Hill	9.2	.503	19.5	7.7	1.7
Robert Horry	8.9	.520	18.7	10.0	0.9
Rick Fox	8.7	.526	23.6	9.3	1.3
Ron Artest	8.7	.538	16.9	7.3	1.5
Danny Granger	8.6	.589	25.1	11.8	1.0
Chris Daniels	8.6	.540	13.7	9.9	1.5
Jim Jackson	8.6	.536	23.4	6.8	1.3
Terrence Williams	9.4	.504	14.5	9.9	2.2

Hill and Walton actually topped the number more than once, but I’m just showing their career high. Stacey Augmon also made the list, but I left him off because his numbers might have been inflated due to UNLV’s fast pace. First thing to say is this is an impressive group. Other than Davis and Daniels every player listed here has either had a long career or seems on schedule to have one. Hill, Artest and Granger became all-stars. As far as comparing to the others, Williams is a better passer than all and holds his own on the boards. It’s scoring where he falls short. He scored fewer points than every successful player and was more efficient than only Walton and Hill. While this was the most efficient season Williams ever had, both Walton and Hill had better seasons than this.

Williams’ offensive game is sort of an evil twin to the rest of his game. Despite playing big minutes for the past 3 seasons he averages only 11.0 PPG. His FG pct. was under .400 for 2 of 3 seasons before topping out at a mere .431 this year. He rarely gets to the line and hits only 60% of his FTs when he does. The only good thing I can say about his scoring is he upped his 3-point pct. to a respectable .385 as a senior and .363 over his past 2 seasons. Here are some other SFs who have gone on to decent NBA careers after posting a sub-.450 FG pct. as a college senior:

Player	FG Pct	Adj FG pct	P40	R40	A/TO	ASB40
George McCloud	.448	.573	25.6	4.1	1.3	6.9
Luke Walton	.420	.475	15.6	8.1	1.8	9.1
Cedric Henderson	.416	.445	18.6	7.6	0.4	5.1
Eric Williams	.413	.446	20.4	7.7	1.0	5.6
Brian Cardinal	.411	.474	18.9	8.6	1.0	6.2
Rodney Carney	.436	.537	25.3	6.3	0.9	4.8
Terrence Williams	.431	.504	14.5	9.9	2.2	9.4

I used the term “decent” loosely. Basically if the player logged, or is expected to log over 5000 NBA minutes he’s on this list. This group is small and unimpressive. Williams is probably the best all-around player here, but he’s also the worst scorer. Another thing to consider is for most of these players the low FG pct. as a senior represented an off year. McCloud had 2 seasons at .480, Walton .470, Henderson .491, Williams .508 and Cardinal .509. For Williams the .431 is a career high. This table is the bad news part of Williams’ story.

I do think Terrence Williams will manage to carve out a decent NBA career, but at nothing higher than a journeyman level. I guess my feeling is that Luke Walton is probably the most similar player to Williams and if he found a niche in the league, Williams should be able to do the same. He does a lot of things that will help a team and the fact that he’s developed a decent outside shot is a huge deal. If he’s a threat from behind the arc he could excel in a Bowen-type of role, defending the opponent’s best offensive player while offensively just hitting the open trey and not turning the ball over too often. These are all tasks Williams does well, so it’s not hard to see him in such a role at all. Thinking Williams is anything more than a role player is wishful thinking.

Most similar players to Terrence Williams:

Grant Hill, senior:              .896

Donny Boyce, senior:         .866

Steve Woodbury, senior:    .860

Jerryl Sasser, senior:           .856

Brian Evans, senior:            .847

While it’s nice to see Hill’s name at the top, remember that Hill’s senior year was somewhat of an off year for him. More telling might be Boyce and Sasser. Both were also terrific all-around college players who couldn’t shoot straight and neither made a ripple in the league. For what it’s worth, Walton came in at .826. 

4. Chase Budinger, Arizona: The first thing I want to say with Budinger is Arizona could not have been an easy place to play the last 3 seasons. During a promising freshman season he watched a talented, veteran team inexplicably fall apart. His sophomore season saw Lute Olsen, the long-time coach, take a personal leave for a year off the court and Jerryd Bayless, a star freshman, dominate the team on the court. This past year Olsen was forced into retirement and the Wildcats struggled to make the tournament. It was a lot of drama and not much success for a team that had been one of the nation’s powerhouses. Through it all Budinger performed reasonably well and consistently:

Chase Budinger	Adj FG pct	P40	R40	A/TO	ASB40
Freshman	.569	18.3	6.8	1.3	4.1
Sophomore	.526	20.0	6.3	1.2	4.9
Junior	.555	19.3	6.7	1.4	5.6

The numbers are OK. Other than the rebounds being a tad low, there’s nothing in the numbers that screams “failure”. There’s also little that suggests he more than a marginal NBA player. He’s a good scorer and passer, but is still a tad below where a prospect needs to be. Budinger looks like a reserve to me. While he wasn’t in the best of situations, he also never emerged from the shadows at Arizona and took over the team. This is something good prospects are usually able to do. There was always a Marcus Williams, Bayless or Jordan Hill who overshadowed him. I like his athleticism and his numbers are marginally there, but he just hasn’t shown enough that I can say I feel he’ll be more than a reserve. 

Most similar players to Chase Budinger:

Chris Carawell, senior:            .932

Gerald Paddio, senior:              .928

Steve Woodbury, sophomore:  .924

Rodney Monroe, sophomore:   .923

Cuttino Mobley, senior:            .923

5. Omri Casspi, Maccabi Tel Aviv: Casspi is a typical young Euro. He played low minutes in Europe, so there’s little in the way of statistical information on him as a player. From what I can tell in the few hundred minutes of play he got, Casspi has some decent potential as a scorer and defender, but is a poor passer. There’s nothing eye-popping in his stat line and for that reason I doubt he’s anything special.

6. Derrick Brown, Xavier: I decided to put him here instead of with the combo forwards. He has played PF for most of his college career, but that’s not too uncommon for SFs.  He has SF skills. He can shoot the trey, as his .415 career mark on 130 attempts suggests. His rebounding is poor for a PF, but good for an SF. He’s become a decent passer, or at least a guy who doesn’t turn the ball over very often. What’s most impressive about Brown though is his scoring efficiency during his career:

Derrick Brown	Adj FG pct	P40	R40	A/TO	ASB40
Freshman	.725	14.9	9.8	0.7	4.5
Sophomore	.632	15.5	9.3	0.9	5.0
Junior	.562	18.6	8.2	1.1	4.8

He was down a lot this season when he became a bigger part of the offense. It’s not a good sign that he trailed off so much with a bigger scoring load, but .562 is still pretty strong. He should be in the late first round mix for a couple of reasons. He’s shown himself to be a steady, low-mistake player. He also brings good size and wingspan to the position. The rub there is his defensive numbers were only so-so, but a 7’2” wingspan is still impressive. Despite some impressive skills, I can’t say he’s anything more than a borderline prospect. Since he’s never been a big time scorer, it’s very unlikely he’ll become one in the pros, despite the occasionally great efficiency. The weak defensive numbers are a very bad sign. I could see him becoming an energy/intangibles player off the bench, but that’s about all.

Most similar players to Derrick Brown:

Kenny Payne, senior:            .951

Matt Harpring, sophomore:   .948

Antoine Wright, junior:         .940

Glen Rice, junior:                  .930

Chad Prewitt, senior:            .930 

The reason a player like Glen Rice, who is obviously worlds away from Derrick Brown as a prospect, can look similar is they did post similar numbers in every stat other than P40. This system doesn’t pick up on things like a scorer’s mentality all the time. I will say that I could see Brown having success on the level of Matt Harpring as a best case scenario.

7. Josh Shipp, UCLA: Like a lot of NCAA SFs, Shipp is a good scorer, but has struggled to develop a second skill while playing 4 years. He only developed a decent 3-pointer this year, as a 5^th-year senior. Because he drilled them at .433 it’s possible he’s a tad more than “decent” here. He has also shown some decent passing skills at times during his career. But seriously, I’m searching for something good here. This is a player who took a long time to develop and still hasn’t become all that special. This isn’t a case like Damarre Carroll who became one of the best players in the nation as a 5^th-year senior. Shipp merely improved and I would say his chances of making it are pretty small. He’s also short for a SF prospect. I rank him ahead of Young and Summers only because of this new-found ability to hit the 3-pointer at over 40% is real that will help his cause immensely. 

Most similar players to Josh Shipp: 

James White, senior:             .929

Trajan Langdon, senor:         .917

Monte Cummings, senior:     .911

Shannon Brown, junior:        .910

Maurice Ager, senior:            .900 

8. Sam Young, Pittsburgh: Young has been a good scorer, but as the table in the intro shows, scoring 23.8 P40 is just part of the puzzle for a SF prospect. He also should have at least one other skill and Young can’t make such a boast. His biggest flaw is his passing game. The only forwards who have made a big impact with an A/TO of 0.5 were Durant and Robinson. Durant gets a bit of a break because his numbers are for his freshman year. Robinson did everything else better than Young and scored better than just about everyone. Young is a good scorer from both inside and out. That ability might get him some time. But he’s had 4 years to develop some sort of passing or defensive game and his numbers remain weak on both counts. Unless he can make some big improvement in either part of his game, Young seems unlikely to have any impact at the next level. 

Most similar players to Sam Young:

 Bryant Stith, junior:                .923

Marcus Haislip, junior:           .917

Darius Rice, junior:                 .910

Roshown McLeod, junior:      .910

Mario Boggan, junior:             .900 

9. Dejuan Summers, Georgetown: He’s gotten some decent buzz as a strong prospect during his career, because he has some good quickness to go with PF size. But that has yet to translate into the type of production expected from prospects. Basically he’s a big guy with a decent 3-point shot. His rebounding rate is flat out embarrassing for a player his size. His defensive skills are non-existent and he’s a poor passer. He doesn’t even score much. Right now there’s little here to like other than an impressive size/athleticism combo. At some point that ability has to translate into production and that hasn’t happened for Summers in 3 seasons. Any prospect who posts weak numbers on a non-tournament NCAA team, he’s not going to have much impact in the NBA. 

Most similar players to Dejuan Summers: 

Cedric Henderson, junior:           .945

Ronnie Henderson, junior:          .924

Kevin Brooks, sophomore:          .923

James White, senior:                   .906

James Collins, sophomore:           .903 

10. Dar Tucker, DePaul: After his freshman season in 2007-08 Tucker had some promise. He scored a lot of points in lower minutes. The efficiency wasn’t great, but OK for a freshman. He was an above-average rebounder and showed good defense with a high number of steals. This year as a soph, he still posted a high number of steals. Everything else in his game went south. He’s young and is a year removed from being a player of moderate promise. He was one of those players you keep an eye on with the idea he might really take off. Instead of taking off, Tucker regressed. The bad part is this happened when he got starter minutes. Right now he’s not a prospect at all, but a player who needs to get back on the path he was following his freshman year. Drafting Tucker would be taking on a project will little upside. 

Most similar players to Dar Tucker: 

Willie Burton, freshman:                 .950

Ronnie Henderson, freshman:         .929

Cedric Henderson, sophomore:       .923

Felipe Lopez, sophomore:               .923

Drew Schifino, junior:                     .908