Hoops Analyst

This being a relatively new category of prospects, I don’t have the history to draw on that I do with the 5 traditional positions. While I could give the combo standards to pass, like the 7 RSB40 for SGs, the best thing for now might be to look at how well they do the things that are most important. To me that would be showing the ability to play PG in a pinch, good scoring ability and strong defense. While his numbers were pretty awful overall for a guard prospect last year, Daniel Gibson had all three of these things going for him and he ended up playing a prominent role for a team that went to the finals. In contrast, two players who were rated higher: Quincy Douby by me and Randy Foye by everyone else, both struggled, though Foye came on in April.

So with combos I’m going to keep it simple. I’ll look for players who have shown the ability to score often and efficiently, play some PG and defend. Everything else they do will be considered a bonus. I don’t feel any player in this group is a top notch prospect. Stuckey’s the best and there are a few after him who have a shot, but nothing to get too excited about. Here’s a list of the prospects along with the pace-adjusted numbers that would seem to be important. Keep in mind here that players from small conferences need to be dominating, so don’t go too overboard in comparing the numbers of a Stuckey or a Neal to one of the major conference players:

	FGpct	3pct	P40	A40	TO40	A/TO	S40	rsb40	FTA/FGA	PPS
Stuckey, Rodney	0.453	0.267	27.74	6.23	3.82	1.63	2.77	8.38	0.51	1.42
Karl, Coby	0.408	0.370	17.43	4.76	3.69	1.29	0.95	6.47	0.43	1.43
Elliott, Carl	0.406	0.274	15.16	5.64	4.03	1.40	3.04	9.16	0.38	1.18
Stokes, Loren	0.478	0.373	21.98	3.23	2.88	1.12	1.26	7.53	0.50	1.35
Wilson, Jamar	0.454	0.393	21.51	5.52	4.13	1.34	1.39	8.92	0.45	1.35
Dowdell, Zabian	0.462	0.386	20.63	3.69	2.33	1.58	2.47	6.97	0.45	1.39
Raivio, Derek	0.453	0.409	19.49	2.83	2.58	1.10	1.59	4.99	0.37	1.46
Neal, Gary	0.446	0.335	28.60	3.92	2.61	1.50	1.62	6.57	0.37	1.35
Green, Taurean	0.444	0.404	15.83	4.38	3.19	1.37	1.25	4.14	0.48	1.53
Heath, Brandon	0.421	0.352	20.92	3.94	3.42	1.15	2.10	6.34	0.25	1.19
Reynolds, JR	0.429	0.369	21.90	4.36	3.61	1.21	1.04	5.92	0.47	1.39
Funk, Nate	0.478	0.364	21.18	3.58	2.57	1.39	1.48	5.76	0.35	1.38
Curry, JamesOn	0.452	0.411	18.19	3.92	3.27	1.20	1.23	4.88	0.32	1.36
Tatum, Jamaal	0.435	0.408	19.34	3.10	3.02	1.02	1.49	5.28	0.38	1.34
Jackson, Jarrius	0.433	0.436	21.15	1.87	1.47	1.28	1.44	4.94	0.37	1.31

1. Rodney Stuckey, Eastern Washington: Stuckey played PG at Eastern Washington. His numbers were down some his sophomore year, but they were still pretty decent. Mainly down were his shooting percentages. He dropped from .490 and .372 as a freshman, to .453 and .267 as a soph. I suspect there was an injury in there somewhere that affected his outside shot, because he was an ice cold .186 the final 13 games. All his other numbers were pretty similar, except that he was a better passer and he got to the line much more often. I don’t think the low percentages are a huge concern. The fact that he shot .372 on 148 attempts as a freshman and that the .267 as a soph can be explained away by a late season slump says he’ll be OK. That the other numbers stayed strong and even improved in a couple of important areas is more significant to me than the low percentages.

What I want to do with Stuckey is compare him to other recent sophomores and juniors from small and mid-major colleges who scored over 25 P40. Needless to say any guard, point, combo or shooting, who had put up numbers like Stuckey has at EWU at a major college is a top 5 draft pick and likely star. But the lower levels are a different story and since Stuckey plays in the Big Sky, we have to compare him to players from a similar background.

Player	Points40	FG pct.	3-point pct.	Assists40	Steals40	A/TO
Bonzi Wells	28.3	.465	.240	5.6	3.2	1.0
Courtney Alexander	26.7	.469	.316	3.2	2.0	1.1
Brandon Armstrong	26.6	.447	.384	1.8	1.8	0.7
Marcus Brown	28.2	.503	.306	4.2	3.1	2.0
Tony Dumas	25.2	.489	.354	3.8	1.4	1.1
Bubba Wells	29.1	.549	.436	3.2	1.8	1.1
Luis Flores	25.4	.455	.386	3.0	2.0	0.9
Eddie Benton	25.7	.414	.418	4.9	0.5	1.0
Keydren Clark	27.6	.415	.380	4.4	1.8	1.3
Jason Conley	34.3	.463	.325	2.7	3.1	0.6
Chris Davis	27.5	.479	.336	3.0	1.0	0.9
Henry Domercant	32.0	.443	.394	2.7	1.4	0.8
Ricky Minard	25.3	.505	.392	3.6	2.9	1.1
Rodney Stuckey	27.7	.453	.267	6.2	2.8	1.6

If I remember right, some of these players, like Bubba Wells, Jason Conley and Henry Domercant were very much the SF types in college, so comps to them may not be appropriate. Stuckey is definitely a guard. The only player here who experienced any sort of NBA success is Bonzi Wells. Where Stuckey compares to Bonzi is they’re the only 2 with over 5 A40 and a 3-point pct. under .300. Since I’ve already determined Stuckey’s .267 is a fluke, there’s no real close comp on the board. Stuckey is the best passer on the board and one of the better ballhawks. Considering that Stuckey’s the only player here who played PG and his shooting percentages were way down as a soph and probably are better than he showed, I feel comfortable saying that Stuckey is a better prospect at this early point in his career than any player here other than Bonzi Wells. But that doesn’t make him a great prospect. The small college hurdle has historically been a huge thing to get over. Stuckey has gotten noticed and is working out for teams, which is a huge part of it, but he still has a ways to go. I’d feel a little more comfortable about predicting great success for him if he didn’t rebound like a guard. He rebounds well enough that it’s not a problem and it’s not important for a guard to be a great rebounder to begin with, but a 6’5” guard prospect from a small conference needs to dominate that conference in as many ways as possible to make himself into the type of player who can make the jump. If he pulled down a couple more rebounds per game to go with his dominant numbers in steals and scoring, I’d feel better about touting him as a strong prospect.

That small misgiving aside, Stuckey should at the very least become a decent NBA player. He looks like he’s capable of playing either backcourt position, he has shown the ability to score, pass and defend well and he has good size. There could be some transition problems early in his career to the pro game, as he’ll be going from playing a Kobe-LeBron type of role at a much lower level to playing a supporting role where he may not be asked to score much at all. Becaue of this there may be a transition period, so don’t figure on seeing too much of Stuckey until later in 2008. Eventually he’ll probably be good enough to start as either a PG or SG. It could take a season or two to figure out what his best position actually is. He’s a good prospect, easily the best combo this year, but he’ll take some time.

2. Zabian Dowdell, Virginia Tech: Dowdell got his scoring and FG pct. up to the point where he became a pretty decent prospect as a senior. He didn’t play PG, but has averaged over 3 APG for 2 seasons now and his A/TO as a senior was a respectable 1.58, so he has done OK while running the offense part-time. One thing he did as a senior that improved his production and efficiency was he took fewer 3-pointers and took the ball inside more often, with great success. He got to the line a couple more times per game and improved his PPS from 1.17 as a junior to a strong 1.39. Defensively, he’s been over 2 SPG for a couple of seasons now.

All his numbers look good enough, if not spectacular. The RSB40 is at 6.97, which is slightly below the magic number of 7 that is there for SGs, but I’m not sure if that applies for combos. Being around 6.5 didn’t hinder Daniel Gibson much, so for now I’m going to say it isn’t a big deal. Right now the only thing that concerns me is that he looked like a prospect for the first time his senior year. That would be more of a problem if a hot streak had simply upped his FG pct. The increase in FG pct. happened, but it was due to a change in his game where he became more of a penetrator and less of a gunner, so he deserves credit for that.

Dowdell gets a yes on all 3 counts. He can score, play some PG and defend. His numbers aren’t as strong as Stuckey’s, but they’re good enough. I feel he’ll make a roster and has a chance to become a rotation regular.

3. Brandon Heath, San Diego State: Brandon Heath may or may not be a better scorer than he shows. He pumps in a lot of points, but isn’t very efficient. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, it’s better for a guard to score often than efficiently, so this should be looked at as a positive. What I wonder about is Heath launched an awful lot of 3-pointers, almost 8 per game, for a guy who hit only .352. Considering he hit .480 on 2-pointers and is a solid foul shooter, one would think taking it inside more would be a smart move. I don’t like a player who doesn’t play smart, but I say this without much knowledge of how the Aztecs run their offense. The fact that he showed he can score from both inside and outside with reasonable efficiency should be considered a positive. As for the passing, he gets a lot of assists, but his ratio has hovered around 1, because of a high number of TOs. It’s a definite concern and probably precludes him from playing much more than emergency PG in the pros. As a defender he looks good. He gets a lot of steals and he’s more athletic than most prospects.

He’s in the 2^nd round mix. He does the 3 things reasonably well. I don’t like him as much as Dowdell, because he isn’t as efficient as a scorer, but that could also be me going overboard with the importance of efficiency in college players. The fact that Brandon Heath does scoring, defense and PG well enough suggests there’s a place for him in the NBA.

4. Coby Karl, Boise State: Karl’s scoring was down some his senior season in both frequency and efficiency. His P40 was at 17.4 and his FG pct. was .408. Normally such numbers would preclude a prospect from even being considered. In Karl’s case it can be forgiven some, because the Broncos added a couple of more scorers to the roster this year in Reggie Larry and Matt Nelson and played a more balanced offense. Since he had been at 21.1 and .427 as a junior, he’s proven he can hit the necessary scoring levels. Karl was also going through cancer treatment during the season and that can’t be good for a player’s production.

Like many of the players here, Karl does two of the three combo things well, passing and scoring. He was the Bronco’s main passer the last two seasons, averaging over 4 APG and has had a stellar PPS of over 1.40 for 3 consecutive seasons. His defense looks average at best. He averages less than a steal per game for his career, but he does block a lot of shots for a guard. Coby Karl is good enough that he’ll be in the hunt for a final roster spot.

5. Nate Funk, Creighton: Funk’s numbers were different from his great junior season of 2 years ago. I wouldn’t necessarily say down, even though he wasn’t as productive overall. He did look more like a guard and less like a 6’3” guy playing some guard and some forward. A late season slump dropped his 3-point pct. down to .364, but with 2 seasons well over .400, I think it’s safe to say this part of his game is solid. I do worry some about his defense. His 1.2 SPG was his career high and some opposing guards, Matt Lojeski and Marcellus Kemp, torched Creighton pretty good. Funk is a great college scorer, who has some PG ability and experience, but he looks a little weak on defense. I guess two out of three ain’t bad. Funk’s best bet would seem to be getting his shot back to the mid-.400 range he was in as a soph and junior. I doubt he has enough to make it if he’s not a deadly gunner.

6. Jamaal Tatum, Southern Illinois: Tatum is a defender first and foremost. He gave a strong Kansas backcourt fits in a near-upset in the tournament with his aggressive, in-your-face defensive style. Offensively he was weak, but got things going enough as a senior, getting his percentages to .435 and .408. He’s not a great offensive player and won’t even be a good one as a pro, but he does enough. His passing abilities are along the same, just-good-enough-to-get-by line. Tatum’s ticket is defense. His high end is becoming a Randy Brown type. That’s a player who harasses, wears down and is a general pain in the ass for the opposing PG for 10-15 minutes per game. He’s the player who will check into a game in the closing minutes for defensive purposes then come back out when his team gets the ball back.

7. Derek Raivio, Gonzaga: Raivio bounced back from a poor junior year with his best season as a scorer. He played SG, but had been the PG his sophomore year. He posted a respectable 1.46 A/TO, so this is where he fits. Offensively he had been mostly a gunner, taking 64% of his FGAs from behind the arc his first 3 seasons. As a senior that number dropped below 50%, as he took on a larger offensive load. He also was able to get his efficiency back to the impressive levels of his freshman and sophomore seasons. The most impressive thing about him is his ability to hit free throws. He hit 96% as a senior, after being over 90% the previous 2 seasons. From watching him, he’ll never be a shut down defender, but he has averaged over 1.5 SPG for 3 consecutive seasons, which has to be worth something. Raivio is a gunner and a good one. Other than his junior season when he went through a slump, his efficiency has been great. It didn’t skip a beat when he stepped up his scoring as a senior. The competition is tough at the pro level, but as good a shooter as Raivio is, I think he can probably find a spot.

8. Jarrius Jackson, Texas Tech: Jackson didn’t play much PG as a senior, averaging on 1.8 APG. I still think this is the place for him though. He was the PG as a sophomore, but last year Martin Zeno took over the bulk of the playmaking duties and by the time Jackson was a senior he seemed to be concentrating on scoring. He did keep his A/TO above 1 though and that’s impressive. Jackson could score a variety of ways in college. He was consistently around 44-45% from behind the arc and he knew how to get to the line. He wasn’t wildly efficient, but his numbers were good enough.

He seems to be slipping as a prospect, because I haven’t seen his name pop up in any of the camp reports. I don’t follow those things real close, but I like to keep tabs. As a prospect he’s not much more than a gunner, but considering he has some PG abilities, plays decent defense, rarely turns the ball over and has been a consistently terrific 3-point shooter, I would think there’s a place for him somewhere. No immediate impact, but he could surface somewhere down the line.

9. JamesOn Curry, Oklahoma State: Curry was a decent enough scorer, averaging .411 from behind the arc and .452 over all. His per game numbers look a little better than they are, because he played 37 minutes per game. While his 17.3 PPG looks good, the P40 of 18.2 isn’t all that impressive. As for the other important combo things, Curry is good enough to play some PG, but certainly not full-time. He was the PG at OSU, but was always more of a scorer than a passer. Defensively he looks weak. He doesn’t do any of the 3 things a good defender needs to do. I just don’t see that Curry offers enough to make it. He’s a good scorer, but not good enough that his weak defensive game can be ignored.

10. Carl Elliott, George Washington: Elliott is one of the better defenders around. He’s big and has averaged over 2 SPG all four college seasons. He’s run the point for the Colonials and he has hit a high of .469 on FGs and .438 on 3-pointers. The problem is he didn’t do much scoring as a senior: 12.9 PPG, .406 and .275. Going into the season it looked like the perfect time for him to step up and make himself a prospect. That he has had moments of efficiency as a scorer is good. That he struggled when asked to be the team’s main scorer isn’t so good.

That leaves a defensive specialist. He looks like he could be a good one too. At 6’4” 220, he would seem to have the size to cover most any perimeter player and some SFs, though quickness could become an issue since he’s pretty big. He’s one of the better ballhawks in college and is a decent passer, but probably only an emergency PG. If he isn’t asked to do too much offensively, he could probably hit a decent percentage of open treys. That combined with what looks potentially great defense makes him a decent candidate to find a role somewhere. He’s not anywhere on the radar right now, so his road will be a little longer than most.

11. Taurean Green, Florida: Green looks somewhat like a player who landed in the right place at the right time. His numbers look pretty good, at least efficiency-wise. He got his FG pct. up to .444 and the 3-point mark to .404. What aided the improvement is he wasn’t asked to run the offense as much as he did in the past, just do his job within it. Florida’s big 3 all helped out in the playmaking and this helped Green become a better scorer and a better prospect.

This is a good thing, because he’s a more productive player. But it’s not such a good thing for his prospect status, because at his size he probably needs to play PG and he wasn’t all that impressive as more of a pure PG his first two seasons. As a soph he was a poor scorer, hitting only .366 on FGs. This year, with fewer PG responsibilities, he was a pretty good shooter, but still only scored 13.3 PPG. I know the team was full of great scorers and it’s a different situation than most college teams, but the fact that his only impressive scoring year came as a role player doesn’t answer the question of whether or not he could have been a averaged close to 20 PPG while hitting close to 45% of his shots if he were in a different situation. Nor has he proven he’s much of a college PG.

I have trouble believing he can be that player. I don’t see him as the scorer most of these players are and he hasn’t proven he’s a standout defender either. He’s enough of a passer to handle the combo, but doesn’t look like he could be a pure PG. For Green to make it, he’s going to have to get himself into the right place at the right time, again.

12. JR Reynolds, Virginia: Reynolds played SG at Virginia, but like Dowdell he handled some of the distributing duties and posted a solid A/TO of 1.21 while playing next to another combo, Sean Singletary. The most impressive thing about Reynolds is he can be an explosive scorer. He dropped 40 on Wake Forest and averaged 27 in 2 tournament games. Like his teammate Singletary, he was able to get to the line at a higher rate this past year, which improved his efficiency to an impressive 1.39 PPS. That said, his percentages are on the low side. The .429 and .369 he posted this past season as a senior were the highest since his freshman year, when he averaged only 9.4 PPG. His .369 on treys drops to .336, if you take out consecutive games in late January when he was a combined 11-16. He also averages less than 1 SPG, which suggests his defense may not be up to what’s needed.

While Reynolds had some good moments as a senior, the entire package he offers isn’t all that impressive. His scoring abilities were impressive at times, but overall erratic. That’s fine for a freshman or sophomore, but not so good for a 4^th-year senior. His defensive numbers are unimpressive and he wasn’t the lead PG. While he might latch on in the right situation, I can’t see him making a huge impact. I’d rather take my chances with one of the small college guys, Stokes or Wilson. With them there’s at least a little intrigue. With Reynolds I can pretty much say he won’t make it.

13. Jamar Wilson, Albany: Wilson led his Albany team to a couple of NCAA tournament appearances. He led the Danes in scoring rebounding and assists. He has PG size at 6’1”, but was more of a scorer than a distributor in college. His biggest problem as a PG was TOs. Over the past 3 seasons his A/TO improved from 0.94 to 1.07 and 1.34 this past year as a senior. Improvement is good, but getting an A/TO up to 1.34, hardly signals the next John Stockton. He’s a great scorer who dominated the American East at a level that suggests he can make the leap. His FG pct. has been at .454 for 2 consecutive seasons. He gets to the line better than most guards, which makes him a much more efficient scorer than the average guard. Defensively his numbers aren’t great, but his high number of rebounds for a 6’1” player and his dominant scoring suggests he has the necessary athleticism.

Wilson’s battle to make the NBA will be tough. I’d like him a lot better if he had shot around 45% from behind the arc rather than the 39% he hit. But he can score, he can play some PG and he appears athletic enough to play decent defense. Those are the 3 important combo skills and if he keeps flashing them in the minor leagues, he could eventually get a call.

14. Gary Neal, Towson: For Neal it might be a good idea to refer to the table in the Stuckey comment and plug in his numbers.  Neal is another small college scoring machine. His numbers are: 28.6 P40, .446, .335, 3.9 A40, 1.6 S40 and 1.50 A/TO. I should note that Neal did this as a senior and the others listed are sophomores and juniors. He looks more in the Domercant mold than anything. It hurts him that he only hit .335 on treys and that he didn’t dominate in a small conference in anything other than scoring. He’s a long shot. I mention him because he can score and has some distributing abilities. Gary Neal was a great college player, but looks like one of those players who will be forgotten everywhere except the Towson Tigers record book.

Read more →

For the PGs the important standards seem to be as follows: A FG pct. of .450, 18.0 P40, 5.0 A40 and 6.5 RSB40. Unlike SGs, it seems that the better a PG does in each one of these categories, the better he plays as a pro. Of particular importance seems to be a high number of assists. The 5.0 A40 number I tossed up there is more of a minimum. The best pro PGs racked up at least 7 assists per 40 minutes in college. Scoring isn’t as important as it is for the other positions, but scoring efficiently is. Put simply, a good PG has to be able to knock down a shot often enough to keep the defense honest. A low FG pct. in a college PG coupled with a high P40 is the sign of a mad bomber. Two other things that are important are an ability to get to the line and an ability to hit 3-pointers. Getting to the line goes with efficient scoring. As far as 3-point shooting, it seems more important to have a minimal ability, at least .333, moreso than hitting a real high pct. This is important, as noted in the Rajon Rondo comment last year.

Like the SGs, the RSB is somewhat important. I lowered their level to 6.5 per 40. That isn’t a hard and fast thing though, like the 7.0 seems to be for SGs. Steve Nash was over 6.5 only once in college, but he might be a special case as a late bloomer. Deron Williams was also an exception to this rule. Williams’ success this past year has me wondering if I need to tie team success into the PG ratings somehow. I’m not quite sure how I’d do something like that, but it’s something to be looked at for PGs in the future.

This is a weak class overall. Conley looks pretty good and some of the others have potential, but it’s not up to the level of recent classes and the depth is pretty poor. There’s very little in the way of prospects I would call mildly intriguing after the 11 listed here. For that reason, and because of some time constraints, I decided not to waste time ranking the likes of Mike Nardi, Vernon Hamilton and Will Franklin. One reason this group is thin is some of pretty good PGs, Ty Lawson and Darren Collison to name the two most prominent, stayed in college another year. Both should be hot items at this time next year.

Freshmen PG Prospects	FG Pct.	3 Pct.	P40	A40	A/TO	RSB40	FTA40
Mike Conley	.518	.304	14.6	7.9	2.8	7.7	4.8
All-Stars	.459	.353	17.8	6.1	1.5	7.8	5.5
Javaris Crittenton	.450	.356	17.8	7.1	1.5	7.2	5.3
Rotation Regulars	.412	.338	13.4	6.0	1.6	6.8	4.2
Journeymen	.418	.328	15.6	6.1	1.6	6.3	4.4
Never Played	.410	.358	14.0	5.3	1.5	5.9	4.5

Junior PG Prospects	FG Pct.	3 Pct.	P40	A40	A/TO	RSB40	FTA40
All-Stars	.485	.399	19.4	7.0	1.9	8.1	4.9
Ramon Sessions	.452	.380	16.2	6.2	1.9	7.7	5.6
Rotation Regulars	.440	.379	18.2	6.1	1.7	6.9	5.1
Journeymen	.429	.358	17.3	5.8	1.7	6.6	4.7
Gabe Pruitt	.416	.350	15.1	5.3	2.4	5.9	4.0
Never Played	.428	.376	16.8	5.3	1.6	6.8	4.5

Senior PG Prospects	FG Pct.	3 Pct.	P40	A40	A/TO	RSB40	FTA40
All-Stars	.460	.370	20.7	5.9	1.6	7.5	5.2
Acie Law IV	.500	.458	21.3	5.9	1.9	5.3	6.4
Rotation Regulars	.452	.375	19.1	6.0	1.7	7.3	5.5
Jamon Gordon	.461	.268	14.4	5.7	2.0	9.9	3.9
Mustafa Shakur	.455	.325	13.2	7.7	1.9	6.4	4.9
Aaron Brooks	.460	.404	19.5	4.7	1.7	6.4	4.3
Bobby Brown	.468	.388	22.0	5.6	1.4	4.4	4.6
Journeymen	.435	.375	18.9	5.9	1.8	6.7	5.2
Never Played	.426	.370	17.3	5.4	1.7	6.6	4.8

1. Mike Conley Jr, Ohio State: Conley does just about everything a PG should. He can pass without turning the ball over too often, score and defend. His non-scoring numbers far exceed the average frosh PGs of the past who reached any level of success in the NBA. He led his team to the national title game and was probably their best player for most of the tournament.  The only issue I might have with Conley as a pro would be his scoring ability. It’s not uncommon for freshmen PGs not to score much, but his 14.6 P40 is on the low side for a prospect. There’s also the outside shooting to think about. Conley hit only .304 on treys. That might be enough, but it’s pretty low. NBA PGs have to be able to hit the outside shot often enough to keep the defense honest. They don’t necessarily need to be deadly, just good enough. Conley’s .304 is right on that line. I’ll throw a couple of tables up that might better illustrate where Conley stands and whether the scoring is going to be a problem.

Mike Conley Jr.	Games	Minutes	3-point pct.	P40
Non-Conference Games	13	362	.211	13.9
Conference Games	20	651	.368	13.9
Tournament Games	6	218	.250	18.0

The conference games include a matchup with Tennessee that occurred in the middle of the Big 10 schedule. The good thing for Conley is he became a better 3-point shooter as the year progressed. I wouldn’t say we can declare him OK here, because he attempted only 69 treys over the course of the season, but this is encouraging. More important is the fact he became a strong scorer when his team needed him to be, in the tournament. The 18.0 includes the opening game against Central Connecticut, where he scored only 4 points in 28 minutes of a rout. So the 18.0 is probably a little low. This is impressive for two reasons. First it proves he can score when called upon. He did it against the best of the best in at the NCAA level. Next it shows he’s perfectly willing to be a pass-first PG, because during the season he was more concerned with running the offense and setting up teammates than he was with scoring.

Read more →

One thing I found looking at past SGs is that it’s more important for them to reach certain levels of performance in a number of stats rather than excel in one or two particular areas. Specifically there are four numbers that seem to be important for SG prospects to reach: A FG pct. of at least .420, a P40 of 20, an A/TO of at least 0.8 and a combined rebounds, steals and blocks per 40 minutes of at least 7. While it’s great if the player excels in any one of these four areas, it’s been historically more important that they simply meet these 4 standards.

Scoring seems to be of greatest importance and quantity matters more than quality. This is a hard concept for a stathead like myself to wrap his head around, that the moderately-efficient scoring machine is a better prospect than the smart, efficient scorer who doesn’t score as often, but never takes a bad shot. But that’s the way it’s been. I’m guessing the ability to get open and off a lot of shots, particularly when the entire opposing team is keying on this player, is a sign of NBA-level athleticism and the fact that the player was able to get off the shots is more important than hitting a real high percentage of them. The RSB40 also points to a prospect’s athleticism. SG prospects with a RSB40 below 7.0 simply don’t make it. There are very few exceptions to this. Some of the more prominent SG busts, Shawn Respert, Trajan Langdon, Jarvis Hayes and Reece Gaines were all below 7.0 and J.J. Reddick, who I won’t call a bust yet but seems on track for such, posted a ridiculously low RSB40. There is some leeway given to freshmen and sophomores in this area, but not much.

Read more →

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.

Read more →