As promised, I am using my value rating system to determine the best players in the recent years of the NBA. Before I get into it, a couple of definitions.
First, recent. By recent I mean the 2000’s. For the ratings that follow, I am exclusively using the 1999-2000 through 2006-2007 seasons. So Michael Jordan, for the purposes of this list, played only two seasons, both for Washington. This is the cutoff point because so far, that is all I have calculated. I decided after the lockout season was a good cutoff point for now.
Second, best. Is it a measure of how dominant a player was in his prime? Of how long his prime lasted? Of how long he lasted?
Probably a combination. Borrowing heavily from Bill James’ system in the Historical Baseball Abstract, I have defined three measures, using my Value Score (VS) system.
(1) Total Value Score.
(2) Value Score per 82 games.
(3) Value Score of Best 3 Consecutive Seasons
The first two measures consider a player’s entire body of work over the time period. The overall total rewards durability and consistency, and also encourages conservative ratings for young players who may only have a few years. The per-82 rewards pure quality, ignoring injuries or youth. The top 3 seasons is in there to measure how good the player was at his best. By the way, if someone hasn’t played three seasons, their total is still divided by three. I don’t want to get too far ahead of myself on rating rookies and sophs.
I drew the line for consideration at any player who had reached a Value Score of 20 or greater in any of the eight seasons. 119 players fit this criterion. Once I had this pool of players, I normalized each of the three categories, to ensure the three dimensions were weighted equally. By adding up the z-scores by player, I determined my 100 Top Players of the 2000s.
One more thing. Value Scores are only for the regular season, but greatness is often defined in the playoffs. How does that factor in? I made adjustments for the postseason, both up and down. For example, in the 2006-2007 season, the Spurs were the highest adjusted team, credited with 11 extra wins for winning the NBA title. The Mavericks had the largest negative change, penalized 6 wins for their first-round loss to Golden State. Players on teams which missed the playoffs receive no adjustments. I didn’t decide on this method until after I coded the list, so it’s only up for the top 20. So just imagine somebody like Tony Parker is a few spots higher than he is.
Oh yeah, one absolute final last thing. There are a couple players who haven’t ever broken 20 VS, but whose consistency should put them in the top 100 anyway. Unfortunately, they got sorted out, and I don’t feel like looking back through to make sure I catch everybody, so for now I’ll just extend my apologies to Shane Battier, Mike Miller, and probably some others. If your favorite solid player didn’t make the list, that’s probably why.
Any more questions? OK then, here’s the chart, with some notes afterward (if the chart appears in an awkward format, sorry. I am working on it):
# Fname Lname
1 Kevin Garnett
2 Tim Duncan
3 Shaquille O'Neal
4 Jason Kidd
5 Dirk Nowitzki
6 LeBron James
7 Kobe Bryant
8 Steve Nash
9 Tracy McGrady
10 Ben Wallace
11 Shawn Marion
12 Gary Payton
13 Allen Iverson
14 Dwyane Wade
15 Chauncey Billups
16 Paul Pierce
17 Karl Malone
18 Stephon Marbury
19 Elton Brand
20 Chris Webber
21 Ray Allen
22 Vince Carter
23 John Stockton
24 Andre Miller
25 Steve Francis
26 Gilbert Arenas
27 Sam Cassell
28 Mike Bibby
29 Rasheed Wallace
30 Antoine Walker
31 Baron Davis
32 Lamar Odom
33 Pau Gasol
34 Jason Terry
35 Tony Parker
36 Andrei Kirilenko
37 Jermaine O'Neal
38 Marcus Camby
39 Michael Finley
40 Brad Miller
41 Dwight Howard
42 Yao Ming
43 Predrag Stojakovic
44 David Robinson
45 Jerry Stackhouse
46 Shareef Abdur-Rahim
47 Eddie Jones
48 Rashard Lewis
49 Anthony Mason
50 Chris Paul
51 Jamal Mashburn
52 Chris Bosh
53 Brent Barry
54 Richard Jefferson
55 Dikembe Motombo
56 Terrell Brandon
57 Darrell Armstrong
58 Manu Ginobili
59 Kirk Hinrich
60 Antwan Jamison
61 Latrell Sprewell
62 Reggie Miller
63 Jalen Rose
64 PJ Brown
65 Jason Williams
66 Amare Stoudamire
67 Damon Stoudamire
68 Nick Van Exel
69 Eric Snow
70 Doug Christie
71 Vlade Divac
72 Joe Johnson
73 Donyell Marshall
74 Carlos Boozer
75 Wally Szczerbiak
76 Michael Redd
77 Mehmet Okur
78 Tayshaun Prince
79 Andre Iguodala
80 Jason Richardson
81 Ron Artest
82 Scottie Pippen
83 Glenn Robinson
84 Antonio Davis
85 Allan Houston
86 Carmelo Anthony
87 Josh Howard
88 Derek Anderson
89 Mark Jackson
90 Luol Deng
91 Larry Hughes
92 Tyson Chandler
93 Rafer Alston
94 Alonzo Mourning
95 Drew Gooden
96 Grant Hill
97 Zach Randolph
98 Tim Hardaway
99 Brian Grant
100 Udonis Haslem
#1 All right. Garnett over Duncan? I can explain. There are five points I want to stress in regards to that decision.
1. It was very close.
2. The system rewards peak performance, and Garnett’s peak is the highest of the decade. KG used to win a lot of games with a minimal supporting cast. Consider that Minnesota won 58 games with Trenton Hassell, Fred Hoiberg and Mark Madsen in key roles. Or, better yet, they won 51 games the year before with Troy Hudson as the second best player on the team.
3. Durability played a role. Not that Duncan isn’t reliable, but Garnett averaged more than 80 games a season over the eight years, including six straight of 81 or more.
4. Over the course of their careers overall, Duncan would/will probably be ahead of Garnett. Remember, the Spurs won the title the year before the study began, and Duncan is slightly better than Garnett right now.
5. Don’t forget, it was very close.
I do not think there is much of an argument they should not be the top two.
#3 Shaq outdoes everyone outside those two, despite his recent injuries and the fact that a substantial portion of his prime came in the previous decade. Considering what a force of nature he was at his best, I think this is reasonable.
#7 That ranking also makes this one reasonable. There should be little doubt, really, that Kobe Bryant was the sidekick on the Lakers’ championship teams. Look at how far Shaq helped carry the Florida teams both before and since. After Shaq, Kobe has really performed as just another gunner, not good enough to carry a weak supporting cast much over .500. As far as the regular season is concerned, there isn't much evidence to put him ahead of Tracy McGrady, and even Kobe’s playoff success is tempered by the fact that during those runs, the best player on his team was somebody else. In contrast, there has rarely been a question of the best player on Kidd and Nowitzki’s teams, and there has been absolutely no question on LeBron’s. All of these teams have won a bunch of games and made a Finals appearance, which is far more than the post-Shaq Lakers can say. Also, while he is undoubtedly not as big a factor as Kobe, Lamar Odom’s contributions to the current Lakers are underestimated. The rumored Jermaine O’Neal trade, giving up Odom and Bynum, would not have been wise.
#11 I think it is worth noting that Shawn Marion was an established star even in the B.N. era. Nash is a great player, and fun to watch, but Marion has been almost as indispensable to these Suns. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened had he gone elsewhere.
#13 Iverson would have cracked the top ten if he could stay healthy a little better.
#17, #23 The fact that both of these Utah guys made the Top 25, in just five and four seasons at the end of their careers, shows how amazing they were.
#36 Kirilenko will be an interesting one to follow. His 03-04 through 05-06 seasons were worthy of a rising superstar, but last year was a major hiccup. If he finds his form, the Jazz will be extremely good for the foreseeable future.
#41 Not quite the trajectory of LeBron and Wade, but Howard will push the edges of the top 25 with another season like last year in 2007-08.
#50 Speaking of trajectory…let me tell you how good Chris Paul’s rookie year was. Not better than LeBron’s, Carmelo’s, or Wade’s. Not better than Howard’s, or Okafor’s, or Deron Williams’, or anybody’s. Not better; better. A LOT better. If not for injury, he would have had the best first two years of anyone in the sample; as it is he trails only King James. In short, this guy should never have fallen to fourth.
#66, #81 In fairness to Mr. Stoudamire, I should probably have counted 04-05 and 06-07 as consecutive seasons, considering he only played two games in between due to the knee injury. This would raise him about ten spots on the list. If I skipped over the Artest suspended season, it would have a smaller but similar effect. But since he decided to do that right as he and the Pacers were on their way up, that whole idea is a lot more speculative.
#72, #76, #83, #85, #86, #91 Proof that the system expects some quality supporting numbers to go with the points.
#92 Proof that the system does appreciate the numbers other than the points.
#105 Not listed, but this is the position MJ earned for his two Wizards’ seasons.
In the future, I hope to expand these ratings back into the 1990’s, and beyond.
Showing posts with label basketball. Show all posts
Showing posts with label basketball. Show all posts
Monday, August 6, 2007
On the best 100 NBA players of the 2000s (NBA)
On the Statistical Rating of Basketball Players (NBA)
As some of you may remember, I once posted on my old site a rating of the greatest baseball players of all time, by position. As some fewer of you, such as my grandfather, may remember, I never finished posting it. This is because I got bored, because was basically just updating the results from my Bill James book to account for people like Albert Pujols, who were not yet established when that book came out.
Well, this is something new. In a lifetime of trying to make up statistical ratings for baseball and then basketball players, I think this one represents a major breakthrough. The inspiration for these ratings came from a study I did on assists, and from some ideas in baseball player evaluation.
Baseball has a statistic called VORP. This stands for Value Over Replacement Player, which is pretty self-explanatory. The idea is that a player’s value isn’t measured from zero or from average, but from the edge of the major leagues. Basically, how much better is a guy than the next guy the team could bring up (practically) for free from Triple-A? For the categories I am discussing, I have estimated the replacement level empirically from the statistics of end-of-the-bench NBA players.
Anyway, basketball statistics can be measured in this fashion. I considered the standard statistics: points, rebounds, assists, blocks, steals, turnovers, fouls, and shooting efficiency, and then I jumped through a few hoops to determine the proper weights for the relationship between them. Most of it is pretty straightforward, but here are two things that I have handled differently than is usually seen:
First, scoring and assists. Using assists and shooting percentages, I mathematically estimated the effect of a Good Pass on shooting efficiency. A Good Pass is defined to be a pass that will be credited as an assist if the ensuing shot is made. I also estimated the number of Good Passes made and received by each player.
This has two benefits. First, by determining the effect on points per shot, we can calculate exactly how valuable a Good Pass is. Secondly, by determining the number of Good Passes received, we can set a different boundary for replacement scoring efficiency for every individual player. For example, not only can we credit Steve Nash for creating easy shots for his teammates, but we can also credit him for not having the ability to receive passes from himself. In general, this compensates guards for creating their own shots, something many statistical measurements do not.
Second, turnovers. Many statistical systems subtract absolute turnovers, which is also biased against guards. Given the amount of time he spends with the ball in his hands, a point guard with three turnovers in a game has almost certainly protected the ball better than a center with two. My solution is to consider turnovers as a percentage of possessions. Since the vast majority of possessions end in a shot or a turnover, this is easy to calculate. However, the point is to recognize those who handle the ball, not those who take a lot of shots. If a guard drives and kicks the ball to an open shooter, it is really the passer, not the shooter, who avoided a turnover on the play. So the number of player possessions, for these purposes, is: Turnovers + Shots + Good Passes Made – Good Passes Received.
Now, after combining each player’s contributions in all areas, I had a choice to determine what to do with the ensuing raw scores. One method is to normalize for pace, and then rate players on some sort of per-minute basis directly from that point. This is a perfectly good way to go about things.
However, I chose to borrow another baseball idea. Bill James introduced the concept of Win Shares, which directly relate player success to team wins. If the New York Yankees win 90 games, their players are credited with exactly 270 Win Shares. I think the explicit correlation of team success to player value is a good method.
However, my number—which I’m for the moment calling a Value Score (VS), although I am declaring open season for a catchier name—is not directly analogous to a Win Share. James goes through a lot of trouble to show that Win Shares are not biased toward players on good or bad teams; if a player gets traded from the Red Sox to the Royals or vice versa, his Win Shares won’t be biased. In basketball, where there is much more interaction between players, I did not find that to be true. So in my system, a 60 win team will have a higher total Value Score than a 30 win team, but it will not be not twice as large. It will be closer to one and a half.
I did keep the numbers in the general ballpark of Win Shares, so the following intuition that baseball stat geeks may already know will still hold. A 10 VS season indicates a player is a solid starter, a 20 VS season denotes a minor star, a 30 VS player will be an All-Star and tends to be in the MVP discussion, and a 40 VS player is probably the best player in the league.
This system passes three important tests. First, as mentioned above, a player’s rating does not change excessively when he moves to a team of greater or lesser quality. This is consistent with the idea that the number captures a player’s inherent value. Second, the system is fair to players at all positions. Because of the ambiguity that comes from the majority of players who play multiple spots, I like to divide players into four classifications: guard (PG/SG), swingman (SG/SF), forward (SF/PF), and post (PF/C). (Note: The assigned position has no effect on ranking players, but only for my own organizational purposes. You could use whatever designation you like without changing the numbers). In the eight seasons for which I have ratings, 117 players have had at least one season of a 20 or higher VS. Of these, 32 were guards, 31 swingmen, 29 forwards and 25 posts. Third, the system provides results that are generally consistent with observed excellence.
I would also like to contrast this method of player evaluation with two notable statistical measures: John Hollinger’s Player Efficiency Rating, and Wins Produced, created by the authors of the sports economics book The Wages of Wins.
The Wages of Wins’ method is based on regression analysis, and the statistics are weighted to maximize the relationship of the statistics to team wins. This is perfect in baseball offense, wherein players each bat with the intent of maximizing production and minimizing outs, and—this is important—take turns hitting. But in basketball, in which anyone can take any shot, the application of team logic to player logic is not quite as effective. Yes, the team wants to maximize its shooting percentage, but the team doesn’t maximize its shooting percentage by maximizing every player’s shooting percentage. Rather, it accomplishes this by taking its best option each possession. On a possession when the team cannot get an easy shot at all, the best scorers on the team will be disproportionately likely to take that difficult shot.
Consider this analogy. Suppose, in baseball, a team could reset its lineup before the ninth inning of a close game. A team would obviously choose to bat its best hitters against the opposing closer (ace reliever), which would then lower their batting averages. So the team batting average would be maximized, but the best hitters’ individual averages would not be maximized. We might still want to measure the best hitters by batting average, but since there is self-selection, we would also have to adjust for total at-bats.
The Wages of Wins does not make this adjustment. Therefore, while I agree with the authors’ conclusions in general, which is that players who score a lot tend to be overrated, I think their system overcompensates away from scorers. In short, I agree that Allen Iverson was not really the best player in the league in his MVP season, but I do not believe there were 90 better players in the NBA that year.
My differences with John Hollinger’s PER system are more philosophical than technical. His is a per-minute system, thus measuring efficiency. My system examines aggregates. If two players of apparently similar effectiveness receive significant differences in playing time, PER is the way to see their production matches. My system rewards the greater number of minutes, which limits its versatility but does allow it to credit players who play more minutes than their stats would seem to justify, such as defensive stoppers. With PER, you just have to know.
Also, both systems I have mentioned examine absolute turnovers as discussed above, rather than crediting players who always have the ball in their hands.
In my next post, I am going to look at the NBA’s best recent players, according to the VS system.
Well, this is something new. In a lifetime of trying to make up statistical ratings for baseball and then basketball players, I think this one represents a major breakthrough. The inspiration for these ratings came from a study I did on assists, and from some ideas in baseball player evaluation.
Baseball has a statistic called VORP. This stands for Value Over Replacement Player, which is pretty self-explanatory. The idea is that a player’s value isn’t measured from zero or from average, but from the edge of the major leagues. Basically, how much better is a guy than the next guy the team could bring up (practically) for free from Triple-A? For the categories I am discussing, I have estimated the replacement level empirically from the statistics of end-of-the-bench NBA players.
Anyway, basketball statistics can be measured in this fashion. I considered the standard statistics: points, rebounds, assists, blocks, steals, turnovers, fouls, and shooting efficiency, and then I jumped through a few hoops to determine the proper weights for the relationship between them. Most of it is pretty straightforward, but here are two things that I have handled differently than is usually seen:
First, scoring and assists. Using assists and shooting percentages, I mathematically estimated the effect of a Good Pass on shooting efficiency. A Good Pass is defined to be a pass that will be credited as an assist if the ensuing shot is made. I also estimated the number of Good Passes made and received by each player.
This has two benefits. First, by determining the effect on points per shot, we can calculate exactly how valuable a Good Pass is. Secondly, by determining the number of Good Passes received, we can set a different boundary for replacement scoring efficiency for every individual player. For example, not only can we credit Steve Nash for creating easy shots for his teammates, but we can also credit him for not having the ability to receive passes from himself. In general, this compensates guards for creating their own shots, something many statistical measurements do not.
Second, turnovers. Many statistical systems subtract absolute turnovers, which is also biased against guards. Given the amount of time he spends with the ball in his hands, a point guard with three turnovers in a game has almost certainly protected the ball better than a center with two. My solution is to consider turnovers as a percentage of possessions. Since the vast majority of possessions end in a shot or a turnover, this is easy to calculate. However, the point is to recognize those who handle the ball, not those who take a lot of shots. If a guard drives and kicks the ball to an open shooter, it is really the passer, not the shooter, who avoided a turnover on the play. So the number of player possessions, for these purposes, is: Turnovers + Shots + Good Passes Made – Good Passes Received.
Now, after combining each player’s contributions in all areas, I had a choice to determine what to do with the ensuing raw scores. One method is to normalize for pace, and then rate players on some sort of per-minute basis directly from that point. This is a perfectly good way to go about things.
However, I chose to borrow another baseball idea. Bill James introduced the concept of Win Shares, which directly relate player success to team wins. If the New York Yankees win 90 games, their players are credited with exactly 270 Win Shares. I think the explicit correlation of team success to player value is a good method.
However, my number—which I’m for the moment calling a Value Score (VS), although I am declaring open season for a catchier name—is not directly analogous to a Win Share. James goes through a lot of trouble to show that Win Shares are not biased toward players on good or bad teams; if a player gets traded from the Red Sox to the Royals or vice versa, his Win Shares won’t be biased. In basketball, where there is much more interaction between players, I did not find that to be true. So in my system, a 60 win team will have a higher total Value Score than a 30 win team, but it will not be not twice as large. It will be closer to one and a half.
I did keep the numbers in the general ballpark of Win Shares, so the following intuition that baseball stat geeks may already know will still hold. A 10 VS season indicates a player is a solid starter, a 20 VS season denotes a minor star, a 30 VS player will be an All-Star and tends to be in the MVP discussion, and a 40 VS player is probably the best player in the league.
This system passes three important tests. First, as mentioned above, a player’s rating does not change excessively when he moves to a team of greater or lesser quality. This is consistent with the idea that the number captures a player’s inherent value. Second, the system is fair to players at all positions. Because of the ambiguity that comes from the majority of players who play multiple spots, I like to divide players into four classifications: guard (PG/SG), swingman (SG/SF), forward (SF/PF), and post (PF/C). (Note: The assigned position has no effect on ranking players, but only for my own organizational purposes. You could use whatever designation you like without changing the numbers). In the eight seasons for which I have ratings, 117 players have had at least one season of a 20 or higher VS. Of these, 32 were guards, 31 swingmen, 29 forwards and 25 posts. Third, the system provides results that are generally consistent with observed excellence.
I would also like to contrast this method of player evaluation with two notable statistical measures: John Hollinger’s Player Efficiency Rating, and Wins Produced, created by the authors of the sports economics book The Wages of Wins.
The Wages of Wins’ method is based on regression analysis, and the statistics are weighted to maximize the relationship of the statistics to team wins. This is perfect in baseball offense, wherein players each bat with the intent of maximizing production and minimizing outs, and—this is important—take turns hitting. But in basketball, in which anyone can take any shot, the application of team logic to player logic is not quite as effective. Yes, the team wants to maximize its shooting percentage, but the team doesn’t maximize its shooting percentage by maximizing every player’s shooting percentage. Rather, it accomplishes this by taking its best option each possession. On a possession when the team cannot get an easy shot at all, the best scorers on the team will be disproportionately likely to take that difficult shot.
Consider this analogy. Suppose, in baseball, a team could reset its lineup before the ninth inning of a close game. A team would obviously choose to bat its best hitters against the opposing closer (ace reliever), which would then lower their batting averages. So the team batting average would be maximized, but the best hitters’ individual averages would not be maximized. We might still want to measure the best hitters by batting average, but since there is self-selection, we would also have to adjust for total at-bats.
The Wages of Wins does not make this adjustment. Therefore, while I agree with the authors’ conclusions in general, which is that players who score a lot tend to be overrated, I think their system overcompensates away from scorers. In short, I agree that Allen Iverson was not really the best player in the league in his MVP season, but I do not believe there were 90 better players in the NBA that year.
My differences with John Hollinger’s PER system are more philosophical than technical. His is a per-minute system, thus measuring efficiency. My system examines aggregates. If two players of apparently similar effectiveness receive significant differences in playing time, PER is the way to see their production matches. My system rewards the greater number of minutes, which limits its versatility but does allow it to credit players who play more minutes than their stats would seem to justify, such as defensive stoppers. With PER, you just have to know.
Also, both systems I have mentioned examine absolute turnovers as discussed above, rather than crediting players who always have the ball in their hands.
In my next post, I am going to look at the NBA’s best recent players, according to the VS system.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
On This Particular NBA Draft (NBA)
OK, so I’m going to see if I can get through every single team here. I have no idea how long this post is going to be, but brace yourself, it will not be short.
The Nuggets, Cavs, Raptors and Pacers did nothing. They should be unaffected.
The Spurs drafted a couple more foreigners. They should also be unaffected.
The Wizards drafted a couple of guys from California, but I don’t know how great they’re going to be. The Mavericks drafted a guy from Nevada, who is probably going to be all right. Not much to change on a 67 win team, though. The ruling on both of these teams: dressed up a little, largely unaffected.
The Jazz drafted some guy who scored like half of Rice’s points. That’s actually someone they could maybe use. Still, unaffected.
OK, this is getting boring. Let’s try the Trail Blazers. Definitely affected. Oden was inevitable, but then Portland really got going. They bought two European guards at the end of the first round—yes, you can buy and sell draft picks in the NBA—and added Taurean Green and Demetris Nichols to the backcourt too, apparently just for the hell of it. They also managed to get Josh McRoberts in the second round, even though almost everyone thought he’d go in the first (and he would’ve been in the lottery last year).
Oh yeah, and they traded the current best player on their team, too. Zach Randolph may be what basketball insiders refer to as a “lunatic,” but he can average a 20-10 and be the dominant offensive post player to go with Oden’s dominant D. And they’re giving him away for Steve Francis and Channing Frye? What gives? Is it just the insanity factor?
Nope. Randolph has four years remaining on a huge contract, and Francis only has two years left on his. Also, I believe Raef LaFrentz and his absurd deal ends after 2008-09 as well. Since rookies are not eligible for mega-bucks contract extensions until their fifth year, this means that last year’s Blazer duo of #2 LaMarcus Aldridge and Rookie of the Year Brandon Roy will still be counted on their rookie contracts. I could be wrong, but does this put the Blazers under the cap? If so, they could add a premier free agent (and who wouldn’t want to come) to the lineup below. Bear in mind NBA players start to peak around their third or fourth season:
G Jack (5th year)
G Roy (4th)
F Webster (5th)
F Aldridge (4th)
C Oden (3rd)
Bench Frye (5th), Green/McRoberts/Foreign Guards (3rd)
Now that’s a team. They’ll both be cohesive for having played together for years (ask the Pistons and Spurs if that’s important), and then all peak at pretty much the same time. I can’t wait.
Oh, and the NBA uses a soft cap. So when all the extensions do kick in, the only upper bound on how much they can spend to re-sign their guys is how much money Paul Allen has. Which is a lot.
On the other side of the trade, the Knicks are apparently determined to stay in salary cap purgatory forever. Zach Randolph is a little better than Eddy Curry, although exactly the same type of player. And even more expensive. I think the best case for the Knicks is that Randolph leads them into the end of the East playoffs, thus depriving them of a lottery pick and forcing them into another expensive quick-fix. I love how the Knicks’ best and worst cases always seem to blend together.
Let’s see, I don’t think the Rockets or Magic did anything interesting…or, while we’re in Florida, the Heat. If Daequan Cook has an impact for Miami next year, it will probably be in the dunk contest. The Lakers drafted Javaris Crittenton, a project at PG. It’s a dare to Kobe, I think, to make a pick both at the same position they took last year and without a high probability of the new player stepping in and contributing immediately. Apparently they think he doesn’t want any help after all.
The Pistons and Suns both set themselves for one more run next year. Rodney Stuckey, by all accounts, is a great fit for Detroit, but since he was on Eastern Washington and I’ve never ever seen him before, I’ll just take Jay Bilas’ or somebody’s word for it. I think Afflalo is their type of player too. But the perfect fit to team is DJ Strawberry to Phoenix. He is as good as any two-guard in the draft on pure speed and athleticism, plays good defense and scores most of his points in transition. Marcus Banks, you can just give him your jersey now.
Now let’s go back through the lottery for a minute. My hypothesis that Al Horford is going to be the bust of the draft gained a lot of momentum the instant he put an Atlanta Hawks cap on, although Atlanta sadly took Acie Law IV instead of Crittenton. Law deserves better. The Grizzlies took Conley, which can’t make Kyle Lowry too happy. I did like the pick, though. Yi Jianlian wanted to play pretty much anywhere but Milwaukee, so (surprise!) the Bucks decided to go with the Asian player who didn’t want to come and who may be Danny Almonte-ing his birth certificate, instead of, say, anybody else. The Timberwolves very sensibly went with Corey Brewer, which ensured that Joakim Noah (both Florida guys would’ve been prime anybody else candidates, by the way) would go from probable top-3 overall last year to third picked from his own team. How dare he win a national championship again? The Bobcats must have pleased their fans by staying in-state to draft the best pure non-Oden/Durant talent in the draft, Brandon Wright out of UNC, so of course they promptly traded him (more on that later). After Noah finally went to Chicago, who is good for a reason, the Kings decided to take Spencer Hawes at #10, possibly because they couldn’t decide which of the five wing players who went 12-16 would help them the most. They are bad for a reason.
Of those five wings players, Julian Wright landed in the best situation. The Hornets’ lineup is a really effective team. In the post, Tyson Chandler provides rebounding and defense, while David West takes care of the scoring and helps on the glass. Julian Wright is a great passer and good defender, but doesn’t have a consistent jump shot. But that’s okay, because on the other wing, Peja Stojakovic can’t do much besides shoot. And Chris Paul can score and distribute with the best of them. In the unlikely event of a healthy season, New Orleans will be very good.
The other wings not mentioned already are the Clippers’ Al Thornton, who is already about as good as he’s ever going to be, and the Sixers’ Thaddeus Young, who is not even close to as good as he’s going to be. Not coincidentally, the Clippers are the one expecting to decent this year. Philadelphia is building for the future with Andre Iguodala, Young, and other draft picks such as Jason Smith. Like Stuckey, I have never seen Smith play; he is supposedly a skilled and athletic 7-footer, but considering Colorado State was a poor team in the Mountain West, I have trouble believing it.
In Noah, the Bulls added another asset. Last year, they were reluctant to pull the trigger on any deal for a superstar that required them to give up rookie Tyrus Thomas, but Noah’s presence makes that more possible. Alternatively, Ben Wallace could be packaged with Luol Deng or Ben Gordon, in order to match salaries with a super-duper star like Kobe or KG. If the Bulls stand pat, Noah and Wallace will give team an unmatched one-two punch in shotblocking and post defense. And hair.
Also, in an underrated move, the Bulls took Oklahoma State’s JamesOn Curry. Having apparently improved his decision-making since he had a scholarship offer from North Carolina revoked for selling marijuana, Curry didn’t hire an agent. That way, if he had gone undrafted, he could have returned to college, a la Randolph Morris last season. But since he was selected in the second (non-guaranteed contract) round, Curry will get an early start on what I’m sure will be a long and fulfilling career in Europe. Especially if he lands with a team in Holland.
On a related note, the Nets’ only pick, Sean Williams, was kicked out of Boston College for drug-related reasons. Last year’s Williams, Marcus, had his problems with stealing laptops. And their old Williams, Jayson, had gun issues. So it looks like New Jersey is headed in the right direction.
OK, two more trades and we’re there. As discussed before, the Warriors acquired Brandon Wright for Jason Richardson and a pick (which became Jermareo Davidson, which may or may not ever matter). This is both eerily similar to last year’s Shane Battier/Rudy Gay trade, and completely different. This time, the playoff team gave up the veteran for the young guy with long arms, great potential, and a distressingly indifferent attitude toward the game. Last year, the Rockets got a glue guy who helped them win 50 games and get the #4 seed, and the Grizzlies got a raw but high-potential guy who helped them lose 60 games and get the #4 pick. Everyone’s happy. Now the Bobcats are paying $12 million for Richardson, who might get them into the edge of the playoffs, but probably not quite, and the Warriors are giving up Richardson, without whom, especially considering Portland, Seattle and New Orleans promise to be improved, they might stay at the edge of the playoffs, but probably not quite. Everyone’s going to be sad.
Last, but certainly not least, the Sonics decided to build around Durant the same way Portland built around Oden—by trading their current star. Boston, foiled in their efforts to make a panic trade for Garnett or Jermaine O’Neal, decided to make one for Ray Allen (and a second-rounder). Now, for Seattle, this trade does make some sense. It’s a classic sell-high, as Allen as at the end of his peak. Delonte West replaces a lot of Allen’s shooting and can play point if needed, and Wally Szczerbiak can also score, and his contract is quicker than Allen’s to expire. Also, getting the #5 pick is always good, even if I’m not totally sold on taking Jeff Green ahead of Brewer/Noah/Wright/Wright.
On the other hand, beyond the obvious benefit of uniting Allan Ray and Ray Allen at a single position, which is awesome, what do the Celtics get out of this? For this answer, I turned to my statistical ratings. I assumed everyone stays healthy, which is generous, since Allen’s lower body has been mostly reconstructed. I also used conservative estimates for how good Jeff Green is going to be, frankly because I wanted to give the C’s every benefit of the doubt. According to my ratings, this trade will make Boston about—drumroll, please—two games better in 2007-08. Two. Please note the Celtics were 24-58 last year. Now, I’m not saying that we can pencil in 26-56. Jefferson and Rondo will continue to improve, and Pierce probably won’t miss 35 games again. But, at the risk of belaboring the obvious, that would have been true whether they made a trade or not. And within two years, when Green and West will be better than they are now and Allen will be worse, the Celtics’ gain should be around zero. Unless Big Baby Davis, who Boston took with the Sonics’ pick, turns into a monster. Or if Allan Ray will be able to step into Ray Allen’s shoes. Then all bets are off.
The Nuggets, Cavs, Raptors and Pacers did nothing. They should be unaffected.
The Spurs drafted a couple more foreigners. They should also be unaffected.
The Wizards drafted a couple of guys from California, but I don’t know how great they’re going to be. The Mavericks drafted a guy from Nevada, who is probably going to be all right. Not much to change on a 67 win team, though. The ruling on both of these teams: dressed up a little, largely unaffected.
The Jazz drafted some guy who scored like half of Rice’s points. That’s actually someone they could maybe use. Still, unaffected.
OK, this is getting boring. Let’s try the Trail Blazers. Definitely affected. Oden was inevitable, but then Portland really got going. They bought two European guards at the end of the first round—yes, you can buy and sell draft picks in the NBA—and added Taurean Green and Demetris Nichols to the backcourt too, apparently just for the hell of it. They also managed to get Josh McRoberts in the second round, even though almost everyone thought he’d go in the first (and he would’ve been in the lottery last year).
Oh yeah, and they traded the current best player on their team, too. Zach Randolph may be what basketball insiders refer to as a “lunatic,” but he can average a 20-10 and be the dominant offensive post player to go with Oden’s dominant D. And they’re giving him away for Steve Francis and Channing Frye? What gives? Is it just the insanity factor?
Nope. Randolph has four years remaining on a huge contract, and Francis only has two years left on his. Also, I believe Raef LaFrentz and his absurd deal ends after 2008-09 as well. Since rookies are not eligible for mega-bucks contract extensions until their fifth year, this means that last year’s Blazer duo of #2 LaMarcus Aldridge and Rookie of the Year Brandon Roy will still be counted on their rookie contracts. I could be wrong, but does this put the Blazers under the cap? If so, they could add a premier free agent (and who wouldn’t want to come) to the lineup below. Bear in mind NBA players start to peak around their third or fourth season:
G Jack (5th year)
G Roy (4th)
F Webster (5th)
F Aldridge (4th)
C Oden (3rd)
Bench Frye (5th), Green/McRoberts/Foreign Guards (3rd)
Now that’s a team. They’ll both be cohesive for having played together for years (ask the Pistons and Spurs if that’s important), and then all peak at pretty much the same time. I can’t wait.
Oh, and the NBA uses a soft cap. So when all the extensions do kick in, the only upper bound on how much they can spend to re-sign their guys is how much money Paul Allen has. Which is a lot.
On the other side of the trade, the Knicks are apparently determined to stay in salary cap purgatory forever. Zach Randolph is a little better than Eddy Curry, although exactly the same type of player. And even more expensive. I think the best case for the Knicks is that Randolph leads them into the end of the East playoffs, thus depriving them of a lottery pick and forcing them into another expensive quick-fix. I love how the Knicks’ best and worst cases always seem to blend together.
Let’s see, I don’t think the Rockets or Magic did anything interesting…or, while we’re in Florida, the Heat. If Daequan Cook has an impact for Miami next year, it will probably be in the dunk contest. The Lakers drafted Javaris Crittenton, a project at PG. It’s a dare to Kobe, I think, to make a pick both at the same position they took last year and without a high probability of the new player stepping in and contributing immediately. Apparently they think he doesn’t want any help after all.
The Pistons and Suns both set themselves for one more run next year. Rodney Stuckey, by all accounts, is a great fit for Detroit, but since he was on Eastern Washington and I’ve never ever seen him before, I’ll just take Jay Bilas’ or somebody’s word for it. I think Afflalo is their type of player too. But the perfect fit to team is DJ Strawberry to Phoenix. He is as good as any two-guard in the draft on pure speed and athleticism, plays good defense and scores most of his points in transition. Marcus Banks, you can just give him your jersey now.
Now let’s go back through the lottery for a minute. My hypothesis that Al Horford is going to be the bust of the draft gained a lot of momentum the instant he put an Atlanta Hawks cap on, although Atlanta sadly took Acie Law IV instead of Crittenton. Law deserves better. The Grizzlies took Conley, which can’t make Kyle Lowry too happy. I did like the pick, though. Yi Jianlian wanted to play pretty much anywhere but Milwaukee, so (surprise!) the Bucks decided to go with the Asian player who didn’t want to come and who may be Danny Almonte-ing his birth certificate, instead of, say, anybody else. The Timberwolves very sensibly went with Corey Brewer, which ensured that Joakim Noah (both Florida guys would’ve been prime anybody else candidates, by the way) would go from probable top-3 overall last year to third picked from his own team. How dare he win a national championship again? The Bobcats must have pleased their fans by staying in-state to draft the best pure non-Oden/Durant talent in the draft, Brandon Wright out of UNC, so of course they promptly traded him (more on that later). After Noah finally went to Chicago, who is good for a reason, the Kings decided to take Spencer Hawes at #10, possibly because they couldn’t decide which of the five wing players who went 12-16 would help them the most. They are bad for a reason.
Of those five wings players, Julian Wright landed in the best situation. The Hornets’ lineup is a really effective team. In the post, Tyson Chandler provides rebounding and defense, while David West takes care of the scoring and helps on the glass. Julian Wright is a great passer and good defender, but doesn’t have a consistent jump shot. But that’s okay, because on the other wing, Peja Stojakovic can’t do much besides shoot. And Chris Paul can score and distribute with the best of them. In the unlikely event of a healthy season, New Orleans will be very good.
The other wings not mentioned already are the Clippers’ Al Thornton, who is already about as good as he’s ever going to be, and the Sixers’ Thaddeus Young, who is not even close to as good as he’s going to be. Not coincidentally, the Clippers are the one expecting to decent this year. Philadelphia is building for the future with Andre Iguodala, Young, and other draft picks such as Jason Smith. Like Stuckey, I have never seen Smith play; he is supposedly a skilled and athletic 7-footer, but considering Colorado State was a poor team in the Mountain West, I have trouble believing it.
In Noah, the Bulls added another asset. Last year, they were reluctant to pull the trigger on any deal for a superstar that required them to give up rookie Tyrus Thomas, but Noah’s presence makes that more possible. Alternatively, Ben Wallace could be packaged with Luol Deng or Ben Gordon, in order to match salaries with a super-duper star like Kobe or KG. If the Bulls stand pat, Noah and Wallace will give team an unmatched one-two punch in shotblocking and post defense. And hair.
Also, in an underrated move, the Bulls took Oklahoma State’s JamesOn Curry. Having apparently improved his decision-making since he had a scholarship offer from North Carolina revoked for selling marijuana, Curry didn’t hire an agent. That way, if he had gone undrafted, he could have returned to college, a la Randolph Morris last season. But since he was selected in the second (non-guaranteed contract) round, Curry will get an early start on what I’m sure will be a long and fulfilling career in Europe. Especially if he lands with a team in Holland.
On a related note, the Nets’ only pick, Sean Williams, was kicked out of Boston College for drug-related reasons. Last year’s Williams, Marcus, had his problems with stealing laptops. And their old Williams, Jayson, had gun issues. So it looks like New Jersey is headed in the right direction.
OK, two more trades and we’re there. As discussed before, the Warriors acquired Brandon Wright for Jason Richardson and a pick (which became Jermareo Davidson, which may or may not ever matter). This is both eerily similar to last year’s Shane Battier/Rudy Gay trade, and completely different. This time, the playoff team gave up the veteran for the young guy with long arms, great potential, and a distressingly indifferent attitude toward the game. Last year, the Rockets got a glue guy who helped them win 50 games and get the #4 seed, and the Grizzlies got a raw but high-potential guy who helped them lose 60 games and get the #4 pick. Everyone’s happy. Now the Bobcats are paying $12 million for Richardson, who might get them into the edge of the playoffs, but probably not quite, and the Warriors are giving up Richardson, without whom, especially considering Portland, Seattle and New Orleans promise to be improved, they might stay at the edge of the playoffs, but probably not quite. Everyone’s going to be sad.
Last, but certainly not least, the Sonics decided to build around Durant the same way Portland built around Oden—by trading their current star. Boston, foiled in their efforts to make a panic trade for Garnett or Jermaine O’Neal, decided to make one for Ray Allen (and a second-rounder). Now, for Seattle, this trade does make some sense. It’s a classic sell-high, as Allen as at the end of his peak. Delonte West replaces a lot of Allen’s shooting and can play point if needed, and Wally Szczerbiak can also score, and his contract is quicker than Allen’s to expire. Also, getting the #5 pick is always good, even if I’m not totally sold on taking Jeff Green ahead of Brewer/Noah/Wright/Wright.
On the other hand, beyond the obvious benefit of uniting Allan Ray and Ray Allen at a single position, which is awesome, what do the Celtics get out of this? For this answer, I turned to my statistical ratings. I assumed everyone stays healthy, which is generous, since Allen’s lower body has been mostly reconstructed. I also used conservative estimates for how good Jeff Green is going to be, frankly because I wanted to give the C’s every benefit of the doubt. According to my ratings, this trade will make Boston about—drumroll, please—two games better in 2007-08. Two. Please note the Celtics were 24-58 last year. Now, I’m not saying that we can pencil in 26-56. Jefferson and Rondo will continue to improve, and Pierce probably won’t miss 35 games again. But, at the risk of belaboring the obvious, that would have been true whether they made a trade or not. And within two years, when Green and West will be better than they are now and Allen will be worse, the Celtics’ gain should be around zero. Unless Big Baby Davis, who Boston took with the Sonics’ pick, turns into a monster. Or if Allan Ray will be able to step into Ray Allen’s shoes. Then all bets are off.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
On the NBA Draft (NBA)
Thursday is the NBA Draft, and like the 30 NBA teams, I am interested in how to find the next big star, and, as importantly, the next big bust. I have a guess as to who this will be on Thursday, but first I’m going to go through my entire learning process. I won’t be offended if you skip to the end.
Not surprisingly, I started attempting to work by the numbers. Since high school players don’t have useful numbers, and I didn’t feel like finding Europeans’, I should point out this immediately limited me to college players. I was, and am, okay with this. So, in 2001-02, I invented a statistical system to rate college basketball players. It was meant only as an indicator of value to a player’s college team. When I became interested in predicting NBA success, I had to make some modifications to adapt it for that purpose. The three adjustments were for:
Year
Conference
Height relative to position
These were all reasonable changes, and made the system more accurate. Four years ago, it identified Carmelo and Wade as the two best college prospects, in that order. The first test for any statistical system is to recognize the obvious.
However, outside the obvious, the system had one major flaw. It couldn’t really identify the type of player whose game would struggle to make the jump to the NBA. I had adjustments for age and schedule strength, which was a start, but I didn’t have a good way to tell whether a star player was also a superior athlete. Anyone who watched a decade of Duke basketball, for instance, would see that someone like Grant Hill was a far superior pro prospect than someone like JJ Redick. But the system would see superstar players on the best team in the best conference.
John Hollinger, who has my dream job, solved the problem by testing for statistics that indicated pro success. As it turns out, blocks, steals and rebound rate are effective proxies for athleticism. In retrospect, I probably should have figured that out on my own. If I had my dream job, maybe I would have.
Instead, I went in a different direction. I decided that to evaluate college players for the NBA, I would determine for myself who looked like they should be a good pro, while watching college games I would watch anyway. Then, when I crunched the numbers at the end of the year, I would rank players statistically. Players who graded out well both ways should be sure things; players who did well but not the other were possibilities.
Last year, I formalized this process by giving out A’s to players I was confident would become solid NBA players, and B’s to the other players I felt had a chance. I estimated that only about 15 college players, in a given year, will go on to have careers of a decent length and quality. I have found that my list tends to be about 25 players deep, about a third of which are awarded A’s. The goals of the system are that no A player should be a bust (barring injury), and that every college player who goes on to be a good pro should receive an A or a B.
Since the system is only one year old, it is too early to tell for sure how accurate I’ve been. However, let’s take a quick look back anyway. In alphabetical order, the A’s:
LaMarcus Aldridge
Dee Brown
Jordan Farmar
Adam Morrison
JJ Redick
Brandon Roy
Marcus Williams
Shelden Williams
And the B’s:
Ronnie Brewer
Rodney Carney
Paul Davis
Quincy Douby
Randy Foye
Mike Gansey
Rudy Gay
Paul Millsap
Steve Novak
Patrick O’Bryant
Kevin Pittsnogle
Allan Ray
Rajon Rondo
Craig Smith
Tyrus Thomas
In the A group, the results were only so-so. Brandon Roy was the ROY, which I predicted, and Aldridge was good in Portland too. Shelden Williams is off to a decent start, despite the handicap of being drafted by the Hawks. Interestingly, all three point guards fell out of the lottery. Marcus Williams did well, Farmar solid, and Dee Brown gets an incomplete due to injury. The college stars Redick and Morrison were the worst. Morrison was somewhere between disappointing and awful, depending on what factors you value, and Redick was injured and then invisible. I think that because of their shooting ability, they will still both develop into quality role players (I’m sure Cleveland would be happy to take one), but I wish I had gone with B’s for them instead.
In the B column, I did make a couple of good catches. Aside from Daniel Gibson, who didn’t really make an impact until the playoffs, Smith and Millsap were the best two players of the second round.
The third group of interest is those first round choices that did not make the A or B list. This consisted of Hilton Armstrong, Cedric Simmons, Shawne Williams, Renaldo Belkman, Josh Boone, Kyle Lowry, Shannon Brown, Maurice Ager and Mardy Collins. With the possible exception of Belkman, this group was decidedly ineffective.
This year, the lists consist of nine A players and sixteen B’s. I have also introduced plusses and minuses to the equation. Also, while I’m writing this now, I would like to point out I made this list shortly after the close of the college basketball season, before the parade of workouts and mock drafts that influence opinions for very little legitimate reason.
A+
Kevin Durant
A
Corey Brewer
Mike Conley
Joakim Noah
Greg Oden
Brendan Wright
A-
Jeff Green
Acie Law IV
Julian Wright
B+
Glen Davis
Sean Williams
Thaddeus Young
B
Aaron Afflalo
Aaron Brooks
Javaris Crittenden
Jared Dudley
Nick Fazekas
Aaron Gray
Spencer Hawes
Mustafa Shakur
DJ Strawberry
Alando Tucker
B-
Daequan Cook
Josh McRoberts
Three notes:
First, the fact that I listed Durant as my only A+ does not necessarily mean I would take him over Oden. The case for Durant is pretty good, though: he had the best freshman season in recent memory. The only one close was Carmelo, and he was a minor star immediately. Thus, Durant should be starting out at minor star quality. In addition, he is much less physically mature than Oden, meaning he has more improvement to gain that way. Also, from how good Conley has been, even when Oden was out, it may be that Conley has contributed to making Oden look better, whereas Durant took over games by himself. Also, teams were sometimes able to get Oden in foul trouble, an issue likely to only get worse at the next level, whereas Durant played tons of minutes every game. Finally, Oden’s wrist injury is a tiny red flag Durant doesn’t have. Therefore, Durant is an A-plus because he is a safer bet to become a solid NBA player. He, without any doubt at all, is one already.
The case for taking Oden, though, is like this. First, centers are harder to find than forwards. Second, no one argued with Oden being #1 in high school, when he was healthy. Third, he didn’t match Durant’s numbers because he had a good enough supporting cast to make the national title game, AND BECAUSE HE PLAYED ALMOST THE ENTIRE YEAR LEFT-HANDED. Then he dropped 25 and 12 on Florida when he got better. Because of that, and the scarcity factor, I would probably take Oden. But there’s no question in my mind Durant will be the score tons of points, win Rookie of the Year, and become a really good NBA player.
Second, I would probably have given Sean Williams an A if he hadn’t gotten kicked off his team. Sure is talented, though.
Third, the probable #3 pick, Al Horford, didn’t make my list at all. This seems odd, to say the least. But he has several issues, in my opinion. First, he is a little short for a post scorer. Usually, the very fact that he scored so easily in college would make me feel better about that, but Florida is a little bit of a special case. Since four of their starters may be first round draft picks, and the fifth was a shooting specialist, Horford avoided more double teams than a similar big man in any other situation. On the other end of the court, Joakim Noah protected Horford with his shot blocking. On a team that good, that well-coached, and that cohesive, one player’s weaknesses can be hidden. I believe at least one of the Florida players will be exposed without his teammates. Brewer had to play perimeter defense on an island, and Noah’s strengths of hustle and athleticism are obvious. I think that leaves Horford as the one who benefited most from the others.
There you have it, the draft preview. When Strawberry makes a team, when you see Big Baby getting minutes, when someone is wishing they’d taken Wright or Noah over Hawes, when Durant is scoring 20 points a game while the Blazers are still curing Oden’s foul problems, remember you heard it here first. When Horford’s an All-Star, well, just forget I said anything.
Not surprisingly, I started attempting to work by the numbers. Since high school players don’t have useful numbers, and I didn’t feel like finding Europeans’, I should point out this immediately limited me to college players. I was, and am, okay with this. So, in 2001-02, I invented a statistical system to rate college basketball players. It was meant only as an indicator of value to a player’s college team. When I became interested in predicting NBA success, I had to make some modifications to adapt it for that purpose. The three adjustments were for:
Year
Conference
Height relative to position
These were all reasonable changes, and made the system more accurate. Four years ago, it identified Carmelo and Wade as the two best college prospects, in that order. The first test for any statistical system is to recognize the obvious.
However, outside the obvious, the system had one major flaw. It couldn’t really identify the type of player whose game would struggle to make the jump to the NBA. I had adjustments for age and schedule strength, which was a start, but I didn’t have a good way to tell whether a star player was also a superior athlete. Anyone who watched a decade of Duke basketball, for instance, would see that someone like Grant Hill was a far superior pro prospect than someone like JJ Redick. But the system would see superstar players on the best team in the best conference.
John Hollinger, who has my dream job, solved the problem by testing for statistics that indicated pro success. As it turns out, blocks, steals and rebound rate are effective proxies for athleticism. In retrospect, I probably should have figured that out on my own. If I had my dream job, maybe I would have.
Instead, I went in a different direction. I decided that to evaluate college players for the NBA, I would determine for myself who looked like they should be a good pro, while watching college games I would watch anyway. Then, when I crunched the numbers at the end of the year, I would rank players statistically. Players who graded out well both ways should be sure things; players who did well but not the other were possibilities.
Last year, I formalized this process by giving out A’s to players I was confident would become solid NBA players, and B’s to the other players I felt had a chance. I estimated that only about 15 college players, in a given year, will go on to have careers of a decent length and quality. I have found that my list tends to be about 25 players deep, about a third of which are awarded A’s. The goals of the system are that no A player should be a bust (barring injury), and that every college player who goes on to be a good pro should receive an A or a B.
Since the system is only one year old, it is too early to tell for sure how accurate I’ve been. However, let’s take a quick look back anyway. In alphabetical order, the A’s:
LaMarcus Aldridge
Dee Brown
Jordan Farmar
Adam Morrison
JJ Redick
Brandon Roy
Marcus Williams
Shelden Williams
And the B’s:
Ronnie Brewer
Rodney Carney
Paul Davis
Quincy Douby
Randy Foye
Mike Gansey
Rudy Gay
Paul Millsap
Steve Novak
Patrick O’Bryant
Kevin Pittsnogle
Allan Ray
Rajon Rondo
Craig Smith
Tyrus Thomas
In the A group, the results were only so-so. Brandon Roy was the ROY, which I predicted, and Aldridge was good in Portland too. Shelden Williams is off to a decent start, despite the handicap of being drafted by the Hawks. Interestingly, all three point guards fell out of the lottery. Marcus Williams did well, Farmar solid, and Dee Brown gets an incomplete due to injury. The college stars Redick and Morrison were the worst. Morrison was somewhere between disappointing and awful, depending on what factors you value, and Redick was injured and then invisible. I think that because of their shooting ability, they will still both develop into quality role players (I’m sure Cleveland would be happy to take one), but I wish I had gone with B’s for them instead.
In the B column, I did make a couple of good catches. Aside from Daniel Gibson, who didn’t really make an impact until the playoffs, Smith and Millsap were the best two players of the second round.
The third group of interest is those first round choices that did not make the A or B list. This consisted of Hilton Armstrong, Cedric Simmons, Shawne Williams, Renaldo Belkman, Josh Boone, Kyle Lowry, Shannon Brown, Maurice Ager and Mardy Collins. With the possible exception of Belkman, this group was decidedly ineffective.
This year, the lists consist of nine A players and sixteen B’s. I have also introduced plusses and minuses to the equation. Also, while I’m writing this now, I would like to point out I made this list shortly after the close of the college basketball season, before the parade of workouts and mock drafts that influence opinions for very little legitimate reason.
A+
Kevin Durant
A
Corey Brewer
Mike Conley
Joakim Noah
Greg Oden
Brendan Wright
A-
Jeff Green
Acie Law IV
Julian Wright
B+
Glen Davis
Sean Williams
Thaddeus Young
B
Aaron Afflalo
Aaron Brooks
Javaris Crittenden
Jared Dudley
Nick Fazekas
Aaron Gray
Spencer Hawes
Mustafa Shakur
DJ Strawberry
Alando Tucker
B-
Daequan Cook
Josh McRoberts
Three notes:
First, the fact that I listed Durant as my only A+ does not necessarily mean I would take him over Oden. The case for Durant is pretty good, though: he had the best freshman season in recent memory. The only one close was Carmelo, and he was a minor star immediately. Thus, Durant should be starting out at minor star quality. In addition, he is much less physically mature than Oden, meaning he has more improvement to gain that way. Also, from how good Conley has been, even when Oden was out, it may be that Conley has contributed to making Oden look better, whereas Durant took over games by himself. Also, teams were sometimes able to get Oden in foul trouble, an issue likely to only get worse at the next level, whereas Durant played tons of minutes every game. Finally, Oden’s wrist injury is a tiny red flag Durant doesn’t have. Therefore, Durant is an A-plus because he is a safer bet to become a solid NBA player. He, without any doubt at all, is one already.
The case for taking Oden, though, is like this. First, centers are harder to find than forwards. Second, no one argued with Oden being #1 in high school, when he was healthy. Third, he didn’t match Durant’s numbers because he had a good enough supporting cast to make the national title game, AND BECAUSE HE PLAYED ALMOST THE ENTIRE YEAR LEFT-HANDED. Then he dropped 25 and 12 on Florida when he got better. Because of that, and the scarcity factor, I would probably take Oden. But there’s no question in my mind Durant will be the score tons of points, win Rookie of the Year, and become a really good NBA player.
Second, I would probably have given Sean Williams an A if he hadn’t gotten kicked off his team. Sure is talented, though.
Third, the probable #3 pick, Al Horford, didn’t make my list at all. This seems odd, to say the least. But he has several issues, in my opinion. First, he is a little short for a post scorer. Usually, the very fact that he scored so easily in college would make me feel better about that, but Florida is a little bit of a special case. Since four of their starters may be first round draft picks, and the fifth was a shooting specialist, Horford avoided more double teams than a similar big man in any other situation. On the other end of the court, Joakim Noah protected Horford with his shot blocking. On a team that good, that well-coached, and that cohesive, one player’s weaknesses can be hidden. I believe at least one of the Florida players will be exposed without his teammates. Brewer had to play perimeter defense on an island, and Noah’s strengths of hustle and athleticism are obvious. I think that leaves Horford as the one who benefited most from the others.
There you have it, the draft preview. When Strawberry makes a team, when you see Big Baby getting minutes, when someone is wishing they’d taken Wright or Noah over Hawes, when Durant is scoring 20 points a game while the Blazers are still curing Oden’s foul problems, remember you heard it here first. When Horford’s an All-Star, well, just forget I said anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)