RealGM

Lengthy, but worth the read.

Draft Rater's top 12
Rank Player Team Projected PER
1 DeMarcus Cousins Kentucky 16.14
2. Evan Turner Ohio State 14.79
3. John Wall Kentucky 14.68
4. Greg Monroe Georgetown 14.39
5. Derrick Favors Georgia Tech 13.98
6. Xavier Henry Kansas 13.52
7. Luke Babbitt Nevada 13.35
8. Al-Farouq Aminu Wake Forest 13.30
9. Wes Johnson Syracuse 13.03
10. Greivis Vasquez Maryland 12.97
11. Sylven Landesberg Virginia 12.52
12. Omar Samhan Saint Mary's 12.47

Moving down the list, the next dozen players are largely the usual suspects (see chart below). Damion James, Daniel Orton, James Anderson, Paul George, Gordon Hayward and Eric Bledsoe are likely to hear their names called somewhere between 10th and 25th, so their presence in this group shouldn't shock anybody.

Draft Rater's first-round talents
Rank Player Team Projected PER
13. Damion James Texas 12.44
14. Daniel Orton Kentucky 12.15
15. James Anderson Oklahoma State 11.98
16. Paul George Fresno State 11.87
17. Gordon Hayward Butler 11.87
18. Manny Harris Michigan 11.80
19. Jeff Foote Cornell 11.71
20. Darington Hobson New Mexico 11.69
21. Eric Bledsoe Kentucky 11.66
22. Marqus Blakely Vermont 11.58
23. Luke Harangody Notre Dame 11.37
24. Jordan Crawford Xavier 11.32

Once we get past the No. 24 collegian, and allowing for several foreign players likely to be selected in the late first and early second round, we're basically looking at role players and fringe players in Round 2, and the next 11 players typify the remains of the day (see chart below). Butler won't be taken 25th since he blew out his knee at the end of West Virginia's season, but the others landed roughly in the neighborhood most expect.

Draft Rater's late first-rounders and early second-rounders
Rank Player Team Projected PER
25. Da'Sean Butler West Virginia 11.26
26. Jon Scheyer Duke 11.20
27. Devin Ebanks West Virginia 11.16
28. Tiny Gallon Oklahoma 11.13
29. Quincy Pondexter Washington 11.08
30. Larry Sanders VCU 11.07
31. Armon Johnson Nevada 10.98
32. Brian Zoubek Duke 10.96
33. Aubrey Coleman Houston 10.91
34. Jeremy Lin Harvard 10.87
35. Mikhail Torrance Alabama 10.84

So we're all set here -- well, except for one thing.
Among those who haven't shown up on the list yet are several likely first-rounders, especially frontcourt players. There are several project-type big men in this draft that the Draft Rater isn't terribly excited about -- most fit the description of "long, athletic guys who blocked shots and got scouts excited but didn't do terribly much else." Some collegians of this type turn into players -- for instance, two years ago the Draft Rater hated Anthony Randolph, but he's become a legit starter in Golden State and still has upside to explore.

Draft Rater's duds -- prominent names ranked outside top 35 collegians
Rank Player Team Projected PER
36 Cole Aldrich Kansas 10.83
37 Patrick Patterson Kentucky 10.79
40 Willie Warren Oklahoma 10.71
45 Avery Bradley Texas 10.42
50 Ekpe Udoh Baylor 10.03
54 Ed Davis North Carolina 9.88
31 Armon Johnson Nevada 10.98
60 Terrico White Mississippi 9.68
62 Hassan Whiteside Marshall 9.65
65 Craig Brackins Iowa State 9.56
68 Solomon Alabi Florida State 9.52

So there you have it: my list of the players who have the talent necessary to thrive at the next level -- and those who might not.

As much as I liked the article, posting paid content on RealGM violates the TOS. Sorry. I shortened the content.
-PR07

I think it's verboten to post entire articles like this, although I appreciate the chance to see it since I don't get ESPN Insider. But next time, just post the highlights.

I'd like to see a more thorough analysis of the past performance of this Draft Rater thingy. I'm skeptical that it's as good as Ford claims. I'd bet that it overestimates the number of good prospects each year, so that it manages to include most of the guys who actually turn out to be good, but also includes a lot of guys who don't turn out to be good. If so, it's not really all that helpful in predicting who will and won't be a good pro player.

There also seem to be some biases built in that work in favor of some players and in opposition to some other players. For one, this system seems to count all of a player's college seasons the same rather than weighting more recent ones, which works against guys who turn themselves into good prospects over the course of their college careers. I'd bet the reason Udoh is so low here is that he didn't put up very good numbers in his freshman/sophomore seasons, which were a lot less productive than the season he just completed. Ditto for Quincy Pondexter and probably other upperclassmen as well.

I also wonder how well it accounts for level of competition.

I do like that it presents the picture you get from going only on objective data, i.e., actual points scored, rebounds grabbed, etc. But we all know that there is more to it than that, and that not all numbers are created equal, especially in the very uneven landscape of college basketball.

So there you have it: Chad Fords list of players who have the talent necessary to thrive at the next level -- and those who might not.

Also, you should have atleat quoted the article. The last sentence might indicate to some that these are your opinions. People like me who don't read the fine print and go straight to the rankings.

Regardless, keep posting all relevant material, just quote it or leave a URL if possible.

Boneman2 wrote:...you should have atleat quoted the article.
Regardless, keep posting all relevant material, just quote it or leave a URL if possible.

Sorry, I wrote this:
"Lengthy, but worth the read."

Chad Ford wrote all of the content. And since it's on isider and most people don't have it, I posted the article rather than the link.

It is interesting to say the least and I was just about the post this up until I saw someone already had!

I don't take anything Hollinger concocts as serious, because you can make numbers mean and say almost anything you want them to. I also would have liked if he included past ratings and how they compared to each player's stats.

I do find it interesting that the 10-12 guys are ranked so highly when they will be hoping for 2nd round picks. Jeff Foote from Cornell and the kid from Vermont...most likely overseas players, unless GMs decide Hollinger is Rain Man all of the sudden and just draft according to this list.

ardthomp wrote:It is interesting to say the least and I was just about the post this up until I saw someone already had!

I don't take anything Hollinger concocts as serious, because you can make numbers mean and say almost anything you want them to. I also would have liked if he included past ratings and how they compared to each player's stats.

I like this one since it has been pretty consistent in getting most of the draft's top players in the top 12 of his rankings. I'd rather see him show the top 14 (lottery) for each year.
He did post links to past years. Back to 2002. They're in the article as well.
2010: http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft201 ... iem-100521
2009: http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft200 ... ter-090618
2008 and previous: http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft200 ... er-History

So who do we aim for Xavier Henry? Gordon Hayward? Eric Bledsoe? Hollinger's system seems to be right a lot more than it's wrong.

I've been saying Henry ever since the idea of us at 10 was brought up. I think he's the safest pick.

^ Safest pick, maybe yes. But the there could be a number of guys that could surpass Henry potential-wise. I believe guys like Monroe, Motiejunas, and Udoh possesses higher ceiling than Henry.

I think the thing none of these data bases can consider is how the skills of the player translate to the NBA? Greivis Vasquez was a remarkable player in college but does anyone think for a minute he's going to be able to do the same things in the NBA. I bet Adam Morrison scored pretty high on this too.

Moooose wrote:^ Safest pick, maybe yes. But the there could be a number of guys that could surpass Henry potential-wise. I believe guys like Monroe, Motiejunas, and Udoh possesses higher ceiling than Henry.

I don't think so, I think Henry can be one of the best players to come out of this draft. Even if he doesn't get to that status, he still will be a very good player no matter what, and I think would be the best player we've drafted since Danny.

8305 wrote:I think the thing none of these data bases can consider is how the skills of the player translate to the NBA? Greivis Vasquez was a remarkable player in college but does anyone think for a minute he's going to be able to do the same things in the NBA. I bet Adam Morrison scored pretty high on this too.

I do think we should take Vasquez if he's available at #40 though. He would be a 6'5-6'6 PG and that alone could make him worth the look. Honestly I think he'll be better than projected, and possibly a starter one day. I really think his height, if he plays PG, could actually make his game translate to the NBA pretty well.

Just think:
PG Vasquez (6'5)
SG Rush (6'6)
SF Granger (6'8)
PF Murphy (6'11)
C Hibbert (7 '2)

Now that is a pretty big lineup.

Greivis Vasquez= Steal of the 2nd round! I call it.

I like Greivis Vazquez a lot in the second round. I think BIrd would love this personality too, as he's confident and not afraid to take the big shot. I think worst case scenario, he could be an excellent defensive backup PG off the bench.

My understanding of Vasquez is that he isn't even a good defender at the college level. I suppose that could change when he isn't being asked to carry the teams offense. The thought of him trying to keep the leagues ultra quick pg's in front of him is a pretty ugly vision.

I'm not opposed to him in the 2nd round but I think the best case for him is off the bench. He might be useful at both the point and the wing since he can shoot and distribute.

Starkiller wrote:

Moooose wrote:^ Safest pick, maybe yes. But the there could be a number of guys that could surpass Henry potential-wise. I believe guys like Monroe, Motiejunas, and Udoh possesses higher ceiling than Henry.

I don't think so, I think Henry can be one of the best players to come out of this draft. Even if he doesn't get to that status, he still will be a very good player no matter what, and I think would be the best player we've drafted since Danny.

Sorry but whenever i think of Henry, Martell Webster, CJ Miles, and Jared Dudley really pops out.
These are guys that would probably be reliable and consistently good shooters / scorers throughout their careers, but unless they develop some exposiveness, they might forever remain as role players.
With the 10th pick, i'd like to have someone that can take over games, take and make big shots, and eventually be a solid starter for the years to come. It might be a pg, or an sg, but just looking at the projections and the status of the team, we might be really leaning towards taking in a big man.

At the very least, I've heard reports that Henry has the most fluent jump shot seen so far at the combine. If he is indeed a very good perimeter shooter, then I wouldn't look so down on him.

^ Henry is a good perimeter shooter, he is known for it. might be one of the best shooters in this year's draft, and could really find his niche making treys someday in the league.
I'm not really counting out Henry as a possibility for the Pacers but as i've said before, Henry might be the safest pick, but that doesn't excite me at all. Everybody knows the guy is good, but coming into the next season (and with Granger's reaction at the draft lottery), i think we need someone with explosiveness.

Moooose wrote:^ Henry is a good perimeter shooter, he is known for it. might be one of the best shooters in this year's draft, and could really find his niche making treys someday in the league.
I'm not really counting out Henry as a possibility for the Pacers but as i've said before, Henry might be the safest pick, but that doesn't excite me at all. Everybody knows the guy is good, but coming into the next season (and with Granger's reaction at the draft lottery), i think we need someone with explosiveness.

But that's the thing, we need a sure thing to go along w/ him. We KNOW that Henry is going to be a productive player, anything more and that's a bonus. We basically took chances on Rush and Hansborough not knowing exactly what they will be bringing to the table. Sometimes you just need to add someone to your roster that is going to help out right away.

Remember, Henry was as highly touted as Wall was out of high school, and played well all season, just all we heard about was Wall, Cousins, and Turner.

We need someone who can create their own shot. Xavier Henry is not that. By all indications, he sounds like a Brandon Rush clone. Good shooting stroke, good but not great athlete, mediocre ball handler and shot creater. Am I missing something here?