Hollinger Rates Cousins No. 1

[Kurosawa]

And it's not even close.

Each year, ESPN's respected NBA draft analyst John Hollinger issues his Draft Rater, a highly sophisticated system which ranks the year's eligible draft prospects according to 27 distinct criteria. Begun in 2002, the system has been remarkably accurate in projecting the stars, serviceable players, and busts.

Since 2002, eight players have received scores of 15.00 or greater. Of those eight, all but one has gone on to be either a star or a solid starter. The lone exception is Mike Conley.

The story is premium content so no link will be provided by this poster, but I can report that Hollinger's top prospect by far is DeMarcus Cousins, with a score of 16.14--the fifth-highest score in the Rater's nine-year history. The remainder of the top five, in descending order, are Evan Turner( 2nd, 14.79), John Wall (3rd, 14.68), Greg Monroe (4th, 14.39), and Derrick Favors (13.98). (Among the many surprising busts in his rankings--guys who score in low-second-round territory) include Cole Aldrich, Ed Davis, and Solomon Alabi.)

Hollinger's ranking make five things eminently clear:

1. Cousins is a big-time professional prospect--perhaps the best post prospect in many years. Better, even, than Odom, without the hype.
2. He might not last until No. 4.
3. As a result, the Wolves might have a legitimate shot at drafting Turner without giving up any assets.
4. Centers are by far the most valuable draft prospects because of the sheer dearth of star prospects at the position.
5. Anybody who thinks the Wolves ought to trade Cousins for Wesley Johnson and change is...well, a fool.

[princeofpalace]

These are the top 12 players from Hollingers draft rater last season

1. Ty Lawson
2. Blake Griffin.
3. Tyreke Evans
4. Austin Daye
5. Stephen Curry
6. Nick Calathes
7. Dejaun Blair
8. Danny Green
9. Flynn
10. James Harden
11. Hasheem Thabeet
12. Earl Clark

Take it for what its worth

[Steve_Holiday]

DMC could be the next Ty Lawson.

[Zeitgeister]

A couple years ago Michael Beasley was #1 and Kevin Love was #2. Again, take it for what its worth.

[The J Rocka]

John Hollinger would have picked Okafor over D12 in 04 draft

[El_Lobo_3]

I don't think he puts out this list as if it would be his draft board if he was an NBA gm, its just more of a ranking system he did for the hell of it to see if the output really showed anything. I think the only real thing to take from it is the >15 rating guys all ended up being solid, aside from conley...but I'm guessing he would be the first to tell you that he wouldn't have taken lawson first last year lol...but I sure wouldn't mind getting cousins at four if we stick....or philly taking this super seriously and letting turner fall...haha so in that case, hollinger needs to start hyping up favors to be the next amare or KG or something and start making his rankings dog on turner.

[Tirion]

http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/ThreadSelected ... adid=80606

Cousins has the fifth-highest rating in the Draft Rater's nine seasons evaluated. (The Draft Rater goes back to 2002, as college data from before that year are too spotty to use.)

Based on that, the outlook for Cousins is quite positive. Of the eight previous players from 2002 to 2008 to rate 15.0 or higher, four became superstars: Durant, Carmelo Anthony, Dwyane Wade and Chris Paul. Of the other four, three have been very productive starters -- Rudy Gay, Luol Deng and Drew Gooden -- and one became, well, Mike Conley. We had another three last year, and from that trio, one was awesome (Tyreke Evans), one was good (Ty Lawson) and one didn't play a game (Blake Griffin).

Cousins won't be the first pick because of questions about his character and coachability, and those are legitimate concerns. But there's no doubting his elite talent level.

He has pretty good track record, that's for sure (check out his 2002-09 lists from the link).

[LordBaldric]

I remember him giving Brewer a very low score.

[mark blunt]

and Foye

[Esohny]

and Foye

I enjoy your avatar.

[shangrila]

I doubt Philadelphia passes on Turner if they're still at 2. The consensus is he's the clear 2nd best prospect in this draft and I don't think the fans would like Cousins, even if he had strong workouts, more then Turner.

But obviously he's going to come out on top when dealing with numbers. His per minute stats are incredible. But he did only play just over a half a game, so take it for what it's worth.

[lewdog]

And it's not even close.
Hollinger's ranking make five things eminently clear:
1. Cousins is a big-time professional prospect--perhaps the best post prospect in many years. Better, even, than Odom, without the hype.
2. He might not last until No. 4.
3. As a result, the Wolves might have a legitimate shot at drafting Turner without giving up any assets.
4. Centers are by far the most valuable draft prospects because of the sheer dearth of star prospects at the position.
5. Anybody who thinks the Wolves ought to trade Cousins for Wesley Johnson and change is...well, a fool.

"Putting all your eggs in one basket" comes to mind here (with Hollinger's ranting system).

2008
Player Projected PER Order Picked Among Collegians
Kevin Love 14.62 5
Michael Beasley 14.32 2
Joe Alexander 13.48 8
Mario Chalmers 13.01 29
George Hill 12.77 23
Chris Douglas-Roberts 12.46 33
Derrick Rose 12.36 1

Call me a fool!

[raleigh]

A couple years ago Michael Beasley was #1 and Kevin Love was #2. Again, take it for what its worth.

Can't predict stupid.

[Breakdown777]

So based on Cousins Score, and previous rankings, we can expect the 2nd coming of....................Drew Gooden? Nice!



Isn't this the same rating system that overvalues Rebounding and per/36 minute stats?

[shangrila]

"Putting all your eggs in one basket" comes to mind here (with Hollinger's ranting system).

2008
Player Projected PER Order Picked Among Collegians
Kevin Love 14.62 5
Michael Beasley 14.32 2
Joe Alexander 13.48 8
Mario Chalmers 13.01 29
George Hill 12.77 23
Chris Douglas-Roberts 12.46 33
Derrick Rose 12.36 1

Call me a fool!

To be fair it is stat based, and didn't Rose have a kind of so-so college season, only firing up in the tournament?

[BrooklynBulls]

"Putting all your eggs in one basket" comes to mind here (with Hollinger's ranting system).

2008
Player Projected PER Order Picked Among Collegians
Kevin Love 14.62 5
Michael Beasley 14.32 2
Joe Alexander 13.48 8
Mario Chalmers 13.01 29
George Hill 12.77 23
Chris Douglas-Roberts 12.46 33
Derrick Rose 12.36 1

Call me a fool!

To be fair it is stat based, and didn't Rose have a kind of so-so college season, only firing up in the tournament?

Is it being fair when you admit that using stats to rate college prospects doesn't actually work most times?

The list basically generates random selections, made slightly less random that better producing players skew slightly higher. It's complete bull****.

[jade_hippo]

The list basically generates random selections, made slightly less random that better producing players skew slightly higher. It's complete bull****.

actually, thats the fallacy of trying to group things together that a inherently different. you can group eggs together and grade them because they are all the same, no 2 basketball players are exactlly the same. welcome to statistics.

he had a decent regular season, something like 14p/4r/5a? (technically he never played college ball now, but oh well) where CDR had like 18p/4r/2a on better percentages, so yes, he does deserve a better ranking than Rose, but relax, no one said he was the better player, just that he had a better ranking. unless you can develop a system that calculates game impact without taking numbers into consideration, this is pretty much all you're going to be stuck with.

[shangrila]

Is it being fair when you admit that using stats to rate college prospects doesn't actually work most times?

The list basically generates random selections, made slightly less random that better producing players skew slightly higher. It's complete bull****.

I can't be bothered explaining this tbh, but it's based on numbers and that's it. If you're complaining because it doesn't take into account certain areas of potential, then I don't know what to tell you.

[mandurugo]

The fact that it is based on numbers doesn't mean anything. Looking at its history it doesn't seem to be based on enough of the right numbers properly weighted to be of much value as a predictive tool. Advanced stats in basketball are still a very immature art.

[lewdog]

The list basically generates random selections, made slightly less random that better producing players skew slightly higher. It's complete bull****.

actually, thats the fallacy of trying to group things together that a inherently different. you can group eggs together and grade them because they are all the same, no 2 basketball players are exactlly the same. welcome to statistics.

he had a decent regular season, something like 14p/4r/5a? (technically he never played college ball now, but oh well) where CDR had like 18p/4r/2a on better percentages, so yes, he does deserve a better ranking than Rose, but relax, no one said he was the better player

Actually the chucker who started this thread implies that Cousins is the superior talent in this year's draft because he's ranked no. 1 by Hollinger and we'd be fools not to select him. So with his logic, (and to answer your question) I believe he would.