RealGM

I looked past this kid myself, and he falls somewhat out of range of our pick as he's slated 8-12 range, but if we want a pg I'm leaning his way. Maybe a tradeup with our #18 + x to get in the 8-12 range? I tried to come up with a recent comparison? By the numbers Chris Paul is pretty close. They are also similar in athletic markers, although CP3 has an edge in wingspan.

Ty Lawson - 2008
5' 10.75" 5' 11.75" 195 6' 1" 7' 9.5" 5.6 28.5 35.5 14 NA NA NA No

Chris Paul - 2005
5' 11.75" 6' 1" 178 6' 4.25" 7' 9" NA 32.0 38.0 10 11.09 3.22 16 4

Now...

What I find interesting is how close their pace adjusted numbers are. I took out attempts and mades for ft/3pt/2pt. But they were very close for both players. Paul operated a little bit more from behind the arc, but both were very close in all ftm/fta.

Basic Statistics Per 40 Pace Adjusted
Year GP Min Pts FG% 2P% 3P% FT% Off Def TOT Asts Stls Blks TOs
2006/07 38 25.7 14.4 50.0 56.4 35.6 68.8 1.0 3.1 4.1 7.9 2.1 0.1 3.1
2007/08 32 25.3 17.7 51.5 58.2 36.1 83.5 0.7 3.1 3.8 7.2 2.2 0.0 3.1
2008/09 35 29.9 19.5 53.2 56.0 47.2 79.8 0.8 2.7 3.5 7.7 2.5 0.2 2.2

Basic Statistics Per 40 Pace Adjusted
Year GP Min Pts FG% 2P% 3P% FT% Off Def TOT Asts Stls Blks TOs
2003/04 31 33.6 16.3 49.6 51.1 46.5 84.3 0.7 2.8 3.6 6.5 3.0 0.4 2.9
2004/05 32 33.4 16.9 45.1 44.1 47.4 83.4 0.8 4.2 5.0 7.3 2.6 0.0 3.1

Efficency
Name GP Min PTs/g FGA/g Pts/Play TS% eFG% FTA/FGA 3PA/FGA Ast/g Ast/FGA A/TO PPR BK STL PF
Ty Lawson 35 29.9 16.6 9.8 1.15 0.66 0.61 0.61 0.32 6.6 0.67 3.48 8.19 0.1 2.1 1.7
Chris Paul 32 33.4 15.3 9.9 0.99 0.60 0.52 0.59 0.31 6.6 0.67 2.38 4.76 0.0 2.4 2.6

Usage
Name GP Min PER EFF EFF/40 WS/40 Pos/g Tm Pos/g %Tm Pos Pts/Pos FGA/Pos FTA/P Ast/P TO/P
Chris Paul 32 33.4 24.7 19.6 23.5 10.3 13.4 73.1 18.4 1.13 0.74 0.43 0.49 0.21
Ty Lawson 35 29.9 30.5 20.8 27.7 12.8 12.8 76.0 16.8 1.30 0.77 0.47 0.51 0.15

We need a pg and Lawson has been remarkably efficient and heavily used. I look past smaller players. I never thought CP3 would be the player he turned out to be simply because he's not very tall.

I'm leaning heavily towards a Derozan & package up for Lawson draft as being my ideal. A high ceiling wing with high risk and great work ethic. An efficient long term PG who may not be a projected franchise player(but you never know!!), but certainly will get the job done and has less risk.

I guess I'm just pondering today...

I do like Lawson as a PG prospect. I'm just unsure of his fit on the Wolves. He seems more of a transition player and less of a halfcourt player to me and I have questions about his defensive ability. If someone who has watched him more than me can sell him, I'd be easily swayed but right now I'd lean more towards Holiday, even though Jrue hasn't showed nearly as much as Lawson.

I've liked Lawson a lot and would be happy with him as our 2nd drafted player behind a Harden/DeRozen/Evans type at 5 (assuming no Rubio).

What surprised me was how favorable his assists were compared to Paul. I suppose that could be due to a much better supporting cast than Paul had, but I still thought of Lawson as only a scoring PG.

The problem with comparing Lawson to Paul in the NBA using their college stats is that Paul's college stats don't even remotely project what Paul has done in the NBA.

I think Lawson is going to be a very good perhaps even great NBA PG, but statistical comparisons to Chris Paul don't mean a whole heck of a lot...

I like Lawson quite a bit, my favorite draft would be to trade up to mid lotto and grab him. Just seems like a rare breed. Pure PG skills, can hit shots, can break down his man, outstanding speed. He isn't tall, that's his downfall, but it's worth a pick around 10ish.

I'll admit I scanned it, and gave up when I saw a Lawson and Paul comparrison. Paul was 2 years younger coming out of college and it was quite clear he was going to be a good player, if not great. Now maybe not quite at this level, but it was obvious he was one of the best players in a strong draft. Lawson is an ok player in a weak draft. If Lawson had the chance to be Chris Paul, he'd be ranked up with Griffin and Rubio. The early legal trouble doesn't help any either.

Depending on what we would have to give up to move up for Lawson, I think sitting tight at 18 for Maynor would be just fine. I do like Lawson better than Maynor, but it would depend on what we give up to make that swap.

Jonathan Watters wrote:The problem with comparing Lawson to Paul in the NBA using their college stats is that Paul's college stats don't even remotely project what Paul has done in the NBA.

You can say that about anything. Simply because Paul vastly exceded expectations doesn't mean you can simply dismiss the statistic comparison. Coming out of Wake Paul put up 2 extremely good season. Certainly top 20 in NCAA history, maybe top 10-15? If we looked at that sort of list I'm sure we'd see all sorts of great pg's and some who never quite made it, but I'm certain there would be many more "good" picks than "busts". Lawson pretty much put up a line by line replica of that with a little more scoring & efficiency (which is probably simply from being on a better team).

meh I googled some lame "best college pg seasons ever?!!?"this is the link and meh?

http://www.collegehoopsnet.com/columns/ ... 051125.htm

Meh? Can't really do a huge analysis on this, but I'm simply stating that he may be and overlooked piece if MN can bundle and move up to get him then why not. He had a great season and seems to be flying under the radar. I think it may be because there's a lack of a need for pg's early in the draft and he doesn't jump off the paper on athletic markers? At a glance most of the teams 1-10 have some sort PG solution. NYK, GSW, MN, SAC could all use PG's. GSW would probably look to a larger guard to pair with monta. NYK apparently wants curry. SAC will get Griffin, Rubio, or Thabeet. Mil wants to resign sessions. Other teams in the top 14. NJ has Harris. CHA could probably use him. PHX may want Flynn.

After everyones hopes at the #1-2 pick are CRUSHED by stern, everyone is going to be bandwagoning on #18 + x for Lawson! BOOK IT.

Evans at #5 - Next Dwayne Wade
Lawson at #18 - Next Chris Paul

Al Jefferson's already the next Tim Duncan, Corey Brewer is the next Scottie Pippen, and Kevin Love's the next Wes Unseld.

C - Tim Duncan
PF - Wes Unseld
SF - Scottie Pippen
SG - Dwayne Wade
PG - Chris Paul

I think that roster would work.

john2jer wrote:Evans at #5 - Next Dwayne Wade
Lawson at #18 - Next Chris Paul

Al Jefferson's already the next Tim Duncan, Corey Brewer is the next Scottie Pippen, and Kevin Love's the next Wes Unseld.

C - Tim Duncan
PF - Wes Unseld
SF - Scottie Pippen
SG - Dwayne Wade
PG - Chris Paul

I think that roster would work.

Evans is the next Wade, but the rest is just ridiculous!

bruceallen61 wrote:

Jonathan Watters wrote:The problem with comparing Lawson to Paul in the NBA using their college stats is that Paul's college stats don't even remotely project what Paul has done in the NBA.

You can say that about anything. Simply because Paul vastly exceded expectations doesn't mean you can simply dismiss the statistic comparison.

It absolutely does.

Paul's college numbers are extremely good, but not unique. There are a dozen point guards in the NBA right now that put up similar college stats to Paul, and probably several more that never made the league.

On the other hand...

Paul's NBA career absolutely is unique. You take a dozen players with Paul's college stats, and one of them turns out to be Chris Paul. That tells you almost nothing about Ty Lawson.

Compare Lawson to the average of those 12 players, and you'll have framework from which you can project.

Cherry picking the best player out of the group is a misuse of statistics.

Coming out of Wake Paul put up 2 extremely good season. Certainly top 20 in NCAA history, maybe top 10-15?

Not even a given for PG's, let alone all players. He would struggle to make the Top 100 for all players.

If we looked at that sort of list I'm sure we'd see all sorts of great pg's and some who never quite made it, but I'm certain there would be many more "good" picks than "busts". Lawson pretty much put up a line by line replica of that with a little more scoring & efficiency (which is probably simply from being on a better team).

But you aren't comparing him to a "good pick". You are comparing him to Chris Paul.

I agree that Lawson's stats make him look very, very good. But that has nothing to do with his stats being similar to Chris Paul's college stats. It has everything to do with Lawson's good stats.

After everyones hopes at the #1-2 pick are CRUSHED by stern, everyone is going to be bandwagoning on #18 + x for Lawson! BOOK IT.

I like Ty Lawson a lot, always have. I think he goes somewhere between 5 and 10 in this draft.

I don't think his career will even approach what Chris Paul is doing these days...

Jonathan Watters wrote:
I like Ty Lawson a lot, always have. I think he goes somewhere between 5 and 10 in this draft.

I don't think his career will even approach what Chris Paul is doing these days...

How do you see his fit on the Wolves (i.e., running a primarily halfcourt offense centered around Big Al)?

Probably not very good with Al/Love.

Agreed.

Jonathan Watters wrote:Paul's college numbers are extremely good, but not unique. There are a dozen point guards in the NBA right now that put up similar college stats to Paul, and probably several more that never made the league.

I think Paul's numbers are unique for a pg over the past 8-10 years. If you look at usage and efficency stats, and not simply pts/ast/etc, then I doubt you would find a player who more closely mirrors it than Lawson(especially if you include their athletic ability and stature). If you can then post it up. I never compared CP3's NBA performance to his or Lawsons college stats. You made that jump yourself because you wanted to argue with somebody.

I like how my initial post simply contrasts the two players college stats and how they have similar athletic markers. I never said he is the next Chris Paul. I state that I never thought CP3 would turn into what he is today and that I tend to overlook undersized/smaller players.

Jonathan Watters wrote:On the other hand...

Compare Lawson to the average of those 12 players, and you'll have framework from which you can project.

Didn't I say this, and you quoted it in your next block?

me wrote:"If we looked at that sort of list I'm sure we'd see all sorts of great pg's and some who never quite made it, but I'm certain there would be many more "good" picks than "busts..."

Ya, I more or less did. As for how to create a proper framework to evaluate a group of players with similar stats... I don't exactly have the time to do this, but I think you should to prove your point?

Jonathan Watters wrote:But you aren't comparing him to a "good pick". You are comparing him to Chris Paul.

I'm actually comparing him to the most recent player who put up a similar season in terms of pts,reb,ast,usage, and eff stats & had similar athletic markers. In most analysis you actually start with the most common ancestor for a number of reasons we don't need to debate here, but I encourage you to find a better statistical model to map Lawson or Paul to I'm sure you can find several? I'd love for you to spend hours comparing and compiling data points and creating a framework to prove whatever it is you are arguing(with yourself) here,

Jonathan Watters wrote:I don't think his career will even approach what Chris Paul is doing these days...

Nor do I? But I'd take 2/3 of Chris Paul, hell I'd take 1/2? 1/2 of Chris Paul is like 300% of Telfair and that stat is totally accurate. I based it on a well documented formula, verified it through a board of certified experts, and applied several governance approaches to ensure the process and framework were accurately followed. I then used an old cray super computer to analyze the raw data, while taking the moon phases and solar flares into account, and then applied a proprietary algorithm to the result to account for redshift and plank scale factors on warped hardwood courts in southern alabama.

bruceallen61 wrote:

Jonathan Watters wrote:Paul's college numbers are extremely good, but not unique. There are a dozen point guards in the NBA right now that put up similar college stats to Paul, and probably several more that never made the league.

I think Paul's numbers are unique for a pg over the past 8-10 years. If you look at usage and efficency stats, and not simply pts/ast/etc, then I doubt you would find a player who more closely mirrors it than Lawson(especially if you include their athletic ability and stature).

Don't worry, I'm way ahead of you on not looking at raw numbers. You should know me better than that.

Lawson from his junior season blows Paul's sophomore season out of the water. Same usage, 10 pts higher offensive rating. Another player that comes very close is a senior year Darren Collison. Nick Calathes. Eric Maynor. Stephen Curry. That is just from 2 minutes of looking over the 2008-09 season. You will find similar statistical profiles in any year.

You looked at Paul because of his unique NBA success, not his unique college success.

If you can then post it up. I never compared CP3's NBA performance to his or Lawsons college stats. You made that jump yourself because you wanted to argue with somebody.

If you weren't comparing them, why did you list their stats next to each other?

I like how my initial post simply contrasts the two players college stats and how they have similar athletic markers. I never said he is the next Chris Paul. I state that I never thought CP3 would turn into what he is today and that I tend to overlook undersized/smaller players.

If you don't want people to assume you are comparing Ty Lawson to Chris Paul, the first thing you want to make sure you don't do is compare their stats right next to each other and then talk about how Lawson is underrated.

I'm actually comparing him to the most recent player who put up a similar season in terms of pts,reb,ast,usage, and eff stats & had similar athletic markers. In most analysis you actually start with the most common ancestor for a number of reasons we don't need to debate here, but I encourage you to find a better statistical model to map Lawson or Paul to I'm sure you can find several? I'd love for you to spend hours comparing and compiling data points and creating a framework to prove whatever it is you are arguing(with yourself) here,

Except that your premise is wrong, and Chris Paul's numbers aren't nearly as unique as you want to make them out to be. You came up with this because Paul has developed into perhaps the best NBA point guard of all time, not because Paul's college stats were good.

A direct comparison of their college stats is misleading at best, downright useless at worst. That's just the way it is.

Nor do I? But I'd take 2/3 of Chris Paul, hell I'd take 1/2? 1/2 of Chris Paul is like 300% of Telfair and that stat is totally accurate. I based it on a well documented formula, verified it through a board of certified experts, and applied several governance approaches to ensure the process and framework were accurately followed. I then used an old cray super computer to analyze the raw data, while taking the moon phases and solar flares into account, and then applied a proprietary algorithm to the result to account for redshift and plank scale factors on warped hardwood courts in southern alabama.

There's nothing complicated about this. I refuted your premise of Paul's efficiency/usage being unique in two minutes. I agree that Lawson is underrated, but the comparison to Paul just doesn't add anything to the discussion.

I'd say I'm sorry for offending you, but that wouldn't be truthful at all...

And the winner of the longest post is.....

(drum roll)

Oh wait, no one cares.

Lawson from his junior season blows Paul's sophomore season out of the water. Same usage, 10 pts higher offensive rating. Another player that comes very close is a senior year Darren Collison. Nick Calathes. Eric Maynor. Stephen Curry. That is just from 2 minutes of looking over the 2008-09 season.

You have not done what I asked.

Currys
FTA/Pos: 0.31
Ast/Pos: 0.24

Collinson:
FTA/Pos: 0.29
Ast/Pos: 0.38

Maynor: .37, .32
Calathas: .35, .42

Not really in the same realm as Lawson/CP3 seasons both around .50 in those catergories. Calthas is the closest, but much larger in height so even then he would not fit the request. So you didn't do anything in 2 minutes. Try again?

If you weren't comparing them, why did you list their stats next to each other?

I simply compared their college stats. What don't you understand about that?

If you don't want people to assume you are comparing Ty Lawson to Chris Paul, the first thing you want to make sure you don't do is compare their stats right next to each other and then talk about how Lawson is underrated.

I never said Lawson was underrated. I said I personally overlooked him because of his size, not that he was underrated. Hopefully you see the difference? Putting their stats right next to each other allows other posters to see how similar their numbers are without having to look elsewhere.

Except that your premise is wrong, and Chris Paul's numbers aren't nearly as unique as you want to make them out to be. You came up with this because Paul has developed into perhaps the best NBA point guard of all time, not because Paul's college stats were good.

No really you still haven't mirrored the stats and stature of a player who more closely resembled the two you merely spoted off a few players with similar pts/pos. So whatever conclusions you want to make about me stating Lawson = CP3 is your own deal manufactured by your need to twist and distort everything. It's ok there's pills for that

There's nothing complicated about this. I refuted your premise of Paul's efficiency/usage being unique in two minutes.

Oh for the third or fourth time now, quit patting yourself on the back. You actually did no such thing. You didn't get it right. It's ok to not follow the rules, but don't claim you refuted anything when you didn't make the proper comparison that was set out. But feel free to try again? Please try to be more accurate so I am not forced to fact check you. In fact post them on the board for me like I did earlier in your reply so I'm not forced to look up how you were wrong. Now get to work on my stats?

I'd say I'm sorry for offending you, but that wouldn't be truthful at all...

You totally ruined my morning hopefully I recover?

bruceallen61 wrote:

Lawson from his junior season blows Paul's sophomore season out of the water. Same usage, 10 pts higher offensive rating. Another player that comes very close is a senior year Darren Collison. Nick Calathes. Eric Maynor. Stephen Curry. That is just from 2 minutes of looking over the 2008-09 season.

You have not done what I asked.

Currys
FTA/Pos: 0.31
Ast/Pos: 0.24

Collinson:
FTA/Pos: 0.29
Ast/Pos: 0.38

Maynor: .37, .32
Calathas: .35, .42


Not really in the same realm as Lawson/CP3 seasons both around .50 in those catergories. Calthas is the closest, but much larger in height so even then he would not fit the request. So you didn't do anything in 2 minutes. Try again?

You asked for usage/efficiency. That is what i compared.

If you weren't comparing them, why did you list their stats next to each other?

I simply compared their college stats. What don't you understand about that?

If you don't want people to assume you are comparing Ty Lawson to Chris Paul, the first thing you want to make sure you don't do is compare their stats right next to each other and then talk about how Lawson is underrated.

I never said Lawson was underrated. I said I personally overlooked him because of his size, not that he was underrated. Hopefully you see the difference? Putting their stats right next to each other allows other posters to see how similar their numbers are without having to look elsewhere. [?QUOTE]

And it still gives off the distinct impression that Lawson is going to be Paul.

Jonathan Watters wrote:You asked for usage/efficiency. That is what i compared.

One would assume that you would use the same comparisons and format that I used in my original post. You know the ones that had Paul and Lawson listed to close for your comfort? You are smart enough to realize when I post..

What I find interesting is how close their pace adjusted numbers are. I took out attempts and mades for ft/3pt/2pt. But they were very close for both players. Paul operated a little bit more from behind the arc, but both were very close in all ftm/fta.[/quote]

Then I post...

Efficiency
Name GP Min PTs/g FGA/g Pts/Play TS% eFG% FTA/FGA 3PA/FGA Ast/g Ast/FGA A/TO PPR BK STL PF
Ty Lawson 35 29.9 16.6 9.8 1.15 0.66 0.61 0.61 0.32 6.6 0.67 3.48 8.19 0.1 2.1 1.7
Chris Paul 32 33.4 15.3 9.9 0.99 0.60 0.52 0.59 0.31 6.6 0.67 2.38 4.76 0.0 2.4 2.6

or

Usage
Name GP Min PER EFF EFF/40 WS/40 Pos/g Tm Pos/g %Tm Pos Pts/Pos FGA/Pos FTA/P Ast/P TO/P
Chris Paul 32 33.4 24.7 19.6 23.5 10.3 13.4 73.1 18.4 1.13 0.74 0.43 0.49 0.21
Ty Lawson 35 29.9 30.5 20.8 27.7 12.8 12.8 76.0 16.8 1.30 0.77 0.47 0.51 0.15

That I want you to compare all the efficiency or usage data in the table? Is this so hard? Don't go comparing what you want to think I requested when you can't do anything right. Now REPROVE YOUR POINT. Find a better match as I have set out in the original post and make sure they have similar stature and athletic markers.

I'll even give you a hint on the scientific method of how to start your search since you are apparently unable to do any forward thinking of your own aside from jumping to conclusions.

1) First go by most recent players
2) I'd go by weeding out players via FTA/P Ast/P, take the median between them and do +/- 5( or roughly 10%)? So your range for this is fta/p .40-.50, then ast/p .45-.55. This is pretty telling of how they are scoring and distributing the ball and certainly the best point to start to weed out players.
3) After you do this for all the numbers or simply find a player that provides a better model. We then do athletic markers, general size, and of the most important component time.

Why time you ask because in my original post I state.

I tried to come up with a recent comparison?

We are looking for the closest statistical match.

Jonathan Watters wrote:And it still gives off the distinct impression that Lawson is going to be Paul.

That's your perception because you have very poor analytical skills and high judgment skills. You make an attempt to appear logical which is cute, but are by no means open to logical or open debate on a topic. You make judgment calls that you claim to be fact or claim to be pure and/or logical, but are by no means open to debate or further analytic process. That's fine and cute, but doesn't actually work in the real world with things of importance(which none of this is).

imo you are:
a) crazy and need mental help/pills (National Mental Health Association 800-969-NMHA)
b) are crazy and stopped taking mental help/pills (see number above)
c) simply shroud your thought in a misty haze and nothing new ever develops
d) This is probably your pushy online board persona, because people push you around irl
e) You need to get a gf/bf
d) all of the above