My condolences on acquiring Kwame - Question tho...

[LakerZombie]

Yes laker fan here and no im not here to gloat......but just curious as to how bad Kwame's grizzlies debut was?

Believe me when i say ive seen just about every bad play this guy has to offer. Just wondering if his debut continued his long track record of contributing absolutely nothing.

on a brighter side....has Javaris gotten any playing time yet? If there is any bright side to the trade for memphis its him.

[GrizzledGrizzFan]

Kwame is an expiring contract.

[PhD Griz]

kwame got quite the warm welcome when he first entered the game as a Griz.....

and he sucked, of course....

don't fool yourself into thinking that we care about anything but Kwame's expiring contract....

giving Pau a max deal was the WRONG move three years ago and this trade went to fixing that mistake.....

most fans, myself included, would have prefered to gotten a better deal in return for pau...

but I am clearly of the opinion that there is a big bright side to this trade.....

that is a geniune chance to build a playoff winning team....

With Pau and his contract on the roster, this team was never going to do anything but inch up the western conference standings......

now we have a real chance to make a big jump in the western conference in the next 2-3 years (much like the hornets and blazers have after giving away their best player)....

trading pau was a must.....some just wish the trade was a little better...

oh and JCritt has looked good in limited minutes....he has only played SG so far for us....

[LakerZombie]

kwame got quite the warm welcome when he first entered the game as a Griz.....

and he sucked, of course....

oh and JCritt has looked good in limited minutes....he has only played SG so far for us....

LoL at Kwame, figures.

Yea while the trade looks so one-sided i believe that at the end of a VERY long day it was the right decision.

And heres hoping J-Critt gets more PT and emerges as a steal in a promising young guard.

Thanks for the info

[Double Dribble]

looks like you came here to see only what you wanted to see.

[LakerZombie]

looks like you came here to see only what you wanted to see.

No i came here to get observations from grizzlies fans on their two new additions... being as I live in Los Angeles and could not see their memphis debut, nor could I find any articles on it.

[Double Dribble]

-= original quote snipped =-

No i came here to get observations from grizzlies fans on their two new additions... being as I live in Los Angeles and could not see their memphis debut, nor could I find any articles on it.

No, it looks like you came here to say how much Kwame sucks and to look for Grizzlies fans to say the same. Two people have told you we only care about his expiring contract, yet you only responded to the "he sucked" part and only chose to quote the "he sucked" part. You came here to only see what you wanted to see.

[Gerald3Wallace]

what i really wanted to know is...how did javaaris come from playing 19mins scoring 10pts/4rebs/2ast..he was like the spark...then coming into next game playing only 4 minutes??

why dont they play critt more? dude can ball? and they should use him more and let him gain more expirience

[tayzer]

I like J-Crit. I think he would be a better pg than sg, he likes to pass, but u never know.

[GrizzledGrizzFan]

what i really wanted to know is...how did javaaris come from playing 19mins scoring 10pts/4rebs/2ast..he was like the spark...then coming into next game playing only 4 minutes??

why dont they play critt more? dude can ball? and they should use him more and let him gain more expirience

Welcome to the Grizzlies, "Where WTF Happens."

[Double Dribble]

Regarding this Crittenton love...

Some of you may remember Hollinger's system for predicting how college players will perform in the NBA. Part of his ranking system includes four red flags.

"Players in the 6-5 to 6-7 range with rates below 7.5: The most notable
past failure here is Casey Jacobsen; two players from this year's
draft -- Afflalo and Javaris Crittenton -- raise a red flag here."

Hollinger goes on to say that things get dicey below the 500 rating mark. Crittenton is rated 492.

This doesn't bode well for Crittenton.

A new system to evaluate the pro potential of college players
By John Hollinger

As an NBA analyst, few things have confounded me more than trying to
evaluate college players for the NBA draft.

I have a pretty good system to deal with Europeans, at least the ones
who get major exposure in the Euroleague (more on that later this
week). And at the other end of the spectrum, the high schoolers and
random foreign teenage 7-footers have played so few competitive games
that there's nothing much to evaluate.

But in the middle lie college hoops -- close enough to the NBA game to
be ripe for evaluation, yet just different enough to have remained
elusive.

Until now, that is. Today is the unveiling of a system I've developed
for evaluating college players' pro potential, one that works very
well when back-tested against previous drafts.

This is version 1.0 of a system that is likely to undergo several
iterations in future years, and it's by no means perfect -- there
simply is no way to look at a group of 20-year-olds and tell with 100
percent accuracy which ones will be the best at age 25.

But I feel comfortable releasing it now because the results are a big
improvement on the actual drafts, and that's the important thing.
While I can't make a system that's omniscient, at least this one
doesn't result in consecutive lottery picks being spent on Jared
Jeffries, Melvin Ely and Marcus Haislip, which is what actually
happened in 2002.

And on that point, this system clearly holds up. Take that 2002 draft,
for example. The best collegian from that draft is Utah Jazz forward
Carlos Boozer, who was taken with the 35th overall pick by Cleveland
-- after Dajuan Wagner, Jeffries, Ely, Haislip, Ryan Humphrey, Kareem
Rush, Casey Jacobsen, Frank Williams, John Salmons, Chris Jefferies,
Dan Dickau, Roger Mason, Robert Archibald and Vincent Yarbrough were
off the board.

My formula has Boozer 34 spots higher -- at the top of the draft. In
fact, he's one of the five best college prospects to come out in the
last half decade, according to the system.

If you look below at the other charts, you'll notice the top-rated
college prospect in each draft (Boozer in '02, Carmelo Anthony in '03,
Luol Deng in '04, Chris Paul in '05, and Tyrus Thomas in '06) ended up
among the few elite players in that year's college class.

THE KEY FACTORS

So how does it work?

The difficulties of working with college basketball stats are myriad,
but it starts with getting an apples-to-apples comparison between
players. The raw stats are almost worthless on this front, because
differences in both pace and schedule strength can vary much more
widely than they do in the NBA.

So obviously, I needed to adjust for this before I could go any
further. The pace adjustment was done using pace factor, as you might
expect; for strength of schedule, I used Jeff Sagarin's schedule
strength ratings, which are archived at USAToday.com for previous
seasons.

From that point, there's still one big problem -- pro success doesn't
always depend on how good you were in college. Obviously it helps, and
I use PER (Player Efficiency Rating) as one of the factors in my
rating formula, but it doesn't come close to telling the whole story.

The other six factors that are indicative of pro success are:

1. Age. Everything about the draft has to be seen through the prism of
age. This is hugely important, yet teams underestimate it almost every
year.

That's why "veteran" rookies like Ely, Dickau, Rafael Araujo and
Francisco Garcia have underwhelmed at the NBA level, while the
freshman stats of a player like Chris Bosh take on new meaning when
you understand his youth.

This year's draft is especially alluring on the youth front, since the
NBA's new age restrictions resulted in several coveted players going
the one-and-done route -- most notably Kevin Durant and Greg Oden.

On the other hand, Florida State's Al Thornton is walking around with
a giant neon warning sign, as he will turn 24 a little over a month
into his rookie season. He's more than a year older than LeBron James,
and nearly two years older than Darko Milicic.

Teams need to view guys like this the same way they look at a
grade-school kid who's been left back twice and dominates the
lunchtime kickball game, but for some reason a lot of clubs don't.

2. Steals. Though perhaps the most worthless stat for NBA analysis,
there's no denying that college players who get a ton of steals tend
to fare much better in the NBA than their less sticky-fingered
brethren. This is the one item that gets the most weight, actually --
it's even more important than PER!

For this year's draft, that's a big positive for Mike Conley, Jr., who
picked off more than two balls a game, and a big negative for players
like Arron Afflalo (22 all season), Nick Young (27) and Ramon Sessions
(29).

3. Blocks. This is the big man counterpart to steals, basically,
although it's not quite as important.

What's more, players who generate numbers in both categories are
hugely successful as a group. Of the 13 NCAA players in the past five
years to have a "50-50" season in blocks and steals, nine are in the
NBA, five were lottery picks, and one was the MVP of the 2006 NBA
Finals -- Dwyane Wade.

In this year's draft, there is one player who was a "50-50" in
college. His name? Kevin Durant.

4. Rebounds. Boards, especially offensive boards, are a good indicator
of future pro success as well.

Note that it isn't necessarily the absolute rebounds as much as the
rebounds given a player's height. Wade, for instance, has the best
rebound rate in the past five years of any player 6-4 or shorter -- a
whopping 13.0 his sophomore year. Rajon Rondo was the best under 6-2
(11.5), and Nate Robinson was the best under six foot (8.6 his
sophomore year).

The correlation isn't quite as strong with big men, oddly enough,
because you get one-dimensional types muscling in on the action (a lot
of marginal players like Reggie Evans). But big men who can rebound
and show some skill in other areas tend to fare very well in the pros.

The most notable rebound rate in this year's draft belongs to an Ohio
State player -- just not the one you think. Daequan Cook, a 6-5
freshman, put up a whopping 12.1 mark, which is pretty incredible for
a player that size.

5. 3-pointers. Those previous three items are markers for athleticism,
while these next two are markers of skill.

Despite the longer line, college 3-point shooting translates very well
to the NBA level, albeit sometimes with a year or two of adjustment
needed. The key here is to look for players who both make a ton of 3s
and shoot a high percentage.

From recent drafts, the standout performers here are Kyle Korver and
Salim Stoudamire. Korver nailed 129 at a 48-percent clip his final
year at Creighton, while Stoudamire -- though undraftable according to
pretty much every other metric -- hit a scalding 50 percent while
making 120 his last year at Arizona.

Nobody stands out quite to that extent in this year's draft.

6. Pure Point Rating.[/B] Pure point rating is something I created to
replace assist-turnover ratio, which is a fairly useless creation
because it sticks turnovers in the denominator and thus tends to
reward point guards who never penetrate. Pure point rating produces
much more relevant rankings of a player's ability as a distributor;
the formula is:

Pure Point = (100* ((Assists * 2/3) - Turnovers))/Minutes

Steve Nash led the NBA in 2006-07 at 11.3; the next four players were
Jason Kidd, Chris Paul, Jose Calderon and Deron Williams.

I thought this might just separate the wheat from the chaff among
point guards, but it actually helps at every position.

Obviously, guards such as Deron Williams, Marcus Williams, T.J. Ford
and Steve Blake differentiate themselves by having college pure point
ratings well over 2.0, but wingmen like Andre Iguodala and Luke Walton
also helped themselves with extremely strong ratings in this category.

On the other hand, Alexander Johnson and Rafael Araujo both put up
-3.4 marks -- perhaps that should have been a warning sign.

In this year's draft, Conley's 2.45 mark stands out with an
exclamation point -- it's the fourth-best of any college player in the
past six years with at least 500 minutes played, and easily No. 1
among this year's players.

At the other end, Nick Young (-1.8.) and Morris Almond (-2.9) have
disastrously bad ratings for backcourt players.


THE RED FLAGS

I use the six factors above to produce a "rating" of a player's pro
potential, but that's not the end of the story. It turns out just
using the rating only gets you about halfway there, and still leads to
a lot of mistakes.

The rest of it is taken care of by what I call the four "red flags":

Short guys. We're all familiar with the great hordes of 5-11 guards
who have put up spectacular college hoops numbers only to implode upon
reaching the pros. I had to put in a system of deductions to account
for this.

At the guard spot, a player got a minor deduction for being "somewhat
short" if he was a 6-3 or 6-4 shooting guard, or a 6-1 or 6-2 point
guard. He got a much larger deduction for being "very short" if he was
a 6-2 or smaller shooting guard, or a 6-0 or smaller point guard. This
seemed to even out a lot of the small-guard issues, as the best small
players were able to overcome their size, but the others weren't.

Up front, I had to put in a fairly severe deduction for short power
forwards. Simply put, if you're shorter than 6-9 and plan to play
inside in the pros, you'd better have some fairly overwhelming college
stats to back you up. Those who do sometimes succeed -- such as Paul
Millsap or the pre-Orca-phase Michael Sweetney. Those who don't pretty
much always fail.

7-footers. Hey, I don't make the rules, I just play by 'em.
Seven-footers in the drafts I studied tended to greatly underperform
their college stats in the pros.

Perhaps there's an easy explanation for this: If they were that big
and hadn't already bolted for the NBA, that was perhaps the first sign
something was wrong. Additionally, they sure as heck weren't facing
off against many players their own size.

This affects Greg Oden, Spencer Hawes and Aaron Gray in this year's draft.

Perimeter players who don't make 3s. Making fewer than 25 3-pointers
in the year before being drafted is a pretty strong negative indicator
for outside players.

Some are good enough in other areas to overcome it -- most notably
Wade. Many others fail because of it, however, as the athleticism they
relied on to dominate in college isn't nearly as singular at the pro
level.

Really bad rebounders. This is a huge red flag -- if a player has an
extremely poor rebound rate for his size, it's a strong indication
that his athleticism is taxed to the limit even at the college level
and he's going to be completely overwhelmed in the pros.

This has several subsets by position, and as you can see it's kind of
a gallery of busts:

Guards with a rate below 5.0: Stoudamire and Jannero Pargo overcame
this enough to become quasi-useful; perhaps J.J. Redick will too.
Others include Dickau, Daniel Ewing, Reece Gaines, Dajuan Wagner and
Roger Mason. This year's draftees who get red-flagged on this metric
are JamesOn Curry, Taurean Green and Gabe Pruitt.

Players in the 6-5 to 6-7 range with rates below 7.5: The most notable
past failure here is Casey Jacobsen; two players from this year's
draft -- Afflalo and Javaris Crittenton -- raise a red flag here.

Players in the 6-8 to 6-9 range with rates below 8.0: Your past
winners here include Adam Morrison and Jarvis Hayes. Nobody this year
qualifies.

Any inside player with a rate below 12: This is a big one -- Matt
Freije, Matt Bonner, Marcus Haislip and Rick Rickert all get tagged
from past drafts on this metric. In this year's drafts, there are two
big kahunas with decidedly poor rebound rates -- Brandan Wright (11.1)
and Spencer Hawes (11.3).

Any center below 13: If Ely's age hadn't been a reason not to draft
him, this should have been. Hawes falls under this category too (I
didn't double-ding him).


THE ONE ANTI-RED FLAG

One positive, surprisingly, was if a player had a previous season that
was better than the one just before the draft.

You might think that this meant a player was "on the downswing," but
actually counting one-third the previous season and two-thirds the
current one improved the quality of the draft ratings significantly.
Interestingly enough, the opposite didn't work -- counting a previous
season where a player was worse didn't help at all.

What this tells us, apparently, is that with players this young we
should take most one-year improvements at face value.

SUMMING IT UP

After all that, we finally end up with a numerical rating for each
player. While assigning each player a single number can't possibly
address all the complexities involved in a draft (present versus
future, team needs versus best player, etc.), it does allow us to do a
few neat things.

For starters, we can compare drafts between years, which allows us to
see almost immediately that this year's draft is, indeed, absolutely
freaking loaded. It has the highest-rated player of the past six
years, and seven of the top 23 collegians in that stretch.

Second, we can denote differences between players much more finely
than we can by just using a ranking system. For example, the
difference in the 2006 draft between the top-rated player, Tyrus
Thomas, and the second-ranked collegian, Shelden Williams, was greater
than that between Williams and the No. 35 player -- which would clue
you in to just draft Thomas, regardless of need. On the other hand,
the difference between Andrew Bogut and Channing Frye in the 2005
draft was only three hundredths of a point.

Best of all, the system works. Obviously, you want more than just my
word, so below are charts showing the top 12 collegians in each draft
using my formula, compared to where they actually were picked among
collegians and what players went in their place.

Yes, there are a few stinking dogs thrown in -- Vincent Yarbrough
didn't quite pan out, for instance, and the Paul Davis Era in Los
Angeles is off to a slow start.

That's OK. As I said, this is just the initial version of the system,
and for it to work, we just have to have fewer busts than in the real
drafts. And as you'll see, there are substantial fewer in the lists
below.

Let's look at how the past five drafts play out:


COMPARISON TO RECENT DRAFTS

2002 Draft: Top 12 rated players
NO. PLAYER SCHOOL SCORE PICKED* ACTUAL ORDER*
1. Carlos Boozer Duke 711.0 26 Jay Williams
2. Drew Gooden Kansas 678.6 3 Mike Dunleavy Jr.
3. Chris Wilcox Maryland 608.6 5 Drew Gooden
4. Curtis Borchardt Stanford 598.1 12 Dajuan Wagner
5. Mike Dunleavy Jr. Duke 561.0 2 Chris Wilcox
6. Jay Williams Duke 515.0 1 Caron Butler
7. Jared Jeffries Indiana 503.3 7 Jared Jeffries
8. Udonis Haslem Florida 498.9 Undrafted Melvin Ely
9. Vincent Yarbrough Tennessee 498.5 24 Marcus Haislip
10. Caron Butler UConn 495.0 6 Fred Jones
11. Tayshaun Prince Kentucky 480.1 16 Juan Dixon
12. Casey Jacobsen Stanford 471.5 15 Curtis Borchardt

* among collegians only

As I mentioned before, Boozer went 35th in the real draft, but he's at
the top of the list in this one. Haslem went completely undrafted but
is the No. 8 collegian here, while Prince -- considered something of a
reach at the time -- also moves up. Borchardt is a good example of how
traditional scouting can complement this kind of system -- everyone
avoided him because of a history of foot problems, and sure enough he
kept having foot problems.

Notables: Fred Jones (428.9, 19th); Juan Dixon (390.6, 25th); Jannero
Pargo (377.6, 30th); John Salmons (360.1); Matt Barnes (352.0); Dan
Gadzuric (285.5); Darius Songaila (249.3); Dan Dickau (215.0)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003 Draft: Top 12 rated players
NO. PLAYER SCHOOL SCORE PICKED* ACTUAL ORDER*
1. Carmelo Anthony Syracuse 781.3 1 Carmelo Anthony
2. Mike Sweetney Georgetown 702.8 7 Chris Bosh
3. Chris Bosh Georgia Tech 688.4 2 Dwyane Wade
4. Dwyane Wade Marquette 600.4 3 Chris Kaman
5. Nick Collison Kansas 553.4 9 Kirk Hinrich
6. T.J. Ford Texas 549.5 6 T.J. Ford
7. Kirk Hinrich Kansas 504.0 5 Michael Sweetney
8. Josh Howard Wake Forest 501.4 17 Jarvis Hayes
9. Kyle Korver Creighton 499.7 31 Nick Collison
10. David West Xavier 494.7 14 Marcus Banks
11. Troy Bell Boston College 481.5 13 Luke Ridnour
12. Jarvis Hayes Georgia 478.9 8 Reece Gaines

* among collegians only

It's tough to improve on the 2003 draft, but the system didn't screw
it up either. Sweetney is the one brow-raiser -- he was an absolute
monster in college (hard to believe the guy we see now averaged nearly
two steals a game at Georgetown) and had a rookie PER on par with that
of Wade and Bosh before he started losing the battle of the bulge.
Korver, West and Howard were later picks (Korver going in Round 2) who
moved way up on this list, ahead of busts Troy Bell and Jarvis Hayes.

Notables: Marquis Daniels (474.3, 13th); Marcus Banks (472.3, 15th);
Chris Kaman (462.7, 16th) Matt Carroll (447.5, 18th); Quinton Ross
(443.5, 19th); Luke Ridnour (442.3, 20th); Matt Bonner (440.4, 21st);
Maurice Williams (428.5, 23rd); Luke Walton (420.2, 25th); Keith
Bogans (362.8 ); Steve Blake (361.8 ); Dahntay Jones (358.7); Brian Cook
(349.9); Jason Kapono (337.2); James Jones (333.1)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


2004 Draft: Top 12 rated players
NO. PLAYER SCHOOL SCORE PICKED* ACTUAL ORDER*
1. Luol Deng Duke 650.7 5 Emeka Okafor
2. Delonte West Saint Joseph's 626.9 12 Ben Gordon
3. Devin Harris Wisconsin 614.6 3 Devin Harris
4. Emeka Okafor Connecticut 579.4 1 Josh Childress
5. Luke Jackson Oregon 558.5 8 Luol Deng
6. Josh Childress Stanford 530.0 4 Rafael Araujo
7. Ben Gordon Connecticut 529.1 2 Andre Iguodala
8. Kris Humphries Minnesota 527.6 9 Luke Jackson
9. Jameer Nelson Saint Joseph's 522.2 11 Kris Humphries
10. Kevin Martin Western Carolina 517.7 14 Kirk Snyder
11. Andre Iguodala Arizona 509.5 7 Jameer Nelson
12. Andre Emmett Texas Tech 472.3 18 Delonte West

* among collegians only

Okafor was the top-rated collegian in the eyes of most, but the
numbers here said to go with Deng, who has paid dividends as the
fifth-drafted collegian for Chicago. Kevin Martin and Delonte West
move way up, while you can see the large difference in score between
the solid 11th-rated collegian (Andre Iguodala) and the woofer at No.
12 (Andre Emmett). Generally things start getting dicey once the
scores dip under 500.

Notables: Kirk Snyder (464.5, 14th); Chris Duhon (454.3, 15th); David
Harrison (432.0, 21st) Tony Allen (377.0, 27th); Royal Ivey (341.8 )

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2005 Draft: Top 12 rated players
NO. PLAYER SCHOOL SCORE PICKED* ACTUAL ORDER*
1. Chris Paul Wake Forest 705.9 4 Andrew Bogut
2. Marvin Williams North Carolina 697.6 2 Marvin Williams
3. Sean May North Carolina 690.4 9 Deron Williams
4. Rashad McCants North Carolina 639.4 10 Chris Paul
5. Andrew Bogut Utah 579.7 1 Raymond Felton
6. Channing Frye Arizona 579.7 7 Charlie Villanueva
7. Raymond Felton North Carolina 562.1 5 Channing Frye
8. Chris Taft Pittsburgh 559.7 30 Ike Diogu
9. Danny Granger New Mexico 554.4 13 Sean May
10. Nate Robinson Washington 538.0 16 Rashad McCants
11. Deron Williams Illinois 523.7 3 Antoine Wright
12. Jarrett Jack Georgia Tech 523.3 17 Joey Graham

* among collegians only

We're still evaluating the 2005 draft, but it's pretty obvious that
Paul was the top collegian from that group and should have gone ahead
of the likes of Bogut and both Deron and Marvin Williams. If you're
looking for Charlie Villanueva, he was 13th. You can also tell that
this was a pretty strong group, as scores were still well over 500
even at the 12th position.

Notables: Charlie Villanueva (521.9, 13th); David Lee (482.7, 19th);
Kelenna Azubuike (454.2, 25th) Salim Stoudamire (449.4, 26th);
Francisco Garcia (448.8, 27th); Daniel Ewing (446.3, 28th); Chuck
Hayes (443.9, 30th); Ronny Turiaf (442.7); Ryan Gomes (430.9); Hakim
Warrick (427.8 ); Luther Head (419.7) Ike Diogu (402.5); Antoine Wright
(387.8 ); Joey Graham (353.8 ); Jason Maxiell (342.5); Linas Kleiza
(308.4)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2006 Draft: Top 12 rated players
NO. PLAYER SCHOOL SCORE PICKED* ACTUAL ORDER*
1. Tyrus Thomas LSU 756.8 3 LaMarcus Aldridge
2. Shelden Williams Duke 583.1 4 Adam Morrison
3. Brandon Roy Washington 557.6 5 Tyrus Thomas
4. Ronnie Brewer Arkansas 555.8 11 Shelden Williams
5. Rudy Gay Connecticut 552.1 7 Brandon Roy
6. Patrick O'Bryant Bradley 551.9 8 Randy Foye
7. Paul Davis Michigan State 546.6 28 Rudy Gay
8. Kyle Lowry Villanova 538.6 20 Patrick O'Bryant
9. Rajon Rondo Kentucky 534.5 17 J.J. Redick
10. LaMarcus Aldridge Texas 524.3 1 Hilton Armstrong
11. Quincy Douby Rutgers 516.8 15 Ronnie Brewer
12. Marcus Williams Connecticut 512.1 18 Cedric Simmons

* among collegians only

Thomas was head-and-shoulders above the crowd by my method, while
second-rounder Davis is a lottery pick by the same reckoning; we'll
see if it works out that way in real life. College stars Adam Morrison
and J.J. Redick are nowhere to be found, both red-flagged by horrid
rebound rates, among other woes.

Notables: Randy Foye (502.3, 13th); J.J. Redick (479.6, 18th); Rodney
Carney (469.4, 19th); Adam Morrison (466.3, 20th); Renaldo Balkman
(458.3, 23rd); Daniel Gibson (456.3, 25th); Jordan Farmar (450.0,
27th); Paul Millsap (440.0); Josh Boone (414.8 ); Craig Smith (377.8);
Hilton Armstrong (304.6)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall, the system picked out several players who were drafted much,
much later and turned into NBA stars. Better yet, it didn't miss out
on a single important player. Looking at the past five drafts, the
most prominent players taken among the top 12 collegians in their
draft who weren't in the top 12 in my system were Randy Foye, who
ranked 13th in 2006; Villanueva, who ranked 13th in 2005; and Chris
Kaman, who ranked 16th in 2003. Compared to real life -- a system that
passed on Carlos Boozer, Udonis Haslem, Tayshaun Prince, David West,
Josh Howard, Kevin Martin, Delonte West, and Danny Granger, among
others -- I'll take these results in a heartbeat.

And it's not just the players who were picked that matters, but the
ones who weren't. By my count, six of the biggest dogs of the past
five drafts -- Dajuan Wagner, Melvin Ely, Marcus Haislip, Reece
Gaines, Rafael Araujo, Antoine Wright -- would have landed well
outside the top 12 collegians using this method. You can raise that
number to 10 if Adam Morrison, J.J. Redick, Hilton Armstrong and
Cedric Simmons don't turn the corner.

LOOKING AT THE 2007 DRAFT

My apologies for the lengthy prelude, since at least half of you
probably just scrolled straight down to this part, but I had to point
out how well this thing works when used on past drafts if I'm going to
have you believe it has some relevance for this one.

But without further ado, it's time to introduce the top prospects from
this year's draft -- as well as the hot prospects who surprisingly
didn't make the cut.

The raw info is in the chart, but here's how it breaks down:

2007 Draft: Top 30 rated collegians, plus other notables
NO. PLAYER SCHOOL SCORE CHAD FORD'S RANKING
1. Kevin Durant Texas 870.7 2
2. Greg Oden Ohio State 667.9 1
3. Mike Conley Jr. Ohio State 637.9 7
4. Thaddeus Young Georgia Tech 604.2 14
5. Brandan Wright North Carolina 601.4 8
6. Al Horford Florida 601.0 3
7. Nick Fazekas Nevada 594.3 35
8. Josh McRoberts Duke 566.7 26
9. Rodney Stuckey E. Washington 557.7 16
10. Jared Dudley Boston College 542.6 31
11. Joakim Noah Florida 528.6 9
12. Glen Davis LSU 521.0 25
13. Sean Williams Boston College 511.3 20
14. Jeff Green Georgetown 505.5 6
15. Kyle Visser Wake Forest 503.5 57
16. Herbert Hill Providence 503.0 49
17. Javaris Crittenton Georgia Tech 492.2 18
18. Wilson Chandler DePaul 483.1 30
19. Julian Wright Kansas 481.4 11
20. Daequan Cook Ohio State 470.0 27
21. D.J. Strawberry Maryland 465.5 52
22. Jason Smith Colorado State 464.9 17
23. Alando Tucker Wisconsin 464.3 41
24. Corey Brewer Florida 462.4 5
25. Al Thornton Florida State 447.8 10
26. Marcus Williams Arizona 445.8 33
27. Acie Law Texas A&M 445.2 15
28. Aaron Gray Pittsburgh 440.5 38
29. Zabian Dowdell Virginia Tech 438.2 34
30. Spencer Hawes Washington 433.9 12
Other notables


Morris Almond Rice 425.6 22
Derrick Byars Vanderbilt 421.9 28
Gabe Pruitt USC 421.0 21
Nick Young USC 383.8 13
Taurean Green Florida 350.4 39
Arron Afflalo UCLA 336.1 32
Ramon Sessions Nevada 334.7 37


And based on the chart, let's close with some important conclusions
heading into Thursday's big shindig:

Kevin Durant is the best talent to come out of the college ranks in
the last half decade. As we've learned, this doesn't necessarily mean
he'll become the best player. But his 870.7 score blows the previous
best -- Carmelo Anthony's 781.3 in 2003 -- right out of the water. If
there's one thing that makes me reconsider the Oden versus Durant
question after I thought it had been settled, this is it. I mean, how
can you pass on this guy when his numbers are this overwhelming?

Oden isn't the only no-brainer on his college team. It might surprise
some to see Conley rated so close to Oden on this list. No doubt
that's partly because Oden played all year with a bad wrist (again, an
example of where scouting can augment what's being done with numbers).
But among point guards in the last six drafts, only Chris Paul rated
higher than Conley. Suddenly it doesn't seem so silly for the Hawks to
take him at No. 3, especially given their glaring need at that spot.

Four players are in a virtual dead heat for the No. 4 spot: Despite
the red flag on his rebounding, Brandan Wright is in the mix here,
along with Al Horford, Nick Fazekas and Thaddeus Young. Those last two
names will probably surprise a few folks, since Wright and Horford
have been the names we've been hearing the most. But Fazekas' numbers
have been consistently outstanding -- particularly on the glass --
which makes him seem like Nick Collison with a jump shot. Meanwhile
Young fared very well for a player his age, though one wishes his
athletic markers were better.

Jeff Green and Julian Wright don't rate as lottery picks. Though
players with a score in the area of 500 usually are first-round
quality and sometimes become very good, there are far better options
to be had in this draft. Wright is a very poor shooter for his size,
while Green's athletic markers were surprisingly average.

Rodney Stuckey looks like the real deal. The unheralded guard from
Eastern Washington actually had even better numbers in 2005-06 and
rates as one of the 10 best players in this draft. Fans also might be
surprised to see Duke punching bag Josh McRoberts so high, but he had
the assist ratio of a point guard and fairly high rates of blocks and
steals. Boston College's Jared Dudley finishes out the top 10 -- it's
a bit troubling that he blocked only 10 shots all year, but he shot
well from distance and has strong previous seasons helping him out.

Corey Brewer rates way lower than most people would imagine. Brewer's
rating of 462.4 makes him a marginal first-rounder, and that's only
because of the paucity of Euros in this year's draft. Since this
pretty much flies in the face of conventional wisdom, which has Brewer
rated as a top-five or at worst top-10 pick, I have to point out that
his numbers don't match the general consensus on his athleticism.

Brewer's 8.5 rebound rate teetered on red-flag territory, and he
blocked only 15 shots all season, which is quite low for a 6-9 NBA
hopeful. Additionally, his ballhandling is a concern -- his -0.74 pure
point ratio was pretty poor for a perimeter player. Brewer brings his
share of positives too, but I'm not sure teams will get what they
think they're getting if they take him high in the lottery.

Acie Law and Spencer Hawes are best to be avoided. Both are viewed as
late-lottery picks, but they look like solid second-rounders from
here. Hawes has an unimpressive rebound rate, which is a huge red flag
considering he was bigger than everyone he played against. And for all
the talk of his great post skills, he had a run-of-the-mill 55.0 true
shooting percentage and didn't even have the best PER on his mediocre
team (that belonged to Jon Brockman). A lot of folks think he can
become a quality pro post player; based on his numbers, I just don't
see it.

As for Law, his athleticism is a major question mark. He had 39 steals
and one block, a pittance for a 6-3 guard. His 5.3 rebound rate is
another poor indicator, while his age (22) only adds to the list of
negatives. Additionally, Law's pure point ratio was only average, and
he doesn't seem to be nearly dangerous enough a scorer to make up for
it.

The two USC guys look like total busts. There have been players to
make the NBA with scores lower than those of Gabe Pruitt and Nick
Young, and a couple of them even turned out to be halfway decent. But
many more of the players who scored that low had disappointing pro
careers, so clearly this is not the way to bet.

Truth be told, Pruitt and Young both have major red flags to overcome.
Pruitt's rebound rate of 4.9 is shockingly bad for a 6-4 guard alleged
to have above-par athleticism, and he just didn't do much of anything
else to set himself apart from the countless other guards trying to
play their way into the league.

Young is an even deeper mystery. If this guy's such a good athlete,
how'd he have only 27 steals and 10 blocks this past season? As I
mentioned above, his pure point ratio is hold-your-nose awful for a
guard, his rebound rate is only OK, and it's not like he put up these
numbers against stellar competition. Why exactly are we supposed to be
excited about this guy?

Actually, this formula doesn't seem to be kind to players from L.A.
Arron Afflalo rated even worse than the two Trojans; Afflalo, Nevada
guard Ramon Sessions, and Florida guard Taurean Green are fringe
first-rounders who are best to be avoided.

[LakerZombie]

-= original quote snipped =-

No, it looks like you came here to say how much Kwame sucks and to look for Grizzlies fans to say the same. Two people have told you we only care about his expiring contract, yet you only responded to the "he sucked" part and only chose to quote the "he sucked" part. You came here to only see what you wanted to see.

Wrong.

I guess when you're upset it's hard to think clearly.

If Kwame's debut had any positiveness to it i would've said good deal and moved on. Yes his expiring contract is why you guys landed him however he's still expected to play no?

I'm sure when he came to LA, wizard fans wondered how he did in his debut regardless of how much they were glad to be rid of him.

[Double Dribble]

no, of course. you're right. you didn't start a thread and say, "[i'm] just curious as to how bad Kwame's grizzlies debut was?" i hallucinated the whole thing.

you came here to say he sucks and to look for Grizzlies fans to say the same. quit backpedaling. funny that you say if it were a positive answer you would have moved on. your own words continue to betray you and you don't even realize it. or maybe you do and you're desperately trying to save face. unfortunately for you, you're digging a deeper hole for yourself.

[LakerZombie]

no, of course. you're right. you didn't start a thread and say, "[i'm] just curious as to how bad Kwame's grizzlies debut was?" i hallucinated the whole thing.

you came here to say he sucks and to look for Grizzlies fans to say the same. quit backpedaling. funny that you say if it were a positive answer you would have moved on. your own words continue to betray you and you don't even realize it. or maybe you do and you're desperately trying to save face. unfortunately for you, you're digging a deeper hole for yourself.

"Believe me when i say ive seen just about every bad play this guy has to offer. Just wondering if his debut continued his long track record of contributing absolutely nothing.

Funny you should quote just part of my initial post but not the rest.

Fact = Kwame's play is horrid.
Fact = Kwame's now going on his third team in the NBA
Question = How was his play. Was it in fact bad?

The "question" part seems to have confused you. I apparently struck a chord with you when i posed a simple question that needed a simple answer. Did you even bother to read my posts after my question was answered?

I'm going to say NO on that one

[Double Dribble]

don't flatter yourself. you came to troll, and you were called on it. you already believe that Kwame sucks, but you felt the need to come here for validation, not to learn anything new. and the hole you dig grows deeper.

[LakerZombie]

LOL@this guy

You really must love the sound of your own voice.

No point in arguing with someone like that. I'm done.

Go brag to your online friends that you nailed another "troll"

LOL

[jefe]

don't flatter yourself. you came to troll, and you were called on it. you already believe that Kwame sucks, but you felt the need to come here for validation, not to learn anything new. and the hole you dig grows deeper.

Oh the ironing.

Is it really worth arguing about an expiring contract?

[targetman]

I'm a Laker fan and I am not here to tell you Kwame is going to be a great talent, but you knew that. I will say that he is a good teammate, he is very unselfish (5 assists for you tonight), he is a big body to defend the paint, and he has no ego. He was well liked by his teammates and he got you the expiring contract you needed. I am not a Kwame hater. He just suffered from unrealistic expectations. He's a role player and that's what he wants to be.

[Double Dribble]

no one expects Kwame to be a great talent. we didn't acquire him for his talents; we acquired him for his expiring contract. that's all we care about.

Oh the ironing.

the housewife blues hitting you again?

[jefe]

no one expects Kwame to be a great talent. we didn't acquire him for his talents; we acquired him for his expiring contract. that's all we care about.

Oh the ironing.

the housewife blues hitting you again?

It must have gone over your head.