have a interesting question for you all

heyhowareyou · Post #1 » by **heyhowareyou** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:28 am

hi, how do scouts project who goes first, example, chris paul didnt have a amazing college basketball career, in fact some point guy in respected basketball teams have better stats then him, why was he drafted so high? Rose didnt have a outstanding college career, but he was drafted at number one? OJ mayo had a pretty good stats, but went to number 4, if rose is that good, why couldnt he put on numbers like 20 8 8 in college level??? and while players like adam morrison and jj reddrick who had amazing college numbers, drafted pretty high. what do they draft players based on.

Ballings7 · Post #2 » by **Ballings7** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:41 am

Up-side, physical make-up, mental make-up (at least to an extent), diverse game dimension

SmoothKobra · Post #3 » by **SmoothKobra** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:46 am

It's more than just statistics...

Sure, stats matter, but can you help the team win? Do you have the height and or athleticism to succeed at your position in the next level? Some college players are asked to do things for their college teams that they don't have to do in the pros. Alot of players have different roles so it is hard to project what they can do on the NBA level. But all NBA prospects are scouted throughly, and they look through more than just the numbers. Talent, skill level and athleticism all come into play.

heyhowareyou · Post #4 » by **heyhowareyou** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:55 am

um how can players like rose, with average college number, gaoon turn out to be a all star type of players? i mean michael Beasley has a good stats wise season, i can see how he was projected to be a high pick, but i dont get if rose is as good as he projected to be, how come he didnt have a season like 20 8 8 etc? thanz

Jameson41 · Post #5 » by **Jameson41** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:58 am

It's pretty much 100% potential, playing well in college is just one way to display your potential. Athleticism and physical attributes are probably the biggest factors purely because skills can be learnt but god given gifts cannot.

SmoothKobra · Post #6 » by **SmoothKobra** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:11 am

heyhowareyou wrote:um how can players like rose, with average college number, gaoon turn out to be a all star type of players? i mean michael Beasley has a good stats wise season, i can see how he was projected to be a high pick, but i dont get if rose is as good as he projected to be, how come he didnt have a season like 20 8 8 etc? thanz

Some of it is based on the teams that they are on. By watching any of the games that Memphis had, you could see that Rose has the potential to be a future star, based on his talent and skill set. But in Memphis's system, he wasn't asked to put up 25, 30 points a night. They had CDR to carry most of the scoring load, as well as a bunch of other options on offense. Rose wasn't asked to score every time down. In the NBA, where he will get more fouls called on drives, and where zone isn't played as extensively as it is in college, his stats will be greatly enhanced. He has the quickness to get by his man and the athleticism to finish.

Post #7 » by **CBS7** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:19 am

heyhowareyou wrote:um how can players like rose, with average college number, gaoon turn out to be a all star type of players? i mean michael Beasley has a good stats wise season, i can see how he was projected to be a high pick, but i dont get if rose is as good as he projected to be, how come he didnt have a season like 20 8 8 etc? thanz

Stats are near meaningless when considering NBA prospects. They consider how well their game will transfer to the pros, if you have a shooter who's just barely athletic enough to create his own shot in college, chances are he'll have a much tougher time doing the same in the NBA.

For example, an unathletic shooter who put up 25 a game in college would never be drafted over a freakishly athletic freshman who put up 10 points a game in college. Chances are the shooter won't do the same in the NBA and the athletic player would have a far higher upside.

Scouts also watch the players, see how they play. Since college offenses are usually far different then NBA offenses, many players put up far higher numbers in the NBA then they ever did in college.

kevC · Post #8 » by **kevC** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:24 am

i wouldn't say college stats are nearly meaningless. Yes, the stats by themselves are meaningless but statistical analysis coupled with scouting can be very useful. For example, players who have high steals rates and block rates in college, as a trend, tend to project well in the pros because steals and blocks represent basketball instinct and athleticism... There are many interesting projection analyses out there that have predicted many sleepers teams might have missed out on (Boozer, Arenas, etc)...

sweet_jesus · Post #9 » by **sweet_jesus** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:41 am

CBS7 wrote: For example, an unathletic shooter who put up 25 a game in college would never be drafted over a freakishly athletic freshman who put up 10 points a game in college. Chances are the shooter won't do the same in the NBA and the athletic player would have a far higher upside.

With the 2006 Draft being the exception. Morrison at #3 VS Gay at #8 or JJ at #11 and Sefolosha and Brewer soon after.

Rose's physcial build is an NBA body that can drive the lane at take the punishment that majority of the successful NBA elite PG possess (Billups, Deron, Kidd, ect)

Memphis' offensive system is basically dribble and drive which lowers the possibility of an assist being created. Throw some jump shooters around him and a motion offense and his stats rise.

What PG in this draft would you select over Rose anyway?

lukeridenour · Post #10 » by **lukeridenour** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:45 am

George hill had amazing numbers too, but we all agree rose is better right? stats dont mean EVERYTHING. Amare averages 2 blocks but he isnt that great defensively. Chris paul displayed great speed and b-ball IQ, which means that he has a nice and high ceiling. Its also a mix of potential and talent.

Joseph17 · Post #11 » by **Joseph17** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:59 am

The NCAA's two leading scorers didn't get drafted.
[/thread]

Stats really don't mean that much. Scouts look at a combination of skill, talent, stats, work ethic, and physical attributes. Here's an example
Charron Fisher was the NCAA's 2nd leading scorer. An NBA scout wouldn't even think of looking at him because he's out of shape and unathletic. He's also a 6'4 PF.