So this post is what I like to call "reverse engineering" the draft process. In my mock drafts, I have used what I call "forward engineering"--advanced stats with fudge factors given to athletic traits--rebounding, defensive playmaking, and other NBA translatable factors like age (smaller the better), player improvement from past season and mutual exclusion factors (threes+free throws). We'll bring that up at the end of the post to get a consolidate assessment based on this forward and reverse engineering combination.
But what is this "reverse engineering"? This time, we're going to use the past--namely, the past drafts, an use history to set the precedent for what players--using age, positional profile, and college they came from--to see if they have a non-statistical template that looks good or bad for the NBA. Because, as we all know, the statistical template isn't everything--it tends to be illuminating in identifying some sleepers, but there's also a fair share of misfires. So we need to account for this factor, and combine it with the statistics.
Another note: I won't post all the players in the "reverse engineering" process because there's a ton of them. For college players alone, I have about 330 data points to work with. Just like with the "forward engineering", I won't share the statistical formulas. So, without further ado:
COLLEGE RATERS:
So the first college rankings are based on the player value since they have entered the league multiplied by the number of first round prospects that particular college has churned out since 2000:
| COLLEGE RANKINGS, MINIMUM THREE FIRST ROUND PICKS FROM 2000-2012 DRAFTS | |||||
| AVE | NUMBER | TOTAL | |||
| 1 | University of Kentucky | 4.361559 | 13 | 56.70027 | |
| 2 | University of North Carolina | 3.621186 | 15 | 54.31779 | |
| 3 | University of Florida | 6.408615 | 8 | 51.26892 | |
| 4 | University of Connecticut | 4.003535 | 12 | 48.04243 | |
| 5 | University of Texas at Austin | 4.676334 | 10 | 46.76334 | |
| 6 | Duke University | 3.618337 | 12 | 43.42005 | |
| 7 | University of Arizona | 6.019587 | 7 | 42.13711 | |
| 8 | University of California, Los Angeles | 5.81223 | 7 | 40.68561 | |
| 9 | Wake Forest University | 6.993244 | 5 | 34.96622 | |
| 10 | Georgia Institute of Technology | 4.961804 | 7 | 34.73263 | |
| 11 | University of Kansas | 2.813264 | 12 | 33.75917 | |
| 12 | Ohio State University | 4.343544 | 7 | 30.40481 | |
| 13 | Stanford University | 3.971896 | 7 | 27.80327 | |
| 14 | University of Washington | 4.0214 | 6 | 24.1284 | |
| 15 | University of Southern California | 4.701442 | 5 | 23.50721 | |
| 16 | Georgetown University | 5.74843 | 4 | 22.99372 | |
| 17 | Marquette University | 7.277531 | 3 | 21.83259 | |
| 18 | University of Memphis | 3.578271 | 6 | 21.46962 | |
| 19 | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign | 4.181858 | 5 | 20.90929 | |
| 20 | Michigan State University | 3.435461 | 6 | 20.61277 | |
| 21 | Syracuse University | 2.506058 | 8 | 20.04847 | |
| 22 | University of Oregon | 3.211633 | 4 | 12.84653 | |
| 23 | Oklahoma State University | 2.988176 | 4 | 11.95271 | |
| 24 | University of Cincinnati | 3.98116 | 3 | 11.94348 | |
| 25 | Villanova University | 3.904784 | 3 | 11.71435 | |
| 26 | DePaul University | 3.733224 | 3 | 11.19967 | |
| 27 | California State University, Fresno | 2.754264 | 4 | 11.01706 | |
| 28 | Louisiana State University | 3.202335 | 3 | 9.607005 | |
| 29 | Indiana University | 2.264331 | 4 | 9.057325 | |
| 30 | University of Missouri | 2.196367 | 4 | 8.785467 | |
| 31 | University of Maryland | 2.922211 | 3 | 8.766634 | |
| 32 | University of Nevada, Reno | 2.698615 | 3 | 8.095844 | |
| 33 | Florida State University | 2.353604 | 3 | 7.060811 | |
| 34 | Boston College | 1.75483 | 4 | 7.019322 | |
| 35 | North Carolina State University | 1.529038 | 3 | 4.587115 | |
| 36 | University of Louisville | 0.950585 | 4 | 3.802341 | |
| 37 | Iowa State University | 1.001513 | 3 | 3.004539 | |
| 38 | Gonzaga University | 0.984547 | 3 | 2.953642 | |
This above chart is useful for which college programs are excellent at attracting prospects that are able to have the talent (or have the college to maximize them) such that they are able to land in the first round. It might not necessarily reflect the prospect's talent, but reflects on the college itself.
But perhaps the real value comes from analyzing the player's average production value, rather than looking at the number of prospects churned out, as that reveals a different picture:
PLAYER PRODUCTIVENESS RANKINGS:
| AVE | NUMBER | TOTAL | ||
| 1 | Marquette University | 7.277531 | 3 | 21.83259 |
| 2 | Wake Forest University | 6.993244 | 5 | 34.96622 |
| 3 | University of Florida | 6.408615 | 8 | 51.26892 |
| 4 | University of Arizona | 6.019587 | 7 | 42.13711 |
| 5 | University of California, Los Angeles | 5.81223 | 7 | 40.68561 |
| 6 | Georgetown University | 5.74843 | 4 | 22.99372 |
| 7 | Georgia Institute of Technology | 4.961804 | 7 | 34.73263 |
| 8 | University of Southern California | 4.701442 | 5 | 23.50721 |
| 9 | University of Texas at Austin | 4.676334 | 10 | 46.76334 |
| 10 | University of Kentucky | 4.361559 | 13 | 56.70027 |
| 11 | Ohio State University | 4.343544 | 7 | 30.40481 |
| 12 | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign | 4.181858 | 5 | 20.90929 |
| 13 | University of Washington | 4.0214 | 6 | 24.1284 |
| 14 | University of Connecticut | 4.003535 | 12 | 48.04243 |
| 15 | University of Cincinnati | 3.98116 | 3 | 11.94348 |
| 16 | Stanford University | 3.971896 | 7 | 27.80327 |
| 17 | Villanova University | 3.904784 | 3 | 11.71435 |
| 18 | DePaul University | 3.733224 | 3 | 11.19967 |
| 19 | University of North Carolina | 3.621186 | 15 | 54.31779 |
| 20 | Duke University | 3.618337 | 12 | 43.42005 |
| 21 | University of Memphis | 3.578271 | 6 | 21.46962 |
| 22 | Michigan State University | 3.435461 | 6 | 20.61277 |
| 23 | University of Oregon | 3.211633 | 4 | 12.84653 |
| 24 | Louisiana State University | 3.202335 | 3 | 9.607005 |
| 25 | Oklahoma State University | 2.988176 | 4 | 11.95271 |
| 26 | University of Maryland | 2.922211 | 3 | 8.766634 |
| 27 | University of Kansas | 2.813264 | 12 | 33.75917 |
| 28 | California State University, Fresno | 2.754264 | 4 | 11.01706 |
| 29 | University of Nevada, Reno | 2.698615 | 3 | 8.095844 |
| 30 | Syracuse University | 2.506058 | 8 | 20.04847 |
| 31 | Florida State University | 2.353604 | 3 | 7.060811 |
| 32 | Indiana University | 2.264331 | 4 | 9.057325 |
| 33 | University of Missouri | 2.196367 | 4 | 8.785467 |
| 34 | Boston College | 1.75483 | 4 | 7.019322 |
| 35 | North Carolina State University | 1.529038 | 3 | 4.587115 |
| 36 | Iowa State University | 1.001513 | 3 | 3.004539 |
| 37 | Gonzaga University | 0.984547 | 3 | 2.953642 |
| 38 | University of Louisville | 0.950585 | 4 | 3.802341 |
Now this chart is way more illuminating: based on our previous post, we've identified the production ranges that fall with player types.
7 ~ VERY GOOD ROLE PLAYER
6 ~GOOD ROLE PLAYER
5 ~REASONABLE ROLE PLAYER
4 ~ROLE PLAYER
3 ~OK ROLE PLAYER
2 ~SUBPAR ROLE PLAYER
1 ~FRINGE NBA PLAYER
0 ~BUSTS
What does the player productiveness rater tell us?
Marquette, Wake Forest, Florida, Arizona, and UCLA are the top five NBA talent level churners.
Among schools that deliver at least role players (NBA rating of four above), and have churned out at least six NBA first round picks, Florida, Arizona, UCLA, Georgia Tech, Texas, Kentucky, Ohio State, Washington, and UConn, in that order, produce reasonable NBA talent.
Things start becoming dicier with those who have NBA ratings between 3-4: this includes Stanford, UNC, Duke, Memphis, and Michigan State. Their systems might work for college, but they might mask NBA level talent.
The schools with ratings below 3 who churn out a ton of prospects are the ones to be super wary of: these include Kansas and Syracuse. Their systems do a great job of maximizing their prospect draft value, but do an excellent job of hiding the prospect's talent for the NBA, for sure. Both of these schools, Syracuse in particular, are notorious for doing this.
In addition, teams need to be wary of these bottom five NBA talent level churners: Boston College, NC State, Iowa State, Gonzaga and Louisville.
Rule of thumb: go for Marquette players. Avoid Louisville players, another school that maximizes draft prospect value but hides the prospect's talent level for the NBA.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGE/POSITION RATERS:
So the next step is to cut through the 2000-2012 1st round draft clutter and isolate by the player templates that have tended to succeed at the league at the time they are drafted:
| Average Value: | ||
| 19-year old | PF | 6.272683042 |
| 19-year old | SF | 6.182220124 |
| 20-year old | PG | 5.930105699 |
| 20-year old | PF | 5.485391731 |
| 19-year old | C | 5.439820412 |
| 21-year old | C | 5.166201749 |
| 20-year old | C | 4.520520873 |
| 21-year old | PF | 4.394637947 |
| 21-year old | PG | 4.352728793 |
| 22-year old | C | 3.95928121 |
| 22-year old | PG | 3.918269055 |
| 20-year old | SF | 3.740402207 |
| 23-year old | SG | 3.623562191 |
| 20-year old | SG | 3.606468868 |
| 22-year old | SF | 3.59252751 |
| 21-year old | SF | 3.500359635 |
| 23-year old | PF | 3.367102211 |
| 19-year old | PG | 3.292776048 |
| 21-year old | SG | 3.273781967 |
| 22-year old | PF | 2.903345999 |
| 22-year old | SG | 2.827151209 |
| 23-year old | SF | 2.505788462 |
| 19-year old | SG | 2.441678225 |
| 23-year old | C | 2.314412655 |
| 23-year old | PG | 1.793834049 |
So, the 19-year old forwards tend to do best in the league, while the 23 year olds tend to do the worst.
But more illuminating is if we analyze this by position:
- For a power forward, the younger, the better. It's roughly a linear decrease by age, with the exception that 23 year old drafted PFs (seniors) tend to do better than 22 year old drafted PFs (juniors). Of note is that 19 year old and 20 year old PFs tend to be gold (freshman, sophomore PFs).
- For a small forward, the younger, the better as well, and again it's roughly a linear decrease by age, although 22 year old SFs (seniors) are slightly better than 21 year old SFs (juniors). 19 year old SFs are gold, while 23 year old SFs (seniors) are in the bottom five, and might be guys to generally avoid.
- The point guard's sweet spot is at age 20 (freshman), as it's gold, an it sees a linear decrease up to age 22. Super young freshmen PGs at age 19 don't seem to fare as well, and 23 year old PGs (seniors) are the worst prototype in the list, and the ones to easily avoid.
- Centers are more or less clustered on the upper end of this list, with super young freshmen centers at age 19 generally being gold, although sophomore (21) and freshmen centers (20), in that order, are still very viable. The one to really avoid is the 23 year old center, which is the second worst prototype in the league.
- Shooting guard prospects are some of the hardest value picks to find in the league. None of them tend to be gold, but the prototypes that seem to work the best are the seniors (23 year old) and the freshmen (20 year olds). Every other SG prototype is somewhere near the bottom, with junior SGs (22) and super young freshmen SGs (19) being the types to seemingly avoid, interestingly enough. SG is the only position where an advanced age might actually be better.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So let's take a look at my mock (this is pretty static, since college season is already over and this is what we have):
| 1 | Nerlens Noel | 13.51151 | H: 6' 11" | W: 216 lbs | C | Kentucky | Fr | |||||
| 2 | Kentavious Caldwell-Pope | 11.81601 | H: 6' 5" | W: 205 lbs | SG | Georgia | So | |||||
| 3 | Otto Porter | 11.63639 | H: 6' 8" | W: 205 lbs | SF | Georgetown | So | |||||
| 4 | Cody Zeller | 10.68834 | H: 6' 11" | W: 240 lbs | C | Indiana | So | |||||
| 5 | Ben McLemore | 10.59359 | H: 6' 4" | W: 181 lbs | SG | Kansas | Fr | |||||
| 6 | Jeff Withey | 10.25897 | H: 7' 0" | W: 235 lbs | C | Kansas | Sr | |||||
| 7 | Grant Jerrett | 10.23669 | H: 6' 10" | W: 220 lbs | PF | Arizona | Fr | |||||
| 8 | Michael Carter-Williams | 10.06837 | H: 6' 5" | W: 167 lbs | PG | Syracuse | So | |||||
| 9 | Ryan Kelly | 9.813667 | H: 6' 11" | W: 230 lbs | PF | Duke | Sr | |||||
| 10 | Myck Kabongo | 9.672703 | H: 6' 1" | W: 180 lbs | SG | Texas | So | |||||
| 11 | Khalif Wyatt | 9.604643 | H: 6' 4" | W: 210 lbs | SG | Temple | Sr | |||||
| 12 | Dario Saric | 9.507133 | H: 6' 10" | W: 223 lbs | SF | Int'l | 1994 | |||||
| 13 | Nate Wolters | 9.501541 | H: 6' 4" | W: 190 lbs | PG | South Dakota St | Sr | |||||
| 14 | Alex Len | 9.456147 | H: 7' 1" | W: 240 lbs | C | Maryland | So | |||||
| 15 | James Ennis | 9.322241 | H: 6' 7" | W: 210 lbs | SF | Long Beach St | Sr | |||||
| 16 | Ryan Broekhoff | 9.310014 | H: 6' 7" | W: 215 lbs | SF | Valparaiso | Sr | |||||
| 17 | Giannis Adetokubo | 9.294132 | H: 6' 9" | W: 196 lbs | PF | Int'l | 1994 | |||||
| 18 | Rudy Gobert | 9.269806 | H: 7' 1" | W: 235 lbs | C | Int'l | 1992 | |||||
| 19 | Victor Oladipo | 9.169936 | H: 6' 5" | W: 215 lbs | SF | Indiana | Jr | |||||
| 20 | Trey Burke | 9.141772 | H: 6' 0" | W: 190 lbs | PG | Michigan | So | |||||
| 21 | CJ Aiken | 9.126237 | H: 6' 9" | W: 190 lbs | PF | St Joseph's | Jr | |||||
| 22 | Lucas Noguiera | 9.121406 | H: 7' 0" | W: 220 lbs | C | Int'l | 1992 | |||||
| 23 | Allen Crabbe | 8.914117 | H: 6' 6" | W: 205 lbs | SF | California | Jr | |||||
| 24 | Mike Muscala | 8.888537 | H: 6' 11" | W: 232 lbs | PF | Bucknell | Sr | |||||
| 25 | Anthony Bennett | 8.697558 | H: 6' 7" | W: 240 lbs | C | UNLV | So | |||||
| 26 | Steven Adams | 8.635773 | H: 6' 11" | W: 235 lbs | C | Pittsburgh | Fr | |||||
| 27 | Ray McCallum | 8.61998 | H: 6' 2" | W: 187 lbs | PG | Detroit | Jr | |||||
| 28 | Kelly Olynyk | 8.616111 | H: 7' 0" | W: 238 lbs | C | Gonzaga | Jr | |||||
| 29 | CJ McCollum | 8.613353 | H: 6' 3" | W: 165 lbs | SG | Lehigh | Sr | |||||
| 30 | Daniel Theis | 8.594166 | H: 6' 9" | W: 215 lbs | PF | Int'l | 1992 | |||||
| 31 | Arsalan Kazemi | 8.492361 | H: 6' 8" | W: 225 lbs | PF | Oregon | Sr | |||||
| 32 | Mouhammadou Jaiteh | 8.426129 | H: 6' 11" | W: 220 lbs | C | Int'l | 1994 | |||||
| 33 | Matthew Dellavedova | 8.422222 | H: 6' 4" | W: 185 lbs | PG | St. Mary's | Sr | |||||
| 34 | Brandon Paul | 8.418293 | H: 6' 4" | W: 200 lbs | SG | Illinois | Sr | |||||
| 35 | Reggie Bullock | 8.37574 | H: 6' 5" | W: 190 lbs | SG | UNC | Jr | |||||
| 36 | Sergey Karasev | 8.354304 | H: 6' 7" | W: 205 lbs | SF | Int'l | 1993 | |||||
| 37 | Glen Rice | 8.263051 | H: 6' 6" | W: 215 lbs | SG | D-League | 1991 | |||||
| 38 | Shane Larkin | 8.220305 | H: 5' 11" | W: 162 lbs | SG | Miami (FL) | So | |||||
| 39 | Pierre Jackson | 8.206002 | H: 5' 10" | W: 180 lbs | PG | Baylor | Sr | |||||
| 40 | Gorgui Dieng | 8.167801 | H: 6' 11" | W: 245 lbs | C | Louisville | Jr | |||||
| 41 | James Southerland | 8.147867 | H: 6' 8" | W: 215 lbs | PF | Syracuse | Sr | |||||
| 42 | Archie Goodwin | 8.143737 | H: 6' 4" | W: 198 lbs | SF | Kentucky | Fr | |||||
| 43 | Andre Roberson | 8.087312 | H: 6' 7" | W: 210 lbs | PF | Colorado | Jr | |||||
| 44 | Tim Hardaway Jr | 7.98589 | H: 6' 6" | W: 190 lbs | SG | Michigan | Jr | |||||
| 45 | Christian Watford | 7.959426 | H: 6' 8" | W: 229 lbs | PF | Indiana | Sr | |||||
| 46 | Zeke Marshall | 7.901448 | H: 7' 0" | W: 235 lbs | C | Akron | Sr | |||||
| 47 | Mason Plumlee | 7.846507 | H: 6' 11" | W: 245 lbs | PF | Duke | Sr | |||||
| 48 | Tony Snell | 7.759378 | H: 6' 7" | W: 200 lbs | SF | New Mexico | Jr | |||||
| 49 | Jamaal Franklin | 7.753251 | H: 6' 5" | W: 205 lbs | PF | San Diego St | Jr | |||||
| 50 | Trevor Mbakwe | 7.737715 | H: 6' 8" | W: 237 lbs | PF | Minnesota | Sr | |||||
| 51 | Erick Green | 7.711291 | H: 6' 3" | W: 185 lbs | SG | Virginia Tech | Sr | |||||
| 52 | Lorenzo Brown | 7.683309 | H: 6' 4" | W: 186 lbs | PG | NC State | Jr | |||||
| 53 | Isaiah Canaan | 7.528909 | H: 6' 1" | W: 200 lbs | SG | Murray St | Sr | |||||
| 54 | Brandon Davies | 7.494703 | H: 6' 9" | W: 235 lbs | PF | BYU | Sr | |||||
| 55 | Seth Curry | 7.468845 | H: 6' 2" | W: 170 lbs | SG | Duke | Sr | |||||
| 56 | Bojan Dubljevic | 7.443502 | H: 6' 10" | W: 242 lbs | C | Int'l | 1991 | |||||
| 57 | Deshaun Thomas | 7.382004 | H: 6' 7" | W: 220 lbs | PF | Ohio St | Jr | |||||
| 58 | Alex Abrines | 7.307427 | H: 6' 5" | W: 190 lbs | PF | Int'l | 1993 | |||||
| 59 | Will Clyburn | 7.229043 | H: 6' 7" | W: 205 lbs | PF | Iowa St | Sr | |||||
| 60 | Phil Pressey | 7.190433 | H: 6' 0" | W: 178 lbs | PG | Missouri | Jr | |||||
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's my assessment:
Based on forward engineering, we've already ranked the players, and it's easy to see above.
Excellent prospects, based on reverse engineering (based on school and position/age):
Grant Jerrett, 19 year old PF (top five), Arizona (top five)
Nerlens Noel; 19 year old center (top five), Kentucky (good)
Otto Porter, 19 year old SF (top five), Georgetown (good)
Steven Adams, 19 year old C (top five), no college listed
Trey Burke; 20 year old PG (top five), no college listed
Shane Larkin; 20 year old PG (top five), no college listed
Myck Kabongo, 21 year old PG (good), Texas (good)
DeShaun Thomas, 21 year old PF (good), Ohio State (good)
Anthony Bennett, 20 year old center (good), no college listed
Ray McCallum, 21 year old PG (good), no college listed
Pierre Jackson, 21 year old PG (good), no college listed
Nate Wolters, 22 year old PG (good), no college listed
Matthew Dellavedova, 22 year old PG (good), no college listed
Zeke Marshall, 22 year old C (good), no college listed
Mike Muscala, 21 year old PF, no college listed
Andre Roberson, 21 year old PF, no college listed
Brandon Davies, 21 year old PF, no college listed
Tony Mitchell, 21 year old PF? (good), no college listed
Mixed prospects, based on reverse engineering (based on school and position/age):
Shabazz Muhammad, 20 year old SF? (average), UCLA (top five)
Vander Blue, 20 year old SG (poor), Marquette (top five)
Erik Murphy, 22 year old PF (poor), Florida (top five)
Solomon Hill, 22 year old SF (poor), Arizona (top five)
Alex Len, 19 year old center (top five), Maryland (poor)
Adonis Thomas, 20 year old SF (good), Memphis (average)
Cody Zeller, 20 year old center (good), Indiana (poor)
Phil Pressey, 22 year old SG (good), Missouri (poor)
Archie Goodwin, 19 year old SG (awful), Kentucky (good)
Brandon Paul, 22 year old SG (awful), Illinois (good)
Michael Carter Williams, 21 year old point guard (good), Syracuse (awful)
CJ Leslie, 21 year old PF? (good), Syracuse (awful)
Lorenzo Brown, 22 year old PG (good), NC State (awful)
Peyton Siva, 22 year old PG (good), NC State (awful)
DeWayne Dedmon, 23 year old center (awful), USC (good)
Dicey prospects, based on reverse engineering (based on school and position/age):
Mason Plumlee, 23 year old PF (poor), Duke (average)
Ryan Kelly, 22 year old PF (poor), Duke (average)
Arsalan Kazemi, 23 year old PF (poor), Oregon (average)
Reggie Bullock, 22 year old SG (awful), UNC (average)
Kelly Olynyk, 22 year old C (average), Gonzaga (awful)
Ricky Ledo, 20 year old SG (poor), no college listed
BJ Young, 20 year old SG (poor), no college listed
CJ Aiken, 22 year old PF (poor), no college listed
Jamaal Franklin, 21 year old SF? (poor), no college listed
Allen Crabbe, 21 year old SF, no college listed
Tony Snell, 21 year old SF, no college listed
Kentavious Caldwell-Pope, 20 year old SG (poor), no college listed
James Ennis, 22 year old SF, no college listed
Ryan Broekhoff, 22 year old SF, no college listed
Will Clyburn, 23 year old PF (poor), no college listed
CJ McCollum, 21 year old SG (poor), no college listed
Tim Hardaway Jr, 21 year old SG (poor), no college listed
Isaiah Canaan, 21 year old SG (poor), no college listed
Khalif Wyatt, 21 year old SG (poor), no college listed
Victor Oladipo, 21 year old SF (poor), Indiana (poor)
Christian Watford, 22 year old PF (poor), Indiana (poor)
Seth Curry, 22 year old SG (awful), Duke (average)
Glen Rice, 22 year old SG (awful), no college listed
Erick Green, 22 year old SG (awful), no college listed
Anthony Marshall, 22 year old SG (awful), no college listed
Michael Snaer, 22 year old SG (awful), no college listed
Colton Iverson, 23 year old C (awful), no college listed
Jackie Carmichael, 23 year old C (awful), no college listed
Ben McLemore, 20 year old shooting guard (poor), Kansas (awful)
Richard Howell, 22 year old PF (poor), NC State (awful)
James Southerland, 23 year old SF (awful), Syracuse (awful)
Jeff Withey, 23 year old center (awful), Kansas (awful)
Gorgui Dieng, 23 year old center (awful), Louisville (awful)
Really, it's hard to make any sort of determinate conclusions on this, since there's not often enough data, but we can isolate the ones that have "awfuls and poors" next to them or have multiple awfuls, or multiple top fives, or top fives and goods.
Here are the ones that look excellent:
Grant Jerrett, 19 year old PF (top five), Arizona (top five)
Here are the ones that look very good:
Nerlens Noel; 19 year old center (top five), Kentucky (good)
Otto Porter, 19 year old SF (top five), Georgetown (good)
Here are the ones that look good:
Myck Kabongo, 21 year old PG (good), Texas (good)
DeShaun Thomas, 21 year old PF (good), Ohio State (good)
Here are the ones that look poor:
Victor Oladipo, 21 year old SF (poor), Indiana (poor)
Christian Watford, 22 year old PF (poor), Indiana (poor)
Here are the ones that look very poor:
Ben McLemore, 20 year old shooting guard (poor), Kansas (awful)
Richard Howell, 22 year old PF (poor), NC State (awful)
Here are the ones that look awful:
James Southerland, 23 year old SF (awful), Syracuse (awful)
Jeff Withey, 23 year old center (awful), Kansas (awful)
Gorgui Dieng, 23 year old center (awful), Louisville (awful)
Let's compare this to the mock. This might further validate Grant Jerrett as THE STEAL of the draft. He's ranked #7th in my mock, and on top of that is the only prospect that looks excellent from a historical scale. That's incredibly rare. People have had only one season of data to judge, but there's a whole lot to like here.
Nerlens Noel (#1) and Otto Porter (#3) further validate their spots in the draft. There's virtually no bust potential both forward and reverse engineering their cases.
Myck Kabongo (#10) is another guy who might be a real steal. He has a good reverse engineering template and he can play for the NBA, based on the stats.
DeShaun Thomas (#57) doesn't look like a NBA player at all based on his stats, and frankly he's a 6'7" PF, but that's already accounted for in his stats. He might be somewhat underrated base on this.
I'm just not sure about Victor Oladipo (#19) at all, his reverse engineered template doesn't help the case.
Same for Christian Watford (#45), who might be worse than that.
Ben McLemore (#5) has the ability to play in the league, but accounting for his template and the Kansas fudge factor, man, maybe he's overrated a bit. Richard Howell (undrafted), further cements that with his reverse engineered template.
The ones that look awful include James Southerland (#41), who might be proving why he's going undrafted in most mocks.
Jeff Withey (#6) is a favorite, but that template is why most people have him going in the 20s. He looks to have NBA translatable skills, but the template suggests that he doesn't.
Gorgui Dieng (#40) could possibly be the most overrated of them all. The forward engineering stats aren't high on him, and on top of that he has the worst template possible for reverse engineering.
No comments:
Post a Comment