Loaded with FABULOUS rookies (?)

by BlazerHomer on Jul 8, 2008 1:03 PM PDT

Can this be for real? Can we really have a good to great upcoming core of players and then we've just added an awesome rookie class?

According to David Thorpe of ESPN.com we have 4 of the top 20 rookies of 2009.

Oden #2

Rudy #3

Bayless #12

Batum #19

Though I agree with the rankings of our top 3, more or less, I've got to admit I'm pretty surprised that Batum was ranked so high after hearing mixed reports on and after the draft. It's going to take some pretty impressive play in the summer league to get me believing that Batum slipped past half of the GM's in the league. Batum is playing in Vegas isn't he?

Now I realize that rookies rarely make as big of a splash as the media would like us to believe, but this list is pretty impressive, if it's to be believed. Personally, I think the impact that each of these guys will have has been a bit over-hyped. To hear some people, Oden and Rudy are going to step in and be perennial all-stars from Day 1. I think they're going to suffer through the normal rookie mistakes, but slowly mature into good or very good NBA players.

Here's the link:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/rookies/rankings?season=2009&playerRankingType=1&period=1&set=1

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Thorpe's smart

David Thorpe know his basketball. He’s much better than most of the flapping heads (sorry, no offense intended to Canadians) over at ESPN. He knows how to work out, train, and scout real players, and also understands the international game better than anyone else they have over there. I think his biggest reason for slotting Batum so high is because he did so well at such a young age in the Euroleague. The European game is much less open to playing youngsters or “potential” players. European coaches will almost always play an older, sometimes even less talented veteran over an unproven young athlete like Batum. They also will not adjust their coaching style or tactics for young players. The mere fact that as a 19 year old Batum got serious run and put up decent to good numbers in the Euroleague means something.

I think Thorpe may be riding the Blazers’ jock a little too much with the collective high ranking all our rooks got, but I’d trust him over anyone else at ESPN. Hollinger does a really good job of evaluating and comparing older players, once he’s got a few years of NBA data to work with, but it’s only useful for snapshot comparisons at that moment. He can’t predict worth crap, and his algorithms should never be used for forecasting.

< /war >

by Diesel10 on Jul 8, 2008 1:15 PM PDT reply actions

depends on which Hollinger tool you are using

His power rankings are a great tool for predicting. He had the Spurs winning it all in ‘06-’07 when everyone was in love with the Mavs and had the Lakers and Celtics rated highly all year last year.

His tools for projecting draft prospects are flawed to be sure, but they are better than NBA gms do.

His tool for projecting stat translations from the Euroleague is for the first season in the NBA, and with respect to Batum aren’t particularly relevant (we didn’t draft him for what he’ll do next year). There is a reason Hollinger makes no effort to project HS players—its just extremely tough to take an 18 year old’s numbers and project him as a 25 year old.

Boomshakalaka

by jksnake99 on Jul 8, 2008 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions

True

I was talking about his tools (mainly based off of PER) for predicting how individual players will perform. His team power rankings were really cool and surprisingly accurate, although I will admit to not delving into exactly how they worked.

His draft projections may be better than NBA GMs, but that’s not saying too much, and at least he doesn’t have to worry about nearly as much as GMs and coaches do, like actually devising systems to make best use of draftees’ talents. Additionally, I really dislike draft position as a judge/criteria/predictor of success. That’s putting a lot of faith in GMs that we know are flawed. It really irks me when players get ragged on for “not playing up to their draft position.” Not their fault, they just got picked.

I do like what Hollinger’s trying to do, I just don’t think he’s as good at it as he thinks he is. A true evaluation should incorporate both statistical analyses like Hollinger’s, as well as skilled scouting like Thorpe’s.

< /war >

by Diesel10 on Jul 8, 2008 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions