FanPost

Comparable analysis of NBA draft picks - 2013 draft recap


As a number of you are aware I posted over 30 fanposts last year regarding the 21013 NBA draft. These were based upon a methodology I had developed using comparable analysis of NBA players to potential draftees. I plan on making some posts again this year, and I have made a number of changes, improvements and enhancements to my tool. I thought it might be helpful if I did a recap of my 2013 draft analysis, and also to give you a quick update on the changes and improvements I have made. I have enclosed the recap below, and here is a detail of the improvements I have made.

#1.) The biggest enhancement I have made is I now have all the Basketballreference.com advanced stats for all collegiate seasons for all NBA players who have debuted since 1990, for all European players in the best leagues going back to 1998-2001, for Euro from the lesser national and superleagues since 2011. The stats include Orb%, Drb%, Trb%, Ast%, Stl%, Blk%, To%, Usg%, and WS data for all of the more than 6000 records in my data base.

This was quite an arduous task. To be frank college basketball data was spotty before about 2001, and there is no really good consistent database. What this meant was I had to hand transfer data from PDF's onto paper, and then hand enter each piece of data. For the pre-2000 college data this required me to find and hand transfer over 100,000 individual bit of data. Some data was not available, so in those cases it was necessary for me to estimate based upon the data I had. I built a solid robust methodology for this estimation, and I am comfortable that these estimations are more than accurate enough to give solid and accurate results. The next part was the collection of the post 2000 data and the Euro, which while easier, still required copying well in excess of 400,000 individual bits of data.

In the end I now have a database that has all the advanced stats ging to back to the 1986 season (the year the 3 point shot became the standard in NCAA basketball), and I believe that this is the only such database anywhere.

#2.) When you read the recap below on Ryan Kelly I refer to a problem regarding Antonis Fotsis. European players play in multiple leagues every season, all play in a national league (Spain, Greece, France, etc), many play in a multi-national superleague (VTB United, Adriatic, BBL etc), and many also play in a cup or tournament league (Euroleague, Eurocup, Eurochallange). As a result a player over 7 years can have potentially 21 different seasons. This is what happened with Ryan Kelly, Antonis Fotsis showed up as a comp 14 times. What I wanted to do was combine all that down into one season for every year, just like I have with NCAA players. The challenge with this is that quality of the different leagues is quite different, and as such players stat lines are quite different in different leagues. I developed a way to compensate for all that and have just a single entry.

#3.) Last year, based upon the feedback of some of the BE readers I developed a Comp score which was a single value to express all of a players comps. That value was OK, but it did cause some problems. I have developed a much better methodology for this, where I have graded the first 5 NBA seasons for all players, on an essentially 0-100 with a median of 50.

#4.) The math in my tool is good, but there have been some math errors, and there have been some mathematical methodologies which I needed to improve on. I have made many of those changes, but I do have some further improvements I want to make.

As far as making posts this year, I intend to make a number of posts. I have just now completed all of the 4 items above, so I will spend the next week+ doing the comp analysis, and start publishing fan posts after that. How many and when will of course be dependent upon family obligations.

So here is a recap of the 2013 draft. I did not include players who played less than 300 minutes.

CONSOLIDATION
PER 36 Minutes
Name FG% 2P% 3P% FT% TS% eFG% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
Alex Len Actual 42.3% 42.3% 0.0% 64.6% 46.9% 42.3% 3.9 6.0 9.9 0.4 0.4 1.8 2.6 6.8 8.6
Alex Len Projected 48.1% 48.5% 24.2% 68.6% 52.0% 48.5% 3.2 6.3 9.7 1.7 0.8 2.2 2.3 5.0 13.7
Advanced stats
Name ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% PER ORtg DRtg WS/48
Alex Len Actual 12.1% 18.6% 15.3% 1.6% 0.6% 3.8% 22.1% 14.3% 7.3 92.0 106.0 0.024
Alex Len Projected 10.2% 19.6% 15.0% 6.8% 1.1% 4.1% 14.9% 17.5% 13.8 100.8 102.3 0.093
Overall I rated Len #6 amongst centers, just ahead of Jeff Withey. The analysis projected Len to be a below average offensive player, but an above average defender. He was projected to be the poorest shooter of the big men, prone to foul trouble. Len did not shoot well, and was a very foul prone, as well as a high turnover guy.
PER 36 Minutes
Name FG% 2P% 3P% FT% TS% eFG% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
Gorgui Dieng Actual 49.7% 49.5% 100.0% 63.6% 53.4% 50.0% 4.5 8.7 13.2 1.7 1.3 2.2 2.4 4.8 12.6
Gorgui Dieng Projected 47.5% 48.2% 25.0% 67.8% 51.9% 47.9% 3.5 6.0 9.8 2.0 1.1 1.8 2.4 4.2 13.2
Advanced stats
Name ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% PER ORtg DRtg WS/48
Gorgui Dieng Actual 13.4% 26.9% 20.0% 7.2% 1.8% 4.6% 16.8% 16.8% 16.5 106.0 100.0 0.129
Gorgui Dieng Projected 10.5% 18.2% 14.5% 8.3% 1.6% 3.3% 14.0% 17.4% 14.9 103.1 98.7 0.097
Overall I rated Gorgui Dieng the #3 center, behind Noel, and Zeller. I projected him to be the closest to a finished product in the draft. He was projected to be an excellent defender, and a solid but unspectacular offensive player. Dieng had some monster rebounding games, which allowed him to exceed is projection for rebounding, but otherwise is stat line was very accurate.
PER 36 Minutes
Name FG% 2P% 3P% FT% TS% eFG% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
Jeff Withey Actual 53.5% 53.9% 0.0% 71.4% 59.0% 53.5% 2.6 5.3 7.9 1.4 0.8 2.6 1.1 3.8 10.0
Jeff Withey Projected 49.5% 50.1% 0.0% 70.5% 53.8% 49.8% 3.0 6.3 9.3 1.7 0.9 2.1 1.9 3.9 14.5
Advanced stats
Name ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% PER ORtg DRtg WS/48
Jeff Withey Actual 8.2% 17.4% 12.7% 5.6% 1.1% 6.1% 11.0% 12.0% 15.2 122.0 108.0 0.128
Jeff Withey Projected 9.3% 19.8% 14.3% 7.2% 1.2% 4.2% 12.6% 18.6% 16.7 110.4 94.7 0.123
Overall I rated Withey #7 amongst centers. Withey had a better set of top end comps, but he had more washouts than Len. I projected him to be one of the better shooters at center, but a low usage player which would keep his scoring and ORtg down. Withey equal to Noel as the best shot blocker, and to be an excellent defender. Overall he pretty much met expectations. New Orleans has one of the leagues worst defenses which impacted his DRtg, but otherwise the projection was very accurate.
PER 36 Minutes
Name FG% 2P% 3P% FT% TS% eFG% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
Mason Plumlee Actual 65.9% 66.6% 0.0% 62.4% 67.0% 65.9% 2.8 5.9 8.7 1.7 1.4 1.6 2.2 4.8 14.7
Mason Plumlee Projected 50.9% 51.2% 21.6% 67.3% 54.6% 51.0% 3.2 7.0 10.1 2.0 1.0 1.1 2.5 4.2 14.0
Advanced stats
Name ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% PER ORtg DRtg WS/48
Mason Plumlee Actual 9.3% 19.6% 14.5% 8.1% 2.0% 3.6% 16.6% 17.1% 19.0 121.0 104.0 0.176
Mason Plumlee Projected 10.0% 21.6% 15.6% 8.0% 1.3% 2.2% 15.4% 18.1% 15.0 105.8 103.4 0.100
The 2013 draft was the best draft for quality bigs' in a very long time. Overall I rated Plumlee as the #5 center (behind Noel, Zeller, Dieng, and Adams), but in a typical draft he would have probably ended up around #3. Plumlee was projected to be the best shooter amongst the bigs' and he did not disappoint. Plumlee was projected to be average offensively and above average defensively, but he was frankly an exceptional offensive player, driven by his exceptional shooting.
PER 36 Minutes
Name FG% 2P% 3P% FT% TS% eFG% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
Rudy Gobert Actual 48.7% 48.7% 0.0% 49.2% 50.7% 48.6% 4.2 8.6 12.9 0.6 0.7 3.4 2.7 4.7 8.6
Rudy Gobert Projected 53.6% 54.9% 36.2% 68.0% 57.8% 54.9% 2.9 5.8 8.9 1.6 0.8 1.9 2.2 4.1 13.5
Advanced stats
Name ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% PER ORtg DRtg WS/48
Rudy Gobert Actual 13.1% 28.5% 20.6% 2.4% 1.0% 7.4% 23.8% 14.2% 12.9 94.0 104.0 0.045
Rudy Gobert Projected 9.1% 17.6% 13.4% 6.3% 1.1% 3.5% 14.8% 16.5% 14.3 109.2 104.8 0.104
Gobert was projected to be #10 amongst the centers (another clear indication at the depth and quality of last years draft for big men). He had a nice group of top end big men, but also a large group of mediocre to below average big men. The big question with Gobert was his ability to generate offense. He came in as a high efficiency shooter, with a very low usage rate, and the projection was that his efficiency would drop as entered the NBA, and drop even further as his usage increased. That turned out accurate as he shot poorly, and clearly struggled on the offensive end. Gobert was projected to be a good defender, and he actually performed well defensively.
PER 36 Minutes
Name FG% 2P% 3P% FT% TS% eFG% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
Steven Adams Actual 50.4% 50.4% 0.0% 58.2% 54.1% 50.3% 4.3 5.7 10.0 1.3 1.2 1.7 2.1 6.1 8.0
Steven Adams Projected 51.5% 51.7% 16.7% 61.2% 53.8% 51.6% 3.7 5.8 9.5 1.3 0.8 1.8 1.8 4.1 12.2
Advanced stats
Name ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% PER ORtg DRtg WS/48
Steven Adams Actual 14.1% 17.1% 15.6% 4.9% 1.7% 3.9% 22.5% 11.7% 11.2 108.0 102.0 0.114
Steven Adams Projected 11.9% 18.0% 15.2% 5.4% 1.2% 3.7% 13.3% 16.2% 14.8 103.6 93.4 0.112
Adams was the #4 rated center, and he was certainly worthy of that. He was placed in a difficult position playing big minutes right away as a 19 year old and he did quite well. Adams was projected to be an excellent offensive rebounder, and he certainly was. He was projected to be very good to excellent as a defender, and he again didn't disappoint. The area where Adams underperformed was in PF and TO's, but given his situation that shouldn't be much of a surprise.
PER 36 Minutes
Name FG% 2P% 3P% FT% TS% eFG% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
Cody Zeller Actual 42.6% 42.6% 0.0% 73.0% 49.8% 42.6% 3.0 6.0 9.0 2.3 1.0 1.0 2.2 4.3 12.5
Cody Zeller Projected 49.6% 49.9% 23.2% 69.3% 53.9% 49.7% 3.3 6.2 9.5 2.0 1.0 1.2 2.4 3.9 15.4
Cody Zeller (1/4/14 on) 1/4 On 48.6% 48.6% 0.0% 71.9% 56.2% 48.6% 9.5 2.3 1.1 1.1 1.9 4.2 13.7
Advanced stats
Name ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% PER ORtg DRtg WS/48
Cody Zeller Actual 9.4% 18.8% 14.1% 10.4% 1.5% 2.3% 15.0% 18.9% 13.1 101.0 102.0 0.090
Cody Zeller Projected 10.2% 18.7% 14.2% 8.3% 1.4% 2.3% 14.5% 18.7% 15.3 103.6 110.0 0.097
Cody Zeller (1/4/14 on) 1/4 On 9.8% 20.0% 14.9% 10.4% 1.4% 2.4% 13.1% 18.2% 112.0 103.0
Going into the draft I had Zeller the #2 player overall, behind Noel. Zeller got off to a TERRIBLE start to the season, but from the first of the new year onward he performed very well. I have included his actual full season stats and his stats from 1/4 onward. As you can see from 1/4 onward he preformed right in line with his projections. I still hold to the opinion that he was the second best player in the draft.
PER 36 Minutes
Name FG% 2P% 3P% FT% TS% eFG% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
Kelly Olynyk Actual 46.6% 50.0% 35.2% 81.2% 54.6% 50.6% 3.6 5.8 9.4 2.8 0.9 0.7 2.7 5.8 15.6
Kelly Olynyk Projected 49.3% 50.5% 32.6% 73.4% 54.7% 50.7% 2.6 6.0 8.7 2.6 0.9 1.1 2.5 3.7 16.2
Advanced stats
Name ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% PER ORtg DRtg WS/48
Kelly Olynyk Actual 11.0% 18.8% 14.8% 13.1% 1.3% 1.5% 16.0% 21.0% 15.2 107.0 107.0 0.101
Kelly Olynyk Projected 8.4% 18.7% 13.7% 10.7% 1.2% 2.1% 15.1% 19.2% 14.4 107.6 107.1 0.099
Olynyk was the #7 rated center, and the 3rd rated PF. As a center he was at the same level as Withey and Len. Olynyk was graded down some based upon his sophomore performance, based only on his Jr. year he would have easily graded better than Len. He was projected to be a below average defender, but potentially one of the best if not the best offensive big. Good shooter, good passer, mediocre rebounder, and a poor shot blocker. he pretty much met expectations.
PER 36 Minutes
Name FG% 2P% 3P% FT% TS% eFG% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
Ryan Kelly Actual 42.3% 47.6% 33.8% 81.6% 54.8% 48.8% 1.2 4.9 6.0 2.6 0.9 1.2 1.3 4.0 13.0
Ryan Kelly Projected 43.6% 46.4% 35.9% 72.1% 51.7% 48.5% 2.1 4.6 6.7 2.3 1.1 0.7 1.6 3.3 12.2
Advanced stats
Name ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% PER ORtg DRtg WS/48
Ryan Kelly Actual 3.4% 14.4% 8.9% 10.7% 1.2% 2.5% 9.8% 15.9% 12.6 110.0 111.0 0.081
Ryan Kelly Projected 6.3% 13.8% 9.9% 9.3% 1.5% 1.4% 11.6% 15.5% 12.2 103.8 111.2 0.077
Ryan Kelly is an interesting case. He was rated #21 amongst PF, but he actually produced right inline with his projections. The reason he graded so low is related to what I referred to above in the changes I made. Kelly comped to Antonis Fotsis 14 out of his 40 comp seasons. Kelly is the single biggest reason why I made the changes to European seasons I made, to avoid this extreme outcome. Fotsis is also an interesting case. He has been a top-end player in Euro for about a decade, but he played only one NBA season, and struggled greatly in making the transition. He chose to return to Euro, and has been a top end player since. His single season graded him as a washout, so I made another change to create a very unambiguous and mathematically derived comp score. The comp score methodology I used last year directly led to a misinterpretation of Ryan Kelly. Overall Kelly hit his projections very closely.
PER 36 Minutes
Name FG% 2P% 3P% FT% TS% eFG% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
Andre Roberson Actual 48.5% 56.5% 15.4% 70.0% 51.8% 50.0% 3.3 5.2 8.5 1.4 1.7 0.9 1.7 6.7 6.8
Andre Roberson Projected 44.5% 47.4% 0.0% 70.0% 50.8% 47.7% 2.2 5.6 7.8 2.3 1.6 0.7 1.8 3.2 11.3
Advanced stats
Name ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% PER ORtg DRtg WS/48
Andre Roberson Actual 10.7% 15.6% 13.3% 5.2% 2.4% 2.0% 20.8% 10.1% 9.0 105.0 102.0 0.099
Andre Roberson Projected 7.1% 17.9% 12.7% 9.3% 2.1% 1.4% 13.3% 16.1% 12.7 101.0 89.6 0.090
Overall I rated Andre Roberson the #5 SF. Roberson was projected to be a mid-second rounder, but I projected him as a first rounder and he was selected by the Thunder (after some draft day trades. I projected him a to be an excellent defender, but a below average offensive player; a player who clearly needed to refine his game offensively. Nothing about his projection was much of a surprise. When Sefolosha went down with injuries, Roberson stepped in at SG and played very solidly, often defending the other teams best wing player.
PER 36 Minutes
Name FG% 2P% 3P% FT% TS% eFG% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
Anthony Bennett Actual 35.5% 39.0% 24.7% 63.7% 42.5% 38.4% 2.7 5.8 8.4 0.9 1.1 0.4 2.6 5.1 11.8
Anthony Bennett Projected 45.6% 47.6% 32.8% 74.0% 51.8% 47.9% 2.2 5.2 7.4 1.8 1.0 0.8 1.9 3.3 15.8
Anthony Bennett (1/28 on) 1/28 On 45.1% 47.7% 36.1% 64.4% 52.7% 49.1% 9.0 1.1 1.1 0.4 2.1 4.5 15.0
Advanced stats
Name ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% PER ORtg DRtg WS/48
Anthony Bennett Actual 8.1% 18.4% 13.1% 4.0% 1.6% 1.0% 15.5% 20.3% 6.9 85.0 107.0 -0.028
Anthony Bennett Projected 7.0% 17.1% 11.9% 7.9% 1.4% 1.7% 11.7% 18.9% 13.8 105.5 105.8 0.086
Anthony Bennett (1/28 on) 1/28 On 7.7% 20.0% 13.6% 5.2% 1.4% 1.0% 13.1% 20.0% 99.0 111.0
Bennett was the #1 pick in the draft, but I rated him #4 as a PF, and #2 as a SF. He started the season about as dreadfully as one can, and his poor performance was exhibit A in the decision of Cleveland to fire their GM. As the season progressed Bennett finally found a groove, and his production started to improve. Like Zeller, I have included his full season stats, as well as his stats after Jan. 27. Over the last 2-1/2 months Bennett produced right inline with his projections. Bennett projected to be a below average shooter, much along the lines of Thomas Robinson. it is not surprising that his shooting was what caused his season to crash. It was clearly a stretch to take Bennett #1, he was more of mid-teens pick, but he will be a much better player than he showed in his first 3 months.
PER 36 Minutes
Name FG% 2P% 3P% FT% TS% eFG% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
Matthew Dellavedova Actual 41.3% 46.1% 36.7% 79.4% 53.4% 50.8% 0.8 2.7 3.5 5.3 0.9 0.1 1.7 3.4 9.6
Matthew Dellavedova Projected 41.0% 43.5% 34.9% 76.4% 50.0% 46.4% 0.7 2.7 3.3 6.1 1.3 0.2 2.5 3.1 12.2
Advanced stats
Name ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% PER ORtg DRtg WS/48
Matthew Dellavedova Actual 2.5% 8.5% 5.4% 22.0% 1.3% 0.3% 15.9% 13.2% 10.7 111.0 111.0 0.078
Matthew Dellavedova Projected 2.1% 8.0% 4.9% 25.7% 1.7% 0.3% 16.9% 17.9% 11.9 100.3 113.8 0.056
I projected Matthew Dellevdova #12 for the PG, and he was not drafted. Dellavedova is much like Ryan Kelly, he was graded down more based upon his comp score than his projected production. Dellevdova's comp score was driven by the fact the he comped a number of times to Sarunas Jasikevicius, and Vassilis Spanoulis, even though he also comped to Steve Nash, Antonio Daniels, Ramon Sessions, and Kevin Ollie. Sarunas Jasikevicius, and Vassilis Spanoulis both were Euroleague MVP's, and amongst the best players in Europe for much of the past decade. The problem is Sarunas Jasikevicius only played 2 NBA seasons, but he had solid production both seasons. Vassilis Spanoulis was unproductive in single NBA season, as he and Jeff Van Gundy clearly clashed. Based solely on projected production Dellavedova, and if I had graded Sarunas Jasikevicius, and Vassilis Spanoulis based upon their European production then he would have graded out as #7-8 amongst PG's. He played very well, and actually shot much better than projected, and given the nature of his comps should have been a surprise.
PER 36 Minutes
Name FG% 2P% 3P% FT% TS% eFG% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
Michael Carter-Williams Actual 40.5% 44.0% 26.5% 70.4% 48.0% 43.1% 1.5 5.0 6.5 6.6 1.9 0.6 3.7 3.2 17.4
Michael Carter-Williams Projected 42.5% 44.7% 35.0% 76.3% 50.1% 46.5% 1.0 3.2 4.1 6.0 1.8 0.3 2.4 2.9 12.5
Advanced stats
Name ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% PER ORtg DRtg WS/48
Michael Carter-Williams Actual 4.3% 15.6% 9.8% 30.2% 2.6% 1.4% 16.9% 25.7% 15.5 96.0 108.0 0.026
Michael Carter-Williams Projected 3.1% 10.0% 6.5% 25.8% 2.6% 0.6% 15.2% 18.2% 13.4 102.9 99.3 0.080
Michael Carter-Williams was graded out as clearly the #1 PG, the only PG that graded close to him was Pierre Jackson. Jackson was #2, and was a second round pick of NO, and never played in the league, but was clearly the best player in the NBDL. MCW's stat line for 2013-14 is very much a contrast. He out preformed his projection in many ways, but underperformed in several glaring ways. The biggest issue for MCW was he played for the dreadful 76'ers, and he was expected to be the player that carried the offense (see his 25.7% usage rate). The result of this high usage was dreadful shooting. MCW was projected to be one of the worst shooters amongst the PG's, and as his usage rate peaked his shooting efficiency crashed. In a better situation where he could be the player he really is (with a usage rate closer to 18%) MCW will easily justify his ranking as the #1 PG.
PER 36 Minutes
Name FG% 2P% 3P% FT% TS% eFG% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
Nate Wolters Actual 43.7% 46.5% 29.2% 65.3% 48.6% 46.0% 0.9 3.2 4.1 5.1 1.0 0.4 1.6 1.8 11.5
Nate Wolters Projected 43.8% 46.5% 35.0% 77.5% 51.5% 48.0% 0.8 3.2 4.0 5.4 1.4 0.4 2.3 3.0 14.1
Advanced stats
Name ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% PER ORtg DRtg WS/48
Nate Wolters Actual 2.8% 10.5% 6.5% 23.3% 1.4% 0.9% 11.7% 16.8% 12.7 105.0 114.0 0.043
Nate Wolters Projected 2.6% 9.7% 6.1% 22.1% 1.8% 0.7% 13.1% 20.5% 13.8 100.9 105.2 0.067
Wolters was graded out as the #6 PG, and was drafted #38 by the Wizards, and played for the Bucks. Overall he performed right at his projected line, with one notable exception, 3pt shooting. He was projected to shoot 35% from 3, and he shot only 29.2%. To remain in the league he must shoot well, and while his 3 pt shooting was poor he will be given some additional chances. In the end I think he will be a solid league average 3 point shooter.
PER 36 Minutes
Name FG% 2P% 3P% FT% TS% eFG% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
Phil Pressey Actual 30.8% 34.0% 26.4% 64.3% 39.0% 36.4% 0.6 2.7 3.3 7.7 2.2 0.2 2.8 3.1 6.8
Phil Pressey Projected 40.1% 42.3% 35.3% 78.5% 49.6% 45.5% 0.7 2.7 3.4 7.1 1.4 0.1 2.8 2.7 14.1
Phil Pressey (2/10 on) 2/10 On 35.7% 37.5% 33.3% 72.2% 45.0% 42.4% 0.7 2.7 3.9 8.9 2.3 0.2 3.3 2.9 8.1
Advanced stats
Name ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% PER ORtg DRtg WS/48
Phil Pressey Actual 1.9% 8.8% 5.3% 30.8% 3.1% 0.3% 24.2% 14.1% 8.8 89.0 107.0 0.005
Phil Pressey Projected 2.1% 8.7% 5.4% 32.0% 2.1% 0.3% 17.3% 20.4% 13.9 102.6 106.8 0.080
Phil Pressey (2/10 on) 2/10 On 2.4% 11.4% 6.6% 35.7% 3.2% 0.3% 26.8% 15.0% 13.9 97.0 111.0
Phil Pressey graded out as the #3 PG, behind Pierre Jackson, and ahead of Trey Burke. He was undrafted, and signed and played the entire season with the Celtics, starting in place of the injured Rajon Rondo. Pressey was projected to be one of the worst shooters amongst the PG, and did he even worse than expected. His shooting early on was as bad a Anthony Bennett's. His shooting improved substantially the last 2 months, but even then he was a poor shooter. Otherwise he performed pretty much as expected. He is a true PG, a distributor, not a shooter. He can succeed in the league, if he can get his shooting to his projected rates.
PER 36 Minutes
Name FG% 2P% 3P% FT% TS% eFG% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
Ray McCallum Actual 37.7% 37.7% 37.1% 74.0% 43.9% 41.3% 0.7 2.5 3.2 4.8 0.9 0.4 1.6 2.8 11.2
Ray McCallum Projected 44.2% 47.6% 33.0% 75.9% 52.4% 48.1% 0.9 2.8 3.7 6.2 1.6 0.2 2.5 3.1 14.6
Advanced stats
Name ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% PER ORtg DRtg WS/48
Ray McCallum Actual 2.2% 7.8% 5.0% 21.0% 1.2% 0.8% 10.9% 17.6% 9.7 98.0 112.0 0.020
Ray McCallum Projected 2.8% 8.8% 5.7% 26.2% 2.2% 0.5% 14.7% 20.7% 14.8 103.7 103.3 0.069
Ray McCallum graded out as the #10 PG, and I projected him as a mid to late 2nd rounder. Overall he produced to his stat line with the exception of his shooting, where he significantly underperformed, which explains the majority of the delta in his WS/48.
PER 36 Minutes
Name FG% 2P% 3P% FT% TS% eFG% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
Shane Larkin Actual 38.0% 40.3% 31.4% 64.1% 44.6% 42.3% 0.8 2.3 3.1 5.2 1.9 0.1 2.9 3.4 9.7
Shane Larkin Projected 42.5% 46.3% 34.9% 77.8% 52.3% 48.5% 0.7 2.6 3.3 6.2 1.5 0.1 2.5 2.7 13.1
Advanced stats
Name ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% PER ORtg DRtg WS/48
Shane Larkin Actual 2.6% 7.3% 5.0% 20.4% 2.7% 0.2% 20.9% 17.4% 8.3 90.0 110.0 -0.010
Shane Larkin Projected 2.0% 8.2% 5.0% 25.7% 2.1% 0.3% 16.9% 18.5% 13.1 102.5 105.7 0.065
I graded Shane Larkin as the #16 overall PG, but he was actually taken #18 by Atlanta and traded to Dallas on draft night. Larkin was grade down because his comp score was poor, with 94% of his comps seasons projecting to be league average or worse, 55% being below average or washouts. His comps were a very broad mix of very mediocre or worse PG's (Chris Whitney, Tony Bennett, Lee Mayberry, Erick Barkley, DeJuan Wheat, Lionel Chalmers etc. etc.)
PER 36 Minutes
Name FG% 2P% 3P% FT% TS% eFG% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
Trey Burke Actual 38.0% 41.0% 33.1% 90.0% 47.3% 44.2% 0.6 2.7 3.3 6.3 0.7 0.1 2.1 2.3 14.2
Trey Burke Projected 42.0% 45.0% 35.1% 78.5% 51.0% 47.3% 0.8 2.8 3.5 6.6 1.4 0.2 2.7 2.7 15.4
Advanced stats
Name ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% PER ORtg DRtg WS/48
Trey Burke Actual 1.8% 9.0% 5.3% 29.4% 1.0% 0.2% 12.2% 21.8% 12.6 101.0 115.0 0.020
Trey Burke Projected 2.3% 8.6% 5.3% 29.2% 1.9% 0.4% 14.6% 22.2% 14.8 103.1 110.6 0.065
Trey Burke graded out as the #5 PG. The biggest reason was because Burke graded out as a poor shooter, and because of that his comps were a generally mediocre group. Overall Burke hit is projected stat line spot on, with the exception of his shooting. he was projected to be a mediocre shooter, but in reality he was a poor shooter. This alone describes his delta in PER, ORtg, WS/48.
PER 36 Minutes
Name FG% 2P% 3P% FT% TS% eFG% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
C.J. McCollum Actual 41.6% 44.9% 37.5% 67.7% 52.1% 50.0% 0.5 3.1 3.6 2.0 1.1 0.2 2.7 4.0 15.2
C.J. McCollum Projected 43.4% 44.8% 39.0% 81.6% 51.9% 48.1% 0.8 3.3 4.1 4.5 1.3 0.3 2.5 2.9 17.3
Advanced stats
Name ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% PER ORtg DRtg WS/48
C.J. McCollum Actual 1.6% 9.2% 5.4% 8.7% 1.5% 0.3% 15.4% 20.9% 9.0 95.0 109.0 0.019
C.J. McCollum Projected 2.6% 10.6% 6.5% 19.5% 1.9% 0.6% 13.6% 22.7% 14.9 103.8 102.9 0.076
C.J. McCollum graded out as the #4 PG, and the #3 SG. C.J.'s #1 comp was Damian Lillard, and this shows why situation is so important a player's success. Damian went to the perfect situation for him and he preformed well when given the opportunity. C.J. went to a much less desirable situation (mainly because Damian made it less so a year earlier), and then got hurt before the season started, which clearly stunted his development. Many of C.J.'s comps were PG's, but C.J. played almost no minutes at the point. The under performance in assists explains much of the delta in the advanced stats.
PER 36 Minutes
Name FG% 2P% 3P% FT% TS% eFG% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
Reggie Bullock Actual 35.5% 43.7% 30.2% 78.0% 46.0% 44.6% 1.0 3.9 4.9 1.1 0.8 0.1 1.2 2.4 10.5
Reggie Bullock Projected 42.8% 45.5% 39.3% 76.0% 54.2% 51.5% 0.9 4.0 5.1 2.4 1.1 0.4 1.5 2.5 13.0
Advanced stats
Name ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% PER ORtg DRtg OWS DWS WS WS/48
Reggie Bullock Actual 3.2% 11.7% 7.6% 4.3% 1.1% 0.2% 9.4% 15.4% 6.7 93.0 108.0 0.019
Reggie Bullock Projected 3.0% 12.9% 8.1% 10.1% 1.5% 0.7% 10.9% 16.2% 12.1 104.0 95.8 0.083
Reggie Bullock graded out as #5 at SG, and #4 at SF. Reggie Bullock was defined by two areas, deep shooting and defense. He massively underperformed as a shooter, and was disappointing as a defender. This was overall the biggest miss I had. Bullock had a couple of stretch's where his shooting looked like it might come together, but he couldn't sustain it. We shall see if he can turn it around next year.
PER 36 Minutes
Name FG% 2P% 3P% FT% TS% eFG% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
Tony Snell Actual 38.5% 45.7% 32.1% 75.8% 48.9% 46.9% 0.6 3.1 3.6 2.0 0.9 0.4 1.3 2.5 10.1
Tony Snell Projected 42.3% 45.8% 36.7% 76.7% 52.4% 49.4% 0.9 3.5 4.3 2.4 1.0 0.6 1.7 2.8 13.1
Advanced stats
Name ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% PER ORtg DRtg WS/48
Tony Snell Actual 1.8% 9.6% 5.7% 9.1% 1.3% 0.9% 11.1% 14.9% 8.0 97.0 104.0 0.063
Tony Snell Projected 2.6% 10.9% 6.4% 10.7% 1.4% 1.3% 12.0% 17.4% 11.4 102.2 114.2 0.067
Overall Tony Snell graded out as the #17 SF. His actual production and his projected production are very similar. Clearly I focused on the wrong things when I graded him #17 amongst SF, which isn't surprising as that part of the model was the least refined. He was clearly better than the 17th SF, he was clearly a top 10 SF, and the stat projection expressed that.
PER 36 Minutes
Name FG% 2P% 3P% FT% TS% eFG% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
Shabazz Muhammad Actual 46.0% 47.8% 27.0% 65.0% 50.5% 47.2% 3.0 3.6 6.6 0.7 1.0 0.1 2.0 3.0 17.8
Shabazz Muhammad Projected 41.5% 43.4% 35.8% 73.3% 49.1% 45.9% 1.8 3.4 5.2 1.7 1.0 0.4 1.6 2.9 14.0
Advanced stats
Name ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% PER ORtg DRtg WS/48
Shabazz Muhammad Actual 8.8% 11.2% 10.0% 3.4% 1.4% 0.3% 10.2% 23.1% 13.1 101.0 109.0 0.053
Shabazz Muhammad Projected 5.5% 10.5% 8.0% 7.5% 1.4% 0.8% 10.9% 19.0% 11.5 100.0 114.0 0.051
Shabazz Muhammad graded out as the #7 SF and the #8 SG. Overall Muhammad played in 37 games and 290 minutes. Because of that it would be very easy for his stat line to change a lot with very few additional minutes. Overall he performed similar to his projected stat line. Muhammad projected to make steady progress in his second and third years.
PER 36 Minutes
Name FG% 2P% 3P% FT% TS% eFG% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
Archie Goodwin Actual 45.5% 54.2% 14.0% 67.4% 50.7% 47.0% 1.7 4.2 5.9 1.4 1.4 0.7 3.0 3.0 13.1
Archie Goodwin Projected 44.2% 46.3% 33.3% 75.9% 51.7% 47.0% 1.3 3.1 4.2 3.3 1.3 0.4 2.4 3.1 15.1
Advanced stats
Name ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% PER ORtg DRtg WS/48
Archie Goodwin Actual 5.3% 13.0% 9.2% 5.7% 1.9% 1.6% 18.7% 19.4% 10.3 93.0 107.0 0.018
Archie Goodwin Projected 4.1% 9.8% 6.9% 15.3% 1.8% 0.9% 14.4% 22.6% 13.4 100.2 113.5 0.061
Archie Goodwin was projected at the #11 SG. Goodwin had one of the most diverse set of comps. He projected to be a marginally efficient, high usage player, and that is pretty much what he did as a rookie. A much lower than projected assist rate, higher turnover rate, and a 14% shooting rate from 3's explains the large delta from his projection in the advanced stats.
PER 36 Minutes
Name FG% 2P% 3P% FT% TS% eFG% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
Ben McLemore Actual 37.6% 41.8% 31.9% 80.4% 48.5% 44.6% 0.9 3.0 3.9 1.4 0.7 0.3 1.6 3.3 11.9
Ben McLemore Projected 44.4% 47.3% 38.7% 78.4% 54.3% 50.8% 0.9 3.3 4.3 2.6 1.1 0.5 1.9 2.4 15.3
Advanced stats
Name ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% PER ORtg DRtg WS/48
Ben McLemore Actual 2.7% 9.5% 6.1% 5.8% 1.0% 0.7% 11.5% 16.9% 7.7 97.0 112.0 0.016
Ben McLemore Projected 2.8% 10.0% 6.3% 10.8% 1.5% 1.0% 11.6% 18.6% 12.7 108.0 110.5 0.063
Ben McLemore was graded the #4 SG. The big question with McLemore was could he maintain his excellent shooting efficiency, with a higher usage rate. His comps were not able to maintain their high efficiency with higher usage. McLemore's usage was actually fairly low, but he was unable to maintain his efficiency. That more than anything explains his advanced stat delta. I think McLemore will improve as a shooter, but he has a limited offensive game.
PER 36 Minutes
Name FG% 2P% 3P% FT% TS% eFG% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
Kentavious Caldwell-Pope Actual 39.6% 44.8% 31.8% 77.0% 48.3% 46.0% 0.9 2.7 3.6 1.3 1.7 0.3 0.6 3.3 10.7
Kentavious Caldwell-Pope Projected 42.0% 45.0% 37.0% 76.4% 52.0% 49.1% 1.2 3.8 5.0 2.3 1.2 0.3 1.8 3.1 14.1
Advanced stats
Name ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% PER ORtg DRtg WS/48
Kentavious Caldwell-Pope Actual 2.5% 8.6% 5.4% 5.0% 2.4% 0.6% 5.4% 13.9% 9.4 106.0 111.0 0.055
Kentavious Caldwell-Pope Projected 3.5% 11.9% 7.6% 10.1% 1.6% 0.7% 11.4% 19.9% 12.3 102.2 104.7 0.052
Kentavious Caldwell-Pope was graded as the #2 SG. Caldwell-Pope started and played significant minutes while Mo Cheeks was the head coach, but he minutes dropped significantly after Cheeks was fired. Overall he performed pretty much as expected.
PER 36 Minutes
Name FG% 2P% 3P% FT% TS% eFG% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
Tim Hardaway (Jr) Actual 42.8% 49.8% 36.4% 82.9% 55.4% 52.3% 0.4 2.0 2.3 1.3 0.8 0.1 0.9 2.8 15.8
Tim Hardaway (Jr) Projected 42.2% 45.4% 36.8% 76.6% 52.1% 49.0% 0.8 3.6 4.3 2.2 0.9 0.4 1.6 2.8 13.2
Advanced stats
Name ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% PER ORtg DRtg WS/48
Tim Hardaway (Jr) Actual 1.2% 6.6% 3.8% 5.8% 1.2% 0.3% 5.9% 19.6% 12.7 112.0 114.0 0.080
Tim Hardaway (Jr) Projected 2.5% 11.1% 6.4% 9.6% 1.3% 0.7% 10.8% 18.9% 10.9 100.4 118.3 0.053
Tim Hardaway Jr. graded out as the #19 SG. This happened for the same reason as Tony Snell, the comp score process was poorly refined and it did a poor job of expressing some players, and Hardaway was one of those players. I believe my new methodology is much better, but we shall see. Hardaway projected to be a solid shooter, but he was better than projected, and that explains most of his better than projected production in the advanced measurements.
PER 36 Minutes
Name FG% 2P% 3P% FT% TS% eFG% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
Victor Oladipo Actual 41.8% 44.7% 32.7% 78.0% 51.4% 45.8% 0.6 4.1 4.8 4.7 1.9 0.5 3.7 3.0 16.0
Victor Oladipo Projected 46.8% 49.9% 37.7% 76.1% 55.3% 51.7% 1.7 3.8 5.7 3.0 1.6 0.6 2.1 3.5 15.9
Advanced stats
Name ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% PER ORtg DRtg WS/48
Victor Oladipo Actual 1.9% 13.1% 7.5% 21.9% 2.7% 1.2% 19.2% 24.4% 13.6 94.0 106.0 0.026
Victor Oladipo Projected 5.5% 12.0% 9.0% 13.0% 2.3% 1.1% 12.8% 18.6% 14.9 110.7 101.5 0.112
Victor Oladipo graded out as the #1 SG, and overall I would have graded him in the top 5 overall. Oladipo and MCW suffered from a similar situation. Like MCW shooting/scoring is not what makes Oladipo an effective player. Oladipo is also not a PG/SG combo guard, he is a shooting guard, but he played a lot of minutes at PG. A very high usage rate, with below average efficiency, and a high turnover rate coming from an expectation of handling the ball a lot explains his advanced stat delta.
X
Log In Sign Up

forgot?
Log In Sign Up

Please choose a new SB Nation username and password

As part of the new SB Nation launch, prior users will need to choose a permanent username, along with a new password.

Your username will be used to login to SB Nation going forward.

I already have a Vox Media account!

Verify Vox Media account

Please login to your Vox Media account. This account will be linked to your previously existing Eater account.

Please choose a new SB Nation username and password

As part of the new SB Nation launch, prior MT authors will need to choose a new username and password.

Your username will be used to login to SB Nation going forward.

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

By becoming a registered user, you are also agreeing to our Terms and confirming that you have read our Privacy Policy.

Join Blazer's Edge

You must be a member of Blazer's Edge to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Blazer's Edge. You should read them.

Join Blazer's Edge

You must be a member of Blazer's Edge to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Blazer's Edge. You should read them.

Spinner.vc97ec6e

Authenticating

Great!

Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.

tracking_pixel_9347_tracker