Once again it is time for the NBA draft, that wonderful time of the year where we discover that there are suddenly an abundance of future stars just waiting to join your favorite NBA team.
Looking Back at 2008
To see this point, here is what Chad Ford – the draft expert at ESPN.com – had to say last year:
- #4 – Russell Westbrook: Overall, he has a chance to be a better version of Rajon Rondo.
- #16 – Marreese Speights: He is kind of a poor man’s Elton Brand.
- #23 – Kosta Koufus: He could be the second coming of Mehmet Okur — a sweet-shooting big man who can play inside and outside.
- #27 – Darrell Arthur: He has a chance to be an Antawn Jamison-type player.
- #28 – Donte Greene: Lots of scouts compare him to Rashard Lewis.
- #34 – Mario Chalmers: He’s kind of a poor man’s O.J. Mayo
- #41 – Nathan Jawaii: a huge player from Australia who looks like a bigger version of Elton Brand.
One year later here is what this collection of future “stars” has accomplished:
- Russell Westbrook: 4.0 Wins Produced, 0.071 WP48
- Marreese Speights: 1.6 Wins Produced, 0.063 WP48
- Kosta Koufus: 0.8 Wins Produced, 0.070 WP48
- Darrell Arthur: 0.2 Wins Produced, 0.008 WP48
- Donte Greene: -2.4 Wins Produced, -0.161 WP48
- Mario Chalmers: 6.6 Wins Produced, 0.120 WP48
- O.J. Mayo: 2.3 Wins Produced, 0.035 WP48
- Nathan Jawaii: yet to play in the NBA
An average NBA player has a 0.100 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minute]. Of these players, only Chalmers surpassed the mark of an average player. To put that in perspective, here is how some of the players these future “stars” were compared to performed at the start of their respective careers.
- Rajon Rondo: 7.0 Wins Produced, 0.184 WP48
- Elton Brand: 9.7 Wins Produced, 0.155 WP48
- Mehmut Okur: 3.1 Wins Produced, 0.109 WP48
- Antawn Jamison: 4.9 Wins Produced, 0.220 WP48
Rashard Lewis was drafted out of high school and only played 145 minutes his rookie season. In his second season, though, he produced 4.7 wins with a 0.142 WP48.
So we see the actual stars each produced from the start of their career. The players identified by Ford, though, have so far struggled.
To be fair to these players, most rookies struggle. And most rookies do not develop into NBA stars. But this is not the story we hear when the NBA draft season is upon us.
Evaluating Jordan Hill
To illustrate this point, consider what Doug Gottlieb had to say about Jordan Hill (insider access required):
What I like: Has played basketball for only the past six years competitively. Hill has played hurt, played tough and loves a physical game. Hill, like Thabeet, is more used to getting his points off the rim and not off the pass, making it an easier transition as a team’s fourth or fifth offensive option.
What I don’t like: Is not great at any one thing, and seems more like Etan Thomas than Brian Grant.
Best case: A Brian Grant-type
Jordan Hill – a power forward out of Arizona – is generally thought to be a lottery pick (Ford’s latest mock has him going 10th to Milwaukee). Although Grant and Thomas are not considered “stars”, each had productive seasons in the NBA. Across 12 seasons, Grant produced 60.3 wins and posted a 0.135 WP48. Most of these wins were produced for Portland and Miami. In seven seasons with these two teams, Grant produced 51.3 wins with a 0.167 WP48.
Again, Gottlieb thinks Grant is the best case scenario for Hill. And that doesn’t look to bad. But what if Hill is actually Thomas? Thomas had had trouble staying healthy, but he has produced 17.3 wins with a 0.125 WP48 in his career. His third season was the only time he managed to appear in more than 75 games, and that season he produced 5.6 wins with a 0.143 WP48.
So it appears the best case and worst case for Hill looks pretty good. But did Gottlieb get this analysis correct? One check is to compare what these players did in college.
The average power forward taken in the draft since 1995 posted a 12.5 Win Score per 40 minutes (WS40) his last year in college. Last year, as a junior, Hill posted a 12.3 mark. So he was slightly below average. Grant as a junior, though, posted a 16.4 WS40 while Thomas had a 13.7 mark. In other words, both were above average as juniors (and each was also above average as seniors).
Now Win Score in college is not a perfect predictor of NBA performance. But players who are below average in the college tend not to develop into above average performers in the NBA. So the team that drafts Hill is probably not getting an NBA star (or even Grant or Thomas).
Hill or Blair?
All that being said, it does appear that after Blake Griffin, Hill will be the next power forward taken. This means some lottery team is going to pass on DeJuan Blair to take Hill. Let me close this post with a quick comparison of these players.
Table One: Comparing Jordan Hill to DeJuan Blair
As Table One indicates, Blair offered more than Hill with respect to everything except free throw percentage and personal fouls. Once again, performance in college is by no means a perfect predictor of what we see in the NBA. And there are suggestions that Blair might have a problem with his knees. But there is an immense difference between what these players did last year in college. So even if Blair is a health-risk, there does appear a good chance that if he stays healthy will be a very productive NBA player (which is not the story the numbers suggest for Hill).
Let me close by noting potential subjects for posts leading up to the drafts (each of these is taken from Chad Ford’s big board):
- Is Blake Griffin the next Carlos Boozer (or as Gottlieb suggests as possible, a more athletic version of Karl Malone)?
- Is Tyreke Evans the next Jerry Stackhouse?
- Can we compare DeMar DeRozan to Kobe Bryant?
By the way, if anyone sees any more comparisons like this, please post in the comments.
- DJ
The WoW Journal Comments Policy
Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.
The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score
Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:
Simple Models of Player Performance
What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say
Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics
Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.
29 responses so far ↓
romalley // June 11, 2009 at 5:58 pm
4. DeMar DeRozan, USC
What I like: Freaky athlete with massive upside. Began to “get it” at the end of the season. One of the few players in the draft who will not have to change position in the NBA — he is a much more natural 2 than Harden. Poster child for “upside” and may spend time in the D-League, but in a draft of uncertainties, he seems to have the measurables to eventually live up to his massive talent.
What I don’t like: Below-average 3-point shooter in college, very raw in terms of basketball acumen, and may need the right tutoring from a veteran coach/player, as he has some hangers-on he needs to part with.
Best case: David Thompson
10. James Harden, Arizona State
What I like: Good competitor and a player you want with the game on the line. Harden has a pretty diverse game on the offensive end. His body and game are mature, and he gives and takes contact well. Harden knows how to score.
What I don’t like: Rarely goes right, not really a guard, and he is an average athlete.
Best case: Manu Ginobili
He specifically compares Harden and DeRozan, calling Harden an average athlete while DeRozan a “freak.” I think it would be nice if you commented on this. Also Ty Lawson is ranked sometimes as low as tenth by some expert, he’s getting no love while Mills and Teague are. I think a PG comparison of them all would be good, since this is a PG loaded draft.
Also I attempted to compare DeRozan and Harden, but I am not a very talented writer. If you want to see my opinion click on my name.
romalley // June 11, 2009 at 5:59 pm
syke for some reason my name isnt linked.
Romalley.wordpress.com
brgulker // June 11, 2009 at 7:47 pm
I personally think that Steph Curry is either:
1) The next AI — someone who will score a lot but score very inefficiently.
OR (and more likely, IMO)
2) The next JJ Redick — a guy who was heralded in college but will eventually become a very one-dimensional NBA player, i.e., a guy who can make 3-point shots.
With all the talk about Curry going to NY and the rumors (and they are rumors, IMO) of LBJ doing the same, I think it would be fascinating for you to do some analysis of Curry to determine how productive he actually was in college — especially in games against quality competition.
My suspicion is that he is very overrated and that many will be very disappointed as a result.
TexFTW // June 11, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Hey DJ, I hear a lot that James Harden is the next Brandon Roy everywhere I look. So there you go.
romalley // June 11, 2009 at 10:52 pm
I think Curry at best is a better Mike Bibby, at worse a Mo Williams. I don’t see the AI or JJ comparison at all. Just because you can shoot really well doesn’t mean you’ll turn out like everyone else that is known for the same thing. Curry is a better defender, generates more steals, can play pointguard, and is more athletic than JJ. I don’t see the comparison there. And why would he be AI? Stephen Curry scores very efficiently. He will probably score more efficiently in the NBA now that he’s not playing one on five.
Anon // June 12, 2009 at 1:59 am
I think Stephen Curry will be more like a Derek Fisher type. A PG who is a good shooter and can handle the ball if he needs to but won’t function as a primary ballhandler. Solid defender but not remarkable. I think he has more upside than JJ Redick at any rate, although I didn’t think Redick was all that great in college.
Matt Walters // June 12, 2009 at 4:33 am
Draft Express lists Blair at 6′ 5″ without shoes, so maybe his height is a concern.
DSM // June 12, 2009 at 8:52 am
Here’s the top 10 PF from the NCAA last year, by approximate wins produced (using the equation correlating PAWSmin and WP48), ADJUSTED FOR COMPETITION:
Blake Griffin
DeJuan Blair
Kenneth Faried
Ahmad Nivins
Jeff Pendergraph
Luke Harangody
Taj Gibson
Trevor Booker
Jordan Hill
Patrick Patterson
(I used the KenPom opponent efficiencies to scale the stats linearly to do the adjustment. For example, Blake Griffin faced defenses that averaged a 97.5 DE compared to the average of 101.1, so I scaled his offensive stats by 101.1/97.5, bumping them up 3.6%. I don’t know if I should scale linearly or exponentially (like ^2)… any ideas?)
DSM // June 12, 2009 at 8:55 am
I also adjusted for pace, which must be done with Win Score to get a valid comparison.
simon // June 12, 2009 at 8:58 am
Blair has a solid 8′10.5″ standing reach, which is higher than Griffin’s, so I don’t think his (effective playing) height is that much of a hindrance. His weight looks to be a more serious concern though since he came in at 275 lbs with one of highest body fat figures measured this year.
Ebomb // June 12, 2009 at 8:59 am
Matt Walters:
Although he is short, his wingspan was ridiculous. I think the only disadvantage you could say about his height is if you believe that it will affect his vision on the court to see what he needs to, to make plays. You don’t play Defense with the top of your head and you sure don’t shoot the ball from your head in the post. His Wingspan of 7′2″ and standing reach of 8′10.5″ place him within the acceptable range of PF’s along with Noah, Horford and Love and longer than Griffin or Hansbrough.
DSM // June 12, 2009 at 9:01 am
DBerri, why didn’t you adjust for pace in comparing Hill and Blair? Pitt played at 66.9 possessions/40 while Arizona played at 64.8 possessions/40. That skewed the counting stats against Hill.
John Giagnorio // June 12, 2009 at 11:04 am
Ty Lawson compared to other smaller guards like Chris Paul, TJ Ford, and Mike Conley would be appreciated.
JoeM // June 12, 2009 at 11:06 am
DSM,
PAWS40 is right below Win score in the chart.
Raj // June 12, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Hasheem Thabeet and Dikembe Mutombo
Dejuan Blair and Elton Brand or Paul Millsap
Chase Budinger and Brent Barry
Eric Maynor and Sam Cassell
Jrue Holiday and Chauncey Billups
Andrew // June 12, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Blair has major knee issues. Also, as we’ve seen with Beasley and Durant, college rebounding numbers can be really misleading. Now, it’s possible that Blair will translate really well like K-Love because he is hard-nosed and loves to play on the inside (Durant and Beasley are much more perimeter-oriented).
It seems like he can be a really good player if his game translates the right way, but he could be another coming of Craig Smith, who is a solid role guy who has his uses, but probably isn’t anyone’s ideal top ten pick.
DSM // June 12, 2009 at 8:11 pm
“PAWS40 is right below Win score in the chart.”
Yes, but position adjusted win score per 40 does not adjust for the actual number of possessions… It adjusts for the position and the minutes played, but not the possessions. In the NBA that’s not as big a deal (though it should be adjusted for) but in college there are tremendous differences in pace.
Win Score will overvalue the players that play at a higher pace and undervalue those that play at a lower pace, because it is a simple counting stat. Win Score per 40 has similar bias.
Jogos do dia 14 de dezembro, domingo | Ater Internet: Empresa de webdesign | Criacao de sites dinamicos // June 12, 2009 at 8:56 pm
[...] Evaluating Jordan Hill Once again it is time for the NBA draft, that wonderful time of the year where we discover that there are suddenly an [...] [...]
romalley // June 13, 2009 at 9:08 am
” Also, as we’ve seen with Beasley and Durant, college rebounding numbers can be really misleading. Now, it’s possible that Blair will translate really well like K-Love because he is hard-nosed and loves to play on the inside (Durant and Beasley are much more perimeter-oriented).”
The reason for this, as you sort of stated, is that Durant and Beasley played C and PF in college and in the pros teams tried to play them at SF, or SG in Durants case.
The reason it stayed the same with Kevin Love is because you know he’s not going to be a perimeter player, he’s going to rebound.
There’s no confusion as to what Blair’s role will be in the pro’s, he has a very particular set of skills that will make life a nightmare for opposing players and if they do not give back his daughter, he will kill them…I’m sorry I couldn’t help it. But you get what I’m saying.
Blair’s role will be rebounding, it can’t be anything else really. While Beasley and Durant role’s are more varied and could be tried at several positions.
John Giagnorio // June 13, 2009 at 10:58 pm
romalley,
the harden/derozan comparison on your website is excellent. that’s an interesting way of looking at prospects.
brgulker // June 14, 2009 at 6:24 am
Dr. Berri,
This is a bit of a tangent, but I think it would make an interesting post to do some analysis and comparisons among this summer’s Free Agents.
For example, there’s a lot of hype about Boozer, Milsap, and Okur in Utah. Which of the three has produced the most and will benefit his next team? And what about Ben Gordon? He got a lot of hype during the playoffs, but iirc, historically, he’s been ranked very low in terms of WP48.
Anyway, I think that post would be very, very interesting.
romalley // June 14, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Thanks John!
Italian Stallion // June 15, 2009 at 7:13 am
I have a small problem.
You evaluate NBA prospects based on their college stats using your model and then verify your conclusions about how their did in the NBA based on the same model.
That doesn’t pass my smell test.
Very few college players are going to make massive changes to their game in a single NBA season. So if they rated poorly in college on your model, they will almost certainly rate poorly as a pro too.
But suppose the model is wrong?
To be clear, I am not saying your model is wrong, but clearly your view of some college/NBA players isn’t consistent with the views of other models, coaches, NBA players etc…
For example, perhaps Mayo and Westbrook were as bad last year as you claim, but I’d be willing to bet that there’s not a team in the NBA that wouldn’t be happy to take them after getting to see them in action in the NBA.
Italian Stallion // June 15, 2009 at 7:30 am
IMO the Knicks interest in Curry is totally related to his potential outside shooting efficiency (though he can also pass well too).
The Knicks had several problems last year, but one of them was scoring efficiency.
Both Harrington and Robinson can create their own shot and score well, but when you add it all up, they were at best average in terms of efficiency. You simply aren’t going to be a very good team if your two primary scorers are only average.
David Lee is very efficient, but he lacks the skill (and probably natural talent) to be a high usage scorer – especially from the outside.
Gallinari was very efficient in limited time, but the sample size was very small and there are still concerns about about how many games and how much time he can play given his suspect back.
The Knicks need many things, but they need another knockdown outside shooter besides Gallo. They also need a PG. A guy like Curry could kill two birds with one stone regardless of whether he eventually becomes a star in the league or not.
Unfortunately, I don’t think he’s going to drop to #8. It’s tough to get a star at #8.
As a Knicks fan, I can hope though.
brgulker // June 15, 2009 at 8:11 am
I suspect that Curry is not nearly as efficient as people think he is.
I’ve not done the analysis, but my recollection and suspicion leads me to believe that when Curry played against stiff competition, his shooting percentage went way down, and his turnovers went way up.
I mean, for the love of Pete, the kid played at Davidson. It’s not as if we can take his numbers at face value, extrapolate them, and say that he’s going to produce at the same or similar rate of efficiency. The level of competition in the NBA (and even the NCAA tourney) is a bit better than what he faced while playing for Davidson.
Anyway, I could be wrong about Curry. Maybe he will eventually become a good player — but, I’m very, very skeptical that he will ever be a ‘great’ player, especially with respect to ‘production’ as is talked about around here.
Italian Stallion // June 15, 2009 at 5:44 pm
brgulker,
I am not an expert on college talent. However, even though Curry played against weaker competition, he also had entire defenses geared towards stopping him. So perhaps the two offset each other.
brgulker // June 15, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Yeah, fair point for sure. I’m no expert, either, to be sure.
But when I look at a guy like Curry, I think he’s gotta play PG in the NBA, right? And I just can’t picture him scoring high point totals at a high rate of efficiency against many NBA PG’s, let alone team defenses.
Maybe if he’s got LBJ on his team….
But again, I could be totally wrong. Time will tell, but until then, I still think he’s going to be another JJ Reddick — a guy who’s really good at one thing but limited almost everywhere else (in spite of wild college success).
Top 15 Picks Straight From LoD | Life On Dumars | A Detroit Pistons Blog // June 19, 2009 at 12:18 am
[...] Is that potential of the Etan Thomas variety or of the Brian Grant variety? [...]
The Knicks Lost Season « The Wages of Wins Journal // September 25, 2009 at 1:20 pm
[...] In addition to these players, the Knicks also have Jared Jeffries [SF, 0.9 Wins Produced, 0.034 WP48], and two first round draft picks (Jordan Hill and Toney Douglas). Both draft picks, though, were below average college performers last year (relative to other players who were drafted). This was a point made explicitly about Jordan Hill before the draft. [...]