I’ll let you guys and gals play around with this one. For those that have not looked at this yet, it is fairly interesting. According to Hollinger’s draft
rater, this is the top dozen players in this year’s draft class:
“To review for the uninitiated, the Draft Rater looks at a player’s college production in a variety of metrics and a few other salient facts (such as his height, birth date and years of college experience), and from that projects what a player’s Player Efficiency Rating will be when he reaches his peak.
According to Hollinger, the Draft Rater also has spotted some of the biggest steals in recent years:
• Carlos Boozer was the 26th collegian taken in 2002; Draft Rater had him second.
• Josh Howard was 17th in 2003; Draft Rater had him fifth.
• Danny Granger was the 13th collegian in 2005; Draft Rater had him third.
• Rajon Rondo was the 16th collegian taken in 2006, but Draft Rater had him second.
• Rodney Stuckey was the 14th collegian chosen in 2007; Draft Rater had him fifth.
• And last year, two players the Draft Rater had rated much higher than others did, Mario Chalmers and George Hill, had productive rookie seasons.
Top 12 Player According to Hollinger’s Device:
1. Ty Lawson, 2. Blake Griffin, 3. Ty Evans, 4. Austin Daye, 5. Steph Curry, 6. Nick Calathes, 7. Dejuan Blair, 8. Danny Green, 9. Flynn, 10. James Harden, 11. Hasheem Thabeet, 12. Earl Clark
This only rates college players, so Rubio is not on the list. He highlights DeMar DeRozan as one of the biggest potential busts, something that I can agree with after seeing him play.
One problem that I have with Hollinger’s mechanisms is that they are so, well, mechanical. They are clever and complex, sure, but there is a lot more to basketball than stats.
Oh well, give it a look if you want. it is pretty interesting. Next week’s draft will not unfold the way his rater predicts. That much is sure about the NBA’s future.
Not a surprise Jrue Holiday isn’t there.
By the way. Jeff Teague is going be a HUGE sleeper.
and Demar Derozan has more potential than anyone in the draft.
Derozan is going to be a Joe Johnson / Vince Carter type player in 3-4 years.
Stephen is going to be a Ben Gordon type player in 1-2 years
James Harden is going to be a smaller version of Paul Pierce type player in 2-3 years.
Johnny Flynn is going to be a smarter version of Nate Robinson type player in 2-3 years.
Teague a sleeper? there are plenty of mock drafts that have him going 10th to milwaukee. If he’s being spoken about in the top 10 of the lottery, I believe he would lose his “sleeper” status.
Athletically Derozan isn’t anything special, despite what many web sites stated prior to the combine. Chase Budinger tested better than him in almost every category in the combine, and is a much better shooter. What makes Derozan have more potential than him??
Chris,
Good description on Hollinger… “mechanical”. I like that. I always have a major beef with his formulas because, well they’re formulas! Basketball is far from that.
Is there a stat for desire… or dedication, passion, selflessness, personality etc etc… all these things play MAJOR roles in a player’s overall development and career. All intangibles that cannot ever be measured (statistically in a formula) and all his formulas lack recognition of these intangibles.
I think it is interesting to talk about, but only as long as we do not equate basketball to math and numbers. Good call on your analysis.
That’s really interesting but I guess Hollinger will not talk about the bad examples. What I want to know is, how many top 10 players (in the “history” of his draft rater) ended up playing in the Czechoslovakian league?
Demar DeRozan – if he reaches his potential – will be an Andre Iguodala and Josh Howard type of player in my opinion.
I am POSITIVE that if we select Hill, then Walsh will trade down and select Lawson. I’m not the biggest fan of his, but he’s fast as hell and very efficient (probably why he has the high ranking). His injuries concern me, but of the 2nd tier of PG’s, he’s probably on the top of Donnie’s list.
I dig Hollinger’s systematic approach to analysis. Hollinger will be the first to tell you that stats never give the whole story, but they’re indicators and should not be ignored. He doesn’t use them willy nilly but instead tries to make the stats smarter by adjusting for variable such as pace, number of possessions and opponent output.
I posted this on the last Rubio piece but it got lost amidst the 120+ comments. DX did a very competent “by the numbers” article on the PG class in this years draft. It seems to back up Hollinger’s guesstimations concerning the PG’s, especially Lawson. Calathes and Curry also look great in these stat comparisons:
http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Just-By-the-Numbers-This-Years-Point-Guard-Crop-3262/
Of course there’s a lot more to basketball than stats. There’s a lot more to everything than stats: medicine, economics, business. But that’s the beauty of statistical methods. In any individual case, the statistical prediction may be wrong and someone’s gut may be a better guide. But over many occurrences, the stats prevail (if you’re counting the right things). So, if you’re a GM and you have to make many choices many times, you are in a repetitive environment and the stats become extremely predictive (if the method involved has been successful).
What we don’t know about this system is how many players it rated higher than the consensus and was wrong about and how many players it rated lower than the draft position and was wrong about. Anyone can list a few winners they picked that others didn’t see. But can they do it consistently?”
Chris — This is exactly the type of stuff I was talking about a few days ago. Thanks.
i agree with that comment about if we draft jordan hill then we buy a pick and get ty lawson, but if not lawson, then maybe a guy like eric maynor possibly,
i personally like derozan as the knicks pick at 8 bc the knicks do need another shooter at the 2 guard, but thats if steph curry, holliday or hill are gone, he like my 4th option player in my mind
good post. you took the words out of my mouth about hollinger’s per and all that nonsense. the fact that people on espn actually refer to it as an actual stat is funny.
Hollinger is a stats guy, it’s all about past performance. There is no statistical measure to accurately predict upside.
No wonder guys like Holiday and Derozan don’t rate all that well, surprised that Gerald Henderson, T-Will and Sam Yound didn’t crack the top 12. Also, I don’t think that his models include strength of schedule, otherwise Daye and Curry would not be so highly rated.
Having said that, I think those ratings are pretty accurate. The only one I would not put as top 12 is Daye; Hollinger obviously does not factor in being bony thin.