Hollinger's Draft Rater
by arjoseph on Jun 18, 2009 12:22 PM CDT
Email
PrintEvery year, Hollinger performs a regression analysis to compare this year's prospects to last year's prospects. As he explains, the error rate on the analysis is pretty high, but the information provided by the Rater can identify some busts and some sleepers. Significantly, if the Rater puts a guy in the Top 5, there's almost no way he's a bust.
So what does the Rater say to Bulls fans?
1. Ty Lawson is undervalued. Hollinger talks about this at great length, so I won't parrott what he says. What does it mean for the Bulls? Not much, I think. Most mock drafts have him gone before 26, and with the Bulls having two starter-ready point guards already, I don't think he makes sense at 16 (even if he might be an All-Star some day). If he does drop to 26, though, he could be the steal of the draft.
2. DeJuan Blair is indeed the truth. He rates 7th on the Rater (out of the 90 prospects Hollinger runs through the analysis) with a score of 13.56. That compares favorably to some guys from years past: Chris Wilcox (13.28), Chris Bosh (13.08), Nick Collison (13.03), David West (12.85), Chris Kaman (12.2), Emeka Okafor (13.08), LaMarcus Aldridge (13.01), Tyrus Thomas (13.44), and Al Horford (13.45). Anyone who has looked into it knows he's got some of the prime indicators of a beast (his rebound rate is off the charts, and that's usually a good indicator). If only his knees weren't mush, I'd be all about him at 16. I still might be, as the medical risk might be less than the risk of suckitude with the other Bulls prospects. Speaking of which . . .
3. Cool your jets on Hansbrough. Hollinger doesn't say much about him (or anything at all, actually), but he shows up at the bottom of the second tier at 24th. Maybe that's not a surprise, but for all of us who have been increasing our opinions of Hansbrough based on his measurements, we might want to readjust opinions to pre-combine levels. The Rater takes into account things like height, weight, and such, so it's not blind to such things. Overall, I guess, he's the player we all thought he was: steady, low-ceiling but high floor. It's just that the ceiling might be lower than we thought.
4. Cool your jets on Mullens. Again, not that surprising. Hollinger points out that the Rater is least reliable with one-and-dones. It's going to be even less reliable with a one-and-done who barely played. Nothing to see here: Mullens didn't do anything in college to impress. We knew that. Hollinger speculates, however, that maybe the middle of the first round is still too high for the risk.
5. Extinguish your jets on Toney Douglas. Chad Ford's most recent mock had Douglas to the Bulls at 26, but the Rater has him at 62nd. Another non-surprise: short shooting guards don't tend to do well in the NBA. Some do, and the Rater looks for those indicators, but apparently Toney don't got 'em.
Before seeing these numbers, I was pretty much ambivalent about the three main reported targets for the 16th pick (Blair, Hansbrough, Mullens). Now, I think I'd rank them Blair, Mullens, Hansbrough. I know I'm putting the riskier guys ahead of the "safe" pick, but there's the risk, too, with Hansbrough: maybe he doesn't produce enough to justify him being in the rotation. The assumption that he's safe depends on thinking he can be at least an 8th or 7th man. I don't think that's a given. Blair, if he can play, will produce, so he gets the nod in my book; you'll roll the dice on how much he plays, but you know you're getting quality when he does. And as for Mullens, I think the upside is just too great. While he might not have the googly-eyed intensity that Hansbrough does, he also doesn't have the couch-potato mentality of a Sweetney. The guy's going to work. With some coaching, I have no doubt he could be at least a rotation guy (like a Mihm on a good day, or a Krstic type guy).
Anybody see anything else significant in the Rater?
(For comparison's sake, here are previous years' Rater results.)
FanPosts are user-created posts from the BlogABull community, and are to be treated as the opinions and views of that particular user, not that of the blogger or blog community as a whole.
150 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Why do you think that Mullens is "going to work?"
That’s pretty much my biggest concern with him.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
Well
why do you think Hansbrough is going to work? Nobody on BaB thought that a month ago after watching him for four years.
by YaoPau on Jun 18, 2009 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
read the sentence, wrong context on your part
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
I agree
Mullen’s has an attitude issue from what I can gather… based on comments like “he just doesn’t get it.” from scouts. (sorry I don’t have the link to that, but I think it was in a Chad Ford draft update somewhere.)
Comments like that scare me when a player doesn’t have a good reputation as a hard worker to begin with… One last point… VDN is our coach and I don’t see him developing a big man who doesn’t like to work.
Maybe I'm putting too much stock in his upbringing.
I’m not claiming he’ll be a gym rat, but I haven’t encountered any evidence that he’s a slacker, either. He didn’t even pick up a basketball until relatively late, and now he has a jumpshot — you don’t get that automatically. He’s also got 8.5% body fat; he’s not a marathon runner, but he’s also kept himself in good shape (same as Hansbrough). My impression is that he was in Thad Matta’s dog house and didn’t get much attention in either game plans or coaching. Maybe it’s on him that he didn’t seek it out more, but it’s not completely on him. I think his “lack of work ethic” is a bit overblown.
Most of what I've read about him is that he looks disinterested, unenthusiastic, doesn't always try on the court, etc.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
like another young guy i remember from a few years back...
Kwame (I still get chills hearing the name). But like I said on fundamentallysound’s post on the case for Mullens he also kind of reminds me of Jermaine O’Neal when he was coming out of high school. He has a lot of the same knocks on his game/attitude/toughness, as well as a lot of the same strengths.
I don’t think he’s the next O’Neal, but I’d settle for close.
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 18, 2009 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions
I put a lot of stock in the Draft Express profile.
It seems to jive with other things I’ve read, and seems pretty in depth. While they say that sometimes he loses focus and seems lost (due to his basketball IQ), it doesn’t say that he’s unenthusiastic. It says that he’s going to need to work to develop, but it doesn’t say the odds of that are low. It also mentions ways in which he has worked to improve.
This is all highly subjective (on both sides), but my impression is that he hasn’t been in the right situation yet. I think if he’s shown ways to improve and given direction into what to focus on, you’ll see improvements. He’ll probably never be perfect, but I think that his lack of playing much organized basketball and seemingly not getting much direction at Ohio State means that he can make serious gains with the IQ and focus. I don’t expect him to turn into a dominator, but if he can be the main big guy off the bench, or a solid starter, I think it’s worth the pick. If Blair is gone.
Yeah, you're definitely reading that in the most positive of lights possible.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
I don't know about that.
I’m taking it for what it’s worth, and it’s not really saying anything positive or negative about his work ethic, interest, or enthusiasm. It says he loses focus and demonstrated unfamiliarity with game plans, and I acknowledged that.
There was one sentence of 100 or so that mentioned "he did improve on things"
like positioning and the defensive schemes or something to that effect. They inferred that he worked on them. It could have also been that he just got more familiar. I’ve read other things on DraftExpress (and way more than that one line) that quoted other GM’s by yes, saying he didn’t have focus in the middle of a game/workout and that he lacked fire or passion or something like that (sorry for not having a link—seriously, I would usually link but i can’t find it so you don’t have to believe me).
I’ve just read so much that has said he wasn’t that into practices or games or workouts (where there was no Thad Matta to psychological keep him down) and only one almost throw-away line that said he worked hard.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
Here you go
B.J. Mullens really struggled at times against Utah’s Luke Nevill, looking disinterested in what was going on on the court, and appearing to be at least a few years away from being able to play significant minutes in the NBA.
Not sure if this is BlogaBull legal, but
here is more of the report, at Real Cavs Fans
Using a regression is an interesting idea, and I like the idea of using pure point rating. Guys like Sam Young and Jordan Hill were essentially catch and score players last year according to that metric (I remember Sam Young doing a little more than that, but damn those assist totals are weak), and it’s probably a good idea to get player who are more involved in their college offense.
from what I saw from the draft combine
i thought sam young looked really good, and bigger than i expected. but then again, earl clark looked good too, so maybe the combine doesnt mean a whole lot. also mullens is enormous.
HA!
Was at the Cubs-Sox game seeing which team sucked less today. I don’t really like Hollinger, so I’m not impressed. I do know it doesn’t make any sense to say TD will be a bust and Lawson will be an All-Star. I’ve seen them both play a ton (I don’t pretend to know everything about college ball, but I do know the ACC) and like them both, but TD edged Lawson in every head to head match up, shot better, is quicker, stronger, taller with a bigger wingspan, more agile etc via the draft combine… and the best part? He’s the only one of the 2 that might be there at 26.
I’m against taking Lawson at 16 bc, well duh, we already have our point god. BUT, I’ll take either at 26 if the Bulls keep the pick. I’m just a TD fan and really feel like he would fit well behind Rose bc of his excellent shooting & excellent defense, that’s all.
I’m not an “insider” so I can’t see the article, but I do remember reading them in years past and finding a lot of misses with this analysis. If anyone who is an insider can back that up, what players has hollinger miss-labeled over the years?
What do I need to show fire for? I'm not a dragon. - Lou Pinella
I agree, I like him
as a back up for Rose and at SG. We just all relate Toney Douglas to Smash because we know you’re a fan.
Personally, Hollinger is my favorite.
As numbers guys go, he seems to actually use other factors, which I appreciate. He definitely has his misses and when he does, they are usually big/glaring. But overall, I think he hits the mark a lot more than misses. As to his rater, it really seems to work in the context of guys that are getting WAY too much buzz. It seems to really pick out the busts overall.
Just took a look...
this confirms two things I’ve been saying for weeks: Danny Green and Nick Calathes are the most underrated prospects in this year’s draft. I know PG’s ratings are a little less reliable (in Calathes’ case), but from what I watched of this kid and what I’ve read from scouts on him – he’s a bigger, stronger, more PG-mindset version of Hinrich. Add to it that we can keep him in Greece for a year while he develops (and saves us some money) he seems like a no-brainer back-up for Rose at 26. Then if we trade Hinrich now or mid-season we’ve got his cheaper replacement on the way.
At the same time, I’m almost a proponent of trading the number 16 pick in a package deal to get an established player and a 2nd round pick. I believe we can get Green in the 2nd round and HE looks like the second coming of Johnny Salmons. That way next summer when Big Brad’s contract expires and Salmon’s can opt out (and probably will), we’ll have tons of cap room for D-Wade, LeBron, Bosh, Stoudamire, Johnson etc. AND we’ll have Salmons’ replacement should we let him go.
The other thing I take from this is that if we keep #16 and Blair’s still there… TAKE HIM.
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 18, 2009 1:59 PM CDT reply actions
How about Daye at 16 if he's there
as a replacement for Deng if and when….
Calathes SUCKS.
If the conclusion of the article is that Green and Calthes are going to be good NBA players, that’s all I need to know to completely write-off Hollinger’s complete analysis as BONK.
What do I need to show fire for? I'm not a dragon. - Lou Pinella
You should start a blog.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
I'm not funny, but you're obviously a basketball expert.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
You're right for once, you're not funny.
And I don’t know why you try to pick fights with everyone. I don’t think I’m an expert but newsflash this is a blog where people share opinions and I happen to have opinions on the ACC and many Florida basketball teams.
What do I need to show fire for? I'm not a dragon. - Lou Pinella
I'm kind of with tyger on this one.
You’re not establishing much credibility when you state that you’re writing off an analysis you haven’t even read just because it doesn’t conform to your predetermined conclusions.
I wasn't trying to est credibility there, I was reacting to a player I don't like.
Please read my comment below to Rose Colored Goggles.
What do I need to show fire for? I'm not a dragon. - Lou Pinella
You're a Florida State fan (student you may have said?).
You’ve ranted on Gators and Tarheels and lavishly praised a Seminole. Yeah, no bias. I don’t think you can be objective.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
My fav college basketball team, sans the Noles, are the Tarheels, so I don't know what you're talking about. And nope, not a student either. Awesome memory though.
Sure, I don’t like the Gators, but that doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate potentially good prospects from Florida. I love Noah. I loved Horford. But Calathas sucks. Have you seen him play? I’ve seen him play several times in person this year alone, let alone on tv 10+ more times, and I wasn’t impressed at all. And I thinks stats are great, but nothing beats actually watching a player play over the course of their career. I think too many people get excited about collegiate players bc of how they look on paper and that can be terribly deceiving. There are so many other factors that skew collegiate stats… the conference, the non-conference strength of schedule, their coach, their systems, their role on the team, their teammates, etc. That’s why I try to only comment on teams/players I’ve actually seen play at least few times or more.
But please, tell me where I’m failing to be objective in my analysis? Tell me how I’m wrong below when I’m comparing Henderson (from Duke, who I dislike) and Green (from UNC, who I love… unless they’re playing my fav team), two ACC players I’ve watched a lot? As for TD, I’ve always said he’s my boy bc he plays for my fav team, I’ve never denied that. But I think that puts me in a unique position, someone who actually watches the Noles basketball team, to say, hey, this guy is damn good and is a sleeper. And I’d love for my fav team to take advantage of his low-profile. My lengthy analysis of Toney Douglas was pretty objective and the reasons I feel he’d be a good pick for the Bulls late in the 1st round are clear.
Anyways, I don’t get you, and I really don’t know why I’m bothering…
What do I need to show fire for? I'm not a dragon. - Lou Pinella
I think the lack of objectivity comes mostly from you judging players based almost exclusively on your subjective impressions.
I think you’re right that “on paper” stuff can sometimes be deceiving, but personal observations also have tons of problems, and stats more often than not tell us things we’re not able to see. I think it’s the exception rather than the rule that our eyes know things that don’t show up in objective metrics (and you seem to think it’s the other way around).
That's not true AT ALL. I don't think it's the other way around. I look at both: stats and game footage- and not just a few games- multiple games over multiple seasons.
The two people I’ve commented positively on in here, TD and Henderon, both look great on paper and in real life. Calathas doesn’t impress me in either light, and as I said- looking at things like the conf he was in, his team, etc, makes his stats less impressive.
Since when is it a crime to ACTUALLY WATCH COLLEGE BASKETBALL and speak about people I’ve seen play over and over? How does that make me NOT look at stats? Where did I say stats are worthless? I think any decent evaluator needs to look at both.
What do I need to show fire for? I'm not a dragon. - Lou Pinella
It's not a crime, and I've never said you're wrong.
I was just answering your question about where the lack of objectivity was. Perhaps I misstated how you weight game observation in your opinions, and I apologize for that. I was just trying to explain what tyger meant. Probably should have left that up to him.
No worries, I'm too worked up over this thread- moving on:)
What do I need to show fire for? I'm not a dragon. - Lou Pinella
I'm not a Douglas hater but...
I am fairly confident that Calathes does not suck. He was probably the best PG in the SEC last year (which doesn’t say much, I know) but I don’t see any evidence to suggest that Douglas is a GREAT pick at 26 and Calathes SUCKS.
I know you’re all about TD man, but c’mon, try to be objective…
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 18, 2009 5:57 PM CDT up reply actions
I wasn't trying to be rude...
I’m just a fierce Gator-hater (exception: Noah) and I think the kid is over-rated. I’ve seen him play a good bit, including few times in person, and I just didn’t get the hype at all. He’s a bit odd off the court as well so I don’t see him fitting in well in the NBA. And like you said, I do think the SEC was very average this year. And yes, I admittingly like TD too much. But collegiate allegiances aside, objectively there are alot of other players I’d take at 26 over Calathas.
What do I need to show fire for? I'm not a dragon. - Lou Pinella
Fair enough
What are your thoughts on Dejuan Summers at 26? I really liked him at the beginning of the year (I’m also a pretty big fan of Greg Monroe for next year) but he fell off about half-way through the season.
As far as size goes, Summers has an NBA ready body for the SF position and he seems to have the skill set. Why don’t we hear his name mentioned for the 1st round very often?
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 18, 2009 6:39 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't know much about him at all- didn't get to watch them much this year.
But of course, he looks good on paper. You should pose that question of why he’s not mentioned much in one of the upcoming ESPN chats… would be interesting to hear why.
What do I need to show fire for? I'm not a dragon. - Lou Pinella
haha,
I’m on those fairly often (working is for suckers), I feel like I may have heard an explanation from either Chad Ford or David Thorpe but I can’t remember for the life of me what it was.
It could just have been the Hoyas’ midseason meltdown and Summers fall in production. Yep, that pretty much makes sense. But I could definitely see his ceiling being a Gerald Wallace type of wing player.
I guess his floor might be pretty low though…
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 18, 2009 6:53 PM CDT up reply actions
People question whether Summers can really play the
3 in the NBA, and if he can’t he’d be a weak rebounding PF.
ah yes...
the classic definition of a tweener.
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 18, 2009 7:32 PM CDT up reply actions
Calathes will play in Greece
Which will increase his value. You don’t have to use your cap space for him next season giving whoever picks him extra room in 2010. He is an excellent shooter, but he may need to put on some muscle… I think of him as a Wally Sczerbiac (sp?) kind of talent who will be much cheaper… not bad for the 26th pick… sorry smash…
You know who looked awesome as a Freshman
Tyler Hansbrough and Josh McRoberts.
Is Mullens a better prospect than these two players? McRoberts is already in the NBA and maybe you can argue he isn’t getting time, but he wasn’t getting much time with Indiana last year.
12/31: Fire Vinny Del Negro.
Results from last year
Michael Beasley 19.19 Kansas State
Kevin Love 17.80 UCLA
Darrell Arthur 15.82 Kansas
Marreese Speights 15.02 Florida
D.J. Augustin 14.88 Texas
Derrick Rose 14.69 Memphis
Joe Alexander 14.58 West Virginia
Brook Lopez 14.21 Stanford
Mario Chalmers 14.03 Kansas
Jerryd Bayless 14.03 Arizona
Roy Hibbert 14.02 Georgetown
Kosta Koufos 13.32 Ohio State
Donte Greene 13.17 Syracuse
Darnell Jackson 13.17 Kansas
DeAndre Jordan 13.17 Texas A&M
Hmmm. Its a mixed bag. I would say his method was right about – Beasley, Love, Lopez, Chalmers, Rose, Speights, and Augustin. The jury is still out on Bayless and Koufos. I don’t think Alexander, Jackson, Jordan, Greene, Hibbert or Arthur played as good as he projected. Where are Westbrook and Mayo?
by Basketball Smurf on Jun 18, 2009 4:04 PM CDT reply actions
He discusses this a bit in the final link of the post.
And he mentions in a couple different places that the Rater’s worst year was last year. It’s kind of a truism, but the system is best when it’s outside the margin of error. When the system projects the guy well above or well below the consensus, it’s probably spot on. In other words, it’s good at picking busts and sleepers. But it’s not an all-purpose ranking system.
Damn
Top 10 rated big men from 2002 to 2007
Player Projected Yr. 3 PER Draft Year
Drew Gooden 18.17 2002*
Carlos Boozer 17.91 2002*
Kevin Durant 17.47 2007
Michael Sweetney 17.04 2003
Marvin Williams 16.79 2005
Greg Oden 16.74 2007
Joakim Noah 16.70 2007
Sean May 16.27 2005
Tyrus Thomas 16.21 2006
Brandan Wright 16.11 2007
It just seems like a completely random list. I think he was so intent on getting Boozer right that he said to hell with everything else.
Isn't it predicting PER of the third year, basically. Well, predicting a strong correlation or something. What's wrong with it?
Durant will have a monster PER this year. Gooden’s 3rd-year PER was actually quite excellent. Noah’s will be good. I mean, what’s so bad about it? Sean May looked pretty good in limited minutes his first two years. And on and on.
What exactly is your beef with it?
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
How many of those players have been worth their pick so far?
Gooden, nope
Boozer, yes
Durant, yes
Sweetney, nope
Williams, nope
Oden, ?
Noah, yes
May, nope
Tyrus, nope
Wright, nope
Does everyone on Hollinger’s list have upside, and have they shown flashes of productivity? Sure. But considering 2002-2007 includes Carmelo Anthony, Chris Bosh, Lamarcus Aldridge, Luol Deng, Emeka Okafor, Al Horford … Hollinger’s list is a bunch of random schlubs.
i take it you don't have insider and haven't read what this is all about?
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
I'm guessing I missed something
I read the article I linked to above… what’d I miss?
Those numbers you typed up there were meant to "project" 3rd-year PER.
(I think it’s different this year, and I don’t have insider so I’m probably wrong…) He ranks them just because everyone needs some sort of ranking. Look at their 3rd-year PER’s and compare them to those numbers, and you’ll see that there will definitely be discrepancies, but it won’t be near as off as you might think.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
Damn, should have looked below.
Oops.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
I think you have a distorted view of the draft.
Anything using college stats can only try to identify red flags, sleepers, and solid performers, nothing more. Hollinger’s system is designed to predict third year PER and it did that reasonably well in all of those listed above. It’s not meant to be used to rank players into some theoretical draft order. PER itself isn’t really intended to rank the best NBA players, so a system designed to predict PER certainly isn’t going to do that with draft prospects.
Scotter's got it exactly right.
Beyond the core use of the system (identifying sleepers and busts), I’d say it does a pretty good job of identifying successful NBA players too. Almost anybody who gets a 13 or above in this system seems to have panned out — maybe not to an All Star level, but to a useful player long-NBA-career level. If you’re looking for information beyond that, however, this system is not going to provide it; as Scotter says, it’s not really about close comparisons of players.
exactly
The purpose of this analysis is to flag people who are more likely to fail and highlight those more likely to succeed based on statistics. It should simply be used as another tool in the broader analysis… There is a human element to drafting that can not be measured.
BTW, if there was some sort of perfect statistical measure that would show exactly who was going to be great and who was going to suck, life (and basketball) would be much more boring!
Draft Danny Green! He's what everyone thinks Gerald Henderson can be, only he'll probably be better because he can already shoot
and he D’s up nearly as well, if not just as well as Henderson. Doesn’t have the isolation ability of GH, but that’s less important when playing alongside DRose.
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on Jun 18, 2009 4:26 PM CDT reply actions
Danny Green..
is garbage. He does everything…okay, but not great. I’d say Henderson has better long-term poential.
He's much better than garbage. He does everything well, with the exception of creating his own shot, but luckily we have Rose to create looks for him.
He fits a role that needs fitting on our team (spot up shooter, lock down defender).
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on Jun 18, 2009 5:45 PM CDT up reply actions
No...
He is decent, but he was a role player as a senior and I don’t see how that translates to anything potentially great in the NBA. Of course there are exceptions, but I just don’t see it with him. He’s not a big-time performer either. For example in the ACC championship game this year against FSU, he played 32 min and went 1-12, scoring 4 pts (0-6 on 3’s). Then he average an "ok" 13 pts in the tourney, including a whopping 6pts against Michigan State in the championship game.
What do I need to show fire for? I'm not a dragon. - Lou Pinella
Nobody's said anything about "potentially great". It's defiinitely too bad you couldn't read the article before you commented.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
Why would I need to read the article? I was comenting on Danny Green.
I think Henderson can be really good, and FS said he “probably be better” than green.
What do I need to show fire for? I'm not a dragon. - Lou Pinella
I don't need him to be potentially great, I need him to complement Rose. His size, defense, and shooting ability are perfect fits next to Rose.
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on Jun 18, 2009 6:36 PM CDT up reply actions
You're right, those are the things I'd like to see next to him as well.
I just like Henderson better so I was initially just reacting to your comparison between the two, which I feel Henderson wins hands down. But I wouldn’t hate the Green pick at 26, knowing he’s being picked to be a back-up/rotation player.
What do I need to show fire for? I'm not a dragon. - Lou Pinella
What kind of player are we expecting to get at 26?
I think a solid back-up or rotation player is what we should be hoping for at the end of the 1st round. There’s no way Henderson’s there that late (I’m not sure he’ll be there at 16).
Who would you take there ahead of him (outside of Douglas of course)? Summers? Ellington? Taj Gibson? …(did I just say Taj Gibson?)
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 18, 2009 6:44 PM CDT up reply actions
There's reasons to like Henderson better - he's a bit better athlete and he can play better in isolation than Green
but here’s the statistical comparison between the two from this year via DraftExpress.
Green scored fewer points, but took fewer shots. Henderson did a better job of getting to the line (an understatement), but even with that Green posted a 59 TS% versus just 54 for Henderson, which is really not great. Then we look at the passing numbers, Green is the better passer. He gets slightly more assists per pace adjusted 40 and has a much better AST:TO ratio and Pure Point Rating – which accounts for the fact that a turnover hurts more than an assist helps. Then we look at the steals and block numbers as a proxy for defense. Green snagged more steals (2.3 to 1.6) and blocked more shots (1.7 to 1.0) than Henderson did per 40 pace adjusted.
So let’s recap, Green is:
- The better passer
- The better defender
- The better shooter (41.8% vs. 33.6% 3P, 85.2% vs. 76.1%)
AND on top of all that, he should be available with our second pick whereas Henderson might be drafted before we even make our first selection.
I’m failing to see a downside with this.
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on Jun 18, 2009 6:50 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
Man, everytime I see you post an argument...
there’s tons of stats to back it up. love it. just like when you sold me on Mullens a couple days ago. I’m a big fan of Danny Green and I think he’s got potential to be the steal of the draft, maybe even Michael Finley style.
And if he’s a bust, we picked him at 26 so who cares, right?
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 18, 2009 6:55 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I like stats. They help me back up my own sense of a prospect. And when they don't, I try to figure out why
- either what’s missing from the numbers, or more likely, what my eyes are missing.
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on Jun 18, 2009 6:57 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm with you
stats are great. sometimes I feel like the ESPN Hollinger junkies put too much into APM and PER, but if you just use them as pieces of an overall puzzle they can be a very helpful indicator of future performance.
I mean, Rose was 10th in PER among rookies this year, and we all know he’s better than that. But the statistical analysis regarding Green really makes sense to me.
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 18, 2009 7:00 PM CDT up reply actions
I think Henderson will be gone before 16. I didn't say we had a chance at him, you brought him up:)
As for the comparison between the 2, I just really like Henderson. I’ve probably watched about 20 Duke and about 20 UNC games this year and it’s my impression that Henderson, a junior is much better than Green, a senior. And I saw significant progress with Henderson from the beginning to the end of the season. That’s all.
I do think your conclusions based on those numbers above are a bit of a stretch.
Anyways, I said I wouldn’t hate the Green pick at 26, so I’m not arguing with you on taking Green at 26. I will disagree that he’s better than Henderson though.
What do I need to show fire for? I'm not a dragon. - Lou Pinella
He might not end up being better, because of the things I've mentioned (athleticism and isolation play)
that tip the scales in GH’s favor as a pro prospect, but I think there’s a pretty compelling case that the difference is relatively small, and one writer whose opinion I respect (Hollinger) actually has Green as the better prospect.
Then, I look at the numbers myself, and there’s a pretty compelling case for Green (which I made above), but like I said, I’m not blind to the fact that there are good reasons for suspecting that GH might end up being the better of the two, I just think it’s pretty close and so, I’d love to have either one of them, but if Green’s around, snatch him up.
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on Jun 18, 2009 7:01 PM CDT up reply actions
So...
can we conclude this?
Henderson: higher ceiling, lower floor
Green: lower ceiling, higher floor
This is obviously a broad assumption, but it’s one way of saying Green might be the “safer” pick.
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 18, 2009 7:04 PM CDT up reply actions
sure, to do it spatially it would look something like this.
- Henderson’s Ceiling
- Green’s Ceiling
- Green’s Floor
- Henderson’s Floor
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on Jun 18, 2009 7:08 PM CDT up reply actions
I still think I take Henderson at 16 if he's available.
(your argument seems to say that maybe they shouldn’t). But it would be really hard if someone like Blair were at 16 (and Henderson were, too) and they wanted to take him and hoped to get Green later. However, if I did that, I would definitely make sure to re-sign Gordon (with the idea that Green takes Hinrich’s SG-defender role) and still hope Tyrus develops. If they do that, I’m starting to come around to the idea that Green and Blair as the first two guys off the bench three years from now would be quite the steal.
But I still think taking Henderson provides the best chance to get a very good starter alongside Rose.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
I'm inclined to agree with you..
that Henderson gives us the best chance at a starter alongside Rose. I’m just not sure if that’s the direction I’d go in. It would definitely be hard to pass on Henderson at 16, and my thinking is that there’s not a very big chance that both he and Blair are available there. In my opinion only one if either will still be there at 16. If neither are, then there’s a good chance Earl Clark or James Johnson will be — and I’m cool with taking either of them.
I’m fairly confident that Green will be there at 26 (I think he’s mostly flying under the radar because of the attention garnered by Lawson, Ellington and Hansbrough).
If you were to tell me to choose between Henderson and Green straight up, then yes, I’ll take Henderson. I just think that strategically speaking draftin a front court guy at 16 and Green at 26 gives us much more flexibility with the Hinrich/Gordon and trade situations.
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 18, 2009 10:41 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I probably could have been more clear. I like Henderson - a lot, actually. I just think Green is underrated
and Henderson is maybe not AS good as some are projecting him. I do think that Henderson has starter potential, whereas Green is probably a 6th man at best. So if you really think BG is gone and you want to replace him with a starter in this weak draft, then probably the best option is to move up ahead of the Bobcats and snag Henderson. That seems to be what’s being reported lately. So if that’s the direction the Bulls go, I’m happy with that.
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on Jun 18, 2009 11:53 PM CDT up reply actions
And I admit Henderson is a tough case.
On the surface there really isn’t that much that distinguishes Henderson from Williams or the guys like Green who could go at the bottom of the 1st.
But I also have a fairly educated guess that Henderson could play better in the NBA with more fast break opportunities , fewer forced offensive possessions, and NBA spacing. Not an All-Star, but a guy that can play 35 minutes every night and score a relatively efficient 14 to18 points. That said I don’t have complete faith in that assessment, and my educated guess may be full of crap.
I tend to agree with that assessment as well
It’s pretty widely accepted that Henderson’s the better prospect. But for where the Bulls are picking and what our needs are I think Green is more than serviceable — I think he should be the pick at 26.
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 18, 2009 7:01 PM CDT up reply actions
I think you have to be careful making direct comparisons between
Green and Henderson’s efficiency. Green played as a 4th or 5th option on the best offense in CBB. Duke was 10th in the nation, but still only had a 117 adjusted ORtg compared to UNC’s 124. Duke was closer to 40th place than they were to 1st. As efficient as Green was, Green’s individual ORtg was actually below the team average. So was Henderson’s, but Henderson had a 27% USG% compared to 20% for Green. And Henderson was the player that had to create nearly all of the end of the shot clock shots for Duke.
Nearly every decent role player is going to look very efficient on the best offense in the country. I’m not saying that I wouldn’t be content with Green at 26, but claiming that Green is flat out better than Henderson even jsut on stats is a stretch. Especially if you’re projecting both of them as SGs.
I don't think anyone's saying Green's flat-out better
All we’re saying is that Henderson may or may not be there at 16 but definitely WON’T be there at 26. So, do we take Henderson (if he’s there) at 16 then go for another need or international player at 26 OR do we draft a tough big at 16, knowing that we’ll get a player very similar to Henderson in style and talent at 26.
I say we swing for the fences at 16 and play it safe with Green at 26 (assuming we keep both picks).
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 18, 2009 7:47 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah, I should have addressed the usage stuff. It's there in the DX numbers I posted, though.
Henderson used more possessions per game, but was less efficient. He did use up more possessions though at a decent level of efficiency which is something that pro prospects should be able to do.
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on Jun 18, 2009 7:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Did you read Danny Green's DX section?
yeah, I read that stuff. It was a bit of a red flag, but I just see him as a valuable role player. He can hit
open shots and provide great defense and size in the backcourt. I’d like him to be a better finisher, but he’s a flawed prospect, like most of the guys that are going to be available where he’s at. I just like his skill set and productivity and ability to come in and fill his role well.
I understand what you’re saying, below, about his team being so different that simply adjusting for pace isn’t enough, but at the same time, he was one of the reasons (albeit not one of the top 3) that that team was so great. You can’t completely give all the credit to his teammates, the same way I can’t decontextualize him from his teammates.
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on Jun 18, 2009 8:17 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm not completely giving credit to his teammates.
If I just roughly adjust Henderson’s ORtg based on his usage to Green’s 20%, Henderson’s ORtg would be somewhere between 117 (Dean Oliver’s old rule of thumb) and 119 (EliW’s research) compared to Green’s 121 ORtg. So the gap in terms of efficiency isn’t that big before even acknowledging the differences in teams and roles in any way beyond a simple USG%/ORTG conversion. I’m not arguing that Henderson is a substantially more efficient player, just that Green doesn’t have any kind of advantage. I’m more than willing to call it a draw.
Okay, we can call it a draw, but I stand by my assertion that Green was the better defender.
Whether that carries over to the next level (given that he has just average athleticism) is another issue. I think it will. Henderson is a good defender in his own right, too.
I think Green is a better player on day 1 in the NBA, but Henderson is probably going to be the better player long term, but at any rate, it’s close and since Green should be available, I’d rather see the Bulls snag him than try to move up to 11 (as I’ve read rumors of) to try and grab someone else (in this case, I’d guess it would be Henderson).
I can’t wait for this process to be through and to see what the Bulls plan is, though. And so I can start either celebrating that one of “my guys” got selected or talking myself into another player that the Bulls like more.
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on Jun 18, 2009 8:47 PM CDT up reply actions
Green is a better defender at SG day 1 in the NBA?
I have doubts about that. They’re the same size, Henderson defensive rebounds better and the value of Green’s shot blocking really declines at SG. I don’t see any clear defensive advantage for Green if he’s defending SGs.
There’s actually been rumors of the Bulls moving up to 11 to get Henderson? I haven’t seen any of those. Larry Brown supposedly really like Terrence Williams. If the Bobcats don’t take Henderson then he could very well be there at 16. I wouldn’t give up much to get to 11 either, but the difference between Henderson and Green isn’t that small when I project them as NBA players in my opinion. Henderson’s obviously no sure thing as far as being an NBA starter, but there’s also a good chance Green isn’t even an NBA player.
never mind to my speculation
How come any team in the Top-10 I could see the Bulls trading with don’t have high second round picks? Grrrrr…. I’d give up #16 & #26 for #11 & #40 (2nd round 10th).
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
Hrm, nice find.
Makes sense I guess. Did I overlook them surmising Henderson would be pick the Bulls had their eye on, or was that a guess?
What do I need to show fire for? I'm not a dragon. - Lou Pinella
It was a guess.
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on Jun 19, 2009 9:28 AM CDT up reply actions
Well, since I again posted without reading all of the comments.
You can see that I agree with that assessment completely. Also, about “moving up”, my guess is fs was referring to B-a-B.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
I think the difference should be expectations.
And our communication of those. If you’re expecting Green to be a very efficient 5th-option, borderline starter, first guy off the bench, I think he’ll be fine. I don’t think there is any way you can talk about him as a possible Top-3 offensive option. If Deng comes back around, Thomas becomes as good as we still want him to be and Noah develops some sort of offensive go-to-ness, I think he’d be alright.
OTOH, I think you can legitimately talk about Henderson as being a 2nd-option on offense. No guarantee at all, and if his ball handling doesn’t improve a lick and his shooting doesn’t improve much, because of his style, it’d be tough to envision him as a good option.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
We're really in agreement. I might have overstated my case for Green (I'm a Tar Heel fan, it happens)
I have pretty much the same evaluation as you do. I guess I was just drumming up interest in Green and comparing him to a very similar, but slightly better prospect whom many people whose opinions I respect (Scotter among them) had sighted as being a good fit.
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on Jun 18, 2009 11:58 PM CDT up reply actions
It's not just his usage, it's the team he played on.
Just adjusting for pace isn’t enough when a player’s team strongly deviates from the norm like the UNC team did.
Henderson had a low usage rate
especially in comparison with his peers. Henderson only used 16% of his teams possessions when he was on the floor. When you couple that with a low efficiency, you have a player who was weak on offense and who didn’t get very many possessions because the coaches knew it.
From DraftExpress.com -
“Henderson’s usage rate is well below average, as he falls much closer to the lower tier prospects in terms of the amount of possessions he used (16.5 Pos/G) than he did to the top guys. Something that is a bit concerning is that he was not particularly efficient in the relatively small amount of possessions he did use. His .95 PPP is only slight above the average of .93, and while some of that can be accounted for by the fact that he doesn’t take many threes, his 44% shooting on logged possessions can’t. Just slightly above the average of 43%, Henderson doesn’t look all that good when compared to some of his peers from that perspective.”
http://www.draftexpress.com/stats.php?year=2007/08&league=NCAA&per=pergame&qual=eligible&q=usage&sort2=DESC&pos=&stage=&min=20&conference=&sort=12
by Basketball Smurf on Jun 19, 2009 2:46 AM CDT up reply actions
That's misleading. His usage rate was fine unless you're expecting to
draft a 20+ point per game scorer. And if you are, you’re crazy. He’s exactly between guys like Harden and Evans, and guys like Ellington, Williams, and Green as far as usage goes,
but he also has low efficiency
given the level of play of college basketball, you would at least want your NBA starting 2 guard to be a decent scorer in college. Henderson is not efficient and you can’t blame it on him being a high usage player. That was my point. In limited opportunities, he does limited things. I can’t think of a starting shooting guard in the NBA as limited offensively as Henderson. Perhaps Dahntay Jones. Do you really draft Dahntay Jones with a #16 pick?
by Basketball Smurf on Jun 19, 2009 4:38 AM CDT up reply actions
Where did you get the 16% stat?
I calculated it yesterday on my other comp and I think I remember Henderson around 28/29%. That makes sense considering he’s scoring 16.5 points in 29.7 minutes on a team that averages 77.5ppg.
I’m not high on Henderson either, but he’s been efficient enough with high enough usage that that alone isn’t a red flag to me.
An eye opening comparison
I went through DX and put Jones and Henderson’s stats next to each other, and looked at their measurements, and I was pretty shocked at just how similar they came out. Similar size, similar athleticism, and very similar stats almost across the board.
That's funny...
Right before I read this comment I was just thinking Henderson reminded me a lot of Dahntay Jones. I watched Jones play a couple games in a tournament when he was at Rutgers and then I watched his career at Duke. I always basically expected him to turn into the NBA player that he is.
That said, I think the same way of Henderson. He’s going to be an athletic defender who has some slashing ability, but will never be a consistent scorer. He’s in the mold of all those Dukie swing men – Jones, Battier, Crawford (hopefully a little better than him) and now Henderson. As long as we know what we’re getting I think he’ll be a decent fit.
I don’t think he’s going to be a top-3 offensive option ever (at least on a good team) and I like Green’s stroke a little more. Which is why I like Green at 26 and maybe try to fill another need at 16 or trade the pick.
Picking up Green at 26 is lower risk than Henderson at 16 if you ask me. There’s tons of guards in this draft and not a lot of bigs. If we keep 16, I believe we’d be foolish not to at least take a chance on a big who can give us some offense — be it Blair, Johnson, Clark or Mullens. And that’s basically the order I’d want them in.
Although getting a big 2-guard who’s a defensive stopper would be nice, we would first need a defensive scheme in order for him to be at all effective on D. Also, I think Green has almost as much defensive potential as Henderson. I think Green is maybe the best pro prospect out of all the Tarheels in this draft (outside of Lawson).
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 19, 2009 9:35 AM CDT up reply actions
They're only similar if you're comparing Dahntay's senior year
to Gerald’s junior year, there junior years weren’t close. And even then you have to over look that Dahntay’s assist rate was 6% and Gerald Henderson led Duke at 18%. That’s not an insignificant difference.
You're right.
that’s not an insignificant difference. I definitely think Henderson’s slightly more offensively accomplished but I don’t see him as a future 20 ppg scorer. I could see him maxing out at around 16-17 ppg on a decent team, 13-15 on a good team. That’s still better than Dahntay Jones, but there’s the possibility that Henderson won’t be quite as good of a pro defender as Jones — especially under Vinny’s tutelage. It’s a tough call to make between the strategies, but we’ll all have an answer by this time next week.
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 19, 2009 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions
Hopefully, he'll only be under Vinny's tutelage for 20-40 games.
More than a year of VDN, and all of this discussion about “goodness” is moot anyway.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
All I'm catching is the whiff of an individual cherry being picked
while a tree full of them are being ignored.
I mean, there are reasons to distinguish them, the biggest being GH is only a junior, DJ was a transfer senior, and quite a bit more foul prone, but in 11 of the 13 efficiency stats, they’re damn near identical.
GH DJ Year 2008/09 2002/03 GP 37 33 Min 29.7 30.7 PER 24.1 22 EFF 15.5 15.6 EFF/40 20.9 20.3 WS/40 8 7.8 Pos/g 14.8 14.8 Tm Pos/g 69.6 73.5 % Tm Pos 21.3 20.2 Pts/Pos 1.11 1.19 FGA/Pos 0.86 0.86 FTA/Pos 0.34 0.38 Ast/Pos 0.17 0.06 TO/Pos 0.15 0.13
Incidentally, you do understand, don’t you, that in Jones’ junior year, he was playing with JWill, Dunleavy, Boozer and Duhon?
Henderson was, uh… not. So if you start with that point of understanding that Jones, by virtue of sharing the court with those sort of high level prospects, is not going to get as many opportunities, it makes sense to look at what they did per possession and again, Henderson and Johnson are pretty similar.
Perhaps one can say Jones should have gotten higher quality opportunities and thus produced at higher rates on an NBA quality team, but it’s not like either of them are the sort of guy to take advantage of that… we aren’t talking Steve Kerr here.
On the other hand, one can note that Jone’s assist % improved in past years, where he was in a more distributed system, vs. his final year, when Duhon was doing damn near everything. And, with Henderson, his assist numbers were probably inflated in his final year by the fact that Greg Paulus turned into such a dud.
Which is not to take away from the fact that Henderson was, in fact, relatively successful when given that role. That’s a point in his favor. But if he’d been playing next to Chris Duhon, he’d obviously not have generated that sort of number either.
On a per possession basis, I think that having better teammates
would make it MORE likely that you’d get an assist, not less. Your teammates are more likely to finish the play and get you the assist in your box score.
And, because the possession has been used by that player regardless of whose around him, the fact that Henderson was able to find crappy teammates in positions to score, and Jones couldn’t find good teammates to score I think is a big difference between the two players’ passing abilities.
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on Jun 19, 2009 4:14 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't disagree
I didn’t say that well, but I did intend my post to say Henderson did a good job in a bad situation, and that’s a + in considering him. But the statistics do suggest that Jones found better teammates at a higher rate (his junior year) than he found crappy teammates in his senior year.
On the other hand Henderson’s numbers improved and were mildly better, but in the grand scheme of things they still don’t look that great to me (he still wasn’t utilizing a lot of possessions and his assist/possession rate is on the low side compared to the other SGs in this draft).
In any case, the question would be whether Jones and Henderson had the same type of possessions. Based on his teammates and my recollection, most of Jones possessions were not ones where he should obviously have been looking for teammates, whereas Henderson’s were.
Well, actually the question in the grand scheme of things is whether it has much relevance at all, and I just don’t see that it does. Henderson’s rate was mildly better, but in the grand scheme of things, still not all that great. His other statistics were very similar. So I have a hard time saying the players are not similar because they’re somewhat dissimilar in one statistical category, with ambiguous meaning, while they’re similar in ten other statistical categories.
The only reason it's so important is that passing ability is so important
for backcourt players. Ideally, you want your 2 guard to be your second best passer, and a guy that can’t pass at the college level probably won’t change much at the next level. It’s one of the only reasons why I’d red flag Jermaine Taylor as a top flight prospect. He seems like he should be great given his athleticism, scoring ability, and rebounding numbers for a SG, but he’s just a very, very bad passer (plus he doesn’t try on defense) who turns it over far too often for how few assists he puts up.
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on Jun 19, 2009 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions
The difference between the 6% assist rate
that Jones had at Duke both years and an 18% assist rate is significant. Even if you acknowledge that Williams and Duhon dominated the ball. It’s the difference between a guy who’s shown the ability to create on the college level and a guy who has just been a finisher. And Jones was also 23 when he was drafted.
You’re obviously not the 1st person to compare the two an NBA GM made the same comparison, and they obviously share some similar traits. But, the difference in their ability to create and pass isn’t a small difference.
More than one guy to create his own shot his a good thing.
We must repeat this mantra.
Especially VDN’s “system”. Even more especially if Gordon is leaving. I’m not saying it’s a bad choice for Green, but I don’t think we should take “creating one’s own shot” off the table as criterion just because the Bulls finally got someone who can do that.
Oh, and especially the NBA rules-emphasis change which values creating the shot from the perimeter.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Jun 18, 2009 5:50 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
This is true, but Green should probably be around on Draft Day at #26 and if he is, I think we'd be silly not to select him.
He’s a guy that can come in and fill a role and do it very well. Maybe he’s not the long term starter next to Rose (I really doubt he would be), but he could definitely play 20-25 minutes a game next to him and complement his game really well.
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on Jun 18, 2009 6:38 PM CDT up reply actions
Couldn't agree more
I see Danny Green as a slightly less talented combo of Artest, Salmons and Battier. That’s simply my opinion, but it is shared by some of the “experts” over at ESPN like David Thorpe (not that I put THAT much weight into what they think). If Green’s gone (I don’t think he will be, but in this draft you never know..) I think Summers from Georgetown is a very similar prospect.
Thoughts?
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 18, 2009 6:42 PM CDT up reply actions
Summers from what I've heard and read about him is much bigger than Green
I view Green as a SG at the next level whereas Summers is a SF / PF tweener. Summers was bad rebounder for his position, whereas Green was a good one for his (SG). Green’s a much better passer / less turnover prone than Summers. He’s also not quite the defender that Green would be for his position.
I’m not all that high on Summers to be honest. His rebounding numbers for a SF his size and with his athletic ability in college just aren’t very comforting.
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on Jun 18, 2009 6:56 PM CDT up reply actions
That's basically what I was looking for...
from the measureables, Summers looks very attractive. I was really looking for some reasons NOT to like him… and there they are. From what I remember he seems to have a streaky jumper also…
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 18, 2009 7:05 PM CDT up reply actions
everytime I think of tweener I'm reminded of...
Clarence Weatherspoon.
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 18, 2009 7:07 PM CDT up reply actions
Didn't Green almost exclusively at SF w/ Lawson and Ellington?
Serious question: do they have translations for rebounding from college SF to SG in the NBA? Because I think that certainly makes a difference.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
I would imagine it would, too. That's a good point re: the difference between Henderson's boards and Green's.
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on Jun 19, 2009 12:05 AM CDT up reply actions
So... if Henderson and Blair are available at 16...
Take Blair and hope that Green is around at 26, or take Henderson with the hope of finding a legitimate starting-caliber 2-guard and take BPA at 26? Unfortunately, the Bulls probably won’t have this choice. I’d take the second, though. Unless I were the Bulls and I really, really, really did have every intention of re-signing Ben Gordon. If they bring him back and are still hoping Deng comes around, getting Green makes the most sense. Absolutely.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
This is all what WE would do...
I’m kind of interested to hear you all’s thoughts on what GarPaxDorf will do.. To me (and this is from the guy hyping Green at 26), Henderson seems like a Paxson pick. I know they’re both from big-time, winning programs but Henderson’s dad was also a professional athlete so he has the pedigree (not that I buy into the relevance) Paxson typically goes for.
Sometimes I wonder if the Bulls even have a strategy (that’s all we’re debating really — strategy). If Rose hadn’t fallen into our laps what the hell would our strategy be? It seems like the Bulls front office gets by with saying, “We’re going to build around Derrick” without any clear direction on what that means. Then again, that’s pretty much the fun of this blog…
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 18, 2009 10:48 PM CDT up reply actions
If it's a choice between Henderson and Blair at 16, I'd take Henderson. I was beating the Blair drum as loud and as long
as anyone, but his knee injuries really concern me. Couple that with his massive weight loss and I’ve got serious doubts about his ability to stick in the league. Plus, I’m pretty confident that Ben’s gone, so we need to find a starting 2 guard. I don’t think (and I think you’d agree) that Salmons is the answer. He’s not quick enough to play the 2 nearly as effectively as he does the SF slot, and he’s overrated even at SF. Ideally I’d like the Bulls to sell high and to trade Salmons, but I don’t see that happening.
Rose, Hinrich
Henderson
Deng, Salmons
Tyrus, TiT
Noah, Miller
is a pretty solid team for next year. I think that team probably wins 45-46 games, at least. If we get any kind of productivity from the #26 pick (who I would assume would be a big man), then all the better.
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on Jun 19, 2009 12:04 AM CDT up reply actions
i think Henderson is the most overrated prospect in this draft
i wouldn’t take him with the #26 pick. The next time I see Henderson use his left hand, will be the first.
Henderson was a low usage player who was very inefficient. When you put the two together, that is a horrible combination. I don’t believe he is a good enough defensive player to make up for his abysmal offense. He is bad in catch and shoot situations and was not very good in transition. Henderson is a guy who can’t make 3pters, which I think is a must when you pair a guard up with Rose. He has pretty good athleticism but he is undersized. He doesn’t get a lot of steals, doesn’t really play the passing lanes and won’t have the size to bother shooting guards on the perimeter.
He was great at finishing off cuts (according to Draft Express) but that is not a huge part of what the Bulls do. I just don’t think he is a good fit and I think he will end up being a career bench player. There is no way Henderson could start for the Bulls over Hinrich or Salmons.
by Basketball Smurf on Jun 19, 2009 2:30 AM CDT up reply actions
Some of what you say is true, some of it isn't.
He wasn’t a low usage player, he was the highest usage guy on his team.
He wasn’t bad in transition, and he was one of the best SGs at finishing around the basket.
He’s not undersized, the measurements came out awhile ago.
There’s legitimate reasons to dislike Henderson, but I don’t think you have an accurate take on him.
i don't know how to square your interpretation of his usage rate
with draft express writing -
“Henderson’s usage rate is well below average, as he falls much closer to the lower tier prospects in terms of the amount of possessions he used (16.5 Pos/G) than he did to the top guys. Something that is a bit concerning is that he was not particularly efficient in the relatively small amount of possessions he did use. His .95 PPP is only slight above the average of .93, and while some of that can be accounted for by the fact that he doesn’t take many threes, his 44% shooting on logged possessions can’t. Just slightly above the average of 43%, Henderson doesn’t look all that good when compared to some of his peers from that perspective. Henderson obviously liked to shoot quite a bit of long 2-pointers—normally considered a bad shot at the collegiate level—so polishing up this part of his game should make him more efficient.”
In my eyes, Draftexpress is describing a player who is a career back up. If he wasn’t efficient college, why will his efficiency get higher in the pros?
I think Henderson is a hustle player off the bench at best, and I think there are better fits next to Rose than a guy who can’t really shoot. Henderson may be a highlight real dunker and slasher, but I’d rather pair Rose with a more complete shooting guard. Henderson’s overall offensive game is rather weak.
I don’t see much that separates him from the other shooting guard prospects available at #26 and I would much rather take Blair than Henderson if having to choose between the 2. I don’t think Henderson would be very productive in a Bulls uniform.
by Basketball Smurf on Jun 19, 2009 4:55 AM CDT up reply actions
Things to point out
The usage numbers you are using are not per 40 min-pace adjusted, so Henderson suffers because he was only on the floor 30mpg.
His usage, if you pace adjust the data, does give him the highest usage on the team, but only by a slim margin over Kyle Singler.
Also. it’s probably unfair to compare to most of the other SGs in this draft because many of them played against weaker competition and had significantly worse teammates. Henderson didn’t have to shoulder all of the offensive burden, like Harden, Meeks, Thornton, and Taylor (to name a few) because he had other guys to help. Admittedly, him team wasn’t that great and probably would have been better off if he had tried to score more, but I think Henderson’s usage was appropriate.
Really?
Don’t you think saying that he’s garbage is a little over-doing it? I mean, you just said he does everything okay… since when does doing a little bit of everything mean you’re garbage? last time I checked that means you’re Shane Battier…
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 18, 2009 5:40 PM CDT reply actions
damn
i meant to actually “reply” to that one… my bad.
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 18, 2009 5:41 PM CDT up reply actions
Or Luol Deng
Things could be worse. We could have kept Boylan.
by stupidgenius on Jun 19, 2009 7:50 AM CDT up reply actions
At 26?
Absolutely. Is there any chance he’s there at 26? Absolutely not. Picking him up at 16 is an interesting proposition. As I’ve said many times before, when you pick in the middle of the first round it’s usually about who’s still available. In a draft like this we won’t know until draft night. I think that between Terrence Williams, Gerald Henderson, Dejuan Blair and Earl Clark – one of them will be there at 16. I’d take any of them if they are.
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 18, 2009 6:17 PM CDT up reply actions
I want to like Williams a lot. He's fantastic at everything besides scoring. But, he's pretty terrible as a scorer, and guys who can't score
a lot and efficiently at the college level typically struggle to do so in the NBA. He can’t really shoot and despite his athleticism, he’s not a great finisher.
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on Jun 18, 2009 6:39 PM CDT up reply actions
like him
much more than henderson (and green).
griffin – harden – rubio – tyreke – blair
twilliams – lawson/flynn/jennings – clark – casspi – ellington – mullens – claver
beaubois – calathes – thornton/taylor/gibson/pendergraph/douglas/green
my guesses – no stats, but like the office secretary picking football week or the final four, i’m uncanny!
btw, didn’t read the hollinger while it was free. i’d be curious which of these (besides mullens) he says will bust.
"As a basketball player gordon is a useless as tits on a a whore" - BigWay (Dec 2, 2008). BigWank, I'll miss you more than all the others. This song is for you, my brother!
Just imagine if Terrence Williams could dribble to create his own shot and get to the FT line.
If he could do that, I’d have to imagine he’d be far and away the best prospect at SG in this class. Other than “scoring” is there anything this guy doesn’t excel at? Size, athleticism, defense, passing, decision-making, ………. He’s going to be a SG version of Joakim Noah. Too bad scoring seems to be a big deal from SG’s, especially for this team who only has one real scorer looking to the future.
If one projected Williams to actually create a decent scoring game, and thought Tyrus Thomas could handle the load as a second option (I know, I know, hahahahaha), Williams would be an intriguing. I haven’t watched enough of him—maybe one game—to have any clue, though.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
Scotter, when you look at him, is there anything that shows he could ever dribble well?
it seems like dribbling might be his problem. He can’t get to the rim, he shoot off the dribble, he’s not “creative”.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
not that i saw anywhere
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
Same question as Sport2 with regard to DeRozen....
The poster formerly known as Freethefro.
DeRozan was way, way down. Bust written all over him.
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on Jun 19, 2009 9:56 AM CDT up reply actions
In fact, he had this to say:
“I’d be hard-pressed to name a potential high lottery pick throughout the years about whom the Draft Rater has been less excited.”
Draft Rater
Austin Daye at number four? You have to be kidding me. I can believe that Derozan might be a bust, though.
Oh my goodness.
So he’s almost guaranteed not to be a bust, eh.
…
I don’t believe.
Maybe in four years he can play in the NBA.
-I was wrong about Pau Gasol. I have been shamed. :(
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Spike Lee texts to thank the coach that cut Jeremy Lin before seeing him play
- LeBron threatened to beat up a heckler. You gotta problem with that, tough guy?
- Jason Whitlock apologizes for his unfunny Jeremy Lin comment on Twitter
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
