149 thoughts on “Is John Wall the Obvious Number One Pick for the Wizards?”

1. I’ve been talking about this for months, meaning – why the hell is Wall the consensus no. 1 pick?.

   Now we’ll find out if Mr. Leonsis has the “nerve” to defy popular opinion. If he will – he will catch heat, no doubt but when winning kicks in… people tend to rethink their position :p

   In truth, Leonsis had his job cut out for him even before today seeing as he has to deal with the mistakes of the last regime. More than any other those problems are Gilbert Arenas: even before his injuries and legal situation he wasn’t worth anywhere near max money. The trouble for Leonsis is that with those past injuries and last season’s transgressions Arenas has probably the most immovable contract in the entire NBA.
   Seeing as neither Wall nor Arenas can play at the off-guard position, Drafting Wall would just be a mistake of a huge magnitude, not just because there are superior prospects out there, but also because of the logjam it creates.
   Looking at the players under contract for the Wizards makes for a rather grim picture:
   Blatch ,Arenas , J. Howard (Team option), Foye (qualifying offer), Thornton, Young, Mcgee and Quinton Ross. Yikes….

2. So the data driven long view is take Cousins and the What-if-Wall-defies-the-odds-and-I-look-like-an-idiot-for-not-picking-him view is take Wall. After all “everybody” thought he was going to be a star.

3. Ilike, I think that’s exactly right.
   We’ll have to wait for the measurements to know how long these two guys really are, but seriously -
   Any player with a frame like Cousins who posted numbers like that, in his freshman season, playing for a major college (and one full of NBA talent might I add) is for real. Is he the next Shaq? Malone? hard to say. It’s a mistake to look at Cousins and see him as an ordinary prospect.
   He’s an extraordinary prospect. He’ll be a perennial 2010 guy, with good to great efficiency from the field. That’s almost a given, how many blocksstealsassists he can add to that, and how often will he turn the ball over – those things will determine what’s his eventual place on a scale from AS to Hof. When all will be said and done that’s the kind of debate Cousins’s career will bring up – how does he compare to the all-time greats?
   How can you pass up a guy like that? Personality issues? that’s not enough.
   Don’t get me wrong – Wall is a very good prospect, but passing up a prospect of Cousin’s magnitude is just plain silly.

4. Derrick Rose averaged 20 pts and 6 assists on an average Bulls team. I believe that’s pretty good.

   If you watched any of Wall this season, you would see that he has the athleticism to be an elite point guard and an extremely high ceiling. There shouldn’t be any question as to whether or not he is the top pick. His game translates to the NBA much better than Turners and elite point guard prospects don’t come around that often.

5. Roger,
   Derrick Rose was above average this year. Both of those stats are good but also require context. 20 points without including % and attempts is hard to gauge. 6 assists is good but also consider his position is one expected to get assists.

   Derrick Rose as a 20 year old was a little better than an average point guard, and that’s a great deal for his team at 5 million. Compare that to Chris Paul who was over twice as good as the average point guard his sophomore stint.

   Next, you list Athleticism and High Ceiling for Wall. These are subjective terms. They may be true, but they are hard to quantify. Also the no-question argument can get you into trouble. I believe Rookie predictions are still only about 40% reliable using WP(which is still MUCH more than other metrics and other sports). While that’s pretty good, it is a far thing from a sure thing. Joe Dumars made a fool of himself with Darko, but he was also just the first in line on a “sure thing”

6. Roger, for starters idk what “on an average Bulls team” mean.
   Are you suggesting he’d be significantly better playing for a different team? Call me skeptical.
   More to the point:
   20 Pts is well above average but his efficiency as measured by his TS% is lower than the league average for PG’s. Yes, you read that correctly. His 6 assists are almost exactly the league average for PG per min.
   That’s… not as nearly as impressive as you make it sound – 20 and 6… it sounds great but in Rose’s case it’s really not, it’s just – average.
   He’s also rebounds the ball at a below average rate for the position.
   From all the PG’s who played at least 25 mins per game this season Only Steve Nash, Shaun livingston and a hobbled Tony Parker have earned fewer steals.
   He’s also below average in committing To’s.
   In his defense he’s one of the best in the league in committing fewer personal fouls, so there you go.

   If you still want to shout “20 and 6 for an average Bulls team” – feel free to do so – it wouldn’t change the fact that Mr. consensus no. 1 pick Athletic huge upside Pg of the future, just a couple of years ago is nothing more than an average NBA Pg.

7. We’ve had a fair number of elite PG’s come into the league recently (CP3, Rondo, Deron, maybe Lawson).

   20 pts and 6 assists, AI posted better than that for most of his career.

   ‘If you watched any of this season, you would see that he has the athleticism to be an elite and an extremely high ceiling. There shouldn’t be any question as to whether or not he is the top pick. His game translates to the NBA much better than and elite prospects don’t come around that often.’

   This template can be used every other year to describe a player who turns out to be just ok (or worse).

8. The template as it should have read:

   ‘If you watched any of [insertplayerhere] this season, you would see that he has the athleticism to be an elite [insertpositionhere] and an extremely high ceiling. There shouldn’t be any question as to whether or not he is the top pick. His game translates to the NBA much better than [likelybetterplayer] and elite [insertpositionhere] prospects don’t come around that often.’

9. elite point guards don’t come around that often? i might be wrong, but it seems like we are in a golden age of point guards. kidd, paul, nash, rondo, williams, billups, tony parker (injured most of this year).

   the first 5 are all .3ish WP48…i have no data, but i’d be pretty surprised if that has happened before in the NBA.

10. I do hope cousins drops, but it will be unlikely that the w’s will get him.

    The player whom Wall reminds me of is Monta Ellis – someone who is freakish on the fast break, but not as much as a 3 point guy.

    With all of the new bloggers/ general manager could we have a wages of wins mock draft? I loved the one that was on usenet for years. I think the muliplte bloggers approach has been great so far.

11. Srry Dre, I kind of duplicated the gist of your comment, but in my defense – I was typing and so yours only after it was submitted.
    Btw, What’s this 40% figure you’re referring to?
    In context (meaning accounting for a player being a freshmansenior etc.) you’d get a substantially higher correlation. Furthermore, What you need to look at is a player’s peak production. Some players take longer to acclimate to the pro game than others. What we’re interested in here is college performance compared to a player’s prime – not his rookie campaign.
    iirc the rule of the thumb was that players on average retain around 70-75% of their college peak production at their NBA peak.
    That’s a wild generalization, naturally. It’s one thing for instance to post Cosuins’s 15.61 mark as a senior, and a whole different feat to post that as a freshman. We wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) have the same expectations from two hypothetical players – a freshman and a senior who post identical numbers to have the same NBA career.

12. even if the wizards don’t want wall, it would make a lot more sense to trade down than to pick anyone else with the first pick.

    number 1 pick for holiday+number 2 pick or something, and then take cousins and get something else in the process.

13. You have to love Doc River’s playoff minute allocation. He plays his starters as much as he can, he knows he has crap for backup big men, so he puts in Rasheed and Davis, sees which one is going to suck less and gives that one more minutes.

    / I’d like to see Sheldon Williams get some more minutes, but that’s a minor quibble

14. A player like John Wall isn’t drafted on production, he’s drafted on potential. Athletically, he’s unlike every point guard not named Derrick Rose, and GMs see in him someone they can teach the game to, and someone possessing a wide range of physical gifts that are rare in a point guard’s frame.

15. Palamida,

    I don’t know if it was in Wages of Wins or an earlier post. Basically its the correlation between college stats and NBA stats. 40% is still remarkably good when you consider that it is many different people in different programs that are young.

    The draft is far from a sure thing. Consider the top player in the last 5 drafts was not picked first (although Oden and Griffin were injured)

16. I don’t remember if SoW mentioned BMI (or in this case, being athletic) being a significant factor of where a player is drafted, but that’s all I hear about John Wall. Not his playing making abilities, not his shooting, defense, etc. But I hear a lot about his speed.

    Also, is there anyway to test the theory of “turning it on”? Boston is obviously playing much better than what I assumed they would be able to, and I do notice the Lakers playing somewhat better as well.

17. Anon – that goes without saying. If Leonsis so desires he can capitalize on the difference between WoW and popular opinion in this case. Since both Philly and the Nets are vying for a PG and thus vying for John Wall, surely something of value can be obtained. Just a few years back in a similar situation the T-wolves got expiring contracts, Mike Miller and the 5th (Kevin Love) for expiring contracts and the 3rd (O.J Mayo). Since Wall is seen as such a big deal (and the no. 1 pick always has it’s added allure) I’m sure they could do a lot better than Jrue Holiday.
    I just want to clarify one thing: Myself and others have used Rose’s example because it’s recent and similar in certain respects. It’s worth noting though, that the neither the Ellis comparison nor Rose’s do Wall justice – he’s a better prospect than both Ellis and Rose. Unlike Ellis whose basically a SG in a PG’s body, Wall is a PG is a SG’s body – a considerably more desirable “setting”.
    His shooting efficiency and an unprecedentant amount of To’s (for a top PG prospect) is what dragged him down the most, but his Assists numbers were excellent – he is a PG.
    Considering he is a freshman, and a young freshman at that and if he is indeed 6’4 with length to match -He is a very good prospect.
    Simply not a great one, unlike Cousins.

    and Roger if you wanna open up subjectivity here, when I watched Wall play I saw a great athlete but not a very good basketball player…
    Poor body control, poor shooting form, poor ball handling skills and poor decision making + shot selection. He’s young, and many of those things are improvable (is that a word? :p), but realistically speaking few players, if any, dramatically improve their entire skill set.
    He’d be extremely efficient in the open court, and I’m sure he’ll show up in plenty of highlight reels. In the half court sets.. not so much and considering most of the games are played in the half court (and even more so during the post season), well…

18. ilike,
    I agree on Doc and his minute allocation :-)

    As for Rose
    Rank Name Team Position WP48 Wins Age
    1 Rajon Rondo BOS PG:100% 0.290 17.9 23
    2 Steve Nash PHO PG:100% 0.292 16.2 35
    3 Deron Williams UTA PG:91% 0.254 14.8 25
    4 Chris Paul NOH PG:100% 0.339 12.1 24
    5 Chauncey Billups DEN PG:71% SG:28% 0.198 10.3 33
    6 Russell Westbrook OKC PG:100% 0.162 9.5 21
    7 Raymond Felton CHA PG:94% 0.172 9.5 25
    8 Andre Miller POR PG:100% 0.156 8.1 33
    9 Jarrett Jack TOR PG:100% 0.154 7.2 26
    10 Beno Udrih SAC PG:100% 0.136 7.0 27
    11 Derrick Rose CHI PG:59% SG:40% 0.113 6.8 21

    He’s the 11th best point guard at 21 for the season . Not bad but not awesome. Rondo and Paul were both better but Deron was worse at 21. He can be better but he needs to prove it next year by making a leap like rondo did in his third year.
    As for the draft, I’m guessing:
    1. Washington -Wall
    2. Philadelphia -Turner
    3. New Jersey – Favors (They have Lopez)
    4. Minnesota – Johnson (Need a SF unless they trade Love or Jefferson and take Cousins)
    5. Sacramento -Cousins

    So Sacramento gets the best player on the cheap.

19. I would love to be wrong and have the Wiz trade the pick to NJ for something like Lopez and the #3 (and take Favors)

20. Wasn’t Michael Beasley rated extremely high by PAWS40, too? I gotta think one season is not a big enough sample to assess an 18 or 19 year-old.

    “Seeing as neither Wall nor Arenas can play at the off-guard position, Drafting Wall would just be a mistake of a huge magnitude, not just because there are superior prospects out there, but also because of the logjam it creates.”

    Arenas played off the ball with Earl Boykins running point periodically this season. The Wizards actually won some of those games, too.

    Anyway, if the past few years are any indication, Arenas won’t find it too hard to stay out of the way, ha.

    =========

    Last October:
    “Meanwhile the Kings –with the 4th pick – selected Tyreke Evans. Relative to players who are drafted out of college, Evans was a below average college performer last season. So although it’s possible Evans will be an outstanding performer in 2009-10, the data that exists suggests otherwise.”

    Last April:
    “Once again an award has been given by the NBA. And once again, the leading scorer eligible for the award is the winner. Tyreke Evans – who led all rookies with 1,450 points scored – has been named Rookie of the Year. Stephen Curry – who finished second in scoring – finished second in voting. And Brandon Jennings – the third leading scorer – finished third.

    When we move past this one element in the box score and consider a player’s production of wins we see that Evans and Curry are… okay, they are still the top rookies. Curry produced 9.1 wins with a 0.151 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes]. And Evans produced 8.9 wins with a 0.159 WP48.”

21. Ilike, I’m 100% with you on both Doc’s rotation and wanting to see more of Williams – Today though, Shelden was inactive due to back spasms, hardly Doc’s fault :p.

    Dre, Not really getting your point. who got drafted first isn’t the issue – the issue is who should have been drafted first.
    Certainly there are limitations. You cannot predict with certainty. Players sometimes exceed expectations drastically, Deron Williams for instance. Others disappoint drastically (Beasley), but more often than not – players more or less meet our expectations when we base those expectations on past production. Surely you can do better if you add to the evaluation process other factors: character, age, physical tools, a specific college situation andor system, etc.
    However, even you you ignore everything else (but age, which is a crucial piece of information) more often than not – you’re going to do a fair job in your assesment.
    If you can show me the scoutGmcoach who can tell consistently which mediocre prospect will exceed these expectation drastically and which seemingly great prospect will be a bust – i’ll say: let’s listen to this guy!
    the fact is no one has a track record of doing that. For every Deron Williams there are 5 Johnny Flynns. The rational choice then, is to draft based on past production.
    Not one franchise has been doing that consistently – even with “experts” (mostly of the +- metrics) employed by these organaizations.
    This summer another team will draft an over-hyped, overrated player who will go on to be the RoY, appear in multiple AS games, and most likely will end his career without a championship ring: it’s hard to win championships when you pay max money to an average to somewhat above average guy. To do that, you need luck, and a willingness to spend, deep into luxury tax land .

    All of that can be easily avoided but this summer it will probably be, once again, the fate of another NBA franchise.

22. Alvy:

    One could look at the Shaq-Kobe lakers, the Duncan Spurs, and the Billups Pistons. They all put it in cruise control during the regular season. One year in particular for LA their efficiency differential jump in the playoffs vs. the regular season was pretty dramatic.

23. Alvy, I don’t know if Boston is turning it on as much as they are just playing their two best players a lot more and one of their worst a lot less. Here are the major differences in minutes from the regular season to the playoffs.

    Rondo +5
    KG +5
    PP +3
    Sheed -7

    That’s a serious productivity improvement.

24. T, I Won’t comment further on the Arenas as a SG because even if it was attempted, I seriously doubt the usefulness of such a lineup in the long term.

    As for Beasley, see my comment above – he certainly did not live up to expectations – far from it.
    How do you deduce from that that “a year isn’t enough…” is beyond me, though. It’s not like this is a crap shoot!
    Sure, some players stray from expectations but the correlation is still (by in large) extremely high.

    As a side note, iirc Evans was a very good prospect.
    I even recall commenting on the matter over at the Courtside Analyst. In my spreadsheet I have Evans as posting 9.5 Ws48 which is a phenomenal mark for a freshman PG. I did have some concerns about his ability to play the point (his AstTo ratio didn’t exactly “scream” Pg material). Idk if the error is in my data or in the professor’s, but it was widely “accepted” in “these” circles that Evans whom the mock drafts were all indicating would be a top 5 pick would be worthy of that spot.
    As for RoY, Had Blair and Lawson been given more PT (as they should have been) one of them would probably have surpassed Evans’s Wp easily, and so would Griffin had he been healthy.

25. Im a huge Wizards fan. I’m not sure what we should do. I’m not as down on Wall as some of you kind of seem but I think he is being vastly over valued. It can be argued that he should go number one, but it is not a no brainer as all the “experts” are saying.

    This probably means the best route is to trade the pick for a lot of value. The Wizards GM has already ruled that out however. Trading out is typically the path the Wiz take but it hasn’t really worked out and now they are weary of it.

    I really don’t love anyone in this draft. I would probably take Blake Griffin, James Harden, Ty Lawson, and Steph Curry over anyone in this draft. I feel like 09 was so much stronger than 2010 is.

    I look at all the prospects in this draft and I can’t really find a solid argument to definitely take one first over all. Wall has the worst numbers but he is the youngest, and didn’t play PG exclusively last year (shared it with Bledsoe). Wesley Johnsons Jr year numbers are better but he is much older and his freshman year numbers were not very good either. Turners numbers are great too and if I had to go with my gut I would pick Turner. His freshman year numbers were also poor. So it’s not too fair to Wall that he hasn’t had the chance to play more years. But also you don’t know if he will improve. I just wouldn’t say he definitely will not yet. As for Cousins, I know he has the best numbers. But I wouldn’t draft him before the fifth spot. He’s a headcase. I watched a ton of Kentucky games this year and he didn’t ever run back on defense. He fouled like crazy at times. You never know what you’re going to get with him. Beasleys numbers were superior to Cousins in college. But he clearly has some maturity problems. I think the best NBA comparison for Cousins is Zach Randolph. Not overly athletic but has a ton of talent. He can be incredibly productive (Memphis Randolph) or a terrible teammate (Knicks Randolph).

    At least we’re sure he will be better than Kwame Brown, right? RIGHT?!!!!

26. On a funny note. I play in a summer league with some cousins and a bunch of friends. We’re all huge Wizards fans. Our team name is the “Kwame Brown All-Stars.” We’re starting next month and we just bought the jerseys for the team. I couldn’t decide my number but tonight helped me.

    …I went with 11. So at this point they really have to take Wall, or my custom Wizards jersey with 11 on the back will look stupid. And if you think a custom Wizards jerseys are expensive, guess again. After Gil had his gun thing the team stopped selling his jerseys and basically gave them away to discount stores. I got a Gilbert jersey (originally valued at 75$) for 8 dollars and marshalls and bought 8 more for my team at 8 a pop. We took off the name and number and put our own on. It’s pretty legit. But I’m gonna need Wall or my 11 will look stupid.

27. *For 8 dollars at** Marshall’s.

28. Robbie, I agree that he’s a headcase but if ever was the time to take a little chance… there’s some risk in the Cousins pick, indeed – but plenty of potential reward. I think Beasley’s failure (thus far) had more to do him being a tweener than his maturity problems. I don’t think their “personal” issues are that similar to begin with: Beasley by all reports, plays pranks, drinks, parties, does drugs and simply isn’t working nearly hard enough on his game. I agree that cousins is a head case, but he comes off as more of the “enforcer” type headcase – i’m thinking… Rasheed. A guy who’ll get ejected every now and then, get plenty of Techs and probably wouldn’t be the coach’s favorite player, but he does seem to have his head in the game, literally and figuratively. That’s all just a personal, subjective opinion.
    What isn’t all that subjective is your Randolph comparison – I just don’t see it. For starters Cousins is 6’11 on a huge and wide frame (yes… I mean heavier :p) – a legitimate Center. Randolph is 6’9 and is strictly a PF. They’re both one and done guys and production wise, there’s just no comparison:
    Randolph played 3.7 mins fewer a game. Key per 48 stats: (CousinsRandolph)
    Pts p48 – 30.8 26.1
    Reb p48 – 20 16.2
    Blk p48 – 3.71.7
    FG% – 55.8% 58.7%
    In other respects the two were similar.
    So Cousins does give a little in shooting efficiency, but he completely blows Randolph out of the water in Pts, Rebs and Blk. Understand that Randolph’s numbers are impressive, improving significantly on those (as cousins did) is hard feat to accomplish.
    I understand the comparison was made mostly because of Randloph’s past “mental issues”, but as you said the “Memphis” Randolph is quite a productive player. The “motivated” version of Cousins, would be nothing short of a hall of fame type domination. You can’t pass that chance up, certainly not for Wall.

29. I actually agree with the tweener comment on Beasley. Those players seem to be the hardest to predict (Al-Farouq Aminu is a tweener I’d stay away from this year). But he also has a ton of maturity issues. For some reason I just can’t fall in love with Cousins. I would fall in love with trading the number 1 for Kevin Love and the number 4, however. I bet Minny would do it, they love PGs. Especially questionable productivity ones.
    But I think I’d be okay with Wall. I just haven’t been convinced he won’t be good…or that he will be. The Wiz got lucky tonight, hopefully it’ll continue in that Wall will be very good.

30. Robbie, final comment on this :p
    when you say “especially questionable production ones” you make it sound like he’s the next Johnny Flynn – he’s not. I know this Wall rant has been going long enough but I’d like to keep it in perspective: My rant stems from guys like Chris Reina (RealGm) who dubbed Wall : The best PG in the league through 2020. That’s never gonna happen. He’ll probably be a career 0.150 guy and probably will even scrape the 0.200 (from below) in his prime. That’s not questionably good – that’s good. In this league however there are quite a few PG’s superior to him, and in this draft (which simply has zero decent PG prospects) there are other players whom I’d take in a heartbeat over him (Cousins, Turner) and a few others I’d consider taking before him. Dberri “ranking” is a bit misleading as it creates a little apples to oranges problem:
    an 0.150 PG doesn’t have the same value as an 0.150 PF. both are “above average” but the latter is considerably more abundant. With that said, the margin of expected production between the two, makes picking Wall just plain wrong.
    What If Wall exceeds his expectations immensely, and Cousins will disappoint? Tough luck! but you can not and should not draft against the evidence which in this case is their respective past production.
    Regarding Love and the no. 4, I have no idea if Minny would pull the trigger on such a deal (they probably wouldn’t, Imo) but I accept the sentiment and the rationale: Cousins is a prospect (same as Wall) and as such he’s less of a proven commodity, especially since there do seem to be some character issues.
    If you can get actual production that’s comparable to the prospect’s expected production (in this case – Cousins), then, hell yeah, by all means you should go for it.

31. Haha palamida calm down. I agree with almost everything you said in your last comment in regards to Wall. I think his numbers are obviously better than Flynns. I didn’t mean to make it seem like I was comparing their stats directly. I meant more in terms of being over hyped. (Flynn was overhyped at 6, Wall overhyped at 1 – There’s a gap there as there is in their production)

    If you asked me to project how Wall will do in the NBA with my concrete thinking math brain…I’d pretty much echo exactly what you said. My stance is just much softer. From a pure stats standpoint your points are fine. If you used that logic to pick Cousins or Turner over Wall I’d say that makes sense. As I said, I think Turner is the much more sure thing pick than Wall.

    I was just saying I wouldn’t be up in arms if they drafted Wall. The numbers say he won’t be as good as Turner or Cousins. That is the best evidence to go on – without question. But I know they aren’t perfect. I don’t think any of the three are as sure of a thing as say Kevin Durant, Blake Griffin, Kevin Love, or Steph Curry coming out of college. It’s certainly possible Wall will be good. I’m not saying it’s the most defensible position. I’m just saying that it isn’t completely crazy to go with Wall. For the most part I can tell you we definitely agree more than our amount of words has showed. I think we have a very similar stance in this draft (especially on Turner) but you’re just a little more firm in your convictions. That’s cool. I guess we will find out. As we’ve found out in these playoffs…you gotta let the games play out. :-P

32. “I bet Minny would do it, they love PGs.”

    Well played :)

33. I was looking through some of the old stuff I wrote on Wall and I actually said I thought he’d be a .150 to .200 producer back in February. So again palamida, I essentially agree with you.

    http://robbieomalley.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/john-wall-how-good-is-he/

34. Does Rational Expectations apply to the NBA draft. There seems to have been odd choices before. I’m not able to follow all the players and the NCAA closely here in the UK but Cousins has posted very good looking numbers all season, and in the past, for players in his position, it has been a good sign of things to come.

35. Robbie, It’s odd to put Curry on that list. players posting great numbers in a small program are never a sure thing. It’s true that Davidson actually had decent competition that season, and thus his pick was a “relatively” a sure thing, but not with the same level of certainty you get when you look at players who played for a major college.
    The best example I can give here is of a player, with huge size for his position who posted great stats at Eastern Washington and unlike many other players of this ilk – got drafted 15th overall.
    That player was Rodney Stuckey :P

    As for Turner i’m not so sure he’s such a sure fire thing. He won’t be a bust, by any means but he did play two “ordinary” seasons before erupting in his Junior year. Normally, that’s still good since he’s production hasn’t spiked dramatically, or in an unexpected way, and it seems like genuine growth. Moreover, Rebounds and Blocks are among the stat that have the highest correlation. The thing that gives me pause is his alarming TO rate. Haven’t looked into it, but off the top of my head I’m not sure there ever was a Junior who was such a strong wing prospect with such a TO problem. While this could be potentially – not a big deal, the problem here is the lack of precedent. Following his PoY award and picked as high as he’ll be picked, Turner will be asked to shoulder a high amount of offensive load. Usually players who are put in that position, do not turn the ball over quite as often. This is uncharted territory – like I said it can end up being a non-issue meaning perhaps it’ll play out exactly as his Junior season played out: Yes, he’ll be To prone but he’ll more that make up for it in other departments. I’m worried however, that this is indicative of a deeper, bigger rooted problem. Perhaps it’s a weakness that will be exposed in the pros and?
    but lacking a comparable precedent – it’s hard to predict. Maybe it’s nothing, maybe it’s something – with nothing to compare to – we just can’t say for sure.
    With that caveat I’d still draft Turner over Wall (who himself has a similar problem, but being young and a PG I see that as less of an issue to begin with) in a heartbeat, mostly because Turner has the rare potential to be extremely productive at a position were few are truly productive. but I wouldn’t call the Turner pick risk free.
    As am general rule though, I would say that drafting Juniors is safer than drafting freshmen-
    less upside – more “security”.

36. Thanks for the post on the draft!

37. RE John Wall,
    As far back as my information goes, no point guard who has turned the ball over as much as he did this season has ever turned out to be a good point guard when they entered the draft after that season.

    Some on here are familiar with my yearly draft rousings and my “system”.

    I haven’t finished evaluating all the first round talents but as of right now I have Cousins(28) and Turner(23) as my two highest rated players.

    over 20 has translated into .2+wp48 by year 3
    over 25 has translated into .3+wp48 by year 3.

    Just going down my rough list this draft isn’t very deep. Most teams will be drafting bench worthy talent. At least that help will be cheap.
    I’m waiting for the prof to take an NBA job and take me with him.

38. The steal of the draft could be Sylvan Landesburg(20).

    I’m wondering how a 6’6 McDonald’s All-American shooting guard isn’t on anyone’s first round draft pick list

39. If Cousins had a good head on his shoulders, I bet most GMs and experts would agree with the assessment that he’s the best player in the draft. However, the concern with how Cousins will do in the pros has nothing to do with his ability and everything to do with his short fuse and lack of maturity. I hope the kid succeeds, but after the Beasley and Arenas issues this year, I can understand why some GMs would be gunshy on a guy like Cousins.

40. As a Wizards fan I was praying they didn’t get the first pick. Maybe the Wiz will realize that they already have one of the highest paid point guards in the league and not draft another.

    If they pick Cousins or Turner I will probably purchase season tickets.

41. Turner won’t get into the lane in the league as much as he did in school. He’ll need to acquire a new skill set. Cousins is a larger version of DeJuan Blair; strong, tough and great hands. May not be a go-to-guy but definitely a high-end role player. Mobility is an issue. Beasley lost 3 inches jumping to the pros and has had to learn a perimeter game. I think Wesley Johnson has the most upside, work ethic, coaching and time will tell.

42. Todd2,
    Doesn’t Turner do enough things well that worrying about one aspect of his game translating shouldn’t be as big of an issue as with other players who do less things well.

43. Palamida,

    I was pretty sure about Curry. He had three straight excellent years. He played very well against top teams when he had the opportunity. He also has amazing shooting numbers, which Stuckey did not have. Steals also tend to translate pretty well. So I mean he wasn’t as sure a prospect like Griffin, but personally I’ve always been a huge fan.

    As for Turner being a sure thing, I mean compared to everyone else in this draft. I think this is a generally weak draft, as mrparker says. I still think he has a shot at being pretty good, especially if he gets drafted by the 76ers. With Holliday and Iguodala on his team he won’t have to initiate the offense nearly as much as he had to at Ohio State. He does have a very diverse game and I think it says something when he does have such a TO problem and is still very productive overall.

    I’m just throwing this out there but does anyone else see a possible Detroit Pistons Grant Hill as a comparison for Turner? Glancing at the stats they look similar.

44. Mo, you say that : “If Cousins had a good head on his shoulders, I bet most GMs and experts would agree with the assessment that he’s the best player in the draft.”
    To me, that just comes of as rationalization: Wall, was touted as the “next big thing” prior to this season, meaning – still in HS. All those experts who dubbed him as such, continued to dub him as such even after a so-so freshman season. They just see what they wanna see. It wouldn’t have mattered how good Cousins, Turner or any other prospect would have turned out to be – the choir would still chant: “Getting the first pick equals getting the “right” to draft John Wall”.
    Wall going first was a forgone conclusion long before he even played a single college game.
    Mr Leonsis – don’t be a sheep!

    Mr. Parker, you’re completely right about Wall’s extraordinarily high To rate. To’s though, do not translate with a degree of correlation that we see from Reb, Stl and Blk for example and as Robbie pointed out – he played in a system where PG’s have been consistently committing more To’s in college than they do at the pro level. With that said – he’s certainly not the next Billups :p.

    Todd – while Blair (who was a great prospect in his own right) is the slightly better rebounder, Cousins freshman season blows Blair’s freshman season out of the water, mostly with regards to scoring (efficiency and amount) and shot blocking. Comparing player X soph season to player Y’s freshman season is problematic.

    If Cousins isn’t a “go to guy” Idk who is:
    He scored very often, and efficiently, he’s got great hands, great touch around the rim and tremendous size. a “go to guy” isn’t just about post moves. It’s about the ability to dominate on the offensive end in different game situations – Cousins stats suggest he’s more than capable of being that guy. His PER (40) would probably make Cousins one of those guys the national media and WoW are in complete agreement on.
    His 20 and 10 wouldn’t hurt that cause either :0

45. palamida

    Feel free to call it a rationalization, but Cousins threw multiple punches at fans at South Carolina when they rushed the court after a victory. The boneyard is full of prospects with million dollar games and 10 cent heads. Methinks, post Arenas, the Wiz would like to keep potential character issues to a minimum.

46. Marparker,

    I remember you mentioning your system in the past, and I’m kinda interested to find out what specifically you’re looking at. Could you share some more details? Maybe we could convince Dave to give you a guest post on the draft?

47. From poking around the internet it seems like Cousins’ ‘character’ issues are being seriously intense and mean on the court and being out of shape (while still producing). He’s not known as a drinker, drug user, or partier. I don’t think that I would care about him swinging at opposing fans who rushed the court (especially having lived in SC) and there are plenty of players who have swung at other players in the pros. The weight issue is more of a concern, really. If Cousin’s is likely to be a 0.300+ pro and Wall is a crap shoot (or worse) then you take Cousin’s. I’d love to have an intense, dominating, and mean big man on my team.

48. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong on this, because I haven’t paid as much attention to the college numbers and PAWS40 as the NBA metrics.

    Couldn’t one argue that Turner, at 14.37 as a SG, is actually a better pick than Cousins, at 15.61 as a C, because of how much better Turner performs than the average SG?

    I understand the short supply of tall people argument, and I think Cousins projects as a very good NBA C — but Turner is projecting to be like a combination of DWade and Grant Hill (in his prime), and that player type seems to very rare.

    In other words, it seems like it might be possible to build a team around a guy like DWade, Grant Hill, Roy, etc. and then flesh out your PF and C slots with guys who grab lots of rebounds and defend, but don’t necessarily score.

    Does that make any sense?

49. brgulker ,

    That makes perfect sense with regards to relative production. One other thing to consider though (and I hate to say it since it’s so overused) is that Cousins’ has more upside since he’s just a freshman and Turner is a Junior. Also, the big man skill set translates more reliably into the NBA than most (mainly rebounds).

50. brgulker,

    What ilikeflowers said. Big man production translates pretty well typically. The times it doesn’t translate well is when a college big man becomes an NBA SF/PF combo. For example: Beasley, Melo, Durant (initially), and probably Aminu this year.

    And yeah about Wall, he does have a big TO problem. For some reason Calipari coached guards turn the ball over like it’s their job (Rose, Evans). Even Bledsoe, who played mostly off the ball, averaged 3.8 TOs per 40. Douglas-Roberts averaged close to 3.

51. Seems like John Wall has gotten most of the press on this post, but Favors’ numbers were the ones that really struck me. For a guy who was supposed to be NBA-ready out of high-school last year, he certainly didn’t blow the lid off college ball last year. His numbers are very good for a freshman, but Cousins is a freshman too. What we have, then, are two big men who should be at the same place on the developmental arc, but one is already significantly better than the other. The main reason I bring this up is because I saw somebody on ESPN today saying that the Nets should take Favors at #3 (with Cousins still on the board).

52. Personally, I think that the old conventional wisdom is still best. Pick big men first. If I’m building a team:

    [1] I want a great C and PF, preferably with complimentary skill sets (one more a scorer, the other more a rebounder) to limit diminishing returns.

    [2] I’m going to try for a good PG, which looking at recent drafts are pretty easy to get relatively late (CP3 4th, Roy 6th, Lawson 18th, Rondo 21st).

    [3] I’m going to try for a third good big man so I can have a Laker’s style overwhelming frontcourt.

    If a Durant or Beasley comes along then I’m giving them serious consideration once I have a dominant big man, but I’d lean towards taking a second big man with a lesser ceiling just because it’s the safer move (depending upon how much less his ceiling is – clearly at some point you do take the chance on the riskier pick).

    In fact one could come up with an algorithm that would tell you when it’s worth taking each of the positions over the other based upon likely performance ceiling, floors, and averages and who you already have. I’d put my money on the algorithm beating out 90% of the NBA GM’s picks until they catch on.

53. I believe that Rose is the best comparison for Wall. However, I do not agree with some of the statements above suggesting Rose is something less than great. First, his season long stats do not paint a true picture. He started the season without being 100% recovered from a preseason injury. He gutted things out, but his second half numbers were clearly better than his first half numbers. I don’t know how to calculate TS% so I can’t tell you the difference between his 1st and 2nd half, but his FG% jumped considerably in January through the rest of the season. Likewise, for those of you who watched Rose actually play (as opposed to merely looking at statistics), you saw the growth of a young PG play out through the season. This guy became a true force (and more of a leader) later in the season. Rose should continue to get better next season.

    If Wall makes the same progress as Rose has over his first 2 seasons, the Wiz fans would have every reason to celebrate.

    Also, for those of you cheering a Cousins selection….do you really want to throw his mental make-up with what already exists in the Wiz locker room? For Cousins to max his talent, he’s going to need some strong locker room influences. That isn’t happening in Washington.

    Anyway, I think a valid comparison for Cousins’ skill package (ignoring his mental make-up) is Derrick Coleman or Zack Randolph. Very good players, no doubt. Iif you’re building a team, are you taking Derrick Rose or one of Coleman/Randolph? Me, I’m taking Rose.

54. I believe most scouts, GMs, and coaches are projecting the long term probable “wins” contribution from each player and discounting that number back to the present (even if they are doing it intuitively or don’t even realize what they are doing) the same way Wall St. investors value growth stocks based on future earnings instead of current earnings.

    I don’t think anyone is or should be projecting which prospect is most likely to contribute the most next year (unless of course they believe they are one player away from a championship and are willing to sacrifice the long term for a more immediate benefit).

    Age and currents stats are obviously major factors in this kind of calculation, but many teams are also looking at athletic ability, work ethic, character issues, and anything else they consider correlated to long term prospects.

    The real key is in identifying which factors besides current stats contribute to the probability of some of these kids developing into very productive players.

55. Pingback: Easy Links: Knicks on weed | Blog Archive | Nothing Easy | Blogs | TheScore.com

56. hunter11,

    Given where Rose was at the mid and end of this season he posted a 0.177 over the last half. Very good for his age. His numbers are probably a little inflated due to his lack of quality teammates, but I’m thinking that he’ll peak at around 0.200 – 0.250 (as are others around here) and since he scores more than 20 ppg he’ll demand and get a max contract. So, the stats are telling essentially the same story that your sample of eyeball evaluations is telling.

    If Cousins’ likely NBA production is Coleman or Randolph then of course one would take Rose at this point. I think that Cousins’ likely NBA production is more in the range of 0.300+. If he gets to 0.350 and Rose gets to 0.250 then it’s probably a wash based upon their marginal value – although in absolute terms one would still choose Cousins. However we have better (yet still quite limited) information regarding Rose and a college big man. When talking about Wall and Cousins’ you’re comparison is a relative unknown in Rose being compared to an almost complete unknown in Wall for a college PG position that is more of an unknown than a college C position. I’m taking Cousins’ over Wall. I think that his likely production/risk is significantly greater than Wall’s likely production/risk.

    As for the issues with the Wizards, they need to get rid of Arenas anyway. At his best he was good not great, he may not recover completely from his injuries, and he’s missing games due to idiocy to boot. Maybe they take Wall because they think that under their specific circumstances Wall’s aggression/intensity may be more of an issue than with a typical team. But under normal conditions I think Cousins’ gives the much greater expected return on investment.

57. So what you’re saying is that we should let computers handle drafts through “PAWS40″ calculations. Sorry, no.

    I trust the consensus of hundreds upon hundreds of scouts, analysts, and coaches more than your number. And the consensus is that John Wall – a leader, a great character guy, and supremely talented – is the #1 pick.

58. So what you’re saying is that we should let the demonstrated inferiority of consensus handle drafts through ‘eyeball’ analysis. Sorry, no.

    I trust the numbers more than your consensus of hundreds upon hundreds of scouts and analysts. And the numbers say that DeMarcus Cousins – a mean, nasty big man, and supremely talented – is the #1 pick.

    That was easy, no thought, evidence, or analysis required.

    Joe, do you have any specific complaints? Or are you just going to continue with your troll-bombs?

59. Rose’s field goal percentage did jump in the second half of the year, but he’s still taking a very high percentage of jump shots and not getting to the line very much. For someone who doesn’t hit 3′s, it’s hard to see that approach turning him into an elite scorer.

    As far as the rest of his game goes, he hasn’t shown any notable secondary skills yet. His defensive numbers for the minutes he plays are horrible. There’s still time, but Rose has a very long way to go.

60. Ilikeflowers,

    A friend of mine is still mulling with WP48. However, being a scientist and a gambler he has asked if I would be willing to be on the outcome of teams based on moves. We’re hoping Bosh, Boozer and Lee all trade teams to test this.

    Joe and your clash sound like another great test of this. I don’t recall if you are signed up as a writer, but I say mark it down what you and Joe say and end of the year you have a great article.

61. John Wall – a great character guy?

    “Cited” (not arrested for some reason) for breaking & entering last summer.

    I’d save great character tags for guys who show it long term.

    And maybe for those considered on the other end early too.

62. Dre,

    I’d love to and I thought about doing a comprehensive comparison of how well an automated stats-based GM would perform for each team vs what their actual GM has done. Just looking at the last few years of nba draft analysis here and by Erich Doerr, it looks like the numbers are hitting much more often than the GM’s are overall. I’m a programmer by trade to boot so it’s right up my alley. Unfortunately, I’m right in the middle of a huge personal project that I’m thoroughly enjoying (most of my posts are done while working on this project) and might make some money and I have family demands as well so for now I can only be a consumer :-(.

63. In an earlier article, it looked like Mississippi State’s Jarvis Varnado had a high PAWs. Is that still the case? Is anyone projecting him as a first rounder? He had more (not much more) rebounds per game than Cousins and had 4.8 blocks per game. However, overall, he had a lower PAWs (he played 8 more minutes per game). Not really relevant to the discussion but while Kentucky beat Miss State twice this past season, both games went to overtime.

    On this page, If you click on rebounds, you can see Varnado and Cousins’ stats right next to each other. However it doesn’t show their minutes per game (Varnado, I think played 31 and Cousins played 23)
    http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/stats/bycategory?cat=Fielding&sort=27&conference_id=10

    Varnado is two inches shorter and forty pounds lighter than Cousins. Varnado is a senior.

    It seems that there are more variations between college teams’ offensive sets and player assignments than between pro teams and that the competition that college teams face vary drastically. Does that at all weaken the usefulness of PAWs as a “definitive” standard when discussing the value of college players?

64. John and I like – while it’s true that Rose’s second half production was more impressive, I agree with John’s analysis of Rose’s skill set. Rose doesn’t have 3pt range and doesn’t do a very good job of getting to the line. His remarkable atheltic abilities do no aid him in hitting a high % of close shots either.
    The only thing (scoring wise) that Rose does particularly well is hit mid-range jumpers, and he’s especially adept in converting shots from the 10 feet and under range – mostly runnersfloaters etc. That seems to me as something defenses can easily adjust to.
    I seriously doubt Rose will ever put together a full season of 0.250, even in his prime, but that’s just my subjective opinion – time will tell.

    It’s a wonder to me how guys like Rondo get constantly bashed (not so much now, but in his earlier days) for lacking certain offensive tools. The knock is always that such players hurt their teams in ways that a box score simply doesn’t measure: For instance, “since Rondo isn’t a 3pt threat, his defender can offer help, and sag off him which results in him indirectly hurting his teammates looks and causing to’s”.
    Why is that, that we never hear anything of the sort about Rose? does that logic not apply to 1st overall picks, “flashy” Pg’s?

    Wall, btw improved his 3pt% late in the season up to a semi respectable 32.4%, which is weak but borderline decent. Most of the season though, he was right up (or rather down) there with the likes of RondoAndre miller etc. (which are the exception – not the rule).
    3pt% in college is tricky, and less “reliable” because it’s usually involves a small sample. In that limited sample, however, it’s worth noting that compared to a projected first round PG prospect- Wall is very weak in that Dpt. – at least now. Similar prospects the two of them, in many respects. Both good prospects, and good players. But neither should have been selected first.

    Joe, I don’t get you, I really don’t. like Ilike said – it’s not about ranking players by a “number” and then picking them in that order. No one is suggesting we’ll let “computers” take over :p

    The stat provides the basis – the foundation, the starting point for the discussion and evaluation process – not the end of it. You’re so sure that the consensus is right, because you refuse to believe that hundreds of people, all “trained”, some well-payed, do not have the first idea about what they’re doing. To you – that’s not a viable option, no matter what. That’s fine, you’re entitled to your opinion – but what’s the purpose of saying:
    “I trust the consensus of hundreds upon hundreds of scouts, analysts, and coaches more than your number. And the consensus is that John Wall – a leader, a great character guy, and supremely talented – is the #1 pick.”

    No offense, but no one here is interested in what you “trust”. We’re interested in “why”.
    You never seem to address that small issue of – why.
    You believe x to be true because you believe it’s true. Hooray for you – but you can’t seriously expect a rebuttal for that kind of argument.

    If you’re so sure- allow me to make you an offer:
    When the Wizards will have filled their roster (atm they have about 6-7 guys under contract for next season) – I’m inviting you to tell us how many wins, roughly, to you expect the Wizards will win next season?
    Do the same for whichever team will select Cousins. I will do the same. When the season ends – we’ll revisit this discussion.
    Is that fair enough?

65. Palamida, can’t argue with your points on Cousins. He’s exponentially better than Blair, just feel they’re cut from the same cloth. I don’t think he’ll ever have a face-up game because of his feet, and back to the basket, we’ll see. Did he see any 6’10″-7′ competition in college? If he plays with a good setup guy, it won’t matter. He’ll catch and convert anything that comes near the basket. Lord knows he made Wall look good. There were many times when Wall dove into a pile and threw the ball in Cousins’ direction, and it worked.

66. Russel, As for the “definitive” value of Paws when applied to the college game the short answer is – yes.
    When Erich Doerr did his pre draft work he applied adjustments in an attempt to “even the playing field”. Since unlike the NBA, college players face different levels of opposition, there are issues with using Paws. Iirc, Doerr used Kenpom’s ratings for teams and only included the numbers a player posted vs. a top 100 ranked opposition. That’s one way to try to adjust for that. With those caveats, it’s still a superior method to evaluate talent but as I just stated in the comment above – it’s just the foundation, You look at past production and then you incorporate different methods of evaluation.

    As for Varnado – you hit the nail on it’s head – he’s a senior. Without opening the whole “role player usage” discussion here, Senior numbers should not be compared to freshman or soph numbers.
    SoW argues that the average peak of an NBA player is in fact much earlier than popular opinion suggests. With that in mind, most seniors are only a couple of years removed from that peak which means that their “ceiling” is much lower. In essence – It’s unlikely that Varnado will be significantly better than he is right now. Even with that said – it’s not like he’s better than Cousins right now – While he is an otherworldly shot blocker (and will remain so in the NBA) even his senior numbers (per min) are inferior to Cousins freshman’s across the board.

67. I remember John Hollinger mentioning last year that his pro-potential rating system struggled specifically with two types of players: freshmen, and point guards. Freshmen because of small sample size, and PG’s because the skills that make a great PG in today’s no-hand-checking NBA are significantly different than those needed to succeed in the college game.

    John Wall fits both categories. And subjectively, if we believe that the pro PG’s game is more driven by speed, elusiveness, and court vision, those happen to be skills in which John Wall measures off the charts. There’s no guarantee that he’ll be a statistical outlier, but everything else points to him having a greta chance to be.

    And finally, I believe that a desire to learn and be great is critical to becoming a superstar in the NBA (I can’t think of a current top-15 player who doesn’t fit that). And I would point out that Wall was the kid who stayed after practice every day, and who had a 3.5 GPA his spring semester, when everyone knew he was bolting school, because he wanted to prove he could. Cousins, meanwhile, was the kid who caused Fran Fraschilla problems at the LeBron Skills Academy, screamed at his college coach during at least two different games, and took defensive plays off regularly. He is massively skilled, but how many talented big men come into the Association with his reputation for laziness / temper and make it big? Is $30 million going to cure those issues, or exacerbate them?

68. ilikeflowers: Just because Cousins’s name has an s at the end of it doesn’t mean you need to keep shoving apostrophes in there.

69. statcenter: Well put. Just because will and determination cannot be measured doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

70. So after reading several comments, it feels like taking John Wall would be a low-risk investment…if you don’t have the 1st overall pick.

71. I agree that Cousins will almost surely be a better pro player than Varnado. That being said, I don’t think Varnado’s senior per minute numbers are inferiors to Cousins’ across the board (Varnado’s sophmore numbers were).

    Without doing the math, I think Varnado’s TO per minute is better. He also had a higher FG%.
    Cousins has more assists per minute, but I think it’s worth noting that Cousins’ teammates have a higher FG% than Varnado’s. Maybe that has something to do with Varnado being a worse passer than Cousins’, but I think it most likely has more to do with MSU shooting more threes per game. Therefore, if Varnado passes it where “he’s supposed to” it is less likely to result in an assist then when Cousins does. So I don’t know if the assists shed much light into if Cousins was more productive than Varnado this year.

    Same thing with steals. I don’t know if steals serve much value when comparing two post players. I think they have some value, but I think that value is greatly diminished by the
    fact that the person who receives the steal in the stat box isn’t necessarily the person who caused it to happen.

    Anyway, in my fantasy world, Varnado is a first round draft pick who plays lots of minutes for a playoff team. In reality, that probably won’t happen.

72. Was Rose’s WP and rank in the playoffs about the same or lower than regular season WP? Playoff Adjusted +/- marked him lower. Do the metrics agree or disagree?

73. I’ll put my word in like this. There are two things you can’t pass on in the draft. A pure, big time point guard and a dominant 7 footer. I don’t think Cousins is good enough to make him a higher pick than Wall. He was a man amongst boys in college. If you really want the most skilled big man, I’d say its Favors.

    On the other hand, if you really wanted to you could trade that pick down to someone who needs a top pick and you get their draft or some of their future and you still have the huge free agent class coming up and if you say move the pick to New Jersey at 3 you can probably take Cousins. Wiz haven’t had a dominant big man since Chris Webber and Rasheed BUT, does a dominant big man fit into Flip’s system?

74. Where’s the evidence that college stats are good predictors of rookie play? Last year Berri wrote this:

    “I’m left to claim that one of Griffin, Harden, Curry and Thabeet will win the Rookie of the Year award and probably deserve it, given a 75% confidence interval.”

    But of the three who played, only one played well and two were rather awful. In the ’07 draft, Berri’s system had Nick Fazekas being the best big man and Carl Landry being the 11th, after luminaries like Herbert Hill, Stephane Lasme and Aaron Gray. Among swing men, Thad Young, perhaps the most efficient rookie of that class, was rated last. Dom McGuire, Mo Almond, Julian Wright and Reyshawn Terry were ranked 3-6. Stuckey and Conley were the two best guards; Sessions and Brooks were way down the list. Afflalo was rated last. Berri wrote of Afflalo, “Afflalo, though, was one of the few players who couldn’t post above average numbers in school. Now if he couldn’t do this against college players, what are the chances he can post above average numbers in the NBA?” Of course, Afflalo’s a hell of a defender and reserve. Then in ’06, Berri’s system’s top four were Millsap (good!), Tyrus Thomas, Shelden Williams and Balkman.

75. asher,

    It depends on how you define good. By Berri’s metric, considering the average rookie performance, all 3 played well.

76. also by wins produced Curry was the rookie of the year

77. Asher, others already replied to you, but boy have you got the numbers all wrong.

    Hilton – Why is it that you can’t pass up a great PG exactly? Most great PG’s post the hand-check rule did not lead their respective teams to championships, even looking back:
    07/08 – Rondo
    03/04 – Billups
    and that’s about it, going back to before the first Jordan dynasty.
    One can argue that Parker is such a Pg (I disagree)
    and also that Wade was basically the PG for that Heat team (which I can live with, at least in part).
    The notion that post or pre the hand-check rule having an elite PG is somehow a recipe to success is simply unsupported by evidence.
    If anything, no team has gone all the way since Jordan without an elite big man (and before Jordan we see a similar picture).
    To be fair most of these teams employed a 1-2 punch consisted of an elite wing elite big man.

    Russel, Varnado did have a better Fg%, but I stand by my claim: Cousins raw Ws48 – 22.05
    Varnado’s Senior season raw Ws48 – 19.45.
    As you can see, Varnado’s senior production is inferior to Cousins freshman production.
    That’s all the difference in the world.
    With that said, I have argued in another thread that especially in a weak draft like this one, I would gladly pick Varnado in the mid-late first round. Blocks and Rebounds are among the most “translatable” stats. Any guy who rebounds and blocks as good as Varnado has a place on an NBA roster – even if what you see is what you’re gonna get, meaning even knowing he’s not going to improve significantly, he will be an above average win producer and If a team has the need (and frankly, which team doesn’t?) I would certainly take him. His rookie contract will run into his mid 20′s, basically giving you a player who will reach, or near his prime, in your employ – under a rookie contract. Considering he’s projected to be an above average win producer – that’s great bang for your buck.

78. Marpaker, did you know I just now noticed your nick is *Marparker*? I always called you Mr. parker!

    It’s worth noting that higher draft picks (by in large) benefit from spot they were picked in down the line:
    Since teams “believed” in them more, and have more money invested in them, they tend to see more PT (even when they’re not producing).
    Only the Bucks were savvy enough (if you ignore the fact they drafted him in the first place), not to extend a qualifying offer to Joe Alexander (an 8th overall pick) and proceeded to trade him in a salary dump later in the season. In light of that, while it’s true that CurryEvans produced more wins – the two players most “slighted” in last season’s draft – Lawson and Blair, would probably have surpassed the RoY duo had they been assigned more PT. (Not that that would have landed either of them the aforementioned award :p).

79. Why is no one talking about the fact that Cousins is a complete basket case? Who wants a head case on their team?

80. AL, what’s the point of writing a comment such as yours without bothering to read any of the other comments?
    This thread is filled with discussion about Cousins being a “basket case”.

81. Great analysis but it’s too bad your analysis stops and you use such an unqualified statement, “after two seasons he has yet to develop into one of the top point guards in the game”.

    a) If you did some quant analysis of Rose’s game you’d see he’s progressed over his mere 2 years in the league

    b) various sportswriters have ranked the PG’s, and I think consensus these days is (more or less)

    1) Deron Williams
    2) Steve Nash
    3) Rajon Rondo
    4) Chris Paul
    5) Derrick Rose

    So, I would say that’s one of the top PG’s in the game…

82. Dav,
    Well, if various “sportwriters” have ranked them in such a manner, I guess there’s nothing left to say, then, right?

    No, no, wait, are you also saying that that’s the consensus???
    Blimey!
    Dberri, edit your post at once – have you no shame?

83. Palamida,

    Dr. Berri talked about this in the all-star game post a while back. Looking at all guards, Rose produced the 20th most wins this season. Looking at just the East, he produced third most behind Rondo and Wade. And as Wade is an SG, if we look at just PGs in the East then Rose is top 2!

    Really good guards are hard to find(only 7 over .250 in the whole NBA this year!). The annoying part is that moderate ones tend to get overpaid. Kobe has traditionally been a very good Guard, but he is paid 23 million, when an average Guard would probably set the Lakers back 6-7.

84. Pal,

    It used to be mr. parker. An ‘a’ was somehow inserted. I’ve just left it that way. I called myself that going back to the days of when a teacher called me Mr. Parker it meant I had been causing trouble. However, I think a few people have taken as me calling myself some sort of authority. I kinda like Marparker since it came about by mistake

85. DAV,

    [1] According to wp48 Rose is getting better.
    [2] The consensus was that LA would beat Detroit and that Kobe (of past years) was the best player in the league.
    [3] From listening to the talking heads, I think that the consensus is that he’s a pretty good and very promising point guard (which is what wp48 says as well).
    [4] If we are generous and assume that Rose’s last half wp48 (0.177) is indicative of what he’s going to be in the future then according to wp48 the top PG’s this year are:

    Kidd
    CP3
    Nash
    Rondo
    Deron
    Billups
    Lowry
    Roy
    Rose

    9th best is pretty good but I wouldn’t start calling him one of the top until he lives in the top 5 range.

    Ultimately, wp48 says that he’s getting better and he will likely crack the top 5 at some point. This doesn’t sound too much different from your points.

86. Asher,

    cherry picking aside, using wp48 (which is what this site is about) your arguments are largely nonsensical.

    wp48 (2010, 2009):

    Aaron Gray x, 0.040
    Aaron Brooks 0.049, -0.003
    Arron Afflalo 0.076, 0.019
    Carl Landry 0.050, 0.113
    Dom McGuire x, 0.102
    Hasheem Thabeet 0.084, x
    Herbert Hill x, x
    James Harden 0.109, x
    Julian Wright 0.010, 0.058
    Mike Conley 0.069, 0.144
    Mo Almond x, x
    Nick Fazekas x, x
    Paul Millsap 0.152, 0.233
    Ramon Sessions 0.054, 0.201
    Renaldo Balkman 0.094, 0.289
    Reyshawn Terry x, x
    Rodney Stuckey 0.050, 0.077
    Shelden Williams 0.139, 0.100
    Stephan Curry 0.163, x
    Stephane Lasme x, x
    Thad Young -0.021, 0.039
    Tyrus Thomas 0.159, 0.126

87. I think we have to be careful about getting blinded by statistics. Statistics should be used as a tool for understanding a relationship. They should not be used as a “black box” model of what will happen.

    I have a few issues with this post. First, how did Wall “play relatively poorly last year”? He was the best player (along with Evan Turner) from wire to wire and some are saying he could be the best point guard prospect in the last 10 years (and that includes Chris Paul). His team went undefeated for most of the season and only lost in the Final 4.

    Secondly, how has Rose been a disappointment? Chris Paul, Deron Williams and Steve Nash aside, he’s the best young point guard in the league (along with Rajon Rondo). If we put him top 5 or top 7 among point guards in the NBA, doesn’t that make him one of the best? The Bulls have been to the playoffs the last 2 seasons since he’s been there. How is he underperforming?

    You also have to bear in mind that the NBA game has changed in the last few years. When hand-checking was banned it not only increased scoring but it favored quicker, more athletic players. Guys like Derrick Rose thrive in a system like that. Look at Chris Paul, Rajon Rondo, etc. Guys that can get into the lane at will are at a premium right now in the NBA. Wall is built in that mode, and unless his future team inexplicably decides to run a half-court offense, he should be shredding up defenses by this time next year. I think Evan Turner is going to be Brandon Roy-esque but I just think it’s too hard to pass on a top-flight point guard these days. Of all the positions in the NBA today, I think it’s the most scare in terms of real talent.

    Imagine LeBron on a team with a point guard (like Derrick Rose) that could get into the lane at will and make the defense collapse. LeBron would have a field day. Let’s not forget that D Rose has a very good mid range game as well.

88. The person who wrote this article is an idiot

89. jdplatzer,

    I think we have to be careful about getting blinded by statistics. Statistics should be used as a tool for understanding a relationship. They should not be used as a “black box” model of what will happen.

    >> of course, there is significant (measurable) uncertainty

    First, how did Wall “play relatively poorly last year”?
    >> the measurement says he was below average

    He was the best player (along with Evan Turner) from wire to wire
    >> the measurement says he was below average

    and some are saying he could be the best point guard prospect in the last 10 years (and that includes Chris Paul).
    >> this gets said almost every year, maybe “they’re” right this year – how does one know? How does one measure “they’re” results?

    His team went undefeated for most of the season and only lost in the Final 4.
    >> So are all of the starters on that team great players?

    Secondly, how has Rose been a disappointment? Chris Paul, Deron Williams and Steve Nash aside, he’s the best young point guard in the league (along with Rajon Rondo). If we put him top 5 or top 7 among point guards in the NBA, doesn’t that make him one of the best?

    >> WP48 doesn’t say that he’s been a disappointment. It says something similar to what you’re saying it just bumps him down a few spots.

    The Bulls have been to the playoffs the last 2 seasons since he’s been there. How is he underperforming?
    >> By this logic no-one on the Bulls is underperforming.

90. Athleticism does not equal productivity. A triumphant fist-pump does not equal efficiency. A heroic Sportscenter narrative does not equal productivity.

    Why are these things so hard to understand?

91. Ilike, remember when you raised concerns regarding Cousins weight?
    catch a glimpse of this:
    http://tweetphoto.com/23214274
    Photo taken today at the first day of the draft combine.
    Someone’s been working out :p

92. There’s a pretty simple explanation for JWall’s lowered Position Adjusted win score.

    Win Score weights rebounds fairly heavily, John Wall was on a team with a remarkable rebound rate, but accounted for very few offensive rebounds.

    His teammates DeMarcus Couasins, Patrick Patterson, and Daniel Orton contributed to the vast majority of these loose boards.

    Not only were they pretty stingy int his regard, but hey also are huge (Orton) and angry (Cousins).

    What is the other similarity between Rose and John Wall?

    They both played for John Calipari, who has pretty strongly defined opinions on the proper roles of each position on court.

    Each also played with a huge frontcourt beast with a bad attitude and proficient rebound ability (Joey Dorsey).

    Coach Cal wants his PGs in position for transition defense, not digging in underneath trying for second chance points. You rebound the ball in your area. Trust the other players to do the same.

    Calipari sees it that the role of a PG is not to rebound but to bring the ball up court, or stall teh opposing ballhandler from bringing the ball up court, allow the other players to battle for rebounds.

    Which is why outliers like Win Score demon Joey Dorsey end up with higher totals then their fellow teammates.

    An exception proving the rule exists in Tyreke Evans, who had no great frontcourt rebounder or intimidating defender to get in his way. Coach Cal had to make do with team rebounding all over.

    So, why? John Wall’s role was not to rebound. His role was to push the tempo, and slow opposing tempo.

    These two things he did remarkably well.

    Stats are helpful to raise questions, but as I’ve said before they are archaeology, or forensic science.

    They are nothing like the field study of hunting dinosaurs…

93. doclinkin,

    That’s a cogent argument. I will note however that you are largely using additional Calipari-specific stats to make your point about stats that…well I really don’t know since I’m not sure what the difference between archaeology, forensic science, and the field study of dinosaurs is.

94. Doclinkin, Since I too, always enjoy a cogent argument, Let’s try to dig a little deeper here:

    “Which is why outliers like Win Score demon Joey Dorsey end up with higher totals then their fellow teammates”

    You’re basically arguing that In Calipari’s system a PG’s first priority is transition defense and thus do not even attempt to crash the offensive board, leaving that up to the Big man and in that act – “hurting” his own production. (at least in the eyes of WoW).
    First of all idk of many coaches be it in college or the NBA that instruct their Pg’s to crash the offensive boards, but that’s just a side note.

    Here are the per 40 rebounding numbers:
    Wall – Oreb – 0.93 Dreb – 4 ratio – 1/4.31
    Rose – Oreb -1.84 Dreb – 4.34 ratio – 1/2.35
    Evans – Oreb – 1.75 Dreb – 5.63 ratio – 1/3.21
    Wall was a considerably inferior rebounder than both on both ends of the floor.

    Now, here’s Evans and Rose’s rookie numbers. since both played almost exactly the same mins, the numbers are per game:
    Rose – Oreb – 1.2 Dreb – 2.7 Trb – 3.9
    Evans – Oreb – 0.9 Dreb – 4.4 Trb – 5.3

    So in essence, Evans was a superior rebounder in college and remained such, while both players “lost” almost the same level of production when moving to the pro game.

    Rose had the better “knack” of the 3, to getting offensive rebounds, and he continued to be better than Evans in that respect in the pro game, in two entirely different “systems”.

    To me, it seems that getting Orebs and Rebounds in general is much more dependent on skill (and size) then it is on a “system”. systems can skewe numbers to a certain extent but they will rarely turn the picture upside down:

    Evans did not rebound more because he didn’t have a CousinsOrton or a Dorsey playing along side him. He rebounded better because he’s bigger and evidently more skilled in that department.
    With that in mind, Wall’s numbers (in the same system) are significantly inferior to his “peers” and seeing as rebounding in college is extremely correlated with pro rebounding – I see no reason for that to change.
    He was the worst of the lot by a wide margin in grabbing Orebs and the worst in getting Drebs, and he will continue to be the worst when he’ll be playing for the Washington Wizards.

    As for Dorsey being an “outlier”, If the theory is that these PG’s under this system grabbed less rebounds then they “could have” because of tactical instructions, it stands to reason that the Big men – benefited from that in terms of grabbing rebounds.
    Dorsey was the beast of the boards in college and he continued to be the same exact “beast” in the limited PT he got in the NBA and in a much bigger sample as a D-leaguer, all the while being far removed from Calipari’s system (13.3 rebs in 31.6 mins for the Rio Grande Valley), and so will Cousins.
    In summation ,perhaps there’s a very marginal effect that gets lost here, even though personally, I doubt that – in truth players rebounding ability is mostly contingent upon themselves and not on any particular system, as evident by rebounding being one of the most highly correlated stats not just for College players advancing to the Pros but also for NBA players switching teams.

95. doclinkin,

    What about Wall’s high turnover rate? Is that also part of Calipari’s brilliant scheme?

96. Brian,

    Yes, the turnover rate is a problem. A huge problem.

97. As I’ve said in a recent thread I don’t recall any Top Pg prospect with a To rate as high as Wall’s.
    Two things worth noting:
    1.) not many freshman Pg’s have his Assist rate, and that’s an understatement.
    2.) Both Evans, and Rose actually lowered their To rate once they got to the NBA, indicating that perhaps (unlike rebounds) Calipari’s system may have something to do with the high amount of To’s.

    To’s are less reliable, meaning – the correlation between To rate in college to he NBA’s is weaker than say… rebounds or blocks.
    In light of that, it’s probably better for a prospect to be sub-par in To’s than it is in blocks, assists or rebounds.

98. What about Wall’s high turnover rate? Is that also part of Calipari’s brilliant scheme?

    That would be a yes. Calipari encourages his PGs to push the pace on offense, figuring the superior athleticism of the guys he recruits will tell after 40 minutes.

    If the TO rate terrified you (4.4 per 40minutes pace adjusted) then you urely wouldn’t have selected a guy with a 5.0 TO per40adj right?

    If that’s the case, you would have passed on this years ROY Tyreke Evans.

    But look at it this way. Of all freshman PGs in the past 10 years, only one other player had more assists per game (Ty Lawson). Only 4 had more assists per 40mins adjusted.

    http://tinyurl.com/freshman-assist-rates

    Freshmen turn the ball over a great deal. Just a fact. One key reason why it’s rare that a freshman point runs the team. Mostly they sit to season for a while. Running point takes experience and poise. Generally I like upperclassmen PGs from championship programs (Chalmers etc) as players who will quickly adjust to the NBA.

    If you get a freshman running point in a top program, and winning, generally that’s a pretty special player.

    But when you get a superfreak athlete like John Wall, you take him without question, then examine any aberrant stats for the intelligence behind them.

    Geez, take the ‘mr smart guy’ tone with me, shoot:

    I practice brainiac-nijitsu
    I’ll grip you and twist you
    with statistics jiu-jitsu
    make you cry to yo papi
    that I grip and tittytwist you
    and if you
    profess to
    continue
    to doubt it?
    You just got yer [tail] kicked
    so go cry about it…

99. palamida,

    that’s good to see about Cousins. Hopefully he becomes more Charles Barkley than Oliver Miller at the dinner table.

    / during their NBA careers that is

100. Clowning aside, back to the thoughtful portion of the conversation:

     Here are the per 40 rebounding numbers:
     Wall – Oreb – 0.93 Dreb – 4 ratio – 1/4.31
     Rose – Oreb -1.84 Dreb – 4.34 ratio – 1/2.35
     Evans – Oreb – 1.75 Dreb – 5.63 ratio – 1/3.21
     Wall was a considerably inferior rebounder than both on both ends of the floor.

     Now, here’s Evans and Rose’s rookie numbers. since both played almost exactly the same mins, the numbers are per game:
     Rose – Oreb – 1.2 Dreb – 2.7 Trb – 3.9
     Evans – Oreb – 0.9 Dreb – 4.4 Trb – 5.3

     So in essence, Evans was a superior rebounder in college and remained such, while both players “lost” almost the same level of production when moving to the pro game.

     Well no question Rookie of the Year Tyreke Evans is a remarkable player, that’s axiomatic. No knock on John Wall. Evans was top 5 in all freshman rebounders (relative to position) of the past 10 years.

     http://preview.tinyurl.com/freshman-pg-rebounders

     No doubt that’s a clue that he’d be a fine player at the next level.

     But the fact that he stands out as that much more remarkable in Win score, despite the lower assist rate and higher TO rate, tends to lend strength to my belief that the PAWS over-emphasizes rebounds.

     Maybe not. Maybe we should be looking for our PGs to be heavy boardsmen instead of heady passers and savvy ballhandlers.

     Maybe we should be running power forwards in the back court. No?

     Some part of John Wall’s lack of rebounding in part was a player’s bad habit. He had a tendency to leak out for the break and allow Bledsoe to collect long bounces to fire them ahead for him to catch and finish.

     But back to Calipari’s system. Arguing that Dorsey was a superior rebounder does not neuter my argument, but bolsters it. I’m not stating that his system is unique, merely that he tends to run a more ‘pro-style’ offense, with players in clearly dfined roles.

     It’s less that they instruct their backcourt plaeyrs to crash the boards,and more that they occasionally allow it to happen.

     Teams with lesser talent have to make do with whatever athletes they have. If a player proves to be a superior athlete, and he tends to bound after the ball, cover ground quickly and snatch bounces out of his area, well the Coach will allow him to get away with it.

     Calipari is noted to be a stickler and a hardcase about instructing players to keep to their roles. And he generally has sufficient NBA calibre talent that he doesn’t have to compromise.

     If you wish to disprove me, it doesn’t help to cite the other Calipari palyers. You need a control group. Compare Calipari’s teams with other teams in the same conference or otherwise.

     Doesn’t bother me if your findings show little to no difference since my personal prejudices are powerful and my ignorance is sufficiently durable to withstand the facts of statistics.

     Of course the obverse is also true: if the evidence is even suggestive, well then naturally I’m an intuitive genius. Even if I lack the intellectual rigor to prove my assertions.

     That’s a cogent argument. I will note however that you are largely using additional Calipari-specific stats to make your point about stats that…well I really don’t know since I’m not sure what the difference between archaeology, forensic science, and the field study of dinosaurs is.

     Ah. Pardon my poetics:

     Archaeology and forensics are the study of dead things, understood only by the evidence they left behind. They suggest a certain theory, but don’t have the vivid power of direct observation.

     Field observations of the hunting habits of carnosaurs are far more interesting and compelling: yes the Allosaur strikes with his hind claws, leaping onto the rear haunches of a massive herbivore.

     By observation: John Wall is an athletic supertalent. Even a mouthbreathing keyboard jockey like you or I can process that fact. That raptor can hunt in pack with swift ferocity.

     No matter that your statistics may console you that he ‘never’ hunts prey larger than a golden retriever. Nevertheless, it’s cold comfort when you see him disappear behind a bush on the periphery of your campsite.

     I carry the CIA operatives poetic license, you see. Waved past the metal detectors and they ain’t allowed to check my bags at customs.

101. But the fact that [Evans] stands out as that much more remarkable in Win score

     Than, say, Deron Williams, or other more ‘pure’ PG’s who succeed at the next level. Players who seem to have an elevating impact on whether their teammates succeed.

     Sorry, had to finish the thought.

102. Players like Tony Parker and Jameer Nelson post lower ‘win’ scores by far, but their teams tend to actually win more than teams with ball-dominant attack guards who rebound well relative to position. In large part of course because of the presence of big Timmy and Holy Howard

     Which goes back to my earlier point: teams that have strong players in their clearly defined roles tend to have more success. But you shouldn’t doubt the capacity and skillset of a player who doesn’t quite do things that are outside of his role.

     I personally don’t want John Wall to dig out offensive boards. Nor does Coach Cal.

     But PAWS suggests he maybe sucks as player if he doesn’t. Whatcha gonna do? In this case I trust my dinosaur hunting instincts…

103. kid can play.

104. To DJ, the author of this post: How about a friendly wager? I say Wall will be better than Cousins. We can hash out the criteria. Winning $ goes to charity.

105. Doclinkin, I lost you.
     This is gonna be a long one :p

     “But back to Calipari’s system. Arguing that Dorsey was a superior rebounder does not neuter my argument, but bolsters it.”

     I really don’t see how. All that I argued was that Rebounding is mostly “independent”.
     You claimed that as a result of a “pro-style” system, Wallany other Cal PG – “could have” grabbed more boards compared to if he played in a “looser” system, and that as a result – CousinsDorsey grab more. Since WoW (in your view) over values rebounds, this becomes an issue. Since I’m not being payed here, forgive me if I didn’t include a control group :p but the evidence (had I done so) would still point towards what many a studies have already proven:
     Dorsey rebounded well, because he’s a fine rebounder and Wall fared worse in that department because he’s inferior to both Evans and Rose in that respect.

     The contol group you’re citing btw, would need to control for numerous factors, and I think it’s sufficing to rely on the data we already have, which indicates a strong relationship between college rebounding and NBA rebounding. BTW, the data suggests that roughly 80% of a player’s career NBA rebounds can be explained by his college rebounds.

     “Players like Tony Parker and Jameer Nelson post lower ‘win’ scores by far”

     I have no idea what you mean by this. Both Parker and Nelson are rated highly by WoW.

     In last season’s “breakout season” (prior to his injury) Nelson was one of the premier PG’s in the league as rated by WoW. Parker has also posted seasons in the “great” vicinity. In the last 4 seasons (excluding this last one) Parker ranged from 0.150-0.200. This last season when he was clearly hobbled for most of the season he posted a considerably lower mark, but he has been consistently an elite PG in this league. Not in the level of say, Cp3, Billups, Kidd or Rondo – but certainly a premier tier 2 PG.

     “John Wall is an athletic supertalent”

     As discussed in this forum ad nauseum, too bad the nba isn’t a decathlon.
     He didn’t use his “super powers” to get eye popping rebounding numbers. He didn’t use them to get high quality shots (or he did, but he simply couldn’t make them), he didn’t use them to get many steals etc.

     Joe Alexander was by far the best athlete in his draft class.
     That alone raised his stock to absurd levels, if you consider he was selected 8th overall while producing so little in college. The scouts love them an athletic player. Too bad that Talent Trumps Sheer athleticism, case in point? Durant, Kevin.

     John Wall is not by any means Joe Alexander. Freshman Pg’s can be tricky. The learning curve at the position appears to be different that those of different positions.
     With that caveat, Let me state this for the final time: John Wall is an excellent prospect. For a freshman he did many things at a VERY high level: He was a great rebounder (if WoW does in fact over value rebounding – Wall actually benefits from it, and not the other way around). He was a great Passer. He got to line plenty – On the other hand he was a poor shooter and terrible in committing To’s. All this bodes very well for him. No freshman PG has ever posted such passing numbers (combined with a few other benchmarks) and went on to be anything less than an average NBA PG. so his “floor” is very high. Considering the two main concerns about his production are among the less “reliable” stats, it’s more than possible that with his physical tools, size and young age, he will turn out to be an extremely productive pro. Better than he is projected to be by WoW.

     WoW can only tell us that his season was about average. It can’t tell us how often freshman PG’s perform such a feat (not very often), and it certainly doesn’t address his high Assist rate specifically (very “translatable) nor does it note that what drags him down the most are two of the least “translatable” stats. But hey, that’s where the human factor comes in.
     The data only provides a starting point to the discussion – it’s not an “end all – is all” kind of thing. Paws as a metric only tells us how productive a player has been. It tells us nothing of his “upside”. If we have reason to believe that player X has a lot more “room to grow” then player Y – by all means – it should be discussed!
     Here is a short list of Freshman PG who posted higher WS marks than Wall that are still active:

     Cp3, Kidd, Rondo, Billups, Nelson, Andre Miller, Lawson, Rose, Evans, Curry (Davidson), Jason Williams, Mike Conley.
     The outliers here are probably Williams who was redshirted his freshman season and fell of the map in terms of production in his soph season (which he actually played at a senior’s age after transferring and sitting out a season), and Conley who has yet to elevate his game to the level of his peers (and perhaps never will).

     What we have here is basically a list of almost every top PG in the league that isn’t named Deron or Nash. Wall’s production is much closer to the RoseEvansNelson territory than it is to Cp3BillupsKidd land. Perhaps his size and relative young age will draw him closer to that group, but it’s very clear it’s a good group to be compared too.
     The trouble I’m having is with Wall being touted as “the next big thing” “the best PG the NBA has seen in years”. Had Wall been the consensus no. 4 pick – you wouldn’t have heard a peep out of me – he is not Johnny Flynn, he’s a great prospect.
     I’m merely disputing the notion that him playing at a HOF level is a forgone conclusion:
     There’s nothing in the evidence to suggest that.
     Just to be clear when I say HOF I mean the imaginary WoW HoF – not the actual one.
     As we all know, regardless of how Wall produces, he is well on his way to getting multiple awards, multiple max contracts and multiple AS appearances.

106. Coach Cal’s dribble drive offense is a high variance system. It’s designed to overwhelm teams with inferior talent. Offensive goals are layups or three-point shots, period. I’m glad someone brought Cal up. Wall may have been just playing to his coach’s expectations.

107. I just finished my John Wall pro projections.

     Let me say that 2-4 are the positions which I have the easiest time projecting.

     I have had a tough time with college point guards getting some dead on and some wrong. Also, my projections hasn’t been right on Centers drafted outside the lottery. None of the other positions come with asterisks so far. But, I’m only 5 years in.

     I have John Wall rated as a 26. I had Derrick Rose rated at a 27.(these usually translate to .3+ peaks)Kevin Love and Dejuan Blair were two players rated similarly high.

     However, Wall projection reminds me alot of the Mike Conley projection which I got wrong. I had him at 22(usually projects to a .2+ player). It looks now like he is more of a 13 or 14(usually projects to below .1)

     My problem is I’m not sure how to change my projections when I see the “problem stats”. For instance Tyreke Evans raw rates a 28. I did not rate him as that last year because of the point guard problem. It looks like I probably docked him too much. He looks like he is on his way to getting pretty close to that. He’s the first player I can remember calling below average that is not and owe that to tinkering too much.

     Same with Curry. His raw rating is 29. Before he was allowed to play point guard in his junior year I had his raw rating at 14. So I gave him an above average rating out of guessing. But it wasn’t a repeatable method which I am trying to create.

     Here’s my probable solution. I have created a point guard check off list. If any criteria is not met then I’m going to subtract 10 from my projection. That would have saved me from some of my other egregious mistakes while at the same time wouldn’t have rated any above average prospects as below average.

     In conclusion I am probably going to rate Wall a 16+. Which mean I have no idea of his ceiling but I think he can help whatever team drafts him. So, if he works out the kinks he can be one of the the best.

108. No offense Mr. Parker but:

     “In conclusion I am probably going to rate Wall a 16+. Which mean I have no idea of his ceiling but I think he can help whatever team drafts him. So, if he works out the kinks he can be one of the the best.”

     That’s the same as saying nothing, system or no system.

     “probably” going to rate him a 16+?
     I thought you were finished with his projection.

     “no idea of his ceiling” – that’s a whopping reservation.

     You “THINK” he can “help” (define help) any team that drafts him? Well, duh… I don’t think anyone’s disputing that, anywhere.

     “so IF he works out the kinks he “can” (If he works out the kinks, will he? or might he?) be one of the best” (best what? PG’s? Player’s? all-time greats?)

     In conclusion, In your conclusion you managed to say absolutely nothing, and again – I’m not trying or meaning to be derogatory, not by a long shot – just calling it as I see it.

109. palamida,

     That’s gotta be one of the harshest comments I’ve seen in a while. I thought marparker’s comment was pretty humble and very thoughtful. He’s not claiming to know an answer at all, and he’s qualified his conclusion in about every way he possibly could.

     And let’s be honest — we’re talking about a kid, literally, a 19 year old kid, who played one season of college ball. No system that can accurately project how well he will do in the pros exists, not yours, not Dr. Berri’s, not marparker’s. We’re all trying to make the best educated guesses that we can.

     In short, cut him some slack.

110. Pal,
     I’m not sure what I need to do about making adjustments to the raw projection. My raw projection is final. It’s based on compiling info and I hadn’t compiled all of Wall’s games yet. Now that I have that is final. The adjustment is what I’m having trouble with. I don’t have enough back data to make anything but an educated guess. That -10 is my educated guess.

     Brgulker,
     good comment all around

111. brgulker,

     Dr. Berri’s own assessment of WP48 predictive power of College player’s is that it is no where near full proof. However, his point is many of the main stream assessment’s are much much worse. Basically if your choices were flip a weighted coin or pick a number between 1 and 15, which would you prefer for odds? So yup, no system really anywhere near perfect for doing this stuff :)

     Also I like that Wall is coveted, the Nuggets keep having low picks, so we need gems to fall into late first round/second round. Ty Lawson! We could have had Blair too. . . sigh.

112. Dre,

     Yes, I understand. I was just trying to make the point that the criticism palamida made was way too harsh. The best available metrics are helpful and enhance our understanding, but when it comes to projecting how a college freshman will do in the NBA? Even the best systems fall short.

     If one understands that fact, I think it would lead to some generosity. That’s all I’m trying to say.

113. Brgulker, Idk what else to say.
     I did not imply that there’s a perfect system, or that I myself possess one.
     But as Dre points out – the whole idea is to use different methods of evaluation that will outperform chance.
     We all have been commentating here for a long while and as I emphasized – I didn’t mean any personal disrespect – this isn’t personal.

     I’ll attempt to clarify my position -

     “and he’s qualified his conclusion in about every way he possibly could”
     Imo and to my best judgment , Mr. Parker “qualified” his conclusions to the extent that they basically meant nothing.
     Naturally every evaluation of future performance based solely (or mostly) on past production needs to be qualified in certain ways – but Mr. Parker simply didn’t say anything. His conclusions are “overqualified” :).
     That’s what I meant, and I think it’s fairly easy to both see where I was getting at and where I was coming from. I really don’t see how what I said can be disputed: What exactly are Mr. Parker’s conclusions?
     I don’t care about the confidence intervals.
     What are they?
     Am I the only one who sees the troublesome nature of his conclusions?
     They are in essence – tautological.

     And Dre, define – “fall short”. Fall short of what? perfect? well, obviously.
     It was my contention throughout this thread, that even straight up paws (when only accounting for a single factor – a player’s age) actually does a good job on average.
     Does it mean there are no Beasleys? no Deron Williamses? off course not! does it mean that it’s an ideal system? not by a long shot!
     but considering what we see year after year from decision-makers in the NBA on draft day (well -payed “experts”, I might add) I’d say it’s a pretty remarkable system.
     Add some subjective data, adjust the college numbers to account for different level of competition and pace – and you got yourself a handy tool – one that NBA decision makers do not seem to possess.
     Many of the commentators here are certain that Wall is the superior talent and should in fact be the consensus no.1 pick, I disagree and I have described my reasoning in detail – one can agree with this reasoning, disagree, or do whatever one wants with it.
     However, when I read Mr. Parker’s comment I couldn’t answer a very basic question:
     Reservations, caveats and confidence intervals aside – which player should be selected no.1 according to his system?

114. Interesting discussion but I would like to cut in with a question totally off topic.

     Palamida,
     Do you remember where you posted your analysis of Ariza’s shooting last year? As I recall that was quite good, but I don’t remember which post it appeared. As I recall, it was a post that had nothing to do with Ariza (although I could be wrong on that point).

115. The overall point of the post remains, Wall is a risky pick – almost a total unknown. The decision is really, do you take a PG who grades out at anywhere from average wp48 to 0.250 (on the assumption that he’s really unlikely to be as good as CP3 or Rondo)? Or do you take a likely 0.300+ center who’s an overweight meanie (and who produced well as such)? Assuming that Cousins’ best case scenario is 0.400 and his worst is 0.200 and Wall’s is 0.100 and 0.250, I’m thinking the comparison is on average a 0.300 C vs a 0.175 PG. 0.200+ big men are about 4x as common as 0.200+ PG’s so you have to take that into account as well. Washington’s in total rebuilding mode, take the superior marginal wins unless you’re terrified that Arenas will piss Cousins off and they both go gangsta.

116. Another reason for Washington to take Cousins is that big men tend to produce well early, meaning that Washington will win more games sooner and assuming that Arenas is fully recovered he’ll be given more credit than he deserves (being a scorer) and then you might be able to dupe some GM into taking him off your hands.

117. So here’s a strategic consideration: It’s generally true that younger players make better draft prospects, since they are further from their age of maximum production. But drafting an older player means that you will get more of his most productive years on that sweet, fixed, rookie contract. Winning in the NBA has a lot to do with finding a great player–and then underpaying him, so that you can still afford put talent around him. Blair and Lawson, for instance (and especially if they were played more), are exceptional values–I look forward to seeing them on the list of Most Underpaid for the next few years. Certainly, if you have two players of about equal talent, it makes sense to take the younger, but it might not be worthwhile to take a worse, younger player, supposing that in four years he’ll be a star–you might be right, but he won’t be a cheap star.

     How many players not named Kobe even play for the team that originally drafted them?

118. Edmond,
     Kobe was drafted by Charlotte(back when they were the Hornets), and Dirk was drafted by the Bucks.

     You are absolutely right on the rookie contract. Look at Boozer, he was a steal for Cleveland! The second he could get more he hopped ship. Right now Rondo is a steal, but only because he is still on his rookie contract.

     Your point on value with younger is interesting. A team’s best idea may be to draft a young prospect, and then trade for an older rookie scale player(or underpaid star). I wonder if the Wizards could get Lee for 12 mill by trading Wall to NY or maybe Love from Minn?

119. Dberri, it was in the Aaron Brooks as MIP thread.
     I actually had some synergy derived observations on Ariza to add as well but their policy as far as I can tell is against such data being made public.

120. Ilike, I like your final write up.
     It’s worth noting though, that while it’s true that 0.200 PF’s are more common than 0.200 PG’s
     the drop-off in production from the 1st string to the 2nd or 3rd string players is much more significant at PF than it is at PG.
     I actually have to run right now, but i’ll try and break down the numbers later to demonstrate the entire “marginal production” concept that you’re referring to and how it relates to drafting big men vs. guards.

121. Slight correction. Rondo is no longer on his rookie contract

122. Pal,
     I wouldn’t say my qualifications meant nothing. I would say that I’m left to guess what John Wall’s floor is. Hence my 16+ is my best guess according to a really small sample. I myself wouldn’t draft Wall if the decision was left up to me. If I was entering some sort of Price is Right style contest somewhere around 16 would be my contest entry.

     I’m calling John Wall a crap shoot have never seen a player with his raw score become below average.

123. Edmond,

     that is indeed some wise strategy-fu. The B-Ball Bushido master’s approach is interesting as well. He says, take the slower-developing high-risk/high-reward pick first (i.e a Guard). Then, since you will still suck as much or even more the next year, draft another slow developer (the other Guard, maybe an SF). Year three, you’ll probably suck the same or slightly less so you’ll get another high pick – and you’ll know approximately how productive your first high-risk guard is going to be in his prime. You can now select either a good immediate impact big man or a lower-risk/lower-ceiling replacement if the first Guard isn’t likely to pan out. Assuming that your owner is ok with your long-term approach and you’re still GM, fill out the roster with undervalued non-scorers and bring in guys who dominated when they got playing time but who still didn’t really get a shot like Hendrix on the cheap – you can’t tell me that he’s going to be worse than say Brian Scalabrine and he might turn into Ben Wallace.

124. to robbieomalley and his #11 custom John Wall jersey: You should look up to the rafters next time you are at Verizon Center. Wizards #11 retired with Elvin Hayes.

125. The first batch of measurements are in :p

     Wall is in fact as big as advertised – 6’4 (with shoes) with a whopping 8’5.5 standing reach. That’s slightly longer than the average drafted SG.
     Cousins is also incredibly long while actually measured at slightly less than the 6’11 he was previously thought to be (6’10.75), his standing reach is an incredible 9’5. That’s 2.5′ longer than the average drafted NBA center. 9’5, just for comparison is Shaq long. That’s Thabeet long.

     In a related story My boy Hassan Whiteside (who Imo should be a top 5-6 pick in this draft and is only projected around the late lottery stage) was measured at 9’5 as well, so did Alabi and Jerome Jordan. That would be four 9’5 guys in a single draft!
     If you don’t think that’s impressive that’s probably because you don’t realize there are only 8 (7 if you don’t count P. O’bryant as one) players active in the entire league (that is – in the database, i’m guessing Yao Ming is the 8th and perhaps one or two more) whose reach is 9’5 or longer.

126. Haha! Thanks for the update Bradley. I guess I have a lot more athletically in common with Brook Lopez (the other 11) than John Wall anyway.

127. Anyone else check out Hollingers player rater? He had Ed Davis and Cole Aldrich rated unfathomably low…much lower than Daniel Orton or Greg Monroe.

     I don’t see how you can be a numbers guy and come to the conclusion that Cousins is the best player in the draft while Aldrich is among the worst.

128. NO NO NO!! John Wall is going to be a legend. He has unmatched atheletic skill and tremendous basketball IQ. Match that with great character and an unteachable drive to be great and you have yourself a legend!!!!!

129. And stop comparing walls freshman numbers to Turners junior numbers. Its just plain stupid. And as far as Cousins, he doesnt have the personality to be a franchise changing player. He will be really good, but not great. Wall is going to be unbeatable in a few years

130. Ilike:

     Yes. A most enlightened strategy :).

     The problem with landing a Chris Paul in the draft (and Paul is the sort of problem every team would love to have) is that a player that productive can immediately vault your otherwise crappy team into mediocrity. I suppose drafting old is something that teams in the bottom half of the draft (where the contracts are bigger and where one additional productive player can turn you into a contender) need to worry more about.

     Kevin Durant seems to be working out just fine for Oklahoma. He’s already surrounded by more young (cheap!) talent than, say, Lebron ever was.

     Dre:

     That’s right! I totally forgot about the Kobe trade.

131. Edmond,

     Very true. In that case the ninja team suggests that one use a smokescreen and limit the young master’s minutes using the subterfuge that he’s just a rookie and needs to be brought along slowly.

132. Bradley,

     Wall can wear 11 if he is given permission by Elvin Hayes

133. The amount of people Kobe has on his nuts is astounding…ive never seen anything like it in sports. Check out the comments here…

     http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/The-top-10-players-of-the-2010-NBA-playoffs?urn=nba,242918

134. O’malley,

     Alot of ring counting going on in that thread. This is why I can’t ever route for Kobe Bryant. His fans are retarded for him. The hyperbole takes away the joy of watching him play.

135. It’s funny. Kobe has been on 4 championshp teams and gets credit for being the alpha-dog on all of them, despite the fact he has been the second banana on all 4.

     It would be kind of akin to giving Scotty Pippen credit for leading the bulls to all those championships. But, for whatever reason, the madia has decided that Kobe is “da ma”, no matter how compelling the evidence is otherwise.

     It’s like Jeter. His defense sucks but he gets gold gloves anyway. The narrative must continue, no matter how batshit the narrative happens to be.

136. That should read “da man”.

     Although, “da ma” has kind of a nice ring to it.

137. Let’s just hope Wall doesn’t end up teamed with the next O’Neal or Gasol …

     Oh wait, he already had Cousins.

138. One observation: It might make a very interesting post to point out who the “sleepers” of this draft might be, i.e., players who produced very well in college but are not being talked about widely.

     Ty Lawson and Blair are quick and easy examples from the last draft of the type of player I have in mind.

139. Kevin,

     Sad news on Kobe. He actually did produce the most wins for the Lakers in the playoffs for 2 of the 4 championship runs.

     My playoff data is not complete for all of the 90s but Scottie Pippen produced more wins than Jordan in at least 2 of the Bulls championship runs. . . .

140. Dre,

     I have scottie pippen out producing Jordan in the last run. I don’t havce out producing him in any other run. What 2 season’s does your information say that for?

141. Well, I have it being really close in 96 too.

142. Mar,

     I also have 91-92. Part of the reason for this is Basketball-Reference lists both Pippen and Jordan as Guard-Forwards. Just counting Jordan as SG I could see just 95-96 and maybe 97-98(I don’t have complete data for this year)

143. Hmmm,

     I don’t have that result for 92, but your numbers are probably more accurate than mine.

144. Pingback: John Wall, Derrick Rose, and the State of the Wizards « The Wages of Wins Journal

145. Pingback: Walter's Wildcat World » Mike Miller from MSNBC.com invites the Wizards to pick Cousins ahead of John Wall

146. Pingback: Trading the Ice Capades for Bill Russell « The Wages of Wins Journal

147. Pingback: Ty Lawson – Worth a Top 10 Pick? « Robbie OMalley's Blog

148. Pingback: The PAWS40 Story Before the 2010 NBA Draft « The Wages of Wins Journal

149. Pingback: Taking Issue with the John Wall Story | The Wages of Wins Journal