Author Archives: James Brocato

A Search For The Next Jeremy Lin Part 4: Crowder and Jones

Posted on by
3

In this series of posts, I am highlighting college players who have posted fantastic numbers, but have been mostly overlooked by NBA teams for one reason or another. I am not necessarily suggesting that any of these players should be lottery picks, but merely that they have proven they deserve a shot to play on the big stage. So far, I’ve argued for Liberty’s stat-stuffing point guard Jesse Sanders, Missouri’s king of efficiency, Marcus Denmon, and Lehigh’s scoring machine, C.J. McCollum. This time I’m turning to the two players who battled for Big East Player of the Year, Jae Crowder and Kevin Jones. That’s right, it’s a two-for-one.

Big East Bosses

When I came up with the idea to look at guys who weren’t getting their fair share of attention in the upcoming NBA draft, I assumed I’d be focusing almost exclusively on relative unknowns – guys from small schools in small conferences with low scoring totals. Instead, for the second time, I find myself writing about All-Americans. The fact is, I don’t care how well-known a guy is. If he isn’t getting the attention he deserves, I’m gonna point it out. And these two, despite reigning as the kings of one of the best conferences in America, might not even be drafted. Why?

Jae Crowder

Crowder quickly went from unknown junior college transfer to Big East Player of the Year. His will to win is impressive and his versatility is almost unparalleled in college basketball. But ESPN’s Chad Ford lists him as 58th on his Big Board, and Draft Express has him at #48 of its Top 100 Prospects. There are 60 spots in the NBA draft. So, evidently, he’ll be lucky to get drafted late in the second round. Big East Player of the Year; undrafted. With this alarming discrepancy, there’s gotta be something wrong with Crowder, right? So, what do the experts say? According to Jonathan Givony at Draft Express,

Crowder’s biggest weakness as a small forward prospect is his inability to create his own shot. A below average ball-handler, he has a difficult time scoring in isolation settings, not looking very fluid with the ball, and struggling to change directions on the fly.

With all due respect to Mr. Givony, this doesn’t tell us a whole lot. The notion of “creating” shots has been explored extensively on this site in the past; it’s hard to define, harder to measure, and frankly, an overrated skill. Yes, there is some value in getting yourself open. But that value will generally show up in the stat sheet – as a made shot or as an assist for finding the open man when his defender rotates to guard you. If Crowder is so bad at creating shots, why does he shoot such a high percentage with the second highest usage rate on his team? Besides, we’re not talking about a guy here that you want chucking up 30 shots a night. Crowder is the kind of player you want doing a little bit of everything for you. As for his below average ball-handling and difficulty in isolation settings, I have a simple solution: don’t make him your point guard and don’t run isolation sets for him! To build on the ball-handling criticism, I can’t see how you can be concerned about a guy who turns the ball over 1.60 times per 40 minutes and only 7.1 times for every 100 possessions he uses (for those of you who don’t pay attention to turnover numbers, Crowder is really good at not turning the ball over)!

Chad Ford similarly fails to offer us much; Ford’s only criticism of Crowder is that he is “a bit of a tweener.” In other words, Ford is saying, basically, he isn’t big enough to play power forward and he isn’t quick or skilled enough to play small forward. Frankly, I don’t buy most size arguments. Two of the best power forwards to ever play the game, Charles Barkley and Dennis Rodman, were 6-6. Regardless, the general consensus seems to be that Crowder will play small forward in the big league, and I tend to agree with the general consensus because of Crowder’s versatility. However, I do think he is capable of playing both positions.

Ok let’s move past the subjective criticisms and focus on the things that we can measure. The following table compares Jae Crowder to the average college power forward, and the small forwards in Draft Express’s Top 100 Prospects.

Player Avg PF DE Top 100 SF Jae Crowder
eFG% 0.505 0.537 0.577
TS% 0.541 0.573 0.662
3P% 0.339 0.371 0.352
FT% 0.658 0.690 0.736
OReb40 2.80 2.47 2.29
DReb40 5.47 6.06 7.56
Reb40 8.28 8.53 9.86
Ast40 1.66 2.25 2.52
Stl40 1.18 1.66 2.98
Blk40 0.99 1.26 1.26
TO40 2.51 2.56 1.60
PF40 4.00 2.92 3.25
Points!40 13.90 18.73 21.28
WS40 4.27 6.96 11.35

While he’s above average nearly everywhere, Crowder excels significantly in shooting efficiently, forcing turnovers, and taking care of the basketball. In fact, Crowder ranks second in steals per 40 minutes among NCAA power forwards who played at least 100 minutes. He ranks sixth in turnovers per 40 minutes among all NCAA players who average at least 20 points per 40 minutes. With a win score per 40 minutes of 11.35, markedly higher than the 6.96 posted by the small forwards in Draft Express’s top 100, he is a very appealing prospect. If you want to draft potential and if you believe that a few nominal subjective criticisms should push one of the best players in college to a late second pick, maybe Crowder isn’t your guy. If you’re looking to draft a skilled, versatile forward who has excelled in doing all the little things that will help your team win, take a good look at Jae Crowder. Hell, I wouldn’t hesitate to take him early in the lottery.

Kevin Jones

Crowder edged out Jones for the Player of the Year, but Jones wasn’t far behind. He led the conference in scoring and rebounding, and earned a spot on the All-Big East first team as well as the AP All-American Second Team (an honor Crowder isn’t lucky enough to claim). But like Crowder, Jones isn’t getting much hype in the upcoming draft. He is expected to be drafted, but just not very early.

Like all the other prospects I’ve looked at in this series, perceived physical limitations are what hold Jones back. Sure, he’s 6-8 and he has a 7-4 wingspan, but he plays a style of basketball that analysts like to call “below the rim.” According to Kyle Nelson at Draft Express, “he is an underwhelming athlete and very much a below-the-rim player at this level.”And according to Chad Ford, “Jones’ lack of size combined with a game that is decidedly below the rim have kept him on the margins for the past two seasons.” Okay, so maybe there is a size issue? Man, what is it with these NBA guys and size? 6-8 isn’t big enough for a power forward anymore? Patrick Minton sarcastically captured this mentality best

it doesn’t matter if he actually produces as if he were 6’10″, he has to actually be 6’10″. Cause, you know. Whatever, dude.

Anyway, apparently players have to be high flyers to be any good these days. I guess that’s why so many analysts completely ignore all statistical analysis and proclaim Blake Griffin to be better than Kevin Love. Jones may play his basketball “below the rim,” but he’s been able to produce regardless, so I don’t see it as a real issue.
Enough with subjective analysis, how does Jones stack up against his peers from an objective standpoint?

Player Avg PF DE Top 100 PF Kevin Jones
eFG% 0.505 0.550 0.547
TS% 0.541 0.583 0.613
3P% 0.339 0.367 0.272
FT% 0.658 0.674 0.781
OReb40 2.80 3.48 4.54
DReb40 5.47 7.99 7.09
Reb40 8.28 11.47 11.62
Ast40 1.66 2.12 1.31
Stl40 1.18 1.32 0.75
Blk40 0.99 1.82 1.08
TO40 2.51 2.69 1.37
PF40 4.00 3.10 1.31
Points!40 13.90 18.96 21.03
WS40 4.27 8.88 10.71

Compared to the other power forwards in this year’s draft, Jones is particularly adept at grabbing offensive boards (4th in the nation in offensive rebounds!), taking care of the basketball (.068 TO%!), and avoiding personal fouls. In addition, Jones has played more minutes over the past three seasons than all but three players in the entire NCAA. This is a testament to his durability, which is an important, albeit often overlooked, attribute of a basketball player. Like Crowder, Jones is a good all around player with a wide range of skills that serve to help basketball teams win. And like Crowder, Jones should be a first round pick in the upcoming NBA draft. Of course, it may turn out that if they go later that they could earn close to their real value.

-James

Could Kentucky Beat the Toronto Raptors?

Posted on by
16

The other day, Wages of Wins favorite Charles Barkley (if Magic Johnson is the God of advanced stats, Barkley is the Jesus, or at least the Zeus – Jordan has to be some kind of supernatural deity, too), anyway, Charles Barkley asserted that this year’s Kentucky Wildcats would beat this year’s Toronto Raptors, and they’d maybe beat Charlotte, too. We know, of course, that being a really, really (and in Barkley’s case add two more reallys) good basketball player doesn’t always mean you’re any good at analyzing other basketball players (See Jordan, Michael and Thomas, Isiah). But is Barkley right in this case?

Let’s start by looking at the team we have much more data on, the Toronto Raptors. The following chart lists all Raptors players who have played at least 500 minutes this season. It shows their current WP48 (0.099 is average), their Rookie WP48 so we can get an idea of how much each player has improved (or, in some cases, declined) since his rookie season, and College Draft Relative Win Score, which compares each player in his draft year against the average drafted player at his position since 1995 (average is 7.18). With these three numbers, we can get as close to comparing apples to apples as possible. I guess it’s kind of like comparing a ripe apple with a picture of it before it was ripe to an unripe apple.

Toronto Pos G Min WP48 Rookie WP48 College RWS College Year
Jose Calderon PG 45 1525 0.184 0.095 N/A N/A
DeMar DeRozan SG/SF 48 1700 -0.042 0.064 5.07 2009
James Johnson SF/PF 49 1270 0.084 0.005 7.91 2009
Ed Davis PF 50 1128 0.201 0.190 9.77 2010
Andrea Bargnani PF/C 24 808 -0.085 -0.013 N/A N/A
Amir Johnson PF 49 1211 0.199 0.291* N/A N/A
Linas Kleiza SF 36 775 0.023 0.013 1.70 2005
Jerryd Bayless PG 31 705 0.094 -0.091 5.84 2008
Aaron Gray C 34 570 0.122 -0.002 9.20 2007

When we look at this year’s Raptors, we can make a few interesting observations:

Now let’s take a look at this year’s Kentucky Wildcats.

Kentucky Pos G Min RWS
Marquis Teague PG 38 1236 3.59
Doron Lamb SG 38 1179 7.08
Michael Kidd-Gilchrist SF 38 1187 7.98
Terrence Jones PF 36 1052 6.29
Anthony Davis C 38 1206 14.15
Darius Miller SG 38 989 6.07
Kyle Wiltjer PF 38 451 1.39
Eloy Vargas C 31 195 0.72

We can also make some interesting observations about Kentucky:

  • Only two of Kentucky’s players, Anthony Davis and Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, are better than the average drafted player at their position, although Doron Lamb is really quite close. The average rookie produces about 0.050 wins per 48 minutes, which is much less than the 0.099 produced by the average player. So probably only Davis would post a WP48 greater than 0.100 in the NBA right now.
  • Anthony Davis is really good. Like really, really good. Like the most sure fire no. 1 draft pick since LeBron really good. His WP40 in college is right around the 0.500 mark. So yes, he’s about 5 times better than the average college player. And he’s 19 years old.
  • Marquis Teague is not a good point guard. In fact, he’s less productive than the average college point guard (which is much, much worse than the average drafted college point guard).

Let’s make some comparisons:

  • Toronto has two starters who produce at an above average rate in the NBA. Kentucky probably only has one. Toronto has two above average producers on the bench. Kentucky has none.
  • Toronto has one player who produces at twice the rate of an average player (Ed Davis). I’m confident Kentucky does, too (Anthony Davis; no they’re not related).
  • Toronto has two starters that produce at a negative rate (they actually cost their team wins). Kentucky probably has one (Teague).
  • Toronto has a very good point guard – arguably top 5 in the NBA. Kentucky has a really bad point guard. On the flip side, Toronto has a really bad center; Kentucky has a really good center.
  • Toronto has adults who have played in the NBA against the best competition in the world for years. Kentucky is full of people who can’t drink legally and beats up on teams with other people who can’t drink legally.

So what does this mean? If I were a betting man, I think Toronto would probably beat Kentucky if they played today. Why? For one, Toronto has much more experience on both the individual and team level. There’s something to be said about going up as a team against the best competition in the world week in and week out. Toronto also has an expert facilitator (Calderon) who would eat Kentucky’s point guard for lunch. Calderon would likely be able to do what he wants when he wants – score at will and get his teammates involved. Bargnani might actually minimize Davis’ effectiveness. Since Bargs plays around the perimeter so much, he would draw Davis out, which would disallow him from owning the defensive paint like he usually does. This is of course assuming Calipari would assign Davis to Bargnani, which would probably happen because, remember? Bargnani is an offensively versatile star! Or, at least, that’s what most people like to think. Also, which rules the teams are governed by would make a huge difference. Kentucky would probably have a huge disadvantage with NBA rules since it only has one great 3-point shooter (Lamb) and none that have proven that they can consistently hit 24-foot shots. Also, with the NBA 3 point line, Toronto could spread the floor more, which would hinder Anthony Davis’s effectiveness to some degree.

Who would win, of course, isn’t the question I asked in this post. I asked could Kentucky win. And to that I think the answer is yes. Kentucky has 5 players who could probably compete in the NBA. The point guard discrepancy would be a hard one to get by, but Kentucky is probably better than Toronto at 3 of the 5 positions in its starting lineup. Also, Anthony Davis is a monster. Frankly, having a guy like that on your team gives you a chance to win.

If Kentucky could beat Toronto, it goes without saying that the Wildcats could probably take Charlotte and Washington as well. Charlotte hilariously only has two above average players on its entire roster (Bismack Biyombo and Derrick Brown). So if Kentucky has a chance against anyone, it’s the Bobcats. Either way, I’d certainly pay to see Davis and Co. take on any of these terrible NBA teams – it’d make for some great basketball (something that Charlotte, Washington, and Toronto frankly aren’t used to).

-James

A Search For The Next Jeremy Lin Part 3: C.J. McCollum

Posted on by
11

In this series of posts, I am highlighting college players who have posted fantastic numbers, but have been mostly overlooked by NBA teams for one reason or another. I am not necessarily suggesting that any of these players should be lottery picks, but merely that they have proven they deserve a shot to play on the big stage. So far, I’ve argued for Liberty’s stat-stuffing point guard Jesse Sanders and Missouri’s king of efficiency, Marcus Denmon. This time, I’m focusing on a scoring machine in a small package.

I want to note that I began writing this article prior to the Duke game, but decided to change its direction a little in light of the game.

Move Over, Monta Austin

C.J. McCollum is the sixth most prolific scorer in the NCAA, averaging 26.57 points per 40 minutes. Yet, because he is playing at Lehigh University, he is a relative unknonwn. Or at least he was until his 15th seed Mountain Hawks upset the Duke Blue Devils in the first round of the NCAA tournament. Now he’s the talk of the town. Even Mike Krzyzewski said McCollum was the best player on the court, which would make him better than *gasp* Austin Rivers. But how can this be?! Austin Rivers is a projected lottery pick and McCollum, at least before he showcased his skills in front of the country, was … not a draft pick at all. Surely Krzyzewski only meant that particular game; he wasn’t making a general statement. Let’s compare McCollum and America’s favorite fortunate son, Rivers.

Player Avg SG SGs in DE Top 100 Austin Rivers C.J. McCollum
eFG% 0.486 0.534 0.508 0.510
TS% 0.526 0.575 0.596 0.626
3P% 0.349 0.382 0.368 0.356
FT% 0.727 0.740 0.655 0.821
OReb40 1.03 1.27 0.66 1.69
DReb40 3.21 4.24 3.40 6.22
Reb40 4.23 5.51 4.05 7.91
Ast40 2.77 2.95 2.56 4.31
Stl40 1.42 1.56 1.21 3.20
Blk40 0.23 0.46 0.04 0.66
TO40 2.49 2.71 2.81 2.69
PF40 3.00 2.45 2.63 2.47
Points!40 13.53 19.75 18.56 26.57
WS40 2.02 4.84 1.94 9.56

Don’t adjust your computer screen. You’re reading that right. C.J. McCollum is better than Austin Rivers at everything. Well, almost everything. Rivers is a slightly better three-point shooter, which seems to be his only redeeming skill. Shockingly, Rivers is less productive than the average NCAA shooting guard. That’s right, pick a random shooting guard on a random team, and more likely than not he’s more productive than Austin Rivers. This is because, while Rivers is pretty decent at getting the ball in the bucket, he’s bad at just about everything else. And it’s even more alarming when we compare him to the rest of the shooting guard draft class – he shoots worse and scores less. Talk about a landmine.

But enough about Rivers, let’s talk about McCollum. The numbers suggest he’s a solid player just about everywhere, especially with respect to rebounding, passing, and forcing turnovers. He gets over twice as many steals per 40 minutes as the average shooting guard in the draft class, while managing to turn the ball over less.

The one concern I have about McCollum is his shooting efficiency. While 50% is much better than the average college shooting guard, it is actually quite a bit worse than the 53% posted by the average shooting guard in Draft Express’s Top 100. This is alarming only because of how much C.J. likes to shoot. After all, we don’t want him turning into the next Monta Ellis, even though I’m sure most NBA teams would be ecstatic if he did. But I’m not sure he will become an Ellis/Iverson type for a big reason: McCollum seems to be a more well-rounded player. Most importantly, he doesn’t struggle with turnovers. I realize it may be different at the NBA level, but Iverson, for example, averaged 4.58 turnovers per 40 minutes during his final year at Georgetown. Iverson probably ran the point a lot more in college than McCollum, but even the average college point guard averages only 3.22 turnovers per 40 minutes. And McCollum certainly played more than a few possessions at the point. In addition, McCollum is a great rebounder. His 7.91 rebounds per 40 minutes is almost as many as the average college power forward! Guys like Ellis and Iverson have never been particularly good at grabbing boards. But while his versatility can help make him productive despite his relatively poor shooting, McCollum needs to work on his shot selection if he wants to be a good NBA player.

The concern posed by scouts and draft experts is size. I’ve said before I don’t buy size arguments, especially when the guy is 6-3. Austin Rivers is only an inch taller. McCollum could probably succeed at either guard position, although it might take some developing to get him to play point guard.

Because C.J. McCollum is so well rounded, NBA teams should give him a serious look. Of course, we know that a player’s team performance in the NCAA tournament can affect his draft status dramatically. So McCollum has probably already boosted his draft stock and with luck some team will give him a chance. At the very least, if a team is considering drafting Austin Rivers, it should save itself some trouble and draft McCollum instead.

-James

The Ultimate 2012 NCAA March Madness cheat sheet

Posted on by
4

The field of sixty-eight has been announced, and by now you’re scrambling to find whatever resources you can to get a leg up on your co-workers so you can finally win this year’s pool. Especially because last year the boss let his daughter in the pool free of charge and (un)miraculously, she took home your money. Well I hate to burst your bubble as much as the committee hates disappointing thousands of fans of slightly-above-average teams every year (so maybe I take some enjoyment in it?), but there is no trick. There is no secret. There is no set of numbers, or complex calculations, or historical phenomena, or matchup evaluation, or anything else that will have enough predictive power to really make a difference in your picks. And the reason for that is a simple one: sample size. If you haven’t noticed, the NBA uses the seven game series to determine its champion. This is because, in a single game, virtually anything can happen. The probability that the better team will prevail goes way down. Of course, this doesn’t mean that my intramural team could beat the Heat if we got 10,000 tries. But one college basketball team can generally beat another college basketball team once despite the other team’s superiority, matchup advantage, or whatever other advantage you think it might have.

Still, it’s fun to try to predict what might happen. And it’s nice to have some basis for your choices rather than your flawed intuition, which you probably like to think of as your sixth sense or slight psychic ability, because, let’s be honest here, you’re special. So since you’re here, and you’re rational enough to recognize sarcasm, I’ve put together a nice little assortment of numbers to help you.

Each team is rated first by its Half Baked Win Score, then by its Adjusted Net Rating. After that I break the Half Baked Win Score down by the Relative Win Scores of each team’s 6 primary players.

The Half Baked Notion was introduced by Arturo Galletti almost two years ago. It essentially says that, while depth matters to some extent in the NBA regular season, the starting lineup plus the first guy off the bench account for 99% of a team’s production in the playoffs. We haven’t specifically studied the college game to see if the notion remains, but it seems reasonable to assume it does.

Win Score is a snapshot of a player’s contribution to his team. It is not as accurate as Wins Produced, but is very consistent with it, and explains 98% of WP variation.

Relative Win Score is Win Score adjusted for each player’s position. Here, each player is compared to the average player at his position across the entire NCAA. In addition, all the numbers are adjusted for pace and strength of schedule. The average player has a Relative Win Score of 3.1

Half Baked Win Score is the sum of the Relative Win Scores of the team’s starting five and first player off the bench. The average team would be 18.6.

Adjusted Net Rating is a team’s point differential per 100 possessions, adjusted for strength of schedule. The average team’s Adjusted Net Rating is 0.

Because it’s impossible to follow and watch 344 teams, there are bound to be some mistakes in this data. I probably got a few positions wrong, and I may be listing a player that is injured or won’t play for some reason or another. If you catch this kind of mistake, tweet me at @shut_up_and_jam and let me know. If you’re correcting a player’s position, please tell me who should be at that player’s listed position instead. Rather than try to predict anything, I’m just gonna provide the numbers, and let you do what you want with them. Maybe you like teams with good guards. Maybe you need a great center to win it. Maybe teams with one superstar can’t beat balanced teams. You decide. So without further ado, here we go:

SOUTH

(1)   Kentucky: 45.95 Half-Baked Win Score, 37.0 Adjusted Net Rating
PG Marquis Teague, 2.02
SG Doron Lamb, 6.57
SF Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, 8.23
PF Terrence Jones, 7.72
C Anthony Davis, 16.07
SG Darius Miller, 5.33
 (16) Western Kentucky, 8.24 Half-Baked Win Score, -3.7 Adjusted Net Rating
PG Jamal Crook, 1.02
SG Derrick Gordon, 2.81
SF Kahlil McDonald, 0.23
PF Nigel Snipes, -1.58
C George Fant, 3.40
PG T.J. Price, 2.35
(16) Miss. Valley State: 16.12 Half-Baked Win Score, -10.5 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Kevin Burwell, 2.46
            SG Terrence Joyner, 3.76
            SF Cor-J Cox, 5.15
            PF Amos Studivant, 0.73
            C Paul Crosby, 2.04
            SG Brent Arrington, 1.97
(8) Iowa State: 33.00 Half-Baked Win Score, 20.2 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Chris Allen, 1.97
            SG Scott Christopherson, 5.03
            SF Chris Babb, 4.58
            PF Melvin Ejim, 7.07
            C Royce White, 6.29
            SG Tyrus McGee, 8.05
(9) Connecticut: 32.36 Half-Baked Win Score, 18.3 Adjusted Net Rating
        PG Shabazz Napier, 5.41
        SG Jeremy Lamb, 7.10
        SG Ryan Boatright, 5.78
C Andre Drummond, 7.22
C Alex Oriakhi, 3.37
PF Tyler Olander, 3.48 
(5) Wichita State: 36.96 Half-Baked Win Score, 27.0 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Joe Ragland, 8.97
            PG Demetric Willaims, 4.22
            SF Toure’ Murry, 4.78
            PF Ben Smith, 4.14
            C Garrett Stutz, 7.91
            SG David Kyles, 6.94
(12) VCU: 28.22 Half-Baked Win Score, 12.7 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Darius Theus, 3.84
            SG Ron Brandenberg, 3.13
            SF Troy Daniels, 5.05
            PF Bradford Burgess, 2.92
            C Juvonte Reddic, 6.21
            SG Briante Weber, 7.08
(4) Indiana: 35.59 Half-Baked Win Score, 27.9 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Jordan Hulls, 6.38
            SG Verdell Jones, 3.02
            SF Victor Oladipo, 7.27
            PF Christian Watford, 3.88
            C Cody Zeller, 10.74
            SF Will Sheehey, 4.30
 (13) New Mexico State: 30.47 Half-Baked Win Score, 11.7 Adjusted Net Rating
    PG Hernst Laroche, 5.19
            SG Daniel Mullings, 5.13
            SF Tyrone Watson, 3.95
            PF Wendell McKines, 6.76
            C Hamidu Rahman, 6.03
            PF Bandja Sy, 3.41
(6) UNLV: 34.51 Half-Baked Win Score, 19.5 Adjusted Net Rating
PG Oscar Bellfield, 4.34
SG Anthony Marshall, 5.62
SF Chace Stanback, 6.86
PF Mike Moser, 7.95
C Brice Massamba, 2.83
SG Justin Hawkins, 6.91
(11) Colorado: 27.13 Half-Baked Win Score, 10.5 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Nate Tomlinson, 3.36
            SG Askia Booker, 3.21
            SF Carlon Brown, 2.76
            PF Andre Roberson, 9.91
            C Austin Dufault, 3.15
            SF Spencer DinWiddie, 4.74
(3) Baylor: 34.89 Half-Baked Win Score, 24.6 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Pierre Jackson, 7.16
            SG Brady Heslip, 5.56
            SF Quincy Miller, 5.97
            PF Quincy Acy, 8.64
            C Perry Jones, 5.60
            PG A.J. Walton, 1.96
(13) South Dakota State: 30.92 Half-Baked Win Score, 11.6 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Nate Wolters, 7.56
            SG Brayden Carlson, 4.81
            SF Griffan Callahan, 6.84
            PF Chad White, 4.45
            C Jordan Dykstra, 5.47
            PF Tony Fiegen, 1.79
 (7) Notre Dame: 32.18 Half-Baked Win Score, 17.1 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Jerian Grant, 5.89
            SG Eric Atkins, 4.33
            SF Pat Connaughton, 6.33
            PF Scott Martin, 1.34
            C Jack Cooley, 12.26
            SF Alex Dragicevich, 2.02
(10) Xavier: 26.38 Half-Baked Win Score, 14.2 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Tu Holloway, 6.02
            SG Mark Lyons, 4.30
            SF Dezmine Wells, 5.81
            PF Andre Walker, 4.38
            C Kenny Frease, 3.02
            PF Travis Taylor, 2.85
(2) Duke: 30.05 Half-Baked Win Score, 26.4 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Seth Curry, 5.42
            SG Andre Dawkins, 4.10
            SF Austin Rivers, 2.44
            PF Ryan Kelly, 6.77
            C Mason Plumlee, 8.18
            PG Tyler Thornton, 3.14
(15) Lehigh: 26.89 Half-Baked Win Score, 5.9 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG C.J. McCollum, 9.60
            SG Mackey McKnight, 4.39
            SF Jordan Hamilton, 1.95
            PF Holden Greiner, 3.79
            C Gabe Knutson, 4.55
            PF John Adams, 2.61
WEST
(1)   Michigan State: 37.52 Half-Baked Win Score, 32.8 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Keith Appling, 4.30
            SG Brandon Wood, 5.95
            SF Austin Thornton, 6.95
            PF Draymond Green, 8.54
            C Adreian Payne, 6.44
            C Derrick Nix, 5.34
 (16) Long Island: 26.66 Half-Baked Win Score, -2.3 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Jason Brickman, 4.59
            SG C.J. Garner, 3.02
            SF Michael Culpo, 2.56
            PF Jamal Olasewere, 5.98
            C Julian Boyd, 6.90
            SG Brandon Thompson, 3.62
(8) Memphis: 34.25 Half-Baked Win Score, 25.8 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Joe Jackson, 4.07
            SG Chris Crawford, 6.33
            SF Will Barton, 9.98
            PF Wesley Witherspoon, 4.03
            C Tarik Black, 6.05
            SG Antonio Barton, 3.79
(9) St. Louis : 30.97 Half-Baked Win Score, 24.2 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Kwamain Mitchell, 5.30
            SG Mike McCall, 4.65
            SF Brian Conklin, 6.21
            PF Dwayne Evans, 5.94
            C Cody Ellis, 4.63
            SG Jordair Jett, 4.23
(5) New Mexico: 34.36 Half-Baked Win Score, 23.3 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Kendall Williams, 6.36
            SG Hugh Greenwood, 6.43
            SF Tony Snell, 5.55
            PF A.J. Hardeman, 0.21
            C Drew Gordon, 8.78
            PG Jamal Fenton, 7.02
(12) Long Beach State: 30.74 Half-Baked Win Score, 14.8 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Casper Ware, 3.82
            SG Larry Anderson, 7.42
            SF James Ennis, 5.89
            PF Eugene Phelps, 2.04
            C T.J. Robinson, 6.55
            PG Michael Caffey, 5.01
(4)   Louisville: 30.06 Half-Baked Win Score, 21.2 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Peyton Siva, 1.96
            SG Chris Smith, 6.40
            SF Kyle Kuric, 5.19
            PF Chane Behanan, 6.60
            C Gorgui Dieng, 7.91
            PG Russ Smith, 2.00
(13) Davidson: 29.70 Half-Baked Win Score, 11.6 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Nik Cochran, 5.73
            SG J.P. Kuhlman, 4.53
            SF Tom Droney, 2.85
            PF Chris Czerapowicz, 2.76
            C Jake Cohen, 6.45
            C De’Mon Brooks, 7.37
 (6) Murray State: 32.44 Half-Baked Win Score, 13.3 Adjusted Net Rating  
            PG Isaiah Canaan, 8.44
            SG Jewuan Long, 5.34
            SF Latreze Mushatt, 5.05
            PF Donte Poole, 4.92
            C Ivan Aska, 3.67
            PF Edward Daniel, 5.03
(11) Colorado State: 26.32 Half-Baked Win Score, 10.9 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Jesse Carr, 4.39
            SG Dorian Green, 6.40
            SF Wes Eikmeier, 0.85
            PF Greg Smith, 1.57
            C Will Bell, 1.76
            PF Pierce Hornung, 11.34
(3) Marquette: 30.18 Half-Baked Win Score, 24.2 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Junior Cadougan, 3.06
            PG Vander Blue, 5.72
            SG Darius Johnson-Odom, 5.33
            PF Jae Crowder, 11.22
            C Jamil Wilson, 3.00
            SF Todd Mayo, 1.86
(14) BYU: 32.55 Half-Baked Win Score, 16.2 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Matt Carlino, 3.77
            SG Charles Abouo, 7.54
            SF Brock Zylstra, 5.38
            PF Noah Hartsock, 6.55
            C Brandon Davies, 5.10
            PG Craig Cusick, 4.21
(14) Iona, 32.11 Half-Baked Win Score, 12.0 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Scott Machado, 8.41
            SG Lamont Jones, 4.31
            SF Kyle Smyth, 2.45
            PF Taaj Ridley, 2.44
            C Michael Glover, 7.49
            SF Sean Armand, 7.01
(7) Florida: 40.28 Half-Baked Win Score, 24.9 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Erving Walker, 6.06
            SG Kenny Boynton, 7.67
            SF Bradley Beal, 6.35
            PF Will Yeguete, 8.02
            C Patrick Young, 7.16
            C Erik Murphy, 5.02
(10) Virginia: 27.1 Half-Baked Win Score, 21.2 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Jontel Evans, 3.02
            SG Sammy Zeglinski, 4.63
            SF Joe Harris, 5.39
            PF Akil Mitchell, 2.74
            C Mike Scott, 9.84
            SF Malcolm Brogdon, 1.47
(2)   Missouri: 40.44 Half-Baked Win Score, 30.8 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Phil Pressey, 6.21
            SG Mike Dixon, 7.49
            SF Marcus Denmon, 9.83
            PF Kim English, 5.09
            C Ricardo Ratliffe, 11.61
            SG Matt Pressey, 4.21
(15) Norfolk State: 17.93 Half-Baked Win Score, -5.5 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Pendarvis Williams, 5.07
            PG Jamel Fuentes, 2.23
            SF Chris McEachin, 2.00
            PF Marcos Tamares, -1.31
            C Kyle O’Quinn, 8.40
            SF Rodney McCauley, 1.53
EAST
(1)   Syracuse: 40.49 Half-Baked Win Score, 30.7 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Scoop Jardine, 7.11
            SG Dion Waiters, 7.79
            SF Kris Joseph, 7.23
            PF C.J. Fair, 6.99
            C Rakeem Christmas, 4.50
            SG Brandon Triche, 6.87
(16) UNC-Asheville: 31.17 Half-Baked Win Score, 4.3 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG J.P. Primm, 5.62
            SG Matt Dickey, 6.74
            SF Chris Stephenson, 5.11
            PF Jeremy Atkinson, 6.32
            C Quinard Jackson, 1.92
            PF Jaron Lane, 5.46
(8) Kansas State: 25.27 Half-Baked Win Score, 21.9 Adjusted Net Rating
PG Angel Rodriguez, 1.43
            SG Will Spralding, 2.67
            SF Rodney McGruder, 7.06
            PF Jamar Samuels, 5.15
            C Jordan Henriguez-Roberts, 5.55
            PG Martavious Irving, 3.41
(9) Southern Miss: 25.04 Half-Baked Win Score, 13.1 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Neil Watson, 4.20
            SG Angelo Johnson, 0.71
            SF LaShay Page, 2.45
            PF Torye Pelham, 9.58
            C Maurice Bolden, 2.76
            C Johnathan Mills, 5.35
(5) Vanderbilt: 30.83 Half-Baked Win Score, 21.7 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Brad Tinsley, 5.69
            SG John Jenkins, 8.69
            PF Lance Goulbourne, 5.49
            PF Jeffery Taylor, 7.88
            C Steve Tchiengang, 1.44
            SF Rod Odom, 1.66
(12) Harvard: 27.28 Half-Baked Win Score, 13.6 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Brandyn Curry, 4.24
            SG Oliver McNally, 5.34
            SF Laurent Rivard, 5.43
            PF Kyle Casey, 4.47
            C Keith Wright, 6.55
            SG Christian Webster, 1.25
 
 (4) Wisconsin: 31.69 Half-Baked Win Score, 30.8 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Jordan Taylor, 6.15
            SG Ben Brust, 4.77
            SF Josh Gasser, 6.06
            PF Ryan Evans, 5.51
            C Jared Berggren, 5.16
            PF Mike Bruesewitz, 4.04
(13) Montana: 23.04 Half-Baked Win Score, 7.1 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Will Cherry, 6.33
            SF Kareem Jamar, 6.35
            SF Art Steward, 3.99
            PF Mathias Ward, 2.82
            C Derek Selvig, 2.91
            SG Shawn Stockton, 0.63
(6) Cincinnati: 32.31 Half-Baked Win Score, 18.4 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Cashmere Wright, 6.00
            SG Dion Dixon, 4.68
            SF Sean Kilpatrick, 6.23
            PF Justin Jackson, 4.45
            C Yancy Gates, 6.06
            PF Jaquon Parker, 4.88
(11) Texas: 24.49 Half-Baked Win Score, 21.1 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Myck Kabongo, 3.65
            SG J’Covan Brown, 5.45
            SF Julien Lewis, 0.31
            PF Jonathan Holmes, 4.62
            C Clint Chapman, 5.46
            SF Sheldon McClellan, 6.10
 (4) Florida State:  26.13 Half-Baked Win Score, 21.1 Adjusted Net Rating
PG Luke Loucks, 2.97
SG Deividas Dulkys, 4.78
SF Michael Snaer, 4.37
PF Bernard James, 8.91
C Xavier Gibson, 2.57
PF Okaro White, 2.52
(14) St. Bonaventure: 26.04 Half-Baked Win Score, 11.5 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Matthew Wright, 2.74
            SG Charlon Kloof, 3.16
            SF Demitrius Conger, 6.41
            PF Da’Quan Cook, 0.55
            C Andrew Nicholson, 8.77
            PG Eric Mosley, 4.41
(7) Gonzaga: 32.71 Half-Baked Win Score, 19.9 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Kevin Pangos, 7.14
            SG Gary Bell, 4.47
            SF Guy Edi, 3.65
            PF Elias Harris, 7.32
            C Robert Sacre, 5.64
            C Sam Dower, 4.48
(10) West Virginia: 26.08 Half-Baked Win Score, 18.0 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Jabarie Hinds, 3.57
            SG Darryl Bryant, 2.80
            SF Aaron Brown, 2.83
            PF Kevin Jones, 10.81
            C Deniz Kilicli, 1.30
            SG Gary Browne, 4.78
(2) Ohio State: 39.23 Half-Baked Win Score, 36.0 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Aaron Craft, 7.65
            SG Lenzelle Smith Jr, 7.45
            SF William Buford, 4.51
            PF Deshaun Thomas, 6.45
            C Jared Sullinger, 10.15
            SG Sam Thompson, 3.01
(15) Loyola (MD): 23.13 Half-Baked Win Score, 0.9 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG R.J. Williams, 1.97
            SG Dylon Cormier, 5.77
            SF Justin Drummond, 1.12
            PF Erik Etherly, 6.35
            C Shane Walker, 1.96
            SG Robert Olson, 5.95
 
MIDWEST
 (1) North Carolina: 46.03 Half-Baked Win Score, 30.4 Adjusted Net Rating  
            PG Kendall Marshall, 6.42
            SG Reggie Bullock, 7.90
            SF Harrison Barnes, 6.07
            PF John Henson, 8.79
            C Tyler Zeller, 11.29
            PF James McAdoo, 2.17
(16) Lamar: 27.72 Half-Baked Win Score, 5.1 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Anthony Miles, 6.33
            SG Mike James, 3.87
            SF Devon Lamb, 9.31
            PF Charlie Harper, 2.50
            C Stan Brown, 2.89
            SF Brandon Davis, 2.82
(16) Vermont: 20.13 Half-Baked Win Score, 1.5 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Four McGlynn, 2.65
            SG Sandro Carissimo, 4.89
            SF Brian Voelkel, 7.85
            PF Luke Apfeld, 4.23
            C Matt Glass, 2.30
            SG Brendan Bald, -1.79
(8) Creighton: 38.62 Half-Baked Win Score, 19.7 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Antoine Young, 3.63
            SG Jahenns Manigat, 5.69
            SF Grant Gibbs, 5.36
            PF Doug McDermott, 10.44
            C Gregory Echenique, 8.84
            PF Ethan Wragge, 4.67
(9) Alabama: 27.46 Half-Baked Win Score, 21.1 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Trevor Releford, 6.20
            SG Trevor Lacey, 3.41
            SF Levi Randolph, 4.37
            PF Tony Mitchell, 4.63
            C JaMychal Green, 6.71
            C Nick Jacobs, 2.16
(5) Temple: 32.13 Half-Baked Win Score, 17.1 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Juan Fernandez, 3.36
            SG Khalif Wyatt, 8.16
            SF Ramone Moore, 3.57
            PF Rahlir Jefferson, 6.33
            C Anthony Lee, 4.87
            SG T.J. DiLeo, 5.84
(12) California: 28.80 Half-Baked Win Score, 22.1 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Justin Cobbs, 6.74
            SG Jorge Gutierrez, 5.54
            SF Allen Crabbe, 6.42
            PF David Kravish, 6.20
            C Harper Kamp, 3.52
            SG Brandon Smith, 0.37
(12) South Florida: 22.75 Half-Baked Win Score, 13.0 Adjusted Net Rating
PG Anthony Collins, 3.89
SF Hugh Robertson, 6.36
SF Victor Rudd, 1.51
C Augustus Gilchrist, 0.27
C Ron Anderson, 4.35
PF Toarlyn Fitzpatrick, 6.37
(4) Michigan: 30.07 Half-Baked Win Score, 21.9 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Trey Burke, 5.03
            SG Stu Douglass, 4.69
            SF Tim Hardaway Jr., 2.86
            PF Zack Novak, 5.61
            C Jordan Morgan, 5.64
            PF Evan Smotrycz, 6.22
(13) Ohio: 23.76 Half-Baked Win Score, 9.6 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG D.J. Cooper, 4.99
            SG Walter Offutt, 5.00
            SF Nick Kellogg, 4.71
            PF Jon Smith, 5.73
            C Ivo Baltic, 0.99
            C Reggie Keely, 2.34
(6) San Diego State: 25.62 Half-Baked Win Score, 14.8 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Xavier Thames, 3.41
            SG Chase Tapley, 6.65
            SF James Rahon, 0.70
            SF Jamaal Franklin, 6.68
            C Tim Shelton, 3.51
            C Garrett Green, 4.67
(11) N.C. State, 32.23 Half-Baked Win Score, 16.5 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Lorenzo Brown, 6.34
            SG C.J. Williams, 6.80
            SF Scott Wood, 4.88
            PF C.J. Leslie, 5.75
            C Richard Howell, 6.83
            C DeShawn Painter, 1.63
(3) Georgetown: 30.03 Half-Baked Win Score, 25.3 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Jason Clark, 6.75
            PG Markel Starks, 2.70
            SF Otto Porter, 9.51
            PF Hollis Thompson, 5.48
            C Henry Sims, 3.80
            SF Greg Whittington, 1.80
(14) Belmont: 36.96 Half-Baked Win Score, 18.3 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Kerron Johnson, 8.09
            SG Drew Hanlen, 7.79
            SF Ian Clark, 5.18
            SF J.J. Mann, 5.27
            C Mick Hedgepeth, 3.90
            C Scott Saunders, 6.73
(7)  St. Mary’s: 38.55 Half-Baked Win Score, 17.0 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Matthew Dellavedova, 6.69
            SG Stephen Holt, 8.42
            SF Jorden Page, 1.86
            PF Rob Jones, 7.92
            C Brad Waldow, 7.92
            SF Clint Steindl, 5.73
(10) Purdue: 34.18 Half-Baked Win Score, 21.0 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Lewis Jackson, 7.65
            SG Ryne Smith, 5.86
            SF Kelsey Barlow, 4.87
            PF D.J. Byrd, 4.73
            PF Robbie Hummel, 6.85
            PG Lewis Jackson, 7.65
(2)   Kansas: 38.96 Half-Baked Win Score, 32.5 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Tyshawn Taylor, 4.87
            SG Elijah Johnson, 4.33
            SF Travis Releford, 6.60
            PF Thomas Robinson, 9.85
            C Jeff Withey, 9.91
            SF Conner Teahan, 3.40
(15) Detroit: 29.33 Half-Baked Win Score, 3.5 Adjusted Net Rating
            PG Ray McCallum, 6.24
            SG Jason Calliste, 3.41
            SF Chase Simon, 1.13
            PF Doug Anderson, 5.74
            C LaMarcus Lowe, 3.79
            C Eli Holman, 9.01

Have fun!

-James

A Search For The Next Jeremy Lin Part 2: Marcus Denmon

Posted on by
2

In this series of posts, I am highlighting college players who have posted fantastic numbers, but have been mostly overlooked by NBA teams for one reason or another. I am not necessarily suggesting that any of these players should be lottery picks, but merely that they have proven they deserve a shot to play on the big stage. Last week I argued that Liberty University point guard Jesse Sanders deserves a serious look from NBA teams on draft day because he is an extraordinarily productive stat-stuffer. This week, I’m shifting my focus to a much more conspicuous figure.

The Curious Case of Marcus Denmon

Ok, maybe Marcus Denmon isn’t exactly Lin-like. He is the leading scorer on one of the best teams in the country. He has pages of YouTube videos highlighting his game. Hell, he’ll probably even be an All-American. Yet, half of the Mock Drafts out there predict that he won’t be drafted at all. And the ones that think he will suggest it will be very, very late in the second round. So perhaps Denmon is Lin-like after all: good but overlooked. Curiously though, observers seem to recognize Denmon’s ability and potential, even if they casually dismiss it. Indeed, draft analysts are quick to rattle off countless positive aspects of Denmon’s game, but still rate him poorly because of the one weakness they perceive – his size. Consider Chad Ford’s take at ESPN:

Positives: Super efficient two guard, excellent shooter with deep range, good finisher at the basket, rarely turns the ball over;

Negatives: Undersized for his position.

Not surprisingly, Kyle Nelson at Draft Express describes Denmon’s game similarly:

Marcus Denmon [is] one of the most efficient scorers in college basketball … high skill-level and excellent shot selection … He gets excellent elevation on his jumper and has NBA range, showing fluid, consistent shooting mechanics. This is a skill that should translate immediately to the professional level…Elite finisher among NCAA shooting guard prospects ….the least turnover prone guard in DraftExpress’s database…his basketball IQ is quite good…on defense, Denmon demonstrates very good lateral quickness

At 6’3, Denmon is undersized for the shooting guard position and has just an average frame.

To be fair, Nelson also adds subjective weaknesses including Denmon’s trouble creating his own shot and inability to change speeds quickly. Still, the story seems to be the same: Denmon is a very smart, efficient basketball player, but he is too small to play in the NBA. I get the size argument. I do. But does it really trump ultra-efficiency? Have there not been countless undersized players who have been successful in the NBA? (Besides, Denmon is 6-3, not 5-9). Of course, issues with size depend a great deal on a particular player’s strengths. Instead of taking the analysts’ word on Denmon’s strengths, let’s look at the numbers to determine what they are.

The following table compares Denmon’s statistics with the average college small forward and with the shooting guards in Draft Express’s Top 100 Prospects. Before you get confused, let me explain. Because of Missouri’s lack of size this year, Denmon played more minutes at small forward than at shooting guard. Accordingly, it is more appropriate to compare him to players who actually played the same position as him this season. At the same time, Denmon will unquestionably play shooting guard if he plays in the NBA. And since Draft Express categorizes players by their probable NBA position, it is more appropriate to compare him to shooting guards in Draft Express’s Top 100 for the purpose of a future competition comparison.

Stat Avg. SF SGs in DE Top 100 Marcus Denmon
eFG% 48.9% 53.4% 58.4%
TS% 52.8% 57.5% 67.6%
3P% 34.6% 38.2% 41.0%
FT% 71.0% 74.0% 90.2%
Reb40 5.74 5.51 5.89
DReb40 4.11 4.24 4.39
OReb40 1.64 1.27 1.50
Ast40 2.24 2.95 2.61
Stl40 1.34 1.56 1.76
Blk40 0.43 0.46 0.04
TO40 2.45 2.71 1.36
PF40 3.20 2.45 1.08
Points!40 13.89 19.75 21.12
WS40 2.81 4.84 9.04

Marcus Denmon is good at, well, everything. But he is exceptionally good at shooting efficiently and taking care of the basketball. He is great at shooting threes and even better at the free throw line. These strike me as attributes that will translate well into the pro game. Let’s focus again on Nelson’s observations: Denmon shoots with great efficiency because he has a great shot selection; his inability to create his own shot might be an issue. In other words, Denmon doesn’t and won’t force shots. This sounds like a player who could make a substantial positive contribution at shooting guard, which is without question the weakest position in the NBA. And while the position generally weak, teams often put too heavy an emphasis on it (a phenomenon I’ll call the Michael Jordan Effect). Many teams, probably unreasonably, elect to build their offenses around volume shooting 2-guards. In turn, efficient but small guards get overlooked for want of 6-6, 216 guys with “potential.” Well, let me clue you in on a little secret: there is only one Jordan, and he’s busy running the Bobcats organization into the ground.

Sure size is important, but it’s overrated. Marcus Denmon doesn’t have size, but he plays basketball with unparalleled efficiency – he’s effiecient from the field, he’s efficient from the line, and takes great care of the basketball. Because of these things, and despite his shortcomings (pun intended), he deserves a serious look from NBA teams. And not just the ones looking to waste a late second round garbage pick.

-James