The Bratwurst – Milwaukee Bucks Blog

I write the headlines, I get to throw in as much hyperbole as I want.

Since the good teams are busy in the playoffs, I decided that now is the time to help the Bucks get a jump on preparing for the draft. They need to get an edge somehow , and I’ve got some help for them right here.

I have spent a couple of months creating an IPM-based method of ranking NBA Draft prospects. While you can’t do all of your scouting with a calculator, I feel that the method I have created has done a great job over the past few seasons of pinpointing certain characteristics that often indicate which players have a better chance for NBA success than others. When my rankings are compared to the actual results of the last several drafts, they stack up very well. Basically, my method does a similar job of predicting who should go at the top of the draft (my method will usually weed out the one or two players who were taken real high and were busts, but will sometimes replace them with similar busts). My method, however, does a much better job of mining the players who everyone now thinks were late-first round or second round steals — while my analysis shows that most of those “steals” should have been first round picks in the first place based on what they did in college!

A detailed explanation of the methodology for my rankings is available here, but to sum it up, it ranks players by several categories which I feel are important (IPM, rebounding, and a couple of ratios that show how well rounded a player is) and adds in adjustment for things like height, weight, age, schedule strength and shooting ability (since most players shoot a lower percentage at the pro level than in college, bad college shooters tend to be even worse pro shooters). An explanation of what IPM is can be found here, and IPM rankings for all NBA players this past season is here.

The results were very interesting, and illustrated a serious flaw in the thought processes of most general managers. After the first few picks, when the “cream of the crop” is gone, GM’s tend to keep looking for players with incredible talent who might be a future superstar. However, the truth is that the guys who really have “superstar” in them are most likely gone by the fifth or sixth pick , after that, you are gambling on players with unproven talent who have something holding them back , either their heads or that they don’t really have all that much talent. GM’s are better off taking players who were highly productive in college, rather than passing on a good college player because he was an inch too short or 10 pounds too light. Sometimes a GM will strike gold in the second round by reaching for a player, but much more often they will strike out.

Another concept that I don’t see many GM’s using is the theory that they should use late first round and second round picks to try and get players who can help them immediately. Often this means grabbing older college players (22 and 23 year olds) who may be more mature. They might not have the ceiling of a younger guy, but they should be able to step in and become an inexpensive, productive bench player immediately. Because of this theory I also ranked players without considering their age, so that once the top talent is gone a GM might consider taking an older player who is more likely to help the team immediately. One example of this is Brandon Roy in 2006 , he ranked as the #6 prospect overall, but #2 without considering his age. He was the most likely player to be good immediately , and what do you know, he won the rookie of the year award and was an all-star one year later. One caveat about this, though , beware of older players from small schools. They usually were beating up on sub-par players who were much younger than them, so their numbers usually lie about their prospects.

I did not create rankings for high school players (so when I refer to someone as the #1 prospect in 2003, LeBron James doesn’t count). I also couldn’t get complete numbers for foreign players before the last couple of years, so I ignored them until the 2006 calculations. I am publishing the lists of my rankings going back to 2002, and also a comparison of how each years’ first round actually went and how it should have gone according to my rankings. If a team drafted a high school player or a foreign player for whom I had no ranking, I assumed that player was still drafted at that spot and didn’t assign a new player.

I tested my rankings against the last six draft seasons, and this is how it stacked up:

2002: Full Prospect Rankings available here; First round of the draft (actual picks compared to my rankings) available here.

What worked: This was a strange draft that saw the eventual three best NBA players drafted at #10 (Caron Butler), #23 (Tayshaun Prince) and in the second round (Carlos Boozer). These were three highly productive college players who slid in the draft because of concerns about their past, weight, and size. In the eyes of GM’s, these concerns obscured the fact that these were really good players. My rankings had Boozer, Butler and Prince as the #6, #7 and #8 prospects. My rankings also screamed “bust” about the Bucks’ selection, Marcus Haislip, as he clearly was the type of guy who looked great in a uniform but didn’t produce on the court (#32 prospect).

What didn’t work: My rankings lowered the biggest busts of the top 13 picks (Dajuan Wagner, Haislip) but replaced them with two equally big busts (Curtis Borchardt and Ryan Humphrey). The bust rate for centers like Borchardt , big and slow , is immensely high, while Humphrey was a smaller, less athletic version of Tayshaun Prince who put up great numbers at Notre Dame.

2003: Full Prospect Rankings available here; First round of the draft comparison available here.

What worked: This was a very good draft that was difficult to im prove on but my rankings did a great job of it. There were no busts among the top six college players taken, and my rankings look the same, except for dropping Kirk Hinrich a little. However, in the actual draft there were two huge steals late in the round , David West at #18 and Josh Howard at #29. My rankings loved both players, labeling Howard as the #5 prospect and West #8. Additionally, without considering age, they tied as the #2 prospect overall (behind Carmelo Anthony, and not counting high schooler LeBron James). The three second round steals; Kyle Korver, Steve Blake, and Mo Williams all landed squarely in the middle of my first round, as they should have been considered the #14, #15 and #16 prospects.

What didn’t work: My rankings moved Marcus Banks up a bit, slotting him as the #5 prospect (tied with Josh Howard).

2004: Full Prospect Rankings available here; First round of the draft comparison available here.

What worked: I wound up with Devin Harris ranked as a co-#1 with Emeka Okafor (Dwight Howard was not rated), which 4 years later looks pretty good , I’d rather have Harris then Ben Gordon right now. Overall, this was not the best draft for my system, but it moved up Kevin Martin from #26 to #20 and moved Chris Duhon and Trevor Ariza into the first round. It also showed that Rafael Araujo should never have been a first round pick.

What didn’t work: Since my system loves productive college players, it moved Jameer Nelson ahead of players like Luol Deng and Andre Iguodala (and Delonte West ahead of Iguodala). It also moved head-case Kris Humphries into the top 5.

2005: Full Prospect Rankings available here; First round of the draft comparison available here.

What worked: I had Chris Paul ahead of Bogut, but only by a slim margin. Danny Granger was ranked #3, which looking back was almost the right call (besides Paul, Bogut , Deron Williams, and David Lee, Granger is most desirable player from that draft). Charlie Villanueva ranked #4, which was interesting because the pick was roundly panned at the time but he still wound up as runner up for rookie of the year. David Lee was the steal of the draft at #30 this season, but my rankings say he should have been the #22 pick instead. Marvin Williams was only the #10 prospect.

What didn’t work: I dropped bust Ike Diogu to the #29 pick but replaced him with bust Brandon Bass at #9.

2006: Full Prospect Rankings available here; First round of the draft comparison available here.

What worked: In the first year that I included rankings for college players, I show Andrea Bargnani to be unworthy of the #1 pick (should have gone #21). Bargnani’s biggest problem here has been his rebounding, and while he was a big-time rebounder in Italy, Euro stats proved that the rest of his game was not very well rounded (which means big trouble when his rebounding talent failed to come across the Atlantic with him). My rankings also show that Rudy Gay should not have slid out of the top 3, that Paul Milsap and Rajon Rondo should have been top-10 picks, that Shelden Williams at #5 was idiotic, that JJ Redick was not a top-15 player, and that Adam Morrison was not even close to being worth the #3 pick , he shouldn’t have been a first rounder.

What didn’t work: Tyrus Thomas and Ronnie Brewer were the top two prospects, but because of Thomas’ head and Brewer’s injury history (he cannot fully extend his left arm due to a childhood injury) means that both of them might fall short. Also, I had Cedric Simmons as the #4 prospect. Come on, numbers, what is wrong with you?

2007: Full Prospect Rankings available here; First round of the draft comparison available here.

What worked: My rankings were pretty consistent with the actual draft, so it’s too early to say that my numbers did anything great , but at least they agreed with the top 4 picks. My rankings identified Ramon Sessions as a steal late in the second round , he should have been a first round pick. I also had Yi Jianlian as the #14 pick, for better or worse.

What didn’t work: Josh McRoberts showed up as the #10 prospect, despite obviously being only worth a second round pick (classic bust: big, slow center). The reason he ranked so high was that he racked up 114 assists in his final season at Duke (second on the team) since all they do is kick the ball out for 3-pointers. That screams “fluke” but my calculator doesn’t know that (Mc Roberts racked up 2 assists in 8 games for Portland). The numbers also listed Thaddeus Young as the #26 pick, which was way too low for him.

So that’s how my rankings have done for past seasons. What about this season?

I’m not quite ready to publicize my prospect list just yet, because there is a lot to write about. For starters, half of the top-8 prospects in all the mock drafts just scream “bust” to me. Secondly, I’ve got a supersleeper in mind , a guy who was fantastically productive in college, ranks as my #3 prospect overall, and is projected in most drafts to be a late first round or even a second round pick. These are all things that I want to talk about before letting the whole list loose.

But I do want to talk about the top guys right now , the #1, #2 and #4 prospects in the draft this season:

1: Michael Beasley, Kansas State (PF, 19, 6’9, 235, Ranked #1): No matter what Bobby Knight thinks, “B-Easy” delivered the goods night in and night out for K-State. Knight made some comments on ESPN about how he likes Tyler Hansbrough more than Beasley because the UNC player commits himself to being his best every night and Knight is “not sure that Beasley does the same thing.” Well, according to IPM, Beasley does try all the time , he has the best IPM and best rebound rate of all of this season’s likely draftees.

Beyond scoring and rebounding, Beasley’s game is a little one-dimensional. He doesn’t get that many steals or blocks compared to his turnover rate, but that’s not necessarily a reason for concern , His numbers in this respect are similar to players like Carlos Boozer and Amare Stoudemire, players whom Beasley is supposed to be similar to.

That said, Beasley has a nice “unstoppability” about him and is this draft’s most sure thing. He will be a good player for a long time. But my question about him is: since his dominant skill is one that is fairly easy to replace from any number of other players (scoring), is he destined to be one of those “good player on bad teams” guys? Basically, to carry a team with your scoring ability you have to be a pretty unique talent. Is Beasely really that good? It’s going to take several years and several million dollars to find out.

Where he should be drafted: Top Three.
Best teams for him: One that needs frontcourt scoring and a general talent upgrade. Miami, Minnesota, Charlotte.
Worst teams for him: One with an established frontcourt or a young scorer already in place. Seattle, New York.

2: Kevin Love, UCLA (PF, 20 Years Old, 6’10, 271, Prospect Rank: #2): When I first saw Love play, I thought: “This guy is huge! This guy is really slow!” I felt that he would have a hard time handling NBA athletes and no matter what sort of intangibles he brings it wouldn’t matter because he would always be a step slow. But after seeing what has happened to the Phoenix Suns with Shaquille O’Neal, I have changed my tune. The Suns ended the season playing at a faster pace and with an even more efficient offense than pre-Shaq. This shows that any team can handle having one slow widebody if he’s the sort of guy who is always in the right place at the right time, sucks up rebounds, and starts fast breaks. That sums up Kevin Love’s game perfectly.

Love has been alternately described by Brent Musberger and others as “the best outlet passer since Wes Unseld”, “the best outlet passer since Bill Walton”, and “the best outlet passer ever.” Apparently, Love can really pass. He can also really shoot (56%) and really rebound (third best per-minute rate among draft prospects this season).

There is one thing disconcerting about him , doesn’t a 19 year old guy carrying 270 pounds sound a little extreme? He’s not going to get any smaller , how big will he be five years from now? Will stamina be a problem? His weight is a major question , the only players similar to his size in the last few drafts were Mike Sweetney (who ate his way out of the league) and Sean May (who has been effective when healthy but never healthy), but Love was so productive at UCLA that his weight only drops him a little in my rankings. If he weighed under 260 he would be the #1 prospect.

That one issue aside, I foresee a very strong career for Love, as Zach Randolph has proven that a ground-bound big man can be a very efficient scorer and rebounder. Love’s game is ten times more well-rounded than Randolph’s, and I can see Love making all-star teams for years by countering his lack of athleticism by using his humongous ass to push players out of his way.

Where he should be drafted: Top three (but he won’t be).
Best (lottery) teams for him: Anyone that wants a good player. Memphis, Miami “¦ almost everyone.
Worst teams for him: Teams that already have dirty-work power forwards. New York, Chicago.

3: Derrick Rose, Memphis (PG, 20, 6’3, 190, Ranked #4): You hear “Jason Kidd with a jump shot” thrown around about way too many players, but this guy might be able to fill the bill. The thing that strikes me the most about Rose isn’t so much his offensive skill , lots of guys look like dynamite scorers when they are always the best athlete on the court , but the way he rebounds. He has a way of seemingly jumping for a rebound and to be heading up the court before he even lands. It’s something I’ve only seen elsewhere in Jason Kidd.

Rose gets knocked by some for his fairly low assist numbers at Memphis, but I think he should get a pass on that. Not only are assists fairly hard to come by in the college game, but the Memphis dribble-drive motion offense is not assist-friendly at all. It depends on spacing the floor and exploiting mismatches with one-on-one drives. In fact, to run the offense correctly the floor is supposed to always be spread to such an extreme that nobody ever sets a screen. Needless to say, there aren’t many assist opportunities from pick and rolls or drive-and-dish plays.

As for the rest of his game, Rose picked up about a steal per game and was a solid shooter, although his 67% free throw shooting is a little lower than one would like (one also wonders exactly how much they coached free throw shooting at Memphis).

Rose fits the prototype of my idea of a great point guard , big, fast and acrobatic. It will take a couple of years for him to blossom in the NBA , except for Chris Paul, it always takes time for point guards. But the team that gets him will eventually reap major rewards.

If I was John Hammond then Derrick Rose would be number one on my draft board.

Where he should be drafted: Top three.
Best teams for him: One that can afford to wait a couple of years for him to blossom. Milwaukee, New York.
Worst teams for him: One with a young point guard in place or who wants to try to rebuild quickly. Memphis, Miami.

It’s a strange draft this season as there are several other high-profile players available at the top of most people’s draft boards, but when you look closely at them they all have major red flags about them. In fact, my rankings claim that some of the guys proposed as top-8 selections shouldn’t even be drafted at all.

Up next: The Rest of the Top-8 Prospects: 5 Potential Busts.