NBA DRAFT 2015

Since we now have some more recent and context relevant data from the NBA Summer League, what I have here might not mean as much now as it did before the Draft when we were left with nothing but college stats to project future NBA production. But here goes anyway.

Data Set, Source and Explanation:

All stats from Sports-Reference’s College Basketball section
Sample Size: Prospects drafted by an NBA franchise from 2010-2015 and played significant time* against NCAA competition. Stats are taken only from the player’s most recent college season**

*Significant time is a slightly subjective term to describe what I considered a relevant and large enough sample size. For instance Chris McCullough only played 16 games as a freshman at Syracuse (13 non-conference, 3 ACC games). Due to the limited competition and small sample size on this fist pass through this process I decided to exclude his, and similar seasons, from the raw data. 

**The reasoning for not including the entire college body of work is to exclude earlier stats for the sake of relevance and recency. Many times prior stats were accumulated in a vastly different, often a more limited, role. Taking into account only the most recent season will hopefully screen out gaudy per possession stats generated in an ancillary role as well as give us a snapshot of the player’s current production.

SPOILER ALERT: The analysis and conclusions drawn are sloppy…on purpose. You’ll see why

USG% vs PER

This chart is interesting to me. You would certainly expect that as a player’s usage increases, his efficiency decreases. It makes sense right? Its easier to maintain a high efficiency if you’re not asked to repeat that success on a repeated basis. Another less obvious factor is that if your usage is lower, you are likely not a top offensive option meaning you probably also benefit from the attention those better (theoretically at least) offensive options draw.

So why is this graph suggesting that as USG% increases so does PER?

Well, there are a few possibilities. Maybe our original assumption was false. Or maybe PER doesn’t measure efficiency well and/or USG% is not an effective measure of usage. Maybe both?

For the record PER stands for Player Efficiency Rating and was developed by John Hollinger, now of ESPN. There has been much debate about how effective a measure of overall quality it is, but most would assume its designed to measure efficiency because, you know, it has that in the name. A full explanation from Hollinger of what PER is and how its calculated is here. A criticism contesting it gives too much credit to high volume production and therefore is a poor estimate of efficiency is here. You decide.

Now lets take a look at a similar data set that uses Offensive Rating (originally developed by Dean Oliver) instead of PER. An explanation of O Rtg (a common abbreviation) is in Oliver’s great book “Basketball on Paper” but Sports-Reference takes a stab at it here.

Now let’s take a look at these graphs with trend lines.

It’s dangerous to judge the effectiveness of a metric on a limited and very subjective opinion. Nonetheless it seems that Offensive Rating fits our assumption a little better. Does that mean its more accurate? Certainly not, but its quite interesting if you ask me.

It’s also important to note that this data is not by any means the best way to evaluate these metrics in a general sense. They are specific to a 6 year window and limited to one season of college production. But, they might help us answer some questions or at least visualize them. What’s key is to use any data or representations of them wisely and don’t make assumptions or extrapolate recklessly.

So with that in mind I think what we can say is the truth in our assumption (that increase in usage means a decrease in production) depends on your definition of efficiency and whether or not you think PER or O Rtg accurately measures it. That’s because one suggests that assumption is true and the other suggests its not.

Now for the REAL analysis. When I first drew up these charts I made some hasty assumptions without thinking about what was actually being measured. Philip Mudd cautions against doing this in his book “The Head Game”. In it he stresses the importance of avoiding the temptation to dive right into the data and, therefore, waste time or worse distort you judgement by not having a clear goal or plan in place to shape your efforts.

In an effort to increase the effectiveness of any analysis of this issue, I’ll fully address this in another article, but will venture to say the following:

What we were really looking at was not how a player’s efficiency changes based on usage. To do that you’d have to examine an individual player’s usage and efficiency relationship over the course of some period of time. What I did above was just plot a group of draftees usage and efficiency and try to find a trend. So really there is a better way to visualize and assess the prior question. I’ll do my best with the available data, stay tuned.

SO, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

In short, its easy to draw conclusions from data and particularly pretty pictures and charts without properly scrutinizing their accuracy or scope.

So, the charts DO NOT say:
– The more a player is involved in the offense (higher usage %) the more or less efficient he becomes. That conclusion would have to be drawn from player specific data.

What the charts MIGHT SAY:
– High level college basketball players who have higher usage ratings tend to be more involved in the offense for a reason. The reason being they are really good.

Quick Notes:

• From the data set we can see that as we look at players with higher and higher usage percentages, we tend to see the PER increase
• This does not effectively answer whether or not we can expect a player’s efficiency to decrease with increased usage
• There is one really interesting possible explanation for our findings:Players with higher usage rates in college tend to be better players and therefore be more effective at all the activities that contribute to PER. For example, maybe its PER that actually drives usage rate. So maybe Cameron Payne has a relatively high usage rate (31.5%) because the Murray State coaching staff knows he’s the team best player and expect a high efficiency rating (PER 30.1) regardless of usage.
• From the data set we can see that as we look at players with higher and higher usage percentages, we tend to see the Offensive Rating decrease
• This does not effectively answer whether or not we can expect a player’s efficiency to decrease with increased usage
• There is one really interesting possible explanation for these findings:Offensive rating and PER measure two vastly different things. We’d expect both to attempt to answer the same question about overall offensive efficiency, but maybe that’s not the reality.
• Another possible explanation is that, as some people have speculated, PER tends to “overvalue” volume, meaning the metric gives too much weight or credit to points scored and doesn’t properly value how efficiently those points are scored. That conclusion is not for me to validate, especially with this admittedly incomplete data set, but is one that others have advocated for before.

What I’d like to do with these breakdowns and the site in general is essentially practice my analytical skills and hopefully make it entertaining for readers. With that said, I’d love to hear feedback!

Jahlil Okafor, Duke
6’11 275

Overall Rank: #4

Strengths: Impeccable footwork, a wide array of post moves, pro body with length and strength, physically ready to contribute on offense, instant offense as a post up threat, decent mid-range shooter, high character individual

A clear testament to Okafor’s dedication and innate feel for the game is his effortless foot work in the post. He navigates the paint with grace and has a smoothness to his game that catches the eye and makes him so tough to defend. He’s comfortable turning over both shoulders on his drop set and shows a soft touch around the basket. Rarely do teams prioritize touches for a low post scorer nowadays but Okafor certainly gives you that option.

Weaknesses: Lack of long range shooting ability, defensive limitations, lapses in effort on defense, can be exposed as a poor pick and roll defender, lacks elite athleticism and explosiveness

The biggest knock on Okafor is that he only has value on the offensive end, and even there he is limited to post up production. He may be an elite back to the basket scorer, but with the direction the game is headed that skill continues to be devalued. Blessed with a 7’5 wingspan he has the length to disrupt passing lanes and challenge shots, however, due to his average lower body explosiveness he’ll never be a game changing shot blocker or elite lob finisher.

Bottom Line: The 6’11 275 lb freshman is a force on the offensive block possessing the dexterity and body control to create space for his shot out of several well executed post moves in his arsenal. In this respect Okafor is much more advanced than Towns and perhaps any incoming rookie but its the struggles on defense that makes him a one way player at the moment. Not only that but he rebounds at a lower rate (16.6% versus Towns’ 18.5% TRB%) and is a much more limited shooter (0 three pointers taken and 66.7% from the stripe). All that being said, Okafor can give you production from day, works hard off the court and has the physical traits to improve as a rebounder and low post defender.

STAT ATTACK:

BODY TYPE:

Okafor has a pro ready body and edges Towns in terms of strength, power and wingspan. His athletic potential is limited, however, and for all the lateral agility he shows on offense he really struggles redirecting and staying in front of defenders and could be a major liability on pick and rolls.

OFFENSIVE USAGE:

In contrast to Towns, Okafor is an offensive force in terms of pure production. To produce more points requires more shots, which is clearly the case with JO. His overall efficiency suffered as is to be expected, but what stands out positively is his ability to draw fouls and therefore free throws at a high rate (.103 per possession). Normally those would be efficient shots, however, with his poor FT% of .510 that really mitigates the benefit.

SHOOTING:

While not being able to stretch the floor Okafor does a masterful job generating clean, high percentage looks at the rim from post ups. It’s become an axiom in the analytics world that three’s, free throws and shots at the rim are the most efficient in basketball. Okafor is a non-factor from three, has a terrible free throw percentage but does get shots at the rim in bunches. Overall though his inability to stretch the floor or convert from the line will put a hard cap on his efficiency. The saving grace may be his footwork in the post and propensity to get his shot off cleanly around the basket seems to have transferred to the pro game.

REBOUNDING AND DEFENSE:

Okafor actually hits the offensive glass at a slightly higher rate than Towns, but that’s likely a product of shooting more around the rim increasing the opportunity to rebound his own shot. His noticeably higher Defensive Rating (with D Rtg a lower score is better) is intuitive considering his poor defensive reputation but he does appear to be less foul prone.

2015 NFL DRAFT: BIG BOARD

Sources:
Season stats:
NCAA Stats Sports-Reference College Basketball
International Stats Basketball.RealGM.com
Measurements:
NCAA Prospects NBA.com
International Prospects ESPN.com

All stats are for the previous season only, not a career average. This is mainly to avoid factoring in freshman year outliers for prospects like Cauley-Stein or Rakeem Christmas who played a marginal role early one. Plus I feel the most accurate picture of what teams will get is based on the most recent snap shot.

1. Karl-Anthony Towns, Kentucky

Strengths: Gifted shot blocker, size and length with elite rebounding potential, terrific shooter with 3 point range, 81% free throw shooter, overall very few flaws

Towns has the ability to impact the game on offense and defense with a very diverse skill set for a freshman prospect. He has really made his mark on the defensive end blocking and altering shots at a breathtaking rate (11.5% Block Rate!). As a gifted shot blocker and proficient rebounder with the length to improve even further, Towns has the raw ability to dominate the low post. On offense the 6’11 250 pounder has good range for a big. Although he has limited post moves he does shows good touch and the vision to hit teammates for open jumpers or cuts to the basket.

Weaknesses: Lacks a refined low post game offensively, needs to add strength to his frame, could benefit from playing with more grit and fire, foul prone

Sure there are some minor imperfections here but overall Towns is a well-rounded prospect. He could certainly continue to hit the weights in order to handle the physicality of the NBA game. While showing some natural ability it will take some time before he becomes a true offensive threat on the block. The one clear advantage Okafor has over Towns is his footwork and variety of post moves on the offensive end although neither are elite athletes.

Bottom Line: Towns gets the nod over Okafor and Russell because he’s a rare low post asset who can affect the game in multiple ways. He edges them both in PER, Win Shares, Rebounding Rate and Free Throw Percentage. At the end of the day Towns checks off more boxes and affects the game on both ends. He has two coveted skills that when packaged together allow for rotational flexibility for a coaching staff and could yield an All-NBA level center: elite shot blocking ability and shooting range out to the three point line.

2. D’Angelo Russell, Ohio St.

 

Strengths: Creative and accurate passer, offensive player-maker, can get his own shot and set up others, smooth shooting stroke with legitimate three point range, has the size to be a tough matchup as a combo guard, defensive potential

At 6’5 he has tremendous size for an NBA point guard and flashes the potential to be an elite distributor. He sees the floor well and has the ability to dictate terms with his ball handling and ability to stop on a dime often freezing defenders or opening up space for him to get his shot off. Very effective shooting off the dribble from three Russell projects as a nightmare pick and roll assignment. He can knock down the three if you go under the screen, weave his way through traffic on a hedge and find the rolling big man to create open shots at the basket. While not an experienced man defender, his size and body control will help him transition to containing guards at the next level.

Weaknesses: Can launch quick shots at times ignoring the design of the play, not the most explosive or quick twitch athlete, still learning man to man defense and did struggle some in that regard in college

For Russell the biggest question mark is projecting his ability to defend elite point guards at the next level. He wasn’t asked to guard too often man to man, but even in those scenarios the competition was much forgiving. Given his 6’10 wingspan he should be able to get steals and clog passing lanes, but can he stop penetration from explosive guards like Ty Lawson, Chris Paul or John Wall? Sure, not many NBA defenders can but the issue here is that Russell’s lack of speed and quick twitch athleticism might expose him against even average point guards when defending the dribble drive.

Bottom Line: Although not as highly touted coming into the year as Towns, Okafor or even Myles Turner, Russell’s play quickly distinguished himself as an elite talent. Offensively Russell gives you plenty to be excited about. He has great spatial awareness and can thread the needle as a passer. He also can score without being run off screens or given designed plays with his savvy and start and stop ability. His shooting is also a plus as he often made 25 footers in college with ease and his stroke looks fluid with a high release point. He is a tough projection defensively, however, as its tough to evaluate him in Ohio St.’s 2-3 zone as well as the uncertainty of what position he’ll be guarding in the NBA. Despite those concerns Russell offers an intriguing skill set and the potential to stuff the stat sheet like he did in college posting 23 points, 6 assists, 7 rebounds and 2 steals a game in Columbus.

3. Jahlil Okafor, Duke

Strengths: Impeccable footwork, a wide array of post moves, pro body with length and strength, physically ready to contribute on offense, instant offense as a post up threat, decent mid-range shooter, high character individual

A clear testament to Okafor’s dedication and innate feel for the game is his effortless foot work in the post. He navigates the paint with grace and has a smoothness to his game that catches the eye and makes him so tough to defend. He’s comfortable turning over both shoulders on his drop set and shows a soft touch around the basket. Rarely do teams prioritize touches for a low post scorer nowadays but Okafor certainly gives you that option.

Weaknesses: Lack of long range shooting ability, defensive limitations, lapses in effort on defense, can be exposed as a poor pick and roll defender, lacks elite athleticism and explosiveness

The biggest knock on Okafor is that he only has value on the offensive end, and even there he is limited to post up production. He may be an elite back to the basket scorer, but with the direction the game is headed that skill continues to be devalued. Blessed with a 7’5 wingspan he has the length to disrupt passing lanes and challenge shots, however, due to his average lower body explosiveness he’ll never be a game changing shot blocker or elite lob finisher.

Bottom Line: The 6’11 275 lb freshman is a force on the offensive block possessing the dexterity and body control to create space for his shot out of several well executed post moves in his arsenal. In this respect Okafor is much more advanced than Towns and perhaps any incoming rookie but its the struggles on defense that makes him a one way player at the moment. Not only that but he rebounds at a lower rate (16.6% versus Towns’ 18.5% TRB%) and is a much more limited shooter (0 three pointers taken and 66.7% from the stripe). All that being said, Okafor can give you production from day, works hard off the court and has the physical traits to improve as a rebounder and low post defender.

 

4. Emmanuel Mudiay, Congo

Strengths: Explosive athlete with the ability to finish above the rim, has the physical tools and size to become an elite defender, was very productive against older professionals in China, potential to be a terrific rebounder for the guard position, great feel and production on the pick and roll

Mudiay has the natural talent and physical profile to make scouts salivate. At 6’5 he has prototypical point guard height with a strong and physically developed frame that allows him to see over defenses, fight around screens and withstand contact while finishing at the basket. The native of Congo is a dynamic athlete and a one man fast break who can finish with authority above the rim. He’s also been a good pick and roll player with the vision, feel and explosiveness to flourish in a heavy pick and roll league.

Weaknesses: Inconsistent shooter, will make hand scratching decisions at times, effort on defense comes and goes

Like many high potential prospects that upside comes with a risk that all that ability will never develop. The main concerns with Mudiay are his shooting struggles, propensity to make careless decisions and poor defensive effort. As evidenced by his 16% TOV% he’ll need to take better care of the ball as the primary ball handler.

Bottom Line: When drafting Mudiay teams will have to trust the upside outweighs the concerns that could potentially hold him back. Besides being an elite athlete the 19 year old was impressive playing professional ball in China averaging 18 points, 6 assists, 6 boards and 1.58 steals a game. Almost indefensible in transition Mudiay also has a solid half court game with his ability to make plays on pick rolls and take it to the chest of defenders in the paint using his strength and leaping ability. Despite a relatively smooth shooting stroke he struggles as a jump shooter but there are some slight mechanical flaws, like shooting after his apex and at times following through too low, can be worked out with some coaching and practice. Given his physical tools and current strengths Mudiay should provide immediate impact on the offensive end in the right system and with more consistent effort could become a lockdown defender as well.

5. Willie Cauley-Stein, Kentucky

Strengths: Off the charts athleticism, elite lateral agility and explosiveness, wingspan and quickness to block shots from out of nowhere, defensive versatility

The Kentucky junior is a rare athletic specimen, about as rare as seeing a 7’1 wide receiver catching touchdown passes. Yep, that happened when Cauley-Stein used his 9’3” standing reach, quickness and lateral mobility to torture high school cornerbacks. With that uncommon physical profile and athleticism he can and has guarded multiple positions often shadowing the opponents’ greatest offensive threat whether guard, forward or center. Given this unique ability he would add tremendous value to an NBA defense. He would allow for creative defensive concepts given his capability to switch on any screen and challenge shots at the rim as a primary and help defender.

Weaknesses: Low rebounding rate despite elite tools, very limited offensively, poor shooter, very thin frame that might be exposed in the NBA

As much as the athletic talent he possesses is breathtaking, there are legitimate concerns about Cauley-Stein. One is his lack of offensive impact. Literally all he can do effectively at this point is catch lobs and dunk. Now, he has shown signs of diversifying his game but in year one you won’t get much of anything offensively. Then on defense, even though he is so versatile he lacks the strength to body up some of the more physical centers like Marc Gasol or Al Jefferson. Finally, his personality and demeanor are not abrasive but scouts wonder about his motivation and consistency throughout games.

Bottom Line: Even with the risks and limited offensive ability the 7’1 former wide receiver is a unique defensive chess piece. Rarely, if ever, can a rookie come into the league and be reasonably expected to guard all five positions. You’ll hear a lot of comparisons to Tyson Chandler and frankly that’s not a bad thing. At the moment, like Chandler, he’s a non-factor offensively unless he’s catching lobs but is a true defensive stalwart. If he can stay committed, improve his shooting (he’s improved his FT% by 24.5% over his three season in blue) and get stronger some NBA will be getting a rare talent.

Continue reading →

Nowadays analytics and statistics are part of the vernacular teams and even fans use to discuss sports. Finally numbers have been given the attention they deserve, although some (hey Charles Barkley!) are very skeptical. To me, all analytics do is provide data. That’s it. Numbers on a page mean nothing, it’s all about the context and application of those numbers. This article is by no means as sophisticated, statistically speaking, as I’d like but until I get the requisite training to do more advanced work, I’ll do what I can. Hopefully this will be insightful or at least interesting enough to get you thinking about how we can effectively use data from the Combine to help evaluate prospects. Maybe the answer is the entire process is overblown. Maybe the current battery of drills are ineffective at delineating anything significant. Maybe we don’t look for the right attributes. Or maybe, we are given a wealth of data that can be used in some small way to inform our decisions. Maybe.

One challenge evaluators face in analyzing a prospect is how to weigh raw athleticism. Looking at how naturally gifted a prospect is physically might be part of the equation, but it can be a dangerous exercise. A strong armed quarterback, a blazing fast running back or a wide receiver with a freakish vertical all have a quality that can contribute to their success. However, being such visual creatures its almost built into our evolution to be attracted to such flashy elements and overvalue them. The history of drafting, in any sport, is littered with examples of decision makers being enticed by uncommon physical attributes and potentially overlooking other more important factors like intelligence, maturity, feel for the game and even injury risk. JaMarcus Russell was a future star on paper with a rocket arm, prototypical size and impressive athleticism for his powerful build. Anthony Bennett was recently taken #1 overall by the Cleveland Cavaliers because of his untapped athletic potential and high upside. Russell was out of the league just three years into a disastrous start and according to his rookie season win shares Anthony Bennett has been the worst return on investment of the lottery era.

With that conspicuous warning let’s take a look at how we may be able to gauge athletic tools using Combine data. As previously mentioned the numbers mean nothing without context and logical evaluation. To start I developed a few different methods for ranking athleticism. I only included prospects who competed in the drills used at the Combine. Pro day data is not just harder to find and organize but its notoriously more forgiving not to mention times less standardized as it relies on scouts with stopwatches instead of electronic timers. I also used the official 40 time posted not the average of each two unofficial times. There are two main ways to rank prospects given the data. One would be to use a discrete data set where rankings are based on the number of above average drill results rather than considering the actual values and all the variations of a continuous data set. In other words, we can rank prospects based on continuous data where a 4.49 40 time would be different and in this case better than a 4.50. Or we can rank those two players the same since they both ran an above average 40. There are arguments to be made for both, and throughout the article I’ll use a combination of both types. Some scouts will say that scouring the minutiae of exact drill results is a waste of time. Those scouts would say that the athletic attributes needed to play in the NFL fall more into a threshold like continuum where what’s important is if you have “enough” speed to create separation from corners on a go route or “enough” agility to avoid a linebacker in space. The other philosophy is that grading on a continuous scale is more precise and that Phillip Dorsett’s 4.33 40 is noticeably different than the 4.54 run by Da’Ron Brown and that gap needs to be considered. There will be much more to come on these tables but here’s the raw materials for a future discussion.

Sources:
NFL Combine Raw Data: SB Nation’s Battle Red Blog
Percentile Data: MockDraftable.com
Five Year Average Combine Results: ESPN

Overall Aggregate Athleticism

This table ranks prospects based on the average of their drill result percentile. The only problem with this table is that some drills are more predictive of NFL success than others, but it does a good job of measuring overall athleticism. Most studies ignore the 10 yard split, but I included it to get a more complete picture of athleticism as I feel it indicates a level of explosion and the ability to get going quickly out of a stationary position. In other words what receivers do on most pass routes. The coloring is similar to a “heat map” where the highest value is dark green, middle values are in some form of yellow and the lowest are red.

Explosion Index Rankings

This table uses the explosive index used by W. Casan Scott in his article on Advanced Football Analytics but here I replace the 40 yard dash time with the 10 yard split. I made the change due to the subjective belief that the shorter distance covered and drastic acceleration used are more indicative of explosive ability.

One interesting thing to note is the #1 ranked prospect, Combine darling Chris Conley, was unreal in the vertical and broad jumps but merely slightly above average in his 10 yard split. Had I used the full 40 his 4.35 would have led to an even more impressive index.

Movement Index Rankings

The movement index was this time taken completely from Scott’s aforementioned article. I believe this index is a great indication of raw route running potential. In order to get separation at the NFL level you need speed, agility and elite change of direction ability.

Notice how the #1 ranked player is Amari Cooper, believed by most to be the most polished and effective route runner in the class.

Body Type Rankings

Here I had to be much more subjective than I’d like but was unable to find an alternative. Because small differences in all categories are somewhat negligible I divided the group (and this included all WR Combine participants as everyone who shows up to Indy gets measured) into tiers but did include overall rankings. For Tier 1, I looked for the ideal WR in terms of height, weight, arm length and hand size with all other attributes being equal. For example Darren Waller’s 6’6 frame would be preferred over Phillip Dorsett’s if we are holding speed constant.

Tier 1 would correspond to an ideal frame that allows the prospect to have a distinct size advantage over all defensive backs. This type of receiver could play all across the board including outside and be an instant red zone threat. In short they have elite size. Tier 2 receivers have above average size but are not quite elite. Tier 3 receivers have “plus” size meaning their size is enough to give them an edge over average sized defensive backs but could still line up across DB’s who can matchup to them physically. Tier 4 is your average NFL receiver. Tier 5 would generally pin a prospect to a slot receiving role whereas Tier 6 could potentially mean a prospect is more inclined to be used as a returner man and might struggle even inside at the slot position. There are always exceptions to every rule.

The measurements in green are above average, whereas red measurements are below average.

OVERALL RANKINGS, Version #1

In order to rank prospects in terms of overall physical potential (again using the data available from the Combine) I used the total rank number from the Aggregate Athleticism Rankings and the Body Type where the smaller the total the better. For the overall rankings I had to exclude prospects who did not post results in every category measured.

Notable exclusions: DeVante Parker, Nelson Agholor, Breshad Perriman, Devin Smith, Jaelen Strong, Devin Funchess.

While Kenny Bell was the highest ranked overall athlete, when size was added into the equation Kevin White and Darren Waller take the cake.

Kevin White looks to be the real deal as he not only produced on the field, but has the measureables to translate to the next level.

Hi there!!! The NFL and NBA drafts are both of great importance but can mystify even veteran scouts and coaches. I will use this space to explore and analyze draft related topics with the goal of being entertaining and insightful. Welcome!