Hollinger: Draft Ty Lawson

ESPN's John Hollinger is high on Ty Lawson, Blake Griffin, Tyreke Evans and Stephen Curry. DeMar DeRozan? Jordan Hill? Patty Mills? Not so much.

over 2 years ago Tom Ziller 13 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Read More: 2009 nba draft, Sacramento Kings

Comments

Hollinger

Disliked Anthony Randolph and he turned out OK…

BOOK IT!

by kingme18 on Jun 19, 2009 5:59 AM PDT reply actions

Based on his assist to turnover ratio, I like him a lot. I was comparing the college stats of Chris Paul, Deron Williams and Raymond Felton, trying to see if there was anything that stuck out and the one thing that did was the a:to ratio. Paul and Williams were around 2.3-2.5 every season and the best Felton ever did was 2.09 and he was below 2 the other two seasons. In their pro careers, among other things, decision making has separated Paul and Williams from Felton, who was even moved to the 2 for a time last season. Maybe their a:to stats foreshadowed that a bit. Of course it’s small sample size but someone like Acie Law had similar ratios to Felton and he’s also struggled with the responsibilities of a point guard thus far.

I don’t know if Lawson will be a great pro but his fantastic a:to ratios give some hope. 2.2 seems to be a very good mark for college and he’s been 2.5, 2.3 and 3.5. His junior season number is ridiculous. He did this while playing for a major college and shooting over fifty percent from the field. And he has some physical tools as well.

by Galeto on Jun 19, 2009 6:31 AM PDT reply actions

So what you're saying is...

don’t draft Evans?

by Charlieb on Jun 19, 2009 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions

Nice analysis

I’ve always thought that turnovers were something that can be remedied if you have the gift of passing otherwise, but it looks like there might be more to it than that. You cant just look at assists and say the turnovers will come around—it makes sense that high A:TO reveals a good decision-making instinct (if thats not oxymoronic), and a low A:TO reveals poor decision-making instict. And that characteristic is most likely very difficult to change.

by DustyG on Jun 19, 2009 9:14 AM PDT up reply actions

I'd love to get Lawson

But not at the 4, and I doubt he’ll be around at 23.

by furious.d on Jun 19, 2009 7:21 AM PDT reply actions

Great Read, nice link

Hollinger usually has a few follow up articles predicting Pro production by position. I remember last year he has Jason Thompson as barely bench player and Anthony Randolph lower but he did qualify that Randolph would either be very good or very bad base on his numbers – a true wild card.

Reading through Hollinger’s 2002-2008 history some interesting notes:
2002 – he mentions that Carlos Boozer was 2nd (and picked 26th) but the other members of the top 4 were Drew Gooden, Jay Williams and Mike Dunleavy. Overall though a weak draft. 2003 – Wade, Melo, TJ Ford, Michael Sweetney

Kings related: 2004 – Kevin Martin was 13th, drafted 23 Cisco Garcia was 8th for Hollinger, 24th on draft night, 2005 Shelden Williams 11th by Hollinger, 5 by the Hawks, I couldn’t find QD, 2007 he has SHawes out of the top 12, he was drated 10th, for 2008 Jason Thompson is not on his board and rated the 11th big man here is the quote

The teams who take the top six big men have a good chance of getting themselves a player, but the history of big men in the projected PER range of 12.5 to 13.5 is a decidedly mixed bag — you can pretty much forget about stardom once you get this low

The link is here, you must have insider, so all of you outsiders – take comfort in that you are not missing anything

Here is 2007 and Spencer Hawes (rated 30 by Hollinger, 12 by Chad Ford). Hollingers’ comments:

Acie Law and Spencer Hawes are best to be avoided. Both are viewed as late-lottery picks, but they look like solid second-rounders from here. Hawes has an unimpressive rebound rate, which is a huge red flag considering he was bigger than everyone he played against. And for all the talk of his great post skills, he had a run-of-the-mill 55.0 true shooting percentage and didn’t even have the best PER on his mediocre team (that belonged to Jon Brockman). A lot of folks think he can become a quality pro post player; based on his numbers, I just don’t see it.

My take on Hollinger is like most of yours: smart guy, plays the numbers well, presents his data fairly well and tries to explain the caveats and faults but ultimately the numbers sometimes are a ends to a means not the other way around. It is a difficult to place tangible value on intangible measurements.

I love reading this stuff but my skepticism mars my judgement and interpretation. Admittedly, my sophistication level on this is on par with a Forrest Gump philosophy and the stat heads are quoting Kirkegaard and Nietzsche.

Will Ty Lawson be a success? Probably. But which team and his injury status have to be taken into account. He is not a top 4 PG by everyone’s accounts but if the Kings got him at #23 = Wow!

by betweentheeyes on Jun 19, 2009 7:22 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Terrific Analysis, especially re Lawson.

I say WOW , too, if Kings were to get him at #23, even if we took a PG at #4. If we took Rubio, or one of the other PGs because RR was off the board, Lawson just could not be passed up if he “fell” to #23. As your analysis indicates, his skills are obvious, and he undoubtedly possesses the intangibles of a leader on the floor. I am seeing him as similar to Bobby Jackson, but maybe slightly more athletic. I think Lawson can have a long, productive career in the NBA coming off the bench and filling in as a starter with no real downside to a loss in offensive production or defensive intensity. He would be a very valuable addition to any roster. Maybe another way to look at it is: Lawson vs Beno?

In a strange scenario, I was just thinking of a backcourt rotation that would include Evans, Martin, Cisco, Lawson and Udrih. Interesting.

by bozotunes on Jun 19, 2009 8:13 AM PDT up reply actions

Hollinger confirms what dalt already told us

Reconfirms that dalt’s work is awesome.

Never forget: I am a complete idiot

by Exhibit G on Jun 19, 2009 10:11 AM PDT reply actions

Speaking of which

Has Dalt posted his overall rankings yet?

I ask because I haven’t been looking at every FanPost, but just assumed that when it hit I’d see it.

If not, when can we expect this Dalt? It’s quickly become one of my favorite analysis lists these last few years.

by smgmatt on Jun 19, 2009 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions

Ya I'm wondering too

Drafts coming up.

Father of the "Natt this!" movement.

by Aykis16 on Jun 19, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions

Soon as possible

As always, I appreciate the interest. It’s on it’s way. It’s taken on a life of it’s own. I will at least post the list by Sunday at the latest and part 2 will be an analysis of just about every player of note in the draft. It’s fairly large and I am busy with work and family so unfortunately it takes time to finish. Plus I had to wait for the darn measurements. Anyway, it WILL be up this weekend in some form.

Kings rule! (They are royalty - right?)

by dalt99 on Jun 20, 2009 1:05 AM PDT up reply actions

Awesome!

So long as you don’t take any questions as complaints . . . remember that it’s always fueled by excitement and not entitlement.

Thanks (in advance) as always for your hard work and analysis.

by smgmatt on Jun 20, 2009 1:24 AM PDT up reply actions

Lawson won't fall

Rumors of him slipping down draft boards are mid-round teams hoping to plummet his stock. With all the Rubio, Jennings, Evans, Flynn, etc hype, Lawson’s proven results will wait. I’d love to see him with Sacramento if they could trade down to the 8-14 range.

by PurplePurple on Jun 19, 2009 12:35 PM PDT reply actions