2009 NBA DRAFT – DALT99 SYSTEM PLAYER RANKINGS (Post #1)
by dalt99 on Jun 21, 2009 9:19 AM PDT
36 comments
(Finally) It's time for the results of my system rankings of all the players (of significance) in the 2009 NBA draft. In Post #2 I will begin analyzing some of the players. Before I get to the list, I want to briefly explain again what the system is and what it's for. (Note: Please forgive any grammar or spelling errors. This is a looong post so I'm sure I messed up somewhere)
I have been obsessed with basketball statistics ever since the Kings came to Sacramento. I was even an assistant coach and statistician for my school for two years. About six years ago in 2003, there was such a fuss as to who would be the better pro between LeBron James, Darko Milicic, Carmelo Anthony, Chris Bosh and Dwyane Wade. To find out I decided to create a statistical system for the sole purpose of comparing current college basketball player's statistics to the college stats of current and former NBA players to see if I could project the NBA potential of current college (and European) players. I went back and ended up taking about a year to come up first with the system then to input all the best NBA player's college stats into the system. To my dismay I couldn't find a way to rank players like LeBron that never went to college. To rank the players, I decided to use a number scoring system from 0 to 105. (Note: Below is a brief description of what each number equates to towards a players assessed NBA potential.)
Besides the (most important) common stats such as points, rebounds, assists and FG%, the system factors in assist/turnover ratio, strength of schedule, height relative to position, athleticism and class. Basically, strength of schedule is self explanatory. For example, if two players have exactly the same stats (per 40 minutes) but one player plays for UCLA and the other for Sacramento State, guess which one has the higher potential? The Sac State player. Go Hornets!! Erm, sorry. What is interesting about the system is that some schools I have found, like Syracuse, will give the player a negative modifier because of the systems they run. Same with Duke, North Carolina and others. Some, like UCLA, Connecticut and Memphis, give a positive modifier. Height and position go together. Obviously a 6'4" point guard is fine but a 5'9" one usually has significant disadvantages. The athleticism modifier is the hardest one to gauge and is the only modifier in the system where my personal opinion comes in to play. I don't give a player a bonus for being extra athletic but he probably will get a negative modifier for being overtly non-athletic or extremely overweight. In this year's draft, Nick Calathes, Luke Harangody (who's pulled out now) and John Bryant have received this modifier. (Note: I want to emphasize that even though I may prefer certain players to others, all the scores are based solely on the player's stats and by comparing them to every other NBA player before them. I don't change or tamper with a score because of personal preferences for or against a player. In fact, there are times where I disagree with my system's findings! Like with Jason Thompson last year and Spencer Hawes before him. Oops!)
Lastly I definitely factor in class. A senior and a freshman with the exact same stats, height and level of competition are (usually) never equal. The freshman will get the bonus for his potential. Almost every player improves from his freshman to senior year. Not all, but most do and usually significantly, so yes I factor in class.
Of course there are things that I just can't factor in such as work ethic, being prone to injury, toughness, hustle, leadership, one-on-one defensive ability (besides steals and blocks), basketball IQ and good or bad personalities. That stuff I leave up to all the analysts, GMs, scouts and fans. I can't actually meet or watch any of these guys play on a regular basis so it's impossible to accurately factor these things in.
Score descriptions: Before the list, here is a description of what each player score represents based on their college stats:
100+: Superstar/MVP potential - The best players of all time. These are the franchise players that will be the ones you hear in the MVP talk at the end of the year. Shaq (105), Dr. J. (104), Olajuwon (103.5), Michael Jordan (102.5), Allen Iverson (102.5), Charles Barkley (100.5) and Chris Paul (100) are among the players to score in this group.
98-100: All-Star/Superstar potential - Players in this rank will usually become multiple all-stars and sometimes even superstars. Kevin Durant (99), Scottie Pippen (99), Chris Webber (99) and Clyde Drexler (99) are among the players to score in this group.
96-98: All-Star potential - Players in this rank will usually become multiple all-stars but rarely all-star starters. Paul Pierce (97.5), Elton Brand (97.5), Carlos Boozer (97) Brandon Roy (96.5) and Mitch Richmond (96) are among the players to score in this group.
93-96: Solid Starter/All-Star potential - A player in this rank should be a solid starter for his whole career and will usually make at least one appearance as an all-star at some point in his career. Rasheed Wallace (96), Carmelo Anthony (96), Mike Bibby (95.5), Al Horford (95.5), Rajon Rondo (93.5) and Gerald Wallace (93) are among the players to score in this group.
90-93: Solid Starter potential - The backbone of the NBA. These players usually won't make it to an all-star game but they should have solid NBA careers. Danny Granger (92.5), Ben Gordon (92), Lionel Simmons (91.5), Kevin Martin (91), Rodney Stuckey (91), Spencer Hawes (91) and Paul Millsap (90) are among the players to score in this group.
86-90: Fringe Starter/Solid Starter potential - The elite of the NBA bench players. These players will usually be the first players off the bench for good teams or solid starters on poorer teams without a star at the position they play. Troy Murphy (90), Marcus Camby (89.5), Jason Thompson (89), Ike Diogu (88.5), Marc Gasol (88.5), John Salmons (87.5), Leon Powe (87) and Francisco Garcia (86.5) are among the players to score in this group.
82-86: 6th Man/Fringe Starter potential - The lunch pail types of the NBA. These players are the backups to the starters and will usually start about 25% of the time in their career. They are usually good players with limitations or average players that excel in a specific area. They may be starters on a poor team (such as Corey Brewer, 84.5), on a team that needs that player's special skill (such as Earl Watson, 84.5) or because they are filling in for an injured starter. Carl Landry (84.5), Renaldo Balkman (84), Brandon Bass (83) and Channing Frye (82.5) are among the players to score in this group.
77-82: Career Reserve/6th Man potential - These are the energy guys of the NBA. These players almost never become solid starters in the NBA. About half scoring in this rank will be out of the league in 3 years while the other half will be able to find a team to stick with and have a long career bringing some needed energy off the bench. Bobby Jackson (81.5), Kenny Thomas (81.5), Trevor Ariza (81), Daniel Gibson (79.5) and Eddie House (79.5) are among the players to score in this group.
72-77: Career Reserve potential - These are the specialists of the NBA. About only 5% of players from this rank go on to start more than 10% of NBA games they play in and over half never even make it to sign a contract. Most of the players who score in this rank that go on to have long careers in the NBA are specialists - players that excel in a key area that a team might look for to fill holes or to use in certain situations such as a 3-pt marksman (JJ Redick, 73.5 and Steve Novak, 72), a shot blocker (Brian Skinner, 75.5), a banger/toughman (Eduardo Najera, 75.5) or a defensive specialist such as Randy Brown (74). Lawrence Funderburke (76.5), Justin Williams (76.5), Dahntay Jones (73.5) and Mikki Moore (72) are among the players to score in this group.
67-72: 12th Man/Career Reserve potential - The bench warmers and injured reserve of the NBA. Over 90% of players ranked in this group never sign an NBA contract. Similar to the rank above, the only players that make a long NBA career are specialists or the hustle/scrappers. Mateen Cleaves (71), Maurice Evans (69.5), Ronnie Price (68.5) and Patrick Ewing Jr. (67) are among the players to score in this group.
62-67: Fringe Player/12th Man potential - Only a handful of college players that find themselves in this rank have ever played a handful of games in the NBA. Duane Causwell (64), Daniel Ewing (64.5), Ryan Hollins (64.5) and Jermareo Davidson (63.5) are among the very few in this rank that have made it onto an NBA court.
0-62: Should Go Undrafted - A player in this range should not be drafted. Any GM that does draft someone in this rank should be punished.
2009 NBA Draft Rankings
| Player-Class | School | Pos. | Score |
1) | Oklahoma | FC | 103 | |
2) | Spain | PG | 100 | |
3) | Memphis | G | 99 | |
4) | North Carolina | PG | 98 | |
5) | Arizona State | SG | 94.5 | |
6) | Davidson | G | 93.5 | |
7) | UCLA | G | 93 | |
8) | Connecticut | C | 92.5 | |
9) | Pittsburgh | FC | 92 | |
10) | Wake Forest | PG | 91.5 | |
11) | Syracuse | PG | 90.5 | |
12) | Wake Forest | F | 90.5 | |
13) | Florida | GF | 90.5 | |
14) | Italy | PG | 90 | |
15) | Louisville | GF | 89.5 | |
16) | Missouri | PF | 89.5 | |
17) | USC | GF | 89 | |
18) | Ohio State | C | 88 | |
19) | Arizona | PF | 87.5 | |
20) | Gonzaga | F | 87.5 | |
21) | Connecticut | PG | 87.5 | |
22) | UCLA | PG | 87 | |
23) | Missouri | FC | 86.5 | |
24) | USC | PF | 86.5 | |
25) | Arizona | SF | 86 | |
26) | VCU | PG | 86 | |
27) | Brigham Young | GF | 86 | |
28) | North Carolina | PF | 85.5 | |
29) | France | G | 85.5 | |
30) | North Carolina | GF | 85 | |
31) | France | PG | 85 | |
32) | Marquette | G | 84.5 | |
33) | Duke | G | 84.5 | |
34) | Louisville | F | 84.5 | |
35) | Israel | F | 84 | |
36) | Kentucky | SG | 84 | |
37) | Virginia Military | G | 84 | |
38) | Santa Clara | C | 84 | |
39) | North Carolina | G | 83.5 | |
40) | Pittsburgh | GF | 83 | |
41) | Spain | PG | 83 | |
42) | Duquesne | PG | 83 | |
43) | Arizona State | PG | 82.5 | |
44) | Tenn-Martin | PF | 82.5 | |
45) | Central Florida | G | 82 | |
46) | North Dakota St. | SG | 81.5 | |
47) | Saint Mary's | PG | 81 | |
48) | LSU | G | 81 | |
49) | Oklahoma State | PG | 81 | |
50) | Boston College | PG | 81 | |
51) | Xavier | F | 81 | |
52) | NC State | SF | 81 | |
53) | Texas A&M | C | 81 | |
54) | Marquette | PG | 80.5 | |
55) | Florida State | G | 80.5 | |
56) | Temple | GF | 80 | |
57) | Miami (FL) | G | 80 | |
58) | DePaul | SG | 80 | |
59) | Gonzaga | PG | 80 | |
60) | Syracuse | GF | 80 | |
61) | Memphis | GF | 79.5 | |
62) | Memphis | F | 79 | |
63) | Washington | PF | 78.5 | |
64) | Pittsburgh | PG | 78 | |
65) | Cleveland State | G | 78 | |
66) | Virginia Military | G | 77.5 | |
67) | Massachusetts | PG | 77.5 | |
68) | Spain | C | 77.5 | |
69) | Utah | C | 77 | |
70) | Georgia Tech | PF | 77 | |
71) | South Carolina | PG | 76.5 | |
72) | Marquette | SG | 76.5 | |
73) | Baylor | PG | 76.5 | |
74) | Memphis | FC | 76.5 | |
75) | Saint Joseph's | PF | 76 |
| Player-Class | School | Pos. | Score |
76) | UCLA | SG | 76 | |
77) | Ukraine | C | 76 | |
78) | Washington | PG | 75 | |
79) | Massachusetts | PF | 75 | |
80) | Turkey | SF | 75 | |
81) | Michigan St. | FC | 74.5 | |
82) | Virginia Tech | GF | 74.5 | |
83) | Russia | G | 74.5 | |
84) | Villanova | PF | 73 | |
85) | Clemson | GF | 72.5 | |
86) | San Diego State | GF | 72 | |
87) | Spain | F | 72 | |
88) | Gonzaga | FC | 71.5 | |
89) | LSU | GF | 71.5 | |
90) | USC | PG | 70 | |
91) | Spain | FC | 70 | |
92) | Providence | C | 69.5 | |
93) | Chattanooga | GF | 69 | |
94) | North Dakota St. | F | 69 | |
95) | Chattanooga | F | 68.5 | |
96) | Italy | F | 68.5 | |
97) | Nebraska | SG | 68 | |
98) | Cornell | C | 66 | |
99) | Turkey | C | 66 | |
100) | Rhode Island | G | 65 | |
101) | Georgetown | SF | 65 | |
102) | Connecticut | PF | 64.5 | |
103) | UTEP | SG | 64.5 | |
104) | UCLA | PF | 64.5 | |
105) | UNLV | PG | 64.5 | |
106) | Arkansas | PG | 64 | |
107) | Xavier | SF | 63.5 | |
108) | Wyoming | PG | 63 | |
109) | Oklahoma | SF | 62.5 | |
110) | Syracuse | PG | 62 | |
111) | Saint Mary's | PF | 61.5 | |
112) | East Tenn. St. | SG | 61.5 | |
113) | Fordham | SF | 60.5 | |
114) | Xavier | GF | 60.5 | |
115) | Rhode Island | PF | 60 | |
116) | Ohio | SF | 60 | |
117) | Alabama | F | 59.5 | |
118) | Cal St. Northridge | PF | 59.5 | |
119) | Dartmouth | GF | 59.5 | |
120) | Notre Dame | PG | 59.5 | |
121) | Western Kentucky | PG | 58.5 | |
122) | UAB | G | 57 | |
123) | New Mexico | G | 56.5 | |
124) | Missouri | SG | 56 | |
125) | Duke | PG | 55.5 | |
126) | Oklahoma | PG | 55 | |
127) | Georgia Tech | G | 53.5 | |
128) | Texas | PG | 53 | |
129) | Wyoming | F | 53 | |
130) | San Diego State | GF | 52.5 | |
131) | Florida Int. | C | 52.5 | |
132) | GWU | F | 51 | |
133) | Charlotte | F | 47.5 | |
134) | Texas | FC | 45.5 | |
135) | North Carolina | G | 43.5 | |
136) | Cal St. Fullerton | PG | 43 | |
137) | Stephen Austin | FC | 41.5 | |
138) | Arizona | F | 41 | |
139) | GWU | GF | 40.5 | |
140) | Charlotte | F | 37 | |
141) | Cleveland State | SF | 36 | |
142) | North Carolina | G | 34 | |
143) | Davidson | FC | 34 | |
144) | Nebraska | G | 33.5 | |
145) | Morgan State | G | 20.5 |
(Please click HERE for the 2008 rankings)
(This is a FanPost from a member of the Sactown Royalty community. The views expressed come from the member, and not Sactown Royalty staff.)
16 recs |
36 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Great stuff.
I’m surprised Jrue Holiday is ranked so high in a system based on statistics. Rubio is a bit of a surprise as well. Were there any adjustments there?
by Charlieb on Jun 21, 2009 9:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
He has part 2 up
He’ll explain some of that in part 2.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jun 21, 2009 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting
First off, thanks for the analysis.
These rankings seem to pretty closely mirror the established draft rankings that many draft sites would have, maybe more so than last year – any particular reason? Do you think that your sort of statistical-based analysis is becoming more in vogue with draft experts and/or what NBA teams are looking at?
by coachtheus on Jun 21, 2009 9:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes
I do think more teams are using statistical analysis to help decide who they will pick but I think that stats has always played a big role. I think that basketball IQ and having solid, fundamental skills play a big role too but that’s just my opinion.
Kings rule! (They are royalty - right?)
by dalt99 on Jun 21, 2009 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks a lot for this
Great stuff. I will be actively comparing this list to the actual draft and how these players turn out.
by thelettere on Jun 21, 2009 10:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for posting Dalt
Let me put this in rec’d for ya.
Father of the "Natt this!" movement.
by Aykis16 on Jun 21, 2009 11:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Jason Thompson vs. 2009 Draft Class Bigs
With all of the talk about where Jason Thompson would rank in this Draft Class (or even to an extent his worth in potential trades), I thought I’d take a look at where he ranked last year in Dalt’s ranking system.
14 Jason Thompson-Se PF 89
A few things that might be worth mentioning:
- He was the 14th best player overall in last year’s draft class (again, using Dalt’s ranking system), and 9th among fellow bigs. The eight bigs ahead of him were Beasley, Love, Speights, Anderson, Hendrix, Jawai, Hickson, & Randolph, respectively.
- His score of 89 would put him tied for 17th (with Demar DeRosen) in this year’s draft class.
- His 89 would also put him 6th among bigs (ignoring GF’s), which shows that this is not a strong class for big men.
JT’s ranking versus the 2009 Draft Class places him lower overall but higher at his position. While this obviously shows the lack of bigs in this draft class, does that mean that this year isn’t as weak at the top as has been rumored (last year’s class was pretty impressive)?
Just some interesting tidbits considering the talk over the last few weeks about JT’s worth in regards to being included in various rumored trades.
by smgmatt on Jun 21, 2009 1:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think this draft class isn't THAT weak
What it doesn’t have is that identifiable surefire franchise level star in Derrick Rose at the top.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jun 21, 2009 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
A lot of interesting players that are still unproven. Some of the top prospects are “tweeners”. Combo guards like Evans, Curry and Holiday. Also there are a bunch of athletic raw talent players like Griffin, DeRosan, Thabeet, Jennings and Hill.
Kings rule! (They are royalty - right?)
by dalt99 on Jun 21, 2009 6:27 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well said
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jun 21, 2009 6:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bigs
Yah, the big man class this year is not as strong. Besides Griffin and Thabeet, there isn’t too much to get excited about. Mullens could become special. Blair may also be better than people think but that’s about it. Clark and Daye are very intriguing players but I don’t know if they will be power forwards or not.
Kings rule! (They are royalty - right?)
by dalt99 on Jun 21, 2009 6:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
One thing I'd like to add
For the guys with high motor…add +5 points to total score. For guys with low motor…-5 points.
by CloudyEyes on Jun 21, 2009 6:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Good idea
I’ve thought about something like that but it’s very hard to be accurate with that sort of tweak. It’s very subjective and I try not to have to factor in my opinions on any of the players to effect the scores. I will let you, the fans, and the scouts figure out if the player’s motor adds to their value or not.
Kings rule! (They are royalty - right?)
by dalt99 on Jun 21, 2009 8:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Side note...
Calathes at 90.5. He’ll be a value at our picks.
by CloudyEyes on Jun 21, 2009 6:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Very true
If the Kings can pick him up at #31 I would be extremely happy. He is going to Greece next year so he won’t be available until the 2010-11 season
Kings rule! (They are royalty - right?)
by dalt99 on Jun 21, 2009 8:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
for a team hoping to limit $ this makes great sense
unfortunately, the Kings are not the only team with this same thought process.
by betweentheeyes on Jun 22, 2009 6:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is excellent work, kudos to you for the effort. One question, though, how could Ricky Rubio be the second best player with a score of 100 based on statistical analysis when he shoots only 40%, his assist/TO ratio is subpar, and he is not a great scorer?
I know Rubio excels at total assists and steals, and rebounds, but from pure stats perspective, I don’t see how he could be ahead of someone like, say, Stephen Curry, who lead the nation in scoring, basically. Can you elaborate on how Rubio is better than Curry based on your formula?
by bench_blob on Jun 21, 2009 7:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Rubio
I elaborated in depth on my second post but basically it’s because he is 18 years old and he is playing against professional players of slightly better talent than basic NCAA level talent.
By the way, an assist to turnover rate of 2.0 for an 18 year old point guard is exceptional.
Kings rule! (They are royalty - right?)
by dalt99 on Jun 21, 2009 8:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Especially when he had like a 1.15 ast to Turnover rate the year prior
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jun 21, 2009 8:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
oops
reply is below somewhere. :)
Kings rule! (They are royalty - right?)
by dalt99 on Jun 21, 2009 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's all good homey
We all do it from time to time. It’s the habit that we must be vigilant against. :p
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jun 22, 2009 7:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who? Rubio?
Actually, last year in the Eurocup his a/t rate was 1.7 and in the ACB it was 1.9
Kings rule! (They are royalty - right?)
by dalt99 on Jun 21, 2009 10:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I as looking at the ACB stats for the 07 08 season
But, I must have been mistaken dalt. He had nearly a 2 to 1 Ast to TO ratio as a 17 year old with Rudy Fernandez as well. (I think it says quite a bit that hasn’t dropped despite Fernandez no longer player with him at Joventut.)
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jun 22, 2009 7:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What’s the breakdown of your points scale?
by bignerd on Jun 22, 2009 6:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Points
Points do not have any more value than assists or rebounds. Where they get their value is with the combination of FG% shooting, free throw attempts and 3-pt percentage. Points are not any more valuable in and of themselves. Douby was one of the top scoring leaders in college with 27.7 ppg per 40 minutes. Hakeem Olajuwon and Magic Johnson only averaged 19.7 and 18.9 points respectively per 40 in college but became two of the greatest players (and dang fine scorers) in NBA history.
Kings rule! (They are royalty - right?)
by dalt99 on Jun 22, 2009 8:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Um...
I believe he wanted a breakdown of your ranking system (e.g. Griffin got 103 “points”) . . . but I could be wrong.
That’s how I read it, anyway.
by smgmatt on Jun 22, 2009 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh the Score?
I call it a Score. I have the breakdown of the scores right before the list of players ^^^^
Kings rule! (They are royalty - right?)
by dalt99 on Jun 22, 2009 8:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I read the list of factors that contribute to the score, but how did Blake Griffin add up to 103 . . . if you can give an example?
by bignerd on Jun 22, 2009 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah I see...
OK. Be ready to be bored and maybe confused.
It’s based on a bunch of graphs and formulas. It’s not a simple PER number or efficiency formula.
It basically breaks down like this:
1) First one is easy. I add up points, assists and rebounds, divide the total by the minutes and multiply that number by 40. Add them up, you get number of 47.3 for Griffin. That is a simple step.
2) Now it gets more insane. I have a formula that I call the “Michael Jordan formula” that looks at the importance of the assist and rebounds per position. For a power forward/center, Griffin’s formula is assists divided by rebounds muliplied by 15. Griffin’s number is a 2.4. Add that to the 47.3 for a total so far of 49.7.
3) Now I have a strength of schedule (SoS) formula that takes points, rebounds and assists and divides them by the school’s (Oklahoma in Griffin’s case) SoS modifier. Oklahoma’s modifier is 2.25. So now that is 47.3 divided by 2.25 for a total of 21.1. (21.1 + 49.7 = 70.8)
4) I have a graph for FG% based on height. Griffin’s 65.4 FG% at 6’10" gets him a bonus modifier of 9.25. Add it to his total. (9.25 + 70.8 = 80.1)
5) Next is the overall height for position modifier. On another graph his height/position modifier is -2.5. (80.1 – 2.5 = 77.6)
6) Next is a graph based on steals per game relative to his height and position combined. His steal average of 1.3 gives him a bonus of 1.08. (1.08 + 77.6 = 78.7)
7) Next is a graph based on blocks per game based on his height and position combined. His block average of 1.4 gives him a negative of 0.7. (77.6 – 0.7 = 77.0)
Lastly I go to a CLASS chart that takes his total of 77 and ranks that number among all other sophomores in history. The chart is from 0 to 105. A 77 gives him a score of 103 on that chart for sophomores. A senior with a 77 total would score at 101. Freshman and sophomores get a slightly higher final score due to their potential since most players improve each year.
Kings rule! (They are royalty - right?)
by dalt99 on Jun 22, 2009 10:46 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
There are other bonuses and negatives as well
If his 3-pt shooting was over 35% with a minimum of 20% of his shots being threes (for PF/Centers only) he would get a bonus. If he shot less than 50% from the free-throw line or was overweight or extremely weak in the agility results at the combine, he would receive a negative modifier. He didn’t qualify or any of those.
Kings rule! (They are royalty - right?)
by dalt99 on Jun 22, 2009 10:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you for posting this dalt
I wanted to see how you broke down the formula step by step myself.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jun 23, 2009 2:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why do I feel that
Colonel Sanders just gave up the KFC recipe?
With the 4th pick in the 2009 NBA Draft, the Sacramento Kings select Rickeke Flynenningday, point guard from Europe, Memphis, Syracuse, UCLA and Parts Unknown.
by otis29 on Jun 23, 2009 5:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now
Run around the bat 3 times, take a swig of some Jack & Coke, and repeat the whole formula 5 times for our viewing pleasure. :)
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jun 23, 2009 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't worry
He only really listed about 8 or 9 herbs & spices.
Secret’s still safe.
by smgmatt on Jun 23, 2009 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
