Are there examples of guys who a) had mediocre college/international stats but b) looked amazing in the workout videos and athletic measurements and c) were smart early lottery picks? I'm skeptical about that being a good drafting strategy but I'm not saying the examples don't exist. I just couldn't come up with any off the top of my head.
I guess either my question was unclear or my suspicion was right that we should not give more weight to these videos than actual college/international in-game stats.
I think the times people have overvalued workouts over stats have been bad, particularly for European guys who folks haven't seen in game action as much.
I do remember that Emeka Okafor was the hands down consensus #1 pick based on his college play, but Dwight wowed them in workouts and wound up going #1 to Orlando, which you would have to say was the right pick.
Though I think workouts were why a guy like Chris Paul fell to 4, behind Marvin Williams (insane!) and Deron Williams (now looks insane, though people used to debate who was better)
I'm hoping Mudiay knocks the socks off the Sixers and Russell looks weak and slow in their workout. We'll see!
Off the top of my head, Russell Westbrook. His stat line was not amazing. That said, he was considered a top defensive tweener based on athleticism. I can remember what the videos showed of him, but to half answer the question, mediocre stats are not determinative to the extent that elite athleticism exists IF player development continues in the NBA. If I am agreeing with you, for me, the videos of practice mean nothing to me. But combine stats mean something to me.
Russell Westbrook Stat Summary - UCLA Bruins:
Season GP MPG PPG FG% 3FG% FT% APG RPG BPG SPG
2007-08 39 33.8 12.7 46.5 33.8 71.3 4.3 3.9 0.2 1.6
2006-07 36 9 3.4 45.7 40.9 54.8 0.7 0.8 0 0.4
Career 75 21.9 8.3 46.3 35.3 68.5 2.5 2.4 0.1 1
This would support the Stein campaign, but for me, I am still leaning toward Hezonja.
crzymdups wrote:I think the times people have overvalued workouts over stats have been bad, particularly for European guys who folks haven't seen in game action as much.I do remember that Emeka Okafor was the hands down consensus #1 pick based on his college play, but Dwight wowed them in workouts and wound up going #1 to Orlando, which you would have to say was the right pick.
Though I think workouts were why a guy like Chris Paul fell to 4, behind Marvin Williams (insane!) and Deron Williams (now looks insane, though people used to debate who was better)
I'm hoping Mudiay knocks the socks off the Sixers and Russell looks weak and slow in their workout. We'll see!
Russell supposedly had an amazing workout for the sixers. Damn!
EwingsGlass wrote:Off the top of my head, Russell Westbrook. His stat line was not amazing. That said, he was considered a top defensive tweener based on athleticism. I can remember what the videos showed of him, but to half answer the question, mediocre stats are not determinative to the extent that elite athleticism exists IF player development continues in the NBA. If I am agreeing with you, for me, the videos of practice mean nothing to me. But combine stats mean something to me. Russell Westbrook Stat Summary - UCLA Bruins:
Season GP MPG PPG FG% 3FG% FT% APG RPG BPG SPG
2007-08 39 33.8 12.7 46.5 33.8 71.3 4.3 3.9 0.2 1.6
2006-07 36 9 3.4 45.7 40.9 54.8 0.7 0.8 0 0.4
Career 75 21.9 8.3 46.3 35.3 68.5 2.5 2.4 0.1 1
This would support the Stein campaign, but for me, I am still leaning toward Hezonja.
Thanks. I still suspect it's rare but that looks like a pretty good example actually.
I definitely agree with your statement that mediocre college stats are not automatically determinative of a poor NBA career. Some guys mature and work hard and grow beyond what could have been projected from their college stats. I just was (and still am) questioning that these workout videos are a good way to identify which guys will have that growth.
We hate on Shump but he was better than Chris Singleton who many had ahead of him before the Workouts. He hasn't reached what many thought was his max potential but he is still very much the defensive guard he was drafted to be. He hasn't achieved the hoped for offensive progress.
nixluva wrote:We hate on Shump but he was better than Chris Singleton who many had ahead of him before the Workouts. He hasn't reached what many thought was his max potential but he is still very much the defensive guard he was drafted to be. He hasn't achieved the hoped for offensive progress.
OK but Shump doesn't meet the A or C criteria in my question.
basically all of the ucla guards and SF under ben howland over performed their college stat line... you also have ariza, collison, jordan farmar...
FistOfOakley wrote:basically all of the ucla guards and SF under ben howland over performed their college stat line... you also have ariza, collison, jordan farmar...
Yeah, clearly overperforming the college stat line happens. That was only part of my question though. I'm looking for instances where a) the workout video is what indicated the guy would outperform their college stat line and b) it was a smart gamble with an early lottery pick. I include point b because gambling with a pick in the 20s or later is quite different from gambling with a pick this high.
workouts are not indicative of much... it's such a small slice of what a player actually is...
i can't really think of anyone.. pau gasol also blew away his workout his with the grizz but he put up a decent statline in europe... but then you also have darko... kg blew away his workout.. i think they said he touched the top of the backboard on consecutive jumps...
Mike Conley is the first guy I could think of.
I think Conley had pretty good college stats, especially for a freshman. If you switch the rbs and assists, his production looks pretty similar to Winslow's.
I remember Conley was thought of as a bit of a disappointment at first. Took him a few years to adapt his game and learn how to run an NBA team.
Bonn1997 wrote:I think Conley had pretty good college stats, especially for a freshman. If you switch the rbs and assists, his production looks pretty similar to Winslow's.
Yeah, but they were cancelled out by his shooting stats. A lot of people thought he was a reach when Memphis picked.
BigDaddyG wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:I think Conley had pretty good college stats, especially for a freshman. If you switch the rbs and assists, his production looks pretty similar to Winslow's.
Yeah, but they were cancelled out by his shooting stats. A lot of people thought he was a reach when Memphis picked.
Shooting stats? I'd disagree. His 2 point shooting (58%) was phenomenal. Yeah, his 3 point shooting was low but you're talking about less than 70 total shots. His overall efficiency was excellent (because of the 2s). He had a true shooting % of .584 and effective field goal % of .552. Winslow is at .570 and .559 for those two stats.
Bonn1997 wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:I think Conley had pretty good college stats, especially for a freshman. If you switch the rbs and assists, his production looks pretty similar to Winslow's.
Yeah, but they were cancelled out by his shooting stats. A lot of people thought he was a reach when Memphis picked.
Shooting stats? I'd disagree. His 2 point shooting (58%) was phenomenal. Yeah, his 3 point shooting was low but you're talking about less than 70 total shots. His overall efficiency was excellent (because of the 2s). He had a true shooting % of .584 and effective field goal % of .552. Winslow is at .570 and .559 for those two stats.
winslow looks a little slowish for a wing ... he makes me think of ron artest
Bonn1997 wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:I think Conley had pretty good college stats, especially for a freshman. If you switch the rbs and assists, his production looks pretty similar to Winslow's.
Yeah, but they were cancelled out by his shooting stats. A lot of people thought he was a reach when Memphis picked.
Shooting stats? I'd disagree. His 2 point shooting (58%) was phenomenal. Yeah, his 3 point shooting was low but you're talking about less than 70 total shots. His overall efficiency was excellent (because of the 2s). He had a true shooting % of .584 and effective field goal % of .552. Winslow is at .570 and .559 for those two stats.
Do your 2 point shooting stats consider whether they were jump shots or drives to the basket?
I would think you have look at where the shot is coming from. 3s are 3s, no matter how you slice it...not the same with a 2pt shot.
Winslow probably got to the basket a lot, and hit on his 3s at a good clip, but I have doubts about him continuing to shoot the 3 with as much success from the longer distance, and with more defensive pressure, and he is not just going to overpower NBA players, or drive by the smaller players he will face at SF. His inability to hit a shot off the dribble is documented, and I don't know much about his midrange game, but I can't think he took a ton of midrange jumpers this year, but I have no proof of this.
2p fg% is a good barometer of their ability to get and make high percentage shots near the basket... if they're shooting a lot of midrange shots then they're going to shoot a lower percentage and also have more difficulty making other shots...
if they're good at driving .. they should have a high 2p fg% .500 is a good measure for guards .550 for big men in college...
WaltLongmire wrote:
Do your 2 point shooting stats consider whether they were jump shots or drives to the basket?I would think you have look at where the shot is coming from. 3s are 3s, no matter how you slice it...not the same with a 2pt shot.
Winslow probably got to the basket a lot, and hit on his 3s at a good clip, but I have doubts about him continuing to shoot the 3 with as much success from the longer distance, and with more defensive pressure, and he is not just going to overpower NBA players, or drive by the smaller players he will face at SF. His inability to hit a shot off the dribble is documented, and I don't know much about his midrange game, but I can't think he took a ton of midrange jumpers this year, but I have no proof of this.
winslow didn't shoot a ton of midrange.. i think 80% of his shots were either 3s or in the restricted area... that's good... it means he's taking the most efficient shots on the floor...
russell took a lot of midrange shots but that's not necessarily good... if you're not confident in your finishing ability you will pull up a lot more often..
Bonn1997 wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:I think Conley had pretty good college stats, especially for a freshman. If you switch the rbs and assists, his production looks pretty similar to Winslow's.
Yeah, but they were cancelled out by his shooting stats. A lot of people thought he was a reach when Memphis picked.
Shooting stats? I'd disagree. His 2 point shooting (58%) was phenomenal. Yeah, his 3 point shooting was low but you're talking about less than 70 total shots. His overall efficiency was excellent (because of the 2s). He had a true shooting % of .584 and effective field goal % of .552. Winslow is at .570 and .559 for those two stats.
He couldn't shoot threes or free throws at pro level. He shot the three worse Jon Wall. He was a solid,not spectacular athete, so no one expected him to be able to score at the rim like he did in college. Winslow s 6'5". That appeared to be the case as most people considered him to be a bust during his first few years. Even now, his true shooting percentages haven't been anything to write home about.
