NBA
NBA

2011 NBA Mock Draft: Impact of Top Rated Prospects

| by David Berri

The next big event in the NBA is the draft. Over the next week I am hoping to post a few stories on the draft. And I want to start with something James Brocato posted a few weeks ago at Shut Up and Jam.  

In looking at these numbers, keep in mind (as James notes) that there is a correlation between college performance and what we see in the NBA. But it is not a perfect correlation. So players who perform well in college may not perform well in the NBA. And those who do not play well in college, may play well in NBA. 

That being said, what we see in college often does indicate what we will see in the NBA.  And that means that when you see a player with relatively poor numbers, a red flag should be raised in the minds of NBA decision-makers. After all, if a player didn’t perform in college, that might suggest he will struggle against the better player in the NBA.

Okay, enough of the cavaets. Here is the analysis from James.

The following table shows the Position Adjusted Win Score per 40 minutes (PAWS40) for the top 100 prospects for the 2011 NBA Draft (as ranked by DraftExpress). Win Score is a relatively simple player evaluation metric created by Dave Berri. Win Score is calculated by the following equation:

PTS + REB + STL + ½*BLK + ½*AST – FGA – ½*FTA – TO – ½*PF.

DraftExpress reports the raw win scores for every college basketball player. Position Adjusted Win Score is calculated by subtracting the average win score at the particular player’s position, then adding the overall average win score. Dave Berri has provided numbers for average win scores for college basketball players, but I came up with slightly different numbers.

However, while the numbers themselves are different, the position differences are nearly identical relatively. The important number for this table is 7.1, the Win Score of the average player. Thus, all players who have PAWS greater than 7.1 are above average, and all less than 7.1 are below average.

DX RankPlayerAgePositionHeightWeightTeamPAWS40
1 Kyrie Irving 19 PG 6’3″ 190 Duke 13.6
2 Derrick Williams 19 PF 6’9″ 250 Arizona 12.7
3 Kemba Walker 21 PG 6’1″ 185 Uconn 10.6
5 Brandon Knight 19 PG/SG 6’3″ 180 Kentucky 6.3
10 Alec Burks 19 SG 6’6″ 195 Colorado 10.7
11 Kawhi Leonard 19 SF 6’7″ 225 SDSU 13.8
12 Marcus Morris 21 PF 6’9″ 230 Kansas 11.6
13 Markieff Morris 21 PF 6’10″ 240 Kansas 13.5
14 Tristan Thompson 20 PF 6’9″ 230 Texas 8.1
15 Tobias Harris 18 SF/PF 6’8″ 225 Tennessee 8.0
16 Jordan Hamilton 20 SF 6’9″ 230 Texas 11.0
17 Jimmer Fredette 22 PG 6’2″ 195 BYU 9.3
19 Klay Thompson 21 SG/SF 6’7″ 205 Washington St. 8.6
20 Chris Singleton 21 SF/PF 6’9″ 230 Florida St. 7.8
21 Kenneth Faried 21 PF 6’8″ 225 Morehead St. 17.2
23 Reggie Jackson 21 PG 6’3″ 208 Boston College 4.7
24 Nolan Smith 22 PG/SG 6’4″ 190 Duke 9.4
25 Tyler Honeycutt 20 SF 6’8″ 190 UCLA 7.3
26 Travis Leslie 21 SG 6’4″ 205 Georgia 9.0
27 Justin Harper 21 PF 6’9″ 230 Richmond 9.5
29 Josh Selby 20 SG 6’3″ 195 Kansas 3.8
30 Trey Thompkins 20 PF 6’10″ 240 Georgia 11.3
31 Jereme Richmond 19 SF 6’7″ 210 Illinois 6.0
32 Darius Morris 20 PG/SG 6’5″ 190 Michigan 8.5
34 JaJuan Johnson 22 PF 6’10″ 220 Purdue 9.6
35 Iman Shumpert 20 PG/SG 6’6″ 220 G Tech 10.0
36 Charles Jenkins 22 PG/SG 6’3″ 220 Hofstra 11.8
37 Nikola Vucevic 20 PF/C 7’0″ 260 USC 10.9
38 Kyle Singler 23 SF/PF 6’9″ 225 Duke 5.9
39 Keith Benson 22 PF/C 6’11″ 220 Oakland 11.6
40 Jimmy Butler 21 SF/PF 6’8″ 220 Marquette 9.9
41 E’Twaun Moore 22 SG 6’4″ 191 Purdue 7.8
42 Shelvin Mack 21 PG 6’2″ 210 Butler 7.1
43 Malcolm Lee 20 SG 6’5″ 200 UCLA 5.6
44 Norris Cole 22 PG 6’2″ 175 Cleveland St. 11.4
45 Ben Hansbrough 23 PG/SG 6’3″ 203 Notre Dame 10.5
46 Jordan Williams 20 C 6’9″ 250 Maryland 11.5
47 Jon Leuer 22 PF 6’11″ 225 Wisconsin 10.0
48 David Lighty 22 SG 6’6″ 215 Ohio St. 7.3
49 Demetri McCamey 22 PG 6’3″ 205 Illinois 8.4
50 Isaiah Thomas 22 PG 5’10″ 190 Washington 8.2
52 Marshon Brooks 22 SG 6’5″ 195 Providence 9.9
53 Andrew Goudelock 22 PG 6’3″ 200 Charleston 8.4
54 Justin Holiday 22 SG/SF 6’6″ 185 Washington 8.9
55 DeAndre Liggins 23 SG/SF 6’6″ 205 Kentucky 6.8
56 Scotty Hopson 21 SG 6’7″ 205 Tennessee 4.3
57 Chandler Parsons 22 SF 6’10″ 220 Florida 10.7
58 Malcolm Thomas 22 SF/PF 6’9″ 225 SDSU 10.6
60 Greg Smith 20 C 6’9″ 250 Fresno St. 9.1
61 Cory Joseph 19 PG/SG 6’3″ 185 Texas 7.6
64 Rick Jackson 21 PF/C 6’9″ 240 Syracuse 11.7
65 Jamie Skeen 23 PF 6’8″ 240 VCU 9.1
66 Gilbert Brown 23 SG/SF 6’6″ 200 Pittsburgh 8.0
68 Damian Saunders 22 SF/PF 6’7″ 205 Duquesne 10.0
72 Jon Diebler 22 SG 6’6″ 200 Ohio St. 9.9
73 Brad Wanamaker 21 PG/SG 6’4″ 210 Pittsburgh 8.9
74 Vernon Macklin 24 PF 6’9″ 245 Florida 5.8
75 Matthew Bryan-Amaning 23 PF 6’9″ 240 Washington 9.5
76 Josh Harrellson 22 C 6’10″ 275 Kentucky 11.8
77 Willie Reed* 21 PF 6’9″ 220 St. Louis 10.4
78 Gary Flowers 25 PF 6’8″ 214 Southern Miss 8.6
82 Jacob Pullen 21 PG/SG 6’0″ 200 Kansas St. 7.2
83 Chris Wright 22 SF/PF 6’8″ 214 Dayton 6.6
84 LaceDarius Dunn 23 SG 6’4″ 190 Baylor 5.7
87 Gary McGhee 22 C 6’11″ 250 Pittsburgh 11.7
88 Jerai Grant 22 PF 6’8″ 220 Clemson 11.4
89 Lavoy Allen 22 PF 6’9″ 225 Temple 8.0
90 D.J. Kennedy 21 SF 6’6″ 210 St. John’s 10.2
92 Matt Howard 22 PF 6’8″ 225 Butler 9.6
93 Kalin Lucas 21 PG 6’0″ 180 Michigan St. 4.7
95 Durrell Summers 22 SG 6’4″ 195 Michigan St. 4.0
96 Will Coleman 22 PF/C 6’9″ 250 Memphis 6.9
97 Mike Davis 22 PF/C 6’9″ 210 Illinois 7.8

A couple of notes on these numbers:
- I didn’t include players who did not play at an American college in this post. I plan on evaluating those players in a future post.
- The numbers are adjusted for team pace.
- The numbers are NOT adjusted for strength of schedule. So be careful when looking at players from mid-major teams because their numbers are probably inflated
- The numbers are not perfect because I am not 100% sure every position is perfect. I did my best to estimate each player’s position.
- The positions listed for each player represent what Draft Express lists the player as, not necessarily what he played in college. For these numbers, I used the position the player played in college.

Here are the top 5 per position (position as in what is listed at Draft Express):

Centers     
Player Age Height Weight College PAWS40
Josh Harrellson 22 6’10″ 275 Kentucky 11.8
Gary McGhee 22 6’11″ 250 Pittsburgh 11.7
Keith Benson 22 6’11″ 220 Oakland 11.6
Jordan Williams 20 6’9″ 250 Maryland 11.5
Nikola Vucevic 20 7’0″ 260 USC 10.9
           
Power Forwards          
Kenneth Faried 21 6’8″ 225 Morehead St. 17.2
Markieff Morris 21 6’10″ 240 Kansas 13.5
Derrick Williams 19 6’9″ 250 Arizona 12.7
Rick Jackson 21 6’9″ 240 Syracuse 11.7
Marcus Morris 21 6’9″ 230 Kansas 11.6
           
Small Forwards          
Kawhi Leonard 19 6’7″ 225 SDSU 13.8
Jordan Hamilton 20 6’9″ 230 Texas 11.0
Chandler Parsons 22 6’10″ 220 Florida 10.7
D.J. Kennedy 21 6’6″ 210 St. John’s 10.2
Damian Saunders 22 6’7″ 205 Duquesne 10.0
           
Shooting Guards          
Alec Burks 19 6’6″ 195 Colorado 10.7
Marshon Brooks 22 6’5″ 195 Providence 9.9
Jon Diebler 22 6’6″ 200 Ohio St. 9.9
Nolan Smith 22 6’4″ 190 Duke 9.4
Travis Leslie 21 6’4″ 205 Georgia 9.0
           
Point Guards          
Kyrie Irving 19 6’3″ 190 Duke 13.6
Charles Jenkins 22 6’3″ 220 Hofstra 11.8
Norris Cole 22 6’2″ 175 Cleveland St. 11.4
Kemba Walker 21 6’1″ 185 Uconn 10.6
Ben Hansbrough 23 6’3″ 203 Notre Dame 10.5

*Willie Reed did not play in the 10-11 season, so his 09-10 numbers are included.

While college production does not necessarily predict NBA production, I think there are quite a few interesting things about these numbers. Some highly touted point guards, especially Brandon Knight, were fairly unproductive in college. There don’t seem to be that many extremely productive players, although Faried really stands out. Of course, he didn’t play in a quality league, but to have numbers that stand out like that would make me very willing to take a chance on him, especially if I’m a late lottery team. Irving looks like the #1 pick, but he only played a handful of games, so the numbers aren’t entirely conclusive. Finally, other than Brandon Knight, all of the American players projected in the lottery look to be very productive.

-James