A statistical look at the 2009 NBA Draft

June 16, 1:03 PMCollege Sports ExaminerJacob Osterhout

Previous Next

1 comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the College Sports Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Scouts hope Jrue Holiday excels more in the pros than he did in college.

Now that we know which players are staying in the NBA Draft and which are going back to school, it's time to get serious with our draft analysis.

The fact is, in the NBA Draft, perceived potential outweighs past performance. Many players are underdeveloped, yet show such potential for future greatness that teams are willing to overlook their brief and mediocre college careers.

Often, young unproven players who have failed to make much of an impression in college basketball are picked ahead of veteran players that were named conference MVPs simply because the unknown is so alluring to NBA GMs that it trumps proven talent. The justification is that a shot at a bonafied superstar is worth the risk of passing on a quality player with a pre-determined talent set.

The hunt for the next Michael Jordan basically turns the Draft into a clown show where reason takes a backseat to the basketball equivalent of alchemy.

Let's take out all the mumbo jumbo about size and speed and NBA potential and take a blind look at the stat lines of college basketball players in this year's NBA Draft.

Order top guards will be picked (according to Chad Ford)

1. C-USA, 17.1 ppg, 3.9 apg, 5.4 rpg, .274 3P%
2. Pac-10, 20.1 ppg, 4.2 apg, 1.25 A/T, .356 3P%
3. SoCon, 28.6 ppg, 5.6 apg, 4.4 rpg, .387 3P%
4. Pac-10, 8.5 ppg, 3.7 apg, 1.72 A/T, .307 3P%
5. Big East, 17.4 ppg, 6.7 apg, 1.97 A/T, .319 3P%
6. Pac-10, 13.9 ppg, 5.7 rpg, .70 A/T, 1.167 3P%
7. ACC, 16.6 ppg, 2.5 apg, 1.14 A/T, .336 3P%
8. CAA, 22.4 ppg, 6.2 apg, 2.08 A/T .361 3P%
9. ACC, 18.8 ppg, 3.5 apg, 1.06 A/T, .441 3P%
10. Big East, 12.5 ppg, 5 apg, 8.6 rpg, .385 3P%
11. ACC, 15.9 ppg, 6.6 apg, 3.48 A/T, .472 3P%

Guards not selected

• WCC 18.4 ppg, 3.9 apg, 1.35 A/T, .338 3P%
• SEC, 23.7 ppg, 1.8 apg, .88 A/T, .406 3P%
• ACC, 15.8 ppg, 2.7 apg, 4.9 rpg, .417 3P%

Just looking at the stats, the fourth and sixth selected guards, both from the Pac-10 seem to be going way too high. Neither displays scoring prowess to make them a reliable shooting guard, nor the assist capabilities that would make them a point guard.

The first guard selected certainly does not have the most impressive stats from last season. The .274 shooting percentage from downtown is especially dubious.

It also appears that the ninth selected pick should be going higher. He plays in a major conference, not only averaging close to 20 points a game, but 3.5 assists as well. Also, how is a player that shot over 40% from behind the arc and averaged 24 ppg in the SEC not going in the first round?

Order top forwards will be picked (according to Chad Ford)

1. Big 12, 22.7 ppg, 14.4 rpg, 2.3 apg, .375 3P%
2. Big East, 13.7 ppg, 10.7 rpg, .640 FG%, 4.6 bpg
3. Pac 10, 18.3 ppg, 11 rpg, .537 FG%, 1.7 bpg
4. ACC, 20.7 ppg, 8.1 rpg, .514 FG%, .391 3P%
5. WCC, 12.7 ppg, 6.8 rpg, .429 3P%, 2.1 bpg
6. Big East, 14.2 ppg, 3.2 apg, 8.7 rpg, .326 3P%
7. Big East, 15.7 ppg, 12.3 rpg, .593 FG%, 1 bpg
8. Big Ten, 8.8 ppg, 4.7 rpg, .638 FG%, 1.1 bpg
9. Big East, 19.2 ppg, 6.3 rpg, .502 FG%, .372 3P%
10. ACC, 14.8 ppg, 8.4 rpg, .539 FG%, 1.5 bpg
11. Big East, 13.6 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 1.3 apg, .385 3P%
12. Pac-10, 18 ppg, 3.4 apg, 6.2 rpg, .399 3P%
13. A-10, 13.7 ppg, 6.1 rpg, .433 3P%, .9 bpg

Forwards not selected

• Pac-10, 14.3 ppg, 9 rpg, .601 FG%, 2.9 bpg
• Big 12, 9.8 ppg, 7.8 rpg, .665 FG%, 1.6 bpg

One of these players is not like the others, one of these players just doesn't belong. According to his stat line, the eight picked big man should go back to Five Star basketball camp.The fifth pick big man also seems to be going high. Even competing in the WCC, he only managed to put up 13 ppg - although the high three-point percentage is encouraging.

The seventh pick is underrated according to the numbers. He's pushing 16 ppg and double digit rebounds, which is better than most of the players that are expected to be picked ahead of him, including the sixth pick, who played in the same league but didn't excel nearly as much.

The 13th pick seems weak in both scoring and rebounding, and while his three point percentage is high, it's a stretch to take him in the first round based on his play last season in the A-10.

Guards

1. Tyreke Evans, shooting guard, Memphis
2. James Harden, shooting guard, ASU
3. Stephen Curry, point guard, Davidson
4. Jrue Holiday, point guard, UCLA
5. Jonny Flynn, point guard, Syracuse
6. DeMar DeRozan, shooting guard, USC
7. Gerald Henderson, shooting guard, Duke
8. Eric Maynor, point guard, VCU
9. Jeff Teague, point guard, Wake Forest
10. Terrence Williams, shooting guard, Louisville
11. Ty Lawson, point guard, UNC

Guards not selected

• Patrick Mills, point guard, St. Mary's
• Jodie Meeks, shooting guard, Kentucky
• Wayne Ellington, shooting guard, North Carolina

Forwards

1. Blake Griffin, forward, Oklahoma
2. Hasheem Thabeet, center, Connecticut
3. Jordan Hill, forward, Arizona
4. Tyler Hansbrough, forward, UNC
5. Austin Daye, forward, Gonzaga
6. Earl Clark, forward Louisville
7. Dejuan Blair, forward, Pittsburgh
8. B.J. Mullens, center, Ohio State
9. Sam Young, small forward, Pittsburgh
10. James Johnson, forward, Wake Forest
11. DaJuan Summers, forward, Georgetown
12. Chase Budinger, forward Arizona
13. Derrick Brown, forward, Xavier

Forwards not selected

• Taj Gibson, forward, USC
• Chinemelu Elonu, forward/center, Texas A&M