↓ Login/Logout ↓
Schedule/Results
↓ Roster ↓
Salaries
↓ Archives ↓
↓ About ↓

Detroit Pistons #DraftDreams: C.J. McCollum

Discuss Draft Dreams on Twitter using the #DraftDreams hashtag

Info

  • Measurables: 6-foot-3, 197-pounds senior guard from Lehigh

  • Key Stats: 23.9 points, 2.9 assists, five rebounds, 1.4 steals per game; shot 49.5 percent from the field and 51.6 percent from 3-point range

  • Projected: Top-10 pick

  • Hickory High similarity score

Random Fact

C.J. McCollum has won the hearts of many avid basketball fans and bloggers on Twitter by answering questions about style of play in a very intelligent manner. This is an exchange between McCollum and Timberwolves fan Patrick Fenelon on Twitter.

Fits with the Pistons because …

The Pistons need a player who can create their own shot, and McCollum is the perfect man for that. Not only was McCollum a great shot creator at Lehigh, he had a true shooting percentage of 63 in his senior year, leading him to be named DraftExpress’ most efficient point guard in the country. A player who shoots a lot while still making shots is a luxury the Pistons don’t have at the moment.

McCollum, who played four seasons of college basketball, seems relatively ready for the NBA. So, Joe Dumars – who might need to make the playoffs this season to keep his job – could draft McCollum and see him join the Pistons’ rotation almost immediately

Doesn’t fit with the Pistons because …

Brandon Knight and Rodney Stuckey are under contract for next season, and adding McCollum as a third combo guard could create even more confusion in the backcourt. McCollum-Knight would make a rather small backcourt, and that’s a pairing of the two most promising players of the three. Jose Calderon could help smooth the backcourt rotation as a true point guard, but it’s unclear whether he’ll re-sign.

McCollum he was the No. 1 offensive option at Lehigh, so he didn’t show his passing abilities often. The Pistons need a guard who can get the ball to Greg Monroe and Andre Drummond. McCollum hasn’t proven himself as a bad passer, but it’ll be a risk if the Pistons take him.

From the Experts

Chad Ford:

In the workout I saw, McCollum showed that he won’t have any issues with the deeper NBA 3-point line. He shot roughly 70 percent from the NBA 3 in drills I saw. He has an effortless stroke. While his 3-point percentages were often inconsistent during his career, it likely has more to do with the quality of shots he got at Lehigh than his stroke.

DraftExpress:

McCollum has solid defensive fundamentals on the whole, doing a nice job closing out shooters, finding a happy medium when defending the weak side, and seldom giving up on plays. His lack of great physical tools limit him in one-on-one situations against quicker or taller players at either guard position, and he struggles at times fighting through screens, but plays with good intensity for a player asked to do so much on the offensive end.

On film

52 Comments

  • Jun 12, 201311:10 am
    by Ozzie-Moto

    Reply

    If you promise me that they will trade Stuckey and Knight and secure a taller shooting guard i might be on board but the lack of clarity of guards roles over the last 5 years says a lot about THE LACK OF CLARITY of the Pistons management in general. 

  • Jun 12, 201311:44 am
    by Keith

    Reply

    I think McCollum’s value has everything to do with the strength of his shooting. If you believe he is an elite shooter at the NBA level (40%+), then you don’t worry too much about fitting him in. As a shot creator it’s unlikely he would be worse than Stuckey or Knight. As a shooter, if you think he is elite, you don’t care about the brick-laying Stuckey or inconsistent Knight, and install McCollum as the SG. The potential overlapping skillset with Knight is problematic, but again dependent on that shot. Knight was above average from three as a rookie, and just average as a sophomore. While outside shooting does marginally improve over time, there is little to suggest Knight will become a truly threatening shooter anytime soon. 

    I’m not sure I would take McCollum at 8 anyway, but it there is always room for a deadeye shooter. This is especially true for us, as we were below overage shooting 3s and further below average on taking them. The second part may have been systematic, as we tend to run a space eating, low efficiency offensive system, but still.

  • Jun 12, 201311:48 am
    by Vic

    Reply

    i’m not into combo guards but if you take CJ, you demote BK to 6th man.
    CJ can shoot and that’s never a problem.

    But you’ll need at least 1 true pg… hopefully CJ can become one, since he’s really that smart about basketball plays and he’s such a quick communicator, maybe it can translate to the point guard position.

  • Jun 12, 201311:49 am
    by jacob

    Reply

    I would rather take a chance on Shabazz, Zeller, or KCP. CJ is not very athletic. It also looked like he really struggle against athletic teams.

    • Jun 12, 20134:05 pm
      by frankie d

      Reply

      really struggled against athletic teams?
      on the biggest game of his life against one of the nation’s most loaded teams, full of top recruits, he was the best player on the floor.  not sure how that duke game jibes with him struggling against athletic teams.
       

      • Jun 12, 20135:59 pm
        by oats

        Reply

        Duke wasn’t that athletic though, and they were terrible defensively. Guards routinely torched that Duke team because Curry and Rivers were awful defenders.

        • Jun 13, 20132:04 pm
          by frankie d

          Reply

          one must consider this in a relative fashion.
          no player plays 30 college games against the likes of the 2012 kentucky team.  while duke may not have been the most athletic team, and had the most athletic guards, it was and is still one of the premier programs in the country and i’d argue that the athletes that would be considered “average” or “not that athletic” for a duke team are still pretty darn good athletes at the college level.  and pretty good defenders.  if they are not, they won’t play for coach k.  even a guy like rivers, despite his struggles, has always been recognized as a pretty good athlete.  not necessarily elite, but a good athlete nonetheless.  and curry is very likely to be drafted, and might actually end up on someone’s bench next year.  not too many college teams that can tout a lottery pick and another player who makes it to the nba.  duke didn’t get to be such a high seed that year by putting a bunch of high school junior varsity players out on the court.  
          my point about the duke game and mccollum is pretty simple.
          if a knock on a kid from a school from a lesser conference is that he won’t play well against better competition, and that kid has a chance to play against better competition and then he proves that he can play on that same level – at the level of duke, one of the premier programs full of some of the country’s best college prospects – then he’s done everything that he can do.
          what more could he do in order to prove that he is capable?  he played well against his conference competition.  he played well against competition that was supposedly tougher.  
          imho, it says a lot about a kid who is able to seize that moment and not choke.
          on the other hand, when a kid like mccallum has that same opportunity, and for whatever reason, is not able to show that he belongs on the stage with those highly recruited, highly touted players, that tells me something about that kid.
          (carter-williams gives me pause because i think he tends to shrink in those high profile moments also.  it seems to account for many of his shooting and turnover problems. sometimes players are able to control, as they move forward, those issues, sometimes they are not.)
          might be unfair, and it may be totally inaccurate as a way of judging players, but i’ll stick with that view, absent evidence that it is incorrect.
          i iguess we will see in a few months whether mccollum is indeed capable of playing with the big boys.
          the beautiful thing about sports is that we all get to see whether our predictions are right or wrong. 
           

  • Jun 12, 201312:10 pm
    by danny

    Reply

    Being athletic does help but doesnt determine if someone will be able play in the nba.  Look at the spurs system neal, boris, and tiago are very good players with lower athletic abilities.  He is a very solid player and I’ve love to get him if certain people are already off the boards. 
    I’d pick him over shabazz anyday.  Does about everything better on the offense end and can create for others.  We got options and thats a first.

    • Jun 12, 201312:29 pm
      by Keith

      Reply

      Shabazz is actually growing on me because of his spot up shooting numbers. He can’t shoot off the dribble, and was a poor passer, so he wouldn’t be the shot creator on the team. However, that’s not a terrible thing. If we could resign Calderon, that would give us two creators (Calderon and Monroe) and two finishers (Shabazz and Drummond). Those same are also offense-defense splits. Fill the SF spot with a quality D and 3 player, and we at least start to look like a team. 

      Then again, you could do the same with McCollum, but Shabazz likely ends up a better defender  at the off-guard position. 

      • Jun 12, 201312:59 pm
        by frankie d

        Reply

        shabazz as the better defender at the 2 guard?
        are you kidding?  did you see him play?
        he has really mediocre/bad lateral movement, especially at the 2.
        he might be able to get away with it at the 3, but no way he stays in front of even your average nba SG.
        also, draftexpress had a truly frightening stat that made me swear off taking shabazz at all.  
        only 5 or 6 guys have had a worse assist ratio than muhammad and been 1st round picks.  those guys include michael beasly, al thornton, morris almond and a couple of other guys who have been busts.  his inability, or refusal, to pass will limit his effectiveness greatly.  because he doesn’t have elite skills, he will be easy to double and triple and shut down and teams will not have to worry about him rotating the ball to open men.
        muhammad is going to be the guy who falls out of the lottery.  unless joe d takes him. 

        • Jun 12, 20131:02 pm
          by G

          Reply

          The assist rate is a concern, but indications are that he can improve his lateral quicks to the point where he can guard most NBA wings.

          • Jun 12, 20131:27 pm
            by frankie d

            not so sure about that.  i read the article on espn about him working with the institute on making changes and hopefully improving his lateral quickness, but i am skeptical.  when i saw him play, he just looked like a guy who lacked the body that would allow him to be quick enough to guard 2′s.  he’s definitely very strong, but also sort of stiff, not fluid.
            he knows that his best spot in the nba is at the 2 and that is what he is selling now.  but his physical abilities will limit his potential in that spot, imho.
            i’d stay away from shabazz and noel if both slid.  i might add mclemore to that list, though i might take him, depending on who else was available.
            shabazz because of his game.
            noel, because of his medical red flags.  i think he is going to be a greg oden type of medical bust.  too bad.  i  knew he’s had an injury in high school, but i had not realized that it is very likely that his current injury could be related to that old injury.  if that is the case, he may never be physically right again, and an nba season will quickly reveal that fact.
            when  you look at the video of his injury it is so much like oden’s last knee injury.  no impact, just a normal jumping motion and then the catastrophic injury.  
            then you look at his actions, and they are the actions of a kid/prospect who understands that he’d better get the money and run before his true medical condition is fully exposed.
            when you think about it, it makes no sense for a kid in his position to come out this year.  
            UNLESS he knows that he has a very serious vulnerability that could be exposed at any time.  and he understands that he needs to get out, get his contract and hope for the best.  one more year at kentucky, one more injury and he goes from being a millionaire to being just some poor kid with a sad story to tell.
            no thanks on getting a guy like noel.  in fact, i wonder just how far he is going to slide once teams start to really understand the nature of his injury. 

          • Jun 12, 20132:31 pm
            by G

            I get why you might want to stay away from Noel (who’s not going to slip, btw), but he’d be a great value there. Why the hell wouldn’t you take McLemore (who also isn’t going to slip to 8th)? What 8 players do you have ranked ahead of those guys? Keep in mind this isn’t exactly the 1996 Draft.

          • Jun 12, 20132:34 pm
            by tarsier

            draft Otto Porter at 8

          • Jun 12, 20132:56 pm
            by frankie d

            great value?
            if the guy is out of the league after 3 years after playing about 100 games because of a structural problem with his knee that is apparent now, how is that great value?
            i get the attraction, even though i don’t think his profile merits the top pick, but my main concern with the guy is his medical condition.
            the same thing went on with oden.  there were whispers and discussions about his physical condition and people ignored it.
            with noel, apparently, his current  knee injury could easily be connected to the fact that he broke his growth plate only 3 years prior, and there is a lot of thought that he did not heal properly from that original injury.
            imho, that makes it very possible, even probable, that he is damaged goods.
            why take a huge gamble on a guy who is damaged goods, even if he might be a “great value” at that pick?
            i’d rather take a guy without those medical red flags.
            i’d thought that he’d just had a bit of bad luck and two unrelated injuries.  from what i’ve read now, that may not be the case.  the injuries may very well be closely related and if that is the case,  any team picking him is asking for future trouble.
            and with a guy whose entire game is predicated on his exceptional athleticism, that is a dealbreaker for me. 

          • Jun 12, 20133:00 pm
            by tarsier

            It’s great value because he has star potential. It is unlikely that anyone else would at that point. Better to have a guy who maybe fantastic or may be a zero than someone who will probably be a ninth man,

            This is the same reason why Drummond was a great pick even though he had major bust potential. 

            Also, sports medicine keeps getting better and better. 

          • Jun 12, 20133:08 pm
            by frankie d

            i doubt that the trailblazers would agree with that thought process.  
            greg oden and his current situation is  the perfect response to that “logic”.
            i don’t get it either.
            taking a gamble on a guy with clear red flags medically is never a good thing, especially in the first round.
            second round, like the spurs did with dejuan blair? sure.  but with a high first round pick, i’m taking a guy i reasonably expect will be healthy.
            and sure, sports medicine is making huge progress.  but there is only so much that can be done when someone really screws up their knee by not rehabbing it correctly.  there is a school of thought that that is exactly what noel did:came back too soon after his original injury.
            and again, noel’s entire game is his extreme athleticism.  if he loses that advantage, and becomes just a good nba athlete, as a result of his injuries, what do you have? a run of the mill near 7 footer who plays decent defense.
            no thanks. 

          • Jun 12, 20133:24 pm
            by frankie d

            i wouldn’t “rank” 8 guys ahead of mcclemore.
            i’d probably rank 6 guys ahead of him: oladipo, burke, bennett, porter, mccollum, and zeller.
            but i might take both MCW and Len ahead of him.  probably not, but it would be tempting.
            i get mclemore.  great talent, great shot, but he might just be more of a cog than an impact player.  sort of what ray allen has been for the last 4-5 years, not the great scorer he was earlier in his career.
            i think those other guys all have a chance to be much, much more.
            the only reason i wouldnt necesssarily take both MCW and len is that i think both of them have huge bust potential.  i don’t ever know if MCW will shoot well enough to be more than a rotation guy, and len is someone who i could easily see being a rotation big for the next decade.
            i’ve just never been a huge mclemore fan, even though i recognize his talent. 

          • Jun 12, 20133:28 pm
            by G

            MCW doesn’t shoot well, handle well, and doesn’t make good decisions with the ball. He’d be a worse PG than Knight, and I don’t think much of Knight as a PG.

          • Jun 12, 20133:29 pm
            by I HATE FRANK

            @ Frankie D…when is the last time you saw him play?

            In College Shabazz was atleast 10lbs over his playing weight…At the Combine he weighted about about 220..and everyone talked about how much quicker he looked on defense, and everyone said he looked more explosive…

            Recently, in the article that “G” share and in interview he did with Kings, Im too lazy to post the link. Shabazz shared how he’s just learning to use his wingspan along with his lateral quickness to become a better defender. (6’11 and come change).

          • Jun 12, 20133:42 pm
            by frankie d

            @i hate frank
            i saw the pac 12 title game against oregon.  i’ve seen clips from the combine and various workouts he’d done the last couple of weeks.
            not impressed.  the workouts don’t really mean that much.  he does look a bit slimmer now, but i’ve just never been impressed with his athleticism.  he seemed pretty average when i’ve seen him.
            i’ll believe that he’s a much better defender with more quickness when i see it in games.  and i wouldn’t be willing to draft him on the gamble that he would be able to improve from his college days. 

          • Jun 12, 20133:43 pm
            by tarsier

            Greg Oden was the wrong choice for Portland only because Durant was there. And still, almost any team would have made that choice. Oden over Horford would definitely have been the right choice even though it wouldn’t work out well.

            It’s like taking an open 3 instead of an 18 foot fadeaway. Sometimes the three misses and the fadeaway hits. But the former is still the smarter choice.

          • Jun 12, 20134:10 pm
            by frankie d

            sorry, but drafting isn’t like shooting a BB.  the best shooters only hit about .50% of their shots.  a team should hit on a much higher percentage of draft choices because everything is in  your control.  you should do your homework and pretty much know what you are getting.  
            if my average of hiring employees was only 50%, MY bosses would have fired me.
            and sorry again, but drafting oden anywhere near the top of the draft would have been a mistake.  history has provided that answer.  and the few lonely voices who warned about taking a guy with his known medical issues were proven correct.
            the conventional wisdom, which you’ve essentially repeated, has been shown to have been laughably wrong.   

          • Jun 12, 20134:29 pm
            by tarsier

            Teams don’t hit on much higher than 50% of their draft choices because no matter how much data you have, predicting the future is always tough.

            Many companies would be thrilled with a 50% success rate on new hires.

            That “conventional wisdom” also led Detroit to drafting Drummond. A risk, but a worthwhile one. 

          • Jun 12, 20134:34 pm
            by tarsier

            It’s called playing the odds. When you assess the individual outcomes, some of them will make it look wrong and some right. If you have some study you can show me that over  a large sample size, the conventional wisdom of drafting for ceiling rather than floor is a bad idea, then I’ll take you seriously. But for now, all you have is your claim that you are smarter than all the basketball minds out there.

          • Jun 12, 20134:45 pm
            by frankie d

            “…all you have is your claim that you are smarter than all the basketball minds out there.”
            ah…no.  that is not what i am claiming.
            i am citing the fact that greg oden is out of basketball after playing parts of 3 seasons and playing about 80 games total.  that actually did happen.  it is a reality.  therefore those who argued that he was a risk not worth taking – and they were out there, though there were very few of them – have been proven right.
            again, those are facts.
            for the record, i really didn’t know which way i would have gone if i’d been making the choice.  i was not entirely comfortable with kevin priitchard going on local portland radio and saying that it was a gamble he had to take, but then i wasn’t privy to the medical records.  
            but talking about odds and such is ridiculous because we are not talking about a situation where the subject of the bet has not been shown, one way or the other.  it was a bad gamble.  a gamble that did not work.  therefore, it was not a good gamble.  period.
            and if, in retrospect, anyone says that they would still take the same gamble, knowing what we all know now, that, imho, is insanity and stubborness.  not smart thinking. 

          • Jun 12, 20134:49 pm
            by I HATE FRANK

            Frankie D …. its funny you are not impressed with his athletiscm whatever footage u saw, but scouting,GM’s and coaches are impressed…

            He was quicker than anyone expected at the combine…he was faster or just as Ben Mclemore…and his vertical was better than Pope, and Porter … And by all reports he was just got better …Workouts mean  alot it speaks to a player potential and work ethic…he had been out of shape the media would have ripped him

            But anyway CJ McCullom might be an upgrade because of the shooting, but It just does not would make us better. Its like the lions draft WR’s year after year ..until they got a clue…there’s another way to build a te 

          • Jun 12, 20134:58 pm
            by frankie d

            @ i hate frank
            i will admit that i am judging him according to a standard that was set before the past season, when he was being touted as an explosive, rare athlete.
            and when i didn’t see that on the court, in games, i admit that i got turned off by his game and to him as a player.
            i have  never thought he was dog meat, but i’ve just always thought that he was a good division one player who shot a lot and was a lot more aggressive about seeking out his shot than most freshmen.  if mcclemore had his aggressiveness, he’d be the first choice, no doubt. 

          • Jun 13, 20139:52 am
            by tarsier

            It shows an extreme lack of understanding to say that a gamble that doesn’t work out is a bad gamble.

            Take roulette. The house loses almost half the time. Was it a bad gamble for the house all those times? No. It was a good gamble, because on average they were going to come out ahead. You take those odds and then let the individual outcomes fall where they may.

            And it doesn’t even have to be 50/50 ish odds. If you have a 95% chance of losing a dollar and a 5% chance of making 25 dollars, that’s a good gamble you should take every time, even though you will usually lose. 

          • Jun 13, 20132:12 pm
            by frankie d

            true transcript of conversation between husband and wife:

            “It shows an extreme lack of understanding to say that a gamble that doesn’t work out is a bad gamble.
            Take roulette. The house loses almost half the time. Was it a bad gamble for the house all those times? No. It was a good gamble, because on average they were going to come out ahead. You take those odds and then let the individual outcomes fall where they may.
            And it doesn’t even have to be 50/50 ish odds. If you have a 95% chance of losing a dollar and a 5% chance of making 25 dollars, that’s a good gamble you should take every time, even though you will usually lose.
            when i literally bet our house up in order to play roulette just that one time, see, it was a good bet.  even though it didn’t turn out the way i would have wished it to turn out, it was still a good bet.  
            if you understood gambling and odds better, you’d have a better understanding of why, even though the results were disasterous, and we no longer have a roof over our heads, what i did has to be considered rational and reasonable because the odds say that it was a rational and reasonable bet to make.”

            that is the same logic you are attempting to use to justify something that was demonstrably disastrous. 

          • Jun 13, 20133:07 pm
            by G

            Going away from the gambling metaphor, frankie d, you’re using the advantage of hindsight to rate the Oden pick. If Portland’s GM had known then what he knows now, then yes, Oden would’ve been a terrible pick. Since he didn’t have knowledge of the future, he was forced to evaluate Oden on what he DID know – namely that Oden had transcendent talent on the defensive end, solid offensive skills, and some injury concerns. Calling them anything more serious than concerns is, again, cheating and using your knowledge of how things would later play out.

            Applying the same evaluation to the present, here’s what we know about Noel – transcendent defensive talent, some offensive skills, is recovering from a serious injury. He doesn’t have a history of injuries like Oden did (although Oden’s tended to be “freak injuries”, like breaking his wrist while dunking).

            In a weak draft where the Pistons are merely hoping for a solid starter out of their pick, drafting Noel at #8 would be tremendous value. Noel is one of 5 or 6 guys in this draft with the potential to make multiple All Star teams. 

          • Jun 13, 20134:15 pm
            by frankie d

            @g
            i dont think it is hindsight now or was hindsight with oden.
            there was specific talk about oden’s injury concerns here in portland before the draft.
            people joked about how old he looked and how that seemed to portend that he might break down sooner than a young man should.  those concerns were generally swept aside, largely because of his attractiveness as a franchise-changing big man, but it is not accurate to say that there were just “some injury concerns”.  there were plenty and a small number of people were very concerned, but their concerns were not heeded.  
            those people were smart, not using hindsight.
            (as i’ve noted, i was not sure which way i would have decided, though i was concerned about the tendency to gamble on the big guy.  it seemed like too much of a replay to the bowie/jordan draft.)
            with noel, the injury concerns are now out in the open.  and i disagree with the argument that he doesn’t have a history of injuries.  the fact that the new injury could be very much tied to his old injury is enough to raise the possibility that he does have a serious history of injury.
            this spring, there was an article in the local kentucky paper and a doctor offered this: 

            Noel’s torn ACL might have been linked to an injury he suffered during his sophomore year in high school.According to this report from The Courier-Journal, Noel fractured the growth plate in his left knee and was forced to sit out the entire season.  
            Instead of waiting for the knee to fully recover, the lanky forward rushed back to the court to play AAU ball during the summer. It’s not a sure thing that the high school injury is the reason for the torn ACL, but complications can arise if the knee does not fully heal.
            “If the leg healed awkwardly and (Noel) had a malalignment in that knee, that could predispose him to future injuries in that leg,” Dr. Robin West told the Courier-Journal.” 
            file://localhost/Users/frank/Desktop/Nerlens%20Noel%20injury%20%20High%20school%20ailment%20linked%20to%20ACL%20tear%20-%20SBNation.com.html

            it is out now.  there was an article yesterday in a local cleveland paper about this fact.   the article quotes sources who are concerned that his current injury might be related to that old injury.  the article described the rumors as “tremors”.  it looks like a lot of people are very concerned about it now.
            http://www.news-herald.com/articles/2013/06/12/sports/nh7099690.txt
            it will be interesting to see how it plays out.  
            damaged goods are worth very little.  
            i fail to see how a player who has the type of career that oden had can ever be considered a wise choice, especially when his medical history is known.
            judgments have to be made.  if you make one judgment and it turns out wrong, then you’ve made a wrong judgment, despite the solid reasoning process you’ve used to come to that decision.
            with noel, his medical history is what it is.  if a team takes him in the lottery and he ends up like oden, then it is puzzling as to how that could ever be considered a good decision.
            will he slide?  hard to say.  sullinger slid last year and while he had some good games, he couldn’t finish the year.  what is his future?  who knows.  was he  good gamble if he never plays more than a few injury-riddled seasons?  i don’t think so.
            if i’m making a decision of that sort, i’ll opt for the guy without those concerns. 

        • Jun 12, 20131:02 pm
          by jacob

          Reply

          That’s why I’m hoping unless Burke Bennet or Oladipo falls that we take KCP. He can handle the ball, shoot the 3 and play defense. 6’6″ with a 6’8″ wingspan.

          • Jun 12, 20131:47 pm
            by sebastian

            Jacob, KCP has grown on me, too. He appears to be a legit two-way player at the SG position. And, I agree with every word that frankied has written about Noel.
            If Gores’ money was mine, I wouldn’t have anything to do with selecting Noel with the #8 pick.

          • Jun 12, 20132:06 pm
            by jacob

            His scouting video really impressed me.

          • Jun 12, 20133:33 pm
            by I HATE FRANK

            “That’s why I’m hoping unless Burke Bennet or Oladipo falls that we take KCP. He can handle the ball, shoot the 3 and play defense. 6’6? with a 6’8? wingspan.”
            Where did you read that he can ball handle? Everything I read said different…Shooting is his skill…people think he is really athletic…but he doesnt do it in half-court sets…

            They say he has straight line speed, and upcourt athletism…but he struggle in the half court 

          • Jun 12, 20134:11 pm
            by sebastian

            I HATE FRANK: See for yourself – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uWJ-1QS4To.

          • Jun 12, 201311:43 pm
            by jacob

            My bad I thought I read that. What it really said was his hanldes are ok.  Also his vertical is not elite nor his lateral quickness. He still would be a good fit IMO. If Shabazz has improved the way the reports are saying he has improved I don’t see why we would pass on him. It seems as if these two are somewhat similar.

  • Jun 12, 20134:28 pm
    by frankie d

    Reply

    @ G
    i don’t disagree about MCW.
    he scares me.  it looks like he has good form, but he just chokes on his shot.
    he seems to also choke at tough points in games.
    if that is correct, and i am not sure it is, but it is something i’ve noticed, no amount of tinkering with his shot is ever going to fix it.  
    he’ll always be a bad shooter.  and if he is always a bad shooter, he is destined to be a rotation player on a good team or a starter on a team that will always come up short.
    but…if he could ever fix that shot, and if he hasn’t been choking, he could end up being the best player out of this draft.
    tough call on him, from my perspective, but i would probably look elsewhere first.
    for PGs, i’d take both burke and mccollum before him. 

    • Jun 12, 20136:46 pm
      by oats

      Reply

      I keep thinking that there is plenty of room for MCW to be really good without a jumper. Ricky Rubio and Rajon Rondo can’t shoot, but they are still really valuable players. Even without the jumper he could be the best player in this draft. I know that if he can’t shoot that he would be an awful fit around Monroe and Drummond, but that would leave Detroit with 3 intriguing young players with a ton of trade value. That’s not the worst scenario for this pick. He’s not my favorite choice, but I get the thinking.
       
      I actually think I’m more concerned with the turnover thing. There are a lot of guys that get their turnovers under control on the next level, but more of them fail to do that than succeed. MCW has two major holes in his game, and he needs to get one of them to about average in order to be a good player. I’m also a little concerned with how skinny the kid is. He will likely be asked to defend shooting guards due to his height and the large number of small shooting guards coming in to the league lately. The odds are really good that he does that at least part time in Detroit when partnered with Knight. I really doubt he has the strength required to defend that 2 spot effectively just yet.
       
      Anyways, if we are talking as a guy to play point guard, I take MCW over McCollum. I’ve just not seen enough signs that McCollum is a good passer to trust him with that role. What’s more, I’m a bit skeptical about his 3 point shooting since he was actually bad shooting it the last 2 years. I think McCollum is a better prospect for Detroit, and I think he may be a point guard, but if we are talking just as point guard prospects then I have MCW rated higher. Detroit needs help at shooting guard almost as much as at point guard, so I would take McCollum over MCW because he also has a good chance of being a good shooting guard. Detroit just needs outside shooting too much for MCW to be the better prospect for them. Like I said above, I could live with the team taking MCW though.

      • Jun 13, 20138:01 am
        by G

        Reply

        If the only thing wrong with MCW’s game was his jumper, I’d be less concerned. But he’s got a lot of issues more related to running the point. Also, Rondo at least finishes at a high rate. MCW shoots bad from EVERYWHERE.

  • Jun 12, 20134:54 pm
    by I HATE FRANK

    Reply

    @Sebastian I seen it..

    No handles …

    He is a awesome long range shooter… 

    • Jun 13, 201310:46 am
      by sebastian

      Reply

      @I HATE FRANK: You’re right. KCP never breaks hits opponents down with the dribble in the video. My bad.
      But, the dude can shoot.

  • Jun 13, 201312:24 am
    by jacob

    Reply

    Advanced metric projections

    1 Noel 124.2

    2 Zeller 122.3   

    3. Mclemore 119

    4. Len 118

    5 Bennet 116

    6 Adams 114

    7 Burke 110

    8 MCW 107

    9 Porter 107

    10 Oladipo 105

    11 CJ 100

    Others we might draft 28 Shabazz 70

    38 KCP 64                      

    • Jun 13, 201312:31 am
      by frankie d

      Reply

      saw that over at espn insider.
      just confirms what i’ve been thinking and saying about zeller.
      i think he would be a great pickup for detroit.  in fact, it is tough to see how he won’t be at least a good, solid starter, with the potential for being much more.  in this draft, with so many boom/bust type players, that is a very attractive option. if burke or mccollum are both gone, i hope zeller is still there and that joe d will seriously consider him.
      detroit’s big rotation would be set for the next decade. 

      • Jun 13, 201312:47 am
        by jacob

        Reply

        You are right IMO. He could easily be gone though. Hopefully it’s either Burke Zeller or Bennet. I guess if they are all gone including Oladipo and Porter than why not take a shot at MCW. This draft is gonna be crazy I think.

    • Jun 13, 201310:02 am
      by tarsier

      Reply

      what advanced metric is this?

      • Jun 13, 201310:34 am
        by jacob

        Reply

        ATH system enhancements
        1. Each player’s ATH rating, or athletic rating, is calculated for his numbers in college, overseas or the D-League. It’s based on height-adjusted measurements for rebounding, foul drawing, blocks and steals. This metric largely determines how much of a player’s non-NBA production will be retained.
        2. A skill rating, or SKL, is also calculated. It’s based on the more gentle parts of the game, such as free throw shooting, 3-point shooting, turnover rate and assist rate, all of which are also adjusted for body type.
        3. Other measurements are recorded for the purposes of player classification: height, weight, likely base position, age, a scouting rating based on combine measurements. I also enter the scout-based prospect rankings from our own Chad Ford to use for overseas players who haven’t played in a high-level league, or for American players who didn’t play college ball, such as Enes Kanter. In such cases, there just isn’t objective data to go on.
        4. To refine projections for players like Glen Rice Jr., who play in the D-League prior to entering the draft, I’ve added numbers from that circuit and blended them with their college performance. The bigger the sample, the better.
        5. Finally, I’ve taken advantage of the terrific data from Synergy Sports Technologies to help refine player classification. I may add more play types in the future, but for this year, I was most interested in how the players rate in isolation situations, on both offense and defense.
        The ATH metric is still the primary component in translating the numbers forward, but the other traits are used to better match a player’s baseline projection with the historical database, which in turn suggests the probable career path for the player. The system now spits out extremely conservative five-year projections, which aren’t meant to pin down a player’s exact future value, but more to suggest the likely direction of his growth curve beyond rookie-year projections.

      • Jun 14, 20131:48 pm
        by G

        Reply

        Cut & pasted from the article:

        In a nutshell, the system estimates how well a player’s amateur production will translate based on certain athletic factors, such as foul-drawing ability, rebounding, shot-blocking and steals. This method also is used to project a possible aging pattern for each player, based on his age upon entering the league and similarities to past players with similar athletic traits.
        ATH system enhancements
        1. Each player’s ATH rating, or athletic rating, is calculated for his numbers in college, overseas or the D-League. It’s based on height-adjusted measurements for rebounding, foul drawing, blocks and steals. This metric largely determines how much of a player’s non-NBA production will be retained.
        2. A skill rating, or SKL, is also calculated. It’s based on the more gentle parts of the game, such as free throw shooting, 3-point shooting, turnover rate and assist rate, all of which are also adjusted for body type.
        3. Other measurements are recorded for the purposes of player classification: height, weight, likely base position, age, a scouting rating based on combine measurements. I also enter thescout-based prospect rankings from our own Chad Ford to use for overseas players who haven’t played in a high-level league, or for American players who didn’t play college ball, such as Enes Kanter. In such cases, there just isn’t objective data to go on.
        4. To refine projections for players like Glen Rice Jr., who play in the D-League prior to entering the draft, I’ve added numbers from that circuit and blended them with their college performance. The bigger the sample, the better.
        5. Finally, I’ve taken advantage of the terrific data from Synergy Sports Technologies to help refine player classification. I may add more play types in the future, but for this year, I was most interested in how the players rate in isolation situations, on both offense and defense. 

      • Jun 14, 20131:53 pm
        by G

        Reply

        They’re not projections, more like rankings based on evaluations of a player’s physique, athletic ability and skill set.

  • Jun 13, 20131:32 pm
    by frankie d

    Reply

    from the article by doolittle over at espn:

    “ I’ve been rating prospects for about five years using what I call the ATH system, which I’ve also used for various purposes on NBA-level topics as well. This year, I’ve made a few enhancements to the system (outlined in the chart at the bottom of this piece). The goal is to determine how a player’s non-NBA production will translate to the game’s highest level.
     (Each player’s prospect score (PROS) is denoted in parenthesis. Any score more than 100 denotes a deserving top-10 pick. Late first-rounders and early second-rounders — always a gray area — rate in the 65-75 range. Players fall off the draft board at about 50.)”
     

    he provides an explanation of his method in the same article:
     

    “ATH system enhancements

    1. Each player’s ATH rating, or athletic rating, is calculated for his numbers in college, overseas or the D-League. It’s based on height-adjusted measurements for rebounding, foul drawing, blocks and steals. This metric largely determines how much of a player’s non-NBA production will be retained.

    2. A skill rating, or SKL, is also calculated. It’s based on the more gentle parts of the game, such as free throw shooting, 3-point shooting, turnover rate and assist rate, all of which are also adjusted for body type.

    3. Other measurements are recorded for the purposes of player classification: height, weight, likely base position, age, a scouting rating based on combine measurements. I also enter thescout-based prospect rankings from our own Chad Ford to use for overseas players who haven’t played in a high-level league, or for American players who didn’t play college ball, such as Enes Kanter. In such cases, there just isn’t objective data to go on.

    4. To refine projections for players like Glen Rice Jr., who play in the D-League prior to entering the draft, I’ve added numbers from that circuit and blended them with their college performance. The bigger the sample, the better.

    5. Finally, I’ve taken advantage of the terrific data from Synergy Sports Technologies to help refine player classification. I may add more play types in the future, but for this year, I was most interested in how the players rate in isolation situations, on both offense and defense.

    The ATH metric is still the primary component in translating the numbers forward, but the other traits are used to better match a player’s baseline projection with the historical database, which in turn suggests the probable career path for the player. The system now spits out extremely conservative five-year projections, which aren’t meant to pin down a player’s exact future value, but more to suggest the likely direction of his growth curve beyond rookie-year projections.”
    FWIW… 


     



     
     

  • Aug 26, 20138:56 pm
    by ?????????

    Reply

    ????????

  • Leave a Reply

    Your Ad Here