The latest Player Efficiency Rating (PER) for Randolph has him breaking into the top 10 for rookies.
#7 on the charts at 16.04
Another statistical metric created by John Hollinger was the 'Draft Rater.' Here is what his formula has determined was the future of Anthony Randolph.
Draft Rater: Which big men will become the best pros?
By John Hollinger
ESPN Insider
Originally Published: June 20, 2008
Between Me and the Scouts, One of Us Will Look Like an Idiot
Anthony Randolph, LSU, 9.85
Yes, this is true. Seen in many quarters as a high lottery pick, Randolph has virtually nothing in his statistical record to justify such a lofty selection.
In particular, his woeful ball-handling numbers are a major red flag. Randolph had more turnovers than any prospect except Beasley and Thompson, but those two players had every play run through them; I'm still waiting to find out Randolph's excuse.
Additionally, his 49.9 true shooting percentage is alarmingly bad for a guy who is supposed to dominate athletically.
He can block shots, and the fact his team was such a mess probably didn't help his numbers any, but gambling on Randolph with a high first-round pick looks like the basketball equivalent of hitting on 19 in blackjack. Hey, maybe the dealer throws out a 2 and everyone thinks you're a genius, but chances are you're going to bust.
It appears he's going to be drafted in the middle of the first round at worst, but even that appears to be a terrible mistake -- there is no track record whatsoever of a player rated this poorly achieving pro success.
Time to retool your Draft Rater, John Hollinger, to give more weight to intangibles, team turmoil, and take late starts in the sport into consideration. Either that, or just watch some more tape so you don't look like an idiot after going out of your way to blast a 19 year old prospect.
Anthony Randolph Mix
Trophicose
Posts
1 comment:
Hi Mind-O,
Hollinger doesn't watch many college games and admits as much. He holds firm on the stat line, per his ESPN dictum.
The Randolph take was pure number-crunching and Randolph certainly has all of the problems Hollinger would have been concerned with: TO, bad shots, some low percentages as a first option/total floor streetballer. But as Nelson has been forced to play him by the front office, and as he adapts his "strategy" to include such a natural low post talent against his first, second, third, 100th instincts from the bench, it's pretty clear Randolph's talent exceeds his untamed qualities if developed appropriately.
Nelson ain't the guy for that and Randolph ain't there yet. But Hollinger seems to have NEVER seen the kid play prior to the draft. That's pretty bad for a draft article.
Then again:
Marco Belinelli (13.3 pts/40, 3.1 reb/40, 33.4 FG percent, 7.34 PER)
What's the Italian word for "dog" again? I'm just shocked that Belinelli went as high as he did, because basically, the numbers say he can't play ... at all. Based on last year's stats he's not even a CBA player. His translated stats from the year before are a little better (42.1 FG percent, 10.72 PER), but still make him look like end-of-the-bench fodder at best. If the Warriors think this guy can replace Jason Richardson, I think they're in for a rather rude surprise.
Rudy Fernandez (17.5 pts/40, 6.6 reb/40, 42.0 FG percent, 15.83 PER)
Another coup for Trail Blazers GM Kevin Pritchard, provided he can get Fernandez to come stateside from Spain. Based on his numbers, he's a quality NBA shooting guard right now, and at 22 he still has some upside to explore. I realize his contract status scared off some teams, but I'm still trying to figure out how this guy went seven picks after Belinelli.
Luis Scola (17.1 pts/40. 10.2 reb/40, 50.4 FG percent, 16.27 PER)
Scola's numbers had taken a bit of a dip the previous two seasons, but he had a strong season last year that should help keep his stock high should San Antonio trade his rights this summer. The Argentine power forward projects as one of the few Euros who could start in the NBA immediately.
Post a Comment