For the Leonard haters - Hollinger and his Draft Rater.

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draf...lumnist=hollinger_john&page=draftrater-110620

Insider only, but I'll post some Leonard tidbits. First, he has Leonard as the second best perimter player in the draft aside from Irving ( 5 overall )

If I had to peg two other perimeter players that I would guarantee to at least become solid rotation players, it would be Kemba Walker and Kawhi Leonard. While this year's draft doesn't project to have a lot of star talent at the perimeter positions, Walker and Leonard are the two who rate above 12 -- which, historically, has been a guarantee of at least being decent.

Similarly, of the 14 wings to rate better than 12, the list includes Durant, Wade, Anthony, Granger, Gay, Luol Deng, Josh Childress, Mike Dunleavy, Dajuan Wagner, Rashad McCants, Evan Turner, Delonte West, Caron Butler and Ben Gordon. Only Wagner and McCants failed, and each pretty clearly had NBA talent. So Leonard, at 13.21 with no injury or character red flags, looks like a very, very safe play.

For those who arent aware of the Draft Rater ... Its a bit to hard to explain here without directly copying how Hollinger explains it. Its pretty freakin accurate though.

 

[Glenn]

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draf...lumnist=hollinger_john&page=draftrater-110620

Insider only, but I'll post some Leonard tidbits. First, he has Leonard as the second best perimter player in the draft aside from Irving ( 5 overall )

Although I prefer Fredette I don't see any problem with drafting him. His wing span and big hands should make others jealous. Was Vesely rated?

 

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

Although I prefer Fredette I don't see any problem with drafting him. His wing span and big hands should make others jealous. Was Vesely rated?

Not great (10.72). Says he should be a top 20 pick, and that drafting him top 5-10 could be a mistake. However, it can be harder to evaluate international players, plus he is very young .. less accurate.

 

[bajaden]

Not great (10.72). Says he should be a top 20 pick, and that drafting him top 5-10 could be a mistake. However, it can be harder to evaluate international players, plus he is very young .. less accurate.

I honestly think that if the Kings have a choice between Leonard and Fredette, they'll take Leonard. He's definitely has NBA talent, and, he fills a greater need. You and everyone knows I love Fredette as a player, but if it were my choice, I think I'd take Leonard as well. My guess is though, that there's a very good chance he won't be there when the Kings pick. What kind of rating didk Fredette get by the way?

 

[Section 101]

I honestly think that if the Kings have a choice between Leonard and Fredette, they'll take Leonard. He's definitely has NBA talent, and, he fills a greater need. You and everyone knows I love Fredette as a player, but if it were my choice, I think I'd take Leonard as well. My guess is though, that there's a very good chance he won't be there when the Kings pick. What kind of rating didk Fredette get by the way?

10.45

 

[Spike]

I wouldn't say there are Leonard haters, but rather Leonard doubters. Haters is too casually thrown around whenever someone disagrees. Regardless, I'm in the doubter camp. I do like his hard work ethic and leadership, but I also recognize that he is, in many ways, a raw talent. Hollinger is hit-and-miss sometimes, but at least, this is some positive news.

Unless he ends up like Dajuan Wagner.

 

[est.1999]

Don't listen to anything Hollinger or Ford say. They're number junkies who find the most random stats out there and try to determine who the best prospects in college are or who are the best NBA players. It's a bunch of nonsense.

 

[rainmaker]

I'm not a leonard hater. I actually love the guy. I just question how he'd fit on our roster with our other sf's, and what it would mean to our cap space.

What is interesting about that article is how high Thompson is rated. If you put stock in this rating system, and it pans out close to the way it's projected, then Thompson should be the BPA at 7, for all you BPA types. Would you therefor take Thompson over Leonard/Fredette/Knight/Vesely?

Back to Leonard, I don't like the idea of taking a top 10 pick with talent, who can contribute, and then signing a vet FA at his position, limiting Leonard to 10-15 mins a game. I'd want him getting as much experience, as quickly as possible. At the same time, if he's our starting sf next year, and we don't get a major FA signing, which would have most likely been a sf anyway, kiss the playoffs goodbye.

 

[bajaden]

Don't listen to anything Hollinger or Ford say. They're number junkies who find the most random stats out there and try to determine who the best prospects in college are or who are the best NBA players. It's a bunch of nonsense.

Ford may be a numbers junkie, but not in Fredette's case. He's a big Fredette supporter. Of course he teaches a class at BYU, so he has up close and personal time with Fredette.

 

[hrdboild]

The problem with using statistical analysis to rate college players is that they're not all on an even plane. Some of them are freshman, some of them are seniors. Some of them might be rated higher as prospects because of their physical attributes, because their skills fit a particular need, or because they've done something to impress scouts that they have a lot of potential to get better. That Leonard was one of the more productive players in college basketball last year is not a surprise. The criticism with him is that he might not have as much room to grow as some other players, or to put it succinctly: higher floor, lower ceiling.

 

[bajaden]

I'm not a leonard hater. I actually love the guy. I just question how he'd fit on our roster with our other sf's, and what it would mean to our cap space.

What is interesting about that article is how high Thompson is rated. If you put stock in this rating system, and it pans out close to the way it's projected, then Thompson should be the BPA at 7, for all you BPA types. Would you therefor take Thompson over Leonard/Fredette/Knight/Vesely?

Back to Leonard, I don't like the idea of taking a top 10 pick with talent, who can contribute, and then signing a vet FA at his position, limiting Leonard to 10-15 mins a game. I'd want him getting as much experience, as quickly as possible. At the same time, if he's our starting sf next year, and we don't get a major FA signing, which would have most likely been a sf anyway, kiss the playoffs goodbye.

As I said in another response to a similar post by you. I think your overthinking this thing. You draft the talent, and then you figure out how to deal with the rest of the suspossed problems. Obviously, it the Kings draft a SF, and then sign a veteran SF, their going to rid themselves of one or possibly two of the SF's they have on the roster.

As far as drafting based on the Hollinger report, I'll pass thank you. I prefer to go with what my eyes tell me. I think those reports can be somewhat useful in affirmation, but I wonder just how many players that didn't score well in one of their reports turned out to be very good players, or even stars. What a report like that doesn't, and really can't tell you, based on its premise, is why a player may have posted some of those scores. Who was the coach, and what was his system. If he's a PG, how good a team did he have around him? Was he playing injuried part of the year? If he was a post player, did he have a good PG that was able to get him the ball, often, and where he wanted it? There are a thousand things that can affect the numbers a player puts up.

If you watch that player play 15 to 20 times, your eye's won't lie to you. I don't mean to discount the report. Getting a good score is certainly better than not getting a good score. I just don't think its the be all, end all.

 

[Hallama]

What is interesting about that article is how high Thompson is rated. If you put stock in this rating system, and it pans out close to the way it's projected, then Thompson should be the BPA at 7, for all you BPA types. Would you therefor take Thompson over Leonard/Fredette/Knight/Vesely?

I would definitely over Leonard. Vesely I don't enough about but Fredette would be hard not to take. TT is going to make a team very happy looking back at this draft in 3-5 years.

 

[beb0p]

Similarly, of the 14 wings to rate better than 12, the list includes Durant, Wade, Anthony, Granger, Gay, Luol Deng, Josh Childress, Mike Dunleavy, Dajuan Wagner, Rashad McCants, Evan Turner, Delonte West, Caron Butler and Ben Gordon. Only Wagner and McCants failed, and each pretty clearly had NBA talent. So Leonard, at 13.21 with no injury or character red flags, looks like a very, very safe play.

I'm not for or against using formulas, but the paragraph above seems to imply that Brandon Roy, Andre Iguiodala, Kevin Martin, Nick Young, Nicolas Batum, James Harden, and Jeff Green missed the mark. Which made me question a formula that misses as many good players as it catches. For what we know, the formula does not rule out that a sub-12 player like Vesely ending up being much better than Leonard.

 

[joemama]

fredette wants to be a knick

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/214210/Fredette_Wants_To_Be_A_Knick

Fredette wants to be a knick and the knicks are reportedly trying to get into one of the top eleven picks to get Fredette (they think Utah will pick him 12th).

I am on the Fredette wagon because teams can always use shooters, but if this is true Leonard welcome to the sac kings!

 

[cuad]

I can't believe that anyone would be excited about drafting someone who can't shoot for a team that needs shooters.

 

[SacTownKid]

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/214210/Fredette_Wants_To_Be_A_Knick

Fredette wants to be a knick and the knicks are reportedly trying to get into one of the top eleven picks to get Fredette (they think Utah will pick him 12th).

I am on the Fredette wagon because teams can always use shooters, but if this is true Leonard welcome to the sac kings!

Did any of you hear that giant slapping sound? That was the sound of Jimmers agent smacking him in the back of the head. You never come out and say you're choices are teams that are way down the draft board with no realistic hopes of moving up that high. Great way to find yourself out of the running for teams that were wavering on you in the first place.

 

[Section 101]

The problem with using statistical analysis to rate college players is that they're not all on an even plane. Some of them are freshman, some of them are seniors. Some of them might be rated higher as prospects because of their physical attributes, because their skills fit a particular need, or because they've done something to impress scouts that they have a lot of potential to get better. That Leonard was one of the more productive players in college basketball last year is not a surprise. The criticism with him is that he might not have as much room to grow as some other players, or to put it succinctly: higher floor, lower ceiling.

This is the first part from the article

It's a fool's errand, but let's do it anyway.

Yep, it's time for the Draft Rater. There are inherent limitations in trying to pore through a player's statistics and project what he'll be capable of five years down the road. The things the stats don't tell us -- about his dedication, eating habits, off-court life, the system his team runs, and 10,000 other things -- badly outnumber what the stats do tell us.

Yet, surprisingly, the stats seem able to tell us quite a bit. That's the premise behind the Draft Rater, my annual data-driven guide to the draft, and this year we have better clues than ever as to how it can help us and how it can't.

 

[JB_kings]

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/214210/Fredette_Wants_To_Be_A_Knick

Fredette wants to be a knick and the knicks are reportedly trying to get into one of the top eleven picks to get Fredette (they think Utah will pick him 12th).

I am on the Fredette wagon because teams can always use shooters, but if this is true Leonard welcome to the sac kings!

He's from NY. So I won't hold it against him.

 

[Glenn]

I can't believe that anyone would be excited about drafting someone who can't shoot for a team that needs shooters.

With Thornton, we had solved the problem of scorers with Tyreke, Cuz, and him. If you mean that we lack three point shooters, I totally agree with you. I know who I want and my pick can be used immediately. If we take Petrie seriously as to his desire for a three point shooter, Fredette is the best available. I don't doubt Petrie's love of shooters.

We can also take Petrie seriously when he says we need a SF and veteran, both of whom can be the same person. The possibility of signing a quality SF seems higher than signing a quality three point shooter this year.

If picking the BPA floats your boat, I'd love to hear who is the BPA if we just look at Fredette and Leonard. Throw in a bunch of more possibilites and it's more difficult but I use these two to make the point.

Fredette gives us 4 guards at two positions and Leonard gives us 4 players at one position. Toss in a FA SF and you have 5 people at one position with very little flexibility. Certainly neither Leonard nor Fredette will be busts.

An overload at one position can be solved by trades but the picking of Fredette is the least problematic and potentially the least disruptive of team chemistry.

 

[hrdboild]

Better shooting is an immediate need, but it doesn't need to be filled through the draft. Same goes for the starting SF position for that matter. If we're looking at best player available, I have Fredette listed above Leonard though neither of them is in my top 7 so I would be lukewarm on the pick regardless. It's just killing me that Williams is number 1 on my board and Minnesota is dangling him out there for the taking. He's so much more compelling than any of the options at 7.

This is the first part from the article...

And the rest of the article is behind a pay wall, so whether there's useful information there or not is not for me to say.

 

[hammystyle]

Don't listen to anything Hollinger or Ford say. They're number junkies who find the most random stats out there and try to determine who the best prospects in college are or who are the best NBA players. It's a bunch of nonsense.

Hollinger is probably the best basketball writer working right now.

 

[hammystyle]

The problem with using statistical analysis to rate college players is that they're not all on an even plane. Some of them are freshman, some of them are seniors. Some of them might be rated higher as prospects because of their physical attributes, because their skills fit a particular need, or because they've done something to impress scouts that they have a lot of potential to get better. That Leonard was one of the more productive players in college basketball last year is not a surprise. The criticism with him is that he might not have as much room to grow as some other players, or to put it succinctly: higher floor, lower ceiling.

Hollinger's draft rater takes into account age and physical attributes.

 

[Bricklayer]

Hollinger is probably the best basketball writer working right now.

good lord. I've never even seen him write about basketball. He writes about statistics. There is a significant difference.

i might hire him to do my taxes, that's about it.

do have to give him credit though for being clever enough to invent his own stats, and then pimp them afterwards.

 

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

I wouldn't say there are Leonard haters, but rather Leonard doubters. Haters is too casually thrown around whenever someone disagrees. Regardless, I'm in the doubter camp. I do like his hard work ethic and leadership, but I also recognize that he is, in many ways, a raw talent. Hollinger is hit-and-miss sometimes, but at least, this is some positive news.

Unless he ends up like Dajuan Wagner.

Yea, "Haters" was more tongue-in-cheek than anything. I have serious doubts about Leonard aswell, and I'm not so sure I'd even take him over Vesely if Vesely were to fall.

 

[ElRey]

It's like going to a fortune teller. If you can tell fortune by reading your crystal ball, why havent you won the lottery, etc?! If Hollinger's system is so good at predicting which players will be good in the draft, why isn't EVERY NBA team knocking on his door!

 

[gunks]

I can't believe that anyone would be excited about drafting someone who can't shoot for a team that needs shooters.

GPs reasoning could be.... Resign Thornton, sign 3pt shootin SF, 3 point shooting is taken care of. On top of that, Leonard >> Donte/Omri

Leonard looks to be the safest pick at 7. All the high upside guys have big bust potential, and we dont necessarily need another star on this team if we have Reke/Cuz/Thornton. All those guys could potentially average 20+ ppg down the road. Might as well grab the guy with the biggest chance to contribute, who also happens to play a position of glaring need.

 

[Vlade4GM]

I've never valued what Hollinger had to say, and I'm not going to start now.

 

[Vlade4GM]

If you want a safe wing, take Chris Singleton.

 

[Telemachus]

I've never valued what Hollinger had to say, and I'm not going to start now.

With Hollinger it is easy to point out how many he picked right while completely forgetting about all the players who succeeded while falling under his radar.

 

[Smills91]

I wouldn't say there are Leonard haters, but rather Leonard doubters. Haters is too casually thrown around whenever someone disagrees. Regardless, I'm in the doubter camp. I do like his hard work ethic and leadership, but I also recognize that he is, in many ways, a raw talent. Hollinger is hit-and-miss sometimes, but at least, this is some positive news.

Unless he ends up like Dajuan Wagner.

Leonard HATER HERE. At least on the Kings. I think he's an atrocious fit and we will regret drafting him. Not saying he won't be a solid NBA player, I think he will be, but I think his game is too conflicting with pieces we already have who are better.