PRO-POTENTIAL

Got this off a website explanation follows.

Rank Player Pos. College Class Ht.-Wt. PPI
1 Kenyon Martin PF Cincinnati Senior 6-8 230 93.89
2 Chris Mihm C Texas Junior 7-0 245 93.82
3 Stromile Swift PF LSU Sophomore 6-9 235 93.78
4 Marcus Fizer PF Iowa State Junior 6-8 240 93.65
5 Michael Miller SF Florida Sophomore 6-8 210 93.48
6 DerMarr Johnson SF Cincinnati Freshman 6-9 200 93.42
7 Morris Peterson SG Michigan State Senior 6-6 210 93.36
8 Courtney Alexander SG Fresno State Senior 6-5 200 93.36
9 Iakovos Tsakalidis C AEK - Greece 7-2 220 93.31
10 Darius Miles SF E.St.Louis HS (Ill.) HS Senior 6-9 220 93.07
11 Desmond Mason SG Oklahoma State Senior 6-6 205 92.96
12 Ed Cota PG North Carolina Senior 6-1 170 92.78
13 Joel Przybilla C Minnesota Sophomore 7-0 250 92.78
14 Quentin Richardson SG DePaul Sophomore 6-5 215 92.59
15 Jerome Moiso C UCLA Sophomore 6-11 225 92.50
16 Jason Collier PF Georgia Tech Senior 7-0 250 92.45
17 Mamadou N'diaye C Auburn Senior 7-0 250 92.43
18 Erick Barkley PG St. John's Sophomore 6-1 185 92.38
19 James 'Scoonie' Penn PG Ohio State Senior 5-10 175 92.24
20 Antonis Fotsis SF Panathinaikos, Greece 6-9 210 92.22
21 A.J. Guyton PG Indiana Senior 6-1 175 92.14
22 Mateen Cleaves PG Michigan State Senior 6-2 190 92.10
23 Lamont Barnes PF Temple Senior 6-9 215 91.78
24 Soumaila Samake C Cincinnati Stuff (IBL) 7-2 230 90.77
25 Mark Madsen PF Stanford Senior 6-8 235 90.45
26 Dan McClintock C Northern Arizona Senior 7-0 245 90.43
27 Donnell Harvey SF Florida Freshman 6-8 215 90.32
28 DeShawn Stevenson SG Washington Union, Fresno, CA HS Senior 6-5 210 90.04
29 Craig 'Speedy' Claxton PG Hofstra Senior 5-10 165 90.02
30 Chris Carrawell SG Duke Senior 6-6 220 89.82
31 Olumide Oyedeji PF DJK Wurzburg, Germany 6-9 210 89.78
32 Etan Thomas PF Syracuse Senior 6-9 230 89.65
33 Jamal Crawford SG Michigan Freshman 6-6 200 89.62
34 Brian Cardinal SF Purdue Senior 6-8 230 89.55
35 Corey Hightower SG Indian Hills C.C. Sophomore 6-7 200 89.35
36 Pepe Sanchez PG Temple Senior 6-3 190 89.34
37 Hanno Mottola PF Utah Senior 6-9 220 89.32
38 Johnny Hemsley SG Miami Senior 6-6 200 89.30
39 Jason Kapono SF UCLA Freshman 6-8 215 89.27
40 JaRon Rush SF UCLA Sophomore 6-7 215 89.16
41 Ernest Brown C Indian Hills C.C. Sophomore 7-0 245 89.15
42 Lavor Postell SF St. John's Senior 6-6 210 89.13
43 Chris Porter SF Auburn Senior 6-7 220 89.12
44 Michael Redd SG Ohio State Junior 6-5 195 89.12
45 Jason Hart PG Syracuse Senior 6-2 180 89.11
46 Eduardo Najera SF Oklahoma Senior 6-7 235 89.08
47 Keyon Dooling PG Missouri Sophomore 6-3 180 89.07
48 Eric Coley SG Tulsa Senior 6-5 210 89.05
49 Pete Mickeal SF Cincinnati Senior 6-7 220 89.05
50 Matt Santangelo PG Gonzaga Senior 6-1 175 88.99


------------------

 

Evaluation of basketball talent is an inexact science. Can he shoot? Can he dribble? Can he rebound? Does he create his own shot? Can he pass? These are the easier qualities a scout or coach must assess when judging one prospect versus another. The harder questions involve intangibles. Is he a leader? How tough is he? Does he want the ball in the final seconds? How will he react to adversity? Does he have presence?


Go to PPI
1-50
51-100
101-125

The five players each team puts on the court at one time all have loosely defined roles. How can one evaluate a point guard against a post player or a shooting guard against a power forward? Though teams certainly draft primarily to fill their own specific needs, some certainly will still draft by "the best player available" theory. Well, how do you determine if Chris Porter is a better pro prospect than Terence Morris? Is Scoonie Penn better than Chris Mihm?

It is with these thoughts in mind that the Player PRO-tential Index (PPI) was developed. With the actual help of several hundred people across the country each year, and their knowledge of players' strengths and weaknesses, we have arrived at a single number for each draft prospect that shows where that prospect stands in relation to his peers. The difficulty in drawing meaningful conclusions from our efforts stems from one word -- subjectivity. Without a clear definition of what constitutes a "10" for ball handling or a "6" for rebounding, one must realize that we are dealing in the inexact. However, even that is uncertain, because we all have different opinions about who the best point guard in the NBA is and who is overrated. All this being said, we offer a vastly superior system of evaluating the talent. Here's how it works.

We initially determined what physical and mental abilities are essential to being an exceptional basketball player and arrived at the following list of attributes by which to judge all of the players:

1. Ball Handling: Can he dribble well? In traffic? Can he penetrate? Can he handle full court pressure and traps? Does he protect the ball?

2. Perimeter Shooting: Can he stroke an open three pointer? Can he come off a pick to nail a jumper? Is he a pureshooter? Does he have a three-point game?

3. Defensive Skills: A look at a player's defensive ability - inside or on the perimeter, anticipation, help and recover, denial, shot blocking, position.

4. Rebounding: Simply, does he block out and clear the ball off the glass. Can he go up with the big boys and bring down the ball?

5. Create His Own Shot: Does he have the ability to create his own opportunities? Is he able to make things happen on the floor by himself?

6. Offensive Skills: Can he score around the basket? Can he handle contact and put the ball in the hole? Can he showcase a variety of offensive moves?

7. Passing Skills: Can he see the court and deliver a pass to the open man? Can he make an entry pass? Can he make interior passes? How's his decision-making?

8. Toughness / Character: What is the player made out of? Does he want to be on the court in crunch time? Who gets the loose balls? Will he take the charge? Do you want him with you in the trenches?

9. Pro Potential: Does he have the size and ability to use his skills in the pros? Is he a "project" with tremendous upside? Is he the dreaded "good college player", or even worse a "tweener"? Will the skills he exhibited in college translate into success at the next level?

10. Athleticism: Can he run and jump? Does he have quickness, speed, lateral movement, strength, and conditioning?

11. Feel For The Game: Does he understand what is going on around him? Can he see changes in the play? Does he instinctively sense and seize opportunities.

12. Maturity / Leadership: Do you want him leading you into battle? Does he make other people better? A good influence in the locker room? Is he a winner?

Each player is graded on a scale of one to ten for all twelve categories. If a player were to grade out with a perfect score for every attribute, he would score 120.

The fact that there are five different positions on the floor, each with a varying degree of application for each rated ability, throws a wrench into our quest for accuracy. Having judged a players ability on a flat scale for each category, we then apply a predetermined formula to certain attributes according to that players agreed upon position on the floor (point guard, two guard, swing guard, small forward, power forward, center). For example, we apply a factor of 1.75 to a point guard's ball-handling rating due to the obvious increased importance on this skill for that position, while applying a .25 factor to that same player's rebounding rating due to the limited role a point guard plays in crashing the glass. Every player, regardless of position, still has the potential to score 100 on the PPI because for every factor that potentially increases an attribute, there are also decreasing factors that balance it out.

In this way, a point guard isn't penalized for not being a good offensive rebounder, and a center isn't penalized for not being a good ball handler. At the same time, if a post player is an exceptional perimeter shooter, the formula still allows for some degree of separation between that player and his peers at his position, though not as pronounced as if the balancing factor were not used. The goal is simply to emphasize the skills necessary to excel at certain positions, while still acknowledging the added value a player brings to a position by having developed a skill not fundamental to his position.

The attribute of pro potential is essentially what general managers, scouts and coaches are banking on when they draft a player. The commonly asked question is: "Will this player excel at the professional level?" The proclivity for teams to draft "projects" (players with limited or undeveloped skills that show tremendous upside), especially among big people, skews that player's PPI to a level not consistent with where he will actually be drafted.

To compile each individual's PPI, we sorted through an extraordinary amount of data, and always extend our gratitude to the hundreds of coaches and scouts that anonymously shared their insights on each player's individual skills. I have also applied my own thoughts to come up with what I think is an excellent way to rate players against each other -- either comparing within one position or comparing all players against each other.


------------------

 

just wondering what you guys thought,some quite suprising positions, is desmond mason really that good and if so why is he so low in the draft orders. Personallty I think it's by no mans a fair way of measuring draft talent, but thought you guys might be interested in the read.

------------------

 

Still anything that helps us to explain what some gm's might be thinking is clearly a god-send in my opinion. After all these guys make some crazy decisions.

------------------

 

Brilliant info on last year's draft pro-potntial. It's interesting to compare what he thinks of this year's guys and last year's players, also his comments on francis made for interesting reading.

Thanks Jeff

------------------