That is enticing. Hollinger's analysis is intriguing. But when you look at the players he has rated in the past, there are plenty of hits and misses, just because he has them highly rated does not necessarily mean they will be a gem. Although Hollinger's list typically does produce a couple gems that are drafted low. But it also misses gems too. He's got low rated prospects that turn out to be something. So, I guess I struggle to see the real value of it. I was extremely interested in Fazekas a couple months back. But the more I watched him and when I saw him in the NCAA, he was a nonfactor for his team. Just not convinced he can handle the athleticism of the NBA.
I never once downplayed his collegiate career which was stellar. He was a great college player as was JJ Reddick and Adam Morrison and several other great college players whose game I do not think will translate to the NBA. I hope I am wrong especially if the Rockets pick Fazekas up I will really hope I am wrong. Hollinger's statistical analysis has him as the 7th rated player in the draft which means absolutely nothing. If it meant something he would go at least top 15. I think he could be a steal in the second round and a solid backup someday in this league but that is it.
I wonder exactly how he is picking factors this rating. I definitely respect his analysis and am intrigued by a statistical approach to narrowing down a huge list of prospects. Obviously he is not saying "rebounding rates of 7.5+ are cool, i'll give that guy some bonus points and a gold star ". He is probably taking a statisticians approach of identifying high correlations of certain characteristics and statistics with producing solid NBA players. Personally, I am a computer scientist. My method would be to run a computer learning algorithm on all these factors to assign weights to a formula. It would be something like A*(points per shot) + B*(rebounding rate) + C*(height relative to average at position) + ... = player rating. You could run this against past results to see what weights produced player ratings that closely corresponded to something like median PER in the NBA. In the end, these methods are similar in approach. I hope that was clear to some. Hollinger is not making crap up just to say he is a "stat guru". He is only comparing new draftees against past draftees to guess who will be good. Obviously you do not "reach" for a guy if he is rated way too high for where he is predicted to be drafted. You also use workouts, character, and misc factors to give players + or - to their ratings. However, using statistics is definitely a way to narrow your focus on some solid prospects. I mean, if these factors produced solid pros before, why wouldn't it work now?
I'm impressed at Nick's rebounding. Man if only he can keep that up in the NBA and be a stellar three point specialist, he'd be the perfect fit for the Rox. Oh wait a minute, JVG just left
