Re: Hollinger. I don?t get him being un-scientific. Have you seen how he developed PER?

Personally I like Hollinger?s system as well as the one by Ed Weiland. (Still not sure what to make of Win Shares on the college level).

Not with PER, Mike, but since he’s been at ESPN.

When you have to appeal to a mass audience like he has to at ESPN, I think he is trying to be a little less on the science side, to appeal to the masses.

He’s still a lot better than almost all other sportswriters, though.

Personally I like Hollinger’s system as well as the one by Ed Weiland. (Still not sure what to make of Win Shares on the college level).

This is exactly why I hate the comparison. Its likely that black players are more athletic in general, but it’s not like there’s an indivisible line between them. There are highly skilled black players that are unathletic, and white players that are athletic. There’s no logical reason to separate the 2, especially if the comparison isn’t an apt one (Keith Van Horn??)

personally i think hollingers system is crap?he?s been slipping lately. his stuff is more and more unscientific, i feel like he?s around to make casual sports fans feel smarter.

While I basically agree that his draft system does seem to be a bit lacking, in the science, I think he points out that it is still the first draft.

But yeah, writing for ESPN probably hurts, too, as you can’t get too scientific, or you’ll bore your audience.

Caleb I agree…and what’s funny is if you listen to draft experts (use that term loosely) it would seem as though every first round pick will have a 15 year career adn be an all star. this happens with the nfl draft too, but its weird that analysts dont look back and see that maybe 20 or 30 percent of hte first round is successful at most, and talk about bust potential.

With Fazekas, I’ll play the race card – if he is a poor man’s anyone, it’s Dirk Nowitzki. Rebounding, hot-scoring jump-shooter, no defense. Obviously, not on the same level, but a similar type of player. Not at all like Webber or ‘Sheed – when those guys came into the like they were like Tyrus Thomas – great hops, great post game – very good defense. Fazekas can’t guard a chair. Now that they’re older, and settling for more jump shots, they’re MORE similar, but the best comparison with them is that Fazekas seems to be a pretty good passer (and is the same height).

It would take a ballsy move by some GM, but Fazekas would be a decent value around #15 or even higher. The average career of a player that level is around 10 years, I’d guess. That would put him as the 150th best player in the league – a 4th or 5th option on an average team, or a valuable role player on a great team. Based on the statistical analysis – that seems totally believable.

The counterargument is that you could get him later in the draft, and maybe you could. But I think it’s generally better to take the guy you really want, unless you’re guaranteed to get him later (as in a trade, after the draft). That’s the route Isaiah took with Balkman. Maybe he could have gotten more “value” – but are we complaining now?

Of the guys who have been mentioned as potential Knicks, Sean Williams also stood out – not surprising, as his off-court issues are the only thing keeping him out of the lottery. Bellinelli, as others have mentioned. The big surprise to me was Daequon Cook.

I think the biggest takeaway messages from those analyses is: there are very few legitimate NBA players out there. The ones who succeed have it all – solid skills, terrific athleticism and a willingness to focus themselves. Also,older players – Hollinger singled out Al Thornton, who’s 24 – just don’t improve nearly as much as young guys. If you’re over 21, you better be dominant at the college level; you won’t develop into a player later on. And if you can play at 18 or 19 – watch out. If you can get any minutes at all in the NBA at age 19 – it’s a very good chance you will reach All-Star level.