What's new
By:

Hard to see Knight as the #3 pick based on this analysis..

More on the Pure Point Rating from ESPN:

https://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/30332/get-to-the-point-knight-vs-walker

To help us, let's use one of the key metrics for evaluating point-guard prospects: pure point rating (PPR), which calculates assists and turnovers into a single number projection of how a particular player will fare as a distributor in the NBA. The average PPR of all current NBA starters while they were in college is 1.2.

Walker had a 1.5 PPR in college. It also took him only 18 minutes per game to get a steal or block and he was able to score inside. His upside is the same or slightly better than Knight's, but he is definitely a safer pick -- his chance of failing is less than one out of 10. There are no red flags on Walker, making him a one-out-of-three shot of becoming a good player at the next level.

Knight, meanwhile, has a one-in-four chance of being good, but the numbers suggest that his chances of success ride heavily on his shooting ability, not his passing. Knight had a minus-1.4 PPR in college, which is extremely low for a point guard -- lower, in fact, than any NBA starting point guard’s college PPR except for Stephen Curry, who did not play point guard until his third and final year at Davidson.

Knight’s youth and specific metrics on steals and rebounds also raise red flags. In short, studies show that point guards with his characteristics don't live up to first-round expectations. Knight has about a one-in-three chance at failing -- he is an NBA player, but he is a poor risk for a lottery team.
Click to expand...
 
As much as the percentages, i care about their age. Its much easier for ncaa players to get better stats as the years go by. Thats why i rate knight much higher than kemba and jimmer.
 
^^^ the only thing I would disagree with (actually more of a clarification) on the assessment of Knight is the steals category. Calipari never has players that are either steals or blocks juggernauts. This is because he doesn't like gambling on defense, just solid "d" and keep your man from scoring. He is always saying he thinks two of the most overrated stats in bb are steals and blocks .. constantly citing players that have gaudy numbers in one of those categories but are an overall defensive liability.

The other points about Knight are fair ... but I just think he has too much in the intangibles department to 'fail' in the NBA. I have repeatedly said, though, #3 is likely too high .. but there just are not enough in this draft you take before him. Perplexing.
 
Where are they getting these odds? Knight has a one in four chance in succeeding? A one in three chance in failing? These seem like arbitrary numbers based on nothing in particular.
 
If you draft Knight you aren't drafting him because he had a stellar college season. You're drafting him because of the skills, size and athletic ability he possesses coupled with his intangibles. I am not saying he is the right pick. I am not saying he certainly isn't. He reminds me a lot of Jrue Holiday. Holiday struggled a lot in college because he was forced to be an 2 guard. Knight struggled a lot with the dribble drive offense. But 3 years later Holiday has developed into very good guard at the 1 and the 2.

Now in a normal draft, the number 3 pick will get you something much better than a player with intangibles potential and one poor college season. In this year's draft he might be the best available prospect.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top