Just by the Numbers: The 2010 Power Forward Crop

Just by the Numbers: The 2010 Power Forward Crop
Jun 24, 2010, 01:12 am
More so than the other position we've observed, our analysis of this draft's power forwards should help us get a feel for where each prospect in the group fits on the next level. With the increasingly diverse number of roles power forwards can play for their respective teams, the versatility of the position has trickled down to the NCAA level.

Just By the Numbers: The 2010 Small Forward Crop
Just by the Numbers: The 2010 Shooting Guard Crop
Just By the Numbers: The 2010 Point Guard Crop

We have twp international prospects in this group, Ludovic Vaty and Tim Ohlbrecht. Latavious Williams is another potentially interesting case study, spending last season in the NBADL, becoming the first player to transition to the D-League from high school.

To gain a better understanding of the statistics used, visit the glossary by Noah Libby-Haines. Interested in making your own statistical comparisons? You can do so here.

Point Per-40 Minutes Pace Adjusted

Luke HarangodyNotre DameNCAA27.4
Charles GarciaSeattleNCAA24.2
Larry SandersVirginia CommonwealthNCAA21.1
Samardo SamuelsLouisvilleNCAA20.5
Dwayne CollinsMiami (FL)NCAA19.4
Gani LawalGeorgia TechNCAA19.2
Ludovic VatyOrleansFRENCH19
Trevor BookerClemsonNCAA18.9
Deon ThompsonNorth CarolinaNCAA18.8
Michael WashingtonArkansasNCAA18.3
Wayne ChismTennesseeNCAA18
Magnum RolleLouisiana TechNCAA17.9
Craig BrackinsIowa StateNCAA17.9
Ed DavisNorth CarolinaNCAA17.6
Derrick FavorsGeorgia TechNCAA17.2
Jarvis VarnadoMississippi StateNCAA17.1
Tiny GallonOklahomaNCAA16.9
Ludovic VatyEntente OrleanaiseEURO16.7
Patrick PattersonKentuckyNCAA16.5
Ekpe UdohBaylorNCAA15.7
Latavious WilliamsTulsa 66ersDLEAGUE15.4
Gavin EdwardsConnecticutNCAA13.8
Tim OhlbrechtTelekom BonnEUROCUP12

This stat gives us a straightforward look at how big of a scoring punch this group provides when they are on the floor. Luke Harangody is easily the top player here, despite being slowed by injuries at the end of the season. Charles Garcia places second, and is one of the most enigmatic players in this draft. Even though he fell off late in the year, Garcia was a dominant scorer playing for new Division I institution Seattle University. Surprisingly, Larry Sanders places third. Despite being considered an extremely raw offensive player, he's made some clear strides over the years at VCU. Samardo Samuels and Dwayne Collins round out the top-5 thanks to their ability to impose their strength around the rim.

Derrick Favors and Patrick Patterson don't impress here, placing fairly low on our list. Patterson showed great maturity taking a back-seat to Kentucky's freshman last season, but that doesn't help him in this category. Georgia Tech's lack of a pure point guard didn't help his cause either. Ekpe Udoh lands in the bottom-5 primarily because of his lack of great finishing ability. Gavin Edwards and Latavious Williams primarily functioned as role-players for their respective teams, so their usage wasn't high enough to post impressive scoring numbers.

Free Throw Attempts Per-40 Minutes Pace Adjusted
Charles GarciaSeattleNCAA12.7
Gani LawalGeorgia TechNCAA9
Dwayne CollinsMiami (FL)NCAA8.9
Samardo SamuelsLouisvilleNCAA8.8
Michael WashingtonArkansasNCAA8.1
Luke HarangodyNotre DameNCAA7.5
Ed DavisNorth CarolinaNCAA7.5
Jarvis VarnadoMississippi StateNCAA7.2
Larry SandersVirginia CommonwealthNCAA7
Trevor BookerClemsonNCAA6.7
Deon ThompsonNorth CarolinaNCAA6.1
Derrick FavorsGeorgia TechNCAA5.5
Magnum RolleLouisiana TechNCAA5.4
Craig BrackinsIowa StateNCAA5.2
Ekpe UdohBaylorNCAA5.1
Wayne ChismTennesseeNCAA4.8
Tiny GallonOklahomaNCAA4.8
Gavin EdwardsConnecticutNCAA4.7
Ludovic VatyOrleansFRENCH4.3
Ludovic VatyEntente OrleanaiseEURO4.1
Latavious WilliamsTulsa 66ersDLEAGUE4.1
Patrick PattersonKentuckyNCAA3.9
Tim OhlbrechtTelekom BonnEUROCUP2.8

This stat can give us a good feel for how aggressive these prospects are when using their strength and athleticism when attacking the rim, whether it be off the dribble or in back to the basket situations. Charles Garcia sits atop the rankings in this category by a sizeable margin. Anyone who was able to see Garcia live knows that he's relentless in the post and off the dribble, drawing contact at will against the level of competition he played against. His high usage helped him here as well. Gani Lawal, Dwayne Collins, and Samardo Samuels used their ability to get position in the post to force defenders to foul them to prevent easy baskets. Michael Washington finishes well here despite having a fairly rough season.

Ed Davis looks solid by this standard, as does Larry Sanders once again. Derrick Favors sits right around average, while the midrange oriented duo of Ekpe Udoh and Craig Brackins finish a bit below average because of their propensity to operate away from the rim. Patrick Patterson falls in the same boat, and is limited by his usage.

Free Throw Attempts Per Field Goal Attempt
Charles GarciaSeattleNCAA0.76
Dwayne CollinsMiami (FL)NCAA0.75
Ed DavisNorth CarolinaNCAA0.69
Gani LawalGeorgia TechNCAA0.68
Jarvis VarnadoMississippi StateNCAA0.66
Samardo SamuelsLouisvilleNCAA0.65
Michael WashingtonArkansasNCAA0.63
Gavin EdwardsConnecticutNCAA0.56
Derrick FavorsGeorgia TechNCAA0.49
Trevor BookerClemsonNCAA0.47
Larry SandersVirginia CommonwealthNCAA0.46
Ekpe UdohBaylorNCAA0.42
Deon ThompsonNorth CarolinaNCAA0.41
Tiny GallonOklahomaNCAA0.4
Magnum RolleLouisiana TechNCAA0.38
Luke HarangodyNotre DameNCAA0.35
Patrick PattersonKentuckyNCAA0.35
Ludovic VatyEntente OrleanaiseEURO0.35
Wayne ChismTennesseeNCAA0.34
Craig BrackinsIowa StateNCAA0.34
Latavious WilliamsTulsa 66ersDLEAGUE0.34
Ludovic VatyOrleansFRENCH0.31
Tim OhlbrechtTelekom BonnEUROCUP0.28

A more accurate indicator of how aggressive players are relative to their role on the team, this stat shows us how frequently players get to the line by shot rather than in total.

Charles Garcia and Dwayne Collins went to the line on an incredible three-quarters of their shots. Ed Davis and Gani Lawal are once again near the top of the heap, while defensive star Jarvis Varnado takes the final spot in the top-5. Gavin Edwards makes the biggest jump, since he didn't get too the line a lot on the whole, but drew a lot of contact when he did look to shoot.

Derrick Favors places a bit above average, while Ekpe Udoh and Larry Sanders all place in the 40% range. Luke Harangody and Patrick Patterson both place below average, with Craig Brackins finishing last amongst the top group of prospects. Tim Ohlbrecht continues his run near the bottom of our list, as he and Latavious Williams possess interesting tools, but play roles against quality competition than don't allow for too much scoring.

Three Point Attempts Per 40-Minutes Pace Adjusted

Wayne ChismTennesseeNCAA4.2
Tim OhlbrechtTelekom BonnEUROCUP3.6
Luke HarangodyNotre DameNCAA3.4
Craig BrackinsIowa StateNCAA3
Patrick PattersonKentuckyNCAA2.1
Charles GarciaSeattleNCAA2
Michael WashingtonArkansasNCAA1.3
Trevor BookerClemsonNCAA1.3
Tiny GallonOklahomaNCAA0.9
Ekpe UdohBaylorNCAA0.8
Larry SandersVirginia CommonwealthNCAA0.7
Latavious WilliamsTulsa 66ersDLEAGUE0.5
Deon ThompsonNorth CarolinaNCAA0.1
Gavin EdwardsConnecticutNCAA0
Magnum RolleLouisiana TechNCAA0
Dwayne CollinsMiami (FL)NCAA0
Samardo SamuelsLouisvilleNCAA0
Jarvis VarnadoMississippi StateNCAA0
Gani LawalGeorgia TechNCAA0
Ed DavisNorth CarolinaNCAA0
Derrick FavorsGeorgia TechNCAA0
Ludovic VatyOrleansFRENCH0
Ludovic VatyEntente OrleanaiseEURO0

This statistics gives us a great deal of inside into which of these players are capable of being “stretch-fours” on the next level. It gives us an excellent feel for how much time these players spent spreading the floor out on the perimeter.

Wayne Chism ranks first here, with Tim Ohlbrecht not too far behind. Luke Harangody attempted to showcase his ability to play the three last season by extending his range. Craig Brackins and Patrick Patterson both proved capable of stepping out to the perimeter, and could become nice threats in pick and pop situations if they improve their consistency. Most of the prospects in this class shot less than one three per-game, but some of the players in this year's small forward crop could be considered stretch-fours. Luke Babbitt fits that mold extremely well.

True Shooting Percentage

Gavin EdwardsConnecticutNCAA65%
Patrick PattersonKentuckyNCAA63%
Derrick FavorsGeorgia TechNCAA63%
Ludovic VatyEntente OrleanaiseEURO63%
Ed DavisNorth CarolinaNCAA62%
Dwayne CollinsMiami (FL)NCAA61%
Jarvis VarnadoMississippi StateNCAA61%
Ludovic VatyOrleansFRENCH61%
Samardo SamuelsLouisvilleNCAA59%
Tiny GallonOklahomaNCAA59%
Larry SandersVirginia CommonwealthNCAA57%
Michael WashingtonArkansasNCAA56%
Wayne ChismTennesseeNCAA56%
Luke HarangodyNotre DameNCAA56%
Trevor BookerClemsonNCAA56%
Gani LawalGeorgia TechNCAA56%
Magnum RolleLouisiana TechNCAA55%
Latavious WilliamsTulsa 66ersDLEAGUE55%
Charles GarciaSeattleNCAA54%
Ekpe UdohBaylorNCAA54%
Deon ThompsonNorth CarolinaNCAA53%
Tim OhlbrechtTelekom BonnEUROCUP52%
Craig BrackinsIowa StateNCAA50%

True shooting percentage effectively measures a player's scoring efficiency by taking free throws and three pointers into account, giving us a better overall picture of how effectively a prospect puts points on the board.

Gavin Edwards takes the top spot here, thanks to his finishing ability and relatively low usage rate. The same goes for Patrick Patterson, who has played efficient basketball in numerous roles throughout his Kentucky career. Derrick Favors makes his first appearance in the top-5, as his athleticism made him a fantastic scoring option at the rim. Ludovic Vaty finished well down low in a limited sample of games for Orleans in the EuroLeague as well. Ed Davis rounds out the top-5, and it's interesting to see the top prospects at this position amongst the top players in this category.

Larry Sanders sits right about average, while Ekpe Udoh and Craig Brackins land in the back of the pack. Amongst the more perimeter oriented forwards, it is interesting to note the disparity between Patterson and Brackins. While they both attempted a number of three pointers and proves versatile, Patterson's true shooting represents his polish as a scorer.

Offensive Rebounds Per-40 Minutes Pace Adjusted

Latavious WilliamsTulsa 66ersDLEAGUE5.3
Dwayne CollinsMiami (FL)NCAA4.7
Magnum RolleLouisiana TechNCAA4.6
Larry SandersVirginia CommonwealthNCAA4.5
Tiny GallonOklahomaNCAA4.5
Samardo SamuelsLouisvilleNCAA4.3
Gani LawalGeorgia TechNCAA4.3
Ekpe UdohBaylorNCAA4.1
Derrick FavorsGeorgia TechNCAA4.1
Deon ThompsonNorth CarolinaNCAA3.9
Ed DavisNorth CarolinaNCAA3.8
Jarvis VarnadoMississippi StateNCAA3.7
Ludovic VatyOrleansFRENCH3.7
Trevor BookerClemsonNCAA3.5
Patrick PattersonKentuckyNCAA3.5
Gavin EdwardsConnecticutNCAA3.3
Charles GarciaSeattleNCAA3.3
Michael WashingtonArkansasNCAA3
Ludovic VatyEntente OrleanaiseEURO2.9
Wayne ChismTennesseeNCAA2.8
Luke HarangodyNotre DameNCAA2.8
Craig BrackinsIowa StateNCAA2.3
Tim OhlbrechtTelekom BonnEUROCUP2.3

It never hurts to have a few extra possessions each game, and this stat tells us which of the players in our group are giving their teammates more opportunities to score to by cleaning the glass when they don't. Latavious Williams actually manages to take the spot in this group despite playing against larger, and often more athletic players on a nightly basis in the NBADL. He doesn't dominate this category as thoroughly as DeJaun Blair did last summer, but he's in a class of his own here.

The next tier of players includes a lot of diversity. Samardo Samuels, Tiny Gallon and Dwayne Collins all used their bulk to clear out space to pull down offensive rebounds on the inside. Magnum Rolle and Larry Sanders both exploited their length against lesser competition, and place prominently despite their lack of strength.

Derrick Favors and Patrick Patterson rank on either side of the average, with Ed Davis falling almost exactly in between. While none are elite rebounders, each proved capable of getting the job done last season. Craig Brackins doesn't look too good here despite his physical tools, and was outrebounded by the less explosive and shorter Luke Harangody.

Rebounds Per-40 Minutes Pace Adjusted
Latavious WilliamsTulsa 66ersDLEAGUE15.3
Larry SandersVirginia CommonwealthNCAA13.4
Tiny GallonOklahomaNCAA13
Jarvis VarnadoMississippi StateNCAA12.7
Dwayne CollinsMiami (FL)NCAA12.6
Ed DavisNorth CarolinaNCAA12.6
Gani LawalGeorgia TechNCAA12.4
Derrick FavorsGeorgia TechNCAA11.6
Luke HarangodyNotre DameNCAA11.5
Ludovic VatyEntente OrleanaiseEURO11.4
Ludovic VatyOrleansFRENCH11.1
Ekpe UdohBaylorNCAA11
Magnum RolleLouisiana TechNCAA10.9
Charles GarciaSeattleNCAA10.7
Trevor BookerClemsonNCAA10.4
Wayne ChismTennesseeNCAA10.2
Samardo SamuelsLouisvilleNCAA9.3
Craig BrackinsIowa StateNCAA9.3
Deon ThompsonNorth CarolinaNCAA9.1
Michael WashingtonArkansasNCAA8.9
Patrick PattersonKentuckyNCAA8.6
Gavin EdwardsConnecticutNCAA8.4
Tim OhlbrechtTelekom BonnEUROCUP6.9

Possibly the most important stat for this position considering the role these players will shoulder immediately, Latavious Williams once again takes the top spot, using his athleticism and length to pull down boards at a high rate on both ends. Some of his success in these categories can be attributed to a shorter shot clock, but Williams still deserves a lot of credit for posting such numbers against professionals considering his experience level.

Larry Sanders and Tiny Gallon make up the second tier of rebounders, with Jarvis Varnado and Dwayne Collins sitting not too far behind. Whether a forward is long and athletic, or stout and strong, it's fairly clear that physical attributes and tenacity make all the difference on the glass.

Derrick Favors and Ed Davis both rank pretty well here, with Ekpe Udoh ranking right around average. Amongst the top power forward prospects in this class, Craig Brackins and Patrick Patterson rank amongst the worst rebounders. Patterson had the disadvantage of playing next to DeMarcus Cousins, who cleaned the glass at a fantastic rate, but still has some questions to answer about his ability to be a presence on the glass next season.

Blocks Per-40 Minutes Pace Adjusted

Jarvis VarnadoMississippi StateNCAA5.8
Ekpe UdohBaylorNCAA4.2
Larry SandersVirginia CommonwealthNCAA3.8
Ed DavisNorth CarolinaNCAA3.7
Derrick FavorsGeorgia TechNCAA2.8
Magnum RolleLouisiana TechNCAA2.7
Gavin EdwardsConnecticutNCAA2.6
Gani LawalGeorgia TechNCAA2
Michael WashingtonArkansasNCAA1.9
Wayne ChismTennesseeNCAA1.8
Dwayne CollinsMiami (FL)NCAA1.8
Trevor BookerClemsonNCAA1.8
Ludovic VatyOrleansFRENCH1.6
Samardo SamuelsLouisvilleNCAA1.5
Patrick PattersonKentuckyNCAA1.5
Latavious WilliamsTulsa 66ersDLEAGUE1.5
Deon ThompsonNorth CarolinaNCAA1.3
Tiny GallonOklahomaNCAA1.3
Craig BrackinsIowa StateNCAA1.3
Charles GarciaSeattleNCAA1
Luke HarangodyNotre DameNCAA0.8
Ludovic VatyEntente OrleanaiseEURO0.7
Tim OhlbrechtTelekom BonnEUROCUP0.5

This metric tells us a bit about how these players used their length and athleticism on the defensive end. One of the top defenders in the history of the NCAA, Jarvis Varnado used his unbelievable length and impeccable timing to block more than one and a half more shots per-40 minutes pace adjusted than the next closest competitor. His ability to translate those tools to the next level will be key to his long-term success, as they should buy him some time to improve the polish on his offensive repertoire.

Ekpe Udoh and Larry Sanders take the next two spots, and while both will need to add weight to their frames to continue to have success, both are capable of making an impact with their big wingspans. Ed Davis and Derrick Favors place fourth and fifth, though Favors lags behind the other players in the top-5. Both players have the physical profiles to be solid defenders on the next level.

While it's no surprise to see a heavy-set player like Tiny Gallon near the bottom of this list, Craig Brackins and Charles Garcia both have the length and athleticism to have been more effective protecting the rim last season. Luke Harangody takes the bottom spot amongst NCAA players, which is a reminder of how much this stat has to do with the aspects of the game that these prospects don't have control over.

Steals Per-40 Minutes Pace Adjusted
Trevor BookerClemsonNCAA1.7
Wayne ChismTennesseeNCAA1.6
Ludovic VatyOrleansFRENCH1.6
Deon ThompsonNorth CarolinaNCAA1.5
Ludovic VatyEntente OrleanaiseEURO1.4
Latavious WilliamsTulsa 66ersDLEAGUE1.4
Derrick FavorsGeorgia TechNCAA1.2
Larry SandersVirginia CommonwealthNCAA1.1
Tiny GallonOklahomaNCAA1.1
Gavin EdwardsConnecticutNCAA1
Michael WashingtonArkansasNCAA1
Magnum RolleLouisiana TechNCAA1
Dwayne CollinsMiami (FL)NCAA0.9
Ekpe UdohBaylorNCAA0.9
Samardo SamuelsLouisvilleNCAA0.8
Craig BrackinsIowa StateNCAA0.8
Jarvis VarnadoMississippi StateNCAA0.8
Patrick PattersonKentuckyNCAA0.8
Gani LawalGeorgia TechNCAA0.7
Charles GarciaSeattleNCAA0.6
Luke HarangodyNotre DameNCAA0.6
Ed DavisNorth CarolinaNCAA0.6
Tim OhlbrechtTelekom BonnEUROCUP0.5

Another indicator of how players use their physical tools, Trevor Booker doesn't dominate this category the way Tony Gaffney did last season, but his savvy and energy level allowed him to force more turnovers than any other player in this group. Wayne Chism and Ludovic Vaty sit just behind him, with Deon Thompson and Latavious Williams not too far behind. Unlike previous seasons, where we saw the best athletes at this position near the top of this category, the 2010 list is headed up by the most consistent workers.

We don't have too many players in this group who guarded different positions on a possession-by-possession basis, and find the difference between the top tier of players and the back of the pack to be fairly negligible. Though Patrick Patterson ranks a bit below average, that is by no means an indictment of his ability to force turnovers and more so an indication of a way he stays at home defensively. Few of the players in this group should be expected to make a truly significant impact in the passing lanes on the next level, and likely won't be asked to do so.

Assists Per-40 Minutes Pace Adjusted
Trevor BookerClemsonNCAA3.2
Ekpe UdohBaylorNCAA3.1
Craig BrackinsIowa StateNCAA2.3
Luke HarangodyNotre DameNCAA2
Dwayne CollinsMiami (FL)NCAA1.9
Samardo SamuelsLouisvilleNCAA1.6
Wayne ChismTennesseeNCAA1.5
Larry SandersVirginia CommonwealthNCAA1.4
Derrick FavorsGeorgia TechNCAA1.4
Latavious WilliamsTulsa 66ersDLEAGUE1.4
Charles GarciaSeattleNCAA1.3
Tiny GallonOklahomaNCAA1.3
Ed DavisNorth CarolinaNCAA1.3
Tim OhlbrechtTelekom BonnEUROCUP1.3
Ludovic VatyOrleansFRENCH1.2
Michael WashingtonArkansasNCAA1.1
Magnum RolleLouisiana TechNCAA1.1
Deon ThompsonNorth CarolinaNCAA1.1
Jarvis VarnadoMississippi StateNCAA1.1
Patrick PattersonKentuckyNCAA1.1
Gavin EdwardsConnecticutNCAA1
Ludovic VatyEntente OrleanaiseEURO1
Gani LawalGeorgia TechNCAA0.6

An indicator of versatility, this stat gives us an idea of how well these prospects will be able to facilitate for their teams on the next level when asked to do so from the high or low post. Trevor Booker and Ekpe Udoh are the top passers in this group. While center Greg Monroe is easily the best passing big man in this class, both Booker and Udoh show nice vision and a knack of creating angles to hit the open man when operating in the post. Craig Brackins places third here, which is pretty impressive. Considering his aggressive shot selection, his placement here serves as a reminder of the versatility that had him firmly in the first round a season ago. Rounding out the top-5 are Dwayne Collins and Luke Harangody, both of whom use their rugged play underneath to force defenders to put a body on them down low, freeing up teammates elsewhere.

There is little difference between the sixth best passer and the second to worst passer on this list, with Gani Lawal being the only prospect below 1 assist per-40 minutes pace adjusted. Clearly, he was looking to score virtually every time he touches the ball, and his overall offensive awareness needs work.

Turnovers Per-40 Minutes Pace Adjusted

Charles GarciaSeattleNCAA5.2
Ludovic VatyEntente OrleanaiseEURO4.1
Dwayne CollinsMiami (FL)NCAA4
Tiny GallonOklahomaNCAA3.8
Derrick FavorsGeorgia TechNCAA3.4
Samardo SamuelsLouisvilleNCAA3.3
Ludovic VatyOrleansFRENCH3.3
Gani LawalGeorgia TechNCAA3.2
Ekpe UdohBaylorNCAA2.7
Michael WashingtonArkansasNCAA2.6
Ed DavisNorth CarolinaNCAA2.6
Magnum RolleLouisiana TechNCAA2.5
Gavin EdwardsConnecticutNCAA2.4
Deon ThompsonNorth CarolinaNCAA2.4
Larry SandersVirginia CommonwealthNCAA2.4
Trevor BookerClemsonNCAA2.4
Jarvis VarnadoMississippi StateNCAA2.4
Latavious WilliamsTulsa 66ersDLEAGUE2.4
Wayne ChismTennesseeNCAA2.3
Luke HarangodyNotre DameNCAA2.3
Craig BrackinsIowa StateNCAA2.3
Tim OhlbrechtTelekom BonnEUROCUP2
Patrick PattersonKentuckyNCAA1.2

This list tells us both about the usage and roles of these players in addition to giving us a bit of insight into their decision-making skills. Charles Garcia ranks as the most turnover prone players in our rankings, which comes as no surprise considering that he spent quite a bit of time bring the ball up the floor for his team early in the year. The aggressiveness that gets him to the line also makes him turnover prone at times. Ludovic Vaty places second, struggling against much older players in the EuroLeague. Dwayne Collins, Tiny Gallon, and Derrick Favors round out the top-5, mostly because of how assertive they were with their moves in the lane.

Patrick Patterson almost never turned the ball over last season, a byproduct of his role and sound decision-making. He's fully capable of stepping in for a team next season and playing low mistake basketball while acclimating himself to the NBA.

Assist to Turnover Ratio
Trevor BookerClemsonNCAA1.31
Ekpe UdohBaylorNCAA1.11
Craig BrackinsIowa StateNCAA1.01
Patrick PattersonKentuckyNCAA0.88
Luke HarangodyNotre DameNCAA0.87
Wayne ChismTennesseeNCAA0.67
Tim OhlbrechtTelekom BonnEUROCUP0.63
Larry SandersVirginia CommonwealthNCAA0.59
Latavious WilliamsTulsa 66ersDLEAGUE0.57
Deon ThompsonNorth CarolinaNCAA0.48
Dwayne CollinsMiami (FL)NCAA0.48
Samardo SamuelsLouisvilleNCAA0.48
Ed DavisNorth CarolinaNCAA0.48
Jarvis VarnadoMississippi StateNCAA0.45
Gavin EdwardsConnecticutNCAA0.42
Michael WashingtonArkansasNCAA0.42
Magnum RolleLouisiana TechNCAA0.42
Derrick FavorsGeorgia TechNCAA0.41
Ludovic VatyOrleansFRENCH0.35
Tiny GallonOklahomaNCAA0.34
Charles GarciaSeattleNCAA0.26
Ludovic VatyEntente OrleanaiseEURO0.24
Gani LawalGeorgia TechNCAA0.19

Last year we only saw four power forwards post an assist-to-turnover ratio greater than one. This year, three players accomplish that feat. Trevor Booker takes the top spot thanks to his excellent hands and heady play with the ball in his hands. Ekpe Udoh and Craig Brackins are the other two players who impress here.

Patrick Patterson takes the fourth spot, with Luke Harangody just behind him. There's a bit of a drop off after that, and the majority of the top power forwards prospects in this class do not bring much to the table as passers. Gani Lawal and Charles Garcia post the most concerning numbers, which comes as no surprise considering their assertiveness with the ball.

Pure Point Rating

Trevor BookerClemsonNCAA-0.87
Patrick PattersonKentuckyNCAA-1.37
Ekpe UdohBaylorNCAA-1.82
Craig BrackinsIowa StateNCAA-2
Luke HarangodyNotre DameNCAA-2.32
Tim OhlbrechtTelekom BonnEUROCUP-3.11
Wayne ChismTennesseeNCAA-3.37
Latavious WilliamsTulsa 66ersDLEAGUE-3.62
Larry SandersVirginia CommonwealthNCAA-3.78
Gavin EdwardsConnecticutNCAA-4.34
Jarvis VarnadoMississippi StateNCAA-4.37
Deon ThompsonNorth CarolinaNCAA-4.48
Magnum RolleLouisiana TechNCAA-4.73
Ed DavisNorth CarolinaNCAA-4.88
Michael WashingtonArkansasNCAA-5.1
Samardo SamuelsLouisvilleNCAA-5.81
Ludovic VatyOrleansFRENCH-6.39
Derrick FavorsGeorgia TechNCAA-6.63
Dwayne CollinsMiami (FL)NCAA-6.78
Gani LawalGeorgia TechNCAA-7.32
Tiny GallonOklahomaNCAA-7.52
Ludovic VatyEntente OrleanaiseEURO-8.76
Charles GarciaSeattleNCAA-12.76

This stat can be a strong indicator of the awareness and feel for the game that teams look for in modern-day power forwards, and is calculated with the formula [100 x (League Pace / Team Pace) x ([(Assists x 2/3) - Turnovers] / Minutes]. Based on this stat, none of the power forwards in this group added much to their teams last season with their passing, but some at least didn't hurt them too much. Trevor Booker is the closest player to 0, while no other players post a mark above -1. Charles Garcia ranks well below the rest of this group here at a troubling -12.76 –a clearly indicator of the way he approached things on the offensive end last season.

Team Possesions Per Game
NameTeamLeagueTm Pos/g
Latavious WilliamsTulsa 66ersDLEAGUE96.3
Charles GarciaSeattleNCAA80
Tim OhlbrechtTelekom BonnEUROCUP74.1
Deon ThompsonNorth CarolinaNCAA73
Ed DavisNorth CarolinaNCAA73
Ludovic VatyEntente OrleanaiseEURO72.4
Michael WashingtonArkansasNCAA72.3
Ludovic VatyOrleansFRENCH72.2
Gani LawalGeorgia TechNCAA70.9
Derrick FavorsGeorgia TechNCAA70.9
Patrick PattersonKentuckyNCAA70.6
Craig BrackinsIowa StateNCAA70.4
Trevor BookerClemsonNCAA70.2
Wayne ChismTennesseeNCAA69.9
Magnum RolleLouisiana TechNCAA68.9
Samardo SamuelsLouisvilleNCAA68.6
Tiny GallonOklahomaNCAA68.5
Jarvis VarnadoMississippi StateNCAA68.5
Gavin EdwardsConnecticutNCAA68
Larry SandersVirginia CommonwealthNCAA68
Ekpe UdohBaylorNCAA67.5
Dwayne CollinsMiami (FL)NCAA67.2
Luke HarangodyNotre DameNCAA64.6

Teams from the NBADL will always be the winners in this category. Jeremy Wise's Bakersfield team topped the rankings in our point guard article and the Tulsa 66ers do the same here. Seattle University places second in 8 less minutes per-game, giving you an indication of how much freedom Charles Garcia had to push the ball himself and take the first available shot. UNC ranks well here, but can't quite live up to the near sweep they had in this category in last year's articles. Notre Dame was easily the slowest team, which didn't stop Luke Harangody from producing at a high level. Ekpe Udoh and Larry Sanders also see their respective teams place fairly low on our list.

Player Efficiency Rating
Luke HarangodyNotre DameNCAA30.5
Larry SandersVirginia CommonwealthNCAA30
Jarvis VarnadoMississippi StateNCAA28.6
Ed DavisNorth CarolinaNCAA26.8
Trevor BookerClemsonNCAA26.7
Dwayne CollinsMiami (FL)NCAA25.2
Ekpe UdohBaylorNCAA25.1
Derrick FavorsGeorgia TechNCAA24.8
Patrick PattersonKentuckyNCAA24
Samardo SamuelsLouisvilleNCAA23.9
Magnum RolleLouisiana TechNCAA23.6
Wayne ChismTennesseeNCAA23.3
Gani LawalGeorgia TechNCAA22.9
Deon ThompsonNorth CarolinaNCAA22.4
Tiny GallonOklahomaNCAA21.5
Gavin EdwardsConnecticutNCAA20.7
Charles GarciaSeattleNCAA20.7
Michael WashingtonArkansasNCAA20.5
Craig BrackinsIowa StateNCAA20.3
Ludovic VatyOrleansFRENCH20.1
Latavious WilliamsTulsa 66ersDLEAGUE18.1
Ludovic VatyEntente OrleanaiseEURO17
Tim OhlbrechtTelekom BonnEUROCUP9.7

Player efficiency rating was created by John Hollinger to measure the overall impact of a player in one stat. The rating uses an average PER of 15 derived from the NBA, which leads to inflated PERs for top collegiate prospects. No player even sniffs the PER of 38.9 that DeJuan Blair posted last season, but Luke Harangody and Larry Sanders take the top two places. That should come as a bit of surprise considering Harangody is considered arguably the most polished player in this group while Sanders is one of the rawest. Jarvis Varnado's presence on the glass afford him second place, while ACC players Ed Davis and Trevor Booker round out the top-5.

Derrick Favors doesn't place too far below the front of the pack despite his lack of touches, while Patrick Patterson sits right around average. Charles Garcia lands closer to the back of the pack than he has in many of the metrics we've analyzed here, showing how Hollinger's statistic docks players for high-mistake basketball. Unlike last season, most of the top prospects place at or above the average for their position.

Recent articles

10.6 Points
4.6 Rebounds
1.9 Assists
19.5 PER
3.8 Points
2.1 Rebounds
0.8 Assists
10.5 PER
14.8 Points
10.0 Rebounds
1.0 Assists
27.1 PER
8.5 Points
4.8 Rebounds
0.3 Assists
13.8 PER
19.9 Points
9.2 Rebounds
2.4 Assists
23.8 PER
0.8 Points
0.8 Rebounds
0.0 Assists
6.7 PER
12.0 Points
3.0 Rebounds
1.0 Assists
17.4 PER
1.2 Points
0.6 Rebounds
0.0 Assists
-6.3 PER
11.7 Points
7.3 Rebounds
0.3 Assists
25.4 PER
4.5 Points
4.0 Rebounds
0.7 Assists
14.3 PER
7.0 Points
0.5 Rebounds
0.5 Assists
7.9 PER
12.2 Points
6.2 Rebounds
0.8 Assists
20.8 PER
14.3 Points
7.0 Rebounds
0.7 Assists
23.0 PER
9.8 Points
4.7 Rebounds
1.5 Assists
12.9 PER
14.5 Points
5.3 Rebounds
1.4 Assists
19.4 PER
1.8 Points
3.8 Rebounds
0.4 Assists
9.5 PER
9.0 Points
9.8 Rebounds
1.6 Assists
18.6 PER
7.0 Points
5.2 Rebounds
0.8 Assists
16.7 PER
5.8 Points
4.7 Rebounds
1.7 Assists
9.3 PER
4.9 Points
2.5 Rebounds
0.7 Assists
12.1 PER
19.0 Points
11.2 Rebounds
1.7 Assists
30.6 PER
11.0 Points
7.0 Rebounds
3.0 Assists
14.1 PER
2.2 Points
1.0 Rebounds
0.3 Assists
0.9 PER
0.0 Points
0.0 Rebounds
0.0 Assists
0.0 PER
9.2 Points
6.1 Rebounds
2.5 Assists
13.1 PER
15.0 Points
7.5 Rebounds
1.5 Assists
38.2 PER
11.9 Points
4.0 Rebounds
4.3 Assists
17.8 PER
11.0 Points
10.0 Rebounds
0.0 Assists
24.7 PER

Twitter @DraftExpress

DraftExpress Shop