Projecting Kyrie Irving
I will be posting my analysis of the top draft picks over the next few days. My emphasis is on investigating players' statistical record, player comparisons, and looking at how different levels of production and skill-sets translate into the NBA. My first post is on likely #1 draft pick Kyrie Irving.
Kyrie Irving
PG
6'2", 185lbs
via rise.espn.go.com
Irving was a top tier prospect out of high-school, and every minute he's spent on the floor in college has validated that rating. In the 11 games Irving played this past year he put up numbers previously unheard of for a freshman PG. Forget Rose (#1 pick), forget Wall (#1 pick), forget Evans (#4 pick), none of Callipari's lead guards approached Irvings stellar season at Duke.
In the age of the hot-shot PG prospect Irving stands alone.
PER WS/40 PPR Ast/TO Pts/40 TS%
Irving (?) 32.5 12.3 1.33 1.74 25.3 70%
Rose (#1) 24.1 8.5 1.77 1.52 19.5 56%
Wall (#1) 22.2 7.1 1.62 0.78 19.1 56%
Evans (#4) 25.7 8.1 1.08 -3.60 23.6 53%
Conley (#4) 24.2 9.4 2.77 5.77 14.7 59%
Westbrook (Soph) (#4) 19.4 5.8 1.74 1.08 15.1 54%
Flynn (Soph) (#6) 20.4 5.8 1.97 2.72 17.5 57%
Curry (Jr) (#7) 36.4 11.5 1.5 -0.11 34 60%
The only top-10 PG prospect in the last few years to match Irving's production based on the big metric stats (PER and WS/40) was Steph Curry as a Junior. Curry was also the only top PG with scoring numbers that can compete with Irving's. Curry's situation/role was of course completely different, and his competition in the Southern Conference was much weaker than what Irving saw in the ACC. While Irving's distributor measures (PPR and Ast/TO) don't stand out among this group, he held his own in the PG role.
Based on what we've seen, Irving is an awesome prospect. The only problem is that we haven't seen much. If Irving put these numbers up over an entire college season I would put him in the LeBron/Howard/Durant/Oden tier of "can't miss" prospects. In this year's weak draft he is still the clear #1.
NBA Projection:
The pessimistic comp for Irving is really hard to come up with. Irving's small sample of play has been so sterling that it is hard to envision how exactly he will fail if he does. Kyrie Irving may not be what he looks like, but to the extent that we can make projections, they are nothing but optimistic.
NBADraft.net uses Mike Conley as a comp for Irving [2]. Conley is a good match physcially, but they are very different in terms of play-style. Irving outscored Conley by more than 10 points per 40min, and did so at a considerably more efficient rate, while Conley clearly focused more on being a "pure point-guard".
Ty Lawson with a PER of 30, a WS/40 of 12.8, and a TS% of 66 is the only PG I can find that produced similar to Irving in college, but he is still a stretch as a comparison. Lawson was less of a scorer and more of a distributor, and only reached Irvingesque metric numbers in his junior year.
The most common comp I've heard for Irving is none other than Chris Paul. Not bad company to be in, but is it deserved? Paul and Irving are pretty similar phyisically. Both are very good but not amazing "athletes". Irving probably has an inch or so on Paul, but they are both low to average size for an NBA PG. To understand how these two compare, we need to look at how they produced in college. Below I have a breakdown of Irving and Paul's production during each of their last years in the NCAA. We are looking at Chris Paul's sophomore numbers here, but it should be noted that Paul was nearly the same player his freshman year.
PER WS/40 pnts/40min TS% Asts/TO Asts/40 Reb/40 Stls/40
KI (Fresh) 32.5 12.3 25.3 70% 1.74 6.2 4.9 2.1
CP(Soph) 24.7 10.3 18.3 60% 2.38 7.9 5.4 2.8
Both were exceptional college players. Chris Paul was more of a distributor and Irving was more of a scorer. Paul was slightly better stealing and rebounding, but both were pretty solid in the off-ball statistics. Looking across the board I would give the nod to Irving as the better college player. That is no knock on Paul. I've been looking for awhile and I can't find anyone that put up the numbers Irving did, at least not until their Junior year.
So if Kyrie Irving's college numbers look better than Chris Paul's, should we expect his NBA numbers to look better as well? Not necessarily. Irving was a better scorer than Paul in college, and it wasn't even close. He scored 7 points more per 40min and did it at a 10% better true shooting rate. However, scoring and scoring efficiency rates translate pretty poorly into the NBA (ppg r^2=.34 and r of eFG%=0.2; [3 & 4]). Meanwhile, Paul trumped Irving in nearly all of the supporting statistics: rebounds, steals, and assists, which translate much more reliably to the NBA (r^2=0.83, 0.6, 0.88 respectively; [3]). Paul ended up being a better scorer in the NBA than he was in college (this is not necessarily surprising given that college scoring explains only a little of the variation in NBA scoring), at the same time he retained his collegiate stat-filling at the next level (as we should expect given that college production explains most of NBA production in these stats) and became one of the best players in the game. If Irving wants to compete with the likes of Chris Paul at the next level, he will need to either increase his assists, or retain his impressive scoring numbers. Neither of these is terribly likely, but both are very possible. Especially with such a small sample size, anything is possible.
Final player-comparison verdict:
? ---> a better scoring Chris Paul
Fit:
For starters, it doesn't matter. With a prospect this good you make it work.
If Rubio doesn't come stateside, the need is glaring. Jonny Flynn is terrible, and (god willing) unlikely to ever suit-up for the Wolves again. Ridnour isn't a starting PG. Irving would be our day one starter, and would be a near lock to improve our performance by at least several wins.
If Rubio does come stateside, things get a little more complicated. Many people have advocated trading one of the two in this situation. I think Rubio is the obvious choice to let go, but would prefer to retain both of them for the time being. Neither player is likely to be all that good in his first year. First year PGs don't historically perform all that well. While Irving's college numbers indicate he might be an exception to this rule, there is no reason to jump to that conclusion. Trade Luke, let him ride the pine, or play him at SG and split the minutes 24 and 24 between our little phenoms. If we really want to increase their minutes we can fiddle with Irving off-guard. Even in the unlikely event that we absolutely cannot get them on the court at the same time, and neither spends any time injured or struggling, the minute allocation should be fine. 24 minutes is exactly what Rubio is playing this year in the ACB (by far his heaviest year), and 24 minutes throughout an 82 game NBA season is a big jump from the 11 games Irving played in college. If somehow both Rubio and Irving prove to be studs, we can move one of them for huge value at the deadline or before next season. No reason to jump the gun.
Conclusion:
Best player in this draft by far, and a better prospect than anyone in last years draft class as well. The only knock on Irving is a derth of information. Short of him getting in a crippling motorcycle accident or sleeping with my girlfriend, I am praying the Wolves select Irving with the #1 pick in the 2011 draft.
References:
1. Draft Express (http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Kyrie-Irving-5735/stats/)
2. NBAdraft.net (http://www.nbadraft.net/players/kyrie-irving)
3. Basketball-Statistics (http://basketball-statistics.com/howdoncaastatisticstranslatetothenba.html)
4. Courtside Analyst (http://courtsideanalyst.wordpress.com/2011/03/05/the-mystery-of-landry-fields-and-demarcus-cousins-the-weak-correlation-between-collegiate-effective-scoring-and-nba-effective-scoring/)
50 comments
|
15 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'm scared we get him and then Rambis "coaches" him.
Chris Paul is one of my favorite players, and watching the playoffs this year he is putting on a show of being the best pure PG in the league. If this guy can be mentioned in the same sentence as him we have a success.
I agree there’s something a tad “off” with the Paul comparisons, but there’s no harm in that because, really, Paul and Nash are in their own galaxy in terms of balancing the alpha dog role with the role of brilliant facilitator.
But by no means does Irving look to be a “zero” guard either in the mold of someone like Evans.
Without delving into any sort os statistical comparisons, watching Irving play, he’s always reminded me a little of Deron Williams (the NBA version; DWill the Illini showed little indication he would become as good as he has).
DWill Comparison
I would love to see a comparison of Irving and Williams stats. I actually think he reminds me much more of Williams in college than he does of Williams in the NBA. I don’t remember DWill having the type of assist numbers in college that he does now. He was much more of a scoring PG in college if my memory is right. Obviously their much different physically as well but I do think their college games are similar.
Well, Dee Brown was probably that team’s most natural PG (although IIRC, DWill often brought the ball up in crunch time), which might explain DWill’s lack of raw assists. But beyond that, Williams really wasn’t an efficiency monster in the NCAAs, nor was he all that impressive in those important non-scoring numbers. That’s my recollection, though; could be wrong.
Really?
“Curry’s situation/role was of course completely different, and his competition in the Southern Conference was much weaker than what Irving saw in the ACC.”
Zero. The number of ACC opponents Irving faced. Two less then Steph Curry as a Junior.
by Waucckhewww on Apr 26, 2011 11:37 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
So where did the ACC rate this year?
He played Marquette, Kansas St., Mich St., Butler, Michigan, and Arizona for 6 of 11 games. His A/TO was 24/19 only in those games, but his scoring was as good or better. And actually, he had two assists vs 5 TOs vs Butler. Damn, that Butler coach is good.
You can't dust for vomit.
by twinstalker on Apr 26, 2011 11:49 AM CDT up reply actions
So, outside of Butler and the weaker teams
His A/TO was 22/14, or 1.56. I’m not really sure how meaningful that is by looking at the comps above, since we didn’t exclude games for them. So likely not meaningful at all.
You can't dust for vomit.
by twinstalker on Apr 26, 2011 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions
I know
Duke played a fairly strong non conf schedule and about an equal number of quality wins in Irving’s games than Davidson did the entire season. The fact is the post should be pointing out these facts rater than infering that Curry’s numbers can be dissmissed because he played in a mid-major.
by Waucckhewww on Apr 26, 2011 11:55 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
For what it is worth
I didnt think the ACC was all that terrible this year. I mean they had 4 tournament bids which is on par with most every conference except the big east and big ten. Both of which were unbelievably overated. They had the most sweet 16 teams (3) and the second best record at 8-4, behind Horizon who only had one team, Butler, which of course went the campionship so was able to post a 5-1 record, the one team kind of skews it for me.
by Waucckhewww on Apr 26, 2011 12:07 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
You are right of course...
but the point is still valid. Irving played a very difficult schedule, much more so than Curry.
by vjl110 on Apr 26, 2011 12:10 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
Other than that
Good post. Agreed on the tougher schedule, not sure I believe that weaker schedules mean better stats though. I look forward to reading your next ones, I am interested to see what you find about Bismack Biyombo.
by Waucckhewww on Apr 26, 2011 12:46 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
"not sure I believe that weaker schedules mean better stats though"
I actually tend this direction myself. At the extremes I think it can definitely matter, but I don’t think strength of schedule adjustments ever change our perspective very much.
you both get recs for your lesson in civil discourse*
after reading the draft prospect thread and the insightful “you guys are so fucking dense” argument, it brings a smile to my face.
*and for your ability to actually present facts to support your assertions. crazy stuff.
I had to stop reading that thread.
I don’t understand the hostility there.
"Of what use is a philosopher who does not hurt anybody's feelings?" -Diogenes of Sinope
by Cynical Jason on Apr 26, 2011 9:08 PM CDT up reply actions
It's obviously because
YOU’RE STUPID! %
"We must always seek the truth in our opponents' error and the error in our own truth." - RN
True.
"Of what use is a philosopher who does not hurt anybody's feelings?" -Diogenes of Sinope
by Cynical Jason on Apr 26, 2011 10:35 PM CDT up reply actions
It's really tough to find a comparison...
I don’t like the better scoring Chris Paul, because we haven’t seen much that would indicate Irving can approach Paul’s assist numbers.
My guess is he’ll put up Derrick Rose plus efficiency stat lines. 20 and 6 per 36 but only with a high 60 TS% as opposed to Rose’s low 50’s.
PoorDick: "Occam's Pocketbook: When a decision regarding the Wolves is unknown, assume the cheapest option is the most likely option."
How rude of me though, I forgot to add...
Great job!!
Kerry Eggers: "There are those who feel Kahn will be a new-wave type of GM along the lines of baseball’s Theo Epstein, and Daryl Morey of the Houston Rockets. Kahn will likely be more of a hybrid, employing a bit of an old-school tact as well."
David Kahn: "A lot of what I’m patterning myself after is Donnie, but we have different personalities. Donnie taught me a lot, but I’m kind of doing it my way. The way I’m doing it is the way I feel comfortable with. I probably have a foot in each camp."
Great stuff
Irving and BISMACK are at least interesting to consider on our roster.
Wouldn’t it be amazing UN-Wolves-like if they actually won the lottery for once, got Irving, made a major improvement, and then handed the Clipps a pick in the teens?
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra
We're due!
Kerry Eggers: "There are those who feel Kahn will be a new-wave type of GM along the lines of baseball’s Theo Epstein, and Daryl Morey of the Houston Rockets. Kahn will likely be more of a hybrid, employing a bit of an old-school tact as well."
If the Wolves were a pregnant woman, we'd have cracked out the oxytocin and induced five months ago.
If the Wolves were a pregnant woman I'd insist on a paternity test before admitting anything.
"When I was younger, I could remember anything, whether it happened or not." -Twain
by Tangerine dream on Apr 28, 2011 6:50 AM CDT up reply actions
Mein Compf:
Ty Lawson.
Both were ultra-efficient scorers in college, with the ability to do it inside and out. Both have somewhat disappointing assist numbers, despite playing with talented teammates. (This trend has continued with Lawson; he’s a career 6.1 assists/36 minutes playing on a fast-paced Nuggets team replete with scorers.)
Kyrie has several advantages that should make him a better pro:
- He’ll be 2.5 years younger entering the league than Lawson was
- He’s 3 inches taller (6’2" vs. 5’11" makes a huge difference)
- His college numbers were actually better than Lawson’s (small sample size caveat applies, as always)
If it wasn't for Jordan Farmar and that guy Kevin Love, I would've killed somebody!
We'll see how Irving actually measures out
There may not be that big of a height difference.
by Rascal Flatts on Apr 27, 2011 9:07 PM CDT up reply actions
...
I mean, yeah, he could be shorter. He could also be taller. Is there a reason to add a caveat to a measurement that has been universally reported the same?
If it wasn't for Jordan Farmar and that guy Kevin Love, I would've killed somebody!
Lawson's
height is from the combine. Irving’s height is his listed height and we all know that those are usually inflated by one or two inches. I have no question he’s taller than Lawson, but we can’t really compare apples to apples until the combine measurements come out. My guess is that Irving is no more than one or two inches taller. Either way, height certainly isn’t going to be a major issue for him.
by Rascal Flatts on Apr 28, 2011 12:14 PM CDT up reply actions
Excellent post.
Irving seems like a great prospect.
If there is cause for tempering the enthusiasm, it would be the sample size obviously. Then after that, it would be that Duke has a long history of great point guards (great collegiate stats on successful teams) that didn’t necessarily light the world on fire in the NBA. Unfortunately, two of the primary cases were Hurley and Williams, both of which had their pro careers ended by accidents.
I’ll just link to the BB Reference pages for a few. College stats at the bottom:
Bobby Hurley (very-high assists, high 3P%)
William Avery (solid scoring, assists, shooting percentages)
Jay Williams (tremendous scoring, good assists, shooting percentages)
The area where Irving really shines is obviously in shooting percentage. Also, these are his stats in his very first college games. The NCAA is way-watered down from when these other guys played (especially Hurley) but it’s still impressive that Irving did this kind of damage right away. In any case, I agree that he’s the clear-cut top prospect in this draft.
Comparing Irving to Hurley/Avery/Williams
True that all 3 of those players put up great shooting percentages.
Avery and Williams’ best year came as sophomores while Hurley’s came as a Senior. In their best years, their true shooting percentages were as follows…
Hurley: 60.4
Avery: 61.5
Williams: 60.4
And Irving posted a 71!!!
Kerry Eggers: "There are those who feel Kahn will be a new-wave type of GM along the lines of baseball’s Theo Epstein, and Daryl Morey of the Houston Rockets. Kahn will likely be more of a hybrid, employing a bit of an old-school tact as well."
As far as the small sample size goes,
his numbers are so good that it doesn’t make that much of a difference. He wouldn’t have had to play all that well in the games he missed to still be at the top of the list.
Think of it this way. He played 11 games with a TS% of 70, and 25 points per 40.
Let’s say he had played 11 mediocre games, say a TS% of 50, and 15 points per 40.
Then he’d have 22 games, with 20 points per 40, and a TS % of 60!
If he played 22 mediocre games, then he’d have basically a full season, and a TS% of around 57, and about 18 points per 40. His assist number would then keep him from being in the same prospect class as some of the other guys, but he’d be close.
So, even if you assume that those are the best 11 games he would have played that season, he still looks like one of the best pg prospects we’ve seen.
"Pinch-bunters don't have a ton of value, even with the Twins"
by Steven Ellingson on Apr 26, 2011 8:09 PM CDT reply actions 2 recs
good stuff
a nice thought experiment
I haven't written an insightful post in years.
by littleboxes on Apr 27, 2011 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions
I guess
I don’t care about the small sample size in College.
We’ve got film on him from high school, from the mcdonald’s game, from FIBA and from future workouts.
we’ll have enough info to make a decision.
The Wolves had exactly
zero college games to judge Garnett. No college footage isn’t necessarily a deal-breaker.
"Of what use is a philosopher who does not hurt anybody's feelings?" -Diogenes of Sinope
by Cynical Jason on Apr 27, 2011 7:44 PM CDT up reply actions
Good work
To comment on the dual PG scenario:
I agree with your assessment of rolling with the two of them. I wouldn’t necessarily keep them to 24 mpg, but it’s certainly doable (I think their agents might have something to say). I’d rather play them both together. I mean, it’s not like we’ve got a SG setting the world on fire that deserves the minutes, right? And Luke is one of the few players we have that apparently has trade value around the league. I like the guy as a backup, but if we’re trying to maximize value, he’s got to go. He’s not the veteran mentor we’re looking for, anyways.
For up to 10mpg, probably when Love and Beasley sit, our defensive rotations (I think Kyrie ends up playing off the ball, but is also our play maker at the end of the clock):
Irving
Rubio (who would be the primary ball handler until the play breaks down and we need to iso)
Wes
AR
Darko
Darko would have to understand that his role is being reduced with playmakers like Irving and Rubio on the floor with Love. And Pekovic would be a nice change of pace guy when one of our PGs sits.
I like this a lot more than limiting their minutes and playing Luke at the 2.
, said Mplax.
by Mplax on Apr 26, 2011 10:45 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
That would probably be my preference as well...
my one concern would be stunting Irving’s growth by playing him out of position.
I've only seen him play a couple of times,
but dude has some serious eyebrows. They make his mustache envious.
"Of what use is a philosopher who does not hurt anybody's feelings?" -Diogenes of Sinope
That will mess up the BiS index
"Humor is reason gone mad." Marx (Groucho, for the reason-gone-mad impaired)
Yup...
Irving is the guy. That being said, we will not get the 1st pick. Why are we always deluding ourselves? Shouldnt we know better by now?
trends are made to be broken
something something…optimism…something
I like Irving!
We want Williams!
Biyombo or Bust!
Because
There’s a 3.4% chance of Washington getting the #1 pick and us getting the #2. We must be prepared for the possibility that our getting screwed screws us less that usual.
If it wasn't for Jordan Farmar and that guy Kevin Love, I would've killed somebody!
Nice post, I hope you really do make this into a series
I’d like to see this sort of analysis for a number of the other lottery prospects.
Also, thanks for the link about how NCCA stats translate to the NBA—very interesting stuff. One thing that jumped out to me in that link was FTA/minute: .286. Yikes. That suggests that you should be careful about projecting players to be efficient who rely heavily on an ability to get to the line in college. As I noted in the other thread, FTA rate is one of the reasons why Beasley saw a big drop-off in scoring efficiency from college to the pros, and this seems to reaffirm that that is an issue to look at more generally for college players making the leap to the pros.
I address the FTA issue in some detail in my Williams post.
Basically. I wish I knew the r^2 for FTA/FGA, because FTA alone is a combination of ability to get fouled and opportunities to get fouled (shot attempts and usage). In the end it isn’t that important, because shooting efficiency in general is pretty poorly predictive from college to the NBA.

by 















