1997 Draft Notes: What they meant

[Brophdog88]

This isn't really an article for anything other than to help give teams an idea as to how to read draft notes, so I am going to go over notes for some of the players in the 1997 draft, which I did notes for, and state what I was looking to get across in the notes. I will be revealing info on some of the players starting abilities, and yes they are still in the league, but after 8 years in the league, most players should be pretty evident as to what they are.

I plan on posting this and updating it as I add players to the list, I'll do it from time to time with this draft.

First: Chauncey Billups

Chauncey Billups SG 6'3'' 202 21 C B- B- C+ C- A
I made the executive decision to list Chauncey at PG for notes...He has B MINUS defense at PG.
Don't sleep on Mr. Clutch, coming out of Colorado. While teams are slobbering over Tim Duncan, and the glut of SF's, some team is going to be very happy with the far less flashy, all around solid Billups. There are no holes in his game really, though he is still learning to take care of the ball, he is not bad at it, and in time has the potential to be very good. He scores very well, has nice strength, is quick, steals well, shows promise passing, and is an average to above average rebounder for the position. Shoots FT's well, a very very good finisher, and utilizes his size well in the post. His three point shot is still developing, but scouts love the potential of Billups, even if its likely he isnt the best player in the 1997 draft, the drafting team is unlikely to be disappointed.

What he is now:
527 Chauncey Billups PG 29 6'3'' 202 C A- C+ B C- C
Career peak of 20 ppg, 6.3 assists 4.8 rebounds with 3.2 turnovers

Honestly, this one is one I feel disappointed in.

In my notes, I was making every effort to point out that Billups was extremely solid already

"He scores very well, has nice strength, is quick, steals well, shows promise passing, and is an average to above average rebounder for the position."

I won't lie in these, nor will anybody doing the notes really, so if the notes say this, he scores well has nice strength, quick, steals well, you can expect all these. Any notes are positional relative, unless otherwise stated (he doesn't have nice strength overall, and coming out he did not, but he does have nice strength for a Point Guard) Any time you read something about FT's, you can infer the jump shot ability from that, in FBB, Free Throw rating is entirely tied to the jump shot rating, so a phrase like

"Shoots FT's well, a very very good finisher, and utilizes his size well in the post."

is typically a pretty easy infer that he has a nice jump shot, though with a B- outside it also infers his 3 Point shooting is pretty average.
Note the very very good finisher line, thats big, that relates his inside scoring, which for bigs you can view as ability to score down low, and guards and wings, I typically view it as ability to create a shot inside, or in general. Players will not create shots without an inside rating, typically taking only open jump shots on the pass, rather than looking to create offense for themself. Its probably the biggest rating in the game for a players success, inside scoring is major when it comes to ability to be more than a role player, and Chauncey started with exceptional inside scoring for a PG, even meaning he might thrive at SG. So why is his inside scoring rating so low in the game? well, that is where jumping comes in. Jumping is one of the less useful abilities in FBB, it helps you score, but inside rating is FAR more important, and so from time to time, jumping will be deflated to keep a guy from looking as good as his stats say. This means Chauncey is more of a B- inside type, or, was at drafting.

Finally, and probably most importantly

"but scouts love the potential of Billups"

I won't lie here, if you see scouts love the potential of Billups, with no if's, or but's about it, it means he has great potential, I may change up the phrasing, but that is meant to tell you he has great potential, in this case, Billups started with a 96 potential, which is exceptional, and really, should have made him one of the top players in the game, but it didn't happen sadly, why? FBB has an inherent amount of randomness, if a guy whiffs on two early TC's when his potential was sky high, suddenly he never had that potential. It doesn't mean his potential was lower, it just means he got unlucky, it happens, and Billups should have been one of the safe prospects. High schoolers on the other hand.


Next up:
Predrag Stojakovic SF 6'9'' 220 20 C B C C+ C A
"Peja" is a superb scorer...or, well, he was overseas. Scouts love his shooting stroke, but question his ability to create his own shot, as athletically he leaves a lot to be desired. The same can be said for his game on the defensive end, there are big time questions as to his effort level there, but he should maintain an excellent shooting, and if his craftiness overseas translates to this side of the pond, look out.

What he is now:
404 Predrag Stojakovic SF 28 6'9'' 220 C+ B+ C A- C+ C

Sometimes you don't want a guy to go in the top 3, or at number 1, because I can't just say, this guy is the best, this guy is 2nd, etc, that ruins the draft, and the element of risk it should have. IN this case, Peja's notes were designed to allow questions about how good he could be, while still leaving the ability to read just how good he COULD be if you took him. In this case, he actually was that good. Peja is unathletic was, in this case, code for slow, with no jumping ability. His shooting is unquestionable, as it is now, defensively, he had weaknesses, and still does I would presume, thats in the notes. The question was, would his superb scoring translate. I knew the answer was yes, but if I said exactly that, he shoots way up the draft, this was the risk reward pick. (Also, in general, try to see a guy play in preseason before you trade him, just to be sure you know what you have or don't.)


Then:
Tracy McGrady SF 6'8'' 210 18 B- B- C- C C A
Tmac is a scary prospect, and dont let scouts fool you...if you polled them, most of them lean toward him as the top guy in the SF rotation. Crafty around the basket, strong, with a nice outside stroke, offensive wunderkind is an apt description. Effort on the defensive side of the ball, and on the glass though, those are the big weaknesses, he crashes the offensive glass, but getting back on D, and crashing the defensive glass would take away from his scoring potential, and he cannot handle that.

Now:
451 Tracy McGrady SF 26 6'8'' 210 B B C- C C C
perennial 20 ppg scorer with nothing really otherwise to offer, ok rebounding and assists, bad D

Here is something key that can never come across in notes. ANY time you draft an 18 or 19 year old, you are throwing caution to the wind and gambling on extreme upside...with MASSIVE downside. NO 18 year old player can be truly safe unless they come out with all star stats already. WHY?? because 18 and 19 year old players can have big jumps, or, massive drops in potential in a single TC. From 20 on, potential drops from around 8 points per year, leading to a relatively safe developmental curve, however, at 18, a guy can drop 30 points in one TC, or, he can jump from say, 74 up to 86 up to 100 and be at 100 potential for his 20 year old TC (this happened to Kobe Bryant in another league I was in). AKA there is no such thing as a safe high school pick. However, the ability to jump means they can also be good risk picks later in the draft. Even if they are not intended to explode, one good TC and suddenly boom, you have a star. This doesn't mean it happens every time, I feel the falls are easier to notice than the jumps, because sometimes the jumps don't matter, the player was just too raw. TMac started with 100 potential and great inside, strength and shooting, his lack of development purely comes from FBB's handling of teenage draft players (and in my mind is a superb setup) Oh, and also TMac was a blank slate on D, every category even to start, meaning he should have had room to grow...oh well, can't get em all.

[Brophdog88]

I'll get to some other players soon enough, but feel free to post anybody you want me to explain from this draft (1997 only for now), I'll try to get to them as I can.

[lukeyrid13]

Very cool idea to give a look under the hood like this

[UOducksTK1]

Thanks broph, this will be really helpful for GMs.

[Phenom]

Good to know!

[Satah]

Wow @ Tracy McGrady. I can't imagine how did GM feel about T-Mac.

[UOducksTK1]

Please vote

[Brophdog88]

Tk I don't want a poll on this, it isn't finished and it isn't really done well, only three it in this section because I felt it made more sense here...I still would like people to give me more names they want explained

[jibbajabba614]

Tk I don't want a poll on this, it isn't finished and it isn't really done well, only three it in this section because I felt it made more sense here...I still would like people to give me more names they want explained

Paul Pierce

[Brophdog88]

Ill get to these tomorrow afternoon

[duckyoubeavers]

tim duncan

[Oregon Ownage]

Stephon Marbury C+ B- B- C- D+ B

Very proficient and balanced guard out of the stacked ACC. He does a little of everything on the offensive end and has great range on his outside shot. It is a little flat, however, and it rather hit and miss until he back out to deep. His greatest flaw is he doesn't even seem to try on the defensive end. Scouts are not sure he puts enough effort into learning the mental side of the game, leading to the lower potential grade.

[Brophdog88]

tim duncan

Tim Duncan PF 6'10'' 248 21 B C C- B+ B A
With Duncan, you know exactly what you are going to get, and that is a very good thing. While not a very good athlete at all, Duncan is a very very smooth player all around. He is superb on the block, being both quite strong and a crafty finisher, and positions himself very well defensively, handling anything an opposing player can throw his way. His timing on shotblocking is pretty impressive considering his lack of speed, he reads well, and will make the play. Has some issues taking care of the ball, and his shot selection outside, well, he occasionally shoots the three, but isnt very good at it. Not going to blow you away with potential, of course, given he will come in and be a very very good starter right away, he doesnt need to.

Duncan came in pretty well loaded. Not an athlete was meant to state he really didn't have much quickness, nor jumping, but crafty finisher (this is poor wording, for posts I usually state something with regards to post moves) meant he had great inside and strength (superb on the block implies that he scores well). Defensively positions himself well meant great post D (when combined with the handling anything an opposing player throws his way.) issues handling are jsut that, he has problems with handles, a 36 rating to start does that. Shotblocking timing is impressive means its good, I try to frame things in regard to a real life setup, but, if you know FBB, there actually is just a straight shotblocking rating, so if you read its pretty impressive, regardless of what else is said (in this case I was emphasizing his lack of quickness in case it wasn't clear prior) it means the rating is good, and a 53 is. Not going to blow you away with potential was inteded to tell you he doesnt have a ton, and he didn't, he started at an 83, which according to the game is still an A potential, but on the low end. However, he started as a superb scorer with 85's in inside and strength, which is plenty good to be capable of scoring, and started as an elite post defender and good shotblocker. Sometimes the game plays it unfair with how potential works. Duncan started off about how he should, those numbers look right, but it appears rather than increase his inside scoring, he decreased over time, unlucky, but can't do much about it. He still is a very nice player.

[Brophdog88]

Stephon Marbury C+ B- B- C- D+ B

Very proficient and balanced guard out of the stacked ACC. He does a little of everything on the offensive end and has great range on his outside shot. It is a little flat, however, and it rather hit and miss until he back out to deep. His greatest flaw is he doesn't even seem to try on the defensive end. Scouts are not sure he puts enough effort into learning the mental side of the game, leading to the lower potential grade.

I can only do 1997 for now, as I only did notes for that draft (thats far enough back not to have side effects toward player value in a significant manner)

[Brophdog88]

Tk I don't want a poll on this, it isn't finished and it isn't really done well, only three it in this section because I felt it made more sense here...I still would like people to give me more names they want explained

Paul Pierce

Paul Pierce SF 6'7'' 234 20 C+ C+ C- C+ C A
This years SF class is quite deep, and Pierce belongs in that discussion as to the first taken. He isnt going to wow you right away, but he shows a good work ethic, nice shooting, and suprisingly good post D for an SF. More so than that, scouts love his potential, and see greatness in him. There aare certainly issues with handles, and defensive effort, but overall, he has the ability to become a star.

The first sign of importance is, he deserves to be in the discussion for first taken of the SF. That is a good sign. Good work ethic is typically a good sign, many times it means the guy should end up useful at the least. Nicec shooting, well, yeah, has a solid jump shot and three point shot, and good post D for an SF, well, he had a 66 to start as an SF, he actually might handle somewhat playing PF, except strength. Love his potential and see greatness is a big time tell, he had 99 potential, you see that, you can feel safe in knowing his potential is great. Handles issues mean his handles are bad, so turnovers are a problem. The real question here is what does lacking defensive effort mean...in this case, his perimeter D is bad, and really outside Post D he is ehh there. The ability to become a star though is a clear sign all the tools are there, Post D for an SF is fine, you should cover the perimeter worse it means but the post better, so you may need to adjust your settings to cover for that more, experiment some, but thats what that means. Star doesn't mean perfect.