Jun 22nd, 2009 at 9:14 am
Draft Ty Lawson
Mock drafts and general speculation that I’ve seen don’t project North Carolina’s Ty Lawson to go especially high in the NBA draft. So it seems notable that Dave Berri and John Hollinger have both independently come to the conclusion, based on different ratings systems, that he’s being badly underrated and may be the second best player in the draft.
The key point would seem to be that Lawson is an extremely efficient scorer. Last season he shot .472 from three point, .532 from the field, and .798 from the free throw line. That’s excellent across the board, and suggests a very useful player despite being on the short side.
44 Responses to “Draft Ty Lawson”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Basketball
Budget
China
climate
Congress
DC
Denmark
Economics
Economy
education
Energy
Environment
Finance
Gender
Germany
Health Care
History
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Pakistan
Palestine
Philosophy
planning
Political Reform
Proliferation
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Science
Sports
Stimulus
Sweden
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:24 am
jeez would everyone please shut up about ty lawson so that he can drop to the sixers? just shut up about him. he’s too short.
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:28 am
But he has heart; and, more importantly, he didn’t play for Duke.
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:34 am
e-
No no, he is way too short, and doesn’t have a game that would suit the Sixers. He would be much better off dropping to #22 and learing how to play PG(under Kidd) for my Mavericks…
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:41 am
“The key point would seem to be that Lawson is an extremely efficient scorer. Last season he shot .472 from three point, .532 from the field, and .798 from the free throw line. That’s excellent across the board, and suggests a very useful player despite being on the short side.”
Well, of course that’ll definitely correlate highly with his NBA performance.
For more examples, see some other college examples:
Adam Morrison: 43% 3pt, 50% FG, 77% FT
JJ Redick: 42% 3pt, 47% FG, 86% FT
I’m sure if Ty Lawson could get his shot off in the NCAA, he’ll be able to do so in the NBA as well. There is no need to actually watch Lawson in order to evaluate him. A stat sheet tells you all you need to know about a basketball player.
(Full disclosure: I don’t watch NCAA ball, so I have no idea if Lawson will be able to contribute in the association or not. But I do know that trying to project NBA performance off of NCAA stats is a fool’s errand.)
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:42 am
Wait a minute!
“[Ty Lawson is] being badly underrated and may be the second best player in the draft”
I can cope with the fantasies that Ty Lawson is the 2nd best point guard in the draft (it is a very weak draft this year), but 2nd best player in the draft is a huge stretch! Even 2nd best point guard is hard to believe…
The likes of Ricky Rubio, James Harden and Jordan Hill have much more upside.
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:46 am
Hmmm…i wonder if matt has a certain fondness for other height-challenged individuals and whether that fact colors his view of mr. lawson.
that being said, whoever gets him will get a player who will play in the league for a decade. whether he will be a star is another matter.
i see the second coming of jacques vaughn rather than a new chris paul.
but, we shall see…
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:48 am
Where will Psycho-T end up? Can’t wait to see him try to muscle in that little shoulder-shot of his in the NBA…ain’t going to be pretty. Go Cats!!!!!!!!
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:50 am
Frankie d-
I agree, I don’t think he will be quite the player Chris Paul seems to be. Although, I think he is a little more athletic and a better defender than J. Vaughn. I think Lawson seems to me to be a slightly better scoring version of Lindsey Hunter. As a Mavs fan, I would be happy if that kind of player could fall to the 22nd pick of the draft.
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:55 am
“Hmmm…i wonder if matt has a certain fondness for other height-challenged individuals and whether that fact colors his view of mr. lawson.”
That’s a low blow.
It’s not as if Matt is shorter than Pablo Picasso or Prince, so I don’t think it’s fair to make allusions to his dwarf-ism.
As long as he’s taller than 5′3″, he’s not truly a midget.
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:58 am
Doesn’t speak very well about the overall quality of this draft, eh? Guess the Zards should just unload a bunch of junk for the 5th pick.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:02 am
I haven’t seen him play really, but Ed Weiland has him ranked as the second best PG in the draft. It’s a bit weird when all of this stat-based analysis contradicts the conventional wisdom, but it wouldn’t be the first time a PG is underrated by the draft. John Stockton and Steve Nash were drafted 14 and 15, respectively.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:02 am
I’m torn on whether the Pacers should try to grab him at #13. At the college level, he was definitely the type of point guard who elevates everyone else’s game. But… a bit short, a bit slow, maybe a defensive liability…
Then again, I’m not really sold on Teague or Jennings either. The high upside probably makes him worth the risk if he’s still available.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:10 am
John Stockton and Steve Nash were drafted 14 and 15, respectively.
Steve Nash wasn’t underrated. That was just a ridiculously deep draft. You’re right about Stockton though.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:25 am
“Steve Nash wasn’t underrated. That was just a ridiculously deep draft. You’re right about Stockton though.”
Ummm… The ‘84 draft is the best in history.
Even though Stockton ended up in a position to have a very nice career, the GM’s who chose Hakeem, MJ, the Chuckster, Perkins, Thorpe, Willis, and even Robertson ahead of him have nothing to apologize about.
If Stockton hadn’t ended up with Malone and Sloan, he probably wouldn’t have had a HOF career.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:26 am
Petey, I wasn’t knocking the ‘84 draft. I just have a soft spot for Stockton.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:27 am
I’m not certain Lawson will be a great pro, but speaking as somebody who watches the ACC, let me say that Redick and Morrison are the wrong comparisons. Lawson is a penetrator, not a jump shooter, and he didn’t have his team’s offense tailored to suit him. He learned to flourish as the secondary weapon on a team where Hansbrough had the bigger star rep. (He also played with Kevin Durant and Michael Beasley in high school.)
Teague and Jennings might have more upside; Lawson’s a relatively finished product, seems to me. 3 years in D-1, an NCAA tournament championship.
Tony Parker went pretty late in the draft, didn’t he? I think Lawson’s best projection is as a Tony Parker type. Not quite as quick, but a little stronger. I don’t think he’s a brilliant passer, just good enough, a take-care-of-the-ball kind of point guard. And he can really get to the hoop and score.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:27 am
Mid-first in this pretty thin draft seems about right to me. He had very good stats (on a very good team), but he is short (and not a leaper). There is some small possibility he will defy the odds and be a star, but the more likely scenario is he is no better than decent, and he could be a bust.
That said, no doubt a lot of fans rooting for teams in the mid-first would be happy to get him, because at least he did put up good numbers.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:30 am
Ty Lawson will be the steal of this draft. Anybody who watched UNC the last two years knows how good he is, and I’m frankly shocked that NBA scouting types have dropped the ball so badly on this one.
As for the folks comparing him to Morrison and Reddick, uhh, no. Lawson is a super fast, super efficient point guard. No comparison to the one-trick ponies you named.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:31 am
Lawson is a super fast
No he isn’t. That’s the problem.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:34 am
Lawson is fast for college. Not for the NBA.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:34 am
LaFollette Progressive Says:
“a bit slow.”
Huh? Lawson is extraordinarily fast, especially with the ball in his hands. Where did you get the idea he is slow?
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:40 am
Hmmm…i wonder if matt has a certain fondness for other height-challenged individuals and whether that fact colors his view of mr. lawson.
Um, from what I recall, Matt is actually quite tall.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:45 am
psycho t will unfortunately suffer through his “kareem-meets-kent-benson-moment”. his pro career is going to hinge on how he handles that moment.
btw, lawson’s a bit short to be a lindsay hunter type. lindsy is a legit 6′2″ with extremely long arms. lawson, unfortunately doesn’t have that kind of build, though he probably has lindsay’s strength.
lawson’s problem is that his biggest assets are his speed and strength and his quickness. while he could dominate in college because of those attributes, in the pros, he’ll see plenty of guys with his speed, his quickness and lots of guys who’ll be a lot stronger. in fact, there’ll be plenty of small, fast, strong, quick guys who will be mirror images of him.
chris paul is similar, but paul’s ability to see the floor and pass takes his game to another level. i haven’t seen the same court awareness from lawson. at least not yet.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:50 am
Obviously I can’t know for sure, but I suspect the readers and commenters on this site are NBA fans rather than college fans. An awful lot of “I haven’t actually seen him play” comments.
Anyone who describes him as “a bit slow” is completely unfamiliar with his game. What makes Lawson successful is that he’s the fastest player in college ball. There will be very few NBA players who can match his quickness.
Yes, his height will be a problem, but for a team that either relies on speed or needs to speed up its game, he’ll be useful on day one.
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:01 am
right,
I’ve no idea about matt’s height.
I was truly simply pondering the issue.
so…does anyone know?…
matt?…
inquiring minds want to know…
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:07 am
I’ve watched Lawson play a lot, and any concerns about his ability to contribute to the NBA because of “slowness” are laughable.
Whether his height will hamper him I don’t know, but in terms of speed, he’s the quickest guy with the ball I’ve seen in the ACC since Muggsy Bogues. And Muggsy lasted a decade in the NBA despite being only 5′3″.
The Redick/Morrison comparisons aren’t really applicable; he’s a driver, not a spot-up shooter, and his assist/turnover ratio is insanely good.
Will he be ROY? I can’t say that. But he’ll last longer in the NBA than any Tar Heel in this draft except maybe Danny Green.
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:10 am
I’m thinking the quickness issue is more on the defensive end than on the offensive end – i.e., not so much how quick he is with the ball in his hands, but rather whether he can guard the (say) Devin Harris’s of the league. Slow and short is not good for a PG on the defensive end.
That said, I think based on his college career that he’s going to be a good pro. I’d like my Nets to take him at #11, over the other PGs who might be available like Flynn, Holiday or Jennings.
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:21 am
“whether he can guard the (say) Devin Harris’s of the league … I’d like my Nets to take him at #11″
So the idea is to avoid him having to guard Devin Harris by playing him as Harris’ backup?
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:34 am
does anyone know?
Matt seemed roughly my height (6′0″), give or take an inch, when I met him.
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:38 am
Well, the Nets need a backup PG (I like Keyon Dooling, but he’s not a real PG). And as I said, I like Lawson better than the other PGs who may be avilable then, despite the potential defensive liabilities. Will he have trouble with the quickest PGs like Rajon Rondo or TJ Ford (even if he is on Harris’s team)? Sure. But he can play with Chris Duhon and Andre Miller or Jose Calderon, I’d guess. Besides, who else you gonna take at #11 – Tyler Hansborogh?
(To tell the truth, I’d like the Nets to take DeJuan Blair at #11, who looks to me like a Paul Milsap kind of player – very useful! But from everything I’ve read, Blair is off their board because of suspected knee problems.)
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:48 am
For more examples, see some other college examples:
Adam Morrison: 43% 3pt, 50% FG, 77% FT
JJ Redick: 42% 3pt, 47% FG, 86% FT
I think these stats undermine your point. Lawson is much better from 3 point (47%) and the field (53.2%) than either of these two gentlemen. In Reddick’s case over 10 percent better in both measures.
That said, I think Rubio is the better prospect simply because he’s 3 years younger and succeeding against adult competition.
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:49 am
love blair as a player…
but, heard and interview this weekend with chad ford, the espn nba writer and he said something i found incredible.
supposedly, blair – as a result of surgeries on his knees – has no…no…none…zip… acls in either knee.
now, he’s been able to play very effectively up to this point, but i’d have to be concerned about my long-term investment if i was thinking of drafting him.
i guess there is an open question as to whether anyone can play with that type of condition.
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:50 am
the fact that you quote hollinger seriously makes me discount your post completely.
lawson has the quickness to be a good NBA guard but second best player in the draft? c’mon, matt.
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:18 pm
There will be very few NBA players who can match his quickness.
You’ve got to be kidding. The NBA is a league of freak-show athletes.
I’m not a huge Lawson fan, only because he seems a bit out of the control when he’s at full speed. I’m not sure that he has the handle to do that in the NBA. But who knows? I was certain that Kenny Anderson was going to be great.
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:38 pm
I have no idea about this Lawson character, but I’m 6′ and Matt is definitely taller than me. Not even close, really. Still, as a guy who constantly hammers at how college players can put up big #’s but not be NBA material, this post is puzzling. So I’d say he has a soft spot for efficient scorers.
June 22nd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
I wasn’t a big college fan, but I do recall UNC running up and down and scoring 138 points per game or something crazy. I can’t think of a convincing argument, but does anyone else have any thoughts on what that means for Lawson? Does that kind of pace make it a lot easier to perform well at UNC or was Lawson, the point guard, the main player responsible for making that machine go?
I don’t really know. I guess I am troubled by the fact that several UNC players in recent drafts seem to be fairing worse than I had anticipated.
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:13 pm
have to give lawson credit for unc’s pace, but that open court game helped hide some of his deficiencies, both offensively and defensively.
every point guard in the league is ultimately going to have to execute in the half-court and any successful point guard is going to have to make open outside shots.
all of the great open-court guards like nash and paul are able to hit the outside jumper. if they can’t they end up being jacques vaughn, a guy with everything you want in a point guard but an outside shot.
hence, he’s been a career sub.
jason kidd is not a great shooter, but he is unusual because of his size – 6′4″ about 220lbs – and that allows him to do different things offensively. plus, he is a clutch shooter, despite his annual low field goal percentage.
defensively, lawson could scramble and gamble more on defense, and offensively, he got a lot of transition buckets, which helped to hide his inconsistent outside shooting. making a 15 foot jumper with a man close by, against a half court defense is a lot different than penetrating to the hole or hitting open 15 footers in transition, before a defense sets up.
in a best case scenario, lawson reminds me of jameer nelson. a less bulky, faster and quicker nelson, and one with less range on his shot and a better move to the hole. but both players use their strength very effectively. it took nelson years before he found his niche and even now, the jury is out on him. he may be as good as he is ever going to be, a guy on the cusp of being an all-star, but a guy who may never get to that level because of his physical limitations.
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:17 pm
I’m an avid UNC fan, so here is my extremely biased take. (I’m not capable of being objective, so I will just admit it.)
1) With the ball, going north/south, Lawson was the fastest player in college b-ball last year, probably the fastest such player in a long time. It is true that other players are quicker laterally. But toward the end of this last year, Lawson developed into an strong defender. All things considered, I thought he was the best player in college basketball.
2) Lawson makes good decisions w/ the ball, and he can see the court running at speed. His assist turnover ration was something UnGodly in the tournament, like 4:1. He doesn’t make spectacular passes, but he does make solid decisions w/ the ball.
3) UNC did play extremely fast last year. That both helps Lawson’s stats, but is also enabled by Lawson’s play. But even w/ the added possessions, his fg% and assist turnover ratio are excellent. I’d say that in some ways, either by design or /c of an injury late inthe year, Lawson’s ability was somewhat masked b/c of the number of good players on the team. He had a tendency to assert himself only toward the end of contests, dominating late games. On a less balanced team, his numbers have been higher.
4) I don’t watch any NBA any more. Used to be an avid fan before the hornets moved. So I don’t really know how college translates to the NBA. However, I am a little perplexed by some of the ratings for guards in this draft. Curry is rated a higher point prospect that Lawson? That seems nuts to me.
At the very least, I think Lawson is a solid NBA player, if he stays healthy. I don’t think he’s an all-pro, per se, but he has much better physical tools than Reddick or Morrison. He’s strong and can finish in the lane against tallerr players.
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Agree with Tom almost entirely; I’d just emphasize his strength. Very strange to see Teague, Holiday, Curry, the 6′0″ Johnny Flynn all almost universality rated over him in mock drafts–I get Lawson’s weakness, but evaluators are way, way too obsessed with length, athleticism and upside. (Brandon Wright and Marvin Williams had mad upside….) The current NBA rules for handchecking, in particular, should play right into Lawson’s game; put him in the right offense and he could be an above-average starter in his first year…..
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:22 pm
It’s all about stats …
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Executing in the half-court is well within Lawson’s abilities, both in terms of distributing the ball, protecting the ball, and banging the outside shot. (Let’s recall that .472 shooting from 3-point range.)
He also tied the all-time record for steals in the finals, so it’s not as though he’s a defensive liability.
Considering that he played three seasons against the highest-caliber competition available, went to two Final Fours, and (deservedly) won ACC Player of the Year OVER the reigning National POY, you can see why scouts are thinking he might be able to play at the highest level.
My Carolina blue bias is clear and obvious, but I don’t see any way he’s likely to be a weaker PG than Raymond Felton, and he could easily be as good as Kenny Smith, who was the PG for the Rockets when they won their two titles.
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Lawson is a good prospect, and likely NBA point guard, but his problem in this draft is its insanely deep on point guards.
First off, statistical approaches like Hollinger’s are only part of the picture at best. And his approach is full of misses, rating Conley as the second best player behind Durant in that draft, Rating Rudy Gay as being a superior prospect to Brandon Roy, etc.
I can see rating him above a Flynn or a Holliday, two guys valued more for potential. No way would I rate him over a Rubio or Evans (Memphis) though, who just have much more upside and excellent production. Jennings is considered to have quite a bit of upside to, and isn’t really comparable statistically since he went to Europe.
As far as Ive heard, he hasn’t stood out in any of the team workouts either. Overall I expect him to be a good NBA player and a good value for where hes taken, but I see no way you can take him over Evans or Rubio.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Lawson will be quick enough and fast enough. Villanova had a small, very quick team, and they couldn’t keep up with him at all. I was impressed with the way that he played well without creating the ridiculous seperation that you see in a lot of NCAA games. I think he didn’t often display his speed, because he didn’t need to. What people call “open” in the NBA was good enough for him; he didn’t need to be 3 steps from the nearest defender, like Morrison, to be open.
One thing people might worry about is that he did a whole lot of scoring off other people’s passes. These were not just from a quick give&go or pick&roll. He would move extensively without the ball as other NC players handled it, then he’d come open for a jumper. That’s not very common in the NBA. Then again, that could be a feature, not a bug.
June 25th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
[...] Matthew Yglesias has a post about Ty Lawson, arguing that he should go higher in the draft than he’s projected to go (21st by nbadraft.net). He was criticized for being short [...]