Ranking the Best Playmakers at Every Position in the 2013 NBA Draft

To succeed in the NBA, draft prospects either have to make plays on offense or play stellar enough defense that they can prevent opponents from making plays of their own.

In this article, the latter method for success is irrelevant. Defense is completely thrown out of the equation, and we're only looking at the playmaking ability of the prospects set to be selected in the 2013 NBA draft.

Please note that these are not overall rankings of the players in question. 

So, that begs the question: What exactly is playmaking? 

Unfortunately, there's a common misconception that it comprises solely of a player's ability to create opportunities for other players. That's not the case, though. 

Playmaking certainly does involve helping out teammates, but a player's own scoring ability needs to be factored in as well. Why should a play you make by yourself count any less than one you create for a teammate? 

In order to quantify playmaking, I created a metric called playmaker rating (PlayRtg). Creative name, I know. You can see how it was derived on the next slide. 

Using PlayRtg, we'll be looking at each position, one by one. Players were eligible to be ranked if they (a) played college basketball during the 2012-13 season and (b) were present in DraftExpress' latest list of the Top 100 prospects.

Now let's see if the guys you expect to pop out on top managed to do so. 

Note: All stats, unless otherwise indicated, come from Sports-Reference.com/cbb/.

Playmaker Rating

Playmaker Rating is a fairly simple basketball metric that is quite easy to calculate. 

The formula is as follows: 

PlayRtg = USG*(PPG+2.26*APG-TPG)/(FGA+0.44*FTA+APG+TPG) where USG = Usage Rate, APG = Assists Per Game, PPG = Points Per Game, TPG = Turnovers Per Game, FGA = Field Goal Attempts Per Game, FTA = Free Throw Attempts Per Game

But how did I come up with it? 

It all started following a debate I had with a friend concerning the merits of assist-to-turnover ratio (specifically concerning Russell Westbrook). He argued that it was a basic, simplistic way of analyzing point guard's playmaking abilities. Obviously, a good point guard would have a higher assist-to-turnover ratio because they'd generate more assists than turnovers. 

Sure, I'm fine with that. But the stat can get better, and that's where our opinions diverged. He agreed that other things were more telling but didn't think it was necessary.

That's what I'm not fine with.

Playmaking, even for point guards, involves more than just finding open teammates. After all, if your point guard can score in the flow of the offense, isn't that just as valuable as accumulating another assist? To analyze a player's true playmaking ability, scoring needs to be taken into account.

Let's look at the numerator first. Basketball players can do three things to end a possession when they have the ball: score, assist or turn it over. Obviously, points and assists are positive while turnovers are negative.

Points per game needs no coefficient in front because the difference between two-pointers and three-pointers is contained within the stat.

I chose not to put a modifier in front of turnovers per game because a turnover leads to an extra possession for the opposing teams and over the last few seasons, the league average has typically been 1.0 points per possession if you round to the nearest tenth. Essentially, a turnover costs the offensive team a single point on average, and thus there is no need for a coefficient.

So, why the 2.26 in front of assists per game? Put quite simply, not every assist is worth exactly two points of offense. Quite a few assists lead to made three-pointers by teammates.

To find out exactly how often this was the case, I turned to HoopData.com, a site that breaks down where on-court field goals are made and which ones are assisted.

During the 2011-12 season, 15.6 shots per game have been made at the rim, and 52.8 percent of them have been the direct results of assists, indicating that 8.23 assists per game are generated by shots made at the rim. From three to nine feet away, there are 4.1 made shots per game and 39.9 percent of them are assisted, producing another 1.63 assists per game from this area.

From 10 to 15 feet away from the hoop, there are 2.8 makes per game, and 42.8 percent of them are assisted: another 1.20 assists per game. From 16 to 23 feet, there are 7.6 makes, and 59.4 percent of them are assisted: 4.51 more assists per game.

Finally, from behind the three-point arc, there are 6.4 makes per game, and 84.2 percent of them are the result of passes from teammates. That means that 5.39 assists per game lead to three points instead of two.

Adding it all up, there are 20.96 assists per game by the average team in the NBA. 15.57 of them result in two-point shots, leading to 31.14 points per game. The remaining 5.39 come on three-pointers and thus lead to 16.17 points per game. Adding those two numbers up, we see that those 20.96 assists per game lead, on average, to 47.31 points per game.

Simple division therefore tells us that each assist is worth 2.26 points (technically 2.25716) if the sample size is large enough.

Now of course, I would have a terrible statistical mind if I was content to only use data from half of an NBA season. To verify, I went back and checked the results of the 2010-11, 2009-10 and 2008-09 seasons.

Using the same methodology, I found that each assist was worth 2.26 points (technically 2.6002) in 2010-11, 2.25 points (technically 2.2548) in 2009-10 and 2.27 points (technically 2.27129) in 2008-09.

At this point, I was content to accept 2.26 as a valid multiplier for assists per game in the PlayRtg formula.

The last part of the numerator is usage rate. 

Incorporating involvement into the formula is necessary because players who are on the court more deserve to be rewarded more for their greater level of positive contributions. Ideally, I would have a modified form of usage rate—one that counted assists as "uses"—to insert into the equation, but that doesn't exist so simple usage rate will have to suffice. 

It's one thing to shoot a high percentage in limited action, but another thing entirely to do so while remaining heavily involved in the offense. 

Now, as for the denominator of the formula, it is simply a modified version of the formula for individual possessions. The following is taken from an article of mine that explains a number of advanced stats:

There are three ways that a player can be involved in the end result of a possession. They can attempt a field goal (regardless of whether it's a two-pointer or a three-pointer), they can end up on the foul line, or they can turn the ball over. However, simply summing those three results does not provide the number of possessions because shooters can attempt either one, two or three free throws on any given possession.

Box scores don't explain how many shots a player was fouled on, so we have no idea of knowing which fouls resulted in and-1 (for example) without looking through historical play-by-play data.

Just trust me on this one (I've read the studies and they're too complicated to explain in a short space) and accept the fact that the 0.44 multiplier is the best way of estimating the total number of possessions a player is involved in.

The only difference between the denominator of my formula and the equation for possessions is the incorporation of assists. Because we're analyzing the possessions in which a player passes, as well as the ones in which they shoot, the addition is necessary.

It's worth noting that this stat was originally developed to apply to the NBA. It still works for NCAA basketball, but the modifiers are slightly different than they would be otherwise.

-The above description is an updated and modified form of the original explanation, which can be found here. 

No. 5 Center: Jack Cooley, Notre Dame, 24.29 Playmaker Rating

Points Per Game: 13.1

Assists Per Game: 0.8

Turnovers Per Game: 1.4

Field-Goal Attempts Per Game: 8.5

Free-Throw Attempts Per Game: 4.5

Usage Rate: 22.8

Jack Cooley hasn't gotten much attention in draft conversations, to the point that the Notre Dame center may eventually go undrafted. 

That doesn't diminish the work he put in while a member of the Fighting Irish. A massive physical presence, Cooley did most of his damage right around the rim and thrived grabbing offensive rebounds before putting it back up. 

He shot 57.9 percent from the field and improved his free-throw percentage to 70.3. For a player who shot only 33.3 percent from the line during his freshman season, that's quite an improvement. 

No. 4 Center: Mason Plumlee, Duke, 24.86

Points Per Game: 17.1

Assists Per Game: 1.9

Turnovers Per Game: 2.9

Field-Goal Attempts Per Game: 10.3

Free-Throw Attempts Per Game: 7.1

Usage Rate: 24.5

 

At times, Mason Plumlee looked like he was using his final season with the Duke Blue Devils to become a dominant offensive player. His arsenal of post moves was expanding, and the range on his jumper was as well. 

Unfortunately for Mike Krzyzewski, that "at times" is necessary, because Plumlee had trouble maintaining his increased level of offensive play for long stretches. 

Much like Cooley, Plumlee's big improvement came at the charity stripe. During his first three seasons, the Duke big man shot 54.3, 44.1 and 52.8 percent. But during the 2012-13 campaign, he knocked them down 68.1 percent of the time.

Not being scared of the free-throw line allowed Plumlee to attack with less hesitance, and it paid off.  

No. 3 Center: Brandon Davies, BYU, 30.09

Points Per Game:  17.7

Assists Per Game:  2.4

Turnovers Per Game: 2.6

Field-Goal Attempts Per Game: 12.2

Free-Throw Attempts Per Game: 7.1

Usage Rate:  29.8

 

It's unfortunate, but Brandon Davies is still most famous for being dismissed from the BYU team during Jimmer Fredette's final collegiate season. 

Since then, he's been reinstated and has taken over as an offensive star, averaging 17.7 points per game during his senior season. It's probably not going to be enough for him to be anything but an undrafted free agent, but he's still a dynamic scorer. 

Davies doesn't have much of a perimeter game, but he's fairly skilled when he gets the ball in the post. He can put it on the floor and work around his defender, and he's a surprisingly good passer for a man of his size and physicality. 

No. 2 Center: Kelly Olynyk, Gonzaga, 34.48

Points Per Game: 17.8 

Assists Per Game: 1.7

Turnovers Per Game: 2.4

Field-Goal Attempts Per Game: 10.7

Free-Throw Attempts Per Game: 5.3

Usage Rate: 30.7

 

You may be surprised to see Kelly Olynyk check in at No. 2, seeing as he's commonly regarded as the best offensive center in this draft class. Questions endure about whether or not his skill set can translate to the professional level, but it's tough to deny how offensively dominant he was at Gonzaga. 

Olynyk is essentially a guard in a center's body. He's big, but he still runs the court well and is more comfortable out on the perimeter. 

The big man was much more versatile down on the blocks during his final season under Mark Few, but it's still his smoothness and ability to shoot jumpers that intrigues scouts most. 

No. 1 Center: Mike Muscala, Bucknell, 34.99

Points Per Game: 18.7

Assists Per Game:  2.3

Turnovers Per Game: 1.7

Field-Goal Attempts Per Game: 13.1

Free-Throw Attempts Per Game: 6.7

Usage Rate: 31.6

 

Mike Muscala may have failed to show up during March Madness a few months ago, but he certainly performed admirably throughout the rest of his senior campaign at Bucknell. 

The big man has filled out his frame, and he's now a tremendous rebounder and low-post scorer. Only the latter technically helps him here, but his knack for grabbing offensive boards certainly translated into more points as well. 

His hook shots are particularly potent, and they should help him find some success at the professional level even when he's no longer able to physically dominate everyone that he lines up against. 

Muscala was the clear focal point of Bucknell's offense during the 2012-13 season, and for good reason. He finished second in the NCAA in PER, trailing only Olynyk, but he gets the better of the Gonzaga big here. 

Full Center Rankings

1. Mike Muscala, Bucknell, 34.99

2. Kelly Olynyk, Gonzaga, 34.48

3. Brandon Davies, BYU, 30.09

4. Mason Plumlee, Duke, 24.86

5. Jack Cooley, Notre Dame, 24.29

6. Colton Iverson, Colorado State, 24.23

7. Zeke Marshall, Akron, 22.71

8. Alex Len, Maryland, 22.27

9. Jeff Withey, Kansas, 21.42

10. Nerlens Noel, Kentucky, 17.29

11. Gorgui Dieng, Louisville, 17.17

12. Steven Adams, Pittsburgh, 16.16

13. DeWayne Dedmon, USC, 13.95

No. 5 Power Forward: Robert Covington, Tennessee State, 26.41

Points Per Game: 17.0

Assists Per Game: 1.3

Turnovers Per Game: 2.4

Field-Goal Attempts Per Game: 12.8

Free-Throw Attempts Per Game: 4.9

Usage Rate: 28.1

 

Robert Covington only had a chance to play 23 games for Tennessee State during his senior season before a torn meniscus knocked him out of action. During that time, he managed to establish himself as one of the most underrated offensive 4s in the country. 

The 6'9" senior struggled shooting from the field, hitting at only a 43.5 percent clip, but he worked his way to the free-throw line and converted the freebies more effectively and often than ever before. 

Covington may get some NBA looks toward the back end of the second round simply because his jumper is so advanced for a player of his size. He has legitimate three-point range and hit an average of 1.5 triples per game throughout his collegiate career. 

No. 4 Power Forward: Jackie Carmichael, Illinois State, 26.91

Points Per Game: 17.4

Assists Per Game: 0.8

Turnovers Per Game: 2.3

Field-Goal Attempts Per Game: 12.2

Free-Throw Attempts Per Game: 6.5

Usage Rate: 28.9

 

Jackie Carmichael plays a lot like Carlos Boozer, which should be enough for him to land in the second round of the 2013 NBA draft. 

The power forward is a relentless physical presence with a nose for rebounds, but his calling card is his high-arcing jumper that inevitably seems to find the bottom of the net. His range doesn't extend as far back as Covington's, but he makes up for that by converting his looks much more frequently. 

Carmichael shot 52.7 percent from the field during his senior season. 

Illinois State placed a heavier and heavier burden on Carmichael's broad shoulders during each season of his collegiate career, and he always responded. His senior year was no exception, as the big man managed to put together his best offensive campaign yet. 

No. 3 Power Forward: Cody Zeller, Indiana, 27.41

Points Per Game: 16.5

Assists Per Game: 1.3

Turnovers Per Game: 2.3

Field-Goal Attempts Per Game: 9.8

Free-Throw Attempts Per Game: 7.2

Usage Rate: 26.5

 

Cody Zeller's stock dropped throughout the 2012-13 season, and it was largely because he never asserted himself much in the offense. A player who runs the court as well as Zeller while still thriving in half-court sets should be more involved. 

Zeller's usage rate of 26.5 is far too low. He's talented enough that it should have been up in the 30s, allowing him to truly take over as Indiana's No. 1 option. 

He should also be shooting more than 9.8 times per game. 

I wasn't particularly impressed with Zeller's tendency to play passive basketball, but he was always great when he had the ball in his hands.

No. 2 Power Forward: Elias Harris, Gonzaga, 27.93

Points Per Game: 14.6

Assists Per Game: 1.6

Turnovers Per Game: 1.8

Field-Goal Attempts Per Game: 9.9

Free-Throw Attempts Per Game: 5.7

Usage Rate: 26.9

 

Elias Harris was always an intriguing prospect for the Gonzaga Bulldogs, but he never managed to step into the realm of the elites. Instead, he was the finesse forward for the team and constantly underachieved. 

Well, until his senior year. 

During the 2012-13 season, Harris became a much more potent offensive player as he abandoned his perimeter jumper in favor of attacking the basket. That might have been because his three-point shot completely deserted him, but still...

After averaging 3.5 free-throw attempts per game as a junior, Harris made 5.7 trips per contest to the charity stripe during his final season in Spokane. That aggressiveness helped him out tremendously. 

No. 1 Power Forward: Anthony Bennett, UNLV, 28.39

Points Per Game: 16.1

Assists Per Game: 1.0

Turnovers Per Game: 1.9

Field-Goal Attempts Per Game: 10.8

Free-Throw Attempts Per Game: 5.1

Usage Rate: 27.5

 

Now that Cody Zeller's stock has dipped rather dramatically, Anthony Bennett stands head and shoulders above the rest of the prospects at his position. Metaphorically, not physically. 

Bennett might be undersized as a power forward, but he's strong and never stops hustling, allowing him to routinely embarrass larger defenders. He can bully weak players and simply go around the slow-footed ones. 

The UNLV power forward still needs to add post moves to his game, but he's a great pick-and-pop option who loves using his jumper. Bennett's face-up game is fantastic as well. 

 

Full Power Forward Rankings

1. Anthony Bennett, UNLV, 28.39

2. Elias Harris, Gonzaga, 27.93

3. Cody Zeller, Indiana, 27.41

4. Jackie Carmichael, Illinois State, 26.91

5. Robert Covington, Tennessee State, 26.42

6. Erik Murphy, Florida, 25.72

7. Laurence Bowers, Missouri, 25.71

8. Ryan Kelly, Duke, 24.90

9. Will Clyburn, Iowa State, 23.72

10. Kenny Kadji, Miami, 22.78

11. C.J. Leslie, N.C. State, 22.20

12. Christian Watford, Indiana, 21.67

13. Ricahrd Howell, N.C. State, 21.07

14. Amatah M'Baye, Oklahoma, 20.73

15. Trevor Mbakwe, Minnesota, 19.56

16. Tony Mitchell, North Texas, 18.46

17. Jamelle Hagins, Delaware, 16.95

18. Arsalan Kazemi, Oregon, 16.50

19. Andre Roberson, Colorado State, 16.45

20. Grant Jerrett, Arizona, 15.24

No. 5 Small Forward: Reggie Bullock, North Carolina, 24.53

Points Per Game: 13.9

Assists Per Game: 3.9

Turnovers Per Game: 1.2

Field-Goal Attempts Per Game: 10.2

Free-Throw Attempts Per Game: 2.1

Usage Rate: 18.5

 

Reggie Bullock's long-range shooting was absolutely incredible during his final season at North Carolina. 

He took 5.8 three-pointers per game and made them at a 43.6 percent clip. It's this perimeter-shooting ability that gives him a realistic shot to land in an NBA rotation, although he improved in transition as well. 

North Carolina spread the ball around during the 2012-13 campaign, which prevented any of the power-blue-clad players from having inordinately high usage ratings. That's the biggest thing holding Bullock back in these rankings, as he was quite efficient whenever he got a chance to end the possession. 

No. 4 Small Forward: James Ennis, Long Beach State, 24.79

Points Per Game: 16.5

Assists Per Game: 2.1

Turnovers Per Game: 3.0

Field-Goal Attempts Per Game: 11.2

Free-Throw Attempts Per Game: 4.6

Usage Rate: 24.9

 

James Ennis is just ridiculously long, which helps him create his own shot without fear of getting "Spalding" imprinted on his forehead. He's consistently improved as a scorer throughout his short-lived tenure with Long Beach State, and he took a massive uptick in usage rate without breaking stride. 

As a freshman, the small forward's usage rate was just 17.9. Despite the big jump in his sophomore season, Ennis got even more efficient. His field-goal percentage dropped from 49.8 to 49.1, but it was accompanied by a corresponding increase of 0.7 percent behind he arc and 12.3 percent at the charity stripe. 

Don't be fooled by the fact that Ennis went to a small school. This kid is an NBA-caliber scorer. 

No. 3 Small Forward: Shabazz Muhammad, UCLA, 28.16

Points Per Game: 17.9

Assists Per Game: 0.8

Turnovers Per Game: 1.6

Field-Goal Attempts Per Game: 14.3

Free-Throw Attempts Per Game: 5.6

Usage Rate: 29.8

 

There's a massive step up from Ennis to Shabazz Muhammad, as the latter's PlayRtg just leaves the former's in the dust. 

Muhammad was the clear focal point of the UCLA offense during his freshman season, and while he didn't truly live up to the massive expectations, he still managed to post tremendous numbers. The small forward averaged 17.9 points per game, and he always displayed great care for the ball. 

Despite being such a crucial part of the offense, he still had the second-lowest turnover percentage in the Pac-12. Only a teammate of his, Jordan Adams, beat him in the category. 

Limiting the cough-ups did great things for Shabazz while he was in school, and it should do the same in the professional ranks. 

No. 2 Small Forward: Otto Porter, Georgetown, 28.25

Points Per Game: 16.2

Assists Per Game: 2.7

Turnovers Per Game: 1.5

Field-Goal Attempts Per Game: 11.3

Free-Throw Attempts Per Game: 5.1

Usage Rate: 24.1

 

Otto Porter's all-around game is what does the trick for him in the rankings of small forwards. 

No matter what he's doing on the court, this lanky Georgetown Hoya can do it well. He's an adept passer who makes good decisions, a scorer who thrives from mid-range, and a player who rarely works outside the flow of the offense. 

Porter also added significant range to his jumper as a sophomore. During his first season in Washington D.C., he knocked down only 22.6 percent of his 1.6 triples per game, but this past season, those respective numbers jumped to 42.2 percent and 3.3.

This small forward wasn't quite as involved in his offense as Muhammad was at UCLA, but he was much more efficient on a per-possession basis.

No. 1 Small Forward: Deshaun Thomas, Ohio State, 30.25

Points Per Game: 19.8

Assists Per Game: 1.3

Turnovers Per Game: 1.4

Field-Goal Attempts Per Game: 15.8

Free-Throw Attempts Per Game: 4.6

Usage Rate: 29.1

 

Deshaun Thomas wasn't particularly consistent at the end of his sophomore campaign, but he was also the subject of more and more defensive attention. As the season progressed, it was abundantly clear that he was the No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 option for the Ohio State offense. 

The small forward's shot is just pure. There's no other word to describe it. 

Whether he's creating his own looks or curling around a screen for a catch-and-shoot situation, defenses can't afford to let him throw up an uncontested attempt. And that applies to both mid-range looks and shots from behind the three-point arc. 

Thomas doesn't do much besides score, but he's such a potent shooter that some team will still roll the dice on him in the second round.

 

Full Small Forward Rankings

1. Deshaun Thomas, Ohio State, 30.25

2. Otto Porter, Georgetown, 28.25

3. Shabazz Muhammad, UCLA, 28.16

4. James Ennis, Long Beach State, 24.79

5. Reggie Bullock, North Carolina, 24.53

6. Tony Snell, New Mexico, 24.20

7. James Southerland, Syracuse, 23.26

8. Solomon Hill, Arizona, 22.66

9. Adonis Thomas, Memphis, 21.32

10. Travis Releford, Kansas, 19.62

11. Rodney Williams, Minnesota, 19.59

12. D.J. Stephens, Memphis, 15.90

No. 5 Shooting Guard: B.J. Young, Arkansas, 30.24

Points Per Game: 15.2

Assists Per Game: 3.4

Turnovers Per Game: 2.1

Field-Goal Attempts Per Game: 12.9

Free-Throw Attempts Per Game: 4.1

Usage Rate: 29.4

 

If you're wondering how offensively talented B.J. Young is, the answer isn't clear quite yet. 

His jumper is completely broken—there's no consistency whatsoever in the shooting motion—and yet he still managed to work his way into the top five shooting guards here.

Young shot 41.3 percent from the perimeter as a freshman, but that was clearly fluky. Now that we've seen him post 22.7 percent from behind the three-point arc as a sophomore, it's pretty clear that he has work to do. 

Young is unstoppable in transition and blindingly quick in the half-court set, but he's going to struggle in the Association until he manages to connect from the outside with more frequency. 

No. 4 Shooting Guard: Kentavious Caldwell-Pope, Georgia, 30.75

Points Per Game: 18.5

Assists Per Game: 1.8

Turnovers Per Game: 2.0

Field-Goal Attempts Per Game: 13.4

Free-Throw Attempts Per Game: 5.3

Usage Rate: 29.2

 

Kentavious Caldwell-Pope was the Georgia Bulldogs offense. He wasn't a part of it; he was the offense. 

Despite being surrounded by options that didn't draw much defensive attention, KCP still managed to score 18.5 points per game and finish second in the SEC in scoring. His three-point stroke is fantastic, and he's quite competent when it comes to creating his own looks. 

Caldwell-Pope isn't a great passer, but he avoids mistakes and will thrive as a secondary option in the NBA. He's the type of shooter you can't leave open on the wing because he will most assuredly punish you if you do. 

Add in some remarkable hops, and it's easy to see why he's starting to get a bit of lottery buzz.

No. 3 Shooting Guard: Khalif Wyatt, Temple, 34.10

Points Per Game: 20.5

Assists Per Game: 4.0

Turnovers Per Game: 3.1

Field-Goal Attempts Per Game: 14.7

Free-Throw Attempts Per Game: 7.2

Usage Rate: 32.2

 

Khalif Wyatt's field-goal percentage of 41.7 might not seem too sparkling, but he makes up for it with his knack for getting to the rim and drawing contact. Russ Smith, Lamont Jones and Erick Green were the only players in college basketball who made more shots at the line than Wyatt during the 2012-13 campaign.

The Temple standout was also one of only 16 players in the NCAA who topped 20 points per game. To be fair, he needed a ridiculously high usage rate to do so, but it tended to work out for the Owls. 

Wyatt doesn't have the shiftiness to achieve this level of success at the next level, but he should settle in as an offensive sparkplug off the bench. Expect him to go toward the middle portion of the second round in the 2013 NBA draft. 

No. 2 Shooting Guard: Erick Green, Virginia Tech, 37.87

Points Per Game: 25.0

Assists Per Game: 3.8

Turnovers Per Game: 2.2

Field-Goal Attempts Per Game: 17.2

Free-Throw Attempts Per Game: 8.3

Usage Rate: 32.4

 

When you lead the NCAA in points per game, as Erick Green did during the 2012-13 season, you're bound to get some recognition as a playmaker. Remember, by my definition, playmaking involves both scoring and passing. 

Scarily enough, Green was a pretty solid facilitator as well. No shooting guard in this draft class averaged more assists per game.

Green draws contact well and he possesses a potent pull-up jumper, but he needs to bulk up rather significantly if he's going to do great things in the NBA. The shooting guard weighs only 178 pounds, so even though he's comfortable in pick-and-roll sets, he'll get tossed around by the bigger players at the professional level.

He's fun to watch, but there's a reason that he's not a lock for the first round despite leading all shooting guards in this draft class in both scoring and assists.  

 

No. 1 Shooting Guard: C.J. McCollum, Lehigh, 42.19

Points Per Game: 23.9

Assists Per Game: 2.9

Turnovers Per Game: 2.7

Field-Goal Attempts Per Game: 16.2

Free-Throw Attempts Per Game: 6.1

Usage Rate: 37.2

 

C.J. McCollum is a fantastic scorer with the shooting stroke and shot-creating skills necessary to justify a lottery selection in the 2013 NBA draft. However, he's not quite as good as that ridiculously gaudy PlayRtg makes him seem. 

The combo guard's number are boosted by sample size. He played only 12 games before breaking his foot and missing the rest of the season, so he technically doesn't even qualify for the NCAA leaderboards. If he did, he'd lead the country in usage rate. 

Just so we have a complete season of data, let's look at McCollum's junior campaign in 2011-12, when he played 35 games and helped spark an upset of Duke in March Madness. The scoring stud averaged 21.9 points, 3.5 assists, 2.3 turnovers, 16.4 field-goal attempts and 7.0 free-throw attempts per game with a 33.6 usage rate. 

That would give him a PlayRtg of 36.56, and he'd fall in just behind Green.

Full Shooting Guard Rankings

1. C.J. McCollum, Lehigh, 42.17

2. Erick Green, Virginia Tech, 37.87

3. Khalif Wyatt, Temple, 34.10

4. Kentavious Caldwell-Pope, Georgia, 30.75

5. B.J. Young, Arkansas, 30.24

6. Seth Curry, Duke, 28.90

7. Jamaal Franklin, San Diego State, 28.24

8. Allen Crabbe, California, 27.39

9. Ben McLemore, Kansas, 25.72

10. Victor Oladipo, Indiana, 24.77

11. Michael Snaer, Florida State, 24.61

12. Tim Hardaway Jr., Michigan, 24.17

13. Vander Blue, Marquette, 24.15

14. Archie Goodwin, Kentucky, 23.96

15. Carrick Felix, Arizona State, 21.67

No. 5 Point Guard: Ray McCallum, Detroit, 28.99

Points Per Game: 18.7

Assists Per Game: 4.5

Turnovers Per Game: 2.1

Field-Goal Attempts Per Game: 13.2

Free-Throw Attempts Per Game: 6.2

Usage Rate: 24.4

 

Ray McCallum has solid physical tools and excellent handles, but he still needs to spend time working on his jumper. He's put in some hours already, although he can't yet be satisfied. 

The coach's son shot 32.3 percent from downtown during his junior season, and that was a massive improvement on the numbers from his sophomore campaign. It's his two-point shooting that allows him to thrive, as McCallum has the dribbling skills to create open looks and the knack for shooting off the bounce to convert the opportunities. 

I'm a little worried about McCallum's ability to thrive in the NBA because his physical traits won't let him stand out as much as they did in the Horizon League. He also won't benefit from a 24.4 usage rate. 

McCallum could certainly keep improving his perimeter game, and he'll need to in order to make an impact at the next level.

No. 4 Point Guard: Isaiah Canaan, Murray State, 33.35

Points Per Game: 21.8

Assists Per Game: 4.3

Turnovers Per Game: 3.2

Field-Goal Attempts Per Game: 16.1

Free-Throw Attempts Per Game: 6.0

Usage Rate: 30.9

 

Sticking with the theme of underrated, small-school point guards, Isaiah Canaan managed to follow up his All-American season by averaging more points per game but playing worse overall. 

The 6'1" floor general was featured in the Murray State offense a bit too heavily, and the Racers were too dependent on his shooting from the outside. Canaan took 8.2 triples per game, and while he shot a respectable 37 percent from the outside, that was a far cry from the 45.6 percent he posted as a junior. 

Canaan is incredible when it comes to shooting off the dribble, but he'll have to improve his facilitating in order to stick in the NBA. While he's a modern, score-first point guard, his assist-to-turnover ratio just isn't going to cut it at the sport's highest level. 

He's improved his assist percentage each and every season of his collegiate career, so perhaps more passing skills are just lying dormant right now.

No. 3 Point Guard: Pierre Jackson, Baylor, 34.75

Points Per Game: 19.8

Assists Per Game: 7.1

Turnovers Per Game: 3.4

Field-Goal Attempts Per Game: 14.1

Free-Throw Attempts Per Game: 6.7

Usage Rate: 29.5

 

When you talk about prospects in this draft class who are maximizing their physical gifts, the discussion has to start and finish with Pierre Jackson. 

He's only 5'10" and his wingspan is two inches shy of six feet, but he still managed to score nearly 20 points per game in a competitive conference. Jackson has great athletic ability, and he's also a smart player, although he doesn't get enough credit for the latter. 

The diminutive floor general understands spacing, and he thrives running pick-and-roll sets. When he curls around a screen, he's a threat to pull up and drain the jumper, use his incredible dribbling ability and small body to split the defenders, or make good on his passing strengths and find the rolling teammate. 

Jackson can get a bit turnover-happy at times, but he makes so many positive offensive contributions that Baylor could usually live with the cough-ups. 

No. 2 Point Guard: Trey Burke, Michigan, 35.43

Points Per Game: 18.6

Assists Per Game: 6.7

Turnovers Per Game: 2.2

Field-Goal Attempts Per Game: 14.4

Free-Throw Attempts Per Game: 4.3

Usage Rate: 28.3

 

Trey Burke, generally regarded as the top point guard in this draft class, checks in at No. 2 among 1-guards in playmaker rating and No. 4 overall. 

While he's an incredibly dynamic scorer who thrives whether he's running plays or improvising, Burke just didn't put up as many points per game as the No. 1 floor general in these rankings. Part of that stems from his lack of ability to draw contact. 

For a shifty player who thrives when he's working his way into the teeth of the defense, Burke works his way to the free-throw line with shockingly little frequency. Of the 14 point guards eligible for these rankings, six averaged more freebies per contest. 

Burke remains the best overall point guard who will be selected in the 2013 NBA draft, but he's not the top playmaker at the position.

Yes, I'm as surprised as you. 

No. 1 Point Guard: Nate Wolters, South Dakota State, 37.54

Points Per Game: 22.3

Assists Per Game: 5.8

Turnovers Per Game: 2.3

Field-Goal Attempts Per Game: 15.1

Free-Throw Attempts Per Game: 7.0

Usage Rate: 29.8

 

It might seem shocking to see a South Dakota State Jackrabbit occupying the top spot for a position known for playmaking, but Nate Wolters is no typical small-school prospect. He's working his way up draft boards, and while that ascent might stop before he's considered a first-rounder, it shouldn't. 

Wolters has all the tools necessary to start at the 1 in the NBA. He's deceptively athletic, contributes across the board and was born to score the basketball. 

Two players in South Dakota State history have played in the Association. Tom Black was more successful than Steve Lingenfelter, and he still averaged only 4.2 points per game during his lone season of professional basketball. 

It won't take long for Wolters to establish himself as the most successful basketball alum in the school's history. 

 

Full Point Guard Rankings

1. Nate Wolters, South Dakota State, 37.54

2. Trey Burke, Michigan, 35.43

3. Pierre Jackson, Baylor, 34.75

4. Isaiah Canaan, Murray State, 33.35

5. Ray McCallum, Detroit, 28.99

6. Matthew Dellavedova, Saint Mary's, 28.78

7. Shane Larkin, Miami, 25.51

8. Lorenzo Brown, N.C. State, 25.34

9. Michael Carter-Williams, Syracuse, 25.10

10. Phil Pressey, Missouri, 24.74

11. Myck Kabongo, Texas, 24.51

12. Peyton Siva, Louisville, 22.30

13. Elijah Johnson, Kansas, 21.04

14. Anthony Marshall, UNLV, 20.42