Crowder 34th by Cavs then to Mavs; DJO 55th to Mavs then to Lakers; 2nd round pick-by-pick analysis (scroll down for explanation, photos, and all 1st round picks)

By Rob Lowe and John Pudner

Jae Crowder went 34th to a team that worked him out twice and seemed to think he was a part of their picture, but then went to the team that took the lead on statistical analysis - the Dallas Mavericks.  The Mavs then briefly united MUs great duo by selecting DJO 55th, but then traded him to the Lakers.  Congrats both!

We are starting a new table for the 2nd round - scroll below this post for the 1st round and explanation of these numbers.

Draft	Name	Grade	Mock	Our Proj	Win%	Notes on 2nd round picks (1st round below)
31	Jeffery Taylor	C+	24	32	37.1%	This is right where we had him - a solid pickup and at this stage teams are picking what they need. Very good physicals give him a chance at a rotation, though with the Bobcats he could certainly start eventually.
32	Tomas Santoransky	NA	50	79	13.0%	We don't yet crunch the European numbers, so can't pass judgement either way.
33	Bernard James	C	61	43	29.5%	The doubts are about his age, but we actually had him just a few spots below this spot based PURELY on stats.  No consideration for patriotism, so good luck with the Mavs.
34	Jae Crowder	A	57	13	54.2%	Forget the Marquette loyalties, all stat guys believed Crowder was a clear first rounder and our system shows the same, while others simply said two short to play front line in the NBA.  Glad for one night all Marquette fans are on the side of us stat guys - Crowder is a Steal (A). No guaranteed money this year, but a steal at 34th from a team that loved him and had him in twice.  Rather have him playing in Cleveland than on the bench at the end of the first round.
35	Draymond Green	A	28	10	55.5%	His great wingspan a much better predictor than his average height, and his agility, steals and rebounding say he is a strong NBA starter - way ahead of public perception.  We had him even higher than Jae, so back-to-back steals in the draft.
36	Orlando Johnson	D	41	48	24.7%	The first pick that we have as not even a reserve, but again the vertical and speed combo explains surprises.
37	Quincy Acy	C	63	41	30.4%	Ahead of where the public drafts had him, but almost right where we suggested.  A solid pick.
38	Quincy Miller	B	26	30	38.1%	We believe the better of the two Quincy's picked back to back, and could make a rotation.
39	Khris Middleton	D	40	59	21.0%	Our analytics do not project him to be a contributor at the next leve.
40	Will Barton	A	29	15	53.3%	One of the best Value Adds of any prospect, and above average at steals, defensive rebounds and usage - even without great physicals, perhaps the biggest steal in the draft as a projected STARTER picked up with the 40th pick.
41	Tyshawn Taylor	D	35	61	20.8%	We do not project Taylor to make an NBA rotation, but PG can be the hardest to analyze.
42	Doron Lamb	C+	33	38	32.2%	Public had him higher, but we believe he is the 38th best, so a solid pick, but there were some better available.
43	Mike Scott	B	44	35	33.2%	A very strong pick - one of the best few available who could make it into a rotation.  Strong Value Add, but not for a Senior.  Seniors really have to dominate in Value Add to project as an NBA contributor.
44	Kim English	B	52	39	31.9%	Has a shot at making it into the rotation, which is all you can hope for this late.
45	Justin Hamilton	F	Not	Not	0.0%	We do not project him to be a contributor, and very surprised the Heat would trade earlier and go with him.  He certainly looked great against MU though, so they saw something.
46	Darius Miller	F	38	97	6.6%	I know the public had him higher, but we believe he is a longshot to contribute.  However, we need a "Kentucky clause," because it is so hard to get minutes with them.
47	Kevin Murphy	F	43	75	15.8%	Just don't project him to contribute - would have thought this was a possible spot for DJO.
48	Kostas Papanikolaou	NA	42	71	17.0%	A foreign player, so we don't have info.
49	Kyle O'Quinn	A	36	25	43.6%	Who would have known two future NBA picks were squaring off in the early season championship.  O'Quinn is a strong player in a rotation, great wingspan more important than ok height - a steal in the second round.
50	Izzet Turkyilmaz	NA	Note		0.0%	Foreign player - no stats.
51	Kris Joseph	D	56	58	21.5%	Probably never makes it at the NBA level, but not a terrible pick.
52	Ognjen Kuzmic	NA	Not	None	0.0%	Foreign player - no stats.
53	Furkan Aldemir	NA	46	77	15.0%	Foreign player - no stats.
54	Tornike Shengelia	NA	54	84	11.0%	Foreign player - no stats.
55	Darius Johnson-Odom	C	47	64	18.8%	Don't kill us!  We didn't have DJO quite this high, but we knowhe will be one of those handful of players to defy the stats each year and become a great NBA player.  We have to use the model for this table, and it says DJO was a just miss on the draft - but they don't measure DJOs heart and the video clip stats that shot him up the charts to be picked.  Teaming up with Jae, what a pair!
56	Tomislav Zubcic	NA	Not	NA	0.0%	Foreign player - no stats.
57	Ilkan Karaman	NA	Not	NA	0.0%
58	Robbie Hummel	C	Not	63	19.6%	We calculate him as the 63rd best player, and certainly a solid pick for a guy who could contribute if the knees are healed.
59	Marcus Denmon	A	68	42	29.5%	The Spurs continue to be the smartest team in their selections year-after-year, and a great steal.  Might make the rotation in a few years, and great steals and above the 90th percentile in speed, vertical and agility.  There is a reason the Spurs keep winning despite not getting high picks.
60	Robert Sacre	D	64	73	16.3%	There were better picks available, and despite loving the strength, he is actually in the 1st percentile of all draft picks since 2006 and a longshot to contribute.

A post script from after the draft, there were only two undrafted players who we view as misses.  The only absolute miss was Drew Gordon of New Mexico, who the Dallas Mavericks stat gurus immediately picked up for camp.  There were only three players NOT picked in the first round who we project as NBA starters within a few years, and Dallas ended up with two of them by grabbing Jae Crowder as well. Ironically, both players dropped only because it was perceived their size would be an issue for both of them - and we have them almost even, so there should be some great battles in summer practice between them.

The only other non-drafted player who we believe could contribute is Kevin Jones, who does project as a borderline NBA rotation player, and was a good pick-up by the Cavs.  Therefore, we are treating them as the 61st and 62nd pick, and added boxes below:

Draft	Name	Grade	Mock	Our Proj	Win%	Notes on 2nd round picks (1st round below)
61	Drew Gordon	A	39	16	53.0%	The only undrafted player we project to be a starter in the NBA within a few years.  Gordon was by far the best undrafted player with his 53.0% being above the 50.0% that typically projects and NBA starter, and well ahead of the 37.3% of the next best undrafted player, Kevin Jones.
62	Kevin Jones	B	48	31	37.3%	A great pickup as a his 37.3% projected winning percentage is right at the borderline of a player who projects to make an nba rotation (37.5%), so getting him into camp gives them a free shot at a rotation guy while they are rebuilding.  Besides Gordon, one of only two undrafted players who we project to contribute - both probably passed up because of size.

There are a few other players we project a little higher than a few of the last picks in the draft, but really at that point you are picking players who probably do not make a rotation, so we can not say Scott Machado, Hollis Thompson, Tu Holloway, Henry Sims, Ken Horton, JaMychal Green or any of the others are "misses" in the draft.  Maybe you see a couple of them on NBA rosters at some point, but we do not project any of them as draft "misses."  And as for the only team to not come out of the draft with an actual pick, we have to give the LA Clippers a "B" for basically getting Lamar Odom out of the draft:

Dr	Name	Grade	Mock	Our Proj	Win%	Note
53	Lamar Odom (via Furkan)	B	NA	NA	NA	The Clippers drafted Furkan Aldemir 53rd as a way to get Lamar Odom on their roster.  Despite his woes last year, there is a much better chance of Odom being a major contributor or even starter than a 53rd pick, so this draft and trade has to get a "B" for the one team that finished the night without a draftee.  If we treat Odom as the draftee in the 53rd spot, that is a great move because the only available player to be better long-term would have been Drew Gordon, but in the short-term you want Odom to try to win NOW with Chris Paul and Blake Griffin.

NBA Draft pick-by-pick calculations of how many wins each player will get his team … updating throughout draft

By Rob Lowe and John Pudner

NEWARK, NJ - This table will be updated throughout the NBA Draft tonight as players are selected, but we are going to take the leap of faith that Anthony Davis is picked 1st and list him ahead of time.  We calculate that a team of players as good as Anthony Davis would win 91.3% of their games in the NBA within a few years, and a team of players as good as the 2nd best player available in this draft would win 68.3% of their games.  This table is followed by a key to the terms and then notes on why Rob and I are just revealing each projection AFTER the selection is made. (first round complete below)

Draft	Name	Grade	Mock	Our Proj	Win%	Notes
1	Anthony Davis	A	1	1	91.30%	While an easy choice, they get “A” for not only the best choice available, but one of the best choices going back through our 2006 calculations. His 91% is first, and 2nd is 68%.
2	Michael Kidd-Gilchrist	D	4	4	61.00%	NBA GMs almost always draft NCAA champs too high, and while Davis is certainly No. 1, Kidd-Gilchrist is way behind the No. 2 and No. 3 pick.  Still a very strong player, but they gave away wins by going again with an NCAA title winner too early (Kemba last year).
3	Bradley Beal	A	3	2	68.30%	A huge drop from Davis, but stats show he should be the 2nd best player to come out of this draft, with dominance in every category that predicts NBA greatness.
4	Dion Waiters	C-	8	12	54.50%	Numbers not quite there, but with his phenomenal steals and very good Value Add and Usage, you can see him as a 4th pick.
5	Thomas Robinson	A	2	3	68.20%	We project he will be 3rd best NBA player, but in a virtual tie for 2nd as his incredible defensive rebounding.  With the gap between the top 3 and the rest, he is a steal.
6	Damian Lillard	D	7	19	50.60%	A lot of teams liked him here, but the amount he handled the ball (too much) actually predicts AGAINST truly excelling in the NBA - but we do have him as a starter and his vertical was almost as good as DJO. If he had his numbers as a freshman this would be a good pick, but as a junior they are too low.
7	Harrison Barnes	D	5	28	41.20%	All of his college stats are below NBA-level, projecting a solid reserve, BUT his physical combos were unreal.  So far we've found stats a better predictor than combine - but if he excels it could move the future model a little heavier on combine results.
8	Terrence Ross	C-	16	14	53.50%	We don't quite have him there, but the combo of rebounding, steals and an incredible vertical/speed combination make him a solid starter with upside (also hope that combo plays out for DJO).
9	Andre Drummond	C	6	11	55.10%	His Value Add is about average for a freshman bound for the NBA, and physicals are great - just such a weak defensive rebounder and weak on the bench press project him outside the top 10. We advised strongly against him as a top 5 or 6, but 9 is reasonable.
10	Austin Rivers	C-	10	29	39.30%	I may lose my Marquette credentials, but we really have a lot of red flags on him.  But we assume Doc's lineage is more important than our stats, so best of luck.
11	Meyers Leonard	A	13	8	56.90%	Huge get.  Drummond a little better in most things, Leonard's huge edge in the bench and defensive rebounding predict better career.
12	Jeremy Lamb	C	9	17	51.80%	Can't put this below a "C" because his physicals are SO good (wingspan, speed and agility) and running the model last year he looked like a top 10, so I have to attribute the dropoff to UConn's wacky year and say he is solid at 12.
13	Kendall Marshall	C-	18	23	45.30%	Again, it appears owners are putting high stock on vertical/speed combos.  While we have him lower and outside of his incredible assists the stats aren't good, but point guards are the hardest to predict so I can only go C-.
14	John Henson	A	11	6	58.70%	A fantastic pick-up for the guys who share the Bradley Center.  While Value Add is low for a junior who expects to play in the NBA, his defensive rebounding and reasonable usage more than offset them to point to a strong NBA starter.
15	Moe Harkless	C	20	18	51.40%	Very solid pick.  He is better than average in 9 of the 10 biggest predictors of NBA talent - only a very poor bench dragged him down a few spots.
16	Royce White	C-	21	20	50.10%	Right there as a borderline NBA starter.  His Value add was only 10th percentile for draftees, but other than that his overpowering rebounding and good steals for a big man make this a solid pick if just a couple of spots high.
17	Tyler Zeller	A	12	7	57.60%	Very similar to Henson - only negative is a senior bound for the NBA should have a higher Value Add, but Usage and Def. Rebounding predict strong starter.
18	Terrence Jones	A	C-	9	56.30%	Almost sure strong starter within a few years.  His Value Add and defensive rebounding is average, but every other physical and statistical measure predicts a great NBA player.
19	Andrew Nicholson	C-	22	24	44.80%	Can be a strong rebounder off the bench, but a senior playing against lower competition with his numbers is just a notch below and NBA starter, and they could have done a little better with the 19th choice.
20	Evan Fournier	NA	30	54	23.00%	We haven't calibrated European stats yet, so can't pass judgment either way.
21	Jared Sullinger	A	15	5	59.80%	Stats say he will be 5th best, so we hope the back is ok and he becomes a steal
22	Fab Melo	C	25	27	41.30%	You can't draft size, but on every other indicator Melo looks like just a good NBA reserve.  So little data though with part of one season, he could surprise.
23	John Jenkins	D	31	36	32.80%	Again high vertical seems to put someone ahead of where he projects - but otherwise really looks borderline to even be in a rotation.
24	Jared Cunningham	C-	34	33	34.10%	Steals are so off the charts that you can't dismiss this pick, even though overall this looks a few spots too high.  Obviously teams are filling roles now, and Cavs may need some pressure defense.
25	Tony Wroten	D	27	45	26.80%	Looks like a longshot overall, but again it's a verticle/speed guy with a ton of steals in this case, so those three seem to have been weighted the most heavily by teams this year.
26	Miles Plumlee	B	37	22	46.60%	Vertical, strength, agility, great speed for a center, physically unreal and domaint rebounding - he is at least a very strong backup within a few years and they might even have a starter at the 26th pick - which doesn't usually happen.
27	Arnett Moultrie	A	19	21	49.10%	Again, speed and vertical (87th percentile and 88th percentile), but in this case he is a dominant rebounder with wingspan who is a borderline starter.  Clearly the best available - surprised they traded him to 76ers.
28	Perry Jones	C	17	26	41.40%	He was viewed as slipping from what the public thought, but this is only one spot behind where we project him.  Speed and vertical at 92nd percentile for a big guy and 90th percentage in steals.
29	Marquis Teague	C	23	40	31.10%	Again, picked higher than how well we project he will perform, but with 98th percentile in vertical and 93rd percentile in speed you can see the appeal.  With that potential for a freshman on a team with 6 NBA guys, hard to say a PG pick here isn't solid.
30	Festus Ezeli	C	32	44	27.10%	A little high - doesn't project to be in a rotation, but as strong and long as he is and being out injured this year common sense says a decent pick.

Key to Column Headers:

Grade – this is the Grade the TEAM gets for the pick, not the player.  If the 30th best player is picked 5th, the team will get an “F” because they had much better options.  If that same player were picked 55th, the team would get an “A” because they identified a steal who will likely produce many more wins than a normal 55th pick.  If the Hornets picked someone else they would obviously get an “F” for the pick since Davis projects as competing for the top draft option since our system tracks back to 2006.

Mock – we averaged 11 mock drafts together, and this was where the public thought the pick would go.

Our projection – Keep in mind we have built a model that projects how GOOD a player is going to be in the NBA, not where we believe a team will draft him.  If we were calculating that, we would base it more on points per game and players on NCAA champions, since things like that lead teams to draft players too high.  If we project a player as #9, that means he projects to be the 9th best NBA player of this group within a few years – not that we actually expect him to go 9th in the draft.

Win% - this is the percent of games a team would win if all of their players were as good as this player will be within the next few years. A 50% player projects to start within a few years for a sub-.500 team and be a strong reserve for a team over .500.  A 50% is equal to a .100 Position Adjusted Wins for those of you used to that figure.

Background

The last couple of months have been tough for us, because we love to calculate and write.  We have built a statistical model that has been accurate at predicting how many wins a player will create for his NBA team based on his college stats, what year he was in school, and his physical combines.

However, we realize statistical projections will always be only PART of the evaluation process. In addition, we have to maintain confidentiality for groups that provided feedback about the evaluation process.  Therefore, it is only fair to reveal the projections tonight AFTER the picks are made – and remember we are predicting how good the players will be, not when they will be picked, so you can judge us on the players performance over the next four years. (John's post script - by "we" I mean 65% Rob and 35% me - my colleague is a genius!)

Hopefully seeing a young DJO fan is a good omen for the second round.  If you don't believe Cracked Sidewalks has clout with the NBA, look at the view from my seats (taken an hour before the draft, the seats did fill in later.)

DJO passes eye test, national stat source says Crowder 2nd best in draft, but will names be called tomorrow?

As I travel to Newark for tomorrow night’s NBA draft, there are still doubters that Marquette will leave tomorrow night as one of only 15 colleges with seven or more NBA players or draftees (see complete table at end of post of all teams).

The average of 11 mock drafts had DJO as a somewhat shaky 47^th pick, and Crowder as a very borderline 57^th of 60 picks.  Many in public drafts simply believe both are too short to make it in the NBA, and even MU fans don’t hold out much hope for a third straight year of a surprise first round pick (Hayward, Butler) after the disappointment of the Three Amigos being passed over, as shown by this poll on MU Scoop:

MU Fans	Crowder	DJO
1st round	15%	10%
Top 45 picks	51%	46%
46-60th pick	25%	33%
Undrafted	9%	11%

If Crowder or DJO are called 30^th, they are locked into contracts close to $1,020,960 for this coming season and $1,066,920 for 2013-14.  If they are picked 31^st through 60^th, as most MU fans expect, then they are basically trying out for a team.  If not at all, their odds of making a team go down, but they can pick between offers and try the Wesley Matthews route, which resulted in a $9 million second year contract, the biggest ever for a second year player, precisely because he was NOT locked into a 2^nd year deal.

Those who rely more on the eye test believe DJO’s 41.5 inch vertical, tops of all prospects, vaulted him to a higher level.

While I never write about my calculations of NBA potential, a respected expert who has caught many GM draft day mistakes in the past just projected that Jae Crowder will turn out to be the 2nd best NBA player of any prospect in this draft behind only Anthony Davis.

If all the hard work pays off, then Marquette would close out the night as one of only 15 teams with seven former players in the NBA.   The Wall Street Journal did a nice piece ranking colleges base on NBA minutes played by this year.

I took the projected Draft Order from Draft Express, which was the most accurate in projecting the players invited to the NBA combine, and matched them with the minutes played by the rookies this year and added them into last year’s total.  (Normally that would make the overall minutes too high, but because of the strike, it works out about right.)

Brandon Knight played the most minutes of any rookie this year (2128 for Detroit), so I gave Anthony Davis and Kentucky 2128 minutes for him as the No. 1 pick in Draft Express.  Going down the list, that gives Draft Express 43^rd pick Crowder a projected 331 minutes (same as E’Twaun Moore put in for Boston for 43^rd among rookies), and DJO projects at 243 minutes as the 49^th pick in Draft Express (same as Malcolm Lee got for Minnesota).

If that played out, Marquette would actually DROP to 17^th in NBA minutes next year even with the additions of DJO and Crowder, being passed by Syracuse (Dion Waiters, Fab Melo and Kris Joseph add 2630 minutes to get them to 7769), but other than that only behind UConn in the Big East.

The closest competition MU would have within the conference would be from future member Memphis (4843 minutes to be 4 spots behind MU at 21^st overall), Georgetown (4363, 23^rd) and Villanova (4316, 24^th).  There would still be a nice drop from there to the rest of the conference, with Moe Harkless likely adding a lot of minutes to what is already being put up by Crowder’s favorite player, the former Ron Artest/Metta World Peace and a few from DJ Kennedy.

The minutes by conference are followed by the Big East teams (only teams with 2000 or more minutes included), followed by the new projected national leaders.  Intresting that the trio of MU, Georgetown and Villanova are the top three NBA producers except for UConn.

1. ACC - 77405 NBA Minutes projected next season
2. SEC - 59930
3. Pac 12 - 57769
4. Big East - 48166
5. Big 12 - 36832
6. Others - 33631
7. Big Ten – 28031 (great teams, but the style does not lend itself)

And here is the table of the Big East teams who should have at least 2000 minutes:

Rnk	Team	2012	2012 Min	Projected 2012 Picks	Draft Min	Proj Min
5	Connecticut	12	11656	Andre Drummond  C, Jeremy Lamb SG	2989	14645
14	Syracuse	6	5139	Dion Waiters  SG, Fab Melo C, Kris Joseph SF	2630	7769
17	Marquette	5	5373	Jae Crowder  SF/PF, Darius Johnson-Odom PG/SG	574	5947
23	Georgetown	3	4228	Henry Sims  PF/C	135	4363
24	Villanova	3	4316	None this year	0	4316
36	St. John's	2	1722	Moe Harkless  SF	1227	2949
37	Cincinnati	3	2848	None this year	0	2848
39	Louisville	5	2778	None this year	0	2778
45	Pittsburgh	3	2551	None this year	0	2551
	Total Big East Min	42	40611	not counted 654 WVU, etc.	7555	48166

And Kentucky would overtake Duke and UCLA for the top spot, with Missouri and Baylor breaking into the Top 50 overall.  Interesting that the top 6 teams hardly play football, except for an occasional team for UNC:

Rnk	Team	Pls	2012 min	Projected 2012 Picks	New Min	Proj
1	Kentucky	16	17159	Anthony Davis  PF, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist SF, Terrence Jones PF, Marquis Teague PG, Doron Lamb SG, Darius Miller SF	6757	23916
2	Duke	16	21609	Austin Rivers  SG, Miles Plumlee C	2125	23734
3	North Carolina	12	16904	Harrison Barnes  SF, John Henson PF, Tyler Zeller C, Kendall Marshall PG	5596	22500
4	UCLA	16	18029	None this year	0	18029
5	Connecticut	12	11656	Andre Drummond  C, Jeremy Lamb SG	2989	14645
6	Kansas	11	12152	Thomas Robinson  PF, Tyshawn Taylor PG	2343	14495
7	Florida	10	12652	Bradley Beal  SG	1792	14444
8	Arizona	11	12730	None this year	0	12730
9	Texas	13	11539	J'Covan Brown  PG/SG	125	11664
10	Georgia Tech	7	10523	None this year	0	10523
11	Wake Forest	7	10261	None this year	0	10261
12	Ohio State	6	7903	Jared Sullinger  C, William Buford SG	1246	9149
13	Southern California	6	7924	None this year	0	7924
14	Syracuse	6	5139	Dion Waiters  SG, Fab Melo C, Kris Joseph SF	2630	7769
15	Washington	6	5100	Terrence Ross  SG/SF, Tony Wroten PG/SG	2046	7146
16	LSU	6	6780	None this year	0	6780
17	Marquette	5	5373	Jae Crowder  SF/PF, Darius Johnson-Odom PG/SG	574	5947
18	Alabama	3	5375	JaMychal Green  PF/C	179	5554
19	Xavier	3	5121	Tu Holloway  PG	118	5239
20	Michigan State	4	4187	Draymond Green  PF	779	4966
21	Memphis	5	4209	Will Barton  SF	634	4843
22	Arkansas	4	4528	None this year	0	4528
23	Georgetown	3	4228	Henry Sims  PF/C	135	4363
24	Villanova	3	4316	None this year	0	4316
25	Maryland	4	4059	None this year	0	4059
26	UNLV	3	4021	None this year	0	4021
27	Nevada	4	3903	None this year	0	3903
28	Stanford	5	3724	None this year	0	3724
29	Illinois	2	2275	Meyers Leonard  C	1403	3678
30	California	3	3359	None this year	0	3359
31	Florida State	5	2695	Bernard James  C	541	3236
32	Oklahoma State	4	3172	None this year	0	3172
33	Fresno State	3	3154	None this year	0	3154
34	Boston College	4	3092	None this year	0	3092
35	Wisconsin	3	3062	None this year	0	3062
36	St. John's	2	1722	Moe Harkless  SF	1227	2949
37	Cincinnati	3	2848	None this year	0	2848
38	Butler	2	2794	None this year	0	2794
39	Louisville	5	2778	None this year	0	2778
40	Saint Joseph's	2	2766	None this year	0	2766
41	Texas A&M	2	2467	Khris Middleton  SF	252	2719
42	Oregon	2	2684	None this year	0	2684
43	Oklahoma	2	2662	None this year	0	2662
44	Minnesota	2	2611	None this year	0	2611
45	Pittsburgh	3	2551	None this year	0	2551
46	Missouri	3	2069	Kim English  SG/SF	424	2493
47	New Mexico	2	2101	Drew Gordon  PF	359	2460
48	Michigan	4	2428	None this year	0	2428
49	Creighton	2	2351	None this year	0	2351
50	Baylor	1	462	Perry Jones  PF, Quincy Miller SF	1884	2346

Answer to any critics: Wade is family - congrats on title and passing Lucas for most NBA points by an MU player

On October 14, Lazar Hayward feigned a heart attack in excitement upon seeing Dwyane Wade come on the court for Marquette’s Midnight Madness.  On January 31, Wade brought Lebron to cheer MU past Seton Hall.  On April 1 in Boston, Wade finally found a seam in Doc Rivers’ defense to hit a layup for his 14,859th NBA point with 6:35 to go in the second quarter to pass Mo Lucas as the top NBA scorer to ever come out of Marquette (see table of all players below).  And Thursday, Wade was able to celebrate his second title after Hayward grabbed the last rebound and scored the final basket of the 2012 season.

“I was so blessed at 24 to be able to win a championship, but I didn’t go through enough … (Now) after 6 years, going through a 15-win season, going through a lot of stuff in my personal life … this right here … I know how hard it was to get back to the mountaintop … because nothing is guaranteed.” – Dwyane Wade response to the difference between his two titles

DON’T BUY INTO THE “WADE FLOPS AND WHINES” BOGUS ATTACKS

Wade continued to make his Marquette family proud with his humility throughout the playoff interviews this year.  I was sorry to see a few MU fans buy into the “Wade flops,” or “Wade whines,” bandwagon on a couple of occasions.  Maybe I am sensitive to it because I run polls every week on how quickly people turn when someone is "spinning" them like coaches do when they hope to turn sentiment against a tough opponent to get a few calls to go the other way.

I love James Hardin, but in the final game only his beard was injured twice and he sat on Wade once to get three fouls called on the Heat.  Wade has drawn 9,000 fouls in the NBA, and with the software now used to draw up EVERY one of them in video, it wasn’t hard to put together 30 or so really bad calls in his favor when he clearly wasn’t fouled (well under 1% of all fouls he’d drawn) to try swing the pendulum the other way with him NOT getting calls he should have on drives.  Anyone who has ever referred basketball at half the speed of the NBA knows it’s amazing how many calls NBA refs get right.

WADE A CLASS ACT AFTER THICK AND THIN

So don’t buy into the critics.  Wade has been such a class act these playoffs as he has  complimented Doc Rivers’ defense, Russell Westbrook’s incredible play, and showed the humility of someone who realizes he became perceived as a bad guy last year because of the Celebration, but really seems to have his life in perspective.  Even though I don’t know Dwyane or Siovaughn even casually, I was devastated when word of the divorce ended the story book  that had played out with the elementary school sweethearts celebrating the 2006 NBA title. 

I always pray that married couples end up back together even though I realize in so many cases like this it would appear to be impossible.  But in a tough situation, Wade's interview with Parenting and his interview shortly after the latest championship should certainly make all of the MU family proud to call him one of our own:

“I was so blessed at 24 to be able to win a championship, but I didn’t go through enough … (Now) after 6 years, going through a 15-win season, going through a lot of stuff in my personal life … this right here … I know how hard it was to get back to the mountaintop … because nothing is guaranteed.” 

I’m not saying the MU family should all have rose colored glasses.  I shocked an ESPN radio host this week when he said, “You have the best player in the league with one of the top 10 players in the league in Wade,” and I responded by saying Wade may have just been top 15 this season.  Wade is 30, and while people talk about leaving it all on the floor in a game, Wade is going to leave it all on the floor for his career.  He is playing more beat up than he was for the first title, he is not a huge guy like Lebron who can take as many hits without eventual impact on the high flying act that was still evident on the late alley-oop lay-up in the clincher.  Who knows how long he will continue to be truly elite – though he certainly was again for most of the playoffs.

WADE 2ND TO ONLY MCGUIRE; 7 NBA PLAYERS IN 2013 FOR 1ST TIME SINCE 1980?

When I wrote my book on Marquette basketball a few years back, the two pictures on the cover were of McGuire and Wade for a reason - Wade may always be the second most important figure in the history of Marquette basketball for the rest of history.

McGuire took MU to the Final Four twice and created enough buzz along the way that in 1979 and 1980 MU had eight players in the NBA for the only time in history (Whitehead, Lee, Ellis, Tatum, Walton, Lucas, Chones along with McNeill for his last year in 1979 and Toone for his only year in 1980).

Wade’s 2003 season resulted in the other Final Four, and many a great guard coming to MU to follow in his footsteps through a Big East conference MU likely never could have joined without Wade's 2003 run.  There is even a chance that next year there could be seven MU players in the NBA for only the fourth year in NBA history if DJO and Crowder make it and Hayward stays, since Novak, Matthews, Butler and Wade seem like locks.

Even during and after the McGuire years, the only other year that MU had seven NBA players was very briefly during the 1974 season when Allie McGuire played a few games to join McNeill, Chones, Lackey, Meminger, Thompson and Kojis. In fact, this year was the first season since 1981 that MU had five players in the NBA.

If we rate players by the NBA Efficiency Rating (the five positive things you can do for a team minus the three negative things you can do) then Mo Lucas is actually still the greatest MU/NBA player with his 9306 rebounds, but Wade could catch him in just two more years.  Wesley Matthews is already the 10th greatest MU player ever to play in the NBA by this measure, and he could pass McNeill, Meminger, Whitehead and Thompson to be 6th all-time if he plays just five more years at the same level as his first few.

WILL #4 CHONES CALL CROWDER’S GAMES NEXT YEAR?

Maybe Jim Chones will be calling Jae Crowder’s number during his Cleveland Cavaliers broadcasts next year, and DJO will be impersonated some of Wade’s moves around the NBA.

Let’s not be fair-weather fans of Wade though – whether he is still competing for titles or winding down his career as a role player one day, he will always live through the current and future greats who would have never come to MU without him lifting MU back to the top again and then staying loyal to the school when frankly he does not need us any more but appears to want us as family.

Here are the career NBA Efficiency Ratings for all MU players, with a “+” indicating a player who could still add to his total.

Rnk	Player	Pts	Reb	AST	STL	BLK	TO	FGMiss	FTMiss	NBA Eff
1	Maurice Lucas	14857	9306	2498	803	659	2316	6652	919	18236
2	Dwyane Wade	14990	3020	3697	1055	611	2115	5607	1219	14432+
3	Doc Rivers	9377	2625	4889	1563	351	1651	4121	667	12366
4	Jim Chones	9821	6427	1292	391	774	1165	4590	660	12290
5	Don Kojis	9948	4555	1112	89	16		4906	799	10015
6	George Thompson	8114	1457	1561	183	30	954	3395	657	6339
7	Jerome Whitehead	4423	3268	374	251	200	696	1832	315	5673
8	Dean Meminger	2552	1086	1046	242	28		1108	323	3523
9	Larry McNeill	2533	1440	225	183	78	71	1048	199	3141
10	Wesley Matthews	2973	673	401	262	39	304	1280	106	2658+
11	Tony Smith	2504	735	881	319	79	442	1345	157	2574
12	Earl Tatum	2508	682	507	319	101	289	1306	98	2424
13	Jim McIlvaine	1072	1243	105	136	691	231	525	183	2308
14	Lloyd Walton	1442	370	1243	264	28	422	720	99	2106
15	Chris Crawford	1654	547	154	101	80	232	784	78	1442
16	Steve Novak	1372	351	73	51	24	58	579	9	1225+
17	Travis Diener	854	243	432	76	9	99	470	17	1028
18	Bo Ellis	613	482	113	69	84	145	312	52	852
19	Butch Lee	773	137	307	87	1	164	362	57	722
20	Sam Worthen	239	116	118	57	6	93	100	15	328
21	Bob Lackey	413	164	137	1	0	121	201	68	325
22	Amal McCaskill	204	213	36	24	36	52	134	27	300
23	Lazar Hayward	197	86	32	15	8	28	124	14	172+
24	Jimmy Butler	109	56	14	11	5	14	47	13	121+
25	Michael Wilson	108	36	45	15	5	28	50	10	121
26	Tom Copa	48	36	3	2	6	8	18	9	60
27	Bernard Toone	55	34	12	4	5	16	41	2	51
28	Joe Thomas	55	43	17				63	11	41
29	Brian Brunkhorst	25	13	3			5	5	4	27
30	Allie McGuire	4	2	1	0	0		2	0	5
31	Jae Crowder									0+
32	Darius Johnson-Odom									0+
33	Bill Downey	0		0				2	0	0
34	Gene Berce	10		0				11	5	0

DJO one of only four to vertical 41"; the other 3 now play for the Bengals, Texans and NY Giants

When Murray State Coach Steve Prohm took the court in Louisville and looked across the court at Marquette warming up, the first words out of his mouth were reportedly, “Aren’t those guys missing spring practice somewhere?”

In 14 days, Darius Johnson-Odom and Jae Crowder hope to hear their names called at the NBA Draft despite reservations about their height, and my guess is one of the thank yous will go to Marquette Head Strength and Conditioning Coach Todd Smith.

Jae Crowder was not only the strongest guy at the NBA combine with 20 reps of 185-pounds on the bench, but that total was just less than the average of all NFL combine players (21).

Darius Johnson-Odom was one of only four prospects with a vertical of at least 41 inches this year – the other three have already signed with the Cincinnati Bengals, Houston Texans and New York Giants.  Of the 300 prospects to participate in either the NFL or NBA combine, here are the only seven to top 40 inches.

Player	Top verticals	Will play for …
Kashif Moore	43.5	Cincinnati Bengals
Darius Johnson-Odom	41.5	Portland Trail Blazers?
Jerrell Jackson	41	Houston Texas
David Wilson	41	New York Giants
Chris Owusu	40.5	San Francisco 49ers
Marquis Teague	40.5
Miles Plumlee	40.5

Portland Trail Blazers invite DJO to join lottery picks

How high could DJOs stock be rising after such an impressive display?  He already went from not even being invited to Portsmouth to being invited to the combine itself, and has been the fastest rising player even in www.nbadraft.net, which has left Crowder and DJO out of the draft until recently adding the latter.

We are now in the phase of the final weeks where GMs and Scouts don’t want any other team to know who is rising through their ranks.  We now know that more than one team was hoping that Dwyane Wade and Jimmy Butler would stop looking so good so that they wouldn’t be gone by their choice.  We have no way of knowing whether that is happening to DJO, Crowder or neither this year.

However, one very encouraging sign for DJO was a surprise invite from Wesley Matthews Portland Trail Blazers.  Portland has the wonderful fortune of having 6^th, 11^th, 40^th and 41^st picks in what is a very deep draft.  They chose to invite two groups of 6 players each to a team tryout to look at players for these spots.   One group was reportedly of potential lottery picks, while the other was reportedly of long-shots that seemed more likely heading for camp as undrafted players, but who they apparently saw something about that intrigued them.  The interesting thing is that when word leaked out about the two groups, DJO was in the group with potential lottery picks, while Kevin Murphy of Tennessee Tech, expected to go higher than DJO, was in the B-group.

It would seem a stretch to believe that DJO is being considered for the 11^th pick, BUT with the potential of teams trading up, you can’t help but looking at the two groups and where www.draftexpress.com ranks each player, and conclude it is almost as hard to believe that the teams still have DJO as low as the public draft boards do.

Trail Blazers Group B	Trail Blazers Group A
Kevin Murphy, Tenn Tech 40th	Jared Sullinger, OSU 7th
John Shurna, NW 73rd	Perry Jones, Bay 8th
Mitchell Watt, Buffalo 74th	Terrence Jones, Kentucky 9th
Quincy Acy, Baylor 80th	John Henson, UNC 11th
Reggie Hamilton, Oak 95th	Marquis Teague, Kent 22nd
Bradford Burgess, VCU NR	Darius Johnson-Odom, MU 47th

Could Marquette possibly have a third straight year with a stunning first round pick?  Not that Wesley Matthews was crying over not getting picked when he cashed $9 million in checks his second year out of Marquette, but it’s quite possible the strong combine performances of Crowder and DJO could have some teams considering them earlier.

DJO goes into combine near top of physical charts, Crowder not far behind

This has to the greatest day of Marquette basketball on TV since the season ended.  All three remaining NBA teams have a former NBA player, with Doc Rivers' Celtics about to try to put away Dwyane Wade's Heat to play Lazar Hayward's Thunder.  And while waiting for that, watch the ESPNUcoverage of DJO and Jae on the opening day of the NBA Combine in Chicago, as they make their case for joining the league.

While the prospects have been a roller coaster for both, each took a nice step with excellent physical showings as indicated on the table below.  Prior to the combine, both benched 185-pounds 17 times, tying for 2nd behind Stanford Josh Owen's, who is not expected to be drafted, to place in the 98th percentile.  In the agility drill Crowder was in the 91st percentile, just ahead of DJO's 88th percentile.  In speed, DJO was 86th percentile and he was in the 99th percentile in his verticle, while Crowder was just below 50th percentile of all players.

I've given personnel with all 30 NBA teams the table below that shows the percentages in the six key measurements for the 61 players who tested out BEFORE today's combine.  Despite both players being hurt by height and wingspan, overall DJO is the 4th best across the table and Crowder is 11th.

The only guys ahead of him is the dominant Division II star Travis Hyman and Stanford's Josh Owens, and Alabama's JaMychal Green.  Keep in mind, the players who believe they are going in the first round do NOT participate prior to today's combine, so we will see how Crowder and DJO stack up against those players once tested.  Only the few likely top picks like Bradley Beal, Andre Drummond,Harrison Barnes, Anthony Davis and Dion Waiters will not participate at the combine, so this weekend will show if both Marquette players are still near the top of the physical measurements.

Rnk	Name	School	Pos	Ht	WS	Vert	Str	Agil	Sp	Tot
1	Travis Hyman	Bowie State	C	91	86	85	88	45	74	78
2	Josh Owens	Stanford	PF	79	81	100	100	40	57	76
3	JaMychal Green	Alabama	PF	76	91	70	50	89	59	73
4	Darius Johnson-Odom	Marquette	SG	23	32	99	98	88	86	71
5	Kent Bazemore	Old Dominion	SF	48	73	71	50	86	96	71
6	Rakim Sanders	Fairfield	SF	43	61	76	88	53	89	68
7	Cameron Moore	UAB	PF	87	85	74	40	49	68	67
8	Terrance Henry	Mississippi	SF	84	74	82	50	74	36	67
9	Alex Young	IUPUI	SF	59	69	62	40	85	65	63
10	Casper Ware	Long Beach State	PG	5	4	91	78	99	98	62
11	Jae Crowder	Marquette	SF	49	49	44	98	91	43	62
12	Marcus Denmon	Missouri	PG	26	24	87	45	93	97	62
13	Orlando Johnson	UC Santa Barbara	SG	36	67	98	66	66	37	62
14	Tony Mitchell	Alabama	SF	56	55	97	54	56	51	61
15	Chris Johnson	St. Bonaventure	SF	44	68	93	50	25	88	61
16	Kim English	Missouri	SG	47	41	77	14	97	82	60
17	Robert Sacre	Gonzaga	C	98	82	16	98	29	32	59
18	Drew Gordon	New Mexico	PF	78	75	68	78	16	35	58
19	Eric Griffin	Campbell	SF	67	79	60	50	18	73	58
20	Herb Pope	Seton Hall	PF	71	76	46	50	68	31	57
21	Kyle Kuric	Louisville	SG	37	23	67	50	71	91	57
22	Mike Glover	Iona	SF	63	52	84	59	21	60	57
23	Kyle Weems	Missouri State	SF	60	58	94	50	35	41	56
24	Charlie Westbrook	South Dakota	SG	34	34	80	50	79	55	55
25	Chace Stanback	UNLV	SF	72	40	23	50	82	64	55
26	Gerald Robinson	Georgia	PG	15	14	69	50	96	87	55
27	Yancy Gates	Cincinnati	PF	83	93	32	50	42	27	55
28	Maalik Wayns	Villanova	PG	14	11	75	88	75	63	54
29	Wesley Witherspoon	Memphis	SF	73	63	72	6	67	42	54
30	Ricardo Ratliffe	Missouri	SF	69	80	33	78	12	49	54
31	Mitchell Watt	Buffalo	PF	80	77	53	21	44	46	53
32	Carlon Brown	Colorado	SG	41	36	79	50	73	38	53
33	Zack Rosen	Pennsylvania	PG	13	6	54	66	78	100	53
34	Jordan Taylor	Wisconsin	PG	20	13	65	50	92	71	52
35	Gus Gilchrist	South Florida	PF	90	92	8	50	47	20	51
36	Kyle O'Quinn	Norfolk State	PF	86	100	15	45	48	12	51
37	Jason Clark	Georgetown	PG	25	45	18	50	98	67	51
38	Dee Bost	Mississippi St	SG	28	16	83	33	46	92	50
39	Garrett Stutz	Wichita State	C	99	94	10		32	7	48
40	Jarrod Jones	Ball State	PF	81	60	51		20	30	48
41	Scott Machado	Iona	PG	16	12	59	98	23	79	48
42	Jorge Gutierrez	California	SG	30	27	40	28	77	85	48
43	Devoe Joseph	Oregon	PF	33	33	28		54	90	47
44	Ken Horton	Central Connecticut State	SF	61	70	47		36	18	46
45	Xavier Gibson	Florida State	PF	94	95	6	28	15	40	46
46	Julian Mavunga	Miami	PF	70	84	36		31	11	46
47	Eli Holman	Detroit	PF	77	98	14	33	24	29	46
48	Bradford Burgess	Virginia Commonwealth	SF	57	26	26		60	53	45
49	Henry Sims	Georgetown	C	96	97	3		8	13	43
50	Reggie Hamilton	Oakland	PG	10	21	39		95	47	42
51	Greg Mangano	Yale	PF	89	66	5		37	14	42
52	Kevin Murphy	Tennessee Tech	SG	64	42	37		19	48	42
53	Jesse Sanders	Liberty	SG	31	10	63		62	44	42
54	J'Covan Brown	Texas	PG	17	22	13	28	64	95	40
55	Wendell McKines	New Mexico State	SF	51	50	61		9	21	38
56	Dominique Morrison	Oral Roberts	SF	54	54	29		33	10	36
57	Juan Fernandez	Temple	SG	38	17	19		65	22	32
58	Jordan Theodore	Seton Hall	PG	8	18	30		70	25	30
59	Ashton Gibbs	Pittsburgh	SG	18	31	22	21	43	45	30
60	Tu Holloway	Xavier	PG	7	20	41	40	38	15	27
61	Darryl Bryant	West Virginia	PG	12	25	9		34	33	23

Jameel McKay makes Marquette a 2014 Final Four team in Value Add (and an apology to Creighton for exclusion)

As excited as I am about the start of Deonte Burton's CAREER at Marquette for the 2013-14 season, as far as the SEASON itself the commitment of 6-foot-8 power forward Jameel McKay is what makes MU a potential Final Four team.  In fact, plugging in his projected Value Add takes Marquette from 7th to 3rd in the "Way Too Early Top 50 Teams for 2014" that I first ran a couple of weeks ago.

McKay coming in as a junior after two years of JUCO play will put him way ahead of where Burton should be coming in as one of the top freshman to come to Marquette - the same point I made before the 2010-11 season when predicting that Jae Crowder would likely be a much more valuable player than Vander Blue that first year.  In the www.valueaddbasketball.com database you can pull it up and type "Marquette" in the search box on top and then "2014" under year to see the entire projected roster in 2014 and their projected Value Add.

Thanks to Brad Winton for his incredible work in updating the top 100 JUCOs in the country, which enabled me to update the estimated values of JUCOs in the database.  While he won't list a top 100 of this year's freshman JUCOs until next year, based on his comments on several key players I had penciled McKay in as No. 1 on the list based on his comments on several JUCO freshman stars - at the time assuming McKay would end up at Indiana or maybe Florida.  Even if we assume McKay turns out to be only the 5th or 10th best JUCO next year, MU would only slip one spot to behind Kentucky to still project as a Final Four team.

While freshman ranked as high as Burton average producing 2.88% Value Add (their impact on their teams score each night), the top incoming JUCO typically has a Value Add of about 6.0%.  Two years ago Jae Crowder was the top JUCO transfer with a 5.95%, then this year Pierre Jackson was even better with a 6.09% for Baylor.  So Value Add estimates that this year Geron Johnson will produce about 6% for Memphis and next year McKay will produce about 6% for Marquette.  As you can see from the table below, that gives Marquette a potential 49.04% Value Add (every teams will be a bit lower than the projections that far off), which puts them in a theoretical Final Four with Kentucky, Arizona and Texas.

Some of the big "IFs"

Obviously there will be many changes between now and then, but McKay's commitment at this stage makes MU a team with the potential to make a Final Four run.

What would make MU drop?  Obviously transfers, injuries, etc., but the other factor to understand this far off is that these projections assume that players projected to go in the 2013 draft do leave their teams.  MU is almost in a perfect position because the roster is so loaded and yet right now noone is projected to be taken early in the draft (sorrowful memory of Jim Chones inserted here).

See the "Assume gone to NBA" column below, and you can see the players that are assumed to go to the  NBA for 2014.  Even if the roster stays in tact at MU and noone rises to the NBA-level before their senior year, there are 10 teams who would project ahead of Marquette if all of their players stuck around for 2014 to win a title rather than get the big bucks - Texas, Arizona (both already ahead), Kentucky, Memphis, UNC, Michigan State, Ohio State, Indiana, UCLA and Michigan.

Sorry to Creighton for not explaining why I didn't show them ranked

Also want to apologize to Creighton fans for missing a question that was posed after my May 20 post about how they could not be ranked since Doug McDermott would be a senior in 2014.  For some reason I've always received a following from Creighton on my work, so I hate to slight them, but if you pull up www.valueaddbasketball.com and search for "Creighton"and under year "2013," you will see that I rank them 21st in 2013.

They were listed in 2014 simply under the assumption that McDermott would go to the pros as projected, but I have inserted them "with McDermott" on the table below to show that they would be projected to be 26th place in 2014 if he stays.

Rnk	2014 Team	Proj VA	Ave. Fr	Total	Assume gone to NBA
1	Texas	45.25	9.3	54.55	Kabongo, Myck 6.43
2	Arizona	47.03	5	52.03	No projected 2013 draftees
3	Marquette	45.64	3.4	49.04	No projected 2013 draftees
4	Kentucky	36.74	12.1	48.84	Noel, Nerlens 10/Goodwin, Archie 7.34
5	Maryland	42.66	3.4	46.06	Len, Alex 2.11
6	Memphis	39.35	5.3	44.65	Thomas, Adonis 5.37
7	North Carolina	36.53	7.4	43.93	McAdoo, James 6.44/Hairston, PJ 5.86
8	Providence	39.77	3.7	43.47	No projected 2013 draftees
9	Iowa	39.18	3.6	42.78	No projected 2013 draftees
10	Connecticut	36.39	6.3	42.69	No projected 2013 draftees
11	Michigan St.	37.37	3.8	41.17	Dawson, Branden 8.48
12	Ohio St.	32.05	8.4	40.45	Thomas, Deshaun 9.56
13	Indiana	34.9	5.4	40.3	Zeller, Cody 14.5/Oladipo, Victor 6.65
14	UCLA	34.16	5.2	39.36	Muhammad, Shabazz 10.5
15	California	34.8	3.5	38.3	No projected 2013 draftees
16	Kansas	31.24	5.1	36.34	No projected 2013 draftees
17	Georgetown	30.5	5	35.5	Porter, Otto 12.08
18	Michigan	30.71	4.4	35.11	Burke, Trey 10.72/Hardaway, Tim 5.1
19	Alabama	30.72	4.1	34.82	No projected 2013 draftees
20	Stanford	34.68	0	34.68	No projected 2013 draftees
21	Arkansas	30.72	3.9	34.62	Young, BJ 11.67
22	Notre Dame	33.9	0	33.9	No projected 2013 draftees
23	Duke	25.24	7.4	32.64	No projected 2013 draftees
24	Baylor	28.56	3.9	32.46	Austin, Isaiah 9.08
25	Virginia	32.09	0	32.09	No projected 2013 draftees
26	Creighton (w/ McDermott)	25.74	6.3	32.04	McDermott, Doug 11.56
26	Nevada Las Vegas	31.74	0	31.74	Moser, Mike 7.39
27	Florida	26.68	5	31.68	Young, Patric 6.53
28	Houston	31.48	0	31.48	No projected 2013 draftees
29	Louisville	25.42	5.1	30.52	Dieng, Gorgui 9/Blackshear, Wayne 4.1
30	Pittsburgh	26.53	3.5	30.03	Adams, Steven 9.28
31	Colorado	26.71	3.1	29.81	Roberson, Andre 9.77
32	Villanova	25.36	3.7	29.06	No projected 2013 draftees
33	North Carolina St.	25.16	3.8	28.96	Brown, Lorenzo 7.48/Leslie CJ 5.33
34	Syracuse	23.59	5.2	28.79	Carter-Williams, Michael 4.31
35	St. John's	28.69	0	28.69	No projected 2013 draftees
36	Texas Tech	28.52	0	28.52	No projected 2013 draftees
37	Oklahoma St.	27.95	0	27.95	Nash, Le'Bryan 6.93
38	Mississippi	24.41	3.1	27.51	No projected 2013 draftees
39	New Mexico	27.1	0	27.1	No projected 2013 draftees
40	Rutgers	22.49	4.3	26.79	No projected 2013 draftees
41	Tennessee	26.56	0	26.56	No projected 2013 draftees
42	West Virginia	26.52	0	26.52	No projected 2013 draftees
43	Xavier	26.44	0	26.44	No projected 2013 draftees
44	Texas A&M	26.03	0	26.03	No projected 2013 draftees
45	Oregon State	25.52	0	25.52	No projected 2013 draftees
46	Iowa State	21.66	3.8	25.46	No projected 2013 draftees
47	Seton Hall	24.6	0	24.6	No projected 2013 draftees
48	Harvard	24.59	0	24.59	No projected 2013 draftees
49	South Florida	20.81	0	20.81	No projected 2013 draftees
50	Virginia Tech	20.24	0	20.24	No projected 2013 draftees

RPI: Why Cupcakes Matter, Part II

Now that we know how to calculate RPI, the next question is what difference levels of opponents makes. First of all, we're going to look at what are considered Marquette's "cupcake games". To qualify as a cupcake, the game is generally going to be a one-time meeting played at Marquette, with Marquette paying a set fee to the opponent to travel to Milwaukee for the game.

For sake of comparison, the games I'm going to use as examples of cupcakes for the 2011-12 season are Mount St. Mary's, Norfolk State, Jacksonville, and Northern Colorado. While NSU was technically part of the Paradise Jam, they were the one of only four non-series home games we played. The comparison teams from the past I will use are the four lowest RPI home wins from 2010-11, Centenary, Prairie View A&M, Longwood, and South Dakota. If Marquette had played teams with identical profiles to the 2010-11 teams in 2011-12, here is how it would have impacted their RPI:

First Factor: Marquette won all eight games at home, so there is no difference to the first 25%. Marquette's record still would have counted as 21.4 - 5.4, good for a 0.7985 winning percentage.

Second Factor: The combined record of the 2011-12 teams was 50-66 for Marquette's RPI purposes. The combined record of the 2010-11 teams was 41-81. This changes Marquette's opponents' record to 583-409, good for a 0.5877 winning percentage.

Third Factor: The combined opponents' opponents' winning percentage for the 2011-12 teams was 0.4943, which led to the 0.5327 score Marquette received in the first article. The combined opponents' opponents' winning percentage for the 2010-11 teams was 0.4242. When replacing the value, it gives Marquette a new score of 0.5239.

To calculate Marquette's new RPI, we simply add the three factors together using the second factor twice (50% weight) then divide the number by 4. This gives us a final RPI of 0.6244, which would have dropped Marquette from 9th to 11th in the RPI rankings.

I also calculated Marquette's RPI for the 2010-11 season when Marquette finished on the bubble. I was interested in this because the difference in RPI scores for teams lower down the food chain tends to be narrower, meaning that the change of a handful of opponents could make a significant difference. The first factor was 0.5555, the second was 0.5890, and the third was 0.5397, resulting in an RPI of 0.5683. Adjusting the cupcakes to 2011-12 levels, the second factor goes to 0.6012 and the third goes to 0.5407. This would have given Marquette a 0.5647 RPI score. That difference would have taken Marquette from the 64th best RPI in the country to the 54th best, which likely would have taken them off the bubble.

When you have a successful regular season, like Marquette did in 2011-12, the difference of a few cupcakes may only make the difference of 2-3 positions in the RPI, but that could also be the difference between a 4-seed and a 3-seed, or a 3-seed and a 2-seed, which increases your likelihood of an easier path to the Final Four and games closer to home. When a team has a regular season that leaves them on the bubble, like Marquette did in 2010-11, the difference of a few cupcakes can make the difference of 8-12 positions in the RPI, which in the 50s-60s has a very good chance of being the difference between being in the tournament and out of it.

RPI: Why Cupcakes Matter, Part I

On the MUScoop.com website, I've had a running discussion going as the schedule developed. One of the questions that came up was how much of an impact playing tougher cupcakes had as opposed to some of the weaker teams we've seen in years past. In order to do this, first it's important to understand how the RPI works. The RPI that matters is the one calculated going into Selection Sunday, so I include all regular season games as well as conference tournaments. When analyzing a team's RPI, there are three factors involved:

25% - Their weighted record. To calculate this, you need to break down the team's record for home, neutral, and road games. For example, Marquette was 15-1 at home, 4-1 on neutral courts, and 6-5 on the road. Home wins are weighted by a multiple of 0.6 (0.6 x 15 = 9) and road wins are weighted by a multiple of 1.4 (1.4 x 6 = 8.4), while home losses are weighted by a multiple of 1.4 (1.4 x 1 = 1.4) and road losses are weighted by a multiple of 0.6 (0.6 x 5 = 3). That gives us the following formulas for Marquette:

Wins: (0.6 x 15) + (1.0 x 4) + (1.4 x 6) = 21.4
Losses: (1.4 x 1) + (1.0 x 1) + (0.6 x 5) = 5.4

So Marquette's weighted record was 21.4 - 5.4, a winning percentage of 0.7985.

50% -  Their opponents' record. This does NOT use the weighted formula. It also ignores the game against the team being calculated. The record of all of Marquette's opponents combined, discounting postseason tournaments and games against Marquette, was 592-394, a winning percentage of 0.6004.

25% - Their opponents' opponents' record. This also does not include the weighted formula, simply the record for every team the teams you played played. The combined winning percentage of all of those teams for Marquette was 0.5327.

In order to now determine Marquette's RPI rank (and thus value as an opponent), it is approximately as follows:

(0.7985 + 0.6004 + 0.6004 + 0.5327) / 4 = 0.6330.

This number is then compared against all the other teams in the country to determine the RPI ranking. Last year, this ranking was good enough for 8th in the country. In the next two parts of this, I will be looking at what the difference is when Marquette plays higher-quality cupcakes as opposed to lower-quality cupcakes, followed by a look at what benefit there is to playing road games against mid-major teams like Green Bay and Milwaukee.