I have a PF (travis Obray http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=2942235) that I feel is draftable materiaL but he is not listed in the top 100.  I see IMO alot worse PFs listed ahead of him.  So what is he missing that is causing his stock to be so low?

Athleticism	77
Speed	52
Rebounding	84
Defense	99
Shot Blocking	80
Low-post	99
Perimeter	52
Ball Handling	38
Passing	43
Work Ethic	99
Stamina	87
Durability	75
FT Shooting	C+

I know total rating doesnt tell the whole story but it definitly gives us an idea.  He is the 40th highest rated player and tied for 7th as a PF at 885.  maybe hes not a top 50 player but one would think top 100 with those ratings would be fairly easy? 

spread 20 more points or so around between ath, reb, and sb and maybe. Probably won't get drafted unless its a very weak/lucky EE draw. 

ETA: Or 5 more ath and 35 bh possibly...

Well for one, his athleticism is probably far lower (~10 pts) than other PFs on the draft board.  To make up for that athleticism difference, his other skills would have to be top notch.  Defense and LP are obviously there (99), but his Per, BH, and Pas are "just" really good, not amazing.  His rebounding, is just okay, and for a guy with athleticism in the 70s, that just won't cut it in terms of getting onto the draft board.  Also, when taking overall rating into account, you're confounding his skills with ratings that don't make a difference on the court.  If you made his WE 49 and durability 50 (fairly average ratings), his performance/draft status would be no different, but that 885 would 810. 

Posted by tkimble on 7/30/2015 11:23:00 AM (view original):
Well for one, his athleticism is probably far lower (~10 pts) than other PFs on the draft board.  To make up for that athleticism difference, his other skills would have to be top notch.  Defense and LP are obviously there (99), but his Per, BH, and Pas are "just" really good, not amazing.  His rebounding, is just okay, and for a guy with athleticism in the 70s, that just won't cut it in terms of getting onto the draft board.  Also, when taking overall rating into account, you're confounding his skills with ratings that don't make a difference on the court.  If you made his WE 49 and durability 50 (fairly average ratings), his performance/draft status would be no different, but that 885 would 810. 

I've read something like this before. Does that mean durability doesn't matter at all when recruiting?

Didn't mean to hijack your thread, wayk.

Posted by pallas on 7/30/2015 11:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tkimble on 7/30/2015 11:23:00 AM (view original):
Well for one, his athleticism is probably far lower (~10 pts) than other PFs on the draft board.  To make up for that athleticism difference, his other skills would have to be top notch.  Defense and LP are obviously there (99), but his Per, BH, and Pas are "just" really good, not amazing.  His rebounding, is just okay, and for a guy with athleticism in the 70s, that just won't cut it in terms of getting onto the draft board.  Also, when taking overall rating into account, you're confounding his skills with ratings that don't make a difference on the court.  If you made his WE 49 and durability 50 (fairly average ratings), his performance/draft status would be no different, but that 885 would 810. 

I've read something like this before. Does that mean durability doesn't matter at all when recruiting?

Didn't mean to hijack your thread, wayk.

yes

durability matters verrry little

For this guy, I think his key downside for draftability is the ATH which is lower than I think one sees drafted by enough that the strong ratings in a couple categories dont offset enough