846Re: NCAA -> NBA translation
- Apr 11, 2002--- In APBR_analysis@y..., "harlanzo" <harlanzo@y...> wrote:
> I think the baseball translations work a little better than aYes, the baseball translations are not just by level, but by league.
> basketball one would. The important thing to recognize is that
> translations in baseball seem to vary by league. Similarly in
> basketball, a 20 ppg scorer in the ivy league does not equal to one
> in the ACC. So I am not sure how to quantify this difference.
The Pacific Coast League, for example, is AAA, as is the
International League, but the IL is considered a higher-quality
league. The way these translations work is with a MLE -- Minor League
Equivalency, developed, like everything else, by Bill James.
The first of many problems we find in trying to do the same for the
NCAA is that even within the leagues themselves, teams are playing
widely variant schedules. About 40% of games are going to be non-
conference ones, and assuredly Oregon State isn't playing the same
non-conference teams as Arizona.
Team quality also isn't a problem in baseball thanks to the
development of team-independent stats. As hard as we may try -- and
Dean's column about the effect of Jerry Stackhouse on the Pistons was
quite interesting -- it's still tough to de-context a player's stats,
and I imagine doubly so for NCAA players.
I think what is a more reasonable goal for the time being might be to
try to look at what *types* of players make for good pros. It's been
mentioned that both Carter and Jordan were high-efficiency guys on
very good teams. Is this type of player particularly successful in
making the transition? Basically, I guess this gets back to the four
types of players (high-efficiency, low productivity . . .) that were
discussed way back in January. Is any specific group translating to
the pro game better than the others? Why?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>