Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [APBR_analysis] Re: underclassmen and the draft

Expand Messages
  • Charles Steinhardt
    ... Injury problems... But more likely, they could be required to give a player 1000 minutes of playing time if a minor league system were in place. While I
    Message 1 of 10 , Jul 22, 2001
      On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Mike Goodman wrote:

      > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., Charles Steinhardt <charles@p...> wrote:
      > > Though the level of competition in college is lower. I'd also
      > point out
      > > that the level of practice is higher, though perhaps at an elite
      > program
      > > this is not as true. But consider a player at Duke, playing one of
      > the
      > > toughest schedules in the nation. They get 16 ACC games, about 10
      > of
      > > which are a high level of competition (300 minutes). The non-
      > conference
      > > schedule will provide generally 3-4 tests against Top 25 opposition
      > (90
      > > minutes). And the tournament, at most, is 6 games (180 minutes)
      > but no
      > > player should expect more than 3-4 tournament games, and the first
      > one
      > > will not be a high level of competition for an elite program. So
      > let's
      > > say another 100 minutes MAX there.
      > >
      > > Meaning that at most 500 quality minutes per year will occur in
      > college.
      > > Do players get taught better? A different question, but if you
      > think that
      > > purely playing in competition is the driving force, the NBA may
      > well be
      > > the better choice.
      > >
      > > As for player development, there's a different question of course...
      > >
      > >
      > This is a good breakdown, Charles. It prompts me to suggest that
      > a 1000-minute pro is getting about 500 "quality" minutes and another
      > 500 "garbage" minutes; while a 500-minute pro is getting
      > basically "garbage" time.
      > Placing oneself in competitive situations, at important times,
      > does much for developing those qualities that cannot be aquired in
      > practice situations. Nor in garbage time.
      > A 1000-minute pro is playing some 10-15 minutes a game, and thus
      > is a key contributor and playing quality minutes.
      > Maybe NBA teams should be obligated to play an early-entry player
      > 1000 minutes. Then, rather than being taken just to develop him, he
      > might be considered undraftable, and be consigned to college, and
      > actually get some playing time.
      >

      Injury problems...

      But more likely, they could be required to give a player 1000 minutes of
      playing time if a minor league system were in place.

      While I like the idea of players going to college from the point of view
      of letting them get a good education, I also realize that some player feel
      the classes are a waste of time. And honestly, I don't think that it
      benefits anybody to have players not taking classes seriously - not the
      players, their professors, their classmates, or the ADs who get caught up
      in scandals trying to get them to pass when they don't really care to. I
      feel that college is a privilege, and while basketball skills may allow
      one to gain entry and scholarship to someplace that otherwise would be
      difficult, if a player does not want to take advantage that too should be
      his choice.

      A minor league system would be ideal, in that a player who did not care
      for college would not be in the system, and players who wanted to go to
      college would be. To me this seems better than a system that IMO fails
      everybody, and perhaps the minor league would actually be developmental.

      Further one could institute a couple more rounds back in the draft to make
      the system work, allow deserving seniors their shot in the minor, and
      perhaps the requirement should be that 1st round picks get 1000 minutes of
      playing time SOMEPLACE. Or perhaps that's just something for people to
      negotiate in their contracts.

      Either way, this system seems better...

      > > >
      >
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > APBR_analysis-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
    • Dean LaVergne
      This subject has been touched on to some extent but not explicitly addressed. I was wondering whether or to what extent these underclassmen hurt their
      Message 2 of 10 , Jul 23, 2001
        This subject has been touched on to some extent but not explicitly
        addressed.  I was wondering whether or to what extent these
        underclassmen hurt their development as pros. 
        [Dean LaVergne] 
        Actually, I'm working with some economists at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York who is testing that theory (among others).  I'll let you know the results when their results are in.
         
         
        Dean L.
      • harlanzo@yahoo.com
        ... Bank in ... know the ... Some of you have mentioned the need for playing time to develop skills of younger players. This is true to some extent. But I
        Message 3 of 10 , Jul 23, 2001
          --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean LaVergne" <deanlav@y...> wrote:
          > This subject has been touched on to some extent but not explicitly
          > addressed. I was wondering whether or to what extent these
          > underclassmen hurt their development as pros.
          > [Dean LaVergne]
          > Actually, I'm working with some economists at the Federal Reserve
          Bank in
          > New York who is testing that theory (among others). I'll let you
          know the
          > results when their results are in.
          >
          >
          > Dean L.

          Some of you have mentioned the need for playing time to develop
          skills of younger players. This is true to some extent. But I
          wonder if certain players, as a result of physical development, just
          get better because of the maturation process and that it would not
          matter if the player spent 4 years with Dean Smith or 2 years with
          Kevin Mackey he is still going to great because of his god-given
          abilities. Obivously, you need some polish but I wonder if that is
          only 10% of the puzzle whereas the physical/mental maturation process
          is a much larger piece.
        • Michael K. Tamada
          ... Yes, I ll be interested to see what those Fed economists come up with. They undoubtedly know the econometric techniques that ll be needed and I m presuming
          Message 4 of 10 , Jul 23, 2001
            On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 harlanzo@... wrote:

            > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean LaVergne" <deanlav@y...> wrote:
            > > Actually, I'm working with some economists at the Federal Reserve
            > Bank in
            > > New York who is testing that theory (among others). I'll let you
            > know the
            > > results when their results are in.
            > >
            > >
            > > Dean L.
            >
            > Some of you have mentioned the need for playing time to develop
            > skills of younger players. This is true to some extent. But I
            > wonder if certain players, as a result of physical development, just
            > get better because of the maturation process and that it would not
            > matter if the player spent 4 years with Dean Smith or 2 years with
            > Kevin Mackey he is still going to great because of his god-given
            > abilities. Obivously, you need some polish but I wonder if that is
            > only 10% of the puzzle whereas the physical/mental maturation process
            > is a much larger piece.

            Yes, I'll be interested to see what those Fed economists come up with.
            They undoubtedly know the econometric techniques that'll be needed and I'm
            presuming that they have the basketball knowledge necessary to
            successfully apply them.

            In particular, people here have come up with several hypotheses for player
            development:

            1. simple age (a 24 year old will play better than an 18 year old)
            2. receiving training (including practice time, perhaps this is best
            measured by practice minutes, or number of practices, or months of
            practice -- though that'll be practically identical with using simple age)
            3. minutes (or games, or seasons) of actual playing time
            4. minutes (or games, or seasons) of non-garbage playing time

            For explanations 2, 3, and 4 there are further some qualitative
            differences to investigate: are all minutes the same, or does it make a
            difference if they're experienced in the NBA, NCAA, (or NAIA, or the
            now-defunct CBA, or Europe, or ???). Also even within those categories,
            there are differences: would four years at UNC be the same as four years
            at, say, UHouston? Would a season of NBA experience be the same at, say,
            Phoenix (which always seems to be able to come up with little heralded
            players who end up making good contributions) or under George Karl (who at
            least in Seattle was notorious for burying rookies and never letting them
            produce or develop, Eric Snow being the most notorious example).

            Probably, player development is aided by all four of the factors listed,
            but the question is which factors are more important than others, and
            which ones would lead to the fastest development of a player (And is
            fastest best? Most people think that it would be a mistake to rush even a
            20-year old pitcher to the major leagues, ditto for most 18-year old
            position players; on the other hand some 20-year old position players
            such as Ken Griffey Jr and Alex Rodriguez were ready to play).

            To make matters even more complex, there are undoubtedly players for whom
            college coaching is the way to go, and others who would do better in the
            NBA developmental league or on the bench in the NBA. Depending on
            personality, ability to live on one's own, coachability, level of coaching
            already received in high school, etc. etc. I don't think any study can
            definitively provide an answer for individual players, but the Fed might
            be able to provide an overall average.


            --MKT
          • Dean Oliver
            ... player ... best ... simple age) ... I don t know if there is enough data to do the kinds of studies being proposed. I hope so. My concept is that you
            Message 5 of 10 , Jul 24, 2001
              --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > In particular, people here have come up with several hypotheses for
              player
              > development:
              >
              > 1. simple age (a 24 year old will play better than an 18 year old)
              > 2. receiving training (including practice time, perhaps this is
              best
              > measured by practice minutes, or number of practices, or months of
              > practice -- though that'll be practically identical with using
              simple age)
              > 3. minutes (or games, or seasons) of actual playing time
              > 4. minutes (or games, or seasons) of non-garbage playing time
              >

              I don't know if there is enough data to do the kinds of studies being
              proposed. I hope so.

              My concept is that you somehow want to control for the quality of
              high school prospect you've got. A relative ranking may be all we
              can do -- look at the top 100 and their average ranking by the
              different services -- and track those guys through college/pros. (An
              absolute ranking would be better since there is some sense of
              better/worse high school classes.)

              What you don't want to do is what we have already done -- match Kobe
              Bryant with Shane Battier (maybe that was the other group). Kobe was
              considered easily the best player in the nation that year (by my
              faulty memory), whereas Battier was an "ordinary" McDonalds
              All-American. Basically, Battier would not have been drafted then.
              Kobe has few peers, except for Kevin Garnett, by being the only
              highly drafted high school kid in his year (am I forgetting
              someone?).

              But how does Rashard Lewis compare? Does he have a match who stayed
              in college at least a year or two?

              What about finding matches for these guys? Do people have old HS
              evaluations that we could use as a start for matching up appropriate
              guys?

              Tim Thomas? Jumaine Jones? Steve Francis with Larry Johnson? Dion
              Glover? Jonathan Bender? Ron Artest? Elton Brand? Glenn Robinson?
              Rodney Rogers?

              Dean Oliver
              Journal of Basketball Studies
            • Mike Goodman
              ... best ... simple age) ... What about championship minutes? What of that frozen moment when the shot has been released, the shot that will either secure
              Message 6 of 10 , Jul 24, 2001
                --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
                >
                >
                ....people here have come up with several hypotheses for player
                > development:
                >
                > 1. simple age (a 24 year old will play better than an 18 year old)
                > 2. receiving training (including practice time, perhaps this is
                best
                > measured by practice minutes, or number of practices, or months of
                > practice -- though that'll be practically identical with using
                simple age)
                > 3. minutes (or games, or seasons) of actual playing time
                > 4. minutes (or games, or seasons) of non-garbage playing time
                >
                What about championship minutes? What of that frozen moment when
                the shot has been released, the shot that will either secure one's
                legacy as an amateur player, or tarnish it?
                Michael Jordan hit a championship shot in college. Did this whet
                his appetite for more, and sustain him thru the lean years in Chicago?
                Hakeem never won a college title. Did coming-so-close allow him
                to focus on doing even more to ensure that future opportunities would
                not slip away?
                A very-good college-age player, it seems, faces the choice of
                vying for a national collegiate championship, or putting in time on
                an NBA bench (or on the floor for a bad team).
                If money is everything, and sooner is better, then you don't like
                the possibility of an injury in college, carving out of your earning
                and achievment potential. If there is anything to the notion that
                certain vital personality traits are learned at certain ages, then
                you have an argument: that anyone who likes the idea of college
                competition may well do better by going to school, having that
                youthful experience, and letting the pro career happen later.
                How many NBA players have expressed regret at staying in school
                longer than was economically expedient? Has Jordan publicly lamented
                his time "wasted"? Has anyone?
                I like Kevin Garnett, even his expletives. Presumably, a college
                career would have purged him of his habit. But for every KG, there
                are probably a dozen or more guys who could develop, as people, more
                beneficially, by an amateur career, walking through the seasons, from
                dorm to class to gym, learning some life; and then going pro.
                Just my opinion.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.