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

Re: underclassmen and the draft

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 10 , Jul 23, 2001
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- 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 2 of 10 , Jul 23, 2001
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 10 , Jul 24, 2001
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- 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 4 of 10 , Jul 24, 2001
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- 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.