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

Re: [APBR_analysis] Re: Ronald Murray

Expand Messages
  • Daniel Dickey
    I have a little more time to elaborate on this. For a big man statistically (doesn t hit threes and probably has lower steals) - he better have at least good
    Message 1 of 7 , Nov 20, 2003
      I have a little more time to elaborate on this. For a big man statistically
      (doesn't hit threes and probably has lower steals) - he better have at least
      good scoring stats (with a nice EFG%), with at least good rebounding rates
      AND exceptional defensive stats OR very good possesion stats (decent assists
      and/or low to's). Wright was a good college scorer, good rebounder, but was
      poor in both defensive stats (meaning probably not that athletic) and
      possesion stats (can't create on offense, may have bad hands for NBA level).
      I saw Loren Woods as a better NBA prospect, but his average (at best)
      rebounding rate and BAD possession rate at the college level was not a good

      Jefferson was above average (although not exceptional) in every facet
      statistically at the highest college level as a wing player, especially per
      minute. Pretty much ANY player at a top notch program who is above average
      statistically in pretty much every skill set has definite good NBA
      potential. True diversity in skill sets seems to really be an indicator for
      future success. Less diversity, less possibility of success.

      Carlos Boozer was below average in defensive stats for a big man, slightly
      above for possessions, but VERY good in rebounding and exceptional scoring
      (incredible EFG%) against top notch competition. Then he sculpted his body,
      dropped all his fat, and STILL dropped to the second round. I saw him as a
      good rebounding Corliss Williamson statistically. Made no sense he dropped
      that far. DeJuan Wagner, not above average in any category (would be in
      scoring, except EFG% was real poor). He was about average in possessions
      and defense for a SG (not for a PG). Yet Wagner was picked about 30 spots
      ahead of Boozer. Haislep was drafted well ahead of Boozer, but
      statistically was much worse in every skill set except defense (although his
      team played much better defense).

      When the Pistons took that White kid a few years ago - that was a joke. He
      was only above average in scoring efficiency (barely), below average
      everywhere else (for a PF or SF). Mateen Cleaves was only above average in
      Possesions (not even that good), below average everywhere else. Destined to

      >From: "John Hollinger" <alleyoop2@...>
      >Reply-To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com
      >To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com
      >Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: Ronald Murray
      >Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 23:42:58 -0000
      >I've been extremely disappointed in my admittedly limited efforts to
      >convert college stats to pro stats. The games are so different that
      >it's really tough to assess. Look at Arizona three years ago. Richard
      >Jefferson is a stud but Michael Wright is a lemon; I don't know how
      >you can figure that out just by looking at their stats. I know
      >there's a guy who posted here about a year ago who said he had a
      >method but I haven't seen how his results compare to reality yet. The
      >search for an "MLE"-type stat wears on.....
      >--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Pelton" <kpelton08@h...>
      > > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Stephen Greenwell
      > > <sgre6768@p...> wrote:
      > > > I'm wondering, is there any sort of college to pro conversion tool
      > > > around?
      > >
      > > I did some work on it this spring, but I did it by conference and
      > > thus only for major conferences (which would have the sample sizes
      > > necessary to measure level of play relative to NBA). Doing it for D-
      > > II players seems very difficult to me; so few guys from that low
      > > make it to the NBA that one or two players might dominate the
      > > analysis.
      > >
      > > One interesting thing JohnH pointed out in this year's Prospectus
      > > was that while Dan Dickau had great college stats, in addition to
      > > the fact that the WCC is hardly a great league, he was 23 his
      > > season. It makes sense that we'd have to make some adjustment for
      > > age relative to league on top of the expected progression based on
      > > age. How to do that is more difficult to say.
      > >
      > > On to Murray ...
      > >
      > > The Bucks obviously thought they had quite a find based on last
      > > year's summer league. They used their mid-level exception to give
      > > Murray three-year contract, which is pretty rare for second-round
      > > picks. The only other team I know of doing that is the Bulls, when
      > > they had a ton of cap space and could give three-year deals to guys
      > > like Voskuhl and Hassell (the latter getting cut at the start of
      > > third year). As an aside, I think it's a practice that we're going
      > > to see become more common because of the Gilbert Arenas situation
      > > and a similar possibility this year with Carlos Boozer. You've got
      > > to protect your investment.
      > >
      > > Flip put up huge numbers again this year during the summer time
      > > (22.9 ppg, 50.9% shooting, 47.4% threes), so there was a certain
      > > amount of hope that he could be a rotation player this year, or at
      > > least a fifth guard used situationally. Part of the problem before-
      > > hand was that both Milwaukee and the Sonics have, to some extent,
      > > tried to make Murray into a point guard. While he's a good
      > > ballhandler, I don't think he's the kind of player who could ever
      > > play the point on a regular basis.
      > >
      > > At 6-4, however, he's not like a Shammond Williams who has to play
      > > the point. He's no worse defensively at the two from what I can
      > > The problem was just opportunity with Allen at the two, so the
      > > injury was really great for Murray.
      > >
      > > Is this for real? Well, I'm certainly not ready to declare him an
      > > All-Star level contributor after three games. However, his play
      > > certainly doesn't seem like a fluke. He has a very smooth release
      > > his jumper and is very effective around 15-20 feet.
      > >
      > > One of the things the Sonics coaching staff and front office has
      > > repeatedly mentioned is that he has the strength to get where he
      > > wants to with the ball. I hadn't really noticed it before last
      > > night, but it's definitely true that he's very effective playing
      > > finishing in traffic.
      > >
      > > One of these nights, he's going to bust a 1-for-10 with a bunch of
      > > turnovers and cool down the hype, but he definitely looks like a
      > > solid rotation player at the moment.

      Groove on the latest from the hot new rock groups! Get downloads, videos,
      and more here. http://special.msn.com/entertainment/wiredformusic.armx
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.