Let's discuss scouting (How would you do a better job?) (long)
- I think it's safe to say that NBA GM's are doing a less than
impressive job with the draft. Why? Well first because it's not easy.
Second, because they worry far too much about stupid crap such as: how
a guy looks in a tank top, how long his arms are, vertical leap, etc.
What they should focus on is PERFORMANCE playing basketball. I haven't
seen a bench press contest break out during a basketball game recently.
Now, let's say I'm a GM and I want to focus on performance. I would
draft guys who dominated whatever level of competition they were at.
But for that approach to be valid one major question has to be answered:
What levels of basketball, if any, are similar enough to the NBA to
judge a player based on his performance?
I'm not sure that any are and wanted to see what you guys think.
Sportsline.com has a simplistic rating system for player production
but it's probably sufficient for a quick evaluation. Here are their
top ten guys based on production in the NCAA last season:
RANK PLAYER TEAM RANKING GP MPG PPG RPG APG
1 Rashad McCants NC 84.60 27 31.4 27.3 4.4
2 Emeka Okafor CT 82.47 29 32.9 18.7 11.5
3 Bryant Matthews VATECH 82.20 27 36.4 23.7 9.3
4 Ryan Gomes PROV 82.16 27 34.7 19.0 9.5
5 Andre Emmett TXTECH 80.68 30 36.8 20.9 6.8
6 Luke Jackson OR 80.65 25 34.5 21.6 7.3
7 David Simon IUPUFW 80.47 28 31.4 18.0 9.8
8 Ike Diogu AZST 79.98 27 36.9 22.8 8.9
9 Julius Hodge NCST 79.81 27 34.4 18.1 6.3
10 Hakim Warrick SYR 79.59 27 37.1 19.9 9.0
Only Okafor and Jackson are projected to go in the first round. Maybe
the other guys haven't even declared for the draft, I don't know. But
it seems to me this is a good group to focus some scouting effort on.
Anyway, this topis is far too involved for a single post. But I have
some questions and I'm wondering if you guys have any insight or have
researched these issues.
What percentage of successful draft picks dominated their competition
at whatever level they were at before the NBA?
Do we have better stats for evaluating college or foreign players
(like the PER)?
Are there similarities between success and bust players that we can
I'm sure there many more important questions. If I'm a GM in the
upcoming draft I'm picking guys that dominated whatever level they
were at. I would possibly use physical stuff as a means to eliminate
guys from consideration, but I wouldn't draft a guy based on that stuff.
Also, it seems that skills are harder to develop than GM's may think.
Probably better to draft a guy who has shown the skills he will need
in the NBA.
- --- <danthestatman@h...> wrote:
> >From: "John Hollinger" <alleyoop2@y...>The
> >One other thing: High assist guys almost never succeed as pros.
> >reason is that to be good enough to be in the NBA, you almosthave to
> >be the best player on your college team. And if you're the bestmuch all top
> >player, you're probably leading the team in points rather than
> I assume you mean high assist, lower scoring guys. Pretty
> tier PGs were high assist guys in college - but very few weremediocre
> scorers in college ...Take it further and just state that the vast majority of college
stars do not succeed at the NBA level -- be they assist guys,
scorers, or whatever.
Is the best player on a bad team more likely to succeed in the NBA
than the sidekick on a championship team? I doubt it.
Bobby Hurley was often likened to Bob Cousy. I imagined we might
find out how Cousy would do in the '90s NBA. Did we ?