Re: Let's discuss scouting (How would you do a better job?) (long)
> To figure out which stats are meaningful pts and effeciencyI think this task you describe is one of the most important aspects
> probably are not as important as competition and athletic stats -
> steals, blocks, shot attempts / team attemtps (i.e. making your
> own shot), and rebounds.
of using college stats. To use them, first you have to understand
them, and how well they translate to the NBA.
A fellow poster at Hoopsworld did this analysis on one draft class,
I believe it was 1999 (min. 800 NBA minutes). Here's what he found:
Here's what I get from my database from 2000-02:
It's pretty clear that rebounding translates the best, which
shouldn't be a major surprise. I think we have to evaluate these
numbers in the context of the year-to-year consistency of these
stats for NBA regulars. Here's what I found for these in a study
(I grouped FT% and 3P% into a "shoot" rating and A/TO and A48 into
a "pass" rating; since they're not strictly the same, I won't
The point of including these is that while the two-point percentage
transition may be awfully variable from the NCAA to the pros, the
same is true for NBA players year-to-year. So I'm not sure the issue
is really that of athleticism so much as the inherent inconsistency.
There is probably a tie to possession usage.
Stil, the bigger point is that betting on a guy who's an outstanding
rebounder and shot-blocker is a safer bet than betting on guys with
really outstanding efficiencies in college.
JohnH in particular has theorized in his books that steals are a
proxy for athleticism and the ability to make the transition to the
NBA -- along the same lines as the blocks and rebounds thinking here.
I decided for the heck of it to find the correlation between a given
statistic and the NBA translation (using my per-minute efficiency):
These results are a little odd. I think they mostly show that small
players' efficiency translates better than big players' -- an
important reason for the factor analysis I've previously mentioned.
That a high TO% is actually a good thing is not a huge surprise --
DeanO, amongst others, has mentioned that trying to do a lot and
failling as a rookie is a good sign.
Steals are actually a pretty good proxy. Rebounds and blocks,
because of the big man issue, fare poorly.
- --- <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 ?