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

Re: A few questions

Expand Messages
  • alleyoop2
    DETROIT: Detroit s improvement has been entirely on offense. I had them ranked 9th in defense last year and 8th this year. Their offense is vastly better
    Message 1 of 20 , Apr 4, 2002
      DETROIT: Detroit's improvement has been entirely on offense. I had
      them ranked 9th in defense last year and 8th this year. Their offense
      is vastly better because three scrubs (Jon Barry, Chucky Atkins and
      Corliss Williamson) are playing out of their minds and they added
      Rebraca.

      LAKERS: Kings maybe, since they'll have home court. I can't see
      anybody else doing it unless Shaq gets hurt.

      EAST: I still think NJ is the favorite, but by a slim margin. Philly,
      Charlotte and Detroit will all be tough. I have no respect at all for
      Milwaukee, I think they're easily the worst of the East's top 7. I
      suppose Toronto could make some noise if Carter's back for the first
      round.

      COLLEGE PLAYERS: I love Chris Wilcox. He killed Drew Gooden and Jared
      Jeffries in back to back games. Baxter is a little short for the NBA
      IMHO, he'd have to play power forward and I don't think he's quick
      enough. Dixon is a tweener but he's smart, can shoot and guard people
      so he may be a very productive third guard. Duke's JWilliams, not
      sure who he reminds me of ... great college players almost always
      lead their team in scoring, but he may be more of an assist man in
      the NBA. We'll have to see.





      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "HoopStudies" <deano@r...> wrote:
      >
      > I'm away for a while after today, but here are some of the
      questions
      > in my head that I won't be able to tackle for a while:
      >
      > 1. Why is Detroit so much better this year than last? Offense?
      > Defense? Have the new players been important to one or the other?
      > Or have Stackhouse, Wallace, etc. improved? (It's weird to
      > say "Stackhouse and Wallace" again, just as I did when a different
      > Wallace teamed with Stack at UNC.) Detroit should have won more
      > games last year, based on their pt differential, but that's not all
      > of it by any means.
      >
      > 2. Is there any team that can beat the Lakers in the playoffs?
      > How? Hack-a-Shaq (which we haven't heard anything about this
      year)?
      > Stop the Big Two or stop the peripheral players? Are there any
      > characteristics in the wins against the Lakers during the regular
      > season that are applicable to the playoffs?
      >
      > 3. How tight is the Eastern Conference? I don't think the Nets
      are
      > a lock to come out of it at all. I read that Philly could easily
      > knock off the 1 seed because Iverson will be back for the
      playoffs.
      > I saw something similar about Charlotte.
      >
      > 4. Re-evaluation of the Chicago-Indiana trade. MikeG posted some
      > facts a couple weeks ago. With Indiana suffering a bit right now,
      > I'm curious again. What are the teams' records since the trade?
      > Have their been any other changes in individual/team performance?
      We
      > would have expected that Artest's acquisition would have helped
      > Indiana's team D. Did it? With Chicago cooling off, I am
      interested
      > in why.
      >
      > 5. Duke's Jason Williams: How good will he be? Why? Any similar
      > players come to mind? How do their stats compare? What about Juan
      > Dixon? Lonny Baxter entered the draft last year, but now no one is
      > talking about him as even a draft possibility. Any other
      opinions?
      > Has anyone seen this Qyntel Woods guy?
      >
      > 6. What happened in Houston? Francis was out for a while. Did
      his
      > performance decline, too? They lost Olajuwon, which should have
      hurt
      > the D. Did it decline?
      >
      > 7. David Stern recently said that because the economy is cooling,
      > ticket prices should go down. What drugs is he on?
      >
      > That's a decent list.
      >
      > DeanO
    • john wallace craven
      ... Shaq doesn t seem to be going out to defend against the pick and roll once again, which is what sunk the Lakers four years ago at the hands of the Jazz. If
      Message 2 of 20 , Apr 4, 2002
        On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, alleyoop2 wrote:

        > DETROIT: Detroit's improvement has been entirely on offense. I had
        > them ranked 9th in defense last year and 8th this year. Their offense
        > is vastly better because three scrubs (Jon Barry, Chucky Atkins and
        > Corliss Williamson) are playing out of their minds and they added
        > Rebraca.
        >
        > LAKERS: Kings maybe, since they'll have home court. I can't see
        > anybody else doing it unless Shaq gets hurt.

        Shaq doesn't seem to be going out to defend against the pick and roll once
        again, which is what sunk the Lakers four years ago at the hands of the
        Jazz. If this keeps up, teams that run a lot of picks - primarily, I am
        thinking of the Sonics here, who are ironically 6-0 over the last two
        years vs. the Lakers when Shaq plays significant minutes but 0-2 when he
        does not, but also the Mavericks and the Jazz - can outgun the Lakers.
        Note that "can" is not equal to "will"; I would give none of the three
        teams I mentioned better than 50% odds to do so in a 5- or 7-game series.

        Other than those three, I think that San Antonio can also potentially
        outplay the Lakers if Bruce Bowen is healthy. Without Bowen, there is
        really nobody on that team that can hope to contain Kobe Bryant, and both
        the Spurs and the Kings showed last year that if you can't do that, you
        may as well mail it in. The Kings would have their troubles if they played
        LA in the playoffs, although a fully healthy Christie would help this time
        around (not to mention facing a Kobe who wasn't en fuego for the entire
        series - it seemed to me that despite the injuries, Christie was doing a
        credible job of defending him, but Bryant still found a way to hit hard
        jumpers with a hand in his face).

        Portland's another maybe, but it's tough to say which team will show up
        for the playoffs - the one that opened the season looking like a lottery
        team, or the one that went 19-4 in one stretch out of the All-Star Break.
        Minnesota without Terrell Brandon, I hate to say, doesn't have much of a
        chance against any playoff team this year.

        >
        > EAST: I still think NJ is the favorite, but by a slim margin. Philly,
        > Charlotte and Detroit will all be tough. I have no respect at all for
        > Milwaukee, I think they're easily the worst of the East's top 7.

        Yeah, I saw that Boston game they "played" last week on NBC. It was
        horrendous. They look every bit like a team that would be firmly in the
        lottery if the talent was evenly spaced between conferences. I'm not a big
        fan of Detroit - as has been shown elsewhere, an awful lot of their better
        play has been due to a general increase in performance by virtually every
        player on the team, and that looks to me like a team playing slightly over
        its head. Philly needs Iverson at 100% in order to contend, and Jersey
        needs to stay as lucky in terms of avoiding injuries as they were unlucky
        last year.

        > I
        > suppose Toronto could make some noise if Carter's back for the first
        > round.

        IF he's 100%. If he's not (and he's already come back once this season at
        less than his full ability) then I don't see Toronto doing anything. They
        may not even make the playoffs.

        >
        > COLLEGE PLAYERS: I love Chris Wilcox. He killed Drew Gooden and Jared
        > Jeffries in back to back games. Baxter is a little short for the NBA
        > IMHO, he'd have to play power forward and I don't think he's quick
        > enough. Dixon is a tweener but he's smart, can shoot and guard people
        > so he may be a very productive third guard. Duke's JWilliams, not
        > sure who he reminds me of ... great college players almost always
        > lead their team in scoring, but he may be more of an assist man in
        > the NBA. We'll have to see.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "HoopStudies" <deano@r...> wrote:
        > >
        > > I'm away for a while after today, but here are some of the
        > questions
        > > in my head that I won't be able to tackle for a while:
        > >
        > > 1. Why is Detroit so much better this year than last? Offense?
        > > Defense? Have the new players been important to one or the other?
        > > Or have Stackhouse, Wallace, etc. improved? (It's weird to
        > > say "Stackhouse and Wallace" again, just as I did when a different
        > > Wallace teamed with Stack at UNC.) Detroit should have won more
        > > games last year, based on their pt differential, but that's not all
        > > of it by any means.
        > >
        > > 2. Is there any team that can beat the Lakers in the playoffs?
        > > How? Hack-a-Shaq (which we haven't heard anything about this
        > year)?
        > > Stop the Big Two or stop the peripheral players? Are there any
        > > characteristics in the wins against the Lakers during the regular
        > > season that are applicable to the playoffs?
        > >
        > > 3. How tight is the Eastern Conference? I don't think the Nets
        > are
        > > a lock to come out of it at all. I read that Philly could easily
        > > knock off the 1 seed because Iverson will be back for the
        > playoffs.
        > > I saw something similar about Charlotte.
        > >
        > > 4. Re-evaluation of the Chicago-Indiana trade. MikeG posted some
        > > facts a couple weeks ago. With Indiana suffering a bit right now,
        > > I'm curious again. What are the teams' records since the trade?
        > > Have their been any other changes in individual/team performance?
        > We
        > > would have expected that Artest's acquisition would have helped
        > > Indiana's team D. Did it? With Chicago cooling off, I am
        > interested
        > > in why.
        > >
        > > 5. Duke's Jason Williams: How good will he be? Why? Any similar
        > > players come to mind? How do their stats compare? What about Juan
        > > Dixon? Lonny Baxter entered the draft last year, but now no one is
        > > talking about him as even a draft possibility. Any other
        > opinions?
        > > Has anyone seen this Qyntel Woods guy?
        > >
        > > 6. What happened in Houston? Francis was out for a while. Did
        > his
        > > performance decline, too? They lost Olajuwon, which should have
        > hurt
        > > the D. Did it decline?
        > >
        > > 7. David Stern recently said that because the economy is cooling,
        > > ticket prices should go down. What drugs is he on?
        > >
        > > That's a decent list.
        > >
        > > DeanO
        >
        >
        >
        > 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/
        >
        >
        >
      • Ed Weiland
        ... I like the Net s chances. I feel they re clearly the best team in the EC and will remain so even with the return of Iverson and Carter to their respective
        Message 3 of 20 , Apr 6, 2002
          --- HoopStudies <deano@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          > 3. How tight is the Eastern Conference? I don't
          > think the Nets are
          > a lock to come out of it at all. I read that Philly
          > could easily
          > knock off the 1 seed because Iverson will be back
          > for the playoffs.
          > I saw something similar about Charlotte.

          I like the Net's chances. I feel they're clearly the
          best team in the EC and will remain so even with the
          return of Iverson and Carter to their respective
          teams. That said, the Nets aren't so much better then
          the EC field that they can afford a misstep. I'd agree
          that Charlotte and Philly are the most likely to
          surprise. Both have the bruising inside game that
          could give NJ some grief. The EC playoffs should be
          fun, but the fact that whoever comes out of it is
          certain to be devoured by the WC champ takes some of
          intrigue out of it.


          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
          http://taxes.yahoo.com/
        • Ed Weiland
          ... Here are some numbers from Laker losses with Shaq in the lineup (I only used those losses since it s probably safe to assume the Lakers are toast without
          Message 4 of 20 , Apr 6, 2002
            --- HoopStudies <deano@...> wrote:
            >
            > 2. Is there any team that can beat the Lakers in
            > the playoffs?
            > How? Hack-a-Shaq (which we haven't heard anything
            > about this year)?
            > Stop the Big Two or stop the peripheral players?
            > Are there any
            > characteristics in the wins against the Lakers
            > during the regular
            > season that are applicable to the playoffs?

            Here are some numbers from Laker losses with Shaq in
            the lineup (I only used those losses since it's
            probably safe to assume the Lakers are toast without
            the big guy):

            In losses with Shaq in the lineup here are the ppg and
            FG%:

            Kobe 23.0 .403
            Fox 5.9 .378
            Fisher 10.8 .355
            Hunter 4.7 .368
            George 4.5 .346
            Horry 7.4 .393
            Shaq 27.5 .542

            all other games:

            Kobe 26.1 .485
            Fox 8.4 .435
            Fisher 11.1 .422
            Hunter 6.2 .388
            George 4.5 .424
            Horry 6.8 .404
            Shaq 26.5 .588

            This would seem to suggest that a team would want to a
            least expend a little effort on guarding the
            peripheral guys. I also get that impression watching
            the Lakers. That players like Fisher, Fox and Horry
            will kill a team if not watched closely enough. That's
            a tall order when a team has both Shaq and Kobe to
            account for to begin with. Someone mentioned a
            defensive guy like Bowen being a key and I would agree
            with that. If a team has a Bowen that can keep Kobe in
            check, it makes everyone elses job easier. Ron Artest
            dogged Kobe pretty well in the Bulls sweep of the
            Lakers and, IIRC, Ruben Patterson handles him pretty
            well also.

            I also that teams beating the Shaq-led Lakers also
            often had someone like Brevin Knight, Dean Garrett,
            Marcus Fizer, Voshon Lenard or Ruben Patterson step
            off the bench and have a career game. That never
            hurts, but is probably something a playoff team won't
            be able to count on.
            >
            I thought the Spurs made somewhat of a statement
            against the Lakers, even though they had that same old
            gutless look about them at crunchtime of last Sunday's
            game. They blew the Lakers out in SA and the Lakers
            were lucky to get out of the Staples center with a win
            in the rematch. At the very least that has to get the
            champs thinking.

            The WC playoffs should be pretty darn good, though I
            felt the same way last year at this time. There are
            eight excellent teams, as opposed to the EC where it's
            the eight teams that don't suck as much as the rest.
            The Lakers have to be considered the favorites if Shaq
            is good to go, but I don't think it's a given that
            they're going to three-peat.

            Ed Weiland

            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
            http://taxes.yahoo.com/
          • Ed Weiland
            I mean the one from Duke. I looked at great PGs and tried to find a common thread in their college careers. It seems for every rule there is at least on
            Message 5 of 20 , Apr 6, 2002
              I mean the one from Duke. I looked at great PGs and
              tried to find a common thread in their college
              careers. It seems for every rule there is at least on
              exception. The most common trait seems to be a .500+
              FG %, but there's Magic who only shot .468 at MSU and
              Payton who was at .485. A high assist rate is also a
              good indicator, but John Stockton and Isiah Thomas
              had relatively average assist rates in college. At
              least compared with other PGs. One possible reason for
              that could be the slow pace the game was played at in
              pre 45-second clock days. Anyone else remember the
              four cornerzzzzzzzz offense? It's also important to
              both get to the line a lot and be able to score a lot
              of points.

              Anyway, here are some past and current PGs and some of
              their college numbers compared with Williams. The
              numbers listed are FG%, FT Attempts, assists and
              points per 40 minutes.

              Mo Cheeks .572 6.21 7.17 17.09
              Stockton .559 5.14 6.56 15.87
              I Thomas .534 6.54 6.54 17.79
              R Strickland .534 6.08 7.74 20.11
              G Grant .528 4.22 6.90 20.97
              Francis .523 6.02 5.82 22.18
              Snow .521 3.12 8.41 9.38
              Nixon .518 4.99 6.44 23.91
              A Miller .513 5.66 7.18 16.12
              Richardson .513 3.12 7.75 13.60
              B Davis .503 5.85 5.64 17.52

              C Beck .498 6.01 6.95 11.76
              Mayberry .495 3.38 6.48 17.19
              Av Johnson .494 2.29 12.98 9.95

              M Price .487 4.34 4.43 19.05
              Payton .485 4.34 8.29 19.19
              T Hardaway .484 5.84 6.30 17.75
              Brandon .484 5.81 5.79 23.23
              J Williams (Mem) .483 4.00 8.60 19.74
              Cassell .478 5.19 4.93 20.67
              D Harper .478 2.70 5.28 12.31
              K Johnson .477 5.61 5.46 17.36
              Pack .476 6.12 7.00 16.80
              K Anderson .473 5.35 7.30 24.07
              Bogues .473 2.68 8.76 11.05
              Kidd .468 6.14 10.01 17.78

              Magic .468 8.28 9.28 18.91
              Blaylock .457 3.16 6.87 19.78
              Marbury .457 4.88 4.79 20.19
              Stoudamire .457 4.74 7.23 20.17
              Best .456 4.32 6.15 18.27
              Bibby .456 4.83 6.71 19.00
              P Hardaway .456 6.02 6.48 21.80
              J Williams (Duke) .453 5.84 7.42 23.95
              Iverson .440 10.41 5.64 28.25
              Knight .416 8.00 8.43 18.51
              Van Exel .409 4.69 5.03 20.95

              I sort of cut it off here, as the list is getting long
              and there's really no one else of note. These are
              career numbers. I couldn't find any NCAA TO numbers
              for some of these guys, otherwise I would have tossed
              those into the mix. Looking at Jason Williams, he
              doesn't seem to resemble the all-time greats,
              especially in FG pct. I'm not sure he even rates with
              Francis, Baron Davis and Andre Miller from that great
              '99 PG class, but he looks pretty close. He does look
              better than Marbury and Bibby and some other recent
              ones. He gets to the line plenty, a skill that could
              keep him from meeting the same fate as Gary Grant and
              Lee Mayberry, a couple of recent college studs who
              never got it going in the NBA.

              My guess is he'll be a solid player for a long time.
              If he gets in with the right bunch of players, he
              could be a borderline all-star. On the wrong team or
              constantly injured he could become Kenny Anderson. It
              looks like a weak draft and right now Williams looks
              like the first or second pick. That and his POY, Duke
              golden boy status could label Williams as a savior for
              some franchise. That's a good thing in that he'll
              probably play a ton of minutes. It's a bad thing if
              he's stuck with bad teammates, because he doesn't seem
              to possesss the superstar qualities that can turn a
              bad franchise around. If he's expected to do such, his
              career, or at least the start of it, could be
              disappointing.

              Ed Weiland

              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
              http://taxes.yahoo.com/
            • HoopStudies
              ... The pace has to be used to account for both assists and ppg. In fact, what you see with PG s in college is that they will score a bit more and pass a bit
              Message 6 of 20 , Apr 7, 2002
                --- In APBR_analysis@y..., Ed Weiland <weiland1029@y...> wrote:
                >
                > Payton who was at .485. A high assist rate is also a
                > good indicator, but John Stockton and Isiah Thomas
                > had relatively average assist rates in college. At
                > least compared with other PGs. One possible reason for
                > that could be the slow pace the game was played at in
                > pre 45-second clock days. Anyone else remember the
                > four cornerzzzzzzzz offense? It's also important to
                > both get to the line a lot and be able to score a lot
                > of points.
                >

                The pace has to be used to account for both assists and ppg. In
                fact, what you see with PG's in college is that they will score a bit
                more and pass a bit less. Basically, they are relatively better
                shooters in college than they are when they get to the pros.
                Typically. It makes the evaluation a little more tricky.

                With Williams, it's really hard to say what teams are hoping from him
                in the NBA. A shooting PG like Marbury? Or someone who tones it
                down a bit? Clearly not a pure distributor.

                > Anyway, here are some past and current PGs and some of
                > their college numbers compared with Williams. The
                > numbers listed are FG%, FT Attempts, assists and
                > points per 40 minutes.
                >
                > Mo Cheeks .572 6.21 7.17 17.09
                > Stockton .559 5.14 6.56 15.87
                > I Thomas .534 6.54 6.54 17.79
                > R Strickland .534 6.08 7.74 20.11
                > G Grant .528 4.22 6.90 20.97
                > Francis .523 6.02 5.82 22.18
                > Snow .521 3.12 8.41 9.38
                > Nixon .518 4.99 6.44 23.91
                > A Miller .513 5.66 7.18 16.12
                > Richardson .513 3.12 7.75 13.60
                > B Davis .503 5.85 5.64 17.52
                >
                > C Beck .498 6.01 6.95 11.76
                > Mayberry .495 3.38 6.48 17.19
                > Av Johnson .494 2.29 12.98 9.95
                >
                > M Price .487 4.34 4.43 19.05
                > Payton .485 4.34 8.29 19.19
                > T Hardaway .484 5.84 6.30 17.75

                Watching Williams, I am reminded of Tim Hardaway. Rick Barry
                constantly rips on Jason Williams for his 38% 3pt shooting last
                year. He is a bit off base because Williams shot better last year
                and, frankly, 38% isn't bad. But I don't think he has a pure
                stroke. I also think that he is strong enough to do some of the
                things that Hardaway does against other PGs, without great height.

                > Brandon .484 5.81 5.79 23.23
                > J Williams (Mem) .483 4.00 8.60 19.74
                > Cassell .478 5.19 4.93 20.67
                > D Harper .478 2.70 5.28 12.31
                > K Johnson .477 5.61 5.46 17.36
                > Pack .476 6.12 7.00 16.80
                > K Anderson .473 5.35 7.30 24.07
                > Bogues .473 2.68 8.76 11.05
                > Kidd .468 6.14 10.01 17.78
                >
                > Magic .468 8.28 9.28 18.91
                > Blaylock .457 3.16 6.87 19.78
                > Marbury .457 4.88 4.79 20.19
                > Stoudamire .457 4.74 7.23 20.17
                > Best .456 4.32 6.15 18.27
                > Bibby .456 4.83 6.71 19.00
                > P Hardaway .456 6.02 6.48 21.80
                > J Williams (Duke) .453 5.84 7.42 23.95
                > Iverson .440 10.41 5.64 28.25
                > Knight .416 8.00 8.43 18.51
                > Van Exel .409 4.69 5.03 20.95
                >

                The other player I occasionally think of with Williams, though he is
                quite different, is Mark Jackson, who isn't on this list.

                Turnovers really are a key number in evaluating PGs. Williams does
                turn the ball over a lot, but, as Ed says, it's hard to find old
                stats on TO's, so the comparison is difficult. But you really don't
                want to see your PGs turning the ball over doing non-aggressive
                things. If they turn it over being agressive, that's ok. Measuring
                that is challenging, but possible.... Also, you do need to look at
                shooting from 3pt land vs just shooting from 2pt land... Height and
                strength are big things in being able to overcome some of the
                statistical deficiencies. If we can somehow get electronic stats for
                college kids, we could make some headway, but we'd need to get them
                for even the guys who don't make it to the NBA.

                DeanO
              • Michael K. Tamada
                On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, HoopStudies wrote: [...] ... Yes, a key often overlooked statistical requirement: a control group or comparison group, otherwise we re
                Message 7 of 20 , Apr 7, 2002
                  On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, HoopStudies wrote:

                  [...]

                  > statistical deficiencies. If we can somehow get electronic stats for
                  > college kids, we could make some headway, but we'd need to get them
                  > for even the guys who don't make it to the NBA.

                  Yes, a key often overlooked statistical requirement: a control group or
                  comparison group, otherwise we're looking at a biased sample, namely
                  college players good enough to make it into the NBA.


                  --MKT
                • Michael K. Tamada
                  On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Ed Weiland wrote: [...] ... [...] Has anyone ever tried to convert NCAA stats into predictions of NBA stats, as people do with minor league
                  Message 8 of 20 , Apr 10, 2002
                    On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Ed Weiland wrote:

                    [...]

                    > Anyway, here are some past and current PGs and some of
                    > their college numbers compared with Williams. The
                    > numbers listed are FG%, FT Attempts, assists and
                    > points per 40 minutes.
                    >
                    > Mo Cheeks .572 6.21 7.17 17.09
                    > Stockton .559 5.14 6.56 15.87

                    [...]

                    Has anyone ever tried to convert NCAA stats into predictions
                    of NBA stats, as people do with minor league and major
                    league baseball? My guess is that the prediction errors would
                    be very large for the NBA (and who knows, they may be large
                    for baseball as well, I'm not sure how much faith to put
                    into those minor-league-to-major-league conversion factors).

                    Sometimes a good-looking college player like Michael Jordan
                    turns into an extraordinary NBA player like Michael Jordan.
                    Conversely, those 32+ ppg scorers like Freeman Williams,
                    Averitt, Birdsong, Maravich, etc. rarely match their college
                    scoring exploits.

                    Quality of the team they're on, quality of opposition, style
                    of play (slowdown vs pro-level fastbreak vs Westhead level
                    mania) would have to be taken into account.



                    --MKT
                  • Ed Weiland
                    ... I suspect some sort of workable system could be created. I ve been rating college players for a few years now using a good stuff minus bad stuff type of
                    Message 9 of 20 , Apr 10, 2002
                      --- "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > >
                      >
                      > Has anyone ever tried to convert NCAA stats into
                      > predictions
                      > of NBA stats, as people do with minor league and
                      > major
                      > league baseball? My guess is that the prediction
                      > errors would
                      > be very large for the NBA (and who knows, they may
                      > be large
                      > for baseball as well, I'm not sure how much faith to
                      > put
                      > into those minor-league-to-major-league conversion
                      > factors).
                      >
                      > Sometimes a good-looking college player like Michael
                      > Jordan
                      > turns into an extraordinary NBA player like Michael
                      > Jordan.
                      > Conversely, those 32+ ppg scorers like Freeman
                      > Williams,
                      > Averitt, Birdsong, Maravich, etc. rarely match their
                      > college
                      > scoring exploits.


                      >
                      >

                      I suspect some sort of workable system could be
                      created. I've been rating college players for a few
                      years now using a "good stuff minus bad stuff" type of
                      system. It seems to work OK for centers and PFs, but
                      not so well for guards and SFs.

                      Problems that come up:

                      Height. In college ball some players can excel as a
                      6'4 PF or a 6'7 center. In the NBA that won't fly.
                      Keith Booth, Jarrett Stephens and Harold Arceneaux are
                      some recent college players who rated pretty high
                      stat-wise, but were just too short.

                      Pace of game. Some teams, like Duke and Kansas, like
                      to push the ball. Others, like Utah, like to slow it
                      down. As we know, this affects individual numbers. The
                      problem is seperating the good players--i.e. Elton
                      Brand--from the guys with inflated stats--i.e. Stacey
                      King and Bo Kimble. That's probably what the camps are
                      for.

                      Early entry. It's much easier to judge a player with
                      3-4 years of college than it is to judge a player with
                      one year. MOst freshman aren't anywhere near being
                      finished products, so there's a lot of projection
                      involved there.

                      Superstar teammates. Vince Carter played second fiddle
                      to Antawn Jamison at Carolina. His numbers were OK,
                      but hardly eye-popping, other than the .591 FG pct.
                      his junior year. Vince gets to the pros and he's a
                      superstar.

                      There are other things too, but I see by the clock in
                      the lower right corner of my screen that I have to get
                      going now.

                      Ed Weiland

                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
                      http://taxes.yahoo.com/
                    • HoopStudies
                      ... Ed did a good job listing factors. This superstar teammate factor is one that I want to understand using those curves I put out many emails ago. I think
                      Message 10 of 20 , Apr 10, 2002
                        --- In APBR_analysis@y..., Ed Weiland <weiland1029@y...> wrote:
                        > Superstar teammates. Vince Carter played second fiddle
                        > to Antawn Jamison at Carolina. His numbers were OK,
                        > but hardly eye-popping, other than the .591 FG pct.
                        > his junior year. Vince gets to the pros and he's a
                        > superstar.

                        Ed did a good job listing factors. This superstar teammate factor is
                        one that I want to understand using those curves I put out many
                        emails ago. I think there are shifts in the curves we can identify
                        based on context. I think there is also a basic shift just going up
                        a level. Carter was extremely efficient in college at a fairly high,
                        but not overly high, number of possessions per minute. Jordan was
                        the same. Both of these guys were tall for the 2G slot, so they
                        wouldn't then see the kind of decline a 6'3" 2G like David Sanders
                        (Ole Miss) will see, who is similarly efficient.

                        Big men like the 7-footers do not have the height problem since they
                        join the league without serious changes in their opposition, except
                        in strength, which we account for with the NCAA-NBA shift, I think.

                        This is a worthy project. Anyone want to add to the measurable or
                        possibly measurable factors we should consider?

                        Dean Oliver
                      • alleyoop2
                        I ve farted around with this from time to time and never got any results that I thought were even mildly accurate. Here s what I perceive as the main
                        Message 11 of 20 , Apr 10, 2002
                          I've farted around with this from time to time and never got any
                          results that I thought were even mildly accurate. Here's what I
                          perceive as the main obstacles:

                          1) Adjusting for game pace

                          2) Adjusting for strength of schedule

                          3) The fact that the rules are different. Here's one example: Let's
                          say there's a guy named "Allen" who can create his own shot whenever
                          he wants but only makes 43% of his tries. In college, you have 45
                          seconds to get a better shot, so this guy isn't nearly as valuable as
                          he will be in the pros.

                          4) Adjusting for the closer three-point line. Not sure how you
                          differentiate who has NBA range from who doesn't.

                          5) One of the first questions NBA guys ask when they look at a player
                          is "Who can he guard?" - that's pretty much left out of their
                          statistics.

                          6) Adjusting for the quality of the players own team. This one kills
                          me. It seems to me that role players on top-level teams can have
                          similar stats and wildly divergent results in the NBA. For one
                          example that I worked with, look at the stats for Andre Hutson and
                          Richard Jefferson last year. Both were role players on top-level
                          teams. Hutson's numbers are in many ways more eye-popping than
                          Jefferson's. Yet Jefferson is a key player on one of the league's
                          best teams this year; Hutson bags groceries. Chris Wilcox is going to
                          be another one; he was the number three weapon on his team this year
                          yet has NBA power forward written all over him. Is there a way to
                          capture that type of thing statistically?





                          --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "HoopStudies" <deano@r...> wrote:
                          > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., Ed Weiland <weiland1029@y...> wrote:
                          > > Superstar teammates. Vince Carter played second fiddle
                          > > to Antawn Jamison at Carolina. His numbers were OK,
                          > > but hardly eye-popping, other than the .591 FG pct.
                          > > his junior year. Vince gets to the pros and he's a
                          > > superstar.
                          >
                          > Ed did a good job listing factors. This superstar teammate factor
                          is
                          > one that I want to understand using those curves I put out many
                          > emails ago. I think there are shifts in the curves we can identify
                          > based on context. I think there is also a basic shift just going
                          up
                          > a level. Carter was extremely efficient in college at a fairly
                          high,
                          > but not overly high, number of possessions per minute. Jordan was
                          > the same. Both of these guys were tall for the 2G slot, so they
                          > wouldn't then see the kind of decline a 6'3" 2G like David Sanders
                          > (Ole Miss) will see, who is similarly efficient.
                          >
                          > Big men like the 7-footers do not have the height problem since
                          they
                          > join the league without serious changes in their opposition, except
                          > in strength, which we account for with the NCAA-NBA shift, I think.
                          >
                          > This is a worthy project. Anyone want to add to the measurable or
                          > possibly measurable factors we should consider?
                          >
                          > Dean Oliver
                        • harlanzo
                          I think the baseball translations work a little better than a basketball one would. The important thing to recognize is that translations in baseball seem to
                          Message 12 of 20 , Apr 10, 2002
                            I think the baseball translations work a little better than a
                            basketball one would. The important thing to recognize is that
                            translations in baseball seem to vary by league. Similarly in
                            basketball, a 20 ppg scorer in the ivy league does not equal to one
                            in the ACC. So I am not sure how to quantify this difference. The
                            only two ways to do this is by comparing the success of players from
                            these conferences and run something proportionally. Of course this
                            is problematic because so few players from the inferior conferences
                            make the NBA that the sample size is too small to make a meaningful
                            projection. You might generalize between confernences of similar
                            ability (ie super conferences, mid-size conferences, and small
                            timers) and thus create a bigger pool for comparison. (You could
                            also only look at stats of small time players when they play big
                            schools).

                            on top of this issue, is the fact that most stats are dependents on
                            systems and opportunity in basketball much more so than in baseball
                            which could also skew comparisons.



                            --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "HoopStudies" <deano@r...> wrote:
                            > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., Ed Weiland <weiland1029@y...> wrote:
                            > > Superstar teammates. Vince Carter played second fiddle
                            > > to Antawn Jamison at Carolina. His numbers were OK,
                            > > but hardly eye-popping, other than the .591 FG pct.
                            > > his junior year. Vince gets to the pros and he's a
                            > > superstar.
                            >
                            > Ed did a good job listing factors. This superstar teammate factor
                            is
                            > one that I want to understand using those curves I put out many
                            > emails ago. I think there are shifts in the curves we can identify
                            > based on context. I think there is also a basic shift just going
                            up
                            > a level. Carter was extremely efficient in college at a fairly
                            high,
                            > but not overly high, number of possessions per minute. Jordan was
                            > the same. Both of these guys were tall for the 2G slot, so they
                            > wouldn't then see the kind of decline a 6'3" 2G like David Sanders
                            > (Ole Miss) will see, who is similarly efficient.
                            >
                            > Big men like the 7-footers do not have the height problem since
                            they
                            > join the league without serious changes in their opposition, except
                            > in strength, which we account for with the NCAA-NBA shift, I think.
                            >
                            > This is a worthy project. Anyone want to add to the measurable or
                            > possibly measurable factors we should consider?
                            >
                            > Dean Oliver
                          • thedawgsareout
                            ... Yes, the baseball translations are not just by level, but by league. The Pacific Coast League, for example, is AAA, as is the International League, but the
                            Message 13 of 20 , Apr 11, 2002
                              --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "harlanzo" <harlanzo@y...> wrote:
                              > I think the baseball translations work a little better than a
                              > basketball one would. The important thing to recognize is that
                              > translations in baseball seem to vary by league. Similarly in
                              > basketball, a 20 ppg scorer in the ivy league does not equal to one
                              > in the ACC. So I am not sure how to quantify this difference.

                              Yes, the baseball translations are not just by level, but by league.
                              The Pacific Coast League, for example, is AAA, as is the
                              International League, but the IL is considered a higher-quality
                              league. The way these translations work is with a MLE -- Minor League
                              Equivalency, developed, like everything else, by Bill James.

                              The first of many problems we find in trying to do the same for the
                              NCAA is that even within the leagues themselves, teams are playing
                              widely variant schedules. About 40% of games are going to be non-
                              conference ones, and assuredly Oregon State isn't playing the same
                              non-conference teams as Arizona.

                              Team quality also isn't a problem in baseball thanks to the
                              development of team-independent stats. As hard as we may try -- and
                              Dean's column about the effect of Jerry Stackhouse on the Pistons was
                              quite interesting -- it's still tough to de-context a player's stats,
                              and I imagine doubly so for NCAA players.

                              I think what is a more reasonable goal for the time being might be to
                              try to look at what *types* of players make for good pros. It's been
                              mentioned that both Carter and Jordan were high-efficiency guys on
                              very good teams. Is this type of player particularly successful in
                              making the transition? Basically, I guess this gets back to the four
                              types of players (high-efficiency, low productivity . . .) that were
                              discussed way back in January. Is any specific group translating to
                              the pro game better than the others? Why?
                            • mikel_ind
                              ... Draw a DNA sample, and look for the work ethic gene. Mike Goodman
                              Message 14 of 20 , Apr 11, 2002
                                --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "thedawgsareout" <kpelton08@h...> wrote:
                                >.... try to look at what *types* of players make for good pros.


                                Draw a DNA sample, and look for the "work ethic" gene.


                                Mike Goodman
                              • HoopStudies
                                ... These are not big hurdles. Game pace is definitely not too bad. Strength of schedule can be accounted for using Sagarin s number or Massey s number or...
                                Message 15 of 20 , Apr 11, 2002
                                  --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "alleyoop2" <alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
                                  > I've farted around with this from time to time and never got any
                                  > results that I thought were even mildly accurate. Here's what I
                                  > perceive as the main obstacles:
                                  >
                                  > 1) Adjusting for game pace
                                  >
                                  > 2) Adjusting for strength of schedule
                                  >

                                  These are not big hurdles. Game pace is definitely not too bad.
                                  Strength of schedule can be accounted for using Sagarin's number or
                                  Massey's number or... I frankly don't perfectly trust strength of
                                  schedule numbers, but they are a start and there are bigger hurdles
                                  to leap.

                                  > 3) The fact that the rules are different. Here's one example: Let's
                                  > say there's a guy named "Allen" who can create his own shot
                                  whenever
                                  > he wants but only makes 43% of his tries. In college, you have 45
                                  > seconds to get a better shot, so this guy isn't nearly as valuable
                                  as
                                  > he will be in the pros.
                                  >

                                  Creating your own shot without loss of efficiency is more valuable in
                                  the NBA. I'm working on this.

                                  Any other examples of critical rule differences?

                                  > 4) Adjusting for the closer three-point line. Not sure how you
                                  > differentiate who has NBA range from who doesn't.
                                  >

                                  I'd start off with a straight reduction in percentage. Also have the
                                  adjustments mentioned before for height.

                                  > 5) One of the first questions NBA guys ask when they look at a
                                  player
                                  > is "Who can he guard?" - that's pretty much left out of their
                                  > statistics.
                                  >

                                  Yeah, this is a big one. This one was really important in the
                                  late '80's and into the '90's when "athletes" were seen as more
                                  valuable than basketball players. That is changing a bit with the
                                  success of the nonathletic European basketball players (thank
                                  goodness). But it is still important. We have no fundamental
                                  measure of defensive quickness or good hands or defensive desire.
                                  Defense in general is tough and it is a big factor in determining
                                  playing time in the NBA.

                                  > 6) Adjusting for the quality of the players own team. This one
                                  kills
                                  > me. It seems to me that role players on top-level teams can have
                                  > similar stats and wildly divergent results in the NBA. For one
                                  > example that I worked with, look at the stats for Andre Hutson and
                                  > Richard Jefferson last year. Both were role players on top-level
                                  > teams. Hutson's numbers are in many ways more eye-popping than
                                  > Jefferson's. Yet Jefferson is a key player on one of the league's
                                  > best teams this year; Hutson bags groceries. Chris Wilcox is going
                                  to
                                  > be another one; he was the number three weapon on his team this
                                  year
                                  > yet has NBA power forward written all over him. Is there a way to
                                  > capture that type of thing statistically?

                                  The fact that Hutson really isn't getting a chance makes this
                                  comparison difficult, I think. Scouts look FIRST at whether they
                                  have an NBA body and NBA athleticism, then they look at their
                                  skills. It's mainly because that is what they see first and what
                                  they are trained to see first. You are supposed to go down to the
                                  floor and get a sense of size, strength, jumping ability. For some
                                  reason, there is this belief that you can teach the basketball skills.

                                  Still, assuming the scouts were right and that Hutson doesn't have
                                  NBA skills, it appears to be due to him being undersized (maybe not
                                  quick enough) for the skills he exhibited. There is some mismatch
                                  between height (measurable), strength (possibly measurable),
                                  quickness (uhhh), and style of game (uh-oh). Jefferson had the
                                  height, quickness, and style of game to go to the next level. Hutson
                                  didn't meet these requirements (apparently), even if he had the
                                  stats.

                                  I do think that boxscores are going to be critical to doing better in
                                  all of this. That's not going to be a fun task to work on...almost
                                  as little fun as collecting the DNA that MikeG wants. Although with
                                  all the paternity suits floating around, maybe getting DNA won't be
                                  so bad.

                                  So, does anyone have good college stats we can all look at? They are
                                  pretty hard to get, actually, in any consistent format.


                                  DeanO
                                • Ed Weiland
                                  ... Hutson was listed at 6 8 240. Hardly tiny, but not exactly what you want in your PF either. Especially since Hutson is the unathletic grinder type. He
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Apr 12, 2002
                                    --- HoopStudies <deano@...> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > Still, assuming the scouts were right and that
                                    > Hutson doesn't have
                                    > NBA skills, it appears to be due to him being
                                    > undersized (maybe not
                                    > quick enough) for the skills he exhibited. There is
                                    > some mismatch
                                    > between height (measurable), strength (possibly
                                    > measurable),
                                    > quickness (uhhh), and style of game (uh-oh).
                                    > Jefferson had the
                                    > height, quickness, and style of game to go to the
                                    > next level. Hutson
                                    > didn't meet these requirements (apparently), even if
                                    > he had the
                                    > stats.

                                    Hutson was listed at 6'8 240. Hardly tiny, but not
                                    exactly what you want in your PF either. Especially
                                    since Hutson is the unathletic grinder type. He played
                                    in Europe this past season and I think Milwaukee (the
                                    team that drafted Hutson in the 2nd round) has plans
                                    for him. We may get to see him yet.
                                    >
                                    > I do think that boxscores are going to be critical
                                    > to doing better in
                                    > all of this. That's not going to be a fun task to
                                    > work on...almost
                                    > as little fun as collecting the DNA that MikeG
                                    > wants. Although with
                                    > all the paternity suits floating around, maybe
                                    > getting DNA won't be
                                    > so bad.
                                    >
                                    > So, does anyone have good college stats we can all
                                    > look at? They are
                                    > pretty hard to get, actually, in any consistent
                                    > format.

                                    The Usenet draft page :

                                    http://www.ibiblio.org/craig/draft/usenet.html

                                    This page lists stats on prospects going back to the
                                    '94 draft. They have the complete stats, including
                                    turnovers. That might be a start. I'm not sure they
                                    have all the players listed though.

                                    Ed Weiland




                                    __________________________________________________
                                    Do You Yahoo!?
                                    Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
                                    http://taxes.yahoo.com/
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.