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

Re: [APBR_analysis] A few questions

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 20 , Apr 6, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- 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 2 of 20 , Apr 6, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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 3 of 20 , Apr 6, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 20 , Apr 7, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            --- 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 5 of 20 , Apr 7, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 20 , Apr 10, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 20 , Apr 10, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- "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 8 of 20 , Apr 10, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- 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 9 of 20 , Apr 10, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 20 , Apr 10, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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 11 of 20 , Apr 11, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- 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 12 of 20 , Apr 11, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- 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 13 of 20 , Apr 11, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- 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 14 of 20 , Apr 12, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- 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.