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

Re: [APBR_analysis] A few questions

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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.