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

Re: [APBR_analysis] Jason Williams was: A few questions

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