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

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

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