Re: NCAA -> NBA translation
- 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
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
> 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
> a level. Carter was extremely efficient in college at a fairly
> 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
> 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
- --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "harlanzo" <harlanzo@y...> wrote:
> I think the baseball translations work a little better than aYes, the baseball translations are not just by level, but by league.
> 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 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?
- --- 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.
- --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "alleyoop2" <alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
> I've farted around with this from time to time and never got anyThese are not big hurdles. Game pace is definitely not too bad.
> 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
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
> 3) The fact that the rules are different. Here's one example: Let'swhenever
> say there's a guy named "Allen" who can create his own shot
> he wants but only makes 43% of his tries. In college, you have 45as
> seconds to get a better shot, so this guy isn't nearly as valuable
> 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 youI'd start off with a straight reduction in percentage. Also have the
> differentiate who has NBA range from who doesn't.
adjustments mentioned before for height.
> 5) One of the first questions NBA guys ask when they look at aplayer
> is "Who can he guard?" - that's pretty much left out of theirYeah, 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 onekills
> me. It seems to me that role players on top-level teams can haveto
> 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
> be another one; he was the number three weapon on his team thisyear
> yet has NBA power forward written all over him. Is there a way toThe fact that Hutson really isn't getting a chance makes this
> capture that type of thing statistically?
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
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, does anyone have good college stats we can all look at? They are
pretty hard to get, actually, in any consistent format.
- --- HoopStudies <deano@...> wrote:
> >Hutson was listed at 6'8 240. Hardly tiny, but not
> 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
> 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
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.
>The Usenet draft page :
> 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
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.
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax