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

Re: NCAA -> NBA translation

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.