APBR-DraftExpress 2015 NBA Draft Project

[DSMok1]

I'd like to get the process started before the combine--lists of players, preliminary results, and descriptions of models. How much do combine results change the models? I doubt it's very much.

[vjl110]

"How much do combine results change the models?"

More than you might think... certainly more than I thought before I first started working with them. I'm currently uses values imputed from available stats as place-holders for combine measures.

[Statman]

I'd like to get the process started before the combine--lists of players, preliminary results, and descriptions of models. How much do combine results change the models? I doubt it's very much.

I plan on running every player that projects at least 1 NBA season in their career above replacement player - whether they appear on any draft lists or not. I want to possibly find the possible Lins, Whitesides, Haslems, etc.

Some who appear on draft lists won't project above replacement ever - like Zach Lavine last season & his limited (& unimpressive) college data.

If you all have a set list of players - I'll make sure they're all included in my list even if some project poorly.

[Crow]

If some or all want to take draft work further than usual, they could try to quantatively assess, describe and bundle team stat "needs" and estimate who best "fits" that need within best player available conventions or without.

[DSMok1]

I'd like to get the process started before the combine--lists of players, preliminary results, and descriptions of models. How much do combine results change the models? I doubt it's very much.

I plan on running every player that projects at least 1 NBA season in their career above replacement player - whether they appear on any draft lists or not. I want to possibly find the possible Lins, Whitesides, Haslems, etc.

Some who appear on draft lists won't project above replacement ever - like Zach Lavine last season & his limited (& unimpressive) college data.

If you all have a set list of players - I'll make sure they're all included in my list even if some project poorly.

That's probably going to be the best way to display to the general public the differences between models and DX: take the same set of players and rank them. Otherwise we'll be stuck explaining exactly what the ratings mean for each model (and all have different meanings).

[Nathan]

I'm not sure if I'll be able to meet the May 20 deadline, but I'll raise my hand anyway. My draft rater will probably be similar to the one I posted at the end of the 2014 draft thread, hopefully with some improvements. This sounds cool; I'm looking forward to seeing the results!

[ampersand5]

Update:

DraftExpress is hoping to run this feature at the very end of May. Is this something that people on here can swing, or collectively, do we think we need slightly more time?

So far, our list of participants is the following:
- DSMok1 NCAA BPM (as far as I know, this won't be a draft rater, but merely an expose on ncaa BPM
- Layne Vashro
- nrestifo
- Steve Shea
- Nathan
- possibly Statman (crossing my fingers for you to find a spot with a team)

Anyone else? I'm still speaking with some people about joining, but I think this is a good tentative list. However, if you know someone who might be interested, please feel to direct them to this thread.

Does anyone have the email of either of these two people? I want to share this thread with them but I have no way of contacting them (I don't have twitter).
https://twitter.com/masseffectlenk
and
Andrew Johnson of Nylon Calculus @countingbaskets

Some points of discussion -

I think everyone should be using the same list of players. If there are no objections, I will work on compiling the list. This list will be made up of the North American players that have either already declared for the draft and those that draftexpress thinks might get drafted.

Featured with each list should be a short write up on the model. This write up should explain how the model works, how it compares to others and why some players look really good/bad in it.

---

How does this sound to everyone? Is the timing bad? Is there something I'm missing? Any thoughts/ideas/suggestions?

If the timing does work, does this sound like an acceptable frame work deadline??

May 20th - brief write up of the model due
May 25th - rankings submitted

[vjl110]

Sounds good. I will send my final rankings in whatever form is preferable as soon as the combine is over.

[jessefis]

Count me in! Thanks for the invite.

I have a handful of improvements to my work from last year (http://tothemean.com/2014/06/17/machine ... draft.html) and will use this as motivation to dedicate some time to it.

[Crow]

I sent fyi tweet links to this thread to the 2 people you asked for help contacting.

[steveshea]

The dates work for me.

Thanks,
Steve

[nrestifo]

Works great for me. Thanks for organizing everything!

[ampersand5]

Below is the list that I think everyone should be working with.
In total, it's 75 names and as far as I know, consists of every player in the NCAA this year that has a reasonable chance of being drafted.

If I'm missing anyone of note, please let me know. If any players don't belong, then also let me know.
I will likely cut this list down further once all of the rankings are in. If the exact same names keep showing up past 55 or so, I will likely cut them.

Code: Select all

Aaron Harrison
Aaron White
Alan Williams
Andrew Harrison
Anthony Brown
Bobby Portis
Branden Dawson
Brandon Ashley
Cameron Payne
Chasson Randle
Chris McCullough
Chris Walker
Christian Wood
Cliff Alexander
Corey Hawkins
D.J. Newbill
D'Angelo Russell
Dakari Johnson
Darrun Hilliard
Delon Wright
Derrick Marks
Devin Booker
Dez Wells
Frank Kaminsky
George Lucas
J.P. Tokoto
Jahlil Okafor
Jarell Martin
Jerian Grant
Jonathan Holmes
Jordan Mickey
Joseph Young
Josh Richardson
Joshua Smith
Julian Washburn
Justin Anderson
Justise Winslow
Juwan Staten
Karl Towns
Keifer Sykes
Kelly Oubre
Kevon Looney
Larry Nance
Lebryan Nash
Marcus Thornton
Michael Frazier
Michael Qualls
Montrel Harrell
Myles Turner
Norman Powell
Olivier Hanlan
Pat Connaughton
Quinn Cook
R.J. Hunter
Rakeem Christmas
Rashad Vaughn
Richaun Holmes
Robert Upshaw
Rondae Hollis-Jefferson
Ryan Boatright
Sam Dekker
Seth Tuttle
Shannon Scott
Stanley Johnson
T.J. McConnell
TaShawn Thomas
Terran Petteway
Terry Rozier
Travis Trice
Treveon Graham
Trey Lyles
Tyler Harvey
Tyus Jones
Vince Hunter
Wesley Saunders
Willie Cauley-Stein

[masseffectlenk]

I'm willing to do this. The dates work.

[Crow]

If the explanation of the model in some or many cases is limited to mentioning most or all the variables included but not the exact formula with all the individual weights then there won't be enough shared information to really analyze all and improve the methodologies as much as with that information (unless someone or some stat package is really good at reverse engineering). It is a voluntary choice to reveal but do the participants want to push each other on at least a certain minimum level of openness or possibly total openness?

Is the agreement though to just share rankings? It was mentioned that different ratings formats could muddy things. They also could help more if kept on same scale or revealed in their distinctions. Perhaps more could be revealed optionally offsite by the authors at their own locations or in future contests?



Amp, in the write up of the contest, perhaps ask that the reference is to "members of the APBRmetrics bulletin board" and not loosely to "APBR", as that is a pre-existing and distinct association. I dunno if anyone would actually mind or if many care about the distinction but why not be precise.

Since some or many of the participants may be open to work with a team or major media, maybe the submissions- and the writeup- should include a sentence or two about the author's background, at their option. I assume that was likely; but if desired, why not specifically ask for it ahead of time instead of at last minute.

Is there going to be an official, planned scoring of the methods after 1/2 season, 1, 2, 3 of more years? At DX, here or elsewhere? By BPM, RPM, a blend? I hope a composite avg. ranking is calculated and tracked along with the individual ones. (If a composite is included, the article could mention where the suggestion came from, unless it was already planned.)

Anyone want to do a podcast (or more) to support the article? Any chance Grantland basketball show invites a couple to tape something about it or appear?

Any chance a sponsor- team, major media or other- could offer a prize in future?