page 1 of 4 missing
page 2
mavs128
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 32
Location: Dallas, Texas
PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:31 am Post subject: Reply with quote
alphamale wrote:
If Toronto doesn't pick Tyrus Thomas, they would be making a grave mistake. Everybody knows that Toronto had one of the leagues worst defense. They need a shot blocker and rebounder like Thomas, he would also bolster their running game because of his athletism. A front line consisting of Bosh, Villeneuva, and Thomas would be quite formidable indeed.
I wouldn't be surprised if Thomas ends up with a very high similarity score to Marcus Camby. Hopefully he's not as injury prone as the Camster.
I dunno.....they're all PFs. Thomas is probably quick enough to guard SFs, but do you want Villanueva guarding centers? Tyrus measured at 6 feet, 7.25 inches w/0 shoes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tango
Joined: 18 Mar 2005
Posts: 24
PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:38 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Richard Lu posted this article on 82games.
http://www.82games.com/nbadraft2006.htm
I think I understand his methodology. What I don't understand is how he calculated and correlated the success rates for the 2006 draft prospects with the similar players.
Anyone have any insights?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cherokee_ACB
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 157
PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:32 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
holymoly wrote:
I have compiled some stats on the the main european draft prospects coming from the euroleague. It has been posted on 82games.com, check it out
Let me complement your data with some +/- stats. I've also included some already drafted players with NBA potential
Code:
Player Team Min on-off +/-of +/-df DR% OR% DR+/- OR+/-
Bargnani Benetton 358 3.5 -5.9 10.0 71.3% 23.7% 3.2% -6.1%
Splitter TAU 519 -6.7 -6.5 0.5 70.7% 30.7% 1.5% -1.1%
Halperin Olimpija 469 -10.7 -2.7 -10.0 65.4% 31.5% -17.5% 4.4%
Markota Cibona 386 -0.4 -2.3 5.0 70.4% 26.0% 1.6% -3.6%
Vasilopoulos Olympiacos 424 -1.0 4.7 -9.1 70.7% 26.2% -1.7% -3.1%
Jankunas Zalgiris 446 2.3 13.0 -7.3 73.6% 34.3% -0.3% 6.0%
Perovic Partizan 332 8.5 6.2 4.5 70.6% 31.6% -5.5% -7.1%
Scola TAU 713 12.7 8.0 6.6 70.0% 33.3% 0.1% 7.4%
Lavrinovic Zalgiris 491 10.2 -1.4 9.2 72.8% 31.0% -2.8% -2.3%
Gelabale Madrid 451 1.4 5.9 -6.6 65.4% 39.2% -3.9% 4.8%
Javtokas Rytas 576 11.3 1.2 12.1 74.5% 34.8% 0.8% 3.6%
Methodological note: this is based on Euroleague play-by-plays for most games, but I had to discard some corrupt ones. Playing time is not much accurate because the pbp only report the minute at which each event occured. FT points are added to the players in court during the FT, not at foul time.
Now the comments. Bargnani and Splitter deffensive rebounding rates are not that high, but they do help increase their team rate to a good%. In the offensive end, Bargnani plays too far from the basket to rebound.
Bargnani's excellent deffensive +/- number can only be explained by Benetton awful defense. Even if he is not a good defender (from what I've seen, I don't think he is), his teammates are evenworse. With Bargnani in court they still allow 111 points per 100 possesions. Compare that with Splitter's 98 Pp100P. By the way, Splitter +/- stat in Spanish league is much better: +9.2 per 40 min.
Halperin's on-off data is not much significant, as he played 90% of his team time.
Perovic's lack of rebounding instinct clearly manifests in the team rates. On the other hand, he has solid +/- numbers but keep in mind he was playing in the worse team of the competition.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tmansback
Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 129
PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 3:44 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
jmethven wrote:
Quote:
Now right now there no proof that PER in college translates to the NBA.
I think you'd be surprised by how well it translates. As mentioned by other posters, there are certain types of players it underrates, such as point guards. However, I've been looking at it for a couple years, and although I'm not sure how well it does for forecasting long-term success, it can give you a pretty good starting point for how a player will perform his first 2 or 3 years in the NBA. I haven't done an extensive study or anything, and there are indeed some stats that translate better than others (scoring is pretty random), but I think a ranking of players by college PER could match up well against a ranking of players by draft position, judged by NBA success. I don't think it's reliable enough to turn college scouting on its head or anything, but it's a pretty good step in that direction.
Well I would be interested in seeing the proof. I know for me I can name dozens of players each year that were productive college players that failed badly in the NBA.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SGreenwell
Joined: 12 Feb 2005
Posts: 76
Location: Rhode Island
PostPosted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:49 am Post subject: Reply with quote
I've got a little web site on Atlantic 10 PERs here. The site has 2004 and 2005 up, but I've also completed 2006 and I'm working on 2002.
My method for calculating PER differs a little bit - I only use A-10 statistics to (hopefully) standardize level of play. A-10 teams regularly play 3 to 5 games a year against D1 doormats and NAIA schools. I also use a junk stat, gross per, to try and calculate the actual value a player adds to a team, as opposed to relying solely on a rate stat to rank players.
PG Mardy Collins of Temple rated out as the best player in 2005, and from my numbers in 2006, I believe he's in the top 3 this year as well. However, his PER of 23.05 (2005) and 22ish (2006) really isn't that great. For comparison's sake, Delonte West (26.32) and Jameer Nelson (27.02) both had PERs of 26+ in St. Joe's NCAA run in 2004. Both are now around league to above league average PGs in the NBA.
There's pros and cons to what I'm doing. I write for my college newspaper, so I'm actually more interested in using this as a tool to evaluate college teams, not necessarily NBA draft prospects. This is also part of the reason why I confine myself to A-10 stats.
My other interest is seeing if certain coaches (John Cheney, Phil Martelli, Jim Baron) have a demonstratable "improvement" effect on their players. That information would be interesting and valuable. Also, at some point I'd like to run the numbers on some leagues that have many more draftees (ACC, Big East), if I can find Conference Only stats for them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Mark
Joined: 20 Aug 2005
Posts: 807
PostPosted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:28 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I just followed a link to this article
http://lowpost.net/blog/2006/06/14/sort ... rafts.html
Looks pretty intersting.
FYI if you havent seen it already.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
asteroid
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 9
PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:02 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
To reply to hpanic's post--your failing to take into effect the importance of physical attributes. For example, Fazekas who is very polished and has a nice soft touch, and puts up great numbers in college, might not make the transition too well to the pros cause of his body. This guy's weaker than Travis Knight and he's not a very good athlete. But this has not been a problem that much in college yet, but can catch up with you in a hurry when you try the NBA. This is why he's going back to school for the second year in a row after flirting with the draft. I love Fazekas's game, but I really worry about his body, I feels there is no way he can hold position and I personally do not think his rebounding numbers will translate.
Markota got athleticism issues. See like I posted in College PER thread, you really have problems with evaluating numbers across the board cause of the importance of size & athleticism. For example, look at Shelden, his numbers look really good, but his standing reach is 8-8, not really good. This is something that has to be taken into consideration. Cause maybe he's another Fizer, Rodney Rogers, Fortson, etc., etc. Guys who dominate in college but are too short or too unathletic to transfer that ability over.
Tyrus Thomas is in that sketchy range too cause he's even shorter than Swift. How do really evaluate his numbers. Cause he might have to play a totally different position in the NBA. I agree with the poster who made the observation that the range of talent is much wider in college from one game to the next.
What do you do with Redick's numbers? How do you evaluate them? Look at a guy like Alford, who's stats are very similar to JJ, and had a similar game & size. Look at Rodney Monroe's numbers. He was a 6-3 2-guard putting up huge numbers in the ACC. Perfect example is Langdon. He could not cut in the NBA cause of his size & lack of speed, but he is one of the better players in Europe cause he can match up at the 2-guard over there. This is where you have to be careful with Euro stats as well. Something to keep in mind with Markota.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hpanic7342
Joined: 16 Feb 2005
Posts: 201
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:57 am Post subject: Reply with quote
asteroid - I certainly agree that good numbers in college are no guarantee that a player will enjoy similar success in the NBA, and that calculations like PER for college and Euro players should be taken with a grain of salt. However, Fazekas's college numbers (he had the highest PER of everyone I calculated, higher than Noah, Williams, Thomas, Morrison, etc., and it wasn't even that close) are so good that it's hard for me to imagine him not making it as a rotation player in the NBA. Since he was projected as a second-rounder (though he's pulled, right? I thought I heard that...), that would make him an outright steal, since second rounders aren't expected to even make the roster.
Also, beware of criticizing Shelden's athleticism...he was the second-strongest player at the draft combine.
I don't really know what to make of Redick. If you're looking for athleticism markers, Redick didn't get a whole lot of steals while at Duke, which suggests that he may be a notch below what he needs to be. Then again, he did OK at the combine. Gansey is a similar player to Redick but was a prolific thief, which may indicate more pro potential. Then again, Gansey is a year and a half older, so I don't quite know what to make of him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
SGreenwell
Joined: 12 Feb 2005
Posts: 76
Location: Rhode Island
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 12:22 am Post subject: Reply with quote
I'd hesitate to put down players with great college stats for a lack of athleticism. For example, Andrew Bogut was one of the best rookies last year, despite finishing near the bottom in overall athleticism at the combine last year. I'm not positive, but I'd say guys like Trajan Langdon are probably the exception, but I also haven't seen PER numbers for college players that far back.
While guys with freakish athleticism probably have a higher peak than guys like Bogut and Reddick, there's always the chance they'll never develop. See Jerome Moiso or Kwame Brown. I think it depends on a team's need, whether they should draft for peak or take their chances with lower risk, lower peak prospects with solid college stats.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Mark
Joined: 20 Aug 2005
Posts: 807
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:46 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Primarily it is relative athleticism to your counterpart matchup that matters.
Bogut as a big could rank low on speed and agility overall against smaller faster players, it would be useful to see his rank compared to centers and powerforwards actually in the league.
Vertical jump amount is less important than vertical reach after jump- can you get your hand high enough to block a shot or dunk? and most can, so then quickness of jump actually matters more. Vertical jump and vertical reach jumping and just standing matters in rebounding but so do other things- ball tracking, fighting for position, box out technique.
Bench press maybe easy to measure but it isnt the measure of needed on the strength, they'd do better measuring leg and whole body strength- can they push a football tackling sled simulating trying to push a Ben Wallace or can they hold ground on against a sled simulating Shaq pushing them.
Even looking at big men in the draft camp group can be misleading because there are going to be strong atheletes who arent drafted or dont play much because skills play a large role in decinding that. On the surface from his stats and generally acceptable reviews Bogut's athleticism seems enough, at least for this year's level of minutes, time split 3-1 more PF time over bigger stronger Cs, veterans around to help against tough matchups and style of play. Milwaukee handled Bogut with about as much care and patience as you could ask for with a #1.
Combine tested physical attributes and athletic scores of perimeter scorers may matter the most. Shooters it matters but basketball IQ/execution can overcome disadvantages especially if the coach gives you the time and the assistance necessary. Bigs need a better assessment of game strength, quickness moving 4-8 feet, and of course competitiveness/toughness.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jmethven
Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 51
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:30 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Has anyone calculated PER for the SEC? I'm getting a beyond absurd 40.12 PER for Joakim Noah (conference only; he was actually most dominant in SEC play) and I want to know if this is verifiable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tmansback
Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 129
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 7:00 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
SGreenwell wrote:
I'd hesitate to put down players with great college stats for a lack of athleticism. For example, Andrew Bogut was one of the best rookies last year, despite finishing near the bottom in overall athleticism at the combine last year. I'm not positive, but I'd say guys like Trajan Langdon are probably the exception, but I also haven't seen PER numbers for college players that far back.
While guys with freakish athleticism probably have a higher peak than guys like Bogut and Reddick, there's always the chance they'll never develop. See Jerome Moiso or Kwame Brown. I think it depends on a team's need, whether they should draft for peak or take their chances with lower risk, lower peak prospects with solid college stats.
Bogut it also a 7 footer. If you have size the need for athletism is less. How many non athletic players that also are undersized have success in the NBA.
If Reddick was playing PG I dont think his wingspan, arm length, and athletism would be an issue. SG though is were your going up against 6'6 players that have 6'10 wingspans and have 40 inch verticals. One your going up against a Luke Ridnour, Sam Cassell like athlete. The other your going up against the guys that compete in Dunk Competitions. If your measurements suggest your like a 6'2 guard your in serious trouble if you cant beat those players off the dribble. I think for Reddick he needs a system like the triangle offense or to play with a big guard or forward that can handle the PG duty. I think teams like the Lakers, Cleveland, Miami, Houston are perfect fits.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Joined: 20 Aug 2005
Posts: 807
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:09 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I would not be surprised if Redick plays 1/3 of his minutes at point.
If the Rocket take him maybe more. The new Matt Maloney?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
StatGuru
Joined: 16 May 2006
Posts: 16
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:10 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Tango wrote:
Richard Lu posted this article on 82games.
http://www.82games.com/nbadraft2006.htm
I think I understand his methodology. What I don't understand is how he calculated and correlated the success rates for the 2006 draft prospects with the similar players.
Anyone have any insights?
What are you guy's thoughts on Ronnie Brewer being ranked at the top of this draft class based off this system?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
holymoly
Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 63
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:42 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
JJ is a specialist. A specialist can't carry a team but can contribute efficiently with other players on the floor using a high % team poss. With Yao Ming and McGrady, I feel Reddick could be a good fit for the Rockets.
Last edited by holymoly on Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:09 pm; edited 2 times in total
holymoly
Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 63
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:01 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Mark wrote:
Clean, detailed display for a handful of players, Bargnani and Splitter especially. Rankings by individual stats including a lot of the advanced stats very interesting, probably unique information at least to many American eyes. Thanks. I find the typical euroleague stat lines on the internet a little hard to read.
Thanks Mark. Yes the euroleague captures a few extras in the boxscores (e.g. blocks against, fouls commited against) which can cloud them but are also interesting.
Mark wrote:
Euroleague stats vs college stats raw has aparently been studied some; would like to here more details about such efforts, methods, findings to date if the researchers are willing to summarize for us. Your looking at the rankings adds some additional insight and then if possible comparing the ranking in the two environments even more helpful.
Any articles or research already done in this area would be very interesting to hear about.
Mark wrote:
Look forward to more of these stat sets from your ambitious project to cover the whole euroleague scene and history. I assume you plan a new site to showcase these stats? Wonder what euroleague PER is needed to "make it in the NBA? 20?
Yes once the project is complete a new site is the preferred option. But will be posting interim findings prior to this. Translating a PER from the euroleague for success in the NBA is the challenge. Lyn Greer had the highest PER this year of 29 and a TS% of 70% in the italian league. Should he be in the NBA? The first step will be looking at current succesful euro players (Ginobli) numbers as well as unsuccessful imports and drawing some analysis here.
Mark wrote:
Splitter 26th rebound rating for centers, low compared to expectations? Bargnani at 37th for power forwards but in writeup it is labelled "solid"?
I would interpret this data differently for them as players coming to the NBA. Splitter as a PF/C may do ok instead of as a pure center. Bargnani lack of strength at rebounding likely to get worse if he stays at PF. SF- I dont know.
Splitters also played with one of the best big men in the euroleague (luis scola) this year so there could be an impact there (As it will again with his draft withdrawl). Bargnani's lack of strength is highlighted by most scouts as his key weakness, but for a forward his rebound rate is solid (rank 37 out of 100+).
Mark wrote:
Splitter much better assist and turnover ratings among peers than Bargnani goes against surface image of these guys over here. Bargnani stronger blocker compared to peers does as well. At least compared to my fiorst impressions reading draft profiles with Bargnani as more of a ball handler and Splitter as more traditional post player. Different positions- there but maybe not hereas both project mainly as PFs?
Thats why I want to get these stats out there, to challenge the subjective analysis of some commentators.
Mark wrote:
Perovic's low rebounding a major factor in the dramatic cooling of NBA interest from 1-2 years ago?
The phrase "nail on head" springs to mind
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
tmansback
Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 129
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:48 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Mark wrote:
I would not be surprised if Redick plays 1/3 of his minutes at point.
If the Rocket take him maybe more. The new Matt Maloney?
Yeah really doesn't have PG skills though. He might have to play more. His 2 rebound per game average in college has to be one of the lowest numbers for any SG taken in the first round period.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Joined: 20 Aug 2005
Posts: 807
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 7:48 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the additional comments HM. Look forward to hearing more as your project advances.
Redick could play point the way somewhat like the way Damon Jones plays it- 2.1 assists, 4.5 3pt attempts in 20some minutes. He probably would do better on assists than that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tmansback
Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 129
PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:51 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Yeah thats why I think the Lakers would be a good fit for him. Getting in the triangle offense with no real PG needed would be perfect for him. He could take on that Paxson, Kerr role. If not there a place like Cleveland, Miami, Houston would be a good fit since they have other players that dominate the ball. Cleveland sounds like they like Daniel Gibson to play a similar role.
I don't know if Reddick a better passer than Jones. Jones did have a great assist per minute number in Milwaukee. For the most part he has no playmaking skills though. I don't know how he averaged so many assist in Milwaukee though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tsherkin
Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 247
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:31 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
hpanic7342 wrote:
- Jordan Farmar looks like a total bust.
I wonder why you said this?
It can't be because of his performance at the Orlando Pre-Draft camp and certainly not with his athletic test scores in mind.
I don't see him exploding into a HoFer anytime soon but he's got the physical ability to play in the NBA and he's got the passing instincts. What makes you think he's going to be a bust?
alphamale wrote:
If Toronto doesn't pick Tyrus Thomas, they would be making a grave mistake. Everybody knows that Toronto had one of the leagues worst defense. They need a shot blocker and rebounder like Thomas, he would also bolster their running game because of his athletism. A front line consisting of Bosh, Villeneuva, and Thomas would be quite formidable indeed.
I wouldn't be surprised if Thomas ends up with a very high similarity score to Marcus Camby. Hopefully he's not as injury prone as the Camster.
Personally, I think it'd be a grave mistake if we TOOK Thomas.
My first thought is that Thomas would get abused terribly if we had to use him at center and there is no way we play him at the 4 with Bosh and Villa ahead of him, not without trading one. Bosh isn't going anywhere and Villa is 4" taller than Thomas and has already proved himself of use to our team.
Weakside shot-blocking isn't going to dramatically alter our team's defense, though it'll help and so will his rebounding. Toronto's main problem, however, is that we get abused in iso situations in the post. Thomas won't help that. Every team in the league will look at him and go "Oh God, post him up!" Anyone with a 6'10+ post scorer will attack him and Thomas will be as effective as a matador. He's too short, athleticism notwithstanding, to effectively guard the post on a nightly basis. He doesn't have Elton Brand's build (though he does have the wingspan).
Our frontcourt is lost, with or without Thomas. That's going to have to be built up slowly. The best the Raptors could do is draft the best player available and look to improve our backcourt defense with free agents.
Besides, Thomas scares me, he reminds me a terribly large amount of Stromile Swift with maybe more brains.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
And1
Joined: 14 May 2006
Posts: 7
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:10 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Does anyone know where I can find individual college player data that goes back at least five or six years? The goal is to measure how well success at the college level predicts success in the NBA?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 686
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:50 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
try this:
www.rivals.com/bstats.asp
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 686
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:09 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Shelden Williams is not only underrated, he was Duke's best player last season.
Sheldon Williams also suffered from Duke's perimeter-oriented offense. In most half-court attacks, he could have averaged 20+. Defensively, he's a weak-side demon. And he's strong enough to bang with all of the 4s and maybe a few 5s in the pros.
actually shelden williams' college stats are very similar to the college stats of patrick ewing (georgetown, 81-82 to 84-85), especially their sophmore, junior, and senior seasons. combined in those 3 seasons here are their averages:
-----------------------G---min/g--pts/g--reb/g--ast/g--pf/g--st/g--to/g--bs/g--ScFG%
p.ewing-----------106----31-----16------9.8----1.0---3.0---1.2---2.4---3.5------62%
s.williams---------100----31-----15----10.0----1.0---3.1---1.4---2.5---3.5------61%
He could be the steal of the draft.
his stats look great and he was the college defensive player of the year not once but twice. hope he lands with the cleveland cavs somehow...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
tmansback
Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 129
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:26 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Pat Ewing though was 7 feet tall. He had a much better chance for his game to translate. Shelden is one of those players that how will his game react when he goes from being the biggest player or one of the biggest players on the floor in most of his games to being smaller than many NBA SGs and SFs. He has a large wingspan. He also though has a very short standing reach. He blocked so many shots in college will it translate to the pros. I looked back the last few years and can't find any shot blockers that standing reach was so short. My bet his career is similar to Mike Sweetney. I think Mike's numbers were better all around.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3574
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:17 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Comparing current NCAA players' stats to those of 20 years ago is like comparing a minor league to a major league. In the '80s, college ball was full of super players, because they didn't skip straight to the pros. I'd guess in Ewing's G'town days, the NCAA could've filled 5-6 NBA teams' rosters -- competitively. Now, of course, nobody good enough to play NBA is staying in school.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
hpanic7342
Joined: 16 Feb 2005
Posts: 201
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:20 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I wrote that Farmar looked like a bust because his numbers aren't very good. In particular, he's very, very turnover-prone. Like, more so than anyone else in this draft.
Also, I wrote that before his performance in the Orlando Pre-Draft camp (against no other first rounders), and before his 42-inch vertical was measured at the athletic combine. I wouldn't count on his being anything more than a journeyman.
Also, what do you mean by "Stromile Swift with maybe more brains"? That's like saying, "like Cliff Robinson, but a better rebounder."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 686
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:52 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Pat Ewing though was 7 feet tall. He had a much better chance for his game to translate. Shelden is one of those players that how will his game react when he goes from being the biggest player or one of the biggest players on the floor in most of his games to being smaller than many NBA SGs and SFs.
????
smaller than whom? many nba SGs and SFS? shelden williams is 6'9" and 260 lbs - forget many, can you name even one nba SG or SF bigger than that?...
he's just 22 years of age and a college senior and he's already heavier than close to half of all nba startings Cs. how much bigger will he get once he's on an nba weight training program?...
He also though has a very short standing reach. He blocked so many shots in college will it translate to the pros. I looked back the last few years and can't find any shot blockers that standing reach was so short.
what does standing reach have to do with shot blocking? shot blocking is about ability and desire and hustle. shelden williams has been one of the best shot blockers on the college level for the past 3 seasons, and has been a better shot blocker on the college level than a number of current nba Cs were - including mark blount, erick dampier, jeff foster, chris kaman, chris mihm, lorenzen wright, michael olowokandi, jason collins, p.j. brown, tony battie, kurt thomas, and i'm sure a few others...
are you assuming that his shot blocking ability will wither away once on the pro level, simply because he's just 6'9" and has a short standing reach? last i checked ben wallace was 6'9" and he's been one of the league's leading shot blockers for the past few seasons...
Comparing current NCAA players' stats to those of 20 years ago is like comparing a minor league to a major league.
how do you figure this?...
In the '80s, college ball was full of super players, because they didn't skip straight to the pros.
how many college players each season out of all those that declare for the draft before their college eligibility is up make an nba team, let alone stick for more than a year or two? there are about 4000 div I college players each season. are you saying that the few that make the nba so dilute the college pool of talent that what's left is significantly worse and thus a player's ability simply cannot be gauged properly based on what he did in college?...
Now, of course, nobody good enough to play NBA is staying in school.
aahh... so no sense then in any nba team 48 hours from now drafting the likes of brandon roy, or shelden williams, or randy foye, or rodney carney, or j.j.redick, or hilton armstrong, or paul davis, or mardy collins, or any other current college senior because their level of competition has been so watered down these past few seasons by other college players leaving college early that their true abilities can't be properly judged based on the statistics they produced...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3574
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:13 am Post subject: Reply with quote
bchaikin wrote:
Comparing current NCAA players' stats to those of 20 years ago is like comparing a minor league to a major league.
how do you figure this?...
...
because their level of competition has been so watered down these past few seasons by other college players leaving college early that their true abilities can't be properly judged based on the statistics they produced...
Well, a 15-and-10 center ain't what it used to be.
Back around 1979 in the Big Ten, for example, a center would go 2 games against Clark Kellogg and Herb Williams, 2 vs Jay Vincent (and Magic Johnson), 2 vs Mychal Thompson and Kevin McHale, vs Phil Hubbard, vs Ray Tolbert, vs Joe Barry Carroll, ...
All these guys would have skipped out of their best college years, if that were in vogue then as it is now. Such competition cuts into your production.
Maybe the above names weren't all in college at the same time; but my general argument is -- it's my understanding -- that all players who are judged 'NBA-ready' are strongly encouraged/motivated to leave college and go pro. Watching an NCAA Finals full of future NBA allstars is unthinkable nowadays. Remember Jordan/Worthy/Perkins? Or Olajuwon/Drexler?
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tmansback
Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 129
PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:27 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
are you assuming that his shot blocking ability will wither away once on the pro level, simply because he's just 6'9" and has a short standing reach? last i checked ben wallace was 6'9" and he's been one of the league's leading shot blockers for the past few seasons...
Ben Wallace is a long player. If I remember correctly him and Elton Brand were equal in standing reach at 9'2.
Quote:
Now, of course, nobody good enough to play NBA is staying in school.
aahh... so no sense then in any nba team 48 hours from now drafting the likes of brandon roy, or shelden williams, or randy foye, or rodney carney, or j.j.redick, or hilton armstrong, or paul davis, or mardy collins, or any other current college senior because their level of competition has been so watered down these past few seasons by other college players leaving college early that their true abilities can't be properly judged based on the statistics they produced...
You may not like it but I heard a Rick Nash say those exact same things last year. The main question you have to ask is if a kid is so good why is he still playing college basketball. Look at the final four and the top teams in each conference in the Nation. UCLA a team with freshman and sophmores that aren't even that good dominate the Pac-10. UNC looses there top 7 rotation player from a year ago and by the end of the year had maybe the best team in the ACC. LSU, Ohio State, Memphis, Florida all being teams that were suppose to be good in a year or two good now. The amount of early entry players and high school entries has changed the game of college basketball. You never had the NCAA dominated by so many young teams.
Pretty much all the guys on your list above were considered second round late first round talent even up till there Junior year. The longer they play the better they get. That suppose to happen though. I'm a UW fan and even I wonder about the players that Brandon Roy went up against. You rarely go up against any quality seniors. Most of the players guys like Reddick, Williams, Roy go up against now are sophmores and freshman. There not only physically more mature than those players but have huge advantages in experience. Go look at the list of upperclass big men that entered the NBA draft over the last few years. They all have been average NBA players at best. Yet they stuffed the stat sheet in college. Now look at some of the bigs that have been or could have been in the ACC with Shelden this year. Dwight Howard, Josh Smith, Al Jefferson, Chris Bosh all could be playing ACC basketball. Why I have a feeling Shelden benefited that those players left early. Guys like Shelden do a good job throwing there more mature bodies around in college but when they played the game with men do they have the skill to compete at a high level.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Joined: 20 Aug 2005
Posts: 807
PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:51 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="StatGuru"]
Tango wrote:
What are you guy's thoughts on Ronnie Brewer being ranked at the top of this draft class based off this system?
I think Brewer is a very difficult case to project. I dont know what he will deliver but his strong prediction isnt convincing and makes me even more wary of the confidence of the method.
Situation obviously has a huge impact on NBA results.
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 687
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:00 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
all i did was to compare one player's current college stats to another's from 20 years ago...
my general argument is -- it's my understanding -- that all players who are judged 'NBA-ready' are strongly encouraged/motivated to leave college and go pro
The main question you have to ask is if a kid is so good why is he still playing college basketball.
how many college players every year declare for the draft and forfeit their college eligibility? then out of those how many make an nba team? if they are all "nba ready" it must be a high percentage right? i read on one website that 62 college underclassmen declared for the draft this year - how many of those will even get drafted, let alone make and play for an nba team? you don't think the vast majority of those players (that have dreams of playing in the nba) might have bettered themselves playing college ball longer and having a better chance of making the nba later?...
again there are some 4000 college players at the level of div I college ball these days, and every year a very small percentage of underclassmen declare for the draft, an even smaller percentage get drafted, and then an even smaller percentage than that even make an nba team. and you're arguement is that that very small percentage dilutes the talent level of div I ball so much that the stats produced by that large percentage remaining isn't indicative of a player's ability? especially one like shelden williams that comes form from a large program such as duke which far more than most college teams plays against some of the best college players year in and year out?...
there is no lock on any college player being as good in the nba as he was in college. but i'll bet if you look at the rosters of nba teams the majority of their players came from the top college div I basketball programs that played against other top college programs in div I...
UCLA a team with freshman and sophmores that aren't even that good dominate the Pac-10.
this the same ucla team that went all the way to the ncaa championship game? because you say they aren't even that good makes the rest of all div I ball not that good??
let's take this arguement about freshman and sophmores opting out of college diluting the talent pool of div I ball even further. so if all freshman, sophmores, juniors, and seniors are not playing college ball the stats produced by players aren't comparable from year to year? decade to decade? fyi there was a time not too long ago (well not too long ago from my perspective anyway) when freshman weren't even allowed to play varsity ball - does that then mean that during all those years of div I college ball the stats produced by players really didn't reflect the true abilities of the players playing (sophomores thru seniors) because a small percentage of freshmen that were really good and could have played on the varsity weren't allow to play on the varsity? this arguement seems never ending...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3584
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 6:16 am Post subject: Reply with quote
bchaikin wrote:
...when freshman weren't even allowed to play varsity ball - does that then mean that during all those years of div I college ball the stats produced by players really didn't reflect the true abilities of the players playing ?...
Yes. When Alcindor (and later Walton) were playing in the 'warmup' game, the rest of the conference were well aware that they were getting a 1-year break. (Didn't UCLA's freshman team regularly beat the varsity, until Wooden called it off?)
Of course you may 'compare' players, from different eras, conferences, divisions, hemispheres, etc. It's rather speculative, though.
Whether there are 4000 or 4,000,000 college players filling roster spots, the competitive upper echelon have moved on. A player who looks NBA-ready in the tournament may have needed that last 30 games to get that good -- or at least, to build that consensus.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tmansback
Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 129
PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:31 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
again there are some 4000 college players at the level of div I college ball these days, and every year a very small percentage of underclassmen declare for the draft, an even smaller percentage get drafted, and then an even smaller percentage than that even make an nba team. and you're arguement is that that very small percentage dilutes the talent level of div I ball so much that the stats produced by that large percentage remaining isn't indicative of a player's ability? especially one like shelden williams that comes form from a large program such as duke which far more than most college teams plays against some of the best college players year in and year out?...
One it doesn't matter if 4000 or 400000 players play college basketball. I would think that especially on this board the effect of 1 player on the game of basketball would not be taken lightly. The fact that were talking about 40-60 players every year with the vast majority coming from the top 6-8 conferences where talking about a much smaller number than 4000. We could easily say that 200 players that would have been top competition for Shelden Williams have left or not entered college since he came to Duke. The saying goes "someone has to score".
Your saying Shelden Williams and JJ Reddick are not only not benefiting from playing against those players. They also would have played with some of those players. Does Shelden Williams average 20 PPG if Luol Deng is still playing at Duke. I guarantee JJ Reddick wouldn't have averaged 28 if Deng is there. How many HighSchool kids would have been at Duke right now that bolted to the NBA. I could name one right off the top of my head Shaun Livingston commited to Duke. He obviously didn't go but if he does If Livingston goes to Duke Shelden Williams is the 4th best player on that team. Thats the difference between now and college basketball now and 20 years ago. Not only is Shelden not going up against some of the better players he would have went up against but his role in the offense is enhanced with players leaving. Thats going on all over the nation.
Quote:
would think that especially on this board the effect of 1 player on the game of basketball would not be taken lightly.
I also said the entire nation was filled with young teams that dominated there conference. This was the new college basketball. No time in history did you have so many teams with young talent dominate the conferences in the nation. 3 of the 4 teams in the final four were extremely young. The 4th team was a mid-major. The level of play in basketball was horrible this year because some of the best high school players in the nation never went to college and the good players they did have left early.
