Today’s guest post is by Erich Doerr . Erich first contacted me prior to the 2006 NBA Draft with a statistical preview in hand. Each subsequent year has seen improvement in the depth and breadth of his analysis. This post continues the WoW Journal’s 2008 NBA Draft coverage. Outside of his basketball writing, Erich does consulting work for major software products by day and has started a fledgling sports-themed Open Source software initiative by night.
Let’s start with the numbers. Table One reports an analysis of the college prospects available for the 2008 NBA draft.
Table One: 2008 NCAA Prospect List
What follows is a discussion of these numbers.
Basic Methodology
Since Bill James broke baseball down into numbers, similar statistical analysis has taken place for each major sport. One recurring result is that scoring margin provides a strong predictor of future performance (even stronger than winning percentage). Scoring margin, the difference between points scored and points allowed, can be broken down to individuals and transformed into statistics like Win Shares and Wins Produced.
In the Wages of Wins, David Berri, Martin Schmidt, and Stacey Brook use econometric analysis to generate an approximation for individual player contributions towards Wins Produced, and call the results Win Scores. Their analysis lays out a simple formula for player evaluation that can be applied to any common basketball box score.
While their analysis was based on the National Basketball Association, the same metric can be applied to players in other leagues, including the NCAA, which is the NBA’s largest feeder league.
With the NCAA season over, Win Scores has been calculated for all the 2008 NBA draft prospects and an assessment can be made on draft worthiness. As a basis for evaluation, DraftExpress‘s mock draft will be used to represent the industry consensus on prospect values. From this basis, we will use Win Scores to identify over and undervalued players in the draft’s lottery (first 14 picks) and furthermore name a handful of valuable prospects likely to be available late in the draft.
Before we get to the players, though, let’s discuss two comparative adjustments I think are necessary to discuss college numbers.
Strength of Schedule
Wins Produced and Win Scores were developed based on NBA statistics. In the NBA, talent is relatively evenly dispersed when compared against lesser leagues. While the NBA’s talent is spread among 30 clubs, the NCAA has 341 division I-A teams, running the gamut from talent-laden National Champion Kansas to the 0-29 New Jersey Institute of Technology.
A player’s success depends not only on his prowess, but also on what his opponent allows them to do. With this in mind, last year we compared a given player’s WS marks while playing against tournament-qualifying teams next to their marks against all other opponents. Most players posted significantly better marks against non tourney teams.
This year, we will rely on a similar measure. Specifically, Ken Pomeroy’s team ratings will define the 100 best teams, which will serve as the basis for strength of schedule analysis.
By using Ken Pomeroy’s team ratings over the NCAA tournament field, we are able to exclude poor quality tournament teams such as Coppin State (ranked 310th out of 341 teams by Pomeroy’s stats). Using 100 teams as a common basis also allows for larger sample sizes while at the same time maintaining a respectable level of quality competition.
In the 2008 preview table, these statistics are notated as KP100 for PAWS/M against top 100 teams.
Pace Adjustment
Given a variety of offensive and defensive schemes, a box score metric like Win Scores is susceptible to the number of possessions in a game. Certain coaches slow the game down by applying conservative defensive principles and clock-eating offenses while others prefer aggressive defenses and high tempo offenses. Given these disparities, a pace factor can be calculated by assessing the average number of team possessions in game. The pace factor can then be applied to Win Scores to find a tempo-neutral value.
For an example, the first table in Tables 2-4 (below)compares two players from a fast paced team (North Carolina) against two similar players from slower paced teams (Georgetown and Washington State). After adjustments, these player’s grades come out much closer than originally calculated.
Table 2-4: Additional Analysis of the 2008 Prospects
Pace adjustments for all players are included in the complete 2008 prospect list.
Projecting the Projected First Round
Looking at the projected first round we see players where the numbers suggest optimism, neutrality, and pessimism. Let’s start with the three players where the numbers are encouraging.
Optimistic
In an Early Look at the 2008 Draft, Michael Beasley was dominating both headlines and Win Scores. Nothing has changed. Beasley remains the #1 talent available.
After Beasley we see two more big men. While mock drafts have Kevin Love going anywhere from 5 to 15, Win Scores followers should consider Love the #2 or #3 talent in the draft, hands down. Additionally, Florida big man Marreese Speights is one to watch. Currently his name is bouncing around mock drafts in the mid first round, though by the stats, Speights seems to be surefire top 10 material, if not better.
Neutral
Derrick Rose is coming off of a strong national championship run, and with the rise of Deron Williams and Chris Paul, its going to be hard to pass on a tall, explosive point guard prospect.
When I wrote January’s article, Derrick Rose had a .052 PAWS/M and warranted a warning rather than a recommendation. He continued mediocre play until February 20th, and then – as Table 3 indicates (see above) — began playing like a top prospect.
His late season statistical explosion, plus the high regard from the scouts suggest Derrick Rose is for real, but his early season struggles and high expectations prevent me from predicting a surefire success.
Another top prospect is Brook Lopez. He grades out high on PER, but Win Scores is skeptical given his non-impressive rebounding rate. The numbers don’t warrant excitement, but compared to the current projected lottery (mostly listed below), Lopez grades out favorably.
Two other neutral prospects are DeAndre Jordan and Donte Green. Jordan, a Texas A&M center, posted a full season .047 PAWS/M, but seems to have picked on the little guys, as his scores against tougher competition get ugly quickly. Meanwhile Green had an excellent start last season, but he actually hurt his team with a sour second half and wound up with a negative PAWS/M (which is far worse when Syracuse’s fast paced play is considered). If he returns to his early form, he’s well worth a lottery pick. If his second half is more like it, be afraid. Be very afraid.
Pessimistic
O. J. Mayo’s .018 PAWS/M does not impress at all. I would not have advised any agent to provide him with a big screen TV or pay advances, and I would advise lottery drafting teams to stay away. As a slight ray of hope, Mayo did seem to improve in the second half, which is more than I can say about…
Eric Gordon. Win Scores pegs Gordon as a net drain on his college team which got worse as the season progressed. Save your NBA team millions of dollars and do not draft Eric Gordon.
Furthermore, teams should stay away from Anthony Randolph, given his poor .005 PAWS/M and horrific -.044 PAWS/M against the top 100 college teams.
No Guarantees: Beyond the Projected First Round
Past the projected top 30, there are a handful of Win Score favorites that appear likely to pleasantly surprise their new organizations. Richard Hendrix, Chris Lofton, and Joey Dorsey all appear to be excellent NBA prospects per Win Score. These gentlemen are coming out of strong programs yet seem underappreciated by the scouting majority.
While Draft Express’s scouting report on Richard Hendrix is positive, his mock draft spot winds up south of the first round. Hendrix’s body of work is solid, posting consistently high PAWS/M regardless of competition (marks of .143 vs top 25, .162 vs top 100, and .139 vs NCAA65). To lock this guy up for 4 years would be a solid investment for any NBA team.
This year, Tennessee guard Chris Lofton posted an initially unimpressive .052 PAWS/M, though that comes with an asterisk. Lofton’s biggest opponent this year was not on the Volunteer’s schedule, it was cancer. Lofton’s story was kept quiet until recently and all signs point to a full recovery. Prior to this season, Lofton has consistently put up high marks, posting PAWS/M’s of .134, .124, and .145, which put him in similar territory to Brandon Roy’s 2006 .166, Rodney Stuckey’s 2007 .123, and Rajon Rondo’s 2006 .123. While Lofton’s measureables may come up short against the other three, he certainly seems to be undervalued by mock drafts as some even have him going undrafted. Despite his shortcomings, Lofton clearly seems to be worth more than a second round pick.
Finally, Memphis’s Joey Dorsey just plain puts up amazing Win Scores. Looking at his history, you’ll understand why I sighed a big breath of relief as Dorsey fouled out of the National Title Game. Dorsey, not Derrick Rose, was the engine that drove the Memphis Tigers through the regular season, and both players stepped up for a fantastic tournament run. Rose may go 30 picks earlier, but Dorsey can well prove to be the better value given the cheap projected price of a 2nd rounder.
Outside the big programs, there are three smaller school guards – Lester Hudson, J.R. Giddens, and George Hill — that are intriguing, though, the case for a full-fledged endorsement is hampered by a small sample size against serious competition.
Tennessee-Martin guard Lester Hudson posted great games against top competition, but the sample size was a woeful 1 game against the top 25 and 5 games against the top 100 NCAA teams. (PAWS/M .254 Top 100, .203 all games)
New Mexico guard J.R. Giddens destroyed weaker competition in gathering a PAWS/M of .205 in 2007, but had no games against the top 25 and posted a poor .058 in WS/M his junior year.
IUPUI’s George Hill posted a solid .183 PAWS/M and a .108 PAWS/M in his 5 games against top 100 competition. Furthermore, Hill posted a decent .119 PAWS/M in his freshman year, showing 2007-2008 may not be a fluke.
And finally, let me toss out the following one-liners
NCAA scoring leader Reggie Williams posted a strong pace-adjusted .209 PAWS/M, but played a mere one game against a top 100 team.
Nebraska center Aleks Maric came on strong with a .192 PAWS/M in his senior campaign along with two monster games against Kansas State.
Rider’s Jason Thompson was the NCAA’s 2nd place finisher in rebounding (after Beasley) and offers an impressive .188 PAWS/M, though, most of that comes against weak competition.
Beasley & Love versus Durant & Oden
Win Scores may be optimistic on Beasley and Love, but how do they measure up historically? To answer this, I dug up last year’s numbers and ran a quick comparison between Win Scores favorite big men, 2007 versus 2008. The results are reported in Table 4 (see above).
It appears Beasley and Love grade out solidly higher than Oden & Durant. In general, the class of 2008 generally can claim higher Win Scores than the class of 2007. Maybe the 2009 All-Star Rookie-Sophomore Challenge will be competitive for once…
Thanks for reading, and check back here before the draft for more!
The WoW Journal Comments Policy
The WoW research on the NBA was summarized HERE.
The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score
Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:
Simple Models of Player Performance
What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say
Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics
Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.
Wages of Wins Journal 
porteno
May 27, 2008
Always a great read, Erich!
Owen
May 27, 2008
That is fantastic, thank you Erich…
dave crockett
May 28, 2008
Nice read Erich. Thanks for putting in that kind of work.
Your comments on DeAndre Jordan and Greene sort of mirror my own cursory analysis of their box score #s from DraftExpress. I hope those two prospects turn out, but they should come with “buyer beware” tags.
dave crockett
May 28, 2008
One minor correction:
“Oklahoma center Aleks Maric…”
Maric went to Nebraska. He killed my alma mater (Missouri) repeatedly, so his name I remember. Oklahoma has a pf/center, Blake Griffin, who you may be thinking of but he’s going back to school.
Erich
May 28, 2008
Thanks for the complements.
Dave Crockett, good point on Oklahoma/Nebraska. I did look at an Oklahoma center, Longar Longar, who I remember as being the worst player I remember evaluating for this years draft class.
If Oklahoma improves this year, its not just the development of Blake Griffin, it is the departure of Longar Longar.
mrparker
May 28, 2008
Nice read Erich. I’m still not convinced that wp48 is the best way to project pro talent because the positions and style of play change so drastically.
A few thoughts on your post.
Our major disagreement is in regards to Mr. Beasley. Something doesn’t add up with him. I don’t have anyone to compare him with at power forward(from past drafts) because I don’t have data from before 04′. My main concern is that someone who rebounds so voraciously didn’t elevate his team. An added number 1 type player really should have his team in the top 10 in terms of efficiency rating.
I’m mostly here to see the opinions of others and tout the talents of Kevin Love, Carl Landry and Joakim Noah. i.e say I like these players but be unwilling to state exactly why.
Beasley will be my argument this year as Durant was last year. No player like him has panned out in the short term. A player like this cannot come in and be the man.
Here’s are my can’t miss prospects, along with my median career wow projection. Adam Morrison was a 10. Chris Paul was a 27. David Lee was a 17. Wayne Simien a 12. Deron Williams 18. Felton 14. Brandon Roy was a 19. Ronnie Brewer 16. Just to show a point of reference. If anyone is interested in finding out where I stand on a player(highly doubt anyone will) just let me know as its a quick calculation. Overall I’d say 15 projects as around average and 18 predicts very productive. The graph is very parabolic, so there is quite a difference between 17 and 18 and an even bigger difference between 18 and 19. My projections are for level of production by the end of year 3.
Derrick Rose 26
Kevin Love 27
Bayless 21
Mayo 15
Beasley 18
Eric Gordon 16
Brook Lopez 15
Roy Hibbert 16
augustin 18
Anthony Randolph 16
Dandre Jordan 13
Westbrook 15
Joe Alexander 15
Koufos 11
Maureese Speights 15
Ty Lawson 15
DJ White 10
Chase Budinger 12
Douglas-Roberts 10
sleepers:
Mike Green from Butler 24
Keep in mind that these are my projections for the end of year 3, so putting a first round pick on someone who projects to be average is a bit of a waste, might want to save the projects for the later rounds as it could cost your franchise. So far I think there are 5 landmines in the first round coming out of college. 2Hall of Famers, and 3 high quality starters of the consensus first round picks.
After that I think anyone that gets their hands on Mike Green(thinking Houston, or Utah) has a great pick on their hands.
hoopinion
May 28, 2008
Erich–
Longar Longar played the last 11 games of the year with a broken bone in his leg (an admirable if futile example of effort and team spirit) which seriously limited his production over the final third of the season.
It was Oklahoma’s lack of decent offensive players outside of Blake Griffin that thrust Longar into such a central offensive role in the first place. His numbers weren’t good but he was most likely the manifestation of Oklahoma’s problems rather than their cause.
JB
May 28, 2008
MrParker have you described your metric in detail somewhere or will you?
How do Hendrix, R Anderson, Bill Walker look?
JB
May 28, 2008
Erich I appreciate the PAWS for games against best 65 and 100 teams. Do enough players have enough games against say the top 30 teams to make that a worthwhile additional column? Say 10+ games. All are small sample but it would be interesting to see. The competition with the highest concentration of future pro or near players.
mrparker
May 28, 2008
JB,
I haven’t described my metric anywhere. I pretty much just come here to argue prospects and to hate Kobe(except for he is playing up to his potential this post season and thus making me look stupid. How can you change this drastically after playing a certain way for 11 seasons. I really hope this is a fluke).
I have Hendrix rated as a 16. Ryan Anderson 15. Bill Walker 12.
How is your prospect list shaping up?
mrparker
May 28, 2008
Speaking of Kobe,
I was running through his playoff numbers today.
50% shooting. 31pts 6ast and 6reb a game for this postseason.
That is pretty much MJ’s career numbers. Performance like that is something we should be talking more about on this site.
If this holds up we are going to be eating our words.
JB
May 28, 2008
I haven’t tried my own formal draft pick value method yet. I try to learn from what’s out there from a team fan perspective and show interest in improving metrics.
Erich’s strength of schedule treatment is helpful. Getting more of defense evaluated and incorporated in the pro potential rating would be as well. Will you say if your method goes beyond the basic boxscore on factoring in defense?
JB
May 28, 2008
Any other 16+s on your metric beyond the names you mentioned?
TJ
May 28, 2008
Great article.
You post the following about Eric Gordon:
“Eric Gordon. Win Scores pegs Gordon as a net drain on his college team which got worse as the season progressed. Save your NBA team millions of dollars and do not draft Eric Gordon.”
I didn’t watch closely, but given all the controversy there it seems like he could have a reasonable “excuse” for going south…?
Animal
May 28, 2008
Awesome post Erich. Very nice work!
Sportsdude90
May 28, 2008
Exellent post Chicago will go with Dereick Rose over Beasly with the #1 pick
JB
May 28, 2008
Erich I assume the pace adjusted column is for all games. Would you consider doing a pace adjust for the NCAA 65 and 1o0 columns (subsets) in the future?
Pete23
May 28, 2008
Erich you da man! You da man. Really good column.
John W. Davis
May 28, 2008
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-32-240/Wednesday-Bullets.html
ESPN Linkage GOOD JOB!
JB
May 28, 2008
Looking at the 2007 review results- and that alone- this method suggests to me there might be about 10 good NBA rookie seasons. And if the consensus draft plays out as expected very few will be for lottery picks, even fewer than last season.
I’d trade down.
JB
May 28, 2008
Or I should amend… I’d have low expectations for rookie season results.
Mr Parker’s numbers don’t suggest great things from many in 3 years either.
Outside of 3-4 players it looks like a role player draft to me.
Erich
May 28, 2008
Welcome TrueHoop readers!
The most common complaint on Dorsey is his age. People mention that he did dominate, but he’s 24 years old. Please note that his domination started four years ago, during his freshman year.
Joey Dorsey Draft Express
One word of warning on Dorsey: He has a big mouth
Thanks for all the compliments
Sportsdude, note Dorsey’s disagreement with your prediction (click on the “big” in “big mouth”)
Hoopinion- thanks for the information. I apologize for any perceived slight to Longar. I of course wish him the best of health.
TJ, thats a decent observation on Gordon. I looked at his game log specifically. He got off to a strong start in his first four games, then settled in to a ~.150 PAWS/M until March, where he just imploded. Even given this review, I’m still not quite ready to upgrade him to merely “Pessimistic”.
mrparker,
Interesting observation on Mike Green. I hadn’t noticed his name before, but he certainly is one player where a pace adjustment matters.
JB,
I do have splits on the top 25, but from my review, there appear to be no shocking surprises to be gleaned from that data. (Small bits: Kevin Love, Eric Gordon, and Derrick Rose look better, Beasley, Mayo Dorsey, & Lawson a little worse, and Donte Green and DeAndre Jordan a lot worse). If anything, I’m more worried about supplying too much data or data based on restrictive sample sizes.
As for going beyond the defensive box score, I can say that looking at opponent’s strength does address this to a somewhat significant degree. Defense is a team effort, right? How well does your opponent defend? Other than that, I don’t have any of the advanced data that may be required to do such an analysis.
JB
May 28, 2008
3-4 by the college numbers. A few more will probably surprise from beyond the consensus draft top 20, not predicted by the college numbers, like this year.
porteno
May 28, 2008
mrparker — i don’t see how you can not describe your system to us and then not tell. is it solely quantitative or do you have a qualitative aspect to it as well?
porteno
May 28, 2008
also, i have to agree with mrparker. kobe — while not the MVP this year obviously — had a great year and is having a Jordan-like playoffs.
i don’t like kobe and i’ve always been annoyed at how overrated he is. but right now, he’s mostly living up to the hype. (admittedly a small sample size)
Joe
May 28, 2008
Great read man.
mrparker
May 29, 2008
JB+Porteno,
I’m hesitant to say too much about my system because it is a work in progress. I think its far from perfect and trying to make it perfect is my goal. 2005 is the first year I made hard predictions though I had been working on this system for a few years before then. For instancem, I think I rated Thadeus Young a 12 or 13 last year and he tore it up. This has me literally dumb founded. Did this guy just not try at Tech? Was his performance a fluke?
I haven’t forayed outside of the big conference teams much beyond the hyped kids, so I still have a bunch of work to do in the next 3 weeks. The princeton offense fucks my system, so I’m tinkinering with ways to adjust for it and just not getting anywhere. I can’t figure out if the NBA is biased against Spencer Nelson and Julius Hodge or if my system likes them too much. They both had great summer league efficiency rating and Hodge has great efficiency ratings in limited minutes.
I like my model so far and consider it successful. For anyone out there who is looking for their own model, just do what I did. Find the good players and then figure out what they did in college. Find the bad players and then figure out what they did in college.
mrparker
May 29, 2008
Erich,
I only know of Mike Green because I’m a bit of a degenerate gambler. I started following him in 06 after watching Butler lay it on Tennessee. The guy jumps off the screen if you are a winscore type thinker.
JB
May 29, 2008
Alright MrParker. I was curious but don’t mean to be pushy. Reveal what & when as you wish.
Joe
May 29, 2008
mrparker,
I wrote a long aside in “2007-nba-draft-preview-one-year-later” entry on this site in the comments about Thaddeus. As a Sixers fan, I looked up a lot of info and came across some interesting stuff to explain his bad numbers in college. Long story short, he used his high ranking out of high school to, essentially, blackmail the GTech coaching staff into letting him decide his position and role for the team. Because of this, his numbers suffered. (and the team) He wanted to show he had a midrange/3 point shooting game, instead of showing what he can really do, which is a lot more.
mrparker
May 29, 2008
Joe,
I read that. I mocked the 6ers all summer for drafting him.The joke is on me I guess. As a 6ers fan you have to pray that he doesn’t pull anymore stunts like that.
JB,
Don’t think anyone’s being pushy. Sorry to give that impression. Its just nice to be on a board where dunks and crossovers don’t mean anything to other posters.
Brent
May 29, 2008
It appears that Chicago (who won the #1 pick) will pick Derrick Rose.
There is no doubt in my mind, that they will find a way to ruin his career, or trade him for peanuts.
Oh well, go Bulls!
Anon
May 29, 2008
Doug Collins can work his confidence building magic no matter who they pick. The ol’ Kwame Brown treatment works like a charm.
Joe
May 29, 2008
mr parker,
Thad is a real hard worker. He seems to think he knows best though. He is kinda already trying to pull stunts by saying, through the media, that he does not want to play the 4 for the Sixers. Kinda weird because he plays the game as correctly as an Sixer I have seen in the past 10 years, except one… Andre Miller.
mrpaker
May 30, 2008
joe,
After what he did at GTech is that something you expect to continue? I don’t know what to make of it.
Joe
May 30, 2008
mrparker,
I don’t expect it to continue.
After high school, he wanted to go pro, but the NBA didn’t allow him, so he decided to do a 1 year tryout for the NBA. He told GTech from day 1 what he wanted and they agreed so he committed there. He didn’t force them to agree. They willingly did it.
He seems like a straight shooter and he is, after all, still a kid who isn’t mentally or physically fully mature. Overall, he seems like just a good kid.
He is extremely talented as well and hard working. I think he has “it” but most would disagree I’m sure.
W.C.
May 30, 2008
How do you value the ability to create your own shot?
Some players get high efficiency scores, but they couldn’t score more than a dozen or so points a night without their efficiency rating falling through the floor because they can’t create for themselves and have limited athletic ability . They mosly get their points off offensive rebounds, fast breaks, defensive breakdowns etc….
On the flip side, there are players that are wildly talented athleticly. They score a lot, but only earn mediocre efficiency scores because their FG % is not that high. That happens because they take a lot of tough shots.
The problem is that IMO players in the latter group could easily raise their efficiency rating dramatically by being much more selective. They don’t because on many plays the alternative scoring option would be even worse. Their ratings take a hit for the simple reason that on many plays they are best scoring option of a number of poor options because of their superior ability to create.
IMO, some guys with high rating that are low scorers are not nearly as good as their advanced statistical ratings and others that are high scorers are much better than their ratings but are getting punished because of their role as the primary offensive option on the team.
If a guy like David Lee went to Denver and was told to score 25 a night, his ratings would fall horribly.
If a guy like Iverson was told we only want 10-15 points a night because David Lee is going to option #1, his ratings would be higher because he would only take the very best shots each night. Of course the team would get a lot worse if they did that because David Lee trying to get 25 points a night would be total fiasco.
mrparker
May 30, 2008
Ability to create your own shot is overrated IMO. Its not like you cannot use your teammates to help get shots. David Lee might not be able to score 25 every night but there are more than a few nights when his guy cannot matchup with him physically and he can take advantage. There are entire teams with no 20 point scorers that play pretty well.
grr
June 1, 2008
great post. keep developing your system.
question on athleticism: folks like steve alford would have graded out well but couldn’t stick in the league due to their inability to play defense.
is athleticism and physical prowess just base assumptions (and the lack of or exceptional ) manifested in production? some systems would seem to hide less physically adept players than other (lots of screening offenses). a current player Kyle Weaver of WSU is productive but accused of “lacking” athleticism and is predicted anywhere from late 1st to mid 2nd.
small favor for us old guys who have a hard time reading black font on dark background, maybe white font?
antonio
June 1, 2008
its hard to take a system seriously when nothing about it is revealed. especially if you trying to work out the kinks, positing what you have done with your metric on a place like apbrmetrics would give you tons of feedback if your metric is legitimate. if you want to improve it, having all those statistical experts look at it would only help.
antonio
June 1, 2008
also, hollinger was high on young according to his system. but regardless, no system will ever fully predict whether a player will turn out to be successful. so just because a few players defy your expectations, that does not mean it is a bad model. there will never be a model that will perfectly capture future performance
Erich
June 1, 2008
grr,
Thanks for the thoughts. I can’t say how Alford would have graded out (basketball-reference doesn’t supply minutes played), though I do rely on scouting rankings as a basis. From this basis, I use Win Scores to highlight players that appear to be systematically underrated by the scouts. If the scouts are pretty good at assessing athleticism, then this assessment will be incorporated within the basis used and will be adequately covered in the final assessments (real NBA drafts look far more like a scout’s draft board than any stat-driven system draft board).
With Kyle Weaver, Draft Express has him in the second round, and if anything, the stats are optimistic on him. Although the stats won’t care what kind of offense a player played in, we are able to adjust for pace, and with that adjustment, Kyle appears to be a very worthy 2nd round player. (FYI, DraftExpress’s scouting report does like his defense)
Please identify where the black font/dark background is and I’ll try to avoid it in the future. Thanks for your input!
Antonio,
Thanks for your thoughts, though I am not clear if you are referring to the projections laid out in the article or mrparker’s projections laid out in the comments. With regards to those laid out in the article, I did include a large section on methodology.
I believe the best forum for my projections is within this blog or draft-related blogs, though I would appreciate any advice on improving the system, be it from ABPRmetrics posters or commenters like yourself.
I agree with your assessment in that there will never be a perfect model. I would prefer a model that does better than real life NBA GM’s though, as there seem to be a lot of first round flame-outs and second round picks that never even make a roster. There are millions of dollars at stake in the draft, and theres no way guys like Corey Brewer, Jeff Green, Acie Law and Spencer Hawes should go in the lottery.
Mrparker
June 1, 2008
Erich,
I find it intersting that our opinions differ on Acie Law. What exactly didn’t winscore like about him? My system liked him last year but he really struggled. Maybe he’ll pan out in the longer run as some point guards(J. Kidd and Nash to name two off the top of my head)take a very long time to develop. D. Williams is another guy who really struggled his first year. But none of those guys struggled as badly as Acie Law did last year(offensive ratiing 93, league average 108)
I hope I’m not being too liberal about posting my own numbers. You seem to be the only guy out there seriously ranking/grading college talent with a specific methology, so its only natural that I wanted to compare my own numbers with yours.
Erich
June 3, 2008
Mrparker,
Acie Law does have a higher PAWS/M than Bayless or Augustin, but there were several factors that persuaded me towards pessimism in 2007, including his age (coming out as a senior), his career win scores (poorer), his senior year 45% 3pt FG% (seemed high for his career, signaling some luck), and his limited exposure to tourney teams (10 games).
I greatly appreciate your comments, and you were one of last year’s commenters that pushed me to improve the analysis, but with that being said, I didn’t find it appropriate to comment directly on your projections in this thread. I’d be glad to discuss over email (contact info provided above), but I personally prefer the comments in this thread to cover and improve WS analysis.
I would gladly publicly comment on your projections if directed to a blog post about them, or perhaps if you placed some predictions in the 2007 Draft Review article, as I challenge readers there to make better 2008 predictions in that comment thread. I am interested in competing work, but please understand my focus on comments toward the above post in this thread.
Thanks!
Erich
Tom Mandel
June 4, 2008
Erich — a couple of things I can’t figure out. 1) Why are you “optimistic” on Mario Chalmers but not on Shan Foster? Their numbers are similar, although Foster’s are better and he is lower on the projected draft list. And 2) there seem to be many guys whose ws numbers against kp100 and against non-kp100 are *both* lower than their aggregate number. The last guy on your list, Abrams, is an easy example to find. Please explain?
Erich
June 4, 2008
Tom,
Shan Foster, JR Giddens, and Mario Chalmers are borderline optimism guys that all look relatively good, but in the end, I passed on applying the label to Foster.
Foster’s PAWS/M was excellent and so was his performance against strong competition. Working against him was his team’s fast pace, his career WS (see DraftExpress database, his WS/40 jumps by 4 in his senior year), and his smaller sample size of tough competition when compared to Chalmers.
Giddens also seems to show that one year jump, but fit well in writing about smaller school guards.
Overall, all three of these guys appear slightly underrated and I’m personally optimistic about each of their prospects, I just didn’t feel strong enough about Foster to tag him with the label.
Thanks for the observation on KP100/non-KP100. I’ll look into it and post a correction or explanation.
Erich
Tom Mandel
June 4, 2008
Erich — thanks. Sounds like the label “optimistic” is both subjective (a matter of judgment whether to apply it or not) and a relative variable (depends not just on historical numbers but on where the guy is projected in the draft — i.e. had Chalmers been projected in the lottery for some reason, his numbers wouldn’t warrant the “optimistic” label).
Since draft projections change (and have changed at DraftExpress since the mock draft you are using), it’s a bit difficult to rely on the “optimistic” label. Obviously, this would matter more if I were a GM! :)
Erich
June 4, 2008
Tom,
I looked into the KP100<Non-KP100<All and the difference lies within games played against non division 1 opponents. Those games were previously ignored by KP100/non-KP100, but not All. I will correct this if the table is republished.
As for the labels, there are so many factors that go into rating a prospect that an objective criteria is tough (though I’m working on that!). When I do assign subjective labels, I try to base it 100% on statistical resume, and yes, the mock drafts are moving targets. Do keep your eyes on DraftExpress over the coming weeks ;)
Mrparker
June 4, 2008
Erich,
You are a serious analyst who puts major time into his craft. I’m a crack pot who’s not even willing to share his methology, so I wouldn’t dream of asking you to comment on my poor and hastily written post. I hope that doesn’t sound like sarcasm because its completely genuine.
I have alot to learn from others and thats why I ask your input on specific players.
My next question concerns grading point guards by college winscore. Has any college point guard ever graded high by winscore? Winscore seems to hate point guard play at the college level.
Erich
June 6, 2008
I wrote a comment yesterday, but it seems to have been eaten.
Thank you for the flattery, though I believe it is off base. My analysis has plenty of room to get better and values others findings. My offer to discuss your system in private or in another venue stands.
Win Score does not hate point guards, though this year it seems to disagree with the mock drafts. Bayless and Augustin don’t carry high WS marks, but others projected in the 2nd round do. Look at Chalmers, Hudson, Hill, and your own Mike Green as WS PG favorites.
In the very recent past, WS liked Chris Paul, Rodney Stuckey and Rajan Rondo quite a bit, though I missed out on promoting Stuckey in last year’s article (doh!).
mrparker
June 9, 2008
Erich,
Thanks for you offer to discuss our systems in private. I think I am going to take you up on that once I find a clear and concise way to describe my methology and how I arrived at my conclusions.
Chalmers is interesting. My system doesn’t know what to make of him. It refuses to grade him as a point guard, but if it would it would rate him as an above average player.
Tom Mandel
June 12, 2008
Mike Green? He has a WS of .013 vs. kp100 teams. Why do you (or why does WS) like him?
Apparently, Lawson completely shut Hudson down in the first game in Orlando. Only one game, obviously… Hudson’s WS is buoyed by off the charts rebounding and by the fact that he shoots lots of college 3 pointers at a good clip. How would those abilities translate to the NBA, one wonders?
That said, he and Hill are the 2 most intrigueing guys on the list of PGs. Hill in particular looks like an advance version of Stephon Curry, a guy I think will make a great pro.
Erich
June 16, 2008
Excellent points Tom.
I brought up Green partially because mrparker identified him earlier in the comments.
Hill definitely intrigues, and I do enjoy the fact that he made ESPN’s very early list of players unlikely to be drafted.
Curry does look excellent. More on this one after the draft…
Tom Mandel
June 17, 2008
Erich — why are you “optimistic” on Chris Lofton? His WS is relatively low — is it 1) sentiment (his recovery from cancer), 2) position in the draft (his WS would perhaps be *high* for someone who can be picked up w/ no commitment), or 3) you think he’ll be much better as his recovery is further behind him?
Tom Mandel
June 17, 2008
Oh, wait a minute… I see that his previous year scores were much better. duh.
Erich
June 18, 2008
Lofton’s past numbers have been superb, and I find it disheartening that he hasn’t gotten more attention. If he came out last year, I would have put his name right next to Fazekas. With the cancer diagnosis, it is easy to understand why he wasn’t involved in 2007’s draft process.
Also, in Hollinger’s 2007 draft preview, one of his findings reported players coming off an off-year can be better judged by looking at their collegiate high point, which for Lofton are his exceptional Freshman-Junior years.
Personally, I expect Lofton’s production to exceed more than half of the guys projected to go in the first round, making him especially valuable given low investment costs.
Miley-Cyrus-Fan
August 1, 2008
hmm.. thank you very much. usefull information
name
August 31, 2008
Good day!,