fishmike wrote:mreinman wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:mreinman wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:gunsnewing wrote:Yea I'm all for metrics in the NBA. I'm just not sure if you can use college metrics to pr rift NBA careers. Nba and NCAA is like apples and oranges
No, I do know what you mean. I've been looking at the win shares too, and Okafor's total is very good. Of course, Mike Sweetney's was outstanding, and that didn't project to the NBA.
have you seen towns (or ok4) play?
college is a bit different as you have to be able to project better.
Just the highlights. I've never really been into NCAA ball.
I was just citing numbers that I thought could be relevant. I wouldn't claim to be very knowledgeable about these college players.
I don't follow college either but over the last week I have been watching them both pretty closely and have watched some of the game replays.
The numbers are very misleading in college do to many lopsided factors.
You really need to watch and predict how their style would relate to the NBA and spot growth opps.
yea... if I say this I am some kind of anti-metrics guy. Not all #s translate, and we have seen great college players translate to total garbage and others with modest college career have better NBA ones.
nobody says that following metrics means you don't have to watch the games. of course you need both so you dont miss something that may not be metrically obvious or on the flip side, you don't trust your eyes and ignore the valuable metrics that tell a better story.
e.g. when people say "the guy scores 30 points a game every night"
and then, you look and see that the guy takes 25 shots a game to get to 30 points. At that point, you should realize that you got fooled by your eyes and it was important to validate that the 30 points was done in an efficient manner.
Al Iverson was the perfect example of the pre-metric player. Players don't play like that anymore because the advance metrics don't allow them to. It will call the player out and the player will be forced to change their game.
Iverson was a crazy talent. If he was accountable for his metrics, he could have been one of the best players to ever play his position. However, he was not accountable and was therefore an extremely inefficient player.
Now, players like Melo, Kobe, L Aldridge ... are being held to a higher standard and it is a problem for them because they love chucking low percentage shots. Its (now) in their blood. It was always ok. Its not ok anymore.
I read an article where LA was talking about him needing to become a 3 point shooter and that he knows (from his coach) that it is really holding him back. Ironically he is now shooting at least 1 a game at 50%. His attempts will need to go up in order to capitalize.
College ball is just a predicting tool and therefore much harder to predict via metrics because the player essentially is in the process of being built. You can't test drive a car before it is complete. A player in the NBA after a couple of years should mostly be built and at that point, the metrics should be able to give you a much clearer picture.
One last player, james harden. The dudes FG (which is not good) does not really tell the whole story. Once you calculate his 3% and FT%/attempts, the guy is an obvious superstar.
we are all learning this process and if we are willing to go along for the ride, we will become a lot smarter. And if we don't, we will just be that 60 year old baseball scout with a pot belly and a mad temper who complains about how the phd idiots ruined their mocho sport ...
so here is what phil is thinking ....
1/14/2015 12:46 PM
