yardbarker

NCAA Wiretap Headlines

My 33 pt method talent evaluation idea

Moderators: tsherkin, Doctor MJ, CellarDoor

Post#1 My 33 pt method talent evaluation idea
Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:36 pm by Dr Positivity

I am making a series of posts on this at asubstituteforwar.com. I am not sure if it fits under the umbrella of statistics like most of the posts in this forum but it involves players and number evaluations. I believe this is the best thing I have ever come up or written in regards to basketball analyses.

Post 1: Introduction

Some time ago I started looking at basketball players as if their talent level was split up into one third physical talent, one third skill talent and one third feel for the game/basketball IQ. I did this because I consider the 3 categories as the separating grounds for talent level. If a player doesn’t stand out above his peers in any of the 3 areas, what does he have going for them? I have also felt for a long time that many NBA Draft mistakes are made by overvaluing athletic tools in evaluating raw talent and underrating skill and understanding of the court. My hypothesis is that when media outlets and teams talk about talent, physical tools take a 70% weight. My system weights physical tools as 33%.

What I was led to, is giving players a score out of 11 in each category, making a max of 33. I used these numbers because it leads to a scale similar to PER, which generally rates a score of 30 as MVP caliber, 25 as superstar caliber, 20 as all-star caliber, 15 as an average player, and 10 as a player barely getting minutes. The benchmarks for a player’s value according to my system are nearly identical. I found using 11 as the maximum instead of 10 fit this scale a bit more. For example Lebron James is a player who deserves a perfect score in physical and feel for the game, but is a notch below perfection at his position for skill (Larry Bird, for example, would have a perfect score in skill for a SF). Thus with a max of 11 he ends up with a score of 31 or 32 out of 33 on my metric, while with maxes of 10 he’d end up with 28 or 29, unable to hit 30 without a perfect score in skill.

What really convinced me about this method is how well it tested for every player. Every score seemed to β€œfit”. I intend to show this by listing all the players alphabetically and my scores for them, which I will start in the next post. I will hope that those who read this will see how consistently well these scores add up to a range where the player should be.

Detractors of a method like this may say that the β€œtotal I’m looking for” guides my scores. I believe this is untrue and that it is relatively simple to identify the range of where a player’s score should be. Someone may feel a player deserves a 6 or 7 in a category when I give them an 8, but ultimately the system will likely still work with their lower score, unless they believe I am too high or too low in all 3 categories, or drastically off in a category.

For some people it may be impossible to convince that the totals did not influence my scoring. That is fine, but I promise my evaluation is an attempt at an honest metric in each area. To partly show this, take the example of how I realized I would only use this method to evaluate talent, not production. I originally thought the natural way to adjust for players who’s production has dropped because of age would be to take points off their physical impact (just leaving the skill and feel for the game they retained), while rookies and sophmores who haven’t hit their prime yet, would be undeveloped in skill and feel for the game. This didn’t work. To use an example that stuck out the most, take Vince Carter and Tracy McGrady as examples, two players who had among the greatest feel for the games we’ve seen for a SG/SF (so an 11 in that area) and extremely high skill levels (say, a 10). Thus even if they both now score a 1 in physical talent, they’d still be at 22, which is all-star level and above their actual current ability. Just about every older player who had a high skill level and feel for the game in their prime, had too high a score for what their physical decline had actually done to them. As for rookies, the question came down to just how much feel for the game or skill would have to drop. For example, my talent score for Kyrie Irving is Physical – 8, Skill – 10, Feel for the Game 10 = 28 total and for Kawhi Leonard it is Physical – 8, Skill – 4, Feel for the Game – 9, Total: 21. Would Kyrie Irving have to be given a score of 5 or less for Feel for the Game for his number to look β€œright” for how strong he is as a rookie, even though he played a smooth game even as a rookie? Would Kawhi Leonard need a score of 4 or 5 as well, despite the fact that his basketball IQ was precisely one of the reasons he was so good as a rookie? Both seemed intellectually dishonest. Finally, one more example to show myself β€œcatching” a wrong score, is that I originally thought I could actually use a player’s PER as a starting point, then divide it exactly into the 3 categories. For many this fit seemingly well, but not for everyone. An example that stuck out is Javale McGee’s near 20 PER last season. My score for Javale is he’s a 10 in physical, a 3 in skill and a 2 in feel for the game, for a total score of 15. Of course if I wanted the score to get to 20 to match his PER would’ve taken some serious stretching by giving him 10 combined points in skill and feel that he simply doesn’t deserve. Thus like the previous examples, this is something I couldn’t sit with, and I had to adjust my system. What worked was when I decided to just restrict the scores to β€œtalent level”, or what a player should approximately do in his prime. The results of this has been shocking consistent, with anything resembling the β€œoff” scores in the previous examples.

Here is some explanation of what goes into each score. Picture it in terms of an Olympic judge for a sport like diving or figure skating where they have recorded specifically what they are looking for, which guides their score. I tend these explanations to show there is a clear cut grounding to my scores in each of the 3 categories:

Physical talent

Guards: The two key areas for a perimeter player offensively to get a high score here, are speed and power/strength. Speed helps a player drive into the paint, power helps him score points at the basket and force fouls.

The lowest type of scoring player here, is a strictly jumpshot orientated perimeter player, who doesn’t have the speed to get in the paint or size to finish. OJ Mayo is an example of a very low scoring player in this area offensively.

Medium scoring players may include types who have size but not speed, or speed but not size. Jarrett Jack is a very well built guard who can finish around the rim, who is not incredibly explosive athletically. Jerryd Bayless is an extremely fast guard who doesn’t have the size to consistently finish.

A high scoring player has a combination of speed and power. Derrick Rose and Russell Westbrook have perfect scores in this category for having this combination.

A perimeter player can gain points on the defensive end for their athletic tools and rebounding. Defense is as much covered in the feel for the game area as the physical tools one for guards, however. Small forwards carry a greater weight in physical tools defensively than guards, their size can help them impact the game more physically on that end.

Big men: Shotblocking and rebounding are strong sources of points for big men due to the importance of defensive physical talents. Offensively strength/power around the rim to finish well is key, as is the speed to get by defenders. Andrea Bargnani is an example of a very weakly scoring big man in physical tools, as he cannot block shots or rebound and provides no interior power and does not attack the rim much. Al Horford and Chris Bosh have medium scores in physical tools. Horford has solid strength around the rim and defensively but lacks truly overpowering tools, Bosh has an elite first step but loses a lot of points for lacking physical presence on the defensive end. Dwight Howard has a perfect score in physical impact for his combination of shotblocking, rebounding, speed crashing the rim and power/strength.

Skill talent

The word talent is ambiguous in this category because while the ability to learn some skills are innate, some players can make big leaps in areas if they learn correctly. I’m of the opinion that the ability for prospects to drastically change their skillset after getting drafted is slightly overrated and that many players are showing their future skill capacity in college, none the less the category is the easiest of the 3 for a player to drastically change in

Perimeter players: Whatever is β€œfinesse” scoring fits under skill categories. Shots off the dribble, spot up shooting, ballhandling, post play, passing skill all fit into this category. On that note, physical tools like may play a part in why these skill games are able to got off (for example, Kevin Durant’s height), but for the purposes of this project, it’s the ends that matters. A jumpshot goes into the skill points category, as does a slick post move.

Tony Allen is a player with a weak skill level for a perimeter player, as his shooting and ballhandling is poor. JJ Redick has a solid middling skill level with elite spot up shooting ability, but not great skill on the ball. Steve Nash has a perfect score in skill due to his combination of elite shooting, ballhandling and passing ability.

Big men: Once again, the ability to put the ball in the basket through means other than brute force, is key. Great hands and touch is extremely important, as is post moves, a jumpshot if the big has it and the ability to hit FTs, ballhandling. Kendrick Perkins has a very weak skill level score for a big. Dwight Howard has a middling skill level, he is proficient at putting the ball in close to the basket with hook shots and so forth, but lacks range or FTs and versatility offensively. Dirk Nowitzki has a perfect skill score for a big due to his all time great perimeter skills for a 7 footer.

Feel for the Game

This is the category with the least tangible things to point to, but the rule I usually look for in feel for the game is this: Are they making the game look easy? Is it coming naturally and unforced to them? Does the game look like it’s moving β€œslower” for them than everyone else? Another word to describe this phenomenon is β€œspatial awareness” and β€œcourt vision”. It is the ability to play with an awareness of where all the other players on the court are. Most basketball fans can understand what feel for the game is and know what it is when they see it.

Perimeter players: A player with great feel for the game can often be called someone who’s β€œcrafty” off the dribble. This usually means that they are in control and can make decisions on the fly while driving to the basket, thanks to their feel. Great on the ball creators usually have strong feel for the game. Court vision and playmaking vision also fit into the category. Defensive intelligence can also be attributed to feel for the game. Jerryd Bayless is a player with very poor feel for the game, as it always seems like he is playing too fast to make decisions accurately. Russell Westbrook has middling feel for the game, he does play at a very fast pace and can be out of control at times, but also sees the court well enough to create for teammates and produce well overall. Chris Paul has a perfect score in feel for the game as he has an unbelievable sense of timing and craftiness and where everyone is on the floor.

Big men: Defensive intelligence and awareness takes a greater weight for big men, as it is so key for a big man to accurately rotate on help defense, as he is the last line of defense and if he makes a mistake, there’s no-one to cover for him. Feel for the game offensively still exists however and once again, a player who looks natural scoring inside or outside tends to have this. There are examples of bigs who have elite feel for the game offensively but bad awareness defensively. For this reason, to score a big’s feel for the game, I give them a score in each category and then average them. For example, David Lee has a very good offensive feel, say an 8, and a very poor defensive feel, say a 2. His averaged score is thus 5. Anthony Randolph is a player who has very weak feel for the game and always seems in a rush on both ends. David Lee has middling feel for the game for the reasons I listed. Tim Duncan has a perfect score in feel for the game due to his extremely high IQ and decision making on both ends.

In my next post I will start by showing my scores for players with the last name A. I intend to go through the entire alphabet of relevant rotation players last season or otherwise recently, as well as my scores for relevant hall of fame players.

http://asubstituteforwar.com/2012/08/14 ... valuation/
Dr Positivity




RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 31,501
And1: 1,212
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
Top

Post#2 Re: My 33 pt method talent evaluation idea
Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:41 pm by Dr Positivity

Ranking the A's http://asubstituteforwar.com/2012/08/14 ... o-to-ayon/

Here are my β€œ33 point method” scores for players with the last name A ranking their physical talent, skill talent and feel for the game. My explanation for the method and guide to grades in each of the categories is contained here. (link) This is an evaluation of talent, not production, thus a player being before or after his prime at this moment is irrelevant to their scores.

The numbers are not meant to be exact or indisputable, many are β€œquick judgments” without an in depth look at the scores. This is merely to showcase the system over a wide array of players. (Note: I understand that people may be skeptical over the numbers and the fact that they may be arbitrary or too subjective and led by the results I wanted them to say. But read by grading system again and you will see the physical tools and skill level requirements are fairly straight forward. Feel for the game is something it is usually very easy to identify by eye)

Aaron Afflalo

Physical: 3 – Decent size but is mostly a jumpshooter offensively, does not have much ability to attack the basket or power there, therefore he gets a weak physical score

Skill: 7 – A strong combination of elite shooting and improved ballhandling. Is still not elite creating a high volume of shots.

Feel for the Game: 8 – Excellent basketball IQ and smoothness on both ends.

Total score: 18

Lamarcus Aldridge

Physical: 5 – Not much shotblocking presence or rebounding. Has improved his score from bad to middling in recent years with a commitment to get on the block.

Skill: 9 – Highly skilled for a big man, in the post and taking jumpshots outside

Feel for the Game: 8.5 (Off. – 10, Def. – 7) – Aldridge has a fairly tremendous feel and smoothness to his offensive game. He is a smart defender to make up for his lack of defensive presence physically.

Total score: 22.5

Cole Aldrich

Physical: 6 – Has decent strength and has rebounded/blocked shots well in limited minutes. Not great mobility

Skill: 2 – Can finish some shots inside, very little shot creation talent

Feel for the Game – 6 (Off. 4, Def. 8) – Showed strong understanding of defense while in college. Unspectacular offensive instincts.

Total: 14

Ray Allen

Physical: 6 – Allen had a solid ability to take it to the rack and finish for a 2 guard, though it wasn’t the hallmark of his game

Skill: 10 – The greatest shooter of all time in Milwaukee and Boston, who showed he could also play on the ball when the Seattle Supersonics asked him to.

Feel for the Game: 10 – Allen’s feel for the court helped him get so many open shots

Total score: 26

Tony Allen

Physical: 9 – Tony has one of the best defensive physical impacts in the game, while finding an offensive role due to his explosiveness cutting to the basket

Skill: 1 – Simply one of the least skilled guards in the league

Feel for the game: 8 – Allen has proven himself an extremely high IQ defender, who’s learned to use smarts off the ball offensively

Total score: 18

Lavoy Allen

Physical: 2 – Does not impose himself on the game much physically. An OK rebounder.

Skill: 6 – Decent shooting range and passing ability

Feel for the Game: 7 (Off. 6, Def. 8) – Lavoy shows an excellent understanding of the game and is always in control

Total score: 15

Al-Farouq Aminu

Physical: 3 – Aminu has solid size but doesn’t have the speed to attack the basket or finish well with it, partly due to his motor

Skill: 3 – Aminu has a developing outside jumpshot but overall cannot rely much on his skill so far

Feel for the Game: 2 – Al-Farouq doesn’t seem like a particularly natural or high IQ player

Total score: 8

Louis Amundson

Physical: 5 – Amundson doesn’t have shotblocking or power to finish at the rim well, but does play with a solid amount of energy trying to put pressure on the defense

Skill: 1 – Amundson’s skill game has nothing going for it

Feel for the Game: 5 (Off. 5, Def. 5) – Seemingly average basketball IQ

Total score: 11

Chris Anderson

Physical: 8 – The Birdman brings a of energy as an athletic specimen and shotblocker

Skill: 2 – He is an unskilled big

Feel for the Game: 2.5 (Off. 2, Def. 3) – He doesn’t show strong positional smarts when defending, just energy

Total score: 12.5

Ryan Anderson

Physical: 2 – He is a solid rebounder, but provides no interior defensive presence and stays almost exclusively on the perimeter offensively.

Skill: 9 – His guard-esque skill level as an outside bomber is tremendous for a big.

Feel for the Game: 7.5 (Off. 10, Def. 5) – He has an outstanding off ball IQ offensively, while seemingly average defensive instincts

Total score: 18.5

Carmelo Anthony

Physical: 9 – Anthony has an extremely impressive first step and strength level to finish.

Skill: 10 – Melo has great shooting ability from all over the court and post moves

Feel for the Game: 9 – Melo’s terrifically smooth on the offensive end. Defensively he is slightly lacking in this area.

Total score: 28

Joel Anthony

Physical: 5 – Anthony is a solid shotblocker, but doesn’t make much of an impact physically in any other aspect.

Skill: 1 – Has nothing going for him in skill level, can hardly be passed to

Feel for the Game: 6 (Off. 3, Def. 9) – An extremely smart defender who’s lacking great instincts on the offensive end.

Total score: 12

Gilbert Arenas

Physical: 8 – Had a supreme speed level for a guard in his prime, with solid size

Skill: 8 – A sometimes streaky shooter, but skilled enough to consistently put it in the basket anyways

Feel for the Game: 8 – Loses a few points for defense, but a crafty player offensively

Total score: 24

Trevor Ariza

Physical: 2 – Has length, but tends to stay on the outside offensively exclusively

Skill: 4 – An inconsistent shooter

Feel for the Game: 5 – Has an average sense of the court

Total score: 11

Omer Asik

Physical: 7 – Rebounds and blocks shots quite well, has solid size and athleticism for a big

Skill: 1 – Extremely lacking in all areas of skill

Feel for the Game: 7 (Def. 10, Off. 4) – Defensive smarts is his calling card. Offensively he is middling.

Total score: 15

DJ Augustin

Physical: 1 – Stays on the perimeter almost all of the time

Skill: 7 – A good outside shooting and ballhandling game

Feel for the Game: 7 – A fairly smooth player

Total score: 15

Gustavo Ayon

Physical: 6 – Provides very good size and energy

Skill: 2 – Needs to improve his polish

Feel for the Game: 6 – Appears to have a solid feel

Total score: 14

Retired Hall of Fame player(s):

Kareem Adbul-Jabbar –

Physical: 9: Had strong shotblocking ability and rebounding and his height/athleticism was difficult to deal with

Skill: 11 – Thanks to the skyhook, had the most devastating β€œskill move” a big man has had. A strong passer as well.

Feel for the Game: 10 (Off. 11, Def. 9) – A terrific feel for playing offense, with very good defensive understanding.

Total: 30
Dr Positivity




RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 31,501
And1: 1,212
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
Top

Post#3 Re: My 33 pt method talent evaluation idea
Wed Aug 15, 2012 10:49 pm by -Kees-

It certainly makes sense, dividing the three areas up equally. A few concerns...even though I'm sure you won't come into each evaluation with this in mind, its hard not to have favorite players that you may overrate, or guys you don't like that become underrated. Basically, the relativity of one person's opinion not backed by stats can lead to some false ratings in the end. Like above, Ariza at 11, but Ayon at 14? Like maybe Ariza doesn't do well in the categories you provided, but Id have a hard time putting Ayon even at his level, let alone above him.
-Kees-


Lead Assistant
User avatar
Posts: 5,158
And1: 46
Joined: Jan 16, 2011
Top

Post#4 Re: My 33 pt method talent evaluation idea
Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:02 pm by Dr Positivity

Well on that note, I should point out the rankings I felt least confident in were types like Aldrich and Ayon and Lavoy Allen because I haven't seen them play many NBA minutes. Ayon in particular I probably shouldn't have even ranked with how little exposure I've had to him

In regards to Ariza. He's an interesting case because an Ariza who hits open 3s is so much more valuable than the guy who's been since LA, and that I'm half convinced that playoff run was just a flat out outlier for him shooting wise. He has a career 3P% of 31.7% and a career FT% of 67.4%. He wasn't a 3pt shooter in college. He basically spent his first handful of years being "long athlete... end of description" scrub off the bench, went nuts in that playoff run, and then basically has been the same guy he was to start his career since, except with a huge contract. It would make sense to me if Ariza really did have 9th/10th man talent level and just cashed in huge financially and in name power off that one hot shooting streak. Another thing is that I gave Ariza a very low score physically even though he is a great athlete... because offensively he doesn't meet my grading requirements for a high physical score (ie he is a jumpshooter). So this could tie into Ariza hypothetically, not being as talented as it seems he is, due to his physical tools not doing a lot for him

I definitely agree that the individual scores I posted here are open to subjectivity and someone ranking players differently, of course, though I'd hope that the conclusion of something like "Ayon's feel for the game is too high" is simply "Ayon is less talented than you're saying"
Dr Positivity




RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 31,501
And1: 1,212
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
Top

Post#5 Re: My 33 pt method talent evaluation idea
Mon Aug 20, 2012 11:10 am by C-izMe

This is a great idea Mu...Positivity but the even split might be a slight issue. Also the way you rate physical tools is odd. LaMarcus (for example) is 6-10 barefoot with a 7"5" wingspan and 9"2" standing reach. He also has a 34 inch vertical and incredible speed/quickness. It doesn't show up much on the stat sheet (average rebounder and below average shot blocker) but he is a KG lite on defense. He routinely switches on SFs and holds his own (using his quickness), guards centers in the post well (using his length), and when needed can be a good rebounder and shot blocker (has averaged 9-10 in months before on the slow Blazers and has a 4+ blk% season).
It also seems you don't focus on how his athleticism helps him offensively (he is a top 10 finisher in the league right now).


Another issue I have (shows up well with Melo) is the Feel For The Game. A 4 would be good for that because even when he tries defensively (like when Woody took over) he still has no feel for defense. Hes constantly at the wrong place when playing off ball and when he isn't guarding a on ball player he's a negative. Defense is half the ball so a 4 offensively (he's not perfect) and 0 defensively seems about right.
C-izMe
Head Coach
Posts: 6,690
And1: 15
Joined: Dec 10, 2011
Location: Rodman's Rainbow Obamaburger
Top

Post#6 Re: My 33 pt method talent evaluation idea
Tue Aug 21, 2012 1:50 pm by An Unbiased Fan

Isn't this kind of what sports games do when rating players? Football Manager, NBA2k, Madden, they all do the same thing in reality.

I think the main problem of course, is that the ratings are more based on opinion, than fact. And you would need 50-100 differing criteria to really discern real differences.
"I don't think I would lose," Jordan said in the video, before smiling and adding, "Other than to Kobe Bryant.."
An Unbiased Fan




Head Coach
User avatar
Posts: 7,211
And1: 441
Joined: Jan 16, 2009
Top

Post#7 Re: My 33 pt method talent evaluation idea
Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:04 pm by Americafkya

I really feel like you would need more points to get an accurate rating for a player. For example: compare a player like Nate Robinson and a player like Dwight Howard when it comes to athletic ability. Out of a total score of 11 you would have to give both players an 11. Dwight is a freak, and for 5'9 Nate is also a freak of nature. However, in terms of basketball, Dwight's athleticism is much more valuable in blocking shots, defending the post, rebounding, altering shots and more valuable on offense for obvious reasons ,too. But it would not be fair to give Nate Robinson a score of 5 or 6 in terms of physicality because the guy is in better shape than 99.99% of people in sports. It really does not seem right to me to give them the same score in physicality though.

To keep using the Dwight Howard example...what about a player who is more reliant on one area, and uses that for every facet of his game. So Dwight is a monster inside and uses his physical advantage to overpower opponents...other than that though he does not really have " skill" or " IQ". Sure Dwight has some skills , but too many. He would get an 11 for physical maybe a 5 for skill and 5 for IQ so giving him a 21/33 when many would argue that he is the 2nd best player in the league......

How about a Steve Nash type that gets a 3 for physical but an 11 or skill and IQ.. he ends up with a 25/33 which would be lower than many other players that he is probably more valuable than.

All in all I just don't think the 33 points is enough to get a realistic grasp on a player. I would say more like 33 points in each category for a total score of 99 would be more fair.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Asso ... 5194596478

my bball news agency's facebook page
Americafkya
Rookie
Posts: 1,087
And1: 217
Joined: Apr 1, 2012
Location: Prague, CZ
Top

Post#8 Re: My 33 pt method talent evaluation idea
Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:24 pm by EvanZ

I've had an idea like this, but what I think would take it to the next level is to do a regression of your ratings against RAPM, perhaps, with interaction terms. Then you could tell us the relative importance of skills/intangibles.
Harrison Barnes is garbage.

NBAWOWY.com
Find statistics of your favorite team with any arbitrary combination of players on or off the court.
EvanZ
Lead Assistant
User avatar
Posts: 5,797
And1: 306
Joined: Apr 5, 2011
Top

Post#9 Re: My 33 pt method talent evaluation idea
Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:00 pm by Dr Positivity

America - I don't have a problem at all giving Nate Robinson a 5 or 6 physically actually. His size IS a major issue in his career. It prevents him from having power in the paint. Nate in a 6'3 body would be like Rose/Westbrook/Wall physically, as it stands his speed has some value but not like Westbrook's combination of physical tools. 5 or 6 sounds perfect for Nate to me

I definitely intend to reflect how a player uses his tools rather than just what he has. For example my system shows one of the reasons Wes Johnson may have been such a bust. Because I rank him a 1 or 2 in physical tools, due to how totally jumpshot orientated he is. Johnson has elite athleticism and length and this was the main reason teams liked him as a prospect - But his "physical impact" is non-existent according to my metric, because he's as jumpshot orientated as Jason Kapono. Ballhandling admittedly probably fits more into the physical score than skill level in this project. The biggest thing ballhandling does is helps players drive into the paint, at the end of the day everything tied to driving to the rim tends to be scored more as a physical impression on the game to me, while skill is about putting up shots and attempted scoring plays. Wes Johnson if his physical impact on the game was fairly gauged (by my system) wouldn't have been a top 20 pick

Re: Dwight Howard - I also noticed his score came in a little low. I have him at 23 (Physical: 11, Skill: 5, Feel (Off. 5, Def. 9): 7, - The thing is though that Dwight IS an imperfect offensive talent. He had nice ppg/TS% stats in Orlando but he's got flaws as a scorer and passer. I'm of the opinion his imperfect offensive talent hurt him in the playoffs. 2011 ATL and 2010 BOS specifically gameplanned to guard him one on one, while shutting down the 3pt shooters. Or to put it another way, Shaq also has an 11 in physical, but unlike Howard his skill/feel is high enough to get into the high 20s and in that MVP zone. There definitely is a gap between Howard and Shaq in talent. Another thing to think about: It's always been accepted one of the reasons Howard is so valuable is how weak the center position is in terms of star talent. So maybe the proper way to evaluate it is to look at Howard's score vs other centers. That might make him look like a more dominant player for his position.

Also on that note. I intended this system to evaluate TALENT, not production. Talent and production doesn't always line up. So it's possible that a player with a score of 28 could have less impact than one with 23, it just depends on the team really. I don't think it can precisely be counted on for who's the best player, because it's not even meant to evaluate production. I have Paul Pierce's number at like 28 and he never had the impact Dwight did in Orlando. Frankly even some legends like Bill Russell and Magic don't get higher than maybe 26. The question to me in regards to seeing his lower score here, is could we see a situation where "Howard was much more valuable to the Magic than Bynum to the Lakers, but Howard on the Lakers will have a Bynum level impact", assuming Bynum is a player normally associated with a score like 22-23. Could the Lakers situation with tons of high usage players, another rebounder instead of having them all to himself, way less NCAA style 3pt spacing, lead to a Howard putting up 18 pts, 11 rebounds, with 2.5 blks/DPOY caliber play? This would still be excellent but if he had done from the start of his career he likely isn't getting called the 2nd best guy in the league. I'll admit that knowing my system had Howard has a 22 or 23 instead of a superduperstar actually dampened how I felt about the trade for the Lakers.

C-izMe wrote:This is a great idea Mu...Positivity but the even split might be a slight issue. Also the way you rate physical tools is odd. LaMarcus (for example) is 6-10 barefoot with a 7"5" wingspan and 9"2" standing reach. He also has a 34 inch vertical and incredible speed/quickness. It doesn't show up much on the stat sheet (average rebounder and below average shot blocker) but he is a KG lite on defense. He routinely switches on SFs and holds his own (using his quickness), guards centers in the post well (using his length), and when needed can be a good rebounder and shot blocker (has averaged 9-10 in months before on the slow Blazers and has a 4+ blk% season).
It also seems you don't focus on how his athleticism helps him offensively (he is a top 10 finisher in the league right now).

Another issue I have (shows up well with Melo) is the Feel For The Game. A 4 would be good for that because even when he tries defensively (like when Woody took over) he still has no feel for defense. Hes constantly at the wrong place when playing off ball and when he isn't guarding a on ball player he's a negative. Defense is half the ball so a 4 offensively (he's not perfect) and 0 defensively seems about right.


I can see the argument for LMA having more impact physically if he really is impressing defensively lately and getting off inside. My impression of him is that he relies on skill and finesse a lot, but that could be a carry-over from his BRoy era days. Lack of shotblocking and rebounding was the biggest reason I didn't give him a big score but 6 or 7 might be more accurate

0 seems a bit strong for Melo. (my lowest score is 1 btw). I can see a 4 out of 10 for him on the defensive end in feel. Melo is somewhat unique for perimeter players in terms of their feel not being the same offensively and defensively, the reason I didn't formally split it up is for that reason, most players have them line up pretty decently. But maybe something like 7 in feel could be a correction (10 offensive, 4 defense?) Melo's score already seemed high for his standards so that might be accurate
Dr Positivity




RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 31,501
And1: 1,212
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
Top

Post#10 Re: My 33 pt method talent evaluation idea
Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:59 pm by Dr Positivity

I did Bs

Bs

Renaldo Balkman

Physical: 5 – Brought some energy for a wing, but not that athletically imposing

Skill: 1 – Extremely lacking in skills for a wing player

Feel for the Game: 6 – A decent understanding of the game and the court

Total score: 12

Marcus Banks

Physical: 8 – A very impressive mix of speed and size for a point

Skill: 1 – Very lacking in shooting or passing skills

Feel for the Game: 3 – Unspectacular vision or decision making

Total score: 12

Leandro Barbosa

Physical: 4 – Very decent speed for a SG, but undersized and overall a perimeter orientated/jumpshot orientated guard

Skill: 7 – A good shooter and ballhandler

Feel for the Game: 4 – Always played as if in a rush, a sign of weak feel

Total score: 15

J.J. Barea

Physical: 3 – Fast and strong at getting into the paint, but extremely undersized

Skill: 5 – A reasonable but not great shooter, not a true PG

Feel for the Game: 8 – An excellent pound for pound feel for the court

Total score: 16

Andrea Bargnani

Physical: 1 – One of the worst physical scoring bigs, with no rebounding or shotblocking presence and a perimeter only game

Skill: 10 – An extremely skilled PF, with essentially a SG’s shooting/scoring game

Feel for the Game (Off. 9, Def. 1): 5 – A strong understanding of the court offensively, with no defensive instincts.

Total score: 16

Matt Barnes

Physical: 2 – A very perimeter/jumpshooting orientated SF

Skill: 5 – Hits open shots, but lacks on ball ability

Feel for the Game: 6 – A reasonable feel for the game and a high IQ defender

Total score: 13

Brandon Bass

Physical: 6 – Undersized, but athletic enough to attack the rim

Skill: 6 – Has developed a knockdown midrange shooting game

Feel for the Game: 4 – Has never had a spectacular feel

Total score: 16

Shane Battier

Physical: 2 – An extremely jumpshooting orientated wing, though uses his body well defensively and has some size

Skill: 5 – Very good at hitting open shots

Feel for the Game: 11 – One of the most intelligent players in the league

Total score: 18

Nicolas Batum

Physical: 2 – Extremely jumpshooting orientated for a SF

Skill: 7 – One of the better shooting 3s in the league, decent ballhandler

Feel for the Game: 8 – A very strong basketball IQ and smoothness level

Total score: 17

Jerryd Bayless

Physical: 6 – Fast, but lacks power finishing at the rim

Skill: 6 – Has improved his outside shot, but not a consistent scorer

Feel for the Game: 1 – Plays very out of control. One of the better examples of a guard with a very poor feel for the game.

Total score: 13

Michael Beasley

Physical: 3 – A jumpshot orientated SF/PF who lacks defensive/rebounding presence

Skill: 8 – A very skilled player for his size

Feel for the Game: 3 – Never had it instincts or feel wise.

Total score: 14

Rodrigue Beaubois

Physical: 7 – A great mix of speed and strength

Skill: 2 – Very unpolished

Feel for the Game: 2 – A raw player mentally, plays the game at a very fast, out of control level

Total score: 11

Marco Bellinelli

Physical: 2 – An almost strictly jumpshot orientated SG

Skill: 6 – A reasonable shooter

Feel for the Game: 5 – An average basketball IQ

Total score: 13

Raja Bell

Physical: 2 – Limited to jumpshots in his prime

Skill: 5 – Hit open shots, but lacked on ball ability

Feel for the Game: 8 – A high IQ player and defender

Total score: 15

Mike Bibby

Physical: 2 – Primarily a jumpshooter in his time

Skill: 8 – A very strong shooter in his time. Not the most natural passer.

Feel for the Game: 7 – Had a pretty good understanding for the game

Total score: 17

Andris Biedrins – Physical: 6 – Had strong athleticism to roll to the rim but a skinny frame. Not a noted shotblocker

Skill: 2 – Could finish shots around the rim, but overall lacked any range, ability to hit FTs, or skill in general

Feel for the Game (Off. 5, Def. 3): 4 – Showed a flawed understanding of the court and game on both ends

Total score: 12

Chauncey Billups

Physical – 6 – Billups showed solid size for a guard, but lacked elite explosiveness

Skill: 7 – Billups had a strong outside shooting, post and ballhandling game

Feel for the Game: 10 – Billups always had a supreme sense of timing and craftiness to his game

Total score: 23

Bismack Biyombo

Physical: 9 – Extremely impressive physical specimen, blocks shots, can rebound, roll to the basket. Can get stronger.

Skill: 2 – Showing very little in the way of polished skills or touch

Feel for the Game (Off. 2, Def. 8): 5 – Biyombo seems to be a natural on the defensive end but shows little in the way of offensive instincts\

Total score: 16

Dejaun Blair

Physical: 3 – Blair is undersized and not a freakish specimen defensively, but is strong.

Skill: 5 – Blair can finish shots around the rim, but doesn’t have elite range

Feel for the Game (Off. 10, Def. 7): 8.5 – Blair’s strength, he has always had a tremendous IQ and sense of angles around the rim on the offensive end, and shows decent defensive smarts

Total score: 16.5

Steve Blake

Physical: 1 – The definition of a perimeter player who’s physical tools do nothing for him, either driving to the rim or defensively

Skill: 6 – Has very good spot up 3pt shooting ability

Feel for the Game: 6 – A decent feel for scoring and passing, but nothing exceptional

Total score: 13

Andray Blatche

Physical: 3 – Blatche has some athleticism, but is as a whole a perimeter orientated big man

Skill: 8 – An extremely skilled inside and outside threat

Feel for the Game (Off. 6, Def. 2): 4 – Blatche shows very solid offensive instincts, but lacks defensive IQ and misses rotations.

Total score: 15

Eric Bledsoe

Physical: 9 – A supreme mix of explosiveness and size for a PG

Skill: 2 – Bledsoe’s shooting game is quite raw

Feel for the Game: 2 – Bledsoe always plays like the game moves too fast for him, rather than in control or being crafty

Total score: 13

Andrew Bogut

Physical: 8 – Has a great mix of size and shotblocking

Skill: 5 – Has good hands and a developing jumpshot but lacks great post moves.

Feel for the Game: 9 – Bogut has a great basketball IQ and is a very smooth player on both ends

Total score: 22

Matt Bonner

Physical: 1 – One of the most perimeter orientated big men in the league

Skill: 8 – Has a very good skill level for a big man, due to his outside shooting ability

Feel for the Game (Off. 8, Def. 6) – 7: Bonner has a very good off the ball IQ offensively, while has decent smarts defensively

Total score: 16

Trevor Booker

Physical: 6 – Undersized, but athletic enough to attack the rim well

Skill: 4 – Has a developing outside jumpshot but does not have noted offensive polish

Feel for the Game (Off. 5, Def. 5): 5 – Has an average instincts level on both ends

Total: 15

Carlos Boozer

Physical: 4 – Has strength and toughness, but lacks great size or power around the rim and tends to be a perimeter shooting big

Skill: 7 – Boozer has a very solid outside shooting game and touch around the rim

Feel for the Game (Off. 9, Def. 2): 5.5 – Boozer has terrific sense of angles and craftiness offensively, however his defensive recognition on help defense has always been very poor.

Total: 16.5

Chris Bosh

Physical: 6 – Has an elite first step which allows him to attack the basket, but does not have a ton of power physically in general, and not a shotblocking presence

Skill level: 9 – One of the best midrange shooting big men in the league and a terrific ballhandler for a big

Feel for the Game (Off. 10, Def. 7): 8.5 – Bosh’s offensive feel for the game is one of the best in the game as he simply has a tremendous ease and smoothness to his scoring. Defensively he is a stable, smart defender, though not spectacular.

Total score: 23.5

Bruce Bowen

Physical: 2 – A jumpshooter only offensively and not a terrific athlete defensively, but long

Skill level: 4 – Had the ability to hit open shots but lacked any on ball ability

Feel for the Game: 9 – A very smart player, elite awareness on the defensive end and could play off the ball offensively well

Total score: 15

Earl Boykins

Physical: 3 – Fast, but lacking any size or power

Skill level: 5 – Could handle but not a noted outside shooter or passer

Feel for the Game: 6 – Seemed like he was playing fast most of the time, but overall a decently crafty player

Total score: 14

Avery Bradley

Physical: 6 – Mostly a jumpshooter offensively rather than an on ball driver, good physical impact defensively

Skill: 5 – Shoots the ball, not an on ball threat for a guard or noted passer

Feel for the Game: 8 – An extremely high defensive IQ, still learning the offensive game but strong at finding himself open for cuts, etc.

Total score: 19

Elton Brand

Physical: 6 – Relied a lot on his perimeter game, but strong and blocked shots

Skill: 7 – A strong shooter for a big man

Feel for the Game (Off. 9, Def. 8): 8.5 – A very high IQ player on both ends

Total score: 21.5

Corey Brewer

Physical: 3 – Very good length defensively, but a perimeter player offensively and skinny for a wing

Skill: 2 – An inconsistent shooter and an unpolished game overall

Feel for the Game: 6 – A decent IQ player, especially on the defensive end

Total score: 11

Ronnie Brewer

Physical: 6 – Solid size for a guard, offensive game relies on attacking the basket, strong defensive strength

Skill: 1 – A very poor jumpshot form

Feel for the Game: 8 – Always been a high IQ player on both ends

Total score: 15

Aaron Brooks

Physical: 5 – Extremely fast, but undersized

Skill: 6 – Had an elite shooting season once, but inconsistent

Feel for the Game: 6 – A decent IQ offensively

Total score: 17

Marshon Brooks

Physical: 2 – A very perimeter orientated wing

Skill: 8 – A strong skill level shooting and on the ball

Feel for the Game: 7 – A smooth player

Total score: 17

Kwame Brown

Physical: 7 – Very decent strength, solid rebounding and post defense

Skill: 1 – Notoriously poor hands and polish

Feel for the Game (Off. 2, Def. 6): 4 – A decent understanding of defense, but lacking on the offensive end in feel

Total score: 12

Shannon Brown

Physical: 7 – A very solid mix of speed and strength

Skill: 3 – An inconsistent shooting game

Feel for the Game: 2 – Plays the game at a fast, out of control level

Total score: 12

Kobe Bryant

Physical: 9 – An elite athlete, a bit more perimeter orientated than some superstar wings

Skill: 11 – Arguably the most skilled SG of all time

Feel for the Game: 10 – A tremendous smoothness and feel to offense that he was showing even back in high school

Total score: 30

Chase Budinger

Physical: 1 – An extremely perimeter orientated SF

Skill: 6 – A decent outside shooter for a wing

Feel for the Game: 8 – His strength, Budinger has always had an advanced basketball IQ and feel or the court

Total score: 15

Alec Burks

Physical: 9 – An extremely impressive mix of explosiveness attacking the rim and size for a SG

Skill: 3 – Very much needs to improve his shooting game

Feel for the Game: 7 – A smooth and crafty player

Total score: 19

Caron Butler

Physical: 3 – In his prime, still an jumpshooting orientated scorer

Skill: 7 – A very decent shooter and passer for a wing

Feel for the Game: 7 – A relatively smooth player, seeing the floor well enough to playmake

Total score: 17

Andrew Bynum

Physical: 10 – Extremely impressive size and rebounding/shotblocking. Could exert himself more.

Skill: 7 – A skilled post player

Feel for the Game (Off. 6, Def. 5) 5.5 – Somewhat robotic on both ends, but nothing terrible

Total score: 22.5

Relevant retired players:

Larry Bird

Physical: 5 – Not a dominating force physically and relied on his jumper, but managed to impose his size solidly for a SF in the post and on the boards

Skill: 11 – Arguably the most skilled basketball player of all time

Feel for the Game: 11 – A true perfect feel for the game and instinctual base

Total score: 27

Charles Barkley

Physical: 9 – An extremely imposing mix of strength and power on the offensive end, albeit undersized defensively for a PF

Skill: 9 – A strong mix of shooting, passing, post skill for a PF

Feel for the Game (Off. 10, Def. 7): 8.5 – An superb offensive feel for the court and a smart defender, his issues on that end were related to his height and effort moreso than intelligence

Total score: 26.5
Dr Positivity




RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 31,501
And1: 1,212
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
Top

Post#11 Re: My 33 pt method talent evaluation idea
Wed Aug 29, 2012 1:09 am by EvanZ

A while back I came up with an idea of defining "principal components" of talent. It looked like this:

Image

This will give you some ideas for a "333" pt system. :lol:
Harrison Barnes is garbage.

NBAWOWY.com
Find statistics of your favorite team with any arbitrary combination of players on or off the court.
EvanZ
Lead Assistant
User avatar
Posts: 5,797
And1: 306
Joined: Apr 5, 2011
Top

Post#12 Re: My 33 pt method talent evaluation idea
Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:41 am by batmana

I find your idea interesting and laud you for putting all the effort in this. However, I'd like to point some things out (pretty consistent with what other posters have mentioned).

1st of all, I realize that you wanted to keep it a simple stat instead of a highly-detailed evaluation of multiple aspects of the game so obviously basing those assessments on more aspects would probably yield more accurate results. I like it simple, too but it makes it harder to evaluate.

By the way, I am not a Dwight Howard fan but he might be the perfect example for this - you said you evaluated him around 23 (if I remember correctly). Even though I don't rate Howard on the same level as the 90s famed centers (Shaq, Dream, Admiral, Ewing), I feel he should be more than a 23. And mind it, it's not from poor assessment. It's rather because his physical tools make up for other areas. So, to put it simply, you might have to give him a 12 or 13 in physical tools just to make up for it.

I'm more with you on Nate Robinson - while as a physical specimen in a vacuum he'd certainly be 11/11, in the NBA this is no good for anything more than a 7 or 8. Similarly, if a physical freak like Dwight Howard (11/11) was playing soccer, he'd all of a sudden stop being 11 because different attributes would be more important there and he'd simply be worse at them (like sprinting for instance).

Keep up the posts, I'd be interested to see more of your scores on the all-time greats.
All-Time Fantasy Team:
C Shaquille O'Neal (00-02)/Gheorghe Muresan (95-97)
PF Charles Oakley (92-94)/Anthony Mason (96-98)
SF Grant Hill (96-98)/Toni Kukoc (94-96)
SG Brandon Roy (08-10)/Paul George (12-14)
PG Russell Westbrook (11-13)/Mike Conley (12-14)
batmana

Senior
Posts: 633
And1: 68
Joined: Feb 18, 2009
Top

Post#13 Re: My 33 pt method talent evaluation idea
Wed Sep 5, 2012 2:05 pm by Dr Positivity

Note: I'm slightly adjusting my score for PFs. I realized how little of them actually block shots, so I'm treating it as more of an offensively reliant score. One reason for this as well is that Karl Malone clearly THE 11 physically for a PF and doesn't block a lot of shots. Aldridge, Bosh and Barkley would likely have higher scores in retrospect. Only one PF (Earl Clark) is in the next group though

Cs

Jose Calderon

Physical – 3: Can occasionally drive into the paint, but mostly a perimeter orientated PG

Skill – 8 – A strong outside shooter and passer

Feel for the Game – 9 – A very in control and aware point

Total score: 20

Marcus Camby

Physical – 9: While a bit skinny, had great length and athleticism around the rim and shotblocking

Skill – 3 – Had some range and touch, but lacking in polish and touch

Feel for the Game (Off. 3, Def. 5) – 4: Never a particularly high IQ defender/rotator, or offensive player

Total score: 16

Matt Carroll

Physical: 1 – Strictly a spot up shooter

Skill: 6 – Could hit open shots well at one point, though weak versatility creating shots

Feel for the Game: 5 – Appears to have an average basketball intelligence

Total score: 12

Anthony Carter

Physical: 3 – Not a great athlete, but had some strength

Skill: 2 – Very lacking in consistent polish and shooting

Feel for the Game: 5 – A reasonable basketball IQ

Total score: 10

Vince Carter

Physical – 10: A freakish combination of size and explosiveness

Skill: 10 – Eventually turned into one of the best shooters and passers at the SG position in the league

Feel for the Game: 11 – Vince’s elite feel for the court always made it seem the game was too easy for him

Total score: 31

Omri Casspi

Physical: 2 – Decent size, but primarily a jumpshooter

Skill: 4 – An inconsistent shooter or skill player in any area

Feel for the Game: 5 – Average basketball IQ

Total score: 11

Mario Chalmers

Physical: 2 – Decent strength, but almost totally a jumpshooter

Skill: 5 – Hits open shots and improved ballhandling, but not a shot creator

Feel for the Game: 7 – Has always had a high IQ and sense of the court, allowing to stand out defensively even as a rookie

Total score: 14

Tyson Chandler

Physical: 9 – Very strong explosiveness and length for a C

Skill: 4 – Has improved his touch and range, but not known for his skill

Feel for the Game (Off. 4, Def. 10): 7 – An excellent feel for rotational defense, though has nothing special feel wise on offense

Tota score: 20

Josh Childress

Physical: 7 – Very strong size and athleticism for a SF

Skill: 2 – Never a noted player for his skill or polish

Feel for the Game: 6 – Had a decent feel for rebounding and playing off the ball

Total score: 15

Earl Clark

Physical: 6 – Very good explosiveness an strength for a PF. Questionable motor hurts his physical impact.

Skill: 1 – Almost nothing in the way of polished skill

Feel for the Game: 1 – Doesn’t appear to be a basketball player instinctually

Total score: 8

Norris Cole

Physical: 5 – Has the speed to get in the paint consistently, but lacking in size

Skill: 3 – Didn’t shoot the ball well his first year

Feel for the Game: 5 – Seemingly around average in feel for the court

Total score: 13

Darren Collision

Physical: 4 – Around average speed and size

Skill: 4 – Ok shooter, but nothing spectacular, not a noted passer

Feel for the Game: 7 – A smart and heady PG

Total score: 15

Nick Collision

Physical: 3 – Decent strength and tenacity, but lacking athleticism

Skill: 3 – Can hit the outside shot a bit, but nothing special in polish

Feel for the Game (Off. 7, Def. 10) Total: 8.5 – Excellent defensive intelligence and good understanding of playing in a smaller role offensively

Total score: 14.5

Mike Conley, Jr.

Physical: 6 – Very good speed, but not great size

Skill: 5 – Decent but not great outside shooter and passer

Feel for the Game: 6 – Shows solid scoring smarts and fluidity

Total score: 17

Daequon Cook

Physical: 1 – Strictly a jumpshooter

Skill: 4 – Has been on and off as a shooter, despite winning the 3pt contest once.

Feel for the Game: 5 – A reasonable basketball IQ

Total score: 10

Demarcus Cousins

Physical: 10 – Physically overpowers opponent in the post and a dominant rebounder

Skill: 7 – Good outside shot, touch and passing ability talents for a C

Feel for the Game (Off. 7, Def. 3): 5 – Very strong offensive fluidity for a big. Lacking defensively

Total score: 22

Jamal Crawford

Physical: 2 – Did most of his work creating jumpshots, not driving into the paint

Skill: 11 – One of the most skilled players in the league due to his shooting and ballhandling

Feel for the Game: 5 – Had questionable shot selection, but respectable fluidity

Total score: 18

Jordan Crawford

Physical: 2 – Very reminiscent of the other Crawford physically, does most of his work shooting shots out of the paint

Skill: 5 – An inconsistent shooter, good ballhandler

Feel for the Game: 3 – Very questionable shot selection and IQ

Total score: 10

Eddy Curry

Physical: 5 – Very poor rebounding and defensive presence and questionable motor, but had solid strength

Skill: 7 – A very skilled post player once upon a time

Feel for the Game (Off. 7, Def. 1): 4 – A smooth offensive player, lacking any instincts defensively

Total score: 16

Stephen Curry

Physical: 4 – Decent speed and ability to get into the paint

Skill: 9 – One of the best shooters in the game. Decent passer

Feel for the Game: 9 – Always a very natural player

Total score: 22

Relevant retired Hall of Fame Players

Wilt Chamberlain

Physical – 11: Arguably the most physically gifted NBA player in history

Skill – 10: Developing strong touch, range, fadeaway ability and an elite passer for C

Feel for the Game (Off. 11, Def. 9) – 10: An incredible feel for the offensive end. Eventually showed strong defensive instincts.

Total score: 31

Bob Cousy

Physical – 6: Very fast/explosive even by modern day standards, though lacks power.

Skill – 3: A weak shooter, but nifty passer

Feel for the Game – 10: Ahead of his time with his basketball IQ and vision of the court

Total: 19

Dave Cowens

Physical – 5: Lacked great size for a C, but played extremely hard

Skill – 7: Excellent range and passing for a big

Feel for the Game (Off. 10, Def. 10) – The strength of his game, extremely impressive instinctual player on both ends

Total score: 22
Dr Positivity




RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 31,501
And1: 1,212
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
Top

Post#14 Re: My 33 pt method talent evaluation idea
Mon Sep 17, 2012 7:51 am by penbeast0

Curious to see a score for Barkley who is a huge outlier player in a lot of ways. I think you overrate playing near the basket in terms of physicality particularly in wings, I'd be more impressed by quick footwork/length/strength as combinations in terms of both defensive potential and ability to get one's own shot -- whatever type of shot that specialty is.
[quote="Nivek"] This post could come only from a Wizards fan. It somehow combines delusional optimism with soul-crushing pessimism.
penbeast0
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
User avatar
Posts: 14,571
And1: 833
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: Hoping for a ride on the John Wall Bandwagon
Top

Post#15 Re: My 33 pt method talent evaluation idea
Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:35 pm by Dr Positivity

Did Barkley during the Bs

Charles Barkley

Physical: 9 – An extremely imposing mix of strength and power on the offensive end, albeit undersized defensively for a PF

Skill: 9 – A strong mix of shooting, passing, post skill for a PF

Feel for the Game (Off. 10, Def. 7): 8.5 – An superb offensive feel for the court and a smart defender, his issues on that end were related to his height and effort moreso than intelligence

Total score: 26.5


What my plan is after doing all the players is to put them all on a scale (1, 2, 3) next to each other and then see if I should adjust it. IE I have a hunch centers as a whole may be scoring low in the skill category, so when I finish I might end up moving everyone's score up for that position a notch or two (ie Dwight Howard would be a 5 in skill for me right now, but at the end when compared to all other Cs, he might start to look more like a 6)
Dr Positivity




RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 31,501
And1: 1,212
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
Top

Post#16 Re: My 33 pt method talent evaluation idea
Tue Sep 18, 2012 10:06 pm by Dr Positivity

Ds. Lots of mediocore players in this group, so that means, lots of dry explanation. Also a few enigmas/players who score higher than their real value to a team

Samuel Dalembert –

Physical: 10 – Elite mix of athleticism and length

Skill: 2 – Very little skill

Feel for the Game (Off. 2, Def. 5): 3.5 – A weak awareness level overall, slightly better on the defensive end though he still uses his athleticism and not positional IQ to play D

Total: 15.5

Erick Dampier -

Physical: 6 – Attacked the offensive glass well, but not a physically imposing player

Skill: 2 – Limited offensively

Feel for the Game (Off. 5, Def. 5): 5 – About average in the category

Total: 13

Antonio Daniels

Physical: 5 – Strong, but not explosive

Skill: 3 – A weak skill level

Feel for the Game: 6 – A decent understanding

Total: 14

Marquis Daniels

Physical: 5 – Decent explosiveness, but skinny

Skill: 2 – A weak skill level and shooting game

Feel for the Game: 5 – Appears an average IQ

Total: 12

Baron Davis

Physical: 10 – A nearly perfect combination of size and explosiveness

Skill: 9 – A very good shooting, handling and passing skill level

Feel for the Game: 6 – Sometimes lacked the pulse of his teammates, but a decent feel

Total: 25

Ed Davis

Physical: 7 – Good athlete for a power forward

Skill: 2 – Lacking in polished skill or go to moves

Feel for the Game (Off. 2, Def. 4): 3 – A very weak feel for offense, slightly better on defense

Total: 12

Glen Davis

Physical: 2 – A perimeter orientated PF

Skill: 7 – A skilled big man thanks to his jumper

Feel for the Game (Off. 7, Def. 5): 6 – A smooth offensive player and passable defender positionally

Total: 15

Austin Daye

Physical: 1 – Combination of frame and perimeter orientated game makes him low scoring SF

Skill: 4 – An inconsistent shooting game

Feel for the Game: 4 – An awkward player

Total: 9

Carlos Delfino

Physical: 2 – Primarily a jumpshooter. Decent size.

Skill: 6 – Can hit the outside shot, though inconsistently

Feel for the Game: 6 – Good defensive awareness, OK offense awareness

Total: 14

Luol Deng

Physical: 6 – Good size, can slash to the rim but prefers jumpshots. Uses size well defensively and on the glass.

Skill: 5 – Not known as a skill first player for a SF but can hit the midrange well.

Feel for the Game: 10 – A smooth and aware player. Possibly the best defensive feel for the game for a perimeter player in the league.

Total: 21

Demar Derozan

Physical: 6 – Decent strength and explosiveness

Skill: 2 – Below average ballhandling and shooting for a 2 guard

Feel for the Game: 7 – Generally strong offensive feel, slightly worse defensively.

Total score: 15

Boris Diaw

Physical: 2 – A very perimeter orientated PF

Skill: 9 – Strong shooting and passing game for a big

Feel for the Game (Off. 10, Def. 8): 9 – Terrific sense of the court

Total score: 20

Desagana Diop

Physical: 5 – Decent strength, though grounded

Skill: 1 – Lacking in any area of skill

Feel for the Game (Off. 1, Def. 5): 3 – Nothing going for him in skill, though decent defensive awareness

Total score: 9

Keyon Dooling

Physical: 2 – Perimeter orientated SG

Skill: 4 – Hits a jumpshot, little else

Feel for the Game: 7 – Strong basketball IQ

Total score: 13

Joey Dorsey

Physical: 6 – Good rebounder, but small

Skill: 1 – Little skill

Feel for the Game (Off. 5, Def. 5): 5 - Average awareness

Total score: 12

Toney Douglas

Physical: 3 – Good size, but perimeter orientated

Skill: 3 – Inconsistent shot, little PG skills

Feel for the Game: 3 – Lacks real feel

Total score: 9

Chris Douglas-Roberts

Physical: 4 – Perimeter orientated for a SF

Skill: 4 – Lacking consistent go to moves

Feel for the Game: 7 – A good smoothness to his game

Total score: 15

Goran Dragic

Physical: 7 – Good size and speed

Skill: 4 – Lacks a polished perimeter game for the high standards of the PG position

Feel for the Game: 6 - Decent feel for the court

Total score: 17

Jared Dudley

Physical: 3 – Good size, but perimeter orientated for a SF

Skill: 4 – Can hit jumpshots

Feel for the Game: 8 – A very nice basketball IQ and feel for the court

Total score: 15

Chris Duhon

Physical: 4 – Good size, weak explosiveness

Skill: 1 – Lacks just about any shooting game

Feel for the Game: 7 – A strong IQ on both ends

Total score: 12

Tim Duncan

Physical: 10 – Excellent mix of size, athleticism, shotblocking, rebounding and post presence

Skill: 9 – A great array of post moves and a killer bank shot

Feel for the Game: 11 (Off. 11, Def. 11) – One of the few players with a perfect 11 on both ends for feel for the game

Total score: 30

Mike Dunleavy

Physical: 2 – A jumpshooter

Skill: 6 – Good shooting

Feel for the Game: 8 – A high basketball IQ

Total score: 16

Kevin Durant

Physical: 8 – Elite speed going to the basket and strong length on both ends. Still perimeter orientated

Skill: 10 – Lacks the passing to get a perfect score, but a truly elite shooter and shot creator for a SF

Feel for the Game: 9 – An extremely strong awareness level and feel for the game

Total score: 27

HOF

Adrian Dantley

Physical: 8 – Did a great job imposing his size upon opponents

Skill: 8 – A very strong post player and great touch

Feel for the Game: 7 – A smooth post player, but lacked the pulse of his teammates

Total score: 23

Clyde Drexler

Physical: 9 – Great mix of size and explosiveness for a SG

Skill: 8 – Strong passer and decent shooting game

Feel for the Game: 10 – A great awareness of the court and his teammates, strong defensive IQ

Total score: 27
Dr Positivity




RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 31,501
And1: 1,212
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
Top

Post#17 Re: My 33 pt method talent evaluation idea
Tue Oct 2, 2012 1:01 pm by Rondo2Hondo

Interesting work, and a lot of time and effort has gone in, but what you are offering us is a basic rating system players. This is the kind of hearsay research that was used in years past. The NBA has become a statistics orientated world.

Of course, you cannot rely on stats alone, and you need first hand evidence of a player.... otherwise you have guys like Wes Johnson going 4th overall :lol:
Rondo2Hondo
Banned User
Posts: 2,094
And1: 40
Joined: Dec 1, 2010
Top

Post#18 Re: My 33 pt method talent evaluation idea
Fri Nov 2, 2012 12:41 am by Hendrix

I do not mean to be a dick. But, I am suprised that people are generally accepting this. All this is, is putting a number on your qualitiative opinon of a player. It's not a stat, it's just basically your opinon of each player out of some arbitrary #. If you took 3 guys, 1)an NBA scout, 2)Joe Blow, and 3)Dr Positivity, and they all did this, all you would get is each person's opinion of each player, and they would all result in different scores.

Dr Positivity wrote:IWhat really convinced me about this method is how well it tested for every player. Every score seemed to β€œfit”.

Of course everything seemed to fit. You basically rated each player numerically based on your opinion. Then you proceeded to compare that number with your opinon.

It's like rating an apple as a 7 out of 10 in terms of foods you like, and then being suprised that the 7 out of 10 score actually reflects how you feel about that food.
oak2455 wrote:Do understand English???
Hendrix
RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 14,339
And1: 1,002
Joined: May 30, 2007
Location: London, Ontario
Top

Post#19 Re: My 33 pt method talent evaluation idea
Fri Nov 2, 2012 1:57 am by Dr Positivity

It's not a stat. It's a grade and wouldn't be different if I assigned A-F letters to it instead of numbers

Think of it like figure skating or Olympic diving judging. They are assigning number grades to what they are seeing in the athlete. Sometimes it's split up into categories like technical, artistic, inclusion or something. Although that is their "opinion" if they follow it strictly most of the time it will be consistently scored and have merit. Is it not theoretically possible to develop a system for a sports player that does the same? Or another one would be the "5 tools" in baseball, while that ended up proving pretty weak due to how much more important batting is than fielding, it was still a respectable idea to say "Ok we should judge a player in X, Y and Z". Many baseball scouts probably used number grades

I believe most people would judge physical impact and feel for the game consistently. It is very easy to know which players are elite, plus, average or bad in those categories. The impact of their skill on the game is slightly more ambiguous but I don't think it'd be that off for many people.
Dr Positivity




RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 31,501
And1: 1,212
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
Top

Post#20 Re: My 33 pt method talent evaluation idea
Fri Nov 2, 2012 2:32 am by Hendrix

But at the end of the day all it is, is your opinion of a player. Or, the opinion of whomever is doing it. What is special about simply quantifying your opinion of a player on a grade basis? I don't know why anyone would care if Joe Blow 's opinion of Carlos Delfino is that he is a C- player. There's really nothing I can do with that information other than say to myself "hmm, some guy rated Delfino a C-, I think he's a C+. Cool."

I mean take Jonas V for example. You would probably rate him one way, and another person would probably rate him another way. Lets say you rated him as a 10, and someone else rated him as a 20. What does that tell me other then one of you thinks he's a good player, and the other doesn't?
oak2455 wrote:Do understand English???
Hendrix
RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 14,339
And1: 1,002
Joined: May 30, 2007
Location: London, Ontario
Top

Next

Return to Statistical Analysis


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users