Bradley Beal - Part II

[hands11]

Dude has been dreadful post break...no more excuses, he's had PLENTY of time to "kick off rust":

March Numbers (8 games): 14ppg, 4rpg, 4 apg, 42%FG, 31%3PFG, 65% FT

February Numbers (12 games): 13ppg, 6 rpg, 2apg, 34%FG, 25%3PF, 72% FT

And he's averaging 33 minutes a game this year. We've taken great care of his health and held his minutes down.

What are you talking about. Your numbers are wrong or at a min, very misleading.

He only played (4 games) in February and one he only play 11 minutes getting injured so its more like he played 3 games. 2 games plus 11 mins then missed 8 then played 1 game. So you can pretty much through Feb out the window.

He played well in DEC and JAN. Both he played every game.

March ? He pretty much has struggled from 3. But he has 6 more games in the mouth to raise those numbers. And a good chunk of those games so far has been him returning after missing most of Feb. The good news. He went 4-4 from 3 against POR. The bad news, he only shot 2 against Utah and missed both.

[payitforward]

Yep -- that was Cheaney's 2nd season (his best). Wasn't as good overall as Beal's (PPA: 88 vs. Beal's 96).

And now that I look back at what I did...it really is kinda surprising how closely their 2nd year production matches. Beal was less efficient (ortg: 102 vs. Cheaney's 104). He shot better from 3pt range (shocker, right?), but MUCH worse from 2pt range. And he attempted just 1.4 more 3pt shots per 40 minutes (pace adjusted) than Cheaney did. Cheaney actually had the better 2nd year FT%, although they were pretty close (.812 to .788).

Cheaney rebounded better, Beal assisted more. Blocks, steals and turnovers were about the same. Cheaney fouled more.

In my blog post using similarity scores, 11th on Beal's "most similar" list was Klay Thompson from last season. So...hope.

On the other hand, when I estimated Beal's likely peak PPA based on the players most similar, the number was 128. Which isn't bad, but isn't All-Star level either.

There's an overwhelming temptation to use statistics for things it can't be used for. E.g. from the fact that there were xx,000 deaths from traffic accidents in year 1, we can conclude w/ reasonable certainty that there'll be something around that same number in year 2.

Similarly, from what a set of players w/ certain numbers did over period of time, we can conclude w/ reasonable certainty what another (similar-sized) set of players w/ those numbers will do over the same period of time in the future. The larger both sample sets, the more reliable the conclusion

What we can't do is draw any conclusion whatever about an individual player. Sorry. Can't be done. Not how statistics works.

This might be easier to "grok": I've read the claim that over many NBA drafts the guy picked 3d in the draft has tended to work out better than the guy picked 2d in the draft. That's what is called a statistical fact.

Now, on that basis, if you've got the #2 pick in the draft, should you trade it straight up for the #3 pick?

I'm not offering the above as metaphysical certainty. I ALWAYS believe players can alter the trajectories of their career by working hard/smart...or not. Especially players as young as Beal.

That said...statistics are historical record. I don't know why we wouldn't compare players today to players that came before. In fact, we do it all the time. Why wouldn't we look at players who performed similarly in the past as possible guides to what a player today might do in the future? I mean, we could just figure a guy will get better because he's young. That worked well for the Wizards in the past.

And, I'm not sure who is the "we" drawing conclusions. I'm certainly not, even as the guy publishing the numbers. It's possible Beal will develop along the lines of players who performed similarly at similar age, and it's possible he could perform much better or much worse.

The "we" was all of us -- and in every field. It's a benign problem in this context. But it causes big problems in other (i.e. "serious") areas of study.

This: "I don't know why we wouldn't compare players today to players that came before.... Why wouldn't we look at players who performed similarly in the past as possible guides to what a player today might do in the future?" contains the problem I meant to point out.

The first sentence is exactly correct. We certainly would and should "compare players today to players that came before." The other sentence, however, forgets that "sample size" is important on both sides of the statistical thought. I.e., in that sentence your formula is

"players in the past" > "a player today"

It's when there's only one player on either side of the equation (or, more generally, when the sample size is way smaller on either side than on the other) that the usefulness of the statistical comparison goes down. It's easy to see this when the small sample size is on the left end of the formula, but the problem is exactly the same when it's on the right side. The likelihood of the particular statistical comparison being accurate goes down -- in a hurry.

[Dark Faze]

Dude has been dreadful post break...no more excuses, he's had PLENTY of time to "kick off rust":

March Numbers (8 games): 14ppg, 4rpg, 4 apg, 42%FG, 31%3PFG, 65% FT

February Numbers (12 games): 13ppg, 6 rpg, 2apg, 34%FG, 25%3PF, 72% FT

And he's averaging 33 minutes a game this year. We've taken great care of his health and held his minutes down.

What are you talking about. Your numbers are wrong or at a min, very misleading.

He only played (4 games) in February and one he only play 11 minutes getting injured so its more like he played 3 games. 2 games plus 11 mins then missed 8 then played 1 game. So you can pretty much through Feb out the window.

He played well in DEC and JAN. Both he played every game.

March ? He pretty much has struggled from 3. But he has 6 more games in the mouth to raise those numbers. And a good chunk of those games so far has been him returning after missing most of Feb. The good news. He went 4-4 from 3 against POR. The bad news, he only shot 2 against Utah and missed both.

Yea my mistake, he played less games this month as well

[hands11]

Dude has been dreadful post break...no more excuses, he's had PLENTY of time to "kick off rust":

March Numbers (8 games): 14ppg, 4rpg, 4 apg, 42%FG, 31%3PFG, 65% FT

February Numbers (12 games): 13ppg, 6 rpg, 2apg, 34%FG, 25%3PF, 72% FT

And he's averaging 33 minutes a game this year. We've taken great care of his health and held his minutes down.

What are you talking about. Your numbers are wrong or at a min, very misleading.

He only played (4 games) in February and one he only play 11 minutes getting injured so its more like he played 3 games. 2 games plus 11 mins then missed 8 then played 1 game. So you can pretty much through Feb out the window.

He played well in DEC and JAN. Both he played every game.

March ? He pretty much has struggled from 3. But he has 6 more games in the mouth to raise those numbers. And a good chunk of those games so far has been him returning after missing most of Feb. The good news. He went 4-4 from 3 against POR. The bad news, he only shot 2 against Utah and missed both.

Yea my mistake, he played less games this month as well

Ahh.. Gotcha.. It happens. I broke it down on page 65 and some again on page 66. Posted his TS as well for those games by month. Even included some finishing at the rim vs long 2s data.

[payitforward]

Note that what I write above doesn't imply that one shouldn't use statistical comparisons of this kind in drafting, for example. I believe that players' overall productivity in Division 1 NCAA basketball correlates better w/ players' overall productivity in the NBA than a host of other measures GM's seem to use (if you use a reliable measure to rank productivity, that is -- but that's a different question).

Use that measure over a decade lets say (i.e. 20 picks in principle), you'd expect to do better in the draft than if you use e.g. the eye test, "fits our size criteria for the position," "can jump out of the gym", etc.

I'm not suggesting it's a panacea of course (Beasley was a monster in college), nor that one should use it blindly (Brian Zoubek was a huge NCAA performer; no way was he athletic enough to be an NBA big). It's just better than any other single method of evaluation.

It's especially useful the lower your pick is -- and in R2 -- because that's where there are a lot of Juniors & Seniors left. I.e. in 2012, I'd have picked Crowder, Green, Barton or O'Quinn at our #32. R2 players are low cost; you can afford to use a statistical measure whose likelihood of success in a single case is low....

[tontoz]

Note that what I write above doesn't imply that one shouldn't use statistical comparisons of this kind in drafting, for example. I believe that players' overall productivity in Division 1 NCAA basketball correlates better w/ players' overall productivity in the NBA than a host of other measures GM's seem to use (if you use a reliable measure to rank productivity, that is -- but that's a different question).

Use that measure over a decade lets say (i.e. 20 picks in principle), you'd expect to do better in the draft than if you use e.g. the eye test, "fits our size criteria for the position," "can jump out of the gym", etc.

I'm not suggesting it's a panacea of course (Beasley was a monster in college), nor that one should use it blindly (Brian Zoubek was a huge NCAA performer; no way was he athletic enough to be an NBA big). It's just better than any other single method of evaluation.

It's especially useful the lower your pick is -- and in R2 -- because that's where there are a lot of Juniors & Seniors left. I.e. in 2012, I'd have picked Crowder, Green, Barton or O'Quinn at our #32. R2 players are low cost; you can afford to use a statistical measure whose likelihood of success in a single case is low....

I'd be curious to know the statistics you used, if any, to predict that the Wizards would win 58 games.

[AFM]

Ouch....

You better be careful Tontoz. I'll have you know PIF is CTO of the Double Bottom Line Life Crew. And we dont **** around.

[dckingsfan]

PIF was going to chose 46 but I already had it

[dckingsfan]

Beal + Porter for Harden, would we do that trade now?

[AFM]

Why the hell would Houston?

2 mediocre players for the best SG in the NBA and an MVP candidate.

[TheSecretWeapon]

There's an overwhelming temptation to use statistics for things it can't be used for. E.g. from the fact that there were xx,000 deaths from traffic accidents in year 1, we can conclude w/ reasonable certainty that there'll be something around that same number in year 2.

Similarly, from what a set of players w/ certain numbers did over period of time, we can conclude w/ reasonable certainty what another (similar-sized) set of players w/ those numbers will do over the same period of time in the future. The larger both sample sets, the more reliable the conclusion

What we can't do is draw any conclusion whatever about an individual player. Sorry. Can't be done. Not how statistics works.

This might be easier to "grok": I've read the claim that over many NBA drafts the guy picked 3d in the draft has tended to work out better than the guy picked 2d in the draft. That's what is called a statistical fact.

Now, on that basis, if you've got the #2 pick in the draft, should you trade it straight up for the #3 pick?

I'm not offering the above as metaphysical certainty. I ALWAYS believe players can alter the trajectories of their career by working hard/smart...or not. Especially players as young as Beal.

That said...statistics are historical record. I don't know why we wouldn't compare players today to players that came before. In fact, we do it all the time. Why wouldn't we look at players who performed similarly in the past as possible guides to what a player today might do in the future? I mean, we could just figure a guy will get better because he's young. That worked well for the Wizards in the past.

And, I'm not sure who is the "we" drawing conclusions. I'm certainly not, even as the guy publishing the numbers. It's possible Beal will develop along the lines of players who performed similarly at similar age, and it's possible he could perform much better or much worse.

The "we" was all of us -- and in every field. It's a benign problem in this context. But it causes big problems in other (i.e. "serious") areas of study.

This: "I don't know why we wouldn't compare players today to players that came before.... Why wouldn't we look at players who performed similarly in the past as possible guides to what a player today might do in the future?" contains the problem I meant to point out.

The first sentence is exactly correct. We certainly would and should "compare players today to players that came before." The other sentence, however, forgets that "sample size" is important on both sides of the statistical thought. I.e., in that sentence your formula is

"players in the past" > "a player today"

It's when there's only one player on either side of the equation (or, more generally, when the sample size is way smaller on either side than on the other) that the usefulness of the statistical comparison goes down. It's easy to see this when the small sample size is on the left end of the formula, but the problem is exactly the same when it's on the right side. The likelihood of the particular statistical comparison being accurate goes down -- in a hurry.

Okay, NOW I get what you're saying. And I agree. It's a good point. I don't plan on stopping with the player comparisons, but...you make a good point.

[Sluggerface]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQeAvRKHZ1A[/youtube]

Beal's DX scouting report prior to the draft. I feel like you could make a 2015 beal scouting video and it would be almost the exact same thing.

[hands11]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQeAvRKHZ1A[/youtube]

Beal's DX scouting report prior to the draft. I feel like you could make a 2015 beal scouting video and it would be almost the exact same thing.

That's pretty much it.

If they isolated his use to what he already could do and ran a better offense like even Florida did, he would be even more effective then has already is.

Its Randy's offense and focus on him doing things he wasn't good at to grow his stills, plus the injuries, that would made him look worse to date. And remember the team he came to. Wall was injured. Between the two being injured so much early, they haven't gotten the time together they normally would have over the last two plus years.

Like Wall, its just going to take time for Beal to grow his game. Wall couldn't shoot. Now he can. He couldn't do lots of things he does now.

Besides, before he was injured, he was playing really well. And over his time in the NBA, he has posted some sick three pt shooting numbers at times.

Cutting bait on Beal or Otto at this stage is jumping the gun. Good news. We get to see him the rest of the year and into the playoffs to better evaluate his progress and he did really well last playoffs. Trade deadline is past so evaluating a future trade is to do so with incomplete information that will be available when something like that would be more viable as an option. Not saying thinking about options is bad, but specific trade idea would be impossible to value completely.

[Dark Faze]

Wall learned like one hundred things by this time his third year lol

- His first two years he fell down about a hundred times learning how to attack NBA bigs
- His third year he showed a drastic difference in how to change speeds
- Literally learned how to run PNR and half court offense efficiently by the second half of his third year

Beals improvement

- Showed a noticable improvement in ball handling and playmaking skills from year 1 year 2
- Had a great post season run in year 2

...

That's it. We haven't seen an improvement in scoring efficiency, free throw rate, how to create his own shot, or anything really substantial.

You give him more time yea, but its his third year and he STILL hasn't hit a league average PER

[hands11]

Wall learned like one hundred things by this time his third year lol

- His first two years he fell down about a hundred times learning how to attack NBA bigs
- His third year he showed a drastic difference in how to change speeds
- Literally learned how to run PNR and half court offense efficiently by the second half of his third year

Beals improvement

- Showed a noticeable improvement in ball handling and playmaking skills from year 1 year 2
- Had a great post season run in year 2

...

That's it. We haven't seen an improvement in scoring efficiency, free throw rate, how to create his own shot, or anything really substantial.

You give him more time yea, but its his third year and he STILL hasn't hit a league average PER

That's it ?

First off, if that was all of it, that would be more then you make it. "Showed a noticeable improvement in ball handling and playmaking skills" is a pretty challenging thing to do at the NBA level if you didn't already have that. And for a player like Beal, that also comes along with now needing to make more decisions, which is another challenge. Shoot or trying to expand my game doing something I am less efficient at but the team needs from me moving forward.

If all he was doing was what he was good at in college, he would be a even better 3 and D type that also rebounds well for a SG. But if there is more to add to his game that can raise his ceiling, now is the time to invest in that. And that investment has a cost.

I broke down things he have improved at in more specifics already. You can't just ignore those things. And I suspect as we get closer to the playoffs, he will start to narrow his game back to the things he can do efficiently as he did last playoffs.

Having a great post season should be weighted much higher then regular season. That's what its all about. That's the toughest ball.

So the two things you listed are actually HUGE things.

And he has show improvement. This years RPM 1.50 and WAR 3.72 Last years. RPM -0.53 and WAE 2.76

Also he is at a career high in TS and 3PT at .420 so he hasn't gotten more efficient statement isn't even accurate.

[Dark Faze]

I can see this is going to go on for a while lol

First things first--the whole issue with your argument is every inch Brad takes, to hear you tell it he's taken a mile. "A career high TS", oh, you mean .5 percentage points better than his rookie TS of 51.5 to 52? My god. Nevermind the fact that PER 36 his scoring is the worst its ever been at 15.9 PPG compared to his rookie campaign and 17.8 last year. Free throw rate Per 36 again worse than his rookie year.

Three point percentage is up sure--because again, PER 36 he's taking less than he ever has a game. 4.9 his first two years to 4.4 now. So yea, no surprise he's more accurate when he's being more judicious than ever with that shot. Meanwhile, this is the worst two point percentage he's ever had.

I'm not even going to talk about RPM and WAR statistics. RPM is a joke stat.

That's why sometimes stats can be misleading. He's improved his playmaking, and I don't think any of us would disagree that he should continue working on that, we're just saying that its not good right now. He cannot dribble. As a result, help defense barely has to react to any kind of penetration he gets. He's just an extremely easy player to guard right now.

And honestly, given the minutes he's playing, his defense should be much better than it is. He gives a lot of cheap fouls.

Do I think he's talented? Yea, I do, but three years in the NBA + a year of college ball show him to be a guy who can't dribble, is an average defender, and a tremendous deep ball guy. How many years are we supposed to wait for him to show his ceiling isn't just a good #4 roleplayer on a team?

[hands11]

I can see this is going to go on for a while lol

First things first--the whole issue with your argument is every inch Brad takes, to hear you tell it he's taken a mile. "A career high TS", oh, you mean .5 percentage points better than his rookie TS of 51.5 to 52? My god. Nevermind the fact that PER 36 his scoring is the worst its ever been at 15.9 PPG compared to his rookie campaign and 17.8 last year. Free throw rate Per 36 again worse than his rookie year.

Three point percentage is up sure--because again, PER 36 he's taking less than he ever has a game. 4.9 his first two years to 4.4 now. So yea, no surprise he's more accurate when he's being more judicious than ever with that shot. Meanwhile, this is the worst two point percentage he's ever had.

I'm not even going to talk about RPM and WAR statistics. RPM is a joke stat.

That's why sometimes stats can be misleading. He's improved his playmaking, and I don't think any of us would disagree that he should continue working on that, we're just saying that its not good right now. He cannot dribble. As a result, help defense barely has to react to any kind of penetration he gets. He's just an extremely easy player to guard right now.

And honestly, given the minutes he's playing, his defense should be much better than it is. He gives a lot of cheap fouls.

Do I think he's talented? Yea, I do, but three years in the NBA + a year of college ball show him to be a guy who can't dribble, is an average defender, and a tremendous deep ball guy. How many years are we supposed to wait for him to show his ceiling isn't just a good #4 roleplayer on a team?

No, that is not an issue at all with what I posted. I'm not making inches into miles. I was just correcting what you wrote. And I added relevant facts and prospective. I have no idea how many people you have in your head because you refer to what you write as "we" a couple of times. I am talking you. Singular you. If you are a Borg or something, then you can speak of yourself as a WE. But I suspect you are not.

As for RPM being a joke. No.. It is not a joke. Its a viable stat. So is WAR. So is VORP.

As for PER. Do you know why its down given his better shooting ? When you answer that for yourself, you will also be answering why his PTS/36 are down.

As for saying his two point shooting is down.. ok.. by .002. You really had the nerve to write that after saying I was being misleading regarding his TS being a career high when it was .005 higher ? It would appear from what you wrote that you think 2 pt shooting is more important the TS. I hope not. And it wasn't on me to say how much higher. You were the one making the claim that he hasn't improved anything other then what you outlined.

We will see where Mr Beal is at the end of the year. Then we can debate his progress more accurately.

My current position on people being overly critical of him right now was... He played well earlier in the year even though he was injured over the summer and couldn't really practice. Then he got injured again after playing well. He was out of his grove since he returned. I expected he will get back in it. And he is only 21.

Last 5 games he is shooting .492 and .476 from 3 with 4.8 assists 3.6 rebounds 16.6 pts in 35.4 on 11.8 shots with 4.2 from 3

I think that would support my take on things, not yours. Lets see if that holds up, improves or gets worse.

And lets not make this like I am all one sided about Beal. I have pointed out my concerns and been critical of him plenty of times even though I really wanted them to draft him that year.

[Dark Faze]

I agree that we can better evaluate things after the end of the season

[Dark Faze]

I couldn't help but to notice last night that Danny Green is Brad with better shot selection and worse rebounding..

[DCZards]

I couldn't help but to notice last night that Danny Green is Brad with better shot selection and worse rebounding..

...and much better coaching and ball movement.