Computer Aided Scouting

[Amen316]

The scouting for players from the beginning of the season until Feb. 29th are officially completed. Theres still March Madness, private workouts, and a couple little things that will finish the scouting which is done by computer.
This is version 3.0 and it has a few more categories for the viewer to see. To place all categories on the site it become eye bulging.
Agree with it or not it does compile alot of information and places each player in their appropriate levels.
Many of you are going to freak out over your favorite players not being ranked higher. Each year it is like that, and by the time all information is derived many players will rise and fall accordingly.

* Remember many players will move up or down with the final data of the season which will be in place by late March. Players like OJ Mayo started off very raw and much of their games at this point has not equated to a starting position in the pros in their first few years. However, when all the data has been compiled we will stand by its compilation as we have since 2004.
There is some major categories that have not been fully completed but I thought releasing this in March would be eye opening for some.
http://scoutingthenba.com/

[Flite]

How exactly does this work, because...

Athleticism

Roy Hibbert - 71

Michael Beasley - 63
Jerryd Bayless - 30
Blake Griffin - 48
Derrick Rose - 47
Eric Gordon - 43
Paul Harris - 49
Chase Budinger - 10
Bill Walker - 44
JR Giddens - 55
Devon Hardin - 43
Patrick Patterson - 38
DeAndre Jordan - 36
Darrell Arthur - 43

?

[bigballa3jj]

chase budinger a 10 on athleticism?
wow lol

[MalReyn]

So wait...

You put a seemingly arbitrary number rating each player in a variety of catagories, plug it into a formula, and come up with a final single number that represents someone's pro potential.

The inherent flaw is each number you plug in is clearly opinion, and comparing the numbers of different players often yields strange results.... like Chase Budinger inexplicably getting a 10 on athleticism well below the decidedly unathletic Roy Hibbert.

I suppose it's "computer aided," but your system still clearly is based in pure observations and judgments... if you can accurately make such good ratings of a player in so many catagories, a detailed scouting report would probably be more useful.

[Amen316]

So wait...

You put a seemingly arbitrary number rating each player in a variety of catagories, plug it into a formula, and come up with a final single number that represents someone's pro potential.

Again unlike 99% of these self proclaimed analyst, This program has not only picked the players that go on to be successful in the NBA but it also has separated the players that wont be successful at the next level. This program tracks over 1300 players in the NCAA yearly and I doubt no scout or team of scouts in the NBA can lay claim to that.

The inherent flaw is each number you plug in is clearly opinion, and comparing the numbers of different players often yields strange results.... like Chase Budinger inexplicably getting a 10 on athleticism well below the decidedly unathletic Roy Hibbert.

I dont plug in any opinion if a player is gifted as all hell and his rating is low you can pretty much figure I do not have his entire information.

I suppose it's "computer aided," but your system still clearly is based in pure observations and judgments... if you can accurately make such good ratings of a player in so many catagories, a detailed scouting report would probably be more useful.

based on observations and judgements? = 0
I do not know or have even met 80% of these players by this point in the year. Again Im going to remove athleticism category for the time being from the public view because it is obviously unfinished and I thought the unique thing would be for you fans of these NCAA players watch how these numbers change through private workouts, March Madness, and other official misc. data that will be found to be either true or false.

I have been showing friends and family this program for years and this year like last year I am going to serve this up for everyone. This will either call me out as being good or a fraud..... I have given permission to two others to link this stuff everywhere and put this information out. If it fails we can move on with our lives plain and simple. Besides that I have a book deal I am trying to complete at the same time and I personally want to see this thing work in front of the world...

Think about this:
Theres hundreds and hundreds maybe thousands of 6-2 to 6-7 players in college basketball that pass through over a 4-5year period. This program nor I know a damn thing about them. I simply have the information placed in and it spits out their possibility of making it or not making it.

[Cammo101]

You can not treat NBA prospects sabermetrically. Basketball is lightyears different than baseball. Baseball is a skill game, basketball an athleticism game, thus you can not quantify a prospect using a computer like you can in baseball.

[Amen316]

Just so theres no confusion I removed the athleticism from public view. It will reappear sometime in April.


Again Im posting this before its entirely finished this season. I wanted you fanatics to follow along with the program until it produces its final output of information.
I always realease final updates in June, but this year I think I can do it by May.



Last year I posted my work and here is some of the reactiions.
http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic. ... 2b32881795


I called out Rodney Stuckey for 2 years and ESPN didnt even invite him to the green room. Had very little on him come draft nite.

DJ Strawberry went 59th I had him in top 20 which is what they chose to talk about

[JoeT]

Looking at that thread, people mention you having Gray, Shakur, and Dudley in the lotto, and now if you look at the site, that's not so. Further, there are multiple entries for most players in your database. In retrospect, when I remembered looking at your rankings last year, they seemed to be a lot more "off" than they are now, which is pretty much in line with how they were drafted. I'm not outright suggesting foulplay, but something doesn't seem to match up.

[Amen316]

You can not treat NBA prospects sabermetrically. Basketball is lightyears different than baseball. Baseball is a skill game, basketball an athleticism game, thus you can not quantify a prospect using a computer like you can in baseball.

That I beg to differ, anything and everything has a way to be broken down and analyzed. This is simply using a science of over 150 different aspects of a collegiate players life before he enters the NBA.
What you cannot predict is oppurtunity!
Maurice Williams was a backup point guard behind Jason Kidd for two years and very rarely got a chance to prove his worth in the NBA.
At the same time.
The Minnesota Timberwolves as an example were so depleted that they ran players through their system and gave them a chance to succeed or fail. Craig Smith while a borderline prospect will end up "USING HIS WORK ETHIC" to carve out a career in the NBA. IF he wouldve been drafted to many other teams he may have never got this chance or hence oppurtunity!

[ponder276]

How exactly does this work, because...

Athleticism

Roy Hibbert - 71

Michael Beasley - 63
Jerryd Bayless - 30
Blake Griffin - 48
Derrick Rose - 47
Eric Gordon - 43
Paul Harris - 49
Chase Budinger - 10
Bill Walker - 44
JR Giddens - 55
Devon Hardin - 43
Patrick Patterson - 38
DeAndre Jordan - 36
Darrell Arthur - 43

?

This Amen316 guy officially has zero credibility. Apparently one of the most athletic PG prospects you will ever see is far less athletic than Roy Hibbert . . .

[Wade2k6]

I would say its hard to believe that Westbrooke, Thabeet, Donte Green are more "nba ready" then players like Mayo, Hansborough

[Amen316]

Looking at that thread, people mention you having Gray, Shakur, and Dudley in the lotto, and now if you look at the site, that's not so. Further, there are multiple entries for most players in your database. In retrospect, when I remembered looking at your rankings last year, they seemed to be a lot more "off" than they are now, which is pretty much in line with how they were drafted. I'm not outright suggesting foulplay, but something doesn't seem to match up.

True:
At this current time there might be players that are listed as possible "lottery" picks, but by the time the final update is done they may not be. That is tricky and this year to avoid that confusion I have done the following:
1. Last seasn people tried navigating through the site. Sometimes they would end up in Feb 2007 and see that Shakur was playing like a lottery pick. By the time the end of the season came about he wasnt there.
2. Navigation buttons will be gone what I am going to do is blog the history links / months info and only keep current info on the main pages.
3. Last year everyone was all over me for mispelling names, I have a proof reader.. LoL
4. Aaron Gray is quote quote in the gray area... two different programs I run on players and one says the lottery mendoza line is 13.75 while the other says 14.00. There was a time period I was going with the 13.75, and as you see he is 13.93. The computer believes he is the safest bet of the players not in Tier I - V. (Basically Lottery)
5. Jared Dudley had 2 wrong bits of information on him which was corrected. It did not affect his draft position too bad but did drop him to 13.40

But hey Cammo thanks for saying that cause I was wondering if that and the Nick Young info would be discussed here.

I am trying my best this season to get everyone use to the site and either make the ScoutingGuru put up or shut up

[MalReyn]

-= original quote snipped =-



I have been showing friends and family this program for years and this year like last year I am going to serve this up for everyone. This will either call me out as being good or a fraud..... I have given permission to two others to link this stuff everywhere and put this information out. If it fails we can move on with our lives plain and simple. Besides that I have a book deal I am trying to complete at the same time and I personally want to see this thing work in front of the world...

Think about this:
Theres hundreds and hundreds maybe thousands of 6-2 to 6-7 players in college basketball that pass through over a 4-5year period. This program nor I know a damn thing about them. I simply have the information placed in and it spits out their possibility of making it or not making it.

Wait a sec Amen316...

How do you reach a number for each player for "Presence," or "Intangibles"?

What makes Josh Carter of Texas A&M an 83 in "Floor General," but Paul Harris of Syracuse only a 40?

I still don't understand how you reach the numbers you plug into the program.

[Amen316]

I would say its hard to believe that Westbrooke, Thabeet, Donte Green are more "nba ready" then players like Mayo, Hansborough

Yea I know last year Atlanta Fans ripped me over Acie Law whom I had only as a late first to second round pick. The computer doesnt believe he has what it takes even with Atlanta handing him the reigns.

Look alot of the point guards I put in here will never get the oppurtunity to run a team. Acie Law was given the reigns and I think he will be a marginal leader at best. BTW: I think he had a great collegiate career and he will make money in the NBA, but that did not warrant him to be a top 13 pick in the draft.

Donte Green yea he is money at the moment according to the ScoutingGuru. Westbrook is money also but will get very little fan fare. I think his stock will rise even further in the tourney. He is the most defensive minded player in that UCLA system. He equates great for the NBA

[JoeT]

Wait a sec Amen316...

How do you reach a number for each player as a "Presence," or "Intangibles"?

What makes Josh Carter of Texas A&M an 87 in "Floor General," but Paul Harris of Syracuse only a 40?

I still don't understand how you reach the numbers you plug into the program.

Just kidding. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Back to what I was saying before, I'd like to see a copy of the website on the day of the draft. I tried finding it quickly online, but couldn't do so. The posts in that thread combined with my spotty memory along with your admitted "adjustment" of Dudley post-draft makes me wonder about any retrospective editing that may have been done. I'm skeptical right now, though we'll see how things go this year. I'll definitely be keeping closer tabs on the rankings this time.

[Wade2k6]

-= original quote snipped =-




Yea I know last year Atlanta Fans ripped me over Acie Law whom I had only as a late first to second round pick. The computer doesnt believe he has what it takes even with Atlanta handing him the reigns.

Look alot of the point guards I put in here will never get the oppurtunity to run a team. Acie Law was given the reigns and I think he will be a marginal leader at best. BTW: I think he had a great collegiate career and he will make money in the NBA, but that did not warrant him to be a top 13 pick in the draft.

Donte Green yea he is money at the moment according to the ScoutingGuru. Westbrook is money also but will get very little fan fare. I think his stock will rise even further in the tourney. He is the most defensive minded player in that UCLA system. He equates great for the NBA

Oh, no doubt they might have the better future then a player like Hansborough. But, what makes Donte Green, Westbrooke, and Thabeet more "NBA Ready" at this point? Hansborough has the ability to come in right away and contribute as a nice role player (Landry, Craig Smith, what Maxiell is doing now). I don't see Thabeet, Green or Westbrooke having that type of impact their rookie year, at all.

[Amen316]

-= original quote snipped =-



Wait a sec Amen316...

How do you reach a number for each player as a "Presence," or "Intangibles"?

What makes Josh Carter of Texas A&M an 87 in "Floor General," but Paul Harris of Syracuse only a 40?

I still don't understand how you reach the numbers you plug into the program.

I know its confusing but heres the deal. Acie Law was viewed as a successful point guard alot because of Josh Carter. JC success from the 3pt arc actually robs Acie of his success. So if you have a non-point guard with a high rating it will actually subtract from that point guards overall accomplishments.

^^ That is not easy to explain but more of Acie Laws assist came from set shooters than those he created.

Version 4.0 is in the works and it is going back to review Mike Conleys assist to Greg Oden. The idea is that when your surrounded by superior talent are you making those around you better or just feeding the system.
We are also going to look into Maurice Williams of UConn surrounded by outstanding NBA talent.
4.0 at this moment in time is strictly focused on the poing guard position and its different aspects of what makes a successful point guard into the NBA

[Amen316]

-= original quote snipped =-



Oh, no doubt they might have the better future then a player like Hansborough. But, what makes Donte Green, Westbrooke, and Thabeet more "NBA Ready" at this point? Hansborough has the ability to come in right away and contribute as a nice role player (Landry, Craig Smith, what Maxiell is doing now). I don't see Thabeet, Green or Westbrooke having that type of impact their rookie year, at all.

Btw: Guru has Hansborough as a lottery pick if you check. He improved from 59 to a top 20 pick so I am not sure what your getting at. If you missed him he was at 14.01

Dont get hung up on where players rank inside Tiers. If a player is the top of Tier V he might not fit your team as well as one at the bottom of Tier V. I like Tyler and at the moment think he could be the real deal at the next level. He has alot of unfinished data however and could swing a point either direction. 13- 15 or simply stay about the same.

[Cammo101]

What is the formula for this? Who chooses the numbers as far as stuff like athleticism and intangibles. This is stuff a computer can't know. Even in baseball serbermetric these things are completely ignored. If you are choosing the numbers, then this isn't a computer deciding, it is you doing so.

[The_Pope]

These numbers are arbitrary and hence this has literally zero value.