Computer Aided Scouting

[MalReyn]

-= original quote snipped =-



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.

So do you have actual statistics in hand, which show that 70% (or whatever) of Acie Law's assists came from passing to jump shooters, rather than him creating? Or was this your observation watching the games?

[Cammo101]

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

Agreed.

[Amen316]

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.

No one chooses these numbers or should I say gives me their opinions nor are they mine. This is data that has been gathered and compiled. This is why I stay about a month behind games played.

[Amen316]

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

First off its people like you I expect to post the most, and I will probably exhaust my time and energy trying to make you people believe, but that will end soon one way or another by next season.

[MalReyn]

I just don't think sabermetrics works in basketball. There's too many different variables that can't be examined with pure stats.

Sure you can say a PG with high assist numbers may be less valuable if a lot of players on his team have a high 3 PT%. Clearly he doesn't need to "create" for his teammates as much. But it's not that simple. PGs often drive-and-dish to a 3-point shooter. A PG may still be a good floor general setting up an offense, calming down teammates, playing smart basketball.

Baseball is a game of many isolated interactions that weave together over 9 innings. The nature of basketball makes conclusions such as yours difficult (if not impossible) to draw.

While I respect your attempts, you're also not telling us any of the formulas you use to draw any of your conclusions, hence our skepticism. I understand your interest in protecting the information, but just directing us to a website with seemingly arbitrary numbers simply isn't going to convince people. If you could at least tell us how you arrive at one of your stats (and the rationale behind it), maybe we'd be more accepting.

[Amen316]

I just don't think sabermetrics works in basketball. There's too many different variables that can't be examined with pure stats.

Sure you can say a PG with high assist numbers may be less valuable if a lot of players on his team have a high 3 PT%. Clearly he doesn't need to "create" for his teammates as much. But it's not that simple. PGs often drive-and-dish to a 3-point shooter. A PG may still be a good floor general setting up an offense, calming down teammates, playing smart basketball.

Baseball is a game of many isolated interactions that weave together over 9 innings. The nature of basketball makes conclusions such as yours difficult (if not impossible) to draw.

While I respect your attempts, you're also not telling us any of the formulas you use to draw any of your conclusions, hence our skepticism. I understand your interest in protecting the information, but just directing us to a website with seemingly arbitrary numbers simply isn't going to convince people. If you could at least tell us how you arrive at one of your stats (and the rationale behind it), maybe we'd be more accepting.

Ok If you subscribe to ESPN and you go through a history search on John Hollinger you will see something similar that he is working on that I have been working on for 4 years now. I think Jonathan from Draft Express sent it to me, and it was down right scary. I truly believe that John Hollinger could be at version 2.0 but I honestly dont think he is going to figure the formula to arrive at 3.0. That gap and bridge is huge and without getting into it too much I dont see how he could think the same way (formula wise) as I did if we have never talked or met.

Again as I have discussed I cant get into it (formulas) too much because theres actually someone out there already on my heels. I am posting it out here cause Im simply wanting to prove I made it first. Someday he might bridge the gap and what am I going to say then if I never post my info?

I guess Im posting this info alot to do with Hollingers already found success at ESPN. I have no idea how far along he has gotten with his formula.

[JonathanG]

without going into exact details, can you tell us what grades Roy Hibbert out as a 71 on athleticism? As opposed to a Jerryd Bayless who scores a 30?

[MalReyn]

Copyright the formulas, then post them for us?

Anyway, I'm a fan of PER in the NBA (which is obviously related to what you are talking about) and I think the Hollinger formula you're talking about is his "Game Score,"

(Points x 1.0) + (FGM x 0.4) + (FGA x -0.7) + ((FTA-FTM) x -0.4) + (OREB x 0.7) + (DREB x 0.3) + (STL x 1.0) + (AST x 0.7) + (BLK x 0.7) + (PF x -0.4) + (TO x -1.0)

But anyway, another inherent flaw in your idea is the wide level of disparitiy in competition in NCAA ball. Smaller conference players may put up great stats against lesser competition, which can skew statistical results.

Anyway, since you're unwilling to let us see and examine your formulas, I'm done here. I don't think many people will use your site or treat you seriously without seeing the basis behind the numbers (if this thread is any indication). Best of luck with your project.

[Amen316]

Hi Jonathon
First off the very last category that will be completed is Athleticism and these are base scores in there which pertain to each players current court athleticism. Currently the following has been equated.
1. Size for position
2. lbs. for position
3. each position has certain aspects which equate to athleticism. For centers and paint players it might be blocks. For guards and small forwards it might be steals.
4. How do these players match up against other guards/forwards/centers do their opponents score more? rebound more? when they play against other guards/forwards/centers.
5. Uptempo team offense, or is a defense oreintated team.
6. The final 4 things I cant discuss and they have not been implemented yet till a few things have been completed. I might share a p.m. on the matter but the 2 of the factors are pretty major and can cause a player like Jarrod to skyrocket way up on athleticism.

[Amen316]

Copyright the formulas, then post them for us?

Anyway, I'm a fan of PER in the NBA (which is obviously related to what you are talking about) and I think the Hollinger formula you're talking about is his "Game Score,"

(Points x 1.0) + (FGM x 0.4) + (FGA x -0.7) + ((FTA-FTM) x -0.4) + (OREB x 0.7) + (DREB x 0.3) + (STL x 1.0) + (AST x 0.7) + (BLK x 0.7) + (PF x -0.4) + (TO x -1.0)

But anyway, another inherent flaw in your idea is the wide level of disparitiy in competition in NCAA ball. Smaller conference players may put up great stats against lesser competition, which can skew statistical results.

Anyway, since you're unwilling to let us see and examine your formulas, I'm done here. I don't think many people will use your site or treat you seriously without seeing the basis behind the numbers (if this thread is any indication). Best of luck with your project.

Yeah not a problem with it, and yea if you notice Reggie Williams and Lester Hudson both put up huge numbers and yea the computer does have a way to split those hairs.

Lol here is the athleticism formula =(CT3*6-192)+(CC3*E3*1.5+CD3*E3)+(CU3*0.2)+(BP3*3.5)+(BO3*15)+(BK3*2)-(CS3*15)-(CV3*30)+(U3*0.1)
Here is the NBA ready formula
=(AW2*0.2-20)+(BN2*E2*4)+(K2-5)+(CA2-12)+(BU2)+(BT2*10-100)+(AX2-50)+(BD2-45)+(BG2-75)+(BF2*2)+(BK2*3)+(BM2)+(CB2)+(BO2*10)+(BP2*4-BQ2*3)+(CF2*1.5)+(BV2*2)-(CK2+CL2+CM2+CN2+CO2+CP2)+(CT2*4-128)+(CU2*0.1)-(CS2*20+CR2*30+CV2*30)+(CX2*3)+(DF2*3)+(BV2*1.5)


Greg Odens Calculation:
=(K3-5)+(R3*10-Q3*10)+(I3*E3*3)+(CT3*4-128+CU3*0.1)-(CV3*10)+(CX3*10-40)+(AV3*0.1-10)+(BF3*3)+(BM3*E3*6-30+BK3*E3*5)+(BN3*E3*3+BO3*E3*4+BP3*E3*5)-(BQ3*5+BR3*5)+(CF3*1.1)

Chris Pauls Calculation:
=(BX4)-(CV4*15)+(I4*E4*3)+(AV4*0.2-20)+(BF4*2.5)+(BO4*5+BP4*4)+(BN4*5-25)+(BV4*2-15+CF4*2-20)+(CX4*8)+(CT4*4-128)+(I4*E4*3-31)+(K4*2-10)+(BK4*5+BM4*3)+(CB4*2-30)+(CA4*2-60)-(S4*100)+(R4*10-Q4*12)

I assure you that just because I dont have a simplistic numbers/formula like Hollinger shows doesnt mean it doesnt work.
Remember the stories about the earth isnt flat, bet that was a harder sell than this formula thing will ever be... Dont get to hung up on this stuff if your not an NBA GM or Scout dont sweat it.

[ponder276]

The fact is that you (or some other person) makes up these formulas based on some arbitrary opinion of what the weightings of various stats should be. If your formulas come up with results like Hibbert being far more athletic than Rose, then your formulas are fundamentally flawed, and therefore your ratings have no value whatsoever.

[Amen316]

The fact is that you (or some other person) makes up these formulas based on some arbitrary opinion of what the weightings of various stats should be. If your formulas come up with results like Hibbert being far more athletic than Rose, then your formulas are fundamentally flawed, and therefore your ratings have no value whatsoever.

Ponder I appreciate the fact you didnt read everything keeps this whole athleticism thing going strong... Zero value your the 2nd or 3rd person maybe 4th even to have said that.

Over 1000 players scouted and with over 150 determining factors per player = zero value

zero value equation = operators that we can only get answers from that are: rational and irrational.

[Amen316]

I got up walked away from the computer then I thought I will post this to respond to the value of zero.


It is said that the sum of all real numbers is undefined but logicians and mathematicians could have made a mistake in formulating the rules concerning zero. IF tested the hypothesis that all numbers might sum to zero, using a mathematical system where the value of zero is pre-set to be nothing. In ordinary math, all values are relative to zero as nothing, so of course we would discover that all real numbers do not sum to zero. If it were not so, the logical consistency of mathematics would be destroyed.

Since we developed math to count definite things, and zero represents no things, it makes sense that we don't commonly switch into a system where zero is the sum of all numbers, although it can be done. It just can't be done half way. As the saying goes, it's all or nothing. Either we can see zero as every number or we can see zero as nothing.
In the end I believe you will find that zero may have a definitive value to those that dont accept everything they are told as being norm, because if a predraft scouting agreement on a player is the norm. lets make norm = 1 (Espn = 1, Draft Site = 1 Common Agreement = 1)
and those outlets are wrong on a player or players then norm equates to a final resting point value of negative 1. Value of zero then actually has a higher value.

Lets say I am a nobody and nobodies = 0. then what I say has no weight or value to you in the first place. Now if Espn reported the exact same thing as I have said many people maybe yourself would place a value to that because ESPN = the norm = 1. Remember 1 could represent any safe number you feel comfortable with that
A). Excites and stimulates your mind. or
B). A degree of right or wrong which may be masked by a term of contrary.
Zero is not a bad place to be if it is based on probability and facts, because nothing or zero is contrary only to system its implemented in or not in.

[Idunkon1stdates]

[Amen316]

Thats awesome I want bunnyears and sign me up for Maximum Hangtime I cant remember secret passcode.... doh

[Idunkon1stdates]

You're going to be laughed at until you become a bit more transparent with your methodology. Reading your site is like skimming the ratings in a videogame.

Speed - 99
Dunking - 87
Agility - 89
Passing - 56
Defensive Awareness - 76

[Amen316]

You're going to be laughed at until you become a bit more transparent with your methodology. Reading your site is like skimming the ratings in a videogame.

Speed - 99
Dunking - 87
Agility - 89
Passing - 56
Defensive Awareness - 76

I just assumed this site was made up of videogamers....lol
Your right Mr.Hand
I should come up with more categories like Dunking - 80, Whining to the officials -35 , and Who calls their shots off the backboard - 75.

[The_Pope]

Your description of how you've arrived at all these numbers just reads as convoluted nonsense.

I don't need to look at your formulas to be able to tell you that you're completely wrong in saying that Roy Hibbert is more athletic than DeAndre Jordan. That's something which is patently untrue and obvious for anyone too see.

[ponder276]

I got up walked away from the computer then I thought I will post this to respond to the value of zero.


It is said that the sum of all real numbers is undefined but logicians and mathematicians could have made a mistake in formulating the rules concerning zero. IF tested the hypothesis that all numbers might sum to zero, using a mathematical system where the value of zero is pre-set to be nothing. In ordinary math, all values are relative to zero as nothing, so of course we would discover that all real numbers do not sum to zero. If it were not so, the logical consistency of mathematics would be destroyed.

Since we developed math to count definite things, and zero represents no things, it makes sense that we don't commonly switch into a system where zero is the sum of all numbers, although it can be done. It just can't be done half way. As the saying goes, it's all or nothing. Either we can see zero as every number or we can see zero as nothing.
In the end I believe you will find that zero may have a definitive value to those that dont accept everything they are told as being norm, because if a predraft scouting agreement on a player is the norm. lets make norm = 1 (Espn = 1, Draft Site = 1 Common Agreement = 1)
and those outlets are wrong on a player or players then norm equates to a final resting point value of negative 1. Value of zero then actually has a higher value.

Lets say I am a nobody and nobodies = 0. then what I say has no weight or value to you in the first place. Now if Espn reported the exact same thing as I have said many people maybe yourself would place a value to that because ESPN = the norm = 1. Remember 1 could represent any safe number you feel comfortable with that
A). Excites and stimulates your mind. or
B). A degree of right or wrong which may be masked by a term of contrary.
Zero is not a bad place to be if it is based on probability and facts, because nothing or zero is contrary only to system its implemented in or not in.

You think you are more intelligent than you are.

[Amen316]

Your description of how you've arrived at all these numbers just reads as convoluted nonsense.

I don't need to look at your formulas to be able to tell you that you're completely wrong in saying that Roy Hibbert is more athletic than DeAndre Jordan. That's something which is patently untrue and obvious for anyone too see.

ILL give you an example:
2007-8 Shaq in Miami
2008 Shaq in Phoenix

Thats the same person but one has already proven to be more athletic on the court than the other. (ask fans of the Heat).
Im sure your going to argue that also, but this is result based data. If Deandre Jordan does very less on the court on the defensive end and offensive end wouldnt Hibbert be more athletic on the court. Deandre a little more confused and less reactive or instinctive?