Another statistical take on Mayo...

[Jonathan Watters]

http://www.hoopsanalyst.com/0708ew15.htm

This guy is one of the more respected writers in basketball stat/history circles. I don't agree with all of his methods, but he does a fairly good job of summing up what I've been trying to say around here.

Not that OJ Mayo is a bust, or even that he is a terrible pick at #3. Simply that he isn't the can't miss star everybody is making him out to be and that putting him in the same group with Rose and Beasley is absurd.

At any rate, I apologize for continuing to argue this, but I wanted to make sure people knew about this site either way. He does a lot of the same analysis that I do when evaluating prospects, and this about the only site that publishes it systematically. He draws on all sorts of historical comparisons you aren't going to find anywhere else.

So check it out, people!

[prefuse73]

you just don't let it go do you

At this point though, I still think its in our best interest to select mayo and let offers come in and see what comes up. Mayo may not be the "can't miss star" that we think, but he is easily has the most star power (meaning name recognition and initial fan base). I think it would be a poor play to select Love or Lopez at 3 just cause.

[revprodeji]

I am trying to understand. Mr. Watters, are you still trying to push lopez, or just trying to bring down Mayo?

The problem with this article is it is simply stats. Simply stats is always limited. Mayo played in a tough conf and in a horrible system. Watching film shows you his tools, his stats matter little. It also does not take into light that Mayo was a 1st year player. Not a junior. (I am not arguing age, just experience at that level) He also improved as the year went on which is important to me.

The writer is saying Mayo will project as an above average SG---not a stud like ROse and Beasley--based on stats. Rose was in a gimick offense with much, much,much better players. (They won the bloody ship) Beasley was the option in a system focused on him and played less talent than Mayo faced. Stats do not work if they are the only option.

The writer even said he is weak on defense. That is a joke, Mayo is considered a very good defensive player. He also makes the argument that Mayo is only a scorer and nothing else, when Mayo is considered by many a playmaking SG. Perhaps even a pg. The writer needs to put his calculator down and watch film.

[Jonathan Watters]

You think this guy hasn't watched tape? Read his other articles. Obviously statistics have their flaws - that is a given. But they do tell us certain things, and are certainly relevant on a certain level when it comes to the draft process.

And please realize that this guy has been watching film and analyzing for the better part of a decade. If you think the reason a lot of people dont' like Mayo as much as you is that they haven't watched the guy play...we've reached a new low in the discussion.

For the record, I am neither pushing lopez or "bringing down" Mayo. I'll tell you what I am doing - I'm not annointing Mayo the chosen one. I'm calling him an legitimate option amongst several other legitimate options at #3.

That may be "bringing down" Mayo to you, but it really isn't.

[D1SGRUNTL3D]

This link isn't loading at all.

And if it's one of those articles that compare statistics of smaller conference players to those in the bigger, better conferences, I'm not even going to waste my time.

[funkatron101]

This stuff makes my brain hurt. You look at all of the data, and then look at the variables that are not represented, like rev indicates, and it really just makes me shrug my shoulders.

There is obviously some value to this data, but it's not really a controlled environment. These players are not on the same playing field. It would be more accurate if they all had the same coach, teammates, opponents, and set plays, etc., but obviously that isn't realistic.

That's why you look past the stats. Look at their personality, athleticism, maturity, etc. You give them work-outs, ask questions. Mayo's stock is rising because of these things, IMO, even with all of his silly college scandal drama.

[Jonathan Watters]

Oh yeah, you have to look past the stats. Nobody is saying you don't, and certainly not this guy. There is in-game scouting analysis sprinkled in right along with his stats analysis.

And if you look at past years, his track record is pretty good. Nothing amazing, but right more often than wrong.

And that is because he is consistent and uses methods that have been backtested and proven to be accurate. Not 100% accurate, nobody is that good, but a nice addition to visual scouting. He might not take the visual scouting as far as he should, but that's not his niche. His niche is the stats.

He's basically using Hollinger's stat methods and expounding on them in a way that Hollinger would if his main purpose was to scout draft prospects.

[4ho5ive]

I am trying to understand. Mr. Watters, are you still trying to push lopez, or just trying to bring down Mayo?

The problem with this article is it is simply stats. Simply stats is always limited. Mayo played in a tough conf and in a horrible system. Watching film shows you his tools, his stats matter little. It also does not take into light that Mayo was a 1st year player. Not a junior. (I am not arguing age, just experience at that level) He also improved as the year went on which is important to me.

The writer is saying Mayo will project as an above average SG---not a stud like ROse and Beasley--based on stats. Rose was in a gimick offense with much, much,much better players. (They won the bloody ship) Beasley was the option in a system focused on him and played less talent than Mayo faced. Stats do not work if they are the only option.

The writer even said he is weak on defense. That is a joke, Mayo is considered a very good defensive player. He also makes the argument that Mayo is only a scorer and nothing else, when Mayo is considered by many a playmaking SG. Perhaps even a pg. The writer needs to put his calculator down and watch film.

Damn, someone is gonna have to tell Kansas they are living a lie then...

[revprodeji]

You think this guy hasn't watched tape? Read his other articles. Obviously statistics have their flaws - that is a given. But they do tell us certain things, and are certainly relevant on a certain level when it comes to the draft process.

And please realize that this guy has been watching film and analyzing for the better part of a decade. If you think the reason a lot of people dont' like Mayo as much as you is that they haven't watched the guy play...we've reached a new low in the discussion.

For the record, I am neither pushing lopez or "bringing down" Mayo. I'll tell you what I am doing - I'm not annointing Mayo the chosen one. I'm calling him an legitimate option amongst several other legitimate options at #3.

That may be "bringing down" Mayo to you, but it really isn't.

Get catch 4ho...

Mr. Watters, the tone of the article was to take the stats, and only the stats, and judge the future success of a player. It was designed to be reductionist and that is extremely flawed. I do not know the writer, so I do not know what his overall opinion is, but in that article it was to use stats alone. My point was that film has much more value than stats. Film lets us see the tools a player has and how he uses them. Stats do not paint the complete picture. Stats have Zach Randolph as an all-star.

I do not think Mayo is the next Kobe. I see a lot of Payton in Mayo. A guy that can bring a swagger, play some good def, make some plays and hit some shots. A Brandon Roy type. I do not see him as All-nba first team, but I see him as an All-star. Someone who can compete with Al for the "best player" on this team. I think he makes us better and fills a need. I think (pending a trade for more value) our best scenario is to draft Mayo.

[stop-n-pop]

A few things about Mayo:

1- While he did play in a crappy offense on a crappy team, it doesn't follow that his stats should dip compared to an equally good player on a much better team. In fact, the more top shelf players you have on any given team, the more likely it is that individual numbers will be lower for your best players (compared to equally good players on crappier teams) because there's simply not enough balls to go around and make everyone a happy camper.

2- Mayo has some pretty significant red flags that compare negatively to not only players like Paul, DWill, Roy, Ben Gordon, and Devon Harris, but Shaddy and Foye as well:

a- PPR: you can pretty much take whatever asst/to number you want here and Mayo comes out looking like less than a run-of-the-mill player. No matter how bad the offense or how poor the supporting cast, Mayo's ppr is an ugly, crooked number.
b- his 2fg game: Mayo carries a decent efg with a hefty number of 3s. Without the 3 ball, he's below 50% from the field and he doesn't get to the line. That's not a recipe for efficient play no matter how you cut it.
3- Mayo's eff vs. pts/poss and %poss doesn't jive with top-notch players in the past 3-4 drafts. Players like Roy and Paul were carrying Ortgs of 122 and above while getting their 1.13-1.23 pts/poss. Mayo is bringing home a 105 Ortg with 1.10 pts/poss. (These are obviously comparisons between individual and team poss in these stats and it's one of the biggest headaches when comparing KenPom stats with DX.) The bottom line here is that Roy and Paul were bringing home points/100 possessions in a much more efficient manner than Mayo no matter how you slice it.

Mayo is going to be a solid pro who won't get to the line nearly as much as he should and will probably top out with a PPR between 1 and 2. He'll rely on his jumper and especially the 3 ball to score and in the end this will hurt his effiiciency as well as his rebound rates as he will be forced to operate on the perimeter more and more as teams won't have to respect his 2fg game like the would a player like Paul, DWill, Roy, Gordon, etc.

The big question with Mayo is this: what is his value over Foye taking into account their relative placement in the 2006 and 2008 drafts (or McCants in 2005)? The Wolves are taking a guard that is very much in the same vein as Shaddy and Foye and is he good enough (or can he bring back enough) to make his selection worthwhile?

As for the BPA argument, I'd say on this point alone that Mayo isn't top 3 in this draft and that players like Mario Chalmers and CDR will end up as better pros. Mayo's going to be solid but his game doesn't seem to match up with the star potential that many people seem to think they see in him. On the scale of guards taken in recent drafts, he's definitely in the Foye/McCants range between Paul, DWill, Roy, Ben Gordon, Harris and lesser players like Corey Brewer, Eric Gordon, Jerryd Bayless, and Russell Westbrook. He's the 3rd best guard in this draft. Nothing to sneeze at but ultimately the gap between his name recognition/expectations and his actual on-the-court performance would catch up to him and we fans would be on McHale for buying into the hype and taking McFoye pt. iii.

[MVP4LIFE]

I am trying to understand. Mr. Watters, are you still trying to push lopez, or just trying to bring down Mayo?

The problem with this article is it is simply stats. Simply stats is always limited. Mayo played in a tough conf and in a horrible system. Watching film shows you his tools, his stats matter little. It also does not take into light that Mayo was a 1st year player. Not a junior. (I am not arguing age, just experience at that level) He also improved as the year went on which is important to me.

The writer is saying Mayo will project as an above average SG---not a stud like ROse and Beasley--based on stats. Rose was in a gimick offense with much, much,much better players. (They won the bloody ship) Beasley was the option in a system focused on him and played less talent than Mayo faced. Stats do not work if they are the only option.

The writer even said he is weak on defense. That is a joke, Mayo is considered a very good defensive player. He also makes the argument that Mayo is only a scorer and nothing else, when Mayo is considered by many a playmaking SG. Perhaps even a pg. The writer needs to put his calculator down and watch film.

Good post Rev

[Jonathan Watters]

You think this guy hasn't watched tape? Read his other articles. Obviously statistics have their flaws - that is a given. But they do tell us certain things, and are certainly relevant on a certain level when it comes to the draft process.

And please realize that this guy has been watching film and analyzing for the better part of a decade. If you think the reason a lot of people dont' like Mayo as much as you is that they haven't watched the guy play...we've reached a new low in the discussion.

For the record, I am neither pushing lopez or "bringing down" Mayo. I'll tell you what I am doing - I'm not annointing Mayo the chosen one. I'm calling him an legitimate option amongst several other legitimate options at #3.

That may be "bringing down" Mayo to you, but it really isn't.

Get catch 4ho...

Mr. Watters, the tone of the article was to take the stats, and only the stats, and judge the future success of a player. It was designed to be reductionist and that is extremely flawed. I do not know the writer, so I do not know what his overall opinion is, but in that article it was to use stats alone.
My point was that film has much more value than stats. Film lets us see the tools a player has and how he uses them. Stats do not paint the complete picture. Stats have Zach Randolph as an all-star.

He mentions his impressions of watching a player play throughout all his articles, and accounts for situation in much of his analysis. This is not a 100% numbers-based assesment.

And I don't know what your conception of "stats" is, but the stats this guy is using certainly don't paint Zach Randolph as an all-star. This guy is looking well beyond the 20/10 that Randolph puts up. He's identified major statistical trends when looking at college players' success in the pros, and they certainly aren't a couple of raw, unadjusted averages.

And if you really read the article, you wouldn't be trying to talk about Zach Randolph's stats as an example of why this guy's analysis is flawed.

Once again, I challenge you to look at some of his past analysis. He's not perfect, but as accurate as anybody else out there. And his track record is all public information.

[revprodeji]

I trust you sir. Could you link me to that? I just have an issue with scouting that uses stats as the primary.

[Jonathan Watters]

http://hoopsanalyst.com/archives.htm

It goes back quite a ways, just look at every year around draft time.

As for using stats as primary, try to think of them as a tool to discover things you might not have noticed without looking at them. 100% of the stat analysis I do is to line things up with what I see on the court, and Mayo is no exception. Stats allow you to be consistent, and revisit certain topics over time.

When i started really getting into the draft, I held strong opinions without having the historical/statistical basis that I do now. And I was catastrophically wrong about a few players. Stats are a way to make sure that doesn't happen again, or at least not as often, because they don't have the biases that I do.

[D1SGRUNTL3D]

Do you take in effect SoS, opponent RPI, RPI in general, conference RPI, big or small conference?

[Jonathan Watters]

Do you take in effect SoS, opponent RPI, RPI in general, conference RPI, big or small conference?

Most certainly. My first task at the end of the season is to eliminate all games against inferior competition. This doesn't always work as well as it sounds like it might, but it does reveal some interesting things.

The theme that comes up in college stats over and over again are that "athletic" stats lead to NBA success. Good rebounding, blocks, and steals. Shooting a high percentage as a guard. Getting to the line a lot, although that can be tricky in a chicken/egg sort of way. Brandon Roy got to the line a ton because he was freakin difficult to contain off the dribble. JJ Redick got to the line a lot because his entire goal when putting the ball on the floor was to get fouled. So FT attempts, like most stats, is mostly useful in conjunction with watching the actual games.

[DG4L]

I remember Jonathan Watters sounded a little down on Brewer on another thread and seemingly implied the Wolves made a mistake drafting him. Now, I check on this guy's anaysis' of the best SF's in the 2007 draft (it's the 1st link I clicked...I'll check the rest later but I don't have much time right now) and it predicts that Brewer will be the 4th best SF in the draft and says that Brewer will be between Prince and Richard Jefferson as an offensive player in the NBA. While I like Brewer and I'm optimistic about his future, even I think that's out of his league offensively. His SF rankings also have Al Thorton at #5 below Brewer, and guys like Reyshawn Terry above guys like Thaddeus Young at #9, Nick Young at #12, and Wilson Chandlier at #14. So Mr. Watters, you seem to put notable stock into this statistical take regarding Mayo but you don't do the same toward Brewer. Why not? I am just curious because this guy sounded pretty optimistic about Brewer as an NBA player yet you seem to have the opposite take. I could be wrong but it seems like you are picking and choosing what you want to believe from him and only using the parts that agree with your take as part of your argument.

http://hoopsanalyst.com/0607ew12.htm

Granted, this is just one positional ranking from 2007 but it shows just how off he can be. I also know that most of these players have only played one season in the NBA so far but as of right now, it's looking like Thornton and Thad Young are some the best SF's in the draft after Durant. I do respect this analysis and find it very interesting, however, I don't think it's something you can put all your stock into regarding a player's future NBA career. For example, this analysis seems to be heavily based on statistics and numbers don't always tell the entire story.

[Jonathan Watters]

Well, I'm pretty sure I've mentioned in every post I've made on this thread how the guy isn't perfect and how stats aren't perfect. I didn't like Brewer at 7 before the draft, and I don't like him now. I'm sure that he would have the common sense to admit he was wrong in this case, though you obviously need another season.

And for the record, I never would go with statistics over what I see happen on the floor. When the two line up, I feel like I have something I can feel a bit stronger in supporting. That is definitely the case with Mayo, and that is why I point this article out. I can sit here and give you all the "tape-based" rationale for why Mayo isn't a surefire superstar, but the accusations of bias and ignorance soon followed. Stats, on the other hand, aren't biased. Not perfect, but certainly not biased.

And the stats say that there is a big drop off between Beasley/Rose and Mayo.

Continuing on, it is very easy to look back and criticize one bad call when there are a couple hundred from each draft on that site.

If you go back another year, you will see he was fairly spot on about whether to take Brandon Roy over Randy Foye. I agreed with him 100% at the time, and there were plenty of Wolves fans who thought Foye was the next Dwyane Wade, when had absolutely zero chance of ever happening.

So I think the question that needs to be asked is why you brought up the Brewer analysis but completey ignored times when he was spot on? All I did was link you to the site, with a disclaimer about how he wasn't perfect.