john2jer wrote:I kind of have a hard time with judging a prospect's NBA future based on a college state based formula. It's a different game, different size/speed of players/opponents, lower talent level, you're including stats of games against Sister Mary's College of the Blind along with games against Duke or UCLA and trying to say that Johnie Point Guard is going to be a stud.
Take Russell Westbrook. His college stats his Freshman year sucked, and his Sophomore year they were ok, not quite good, but a solid ok. Now he's showing in his rookie year that he's going to be a beast. His FT% the last three years has been 55%, 71%, and 82% in the pros, and he's getting to the line a hell of a lot more as a pro. Coming into the league he would have been considered a not so good free throw shooter, who can't get to the line. Kind of sucks when you're lead guard is labeled with that. And when he was in college he was considered a decent shooter, but in the pros he can't hit the broad-side of the barn. College stats would have given you completely wrong info on both regards.
Maybe a bad example, but I think you get the point.
Only way you can really judge most of these kids is by actually sitting down and watching them; how they play, their composure, court sense, and then run them through work-outs.
How about this guy:
6'11" 275pounds 18.1pts and 14.2 rebs a game. Shoots 60% from the field and 79% from FT stripe. Blocks 2.5 shots a game. What a monster, let's sign him up, his stats are amazing. He's youger than Thabeet, why aren't we talking about him?
Well cause it's John Bryant from Santa Clara and his team went 16-17 and got trounced by Gonzaga. he might be able to make a couple bucks over-seas or in the D-League, which is awesome considering what he went through a year ago getting stabbed, but he's not an NBA prospect. but his stats scream top 5.
A few things:
1- Part of what makes stats so useful is that you can account for the differences between the college and pro games over a period of years far more accurately (and with the ability to reproduce the results on a more accurate scale) than you can by simply watching player x in year y and wondering how he projects in relation to player z in year a. You can also adjust for conference, strength of schedule, etc.
2- Russell Westbrook's college stats did not suck. Someone figured out what to look for and went with him at the #4 pick. Sam Presti was this guy. He figured out how to weed out as many situational differences as possible with Westbrook at UCLA and he pulled the trigger.
3- John Bryant is a decent player but no one is going to use those net stats to form a statistical argument for or against the guy. I'd start by looking here:
http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Joh ... 317/stats/or here:
http://www.kenpom.com/team.php?team=Santa%20ClaraWith the Hoopus Score we had in our draft board, we had him at 19.444, which is below Jordan Hill, Thabeet, Blair, Aldrich, Hansborough, and Griffin and just above Monroe. Again, this is where you need to have scouting, but there are plenty of different ways to look at numbers...just as there are several different angles to look at a player. The trick is finding a method that is reproducable and can be subjected to quality control. His stats don't place him in elite company and I'm pretty sure he would be further reduced if I were clever enough to figure out how to account for things like conference difference, strength of schedule, etc.
