Diamonds in the rough

[penbeast0]

I like Chris Wright and Jeremy Evans; but although quick and long, neither has much range.

[closg00]

+1 on Jordan Williams, he never got a fair shot, I would totally have him in my camp. Should have stayed another year at MD. Huge mistake coming out early.

[dorianwrite]

I'm late to the party here, but question for Nivek: does your formula in any way address the rate at which these players commit fouls? I was wondering, particularly with the big men, whether any can't stay on the court because of how often they foul, mitigating any potential usefulness their stats might indicate.

[Nivek]

I'm late to the party here, but question for Nivek: does your formula in any way address the rate at which these players commit fouls? I was wondering, particularly with the big men, whether any can't stay on the court because of how often they foul, mitigating any potential usefulness their stats might indicate.

Not explicitly. I'll check foul rate. It probably wouldn't be difficult to add a foul factor. Hmm...

As an aside, I think coaches are generally too cautious when it comes to foul "trouble." If a guy picks up a couple fouls in the first quarter, he's usually pulled from the game at least until the 2nd quarter. If he picks up his third during the 2nd quarter, he's pulled until the half. If he picks up his 4th in the 3rd quarter, he's pulled until the 4th quarter. A 5th foul usually will get a guy pulled into there's 3-4 minutes left in the game.

I think this is because of the belief that the ends of games are somehow more important than what came before. Coaches worry about having to play the last couple minutes of a close game without a particular player, but at the same time seem to discount that player's ability to influence the outcome earlier in the contest. In other words, if they left the player in the game until he got his 4th or 5th foul, or (el gasp) even let a guy foul out with 5 minutes to go, maybe the game wouldn't be as close at the end.

[Ruzious]

Minus 1 on Jordan Williams - I have to be consistent on what I said about him at Maryland. He's a very limited player defensively who regressed in some ways offensively in his last season at MD. He's a terrible foul shooter, so there's not much to base him developing a mid-range game. Offensively, he relied on being just long enough in college to get off his power moves - he'll set records for getting his shots blocked in the NBA - if he plays enough with average length, lack of athleticism, and so-so moves. Remember Lonny Baxter - Lonny might have been not quite as long, but he had some explosion - when he dunked, he did it with authority. There's no "authorituh" when Williams dunks. And Lonny isn't in the NBA. Overall, they're similar.

[dckingsfan]

How would I "go by PPA", Kev -- is there a formula for it? Is it your personal roll-up formula? Is it based on box score numbers? Or those numbers plus something else used to adjust them or added in to them?

Tell us something, please.

There is a formula, which I haven't published yet.

I've described it in general terms at the blog and (I thought) here, but maybe not . Here's the nutshell: it's derived from the box score. It includes an accounting for defense (a combination of box score measures the team's defensive rating with the player on the court), and a "degree of difficulty" factor based on an estimate of the level of competition a player faces while on the floor. I also make a pace adjustment.

In terms of weights, they're closer to Wins Produced than to PER. But not identical. PPA handles offensive efficiency and rebounding differently.

PPA is a per minute stat. I set the league average at 100 for each season. Higher is better. Replacement level is 45.

I'm going through a possible project that would use PPA, and would include the formulas in that. For now, to paraphrase the words of the Rev. Fred Sultan from The Great White Hype, I'm not giving away what I'm trying to sell.

Preach.

Sounds wise, Nivek. I've given much away only to regret it later. It's not good business when others profit from your own hard work and great ideas.

Actually, you probably shouldn't even mention it here... at least until you are published.

[Nivek]

Minus 1 on Jordan Williams - I have to be consistent on what I said about him at Maryland. He's a very limited player defensively who regressed in some ways offensively in his last season at MD. He's a terrible foul shooter, so there's not much to base him developing a mid-range game. Offensively, he relied on being just long enough in college to get off his power moves - he'll set records for getting his shots blocked in the NBA - if he plays enough with average length, lack of athleticism, and so-so moves. Remember Lonny Baxter - Lonny might have been not quite as long, but he had some explosion - when he dunked, he did it with authority. There's no "authorituh" when Williams dunks. And Lonny isn't in the NBA. Overall, they're similar.

Interesting player. He rated as a first round pick in YODA. Adequate length for a PF, above average strength, but on the slow side. In my similarity score thingy, Baxter doesn't show up as being particularly similar. Top similars include some guys who got overdrafted or ended up as bad picks:

- Curtis Borchardt (JR)
- Andrew Bogut (SO)
- Sam Bowie (SO)
- Channing Frye (JR)
- Ed Davis (SO)
- Trevor Mbakwe (SO)

In fairly limited minutes as a rookie, he was decent. I'd be happy to sign him for the minimum and let him compete for a backup center job. It's not likely he'll be worse than Seraphin.

[closg00]

Minus 1 on Jordan Williams - I have to be consistent on what I said about him at Maryland. He's a very limited player defensively who regressed in some ways offensively in his last season at MD. He's a terrible foul shooter, so there's not much to base him developing a mid-range game. Offensively, he relied on being just long enough in college to get off his power moves - he'll set records for getting his shots blocked in the NBA - if he plays enough with average length, lack of athleticism, and so-so moves. Remember Lonny Baxter - Lonny might have been not quite as long, but he had some explosion - when he dunked, he did it with authority. There's no "authorituh" when Williams dunks. And Lonny isn't in the NBA. Overall, they're similar.

Split decision then, he appeared to be a on a trajectory to becoming at-least a decent PF/C, but he stupidly let draft talk go to his head. Should have stayed in school.

I see that he was on the Lakers SL squad, but didn't get any minutes there either apparently.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

D'Antoni wants guys who run and shoot threes, within seven seconds or less. (Thanks, fish, for first pointing out to me his philosophy). Whoever ran the Laker SL squad was probably not looking for a plodder to get minutes.

[Ruzious]

Minus 1 on Jordan Williams - I have to be consistent on what I said about him at Maryland. He's a very limited player defensively who regressed in some ways offensively in his last season at MD. He's a terrible foul shooter, so there's not much to base him developing a mid-range game. Offensively, he relied on being just long enough in college to get off his power moves - he'll set records for getting his shots blocked in the NBA - if he plays enough with average length, lack of athleticism, and so-so moves. Remember Lonny Baxter - Lonny might have been not quite as long, but he had some explosion - when he dunked, he did it with authority. There's no "authorituh" when Williams dunks. And Lonny isn't in the NBA. Overall, they're similar.

Split decision then, he appeared to be a on a trajectory to becoming at-least a decent PF/C, but he stupidly let draft talk go to his head. Should have stayed in school.

I see that he was on the Lakers SL squad, but didn't get any minutes there either apparently.

I think you have to compute that (figuratively) into his mental makeup and part of who he is.

[Ruzious]

Minus 1 on Jordan Williams - I have to be consistent on what I said about him at Maryland. He's a very limited player defensively who regressed in some ways offensively in his last season at MD. He's a terrible foul shooter, so there's not much to base him developing a mid-range game. Offensively, he relied on being just long enough in college to get off his power moves - he'll set records for getting his shots blocked in the NBA - if he plays enough with average length, lack of athleticism, and so-so moves. Remember Lonny Baxter - Lonny might have been not quite as long, but he had some explosion - when he dunked, he did it with authority. There's no "authorituh" when Williams dunks. And Lonny isn't in the NBA. Overall, they're similar.

Interesting player. He rated as a first round pick in YODA. Adequate length for a PF, above average strength, but on the slow side. In my similarity score thingy, Baxter doesn't show up as being particularly similar. Top similars include some guys who got overdrafted or ended up as bad picks:

- Curtis Borchardt (JR)
- Andrew Bogut (SO)
- Sam Bowie (SO)
- Channing Frye (JR)
- Ed Davis (SO)
- Trevor Mbakwe (SO)

In fairly limited minutes as a rookie, he was decent. I'd be happy to sign him for the minimum and let him compete for a backup center job. It's not likely he'll be worse than Seraphin.

From someone who didn't even get drafted (Mbawkwe) to a first pick in the draft (Bogut). That's a rather wide range.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I missed on Borchardt. He was pretty good at Stanford. I thought he would be a pretty good NBA center.

[pancakes3]

Jordan Williams is one of the guys I think is a DitR. Drafted #36 in 2011, had quite a good rookie season w/ the Nets. Went to Atlanta in (I think) as a throw-in part of the Joe Johnson trade. Didn't flourish there and is now out of the league it seems.

I questioned him coming out of college, but he slimmed down and showed that he has game. A DitR, IMO.

I was a JW supporter during the draft but if you want a PF diamond in the rough for our team, I say trade for Mike Scott instead. Much more polished, can stretch the floor, and still offer the same defensive potential/production.

There is a formula, which I haven't published yet.

I've described it in general terms at the blog and (I thought) here, but maybe not .

It's just a wee bit confusing at first blush when I see PPA I think points per attempt.

[payitforward]

How a team uses a player affects a guy's productivity. Tell a guy to stop shooting or stop going for offensive rebounds and that player will score less or grab fewer offensive rebounds. To the extent that changing teams changes a player's role, his productivity can change too. However, what an array of basketball researchers have found is that the stats of NBA players are much more stable than they are in the other major sports -- even when players change teams or their team changes players around them. This is true of PPA, which comes from the box score stats.

Ditto when the coach changes as well.

I wish people would memorize what you say. Once something shows as a fact, you need to stop speculating on all the ways it won't be true for the next case.

Players are productive based on their abilities -- not because they play for a good team so it rubs off, not because they play for a bad team so they get minutes to show what they can do, and not because they play for a team that is good at "player development."

If we kept this in mind we wouldn't have to waste a lot of time on outlandish nonsense, and we'd know that if you draft good players (say Kawhi Leonard or Nikola Vucevic or Kenneth Faried) they play well. If you draft bad players (say Jan Vesely or Chris Singleton or Shelvin Mack or Kevin Seraphin or Nick Young) they play bad. Ditto for trades and free agents.

And you know what else? Because performance doesn't change based on changing teams, teammates or coaches, it's not hard to know which guys to target in trades or as free agents. Target the guys who played good last year and the year before and wherever they played and whoever their teammates were. Those guys will play good for you too.

Other than questions of age and injury, there's not much more to it than the above.

[LyricalRico]

I missed on Borchardt. He was pretty good at Stanford. I thought he would be a pretty good NBA center.

Yeah, same here. I remember wanting the Wiz to get him the year he came out. Did he get hurt? Or was he just not any good?

[pancakes3]

Both, Rico.

Sat out his rookie season due to injury and he was one of those late bloomers that Sev and others caution against. Didn't play much until he was a 21 year old Junior. Also, part of his allure was his "shooting" but if you look at the paltry number of attempts and a sub 70% FT%, we should have seen that it was pyrite to begin with.

[Ruzious]

Another big named Jordan belongs in the discussion - Jordan Hill. Before the injury last season, it looked like the light had gone on for him. His PER was up to 18.5, and the turnovers were managable. He's always had the talent and excellent measurables. I think it's just a matter of him getting and staying healthy. And in today's NBA, he can be very effective at C - he's not just a PF. I think he should be used more at C.

[hands11]

Looking at the advanced numbers, Beasley looks like the worst player in league, period. I think he's one of those guys that you don't acquire under any circumstances.

Close.

Going by PPA, Beasley was 12th worst last season (among players who got at least 500 total minutes):


[*] Austin Rivers -- 0
[*] Xavier Henry -- 9
[*] Ronnie Price -- 15
[*] Dahntay Jones -- 15
[*] Jan Vesely -- 19
[*] Sasha Pavlovic -- 21
[*] Draymond Green -- 21
[*] Norris Cole -- 21
[*] Kevin Seraphin -- 22
[*] Darius Miller -- 22
[*] Chris Singleton -- 24
[*] Michael Beasley -- 26

Beasley is a guy I was interested in last offseason as a one-year, minimum salary kinda guy. I thought he might be a good salvage project given his outstanding college production and the theory that he may have been hindered by playing at SF instead of PF. But then Phoenix gave him that nutty contract. At least they had the sense to not fully guarantee the third year.

So you're saying he would be an upgrade? Quick Ernie, get Beasley!

Curious Niv

I've seen bad numbers for other players before.

I remember seeing some numbers, not sure what, assigned to Wall and Beal and showing how they were worst at stuff. I think Beal was the worst 3 pt shooter there for a while.

What were Wall PPA numbers year by year.

And do you have any example of players that had really low PPA that went up.

What about players like T Harris, or Nikola V, Patrick Patterson

[hands11]

How a team uses a player affects a guy's productivity. Tell a guy to stop shooting or stop going for offensive rebounds and that player will score less or grab fewer offensive rebounds. To the extent that changing teams changes a player's role, his productivity can change too. However, what an array of basketball researchers have found is that the stats of NBA players are much more stable than they are in the other major sports -- even when players change teams or their team changes players around them. This is true of PPA, which comes from the box score stats.

Ditto when the coach changes as well.

I wish people would memorize what you say. Once something shows as a fact, you need to stop speculating on all the ways it won't be true for the next case.

Players are productive based on their abilities -- not because they play for a good team so it rubs off, not because they play for a bad team so they get minutes to show what they can do, and not because they play for a team that is good at "player development."

If we kept this in mind we wouldn't have to waste a lot of time on outlandish nonsense, and we'd know that if you draft good players (say Kawhi Leonard or Nikola Vucevic or Kenneth Faried) they play well. If you draft bad players (say Jan Vesely or Chris Singleton or Shelvin Mack or Kevin Seraphin or Nick Young) they play bad. Ditto for trades and free agents.

And you know what else? Because performance doesn't change based on changing teams, teammates or coaches, it's not hard to know which guys to target in trades or as free agents. Target the guys who played good last year and the year before and wherever they played and whoever their teammates were. Those guys will play good for you too.

Other than questions of age and injury, there's not much more to it than the above.

But those productive players aren't as easy to land. So you see why the Wiz have been gambling on players coming off injury. They have fallen out of favor. Webster is a good example. If you are not an attractive franchise to the league and you are rebuilding, you have to take some chances.

And I still think there are empty stat guyw. Ya they put up numbers, but having them on the court doesn't mesh with a winning style of play. They score but no D. They shoot to much or to early. etc. Basically, bad net pts players. And because some players play on poor defensive teams, I think that number would change with coach and different teams.

Then you have your J O'Neals. Some players do get better. Nash. Those numbers mentioned are on average. Well there are exception to the average. So it depends on if you want to the bird in hand or swing for the fences.

But I totally agree in drafting. That why I like VO, CJM, Burke, Zeller. Main thing to take into account there is, can they play the same position in the pros. Are the hard workers. Like with Zeller. He likely moves to PF and its going to take him being able to shoot from outside to do well. But out of no where, he showed he can. So that's a decent gamble.

While a player like Burk looked to struggle in SL, but I'm not real worried. He is skilled, confident, a hard worker. He will figure it out and adjust.

So there is still skill required in evaluating these things. And at the end of the day, the players have to work well together. Changing a player position or putting players on the court that take up the space they need to operate will affect efficiency and productivity.

And if past production was always an indication of future performance, no players would ever get better and we know they do their first 1-4 years. And there is a most improved player ever year. Someone is getting better.

Also consider this. A players number might not look any different per 36 or efficiency, but if they are going from spot minutes against the second unit to more minutes against starters, they did get better in order to just maintain that production.