Today’s Piece Comes Courtesy of Aturo Galletti. It also comes with a promotion. Arturo is the new Nightly Editor of the Wages of Wins Network. He will be responsible for ensuring that there is a new piece up each day! 

Arturo has been the most ardent blogger in the Wages of Wins Network over at Arturo’s Silly Little Stats. He has also been a regular on the Wages of Wins Podcast. His skill as a full time contributor at the Wages of Wins Journal are a huge boost. For those unfamiliar with some of his stellar work off of this blog I highly recommend you check out some his favorite pieces

• Deconstructing Models: A look at Adjusted Plus Minus .
• Excellent models for forecasting.

Arturo has also been working on cool ways to visualize the data both as images (see here) and dynamic displayed( see here)  These are still a work in progress (sorry, there is still some lag) but we’re excited to see what else he comes up with.

With that, here’s Arturo

For me it all began with a piece on Lebron James, Mike Brown and my beloved Boston Celtics. Dave offered his readers and opportunity to interact and contribute. I couldn’t resist but to answer the call. One post turned into two. Then my own silly little blog .

Some discussion with Dave has started some changes. Andres Alvarez and I will be moving back to this blog more or less “full time” in both administrative and blogging roles at Dave’s kind request. This brings with it a few other changes:

• A New Logo! 
• A new commenting policy! From now on you have to sign in with a WordPress, Facebook or Twitter account. It’s easy to get heated some times and we hope knowing who we are will promote rational discourse.
• More content! The intent, dear readers, is to bring you more content and bring it to you more often.  Andres, Dave and myself will take on an editorial role as well as a contributing role. By consolidating the efforts of the Wages of Win network, we can build a better whole from the sum of the WOW blog parts. Hopefully, you’ll continue with us for the ride.

For me personally, it’s kinda like moving from late night to the tonight show (with Dave being Johnny Carson in this scenario). I realize I will have to adjust my material somewhat  but it’ll be worth it.

Hopefully it’ll go better for me than Conan. I also  still have my blog for the occasional  saucy joke.

The first responsibility Dave has tasked me with is breaking down links from the Wages of Wins Network for all the great draft material out there.

Draft Links:

Arturo’s Silly Little Stats

• Arturo takes a look at his predictions of the 2010 NBA Draft.
• Arturo takes a look at the Draft Pedigree of teams in the Finals in response to Ben Morris’ take on if winning the draft lottery matters.

Courtside Analyst

• Ty looks at Derrick Williams and if he’ll be more like Gerald Wallace, Marvin Williams or Carmelo Anthony.
• Ty explains why this draft is deeper than people believe.
• Ty looks at Alec Burks would work out for Milwaukee.
• Ty looks at team needs to help determine what they should draft.
• Ty takes a look at if Ricky Rubio will solve the Timberwolves.

Hickory-High

• Ian has done similarity scores for the draft! Awesome work!

Miami Heat Index

• Mosi looks at Allen Iverson and the notion that he was a “bust”

NBeh?

• Devin does a full run down of the draft prospects.

Red, Wall and Blue

• Robbie also takes a look at Derrick Williams
• Robbie also looks at Jan Vesely

Shut Up and Jam

• James looks at the 10 biggest Draft Busts using Wins Produced. (Check out Hoopisms for another great Bust List!)
• In case you missed it last month, James also has all of the PAWS40 numbers for the draft.

-Arturo

There has been some amazing work on the draft this year.  This is the latest from Ty Willihnganz (The Courtside Analyst).

Look for more analysis from Arturo Galletti tonight (in this forum).  And Andres Alvarez will chime in soon as well.  Both Arturo and Andres have been given the “keys to the kingdom” (or something like that) and will be posting in this forum.  Until they start, though, enjoy the following from Ty (and go check out all his draft analysis at Courtside Analyst).

In the book Stumbling on Wins, Professor David Berri cited research he had done in which he attempted to identify the college box score statistics (and extrinsic factors) that might suggest a certain prospect will be a productive NBA player.

He found that most of the traditional box score statistics had no statistical significance, except three: 2pt%, Steals, and Rebounds. I computed the positional averages for each of this year’s prospects in those three categories, plus True Shooting Percentage, and Win Score per 40 minutes.

I broke the prospects down into three general categories: (1) Small Guards (pure point guards and shooting guards too small to double as small forwards); (2) Perimeter Players (players who can split time at shooting guard and small forward; and, (3) Big Men (power forwards and centers).

Here are the averages in each of the three general categories:

Here are the list of the top prospects, with comments:

1. Kyrie Irving (PG/SG):

Skinny: Looks like a potential superstar. Irving has decent size, and he is two standard deviations above the “Smalls” WS40 average, normally the mark of a potential elite player.  Irving is above average in every category except rebounds, where he is average. Irving’s Ass/FGA average of 0.45 marks him as a slash Point Guard/Shooting Guard, which is probably what he played at Duke.

2. Derrick Williams (SF/PF)

Skinny: As I mentioned in the last post, Williams is hard to project because he will not be playing the same position in the pros that he played in college. In the NBA he will most likely be a cross between a small forward and power forward. Such players are hard to project, for various reasons that you need to read the other post to understand. Among the bigs, Williams is above average in WS40, and in both of the shooting statistics. Williams has outstanding touch on his jump shot. Williams is just an average rebounder, and slightly above average in steals. This is a red flag, because Michael Beasley, a player playing a similar mix of positions, basically gave up rebounding when he got to the NBA and turned himself into a “drifter”, and his value has never been what it was projected to be.

3. Enos Kanter, C

Skinny: I have no reliable statistics on this guy. Some sites feature his below 18 year old statistics, but that is essentially high school. For what its worth, he looks the part and looks fairly mobile, but so did Darko Milicic.

4. Brandon Knight (PG/SG)

Skinny: This player should come with a warning sticker. I am not guaranteeing he will be an unproductive pro, but as you can see, he is below average in every single significant category. In fact, in three of the five he is significantly below average. He is a standard deviation below the “Smalls” WS40 average, meaning he has shown no evidence he will be a valuable player.

5. Kemba Walker (SG/PG)

Skinny: Obviously, size may be an issue for Walker, who can play point guard (it looks like he did for his first two collegiate seasons), but who is much more productive as an off-guard. Kemba has an above average WS, but his shooting stats are below average. Encouragingly, he rebounds and produces steals at an above average rate, suggesting a player who is willing to do more than just score. Still, he is a scary prospect because he is tiny.

6. Jan Vesely (PF)

Skinny: One of those European players who is impossible to properly position. All of his numbers suggest “small forward”, but I guarantee, when an NBA coach gets a player as tall as Vesely, no matter how perimeter oriented, he will play the player at power forward, not small forward. I cite Yi Jianlian and Rashard Lewis as examples. This often has disastrous results unless you have an uber productive big man on the floor, because you are essentially playing without one big. With all that said, Vesely has some fantastic shooting numbers.  Will those transfer to America?

7. Jimmer Fredette (SG/PG)

Skinny: Above average in a lot of significant categories, but again, he will be required to play a position that is not his optimal position.  He should be able to find a “Steve Kerr” role for himself somewhere in the NBA. He’s crafty. Can he defend the NBA’s point guards?  That is the question.

8. Jonas Valanciunus (C)

Skinny: Very interesting prospect. I only have data on 14 of his European games, but he seems very long and extremely productive.  Does he have the strength to defend NBA bigs? Probably not right away. He really rebounds well, and he is a very effective scorer. You know whose name comes to mind, though?  A young Arvydas Sabonis, without the ball handling skills. He is only 19! That is high, high praise. I would not be afraid to draft this guy.

9. Kawhi Leonard (SF/PF)

Skinny: Very productive possession creator. Not a great shooter. A lot of people are comparing him to Gerald Wallace, but I look at him as a more productive version of Luc Moute. Incredible rebounder from the 3 position. He is the kind  of low skill offensive player that usually falls down the draft boards. It is surprising how much traction he has gained.

10. Marcus Morris (PF/SF)

Skinny:  Pretty small for the 4 position, and not as productive as I had thought. He probably cannot play the 3 for very long stints.  He has an above average WS40, but I think it was built upon overpowering college kids in the post. He has no outside touch, and he will not be able to overwhelm NBA players inside. I’d pass on this Morris.

11. Klay Thompson (SG/SF)

Skinny:  Apparently the buzz is that the Bucks will select Thompson, but he has the markings of a bust. His WS40 is below average for a perimeter player, and his entire game is built on his three point shooting.  He is below average in 2 point shooting and rebounding, which means he relies on bombs every night to make any kind of contribution at all. That’s scary. I hate players like this guy who seem to have no floor game. They are hit-or-miss. Either the jumper is on and they are crushing it for you, or they cannot hit anything and they are killing you with a thousand cuts. At best, Thompson projects as an average pro, and that is “at best”. Please stay away, Bucks.

12. Chris Singleton (PF)

Skinny: Draftexpress projects him as a small forward, but based on my Win Chart work, I see him as a definite power forward.  NBA coaches will not play a guy with his size on the perimeter unless the guy has an outside game, which Singleton doesn’t have. In fact, his shooting numbers would be below average at any position. I could be wrong, though.  He could be a Darius Miles type.  Miles was 6’9” and had no outside game to speak of and still logged a lot of minutes at the 3. But Miles weighed less, I believe.  (I just checked. I was right, Miles weighed a string bean 210 pounds — that’s why coaches played him at the 3). Singleton’s steal numbers are phenomenal.

13. Tristan Thompson (PF/C)

Skinny:  I don’t know. He’s below average in nearly every category, and at 6’8”, 227 lbs, that includes size. But he can’t play small forward because he cannot shoot at all. His FT% is a whopping 46.6%. Shaquesque, and not in a good way. You know who I’m thinking of? Marcus Haislip.

14. Bismack Biyombo (C/PF)

Skinny: Completely raw, but he could wrap his arms around an airport. But what does that mean if you can’t play? Draftexpress calls his best case “6’9” version of Dwight Howard” with his worst case being “Taj Gibson”. The first statement is ridiculous, the second would provide Taj Gibson with a libel claim were he a citizen of the United Kingdom. For a guy who played in the Timbuktu League or wherever, his stats aren’t that great. It looks like he basically blocked shots, turned the ball over, and committed fouls.  Whoever drafts him will ticket him for the NBADL I’ll bet.

15. Marshon Brooks (SG/SF)

Skinny: Four year player who is above average or average in every category.  Kind of an average outside shooter, and he may be too skinny at 6’5” and 190 to get his shot off unmolested.  Draftexpress lists his worst case comparison as “Henry Domercant”.  Is that some kind of pseudonym? Like “Allen Smithee“, the name Hollywood directors use when they want to disown one of their works?  I’ve never heard of Henry Domercant before.

—–

Okay, I’ve run out of energy here. I have to cut this short. This is already a +1500 word post. You can only comment for so long and you burn out.  I wanted to get to my “sleepers”, but that will probably have to wait. But I will name them: PF/C Kenneth Faried could be another Rodman, the other Morris brother looks like the better prospect, and there are a few point guards and small forwards who look intriguing, but I’ll comment on them at a later time.

- Ty Willihnganz

The current rules of the NBA prohibit a player from jumping from high school to the NBA.  And that seems to indicate that American players must spend at least one year creating revenues for NCAA school (a level of revenue that will exceed the value of one year of college education). 

Jeremy Tyler, though, has taken a different path.  Not only did he not go to college, he also skipped out on his senior year of high school.  Instead of going to class, Tyler first went to play professional basketball in Israel.  When that didn’t work out, Tyler spent this past year playing professionally in Japan.

Tyler’s odyssey was discussed last April in the New York Times. Missing from this story, though, was a review of the statistics Tyler posted while playing in Japan.  For this analysis, you need to see a discussion offered by Andrew Lowman.  My sense, though, is that many people missed this analysis.  So for readers of this forum, here is Lowman’s review of Tyler’s play in Japan.

Seven months ago, when I first decided to follow Jeremy Tyler’s Japan adventure, I knew it would be interesting, but did not expect a season as wacky and turbulent as this one. As everyone knows, the Tokyo Apache ended their season prematurely as a result of the massive earthquakes and tsunami that rocked Japan in March.  This catastrophe ended a season that was different from the start. For instance, the Apache did not have a home floor for the first two and a half months of the season, so only played half the number of games as other teams as they played only their away games. But even stranger, in a land where interest in basketball is iffy at best, there was an ex-NBA coach (Bob Hill) with a team consisting of a former lottery pick (Robert Swift), a D-League veteran (Kendall Dartez), two big-time college ball players (Byron Eaton and Michael Chappell), an assortment of Japanese players, and Jeremy Tyler: the wild card.

The New York Times article about Tyler a few weeks ago was well done and analyzed the human side of Jeremy Tyler’s season in Japan. What they did not do was geek out and analyze his stats over the course of the season.  That is what I am going to do here.

This first table contains Tyler’s basic stats from this season.

The above stats do not really tell us that much regarding how Tyler’s season actually played out. We see that generally he scored and rebounded well but fouled and turned the ball over way too much. This is absolutely true; Bob Hill said as much in the Times article. But if we break things down a little further, the story of Tyler’s season becomes somewhat more interesting. In the two tables below you can see his season divided into three parts. This first table merely breaks the boxscore stats by the three time periods.

The following table shows his averages per 40 minutes, a statistic that gives a better understanding of how he was playing.

The first eight games were the honeymoon period for Tyler. Four of the games were against the Saitama Broncos and the Akita Northern Happinets, two of the worst teams in the league, both with relatively weak frontlines. The next 13 games were the low point of his year as Tyler struggled offensively and, as a result, saw increasingly less playing time. While the Times article mentions the February series against Akita as the turning point in the season, I think it is hard to ignore the sudden improvement in Tyler’s play that occurred the week before when Kendall Dartez left the Apache. Dartez’s departure coincided with an increase in Tyler’s efficiency and, ultimately, his minutes played. Watching the games, it is clear that Tyler thrived as Hill played him more at the 4 spot alongside Robert Swift at the 5. Tyler showed his versatility away from the basket, including a drastically improved outside shot. Tyler’s turnovers also dropped during this part of the season as he spent less time in the post getting double-teamed.

While seeing those statistics should give one a better impression of Tyler’s season, the stats are still relatively useless as we have no context to place them in. Tyler’s performance is best analyzed when compared to similar players in the bj-league. I defined “similar player” as an import player taller than 6’7” who played primarily an inside game (players with less than 1/3 of their shots from behind the arc). I then removed any player who had not played in at least 20 games or 400 minutes during the season. In the end, 37 players matched these criteria. Most of these men were at one point fringe NBA prospects, but have since made a living overseas. While only the most hardcore basketball fans will know players like Julius Ashby (Colorado ’06), George Leach (Indiana ’04), Jeff Newton (Indiana ’03), Gary Hamilton (Miami ’06), or Abdullahi Kuso (Gonzaga ’08), these are all experienced professional basketball players.

I chose to use Dave Berri’s Win Score per 40 minutes (WS40) as my metric of comparison as it is:  a) straight forward; b) did not require me to crunch league-wide statistics; and c) actually took personal fouls into account. It is shocking to me that so many of the efficiency ratings out there do not use personal fouls in the calculation. Anyone who watched Tyler this season could see how big an impact his foul trouble had on his and his team’s efficiency.

WS40 is calculated through the following formula: (Points + Rebounds + Steals + ½Assists + ½Blocked Shots – Field Goal Attempts – Turnovers – ½Free Throw Attempts – ½Personal Fouls)/Total Minutes Played x 40.

Tyler ended the season with a WS40 of 10.1. His Position-Adjusted WS40 (PAWS40), though, is a meager -1.73, meaning that Tyler’s performance was below average for import post players in the bj-league. Looking at only the last 12 games of the season though shows Tyler with a PAWS40 of 2.3. This figure would place him in the top 20% of import post players in the league. As I mentioned earlier, while the other import players in the league are not household names, almost all of them played DI ball and have since played professionally all over the world. While the overall level of competition in the league may not be high, that is largely attributable to the Japanese players in the league, not the imports. Tyler had to earn his stats playing against seasoned professional athletes, not other 18 year-olds.

Looking at the stats from various angles, it is obvious that Tyler learned a lot about basketball this year. As I mentioned before, he added an outside shot to his repertoire to go along with his spin moves in the post. It is clear that Tyler’s future is not as a back-to-the-basket post player, but more as an athletic 4 who can play out to 15-18 feet. He is most definitely a project, but at 6’10” and 245 pounds there are few prospects who can match his size and athleticism. His ceiling at this point is largely up to him. DeAndre Jordan, JaVale McGee, Amir Johnson, and Andrew Blatche have all become solid NBA players over the past few years. There is no reason to think that Tyler will not be able to at least progress to their level. Is a late 1st Round pick out of the question at this point? In a draft weak with big men I would not rule it out.

- Andrew Lowman

The following article by Rick Telander appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times on Friday.  The story reveals that Gar Forman – general manager of the Bulls – thinks Derrick Rose is going to get better.  This belief is based on a certain study readers in this forum might have heard about.

After the article I have added a few more notes on both Telander’s story and the study Forman notes.

Bulls’ Derrick Rose has room to grow, or so the study goes

Before the NBA season ended, I had a casual chat with Bulls general manager Gar Forman.

It’s a GM’s duty to study basketball and its permutations the way a naturalist studies an anthill. For an outsider to tap into that focus is always enthralling.

Forman doesn’t spew his deepest thoughts or really say anything that might affect his team beyond the obvious. In that regard, he has some Jerry Krause in him, if not the Sleuth’s dubious personal skills.

But there are stats for everything in basketball, philosophies for everyone, and then there are the games and the players and the emotions right before the GM. There is the salary cap and the unknown of injuries. There is the coaching staff you have to hire, the college kids to look at. And it’s all moving, all the time.

All a GM has to do is figure it out and put together the best team in the world.

Earlier in the season, I had asked Forman about the universally endorsed notion that point guard Derrick Rose, just 22, will get better and better. This was before Rose was named MVP of the league and, yes, before Forman shared the NBA Executive of the Year Award with Miami Heat president Pat Riley.

What I said to Forman, basically, was: How does anyone know for sure?

He had nodded and mentioned, without much comment, that there were some stats he had looked at, some analysis he recently had read, that shined some light on that question.

Now, during this chat in late May, courtside at the Berto Center, he said, ‘‘Let me go upstairs and see if I can find it.’’

In time, he came down with a two-page printout with a photo of LeBron James at the top. There was no dateline, but the brief piece seemed to have appeared in the Wall Street Journal a year or so ago, and it was done by reporter David Biderman.

James’ best is behind him?

‘‘LeBron James turns 25 next Wednesday, which means one thing: He’s about to get worse,’’ the story began. ‘‘Ignore his gaudy statistics, and never mind that many analysts consider him the best player on the planet. By one statistical measure, Mr. James is just a week from being over the hill.’’

OK. Clearly, the piece was a year and a half old because James, whose birthday is Dec. 30, is now 26.

But the meat of the thing was stunning: According to David Berri, a professor of applied economics at Southern Utah University and the author of the book Wages of Wins: Taking Measure of Many Myths in Modern Sports, NBA players peak at 24 and basically stay at that level until they turn 25, at which point they start declining.

The article continued: ‘‘Mr. Berri’s research, which examined every player from 1977-2008, says the statistical output of the average 24-year-old is equal in value to six wins per season for his team if he plays 35 minutes a night. From then on, the average player keeps getting worse each year until age 35, at which point he begins costing his team wins.’’

And the kicker, with stats scattered about: ‘‘Mr. James seems to fit the statistical model perfectly. . . . The downfall has begun.’’

After the recent fade by the Miami Heat in the NBA Finals, what can we say?

But stats can do darn near whatever you want them to. Finals MVP Dirk Nowitzki will be 33 in three days, for instance.

And fellow champ Jason Kidd, for God’s sake, he’s older than tumbleweed. Well, 38.

And how can anyone explain, at any age, the Mavericks’ starting combo of J.J. Barea and Kidd, one being kindergarten-sized and the other being AARP-aged? And both being point guards?

You can’t. Intangibles everywhere, including an innovative coach, Rick Carlisle, who would put such an outrageous lineup on the floor.

Improving MVP — just maybe

So what is going through Forman’s opaque mind as the draft nears?

We don’t know, but this age thing seems to bode well for the Bulls. Rose is 22. Joakim Noah is 26. Luol Deng is 26. Taj Gibson is 25. Omer Asik is 24.

The Heat, the Eastern Conference team to beat, has James, 26, Chris Bosh, 26, and Dwyane Wade, 29.

Could the Big Three all be in decline?

But above all, if the little tidbit Forman pondered was correct, Rose will get better.

An improved MVP. That’s something.

But as Forman surely knows, numbers can mean little. Even can be lies in disguise.

To wit, Michael Jordan was 35 when he led the Bulls to their sixth NBA title in 1998. Scottie Pippen was 32. Ron Harper was 34. Dennis Rodman was 37.

But if LeBron and Co. actually have peaked? And Rose will be a better player two years from now?

No wonder a GM’s brain never stops spinning.

A few notes on Telander’s article:

The David Biderman article he references appeared in the Wall Street Journal in December of 2009.   At that time, I added a few thoughts (see A Quick Note on Aging in the NBA) in this forum.  For those who don’t wish to click on the link, here is what I said back in 2009 (with a few more notes added in response to what Telander said):

• Via a study of NBA players from 1977-78 to 2007-78 (a study discussed in more detail in Stumbling on Wins), we found that an NBA player generally improves until he is in his mid-20s.  Performance after this point is not much different until a player reaches about 27 or 28 years of age.  After that point – and especially when a player passes the age of 30 – performance starts to decline more noticeably.
• It is important to note that we are reporting a tendency.  The peak at 24 or 25 will not be true for every player (as Telander notes in his article).  But when you look at the link between age and performance, controlling for a host of other factors, the general peak is in this range.
• The results were the same when we looked at NBA Efficiency.  So this result does not depend on looking at performance via Wins Produced.
• The key issue is not the specific point in the player’s 20s where the peak occurs, but rather that performance after age 30 has a noticeable drop-off.  In the player’s twenties the slope downward is quite gradual (and not something you would probably notice if you watched the player).  In other words, LeBron will still be LeBron – barring injury – for a few more years (although he did drop-off this year relative to his production in 2009-10).
• The drop-off after age 30 will not be the same for everyone (again, as Telander noted).  For some players, performance declines considerably (as my post on Kareem and Shaq noted).  However, John Stockton posted a WP48 of 0.262 at the age of 40 (Stockton’s best season, though, was at the age of 25).
• The research on aging draws upon some work done by JC Bradbury.  One issue Bradbury emphasized is that more athletic activities (like tennis, short distance running, and swimming) tend to see peak performances at a very young age.  In a sport like golf – and with respect to some aspects of baseball – peak performance occurs much later.  Basketball is a sport that relies tremendously on athletic ability, so we shouldn’t be surprised to see a peak in the mid-twenties (as opposed to a point closer to 30 years of age).

The previous points were made back in 2009.  Let me close with a few more observations

• In thinking about “peak” performance, people tend to focus on what comes after the peak (i.e. people decline).  As noted, the decline from the peak in the NBA is gradual.  Players still peform at a high level in their latter twenties (and some – although not all – continue to perform at a high level in their thirties).  So what comes right after the peak is not very dramatic.
• An important story is what happens before the peak.  One should expect Derrick Rose – who is only 22 – to continue to improve.  In fact, someday he might be as productive as people already think he is.  If this doesn’t happen by his mid-twenties, though, it probably isn’t going to happen.  In other words, when Rose is LeBron’s age (LeBron is 26 years of age), he might be as productive as he ever will be (although – once again – this whole study is about a tendency and individual players can be different from what we see across the entire sample).
• One should also note that Rob Simmons and I have a paper looking at performance from 1991 to 2008 (for a study on another issue).  That study – which should be coming out in Labour Economics — showed that the peak was closer to 26 years of age in the later time period.

And here is one more observation…

The studies of aging I have conducted have looked at a large sample of players.  As noted, these studies have also controlled for other factors that impact performance.  Telander attempts to offer a different perspective with a few anecdotes.  And he throws in the standard line about statistics lying.  My sense is that this line is the refuge of those who don’t understand statistics.  In other words, rather than trying to understand whatever study they are referencing, journalists toss out the line about statistics lying and then move on to expressing whatever they believe (a belief generally supported – as Telander demonstrates – with a few carefully chosen anecdotes).  Hopefully this article indicates that Gar Forman – the Bulls’ general manager – does not rely upon Telander’s approach in making decisions.

Wait… let me amend that last statement. As I have noted in the past, I am not a fan of the Bulls (and one can argue – at least, I am going to argue – that the Bulls cost me the TrueHoop Smackdown title).   So as a Pistons fan, let me hope that Forman paid very close attention to the lesson Telander was teaching.  Anecdotes are what you need.  Statistical analysis never tells you anything.

- DJ

The next big event in the NBA is the draft. Over the next week I am hoping to post a few stories on the draft.  And I want to start with something James Brocato posted a few weeks ago at Shut Up and Jam.  

In looking at these numbers, keep in mind (as James notes) that there is a correlation between college performance and what we see in the NBA.  But it is not a perfect correlation.  So players who perform well in college may not perform well in the NBA.  And those who do not play well in college, may play well in NBA.  That being said, what we see in college often does indicate what we will see in the NBA.  And that means that when you see a player with relatively poor numbers, a red flag should be raised in the minds of NBA decision-makers.  After all, if a player didn’t perform in college, that might suggest he will struggle against the better player in the NBA.

Okay, enough of the cavaets.  Here is the analysis from James.

The following table shows the Position Adjusted Win Score per 40 minutes (PAWS40) for the top 100 prospects for the 2011 NBA Draft (as ranked by DraftExpress). Win Score is a relatively simple player evaluation metric created by Dave Berri. Win Score is calculated by the following equation:

PTS + REB + STL + ½*BLK + ½*AST – FGA – ½*FTA – TO – ½*PF.

DraftExpress reports the raw win scores for every college basketball player. Position Adjusted Win Score is calculated by subtracting the average win score at the particular player’s position, then adding the overall average win score. Dave Berri has provided numbers for average win scores for college basketball players, but I came up with slightly different numbers.

However, while the numbers themselves are different, the position differences are nearly identical relatively. The important number for this table is 7.1, the Win Score of the average player. Thus, all players who have PAWS greater than 7.1 are above average, and all less than 7.1 are below average.

A couple of notes on these numbers:
- I didn’t include players who did not play at an American college in this post. I plan on evaluating those players in a future post.
- The numbers are adjusted for team pace.
- The numbers are NOT adjusted for strength of schedule. So be careful when looking at players from mid-major teams because their numbers are probably inflated
- The numbers are not perfect because I am not 100% sure every position is perfect. I did my best to estimate each player’s position.
- The positions listed for each player represent what Draft Express lists the player as, not necessarily what he played in college. For these numbers, I used the position the player played in college.

Here are the top 5 per position (position as in what is listed at Draft Express):

*Willie Reed did not play in the 10-11 season, so his 09-10 numbers are included.

While college production does not necessarily predict NBA production, I think there are quite a few interesting things about these numbers. Some highly touted point guards, especially Brandon Knight, were fairly unproductive in college. There don’t seem to be that many extremely productive players, although Faried really stands out. Of course, he didn’t play in a quality league, but to have numbers that stand out like that would make me very willing to take a chance on him, especially if I’m a late lottery team. Irving looks like the #1 pick, but he only played a handful of games, so the numbers aren’t entirely conclusive. Finally, other than Brandon Knight, all of the American players projected in the lottery look to be very productive.

-James