PDA

View Full Version : Why Do People Use College Stats to Project NBA Careers When the G.O.A.T...



TorontoHuskies
03-16-2014, 07:31 PM
Why do people use college stats to project NBA careers when the greatest player ever didn't have impressive stats? Michael Jordan as a college Freshman only averaged 13.5 pts and 4.4 rbs in 32 min/gm by today's standards people would be comparing him to some NBA scrub and saying he sucks. IMO He is the perfect example of why you draft someone for what they could be and not what they're currently.

http://www.michaeljordansworld.com/college_stats.htm

Jamiecballer
03-16-2014, 07:39 PM
Why do people use college stats to project NBA careers when the greatest player ever didn't have impressive stats? Michael Jordan as a college Freshman only averaged 13.5 pts and 4.4 rbs in 32 min/gm by today's standards people would be comparing him to some NBA scrub and saying he sucks. IMO He is the perfect example of why you draft someone for what they could be and not what they're currently.

http://www.michaeljordansworld.com/college_stats.htm

A - he stayed 2 more years so who cares
B - he played for a top notch program where learning was prioritized over putting up top notch numbers. ie that was a quality 13.5 and 4.4.
C - nobody who projects would use per game numbers over ones that better describe the quality of the performance and
D - People rarely use college numbers to project so I dont know what you're talking about.
E - see A.

JEDean89
03-16-2014, 07:57 PM
yah there is a reason why Doug McDermott isn't going as high as Noah Vonleh. you are arguing a moot point because potential already is what everyone drafts for. 13.5 and 4.4 as a freshman are solid numbers anyway, especially in a team system, no one would call a 13.5 ppg freshman a scrub.

NBA_Starter
03-16-2014, 08:12 PM
Because that is the only real stats they have to base it on.

JasonJohnHorn
03-16-2014, 08:26 PM
In college there are all kinds of guy who posted great averages.

What they look for is who is getting minutes on GOOD teams and helping those teams win. Who is playing well against good teams.

Teams draft for potential all the time Christian Laettner had some of the best college numbers and Shaq and Mourning were taken a head of him.

So teams do draft based on potential a lot of the time.

abe_froman
03-16-2014, 08:35 PM
Why do people use college stats to project NBA careers when the greatest player ever didn't have impressive stats? Michael Jordan as a college Freshman only averaged 13.5 pts and 4.4 rbs in 32 min/gm by today's standards people would be comparing him to some NBA scrub and saying he sucks. IMO He is the perfect example of why you draft someone for what they could be and not what they're currently.

http://www.michaeljordansworld.com/college_stats.htm

people dont ,though many players that are seen to have good next level tools also have good stats in college....i have no idea where you got the idea that people do

DreamShaker
03-16-2014, 10:01 PM
A strange thing I keep hearing is they look at steals more and more when looking at big men going from college to the pros. Raw stats in college are seemingly more ignored, as has been mentioned. That's my Marvin Williams was drafted right before CP3 and DWill and why Embiid might be the number one pick. Upside.

TorontoHuskies
03-16-2014, 11:39 PM
A strange thing I keep hearing is they look at steals more and more when looking at big men going from college to the pros. Raw stats in college are seemingly more ignored, as has been mentioned. That's my Marvin Williams was drafted right before CP3 and DWill and why Embiid might be the number one pick. Upside.

Why do people act like Wiggins isn't going to be great just because he averages 17pts or whatever..statistically the guy is better freshman than Jordan, why aren't people looking at that? Or how about Vince Carter who went to school for 3 years and still couldn't reach the numbers Wiggins has as a freshman? The NCAA is an awful league for NBA prospects and is the main reason there have been so many busts or poor draft choices over the years. NCAA game simply doesn't translate well to the NBA game.

Sadds The Gr8
03-16-2014, 11:41 PM
A - he stayed 2 more years so who cares
B - he played for a top notch program where learning was prioritized over putting up top notch numbers. ie that was a quality 13.5 and 4.4.
C - nobody who projects would use per game numbers over ones that better describe the quality of the performance and
D - People rarely use college numbers to project so I dont know what you're talking about.
E - see A.

/thread

conway429
03-17-2014, 12:06 AM
Why do people act like Wiggins isn't going to be great just because he averages 17pts or whatever..statistically the guy is better freshman than Jordan, why aren't people looking at that? Or how about Vince Carter who went to school for 3 years and still couldn't reach the numbers Wiggins has as a freshman? The NCAA is an awful league for NBA prospects and is the main reason there have been so many busts or poor draft choices over the years. NCAA game simply doesn't translate well to the NBA game.

So you start a thread claiming that NCAA stats mean nothing, and then it leads to your actual point, which is that Wiggins will be great because he has better freshman stats than MJ or VC?

besides, when you're a freshman for a university like North Carolina in the 80s, you better pass the ball. there were no one-and-dones. you didn't show up at UNC unless you were gonna play team basketball.
I guess you didn't know he also had Sam Perkins and James Worthy on the team? who were older and got more touches. and James Worthy only had 15 ppg and he was the #1 pick that year, so 13.5 ppg on 53.4% for a freshman in the 80s is pretty good... also, his freshman year was the year he hit the game-winner to beat Georgetown in the finals... so yeah.... i don't think anyone would be comparing him to 'some scrub saying he sucks'

2-ONE-5
03-17-2014, 09:59 AM
Why do people act like Wiggins isn't going to be great just because he averages 17pts or whatever..statistically the guy is better freshman than Jordan, why aren't people looking at that? Or how about Vince Carter who went to school for 3 years and still couldn't reach the numbers Wiggins has as a freshman? The NCAA is an awful league for NBA prospects and is the main reason there have been so many busts or poor draft choices over the years. NCAA game simply doesn't translate well to the NBA game.

hahaah come no man i wasnt even gonna call u out knowing this is about Wiggins til you posted this. Give it a rest who cares if Wiggins doesnt go #1? no one thinks he is a bum everyone knows hes going top 3 and will be an all star at the least.

3RDASYSTEM
03-17-2014, 10:25 AM
Why do people use college stats to project NBA careers when the greatest player ever didn't have impressive stats? Michael Jordan as a college Freshman only averaged 13.5 pts and 4.4 rbs in 32 min/gm by today's standards people would be comparing him to some NBA scrub and saying he sucks. IMO He is the perfect example of why you draft someone for what they could be and not what they're currently.

http://www.michaeljordansworld.com/college_stats.htm

because you go off game/ eye test, and that's why JORDAN is that mediahyped GOAT, you just said it because IVERSON avg 20ppg as freshman at G'TOWN and he was as good as a individual guard to ever step foot on the hardwood, JORDAN isn't the 'best' but like you said he sure is the 'greatest'

JORDAN avg 13.5ppg as freshman because im sure he was playing with probably 2 other nba caliber players on his team and he played for the ultimate team coach who knew how to collect cream of the crop prospects

Those are impressive freshman stats when you consider he had other nba players on his college team

this post you made is a perfect example of you are who you are as a player, JORDAN was a scorer/playmaker then as he was the 'come fly with me version' in the nba

you just don't know how to rank a player before watching 15yrs of nba ball to decide that, its easy to see what a player will be in nba after watching him in ncaa, no stats/WS/PER needed, ever

its just harder to gauge now because the era is so weak watered down with players, not talent, players

you do good for 1 month and you are a mediahyped superstar, LOWRY avg 18ppg and he is going to sign for 60mill offseason, IVERSON avg 18ppg for DET and had 4th seed at one point and he just fell off the face of the nba landscape for avg such low ppg on 14 shots per game

this era of bball is piss poor of sure pure franchise players to where M GASOL gets 60 million, equal to how KONCAK and DUDLEY back in the day got overpaid so its really nothing new under the sun its just weaker talent today in my book so I guess its overlooked since no DREAM/DROB/SHAQ/EWING roam the paints any longer

3RDASYSTEM
03-17-2014, 10:31 AM
Why do people act like Wiggins isn't going to be great just because he averages 17pts or whatever..statistically the guy is better freshman than Jordan, why aren't people looking at that? Or how about Vince Carter who went to school for 3 years and still couldn't reach the numbers Wiggins has as a freshman? The NCAA is an awful league for NBA prospects and is the main reason there have been so many busts or poor draft choices over the years. NCAA game simply doesn't translate well to the NBA game.

will WIGGINS drop 28ppg rookie yr? CARTER was freak of nature who had a jumper, showed it more in nba than ncaa

nobody said WIGGINS isn't good(quite using the word great, its stupid), but he isn't on TMAC level or of that level, but he is a good athlete and can play and has the wingspan and body to make it on next level, I don't really know his skill set but I know he is a athlete that can jump a little bit

ewing
03-17-2014, 10:55 AM
wasn't MJ the first guy to average 20 a night for Dean Smith?

farren.louis
03-17-2014, 10:59 AM
Great question . These guys ain't ish until they get to the big leagues

Chronz
03-17-2014, 11:47 AM
They look at athletic markers, rate of steals, rebounds and such. Every now and then, teams will ignore that and take guys who put up great per game averages in College but for the most part, if you were to replace every decision made by all the GM's with guys the CPU rated the best, teams would be better off.

I would wager teams look at quality of shot attempts, mechanics while keeping in mind the inferior comp. If there are shots you can get him in the NBA.

flea
03-17-2014, 11:51 AM
Height, size for position, lateral quickness, and leaping ability define a player's NBA future much more than college rate or raw stats. College is good for NBA projection in that it gives scouts a ton of film to look at. But it is different, the college game more resembles how basketball is played everywhere except the NBA. Unfortunately that could change.

I Rock Shaqs
03-17-2014, 11:51 AM
I hate when certain people post their own opinions and make up these "people" who all think this certain way when really those "people" is like one person or just their own opinion.

Lakers + Giants
03-17-2014, 12:41 PM
I hate when certain people post their own opinions and make up these "people" who all think this certain way when really those "people" is like one person or just their own opinion.

:laugh2:

I know exactly what you mean. It's like "people" is used to prove that there is actually someone out there saying what you think is being said. These "people" don't even exist. .

Chronz
03-17-2014, 12:54 PM
But "people" DO use college stats to help project NBA careers, theres a methodology in place and everything. Not sure what you 2 are talking about but it would be best to criticize actual people who are mistaken in their beliefs, enough of this vaguely calling people out.

used people 3 times there

TorontoHuskies
03-17-2014, 04:16 PM
hahaah come no man i wasnt even gonna call u out knowing this is about Wiggins til you posted this. Give it a rest who cares if Wiggins doesnt go #1? no one thinks he is a bum everyone knows hes going top 3 and will be an all star at the least.

I do this all because of you haha...You take it personally every time I stick up for the guy it's hilarious.

Walt
03-17-2014, 04:23 PM
Beasley averaged like 30/13 and I remember people saying he COULD be a star but there was no superstar hype.

TorontoHuskies
03-17-2014, 04:27 PM
because you go off game/ eye test, and that's why JORDAN is that mediahyped GOAT, you just said it because IVERSON avg 20ppg as freshman at G'TOWN and he was as good as a individual guard to ever step foot on the hardwood, JORDAN isn't the 'best' but like you said he sure is the 'greatest'

JORDAN avg 13.5ppg as freshman because im sure he was playing with probably 2 other nba caliber players on his team and he played for the ultimate team coach who knew how to collect cream of the crop prospects

Those are impressive freshman stats when you consider he had other nba players on his college team

this post you made is a perfect example of you are who you are as a player, JORDAN was a scorer/playmaker then as he was the 'come fly with me version' in the nba

you just don't know how to rank a player before watching 15yrs of nba ball to decide that, its easy to see what a player will be in nba after watching him in ncaa, no stats/WS/PER needed, ever

its just harder to gauge now because the era is so weak watered down with players, not talent, players

you do good for 1 month and you are a mediahyped superstar, LOWRY avg 18ppg and he is going to sign for 60mill offseason, IVERSON avg 18ppg for DET and had 4th seed at one point and he just fell off the face of the nba landscape for avg such low ppg on 14 shots per game

this era of bball is piss poor of sure pure franchise players to where M GASOL gets 60 million, equal to how KONCAK and DUDLEY back in the day got overpaid so its really nothing new under the sun its just weaker talent today in my book so I guess its overlooked since no DREAM/DROB/SHAQ/EWING roam the paints any longer

Jordan didn't even have a 3pt line when he played (probably why his FG% was so high) and was a horrible shooter coming in to the NBA from deep...If anyone called him the next GOAT at that time they would have put you in an insane asylum.

valade16
03-17-2014, 04:30 PM
Why do people use college stats to project NBA careers when the greatest player ever didn't have impressive stats? Michael Jordan as a college Freshman only averaged 13.5 pts and 4.4 rbs in 32 min/gm by today's standards people would be comparing him to some NBA scrub and saying he sucks. IMO He is the perfect example of why you draft someone for what they could be and not what they're currently.

http://www.michaeljordansworld.com/college_stats.htm

This is an absolutely terrible example because it actually completely disproves what you are trying to argue. That was Jordan’s rookie year. The next 2 years of his college career he averaged 20 PPG, 5.4 RPG and 54% FG. He was a 2 time All-American and actually won several awards for the best college player his Junior season.

If you wanted to use anybodies stats from college to how he projects as a pro-player Jordan is about as good an example as you can get.

What a joke.

TorontoHuskies
03-17-2014, 04:32 PM
:laugh2:

I know exactly what you mean. It's like "people" is used to prove that there is actually someone out there saying what you think is being said. These "people" don't even exist. .

The media does that for a living...In fact i'm pretty sure if you searched for NBA projections of all these college guys right now you could find multiple sources and they would be similar to their college stats on most of them.

valade16
03-17-2014, 04:32 PM
Jordan didn't even have a 3pt line when he played (probably why his FG% was so high) and was a horrible shooter coming in to the NBA from deep...If anyone called him the next GOAT at that time they would have put you in an insane asylum.

If anyone calls anyone the next GOAT before their first NBA game they should be in an insane asylum…

Hawkeye15
03-17-2014, 04:35 PM
remember OP, when Jordan went to school, and all the way up to the mid 90s, the talent level in the NCAA's was exponentially better than it is now. EVERYONE stayed 3-4 years. It was crazy to most when the Fab 5 peeled off so quickly. Hell, MJ had James Worthy and Sam Perkins as upper class teammates, of course he wasn't going to score 20 a game.

The reason teams want to see youth dominate now, is it is a better indicator of future success in today's NCAA. That wasn't the case back in the day.

Hawkeye15
03-17-2014, 04:37 PM
Jordan didn't even have a 3pt line when he played (probably why his FG% was so high) and was a horrible shooter coming in to the NBA from deep...If anyone called him the next GOAT at that time they would have put you in an insane asylum.

nobody calls a college kid the next GOAT, especially when a young Bird/Magic are currently playing alongside Jabbar. But it was pretty evident day 1 in the NBA, that he was going to be special. Hell, even before that. He wrecked shop his sophomore and junior year.

TorontoHuskies
03-17-2014, 04:37 PM
This is an absolutely terrible example because it actually completely disproves what you are trying to argue. That was Jordan’s rookie year. The next 2 years of his college career he averaged 20 PPG, 5.4 RPG and 54% FG. He was a 2 time All-American and actually won several awards for the best college player his Junior season.

If you wanted to use anybodies stats from college to how he projects as a pro-player Jordan is about as good an example as you can get.

What a joke.

I'm referring to his first year mainly...Also, there's guys like Beasley who had better stats in almost every category as Jordan in his junior season as a freshman and were busts (obviously different positions but it's another example of how the NCAA doesn't translate well to the NBA).

TorontoHuskies
03-17-2014, 04:39 PM
If anyone calls anyone the next GOAT before their first NBA game they should be in an insane asylum…

That pretty much locks up the entire Media because they've been doing it forever.

Hawkeye15
03-17-2014, 04:42 PM
Beasley averaged like 30/13 and I remember people saying he COULD be a star but there was no superstar hype.

because his scouting report also said he coasted on his natural ability, and even in high school, wouldn't play hard consistently, because he knew he could dominate at will. That means the guy never really worked on his game, and had question marks with his competitiveness.

Hawkeye15
03-17-2014, 04:43 PM
That pretty much locks up the entire Media because they've been doing it forever.

give an example. I have never seen a member of the media make a claim that a college kid is going to be the next GOAT.

TorontoHuskies
03-17-2014, 04:43 PM
nobody calls a college kid the next GOAT, especially when a young Bird/Magic are currently playing alongside Jabbar. But it was pretty evident day 1 in the NBA, that he was going to be special. Hell, even before that. He wrecked shop his sophomore and junior year.

I know but who would have ever imagined a guy coming in from college with his number pulling off what he did as a rookie (especially considering "stat wise" he hardly improved between sophomore and junior seasons)?

abe_froman
03-17-2014, 04:44 PM
I'm referring to his first year mainly...Also, there's guys like Beasley who had better stats in almost every category as Jordan in his junior season as a freshman and were busts (obviously different positions but it's another example of how the NCAA doesn't translate well to the NBA).

thats because of smith(the only man who could hold mj under 20).it was a different game back then,he purposely held mj from dominating to an absurd degree for the sake of the team,which had a lot of talent, and micheal (and he still was arguably the best college player ,wooden award winner ,ect.)

ksu rode beasley because thats all they had

Hawkeye15
03-17-2014, 04:45 PM
I know but who would have ever imagined a guy coming in from college with his number pulling off what he did as a rookie (especially considering "stat wise" he hardly improved between sophomore and junior seasons)?

Jordan dominated in college. Not sure what you are talking about. He left after 3 years, which at the time was early, and his athletic ability was off the charts for a prospect. He was easily the best player on TEAM USA, which won gold, and even Bobby Knight at the time said he was the best player he had seen play under the NBA level.

Jordan was boss by age 20 dude, not sure how you don't see that.

TorontoHuskies
03-17-2014, 04:46 PM
give an example. I have never seen a member of the media make a claim that a college kid is going to be the next GOAT.

Lebron was called it was he not?

Hawkeye15
03-17-2014, 04:48 PM
thats because of smith(the only man who could hold mj under 20).it was a different game back then,he purposely held mj from dominating for the sake of the team,which had a lot of talent, and micheal

ksu rode beasley because thats all they had

When an 18 year old MJ showed up to NC, Sam Perkins and James Worthy on his roster. People forget how much more competitive the NCAA was before all this one and done, or straight out of high school stuff started.

For instance, take any of these teams:

1992 Duke
1991 UNLV
1982 North Carolina

these teams for example would probably have finished 33-1 or better this year, and crush everyone in the NCAA's.

It's just different now. If you DON'T dominate as a freshman, you probably aren't going to be a great NBA player.

Hawkeye15
03-17-2014, 04:49 PM
Lebron was called it was he not?

no. He was called the best high school prospect since Jabbar though. But nobody crowned him the GOAT as an 18 year old.

D-Leethal
03-17-2014, 04:50 PM
I would say your college stats are pretty far down the list of supporting evidence teams go by when drafting a player. I would say if anything, they use selective stats to see how they played against stiffer competition, if your a big man see how you played against nation's top big men etc...Too much parity in NCAA to put too much importance in your average stats for the season. You alway see nation leading scorers, assist men etc. not even get considered in the draft because your stats in college have so much to do with your system, your competition, your teammates.

I think skill sets, physical attributes and combine results are weighed more heavily than your college production - especially with the understanding of raw talent/projects that take time to develop.

abe_froman
03-17-2014, 04:56 PM
no. He was called the best high school prospect since Jabbar though. But nobody crowned him the GOAT as an 18 year old.
bob ryan did,there were some people ready to crown him(not really a bad call though)

valade16
03-17-2014, 04:57 PM
I'm referring to his first year mainly...Also, there's guys like Beasley who had better stats in almost every category as Jordan in his junior season as a freshman and were busts (obviously different positions but it's another example of how the NCAA doesn't translate well to the NBA).

Why would you judge a player based on a specific year when he had 2 years after that in college alone?

That'd be like saying Kobe Bryant isn't that good because his first year he had bad stats. Who cares, he has many years after that where his stats improved.

Same with Jordan. Perhaps it's not so much people look at college stats to gauge how good a player will be in the NBA, it's probably that people don't use someone's freshman year when they also have sophmore and junior years to go off of...

D-Leethal
03-17-2014, 05:11 PM
I think LeBron was considered a guy "with a chance to be the GOAT". I don't think anyone heralded him the GOAT. I think that was a pretty accurate prediction given the way things have shaken out.

Hawkeye15
03-17-2014, 05:22 PM
bob ryan did,there were some people ready to crown him(not really a bad call though)

I don't even know who that is. No reputable, rational media member makes those claims about an 18 year old. Perhaps a guy who is a shock DJ when it comes to sports, and just likes to throw fuel on a fire might.

Hawkeye15
03-17-2014, 05:24 PM
I think LeBron was considered a guy "with a chance to be the GOAT". I don't think anyone heralded him the GOAT. I think that was a pretty accurate prediction given the way things have shaken out.

yeah, like I said, he was considered the best prospect coming out of high school since Alcindor by many. Obviously scouts who never saw Alcindor in college (most) said he was the best high school prospect they had ever seen. That is saying what you just said. Has a chance, but lets see how it plays out first.

ManRam
03-17-2014, 06:08 PM
My whole thing with Wiggins this year is that, essentially, it's not who he is NOW that matters it's who he'll be years from now that does. There are some stats worth looking at to help gauge some characteristics of a player's game, for sure. But, aside from the obvious issues with sample size, the fact that a lot of these guys are still teenagers who haven't even come close to being the best they can...well, it's silly to get too carried away with production. These guys are still kids. Upside, potential, athleticism, drive, and all these other buzzwords that actually do matter can't be gauged. I kinda compare Wiggins to Drummond in that their upside has always been painfully obvious, but the production in their 1 year of college wasn't always there for whatever reason.


Even pretty cut-and-dry stats, like using 3PT% to judge who is a better shooter than someone else, have been wildly misleading in the past. Brad Beal is an obvious and recent example. Despite the clear three point shooting abilities and some luscious mechanics, he shut under 34% from three in college. That number wasn't at all indicative of how strong his shooting potential was. Sure enough, he's been a great shooter in the NBA, because he had all the natural gifts, tools and mechanics.

Just a dumb example, but yeah...I don't think you'll ever catch me comparing players' college stats when arguing over draft prospects.

Hawkeye15
03-17-2014, 06:17 PM
My whole thing with Wiggins this year is that, essentially, it's not who he is NOW that matters it's who he'll be years from now that does. There are some stats worth looking at to help gauge some characteristics of a player's game, for sure. But, aside from the obvious issues with sample size, the fact that a lot of these guys are still teenagers who haven't even come close to being the best they can...well, it's silly to get too carried away with production. These guys are still kids. Upside, potential, athleticism, drive, and all these other buzzwords that actually do matter can't be gauged. I kinda compare Wiggins to Drummond in that their upside has always been painfully obvious, but the production in their 1 year of college wasn't always there for whatever reason.


Even pretty cut-and-dry stats, like using 3PT% to judge who is a better shooter than someone else, have been wildly misleading in the past. Brad Beal is an obvious and recent example. Despite the clear three point shooting abilities and some luscious mechanics, he shut under 34% from three in college. That number wasn't at all indicative of how strong his shooting potential was. Sure enough, he's been a great shooter in the NBA, because he had all the natural gifts, tools and mechanics.

Just a dumb example, but yeah...I don't think you'll ever catch me comparing players' college stats when arguing over draft prospects.

you need to measure guards and wings much differently than big men in college. Offenses are so packed in, its rare for big men to dominate right away. Take into account they simply take longer to develop, and you can't compare the statistics trajectory of Wiggins with Drummond.

The fact is, the level of college play has dropped so drastically with the really good players leaving right away, that if you don't dominate year 1 as a guard/wing, and show elite athletic ability, or elite something, chances are, you are not going to be an excellent NBA player. And staying in college has proven not to make players better, so it's a catch-22. Nowadays, you need to show basketball talent at a young age. The game is just different now than it was 20-30 years ago, when staying in school was what you did, and developed that way, against MUCH better competition. That may be part of it. In today's NCAA, how is Parker, Wiggins, or the few other freshman studs going to get better by staying? They are already the best in the NCAA's. That wasn't the case 20-30 years ago.

flea
03-17-2014, 06:31 PM
you need to measure guards and wings much differently than big men in college. Offenses are so packed in, its rare for big men to dominate right away. Take into account they simply take longer to develop, and you can't compare the statistics trajectory of Wiggins with Drummond.

The fact is, the level of college play has dropped so drastically with the really good players leaving right away, that if you don't dominate year 1 as a guard/wing, and show elite athletic ability, or elite something, chances are, you are not going to be an excellent NBA player. And staying in college has proven not to make players better, so it's a catch-22. Nowadays, you need to show basketball talent at a young age. The game is just different now than it was 20-30 years ago, when staying in school was what you did, and developed that way, against MUCH better competition. That may be part of it. In today's NCAA, how is Parker, Wiggins, or the few other freshman studs going to get better by staying? They are already the best in the NCAA's. That wasn't the case 20-30 years ago.

I'd argue it's different partially because NBA coaches and systems are so terrible. To be fair, the rules are such that you can really only succeed in a few ways. There are plenty of players capable of holding their own in the right system in the NBA that are currently playing in Europe or elsewhere.

The reason they're not in the NBA is usually because teams want youth at the end of the bench and cracking a rotation means you have to fall into a perfect situation. For example, Patrick Beverly is a fine NBA player but really is only useful for any meaningful minutes to a few teams. Luckily, Houston is one. Teams and coaches are less likely to give experiments like Beverly an extended look, because it usually means jobs if you're wrong. Teams that can coach players into a system, like the Heat and Spurs, succeed. Teams that start Josh Smith at small forward do something else.

Hawkeye15
03-17-2014, 06:34 PM
I'd argue it's different partially because NBA coaches and systems are so terrible. To be fair, the rules are such that you can really only succeed in a few ways. There are plenty of players capable of holding their own in the right system in the NBA that are currently playing in Europe or elsewhere.

The reason they're not in the NBA is usually because teams want youth at the end of the bench and cracking a rotation means you have to fall into a perfect situation. For example, Patrick Beverly is a fine NBA player but really is only useful for any meaningful minutes to a few teams. Luckily, Houston is one. Teams and coaches are less likely to give experiments like Beverly an extended look, because it usually means jobs if you're wrong. Teams that can coach players into a system, like the Heat and Spurs, succeed. Teams that start Josh Smith at small forward do something else.

I think your post holds true to some degree, but the top 10 teams or so don't care about youth sitting at the end of their bench. But you are right, teams rebuilding will pass up on clearly better players because they would rather have a bunch of 22 year olds on the team, hoping one or two of them will pan out.

ManRam
03-17-2014, 06:40 PM
I don't know. I feel that it's guards who struggle more right off the bat than big men in college.

My only point about Drummond/Wiggins was really just that, and I can't prove it, both were obvious one-and-done players who had murmurs surrounding them at all times about whether or not they viewed their year at college as anything other than a stepping stone. Maybe their hearts just weren't in it. Wiggins looked apathetic, hesitant and perhaps disinterested for much of the season. But at the same time his natural abilities just OOZE out of him, even when he's not taking an active role. And when he does, and maybe it feels like a leap of faith to assume he'll have that motivation in the NBA, he's got it all. His upside is just so undeniable...and I don't think the questions about his motor matter at all to me. He wants to be in the NBA; he's made that very clear.

There's no reason to compare two player's stats from one year of college basketball as a teenager to discern which is the better draft pick. That was all I was getting at.

What matters more than how many points, rebounds, assists, FG%, etc. etc. etc. is a player's athleticism, size, ability to defend, speed, quickness, shooting mechanics, length, intangibles, upside, potential, potential, potential and so on. How much of that can you discern from a 35 game sample size of stats from of college ball? Not much. They aren't meaningless, but I think for comparing two players in an effort to decide who to draft, they're close to it. Way too many variables at play...and, again, even as important as it is to prove yourself at a young age and right off the bat in college, it doesn't necessarily matter.

Hawkeye15
03-17-2014, 06:46 PM
I don't know. I feel that it's guards who struggle more right off the bat than big men in college.

My only point about Drummond/Wiggins was really just that, and I can't prove it, both were obvious one-and-done players who had murmurs surrounding them at all times about whether or not they viewed their year at college as anything other than a stepping stone. Maybe their hearts just weren't in it. Wiggins looked apathetic, hesitant and perhaps disinterested for much of the season. But at the same time his natural abilities just OOZE out of him, even when he's not taking an active role. And when he does, and maybe it feels like a leap of faith to assume he'll have that motivation in the NBA, he's got it all. His upside is just so undeniable...and I don't think the questions about his motor matter at all to me. He wants to be in the NBA; he's made that very clear.

There's no reason to compare two player's stats from one year of college basketball as a teenager to discern which is the better draft pick. That was all I was getting at.

What matters more than how many points, rebounds, assists, FG%, etc. etc. etc. is a player's athleticism, size, ability to defend, speed, quickness, shooting mechanics, length, intangibles, upside, potential, potential, potential and so on. How much of that can you discern from a 35 game sample size of stats from of college ball? Not much. They aren't meaningless, but I think for comparing two players in an effort to decide who to draft, they're close to it. Way too many variables at play...and, again, even as important as it is to prove yourself at a young age and right off the bat in college, it doesn't necessarily matter.


there have been some correlation between a players steal/rebound rates proven though. But trying to use PER, and the rest of the stats we evaluate NBA players on doesn't work as well in the NCAA's, for various reasons.

Steal/rebound rate might simply be indicative of athleticism at that level, who knows?

Raps18-19 Champ
03-17-2014, 09:34 PM
Wiggins sucks man. Give it up.

albertajaysfan
03-17-2014, 10:17 PM
Wiggins sucks man. Give it up.

He may be being unreasonable in his nut hugging of Wiggins but you are just being the other extreme.

Wiggins is only being questioned because he hasn't dominated this year. He still has insane potential and will more than likely have a solid NBA career.

Why it matters if he goes #1 is beyond me. Last time I checked that wasn't any sort of indicator on how good a player is.

As a Raps fan I look no further than our own history to prove my point. Thank you Andrea Bargnani you are useful for something.

mavwar53
03-17-2014, 10:44 PM
One of the worst questions ever because the OP is completely off base. Guys are drafted off potential, and how polished that potential is so far, late 1st and more in the 2nd round guys are drafted on the same basis but numbers might come more into play.

One obvious tell on all of this is guys are mock drafting these players while in H.S. so what does that have to do with college numbers.

IversonIsKrazy
03-17-2014, 10:51 PM
I feel like practically no one drafts by stats. I mean think about Rose for example, he avgd something like 13ppg 6apg, drafted #1 . Beasley avgd something like 30ppg 15rpg lol, and #2.

Hawkeye15
03-17-2014, 10:55 PM
I feel like practically no one drafts by stats. I mean think about Rose for example, he avgd something like 13ppg 6apg, drafted #1 . Beasley avgd something like 30ppg 15rpg lol, and #2.

A lot of GM's draft by analytical measures. But for sure they put more into it than that.

D-Leethal
03-17-2014, 10:58 PM
I could be a little off here but Wiggins sort of sounds like Westbrook did as a top notch rookie prospect with a huge ceiling that struggled to dominate in college.

TorontoHuskies
03-17-2014, 11:21 PM
One of the worst questions ever because the OP is completely off base. Guys are drafted off potential, and how polished that potential is so far, late 1st and more in the 2nd round guys are drafted on the same basis but numbers might come more into play.

One obvious tell on all of this is guys are mock drafting these players while in H.S. so what does that have to do with college numbers.

Who said I was talking about Gms anyways? I'm referring to the stupid predictions that the media and fans make in general.

Hawkeye15
03-17-2014, 11:26 PM
I could be a little off here but Wiggins sort of sounds like Westbrook did as a top notch rookie prospect with a huge ceiling that struggled to dominate in college.

well, they played Westbrook at SG, so his NBA position was different.

flea
03-17-2014, 11:36 PM
Westbrook was great in college. He was part of two really good UCLA teams and was probably the best perimeter defender in the country. The good teams in basketball usually share the scoring, so college PPG is a silly criticism.

Hawkeye15
03-17-2014, 11:40 PM
Westbrook was great in college. He was part of two really good UCLA teams and was probably the best perimeter defender in the country. The good teams in basketball usually share the scoring, so college PPG is a silly criticism.

yeah, many stats are not relevant. But predicting a freak athlete like Westbrook would succeed wasn't hard.

slashsnake
03-18-2014, 07:01 PM
A - he stayed 2 more years so who cares
B - he played for a top notch program where learning was prioritized over putting up top notch numbers. ie that was a quality 13.5 and 4.4.
C - nobody who projects would use per game numbers over ones that better describe the quality of the performance and
D - People rarely use college numbers to project so I dont know what you're talking about.
E - see A.

I have to agree here, and one more thing.. In his day teams were building their rosters around their upperclassmen. Freshman, barring being elite, were getting scrub minutes and their playing time was on the 2nd team in practice picking up the schemes, learning defense, etc. They had Perkins and Worthy who were the leaders (Worthy was 3rd on that team in scoring his first year) when Jordan showed up. Today, the top teams mostly build around their elite freshmen knowing it is a one and done there. No top recruit is going to play for a coach who wants him to be down on the depth chart his first year, because that hurts his draft stock the next year.

THE MTL
03-18-2014, 07:04 PM
Iono who uses college stats to project NBA potential? The pace, style, and minutes dont correlate especially for a point guard.

ChiSox219
03-18-2014, 08:45 PM
Iono who uses college stats to project NBA potential? The pace, style, and minutes dont correlate especially for a point guard.

Guys who dont put big averages but athletic and put up elite efficiency in D1 tend to be really good NBA players. Last year it was Oladipo, year before Anthony Davis.

Hawkeye15
03-18-2014, 09:23 PM
Guys who dont put big averages but athletic and put up elite efficiency in D1 tend to be really good NBA players. Last year it was Oladipo, year before Anthony Davis.

I don't see the big deal with Oladipo so far

Raps18-19 Champ
03-18-2014, 11:29 PM
He may be being unreasonable in his nut hugging of Wiggins but you are just being the other extreme.

Wiggins is only being questioned because he hasn't dominated this year. He still has insane potential and will more than likely have a solid NBA career.

Why it matters if he goes #1 is beyond me. Last time I checked that wasn't any sort of indicator on how good a player is.

As a Raps fan I look no further than our own history to prove my point. Thank you Andrea Bargnani you are useful for something.

Of course it was an extreme. It was sarcasm after all.

ChiSox219
03-19-2014, 02:03 AM
I don't see the big deal with Oladipo so far

Yeah? I think he looks like a future all-star and all-defense selection but i guess we will see.

Hawkeye15
03-19-2014, 04:26 AM
Yeah? I think he looks like a future all-star and all-defense selection but i guess we will see.

I think he has major defensive potential, but don't see a lot else. Right now.

amos1er
03-19-2014, 06:23 AM
Stats are skewed now. Players used to play 3-4 years, now they only play 1 year. Therefore, the competition they go up against is easier to put up good stats against. Jordan was going up against the likes of Patrick Ewing and other future NBA Hall of Famers who played until they were Juniors and Seniors while Wiggins is going up against zero future NBA Hall of Famers and Juniors and Seniors such as All American white man Colodne Jones; a 6'7 center averaging a whoppin 3.2 ppg, and 5.6 rpg.

FYI... Colodne is a purely fictional character who I made up to prove my point. I hope you all get where I am going with this.

ChiSox219
03-19-2014, 10:11 AM
I think he has major defensive potential, but don't see a lot else. Right now.

Oladipo's combination of quickness and strength allows him to get to the rim with ease and he's already got 3 point range. He reminds me a lot of Harden but as I recall you underrate him too. VO is not a PG but still possesses the skills to play the position and he may evolve further in that role considering how little experiance he has.