PDA

View Full Version : ELI5: Why ISN'T Kyle Anderson higher on the mock draft boards?



JasonJohnHorn
06-24-2014, 11:42 AM
Getting pumped for the draft, I've been looking through player stats and such. Kyle Anderson (who I admittedly haven't seen play) puts up some AMAZING numbers.

This guy is a small forward who averages 6.5 assists and only 3.1 turnovers (better than most point guards) and ALSO chips in 8.8 boards a game (better than some centers and power forwards). He also shoots .480 inside the arc and an AMAZING .483 beyond the arc (though he takes less than 2 3pt shots a game, which I assume means he is selective about those shots and that his percentage might be inflated because of that).

He also gets 1.8 steals a game and almost a block as well with only 1.7 personal fouls.


Am I missing something about this kid? He looks amazing on paper? His numbers look better than Parker and Wiggins in many respects (not to say that numbers tell the whole story).


EDIT "ELI5" means "explain like I'm five", and is means that the person asking the question freely and openly admits that they are lacking an understanding and are soliciting the opinions of people who might know better. I am not suggesting that the guy in question be ranked higher or lower, just asking why he is ranked where he is. I don't watch a lot of college ball, so I don't pretend to be an expert. Smart @$$ comments saying that "I don't know what I'm talking about because I don't watch college ball" only show that you are trying to be a smart @$$ and point out something I make very clearly when posing the question. Thank you to those who have filled me in with constructive comments. It is appreciated.

I don't watch college ball. Can somebody fill me in on why this guy isn't higher up on the board? What am I missing?

1-800-STFU
06-24-2014, 11:56 AM
Getting pumped for the draft, I've been looking through player stats and such. Kyle Anderson (who I admittedly haven't seen play) puts up some AMAZING numbers.

This guy is a small forward who averages 6.5 assists and only 3.1 turnovers (better than most point guards) and ALSO chips in 8.8 boards a game (better than some centers and power forwards). He also shoots .480 inside the arc and an AMAZING .483 beyond the arc (though he takes less than 2 3pt shots a game, which I assume means he is selective about those shots and that his percentage might be inflated because of that).

He also gets 1.8 steals a game and almost a block as well with only 1.7 personal fouls.


Am I missing something about this kid? He looks amazing on paper? His numbers look better than Parker and Wiggins in many respects (not to say that numbers tell the whole story).


I don't watch college ball. Can somebody fill me in on why this guy isn't higher up on the board? What am I missing?

Not an elite athlete. Hell probably not even an above average one when compared to your normal NBA talent.

abe_froman
06-24-2014, 12:01 PM
simply put,its because he's fat(for a basketball player) and slow

he has an amazing skillset and think he'll find a way to stick,but there are red flags with how he maintains is body and concerns if he'll adjust to nba speed

ManRam
06-24-2014, 12:15 PM
Again, good numbers in college often mean nothing at all. I love stats, but again...they really mean so so so so so little when you're trying to figure out if a guy can make it in the NBA. College ball is so different than NBA ball. I almost never look at stats. It's too small of a sample size, it's against non-NBA competition, these guys aren't even close to their prime and there's just no real correlation between college stats and NBA success. Just watch them play. It's when the eye test matters most.

He's slow, weak and can't jump. He's got a great skill set and in college that makes up for athleticism, but in the NBA? Not so much. The only position I can see him working at is as a "stretch" 4. He can't guard NBA 3s, I don't think. Teams probably will try him there, but I don't think it's gonna be pretty.

He's a non-athlete. Very few non-athletes make it in the NBA. It doesn't help that he doesn't have a tremendous shot, a skill that non-athletes need. He shot a nice percentage from three last season, but it was on such little volume and he NEVER creates his own shots on the perimeter.

Can't deny the guy's skill. He's a wildly unique prospect. But the athleticism is gonna be a big problem. He might be the worst athlete in the entire draft. He's fat too. 13.4% body fat. He was fortunately "injured" at the combine, so he didn't jump or run.

abe_froman
06-24-2014, 12:21 PM
Again, good numbers in college often mean nothing at all. I love stats, but again...they really mean so so so so so little when you're trying to figure out if a guy can make it in the NBA. College ball is so different than NBA ball. I almost never look at stats. It's too small of a sample size, it's against non-NBA competition, these guys aren't even close to their prime and there's just no real correlation between college stats and NBA success. Just watch them play. It's when the eye test matters most.
.
agree to all this except the bolded.there are stats,like steals and advanced rounding numbers, that can help in gauging if a guy will stick or not

dhopisthename
06-24-2014, 12:25 PM
wait you have never seen a guy play but because of his numbers you think he should drafted higher?

bucketss
06-24-2014, 12:39 PM
whats eli5?

IndyRealist
06-24-2014, 12:46 PM
wait you have never seen a guy play but because of his numbers you think he should drafted higher?

That's not what he said. He's saying he's never seen the guy play, and asking why he's not considered a better prospect? He's not implying in any way that the evals are wrong.

ManRam
06-24-2014, 12:50 PM
agree to all this except the bolded.there are stats,like steals and advanced rounding numbers, that can help in gauging if a guy will stick or not

Sure. I mostly mean basic stats. But I won't lie, even the advanced stats I more or less overlook. It's all about potential for these guys...and there's only so much that stats can tell you when it comes to figuring out how good a player will be 2 years from now, let alone 4 years, or 8 years...or 12 years.

Even something as simple as three point shooting...it rarely is that simple. Brad Beal shot 34% from three in his one year as a Gator. Clearly that meant nothing, as the guy is a 40% 3PT shooter in the NBA. But for a guy getting Ray Allen comps that looked bad in college. But if you watched him his stroke was still obviously amazing. Sometimes it just doesn't work out over the course of a short season as a 19 year old.


The whole draft process is so far from being a science. But just looking at numbers alone is the worst way to go about it.

dhopisthename
06-24-2014, 12:54 PM
That's not what he said. He's saying he's never seen the guy play, and asking why he's not considered a better prospect? He's not implying in any way that the evals are wrong.

then he should look up a youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFGl9ndbjZ0

IndyRealist
06-24-2014, 12:57 PM
ManRam, I disagree. SCORING does not correlate well between NCAA and NBA. Plenty of other things do. Rebounding, assists, turnovers, 3pt shooting (assuming they're shooting an NBA 3 already) all translate very well into the pros. Not perfectly, but it does give an indication of future performance.

What does not correlate well are tasks where relative athleticism is extremely important, like beating your man off the dribble, shot blocking, etc. I think Anderson sounds a lot like Toni Kukoc, and he didn't turn out too badly.

IndyRealist
06-24-2014, 01:00 PM
then he should look up a youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFGl9ndbjZ0

Unless it's full footage, highlight reels are worthless. They cut out all of the mistakes. Draftexpress video scouting reports don't say anything that hasn't already been said.

YoungOne
06-24-2014, 01:11 PM
atleast read the scouting report...

ManRam
06-24-2014, 01:13 PM
ManRam, I disagree. SCORING does not correlate well between NCAA and NBA. Plenty of other things do. Rebounding, assists, turnovers, 3pt shooting (assuming they're shooting an NBA 3 already) all translate very well into the pros. Not perfectly, but it does give an indication of future performance.

What does not correlate well are tasks where relative athleticism is extremely important, like beating your man off the dribble, shot blocking, etc. I think Anderson sounds a lot like Toni Kukoc, and he didn't turn out too badly.

It think you can argue that it CAN. I don't think you can argue that it always does, or even close to that.

There's probably a correlation of some sorts, but it can't be terribly significant. It can tell you something, or it can mislead you. It doesn't take much searching to find players who weren't prolific college passers but who eventually became just that in the NBA. Or vise versa. For all those stats. Turnovers as a freshman in college? Who cares? That stuff can be corrected. Or maybe sometimes it isn't. That's the point...for every case where the stats translate, there's an example where they absolutely don't.

I love numbers. I don't love using college stats as predictors for NBA success. I don't like getting hung up over them when we're using one year of college ball played by a 19-20 year old in their freshman year years away from their primes. Even a two year sample size. Even 3 or 4 (Morrison, Jimmer, etc. etc. etc.).


I'm not saying they can't be telling. They obviously can. I'm just saying they can be misleading. They can even be meaningless. Nothing about figuring out who will pan out and who won't is scientific. I think that's the crux of this thread for JJH: you just can't look at a stat sheet and discern anything at all. You can get a glimpse of what someone excels at or what their strengths are, but you absolutely can't discern whether or not that will translate in the NBA or if that player will have a successful career.

abe_froman
06-24-2014, 01:15 PM
The whole draft process is so far from being a science. But just looking at numbers alone is the worst way to go about it.
its not a science at all...but there are studies that do show that some numbers do correlate,thats all i'm saying.

Corey
06-24-2014, 01:20 PM
Anderson isn't very good when comparing him to NBA level talent. He has poor lateral quickness, minimal leaping ability, needs the ball in his hands to contribute well, isn't a consistent shooting threat, doesn't defend well, he's a tweener defensively and offensively.

In a league where 20 teams are happy with their point guard situation, who is going to choose to take the ball out of their lead guard's hands to let Anderson help run the offense? Not many.

Gibby23
06-24-2014, 01:23 PM
He will be a pretty good player. He is like a Boris Diaw clone with a better handle. Not going to be a star, but a good glue guy that every good team needs. He can rebound, pass, handle, and has good range on his jumper. He isn't fast, but can lead a break if he gets the rebound. His style fits and uptempo or half court offense. Not as a rookie, but could end up a 12ppg, 7rpg, and 5apg type of player.

3Blueforyou
06-24-2014, 01:26 PM
its not a science at all...but there are studies that do show that some numbers do correlate,thats all i'm saying.

If I am not mistaken these studies pertain to blks and steals largely. The espn stats guy they had during the combine was discussing this in some depth. This is a big part against Julius randle as well, a big reason why he is falling on draft boards.

ManRam
06-24-2014, 01:29 PM
its not a science at all...but there are studies that do show that some numbers do correlate,thats all i'm saying.

I don't doubt it, at least on a very specific and individual statistic-level. But I'd like to see them. I know steal rate is a good indicator of defensive ability. But that's about it. I'm sure blocks are too. Specifically, I'd like to see how strong that correlation is. Because there's gotta be some non-statistical context thrown in there I'd imagine to make it work. Otherwise, again, Xavier Thames, Jacob Parker, Alan Williams and Dougie are going 1-4 in the draft...and Zach LaVine is returning to UCLA.

3Blueforyou
06-24-2014, 01:33 PM
I don't doubt it, at least on a very specific and individual statistic-level. But I'd like to see them. I know steal rate is a good indicator of defensive ability. But that's about it. I'm sure blocks are too. Specifically, I'd like to see how strong that correlation is. Because there's gotta be some non-statistical context thrown in there I'd imagine to make it work. Otherwise, again, Xavier Thames, Jacob Parker, Alan Williams and Dougie are going 1-4 in the draft...and Zach LaVine is returning to UCLA.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cZPRSXGMvto

They explain how numbers project from college to nba in some depth during the combine. The link above is part 1 it's about 6+hrs of total footage. I cannot remember what they said exactly, but it's in there if someone wants to watch.

IndyRealist
06-24-2014, 01:40 PM
Lots of things can be misleading. The eye test is horribly misleading. Doesn't mean you ignore it. If I need to draft a rebounding shot blocker, I'm not going to ignore rebounding and shot blocking numbers, and say "well, he looks the part". You say "well he rebounds well, but he's the only player in his conference over 6'9"."

One guy a fan suggested the Pacers look at blocks 4 shots a game. But he's 7'2" in a small conference, of course he's gonna block a lot of shots. Do you ignore the numbers? Heck no. It's just where you start.

Numbers answer what happened. But they don't answer why it happened. That's what analysis is for.

ManRam
06-24-2014, 01:52 PM
Lots of things can be misleading. The eye test is horribly misleading. Doesn't mean you ignore it. If I need to draft a rebounding shot blocker, I'm not going to ignore rebounding and shot blocking numbers, and say "well, he looks the part". You say "well he rebounds well, but he's the only player in his conference over 6'9"."

One guy a fan suggested the Pacers look at blocks 4 shots a game. But he's 7'2" in a small conference, of course he's gonna block a lot of shots. Do you ignore the numbers? Heck no. It's just where you start.

Numbers answer what happened. But they don't answer why it happened. That's what analysis is for.

I agree.

I'll add: the numbers we're debating tell us what happened, not why it happened. But, more importantly, they don't tell us what WILL happen. There are advanced stats that are proven to be good indicators, but I'm just not so sure of how much that is true when they're used to indicate pro performance based on college play. Nor are they readily available.

And, the eye test is not misleading...it's INSANELY misleading. But you need it. You can't just look at the numbers and discern who's gonna be a good pro and who won't be. You can't completely ignore performance either. Alex Poythress, for example, would be in the NBA already if he put up better numbers.

My only point is, and it's only in response to JJH's OP really (and I'm beating the hell out of a dead horse) is that you can't just list:

6.5 assists
3.1 turnovers
8.8 boards a game
.480 inside the arc
AMAZING .483 beyond the arc
He also gets 1.8 steals a game
almost a block
only 1.7 personal fouls

and really learn anything about the player's draft potential. You HAVE to watch the guys play. But even these draft videos we see, the videos that are a couple minutes long or even 20-30 minutes like what Draft Express put out, can be just as misleading. You're getting only a sample of what is there. If Draft Express says "so-and-so is a great shooter" then for that part of the video they're only gonna show the shots that looked great. You're missing a lot inherently.

It's such a hard process. There's so much to take into account. There are so many things that can mislead (be it numbers, performance, attitude, athleticism, etc.) and so many things you just can't predict.

And that's why I approach everything draft-related with skepticism and try NEVER to speak in absolutes about any player. We just don't know. Even the scouts and teams that have thousands of hours of time put into scouting just don't always know. So why pretend?

JasonJohnHorn
06-24-2014, 09:37 PM
wait you have never seen a guy play but because of his numbers you think he should drafted higher?

I'm not saying he SHOULD be drafted higher, I'm saying I haven't seen him so I'm curious as to why a guy with such impressive stats isn't ranked higher. Knowing that college stats are hard to gauge, but also realizing that he was in a good program that played top tier teams, I figure there has to be some talent there.

I am asking for people's opinions who have seen him play, not prescribing opinions based on the stats I saw.

I'm curious about the guy, so I thought I'd ask the forum assuming the basketball fans here likely watch college ball as well.


Why is this so hard for people to understand?

JasonJohnHorn
06-24-2014, 09:40 PM
I agree.

I'll add: the numbers we're debating tell us what happened, not why it happened. But, more importantly, they don't tell us what WILL happen. There are advanced stats that are proven to be good indicators, but I'm just not so sure of how much that is true when they're used to indicate pro performance based on college play. Nor are they readily available.

And, the eye test is not misleading...it's INSANELY misleading. But you need it. You can't just look at the numbers and discern who's gonna be a good pro and who won't be. You can't completely ignore performance either. Alex Poythress, for example, would be in the NBA already if he put up better numbers.

My only point is, and it's only in response to JJH's OP really (and I'm beating the hell out of a dead horse) is that you can't just list:

6.5 assists
3.1 turnovers
8.8 boards a game
.480 inside the arc
AMAZING .483 beyond the arc
He also gets 1.8 steals a game
almost a block
only 1.7 personal fouls

and really learn anything about the player's draft potential. You HAVE to watch the guys play. But even these draft videos we see, the videos that are a couple minutes long or even 20-30 minutes like what Draft Express put out, can be just as misleading. You're getting only a sample of what is there. If Draft Express says "so-and-so is a great shooter" then for that part of the video they're only gonna show the shots that looked great. You're missing a lot inherently.

It's such a hard process. There's so much to take into account. There are so many things that can mislead (be it numbers, performance, attitude, athleticism, etc.) and so many things you just can't predict.

And that's why I approach everything draft-related with skepticism and try NEVER to speak in absolutes about any player. We just don't know. Even the scouts and teams that have thousands of hours of time put into scouting just don't always know. So why pretend?

Thanks for the constructive input. As I said, I haven't gotten a chance to watch him play, so I was curious.

flea
06-24-2014, 09:55 PM
KA put up his numbers in a weird, transition-oriented and guard-heavy system. That's also why he grabbed so many boards - even though he played point he was often the biggest or second biggest guy on the floor. In the NBA he won't rebound like that because he can't jump and he'll easily get pushed around and boxed out, even by smaller guys.

He'll be mid to late 1st round because he can't play defense at any position. Someone compared him to Diaw but that's not fair. Diaw is a very effective defender, and always has been, who can checks some 3s, 4s, and some 5s. Anderson you just kind of have to hope won't get exposed by checking the absolute worst offensive player on the other team in the NBA - and he likely will get exposed.

NBA_Starter
06-24-2014, 10:01 PM
He is perceived to be slow but I think he has an old mans YMCA game and that he will succeed in the league.

smith&wesson
06-24-2014, 10:40 PM
whats eli5?

explain like I'm 5