Early Bust Determination

[Strenuus]

[QUOTE="Strenuus, post: 4299860, member: 27918"]Lazy journalism or a job that is having to cater to the impatient consumer?

If they want to title their article as "How to Identify an NBA Draft Bust in Just 10 Games", I don't think it's a lot to ask to do a multivariate regression as opposed to a uni-variate regression. [/QUOTE]

lol. I can't tell if you're trolling or not.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Since when? It was said after the draft that Swanigan was probably more NBA ready.

Oh, well if you said it........

 

[BonesJones]

Oh, well if you said it........

Multiple people.

 

[jlprk]

...Kevin Durant's extremely poor numbers during his first 10 games...Durant didn't receive strength training in college and couldn't bench 185 (?) even once during the combine. Because of this Seattle decided to use him at SG, which was obviously his wrong position.

Seattle played Durant at his wrong position on purpose, because it was their weakest position. The reason was not his physical weakness. The purpose was to get him minutes instead of being a substitute, since he was obviously a future star. Because he got a year at SG, his shooting progress was greatly accelerated. Kind of like LeBron starting at PG his whole rookie year.

I didn't read the article/link, did it base their findings on everyone after playing 4 games?

So you criticized the article and method without reading it? To answer your question, it wasn't based on the first four games but on the first 10 games.

You got part of it right, Julius. They based their findings on everyone after playing 4 years. The first 10 games indicate (probabilistically, not certainly) the results 4 years later. Of course, this ignores early injuries like Przybilla's.

For the whole group of rookies from 1985 to 2013—not just top-10 picks—the correlation between a player’s cumulative first-10 game score and his total win shares after four years is .63, on a scale in which zero represents no connection and 1 a perfect relationship. But we would expect that relationship to be pretty strong, because widening the player pool past top-10 picks accounts for fringe second-rounders and undrafted rookies who paired a silent first 10 games with a quiet career.

What is unexpected is that the relationship remains nearly as strong when restricting the sample to just top-10 picks, who are theoretically all on equal footing in their team’s future plans and in a similar place based on talent. For just top-10 picks, the correlation between game score after 10 games and win shares after four years is .58. There are exceptions, but the basic trend generally holds: The worse a player’s first 10 games, the less chance he has of becoming even a productive player, let alone the star his draft position would suggest.

 

[BonesJones]

Appropos of Markelle Fultz: I wonder if they'll regret not taking Donovan Mitchell. They could've traded DOWN to do that. He's likely a better defender and may end up being better on offense. Fultz is probably a better PG, but they don't need Fultz for that.

Bum shoulder completely changes him as a player.

 

[SIeepwalker]

Seattle played Durant at his wrong position on purpose, because it was their weakest position. The reason was not his physical weakness. The purpose was to get him minutes instead of being a substitute, since he was obviously a future star. Because he got a year at SG, his shooting progress was greatly accelerated. Kind of like LeBron starting at PG his whole rookie year.





You got part of it right, Julius. They based their findings on everyone after playing 4 years. The first 10 games indicate (probabilistically, not certainly) the results 4 years later. Of course, this ignores early injuries like Przybilla's.

I don't know about you but I feel the .58 correlation is just not that high...

 

[jlprk]

I don't know about you but I feel the .58 correlation is just not that high...

It's a flim-flam article, short on evidence and long on conclusions. They're trying to get clicks. As opposed to, say, a quality message board like this.

 

[Paine Tablet]

The only excuse anyone needs to make for Zach is 19 years old, only one year of college experience and never as a starter, and missed most of summer league due to injury.

Anyone who expected Zach to get significant run this year was delusional. As for making some sort of prognostication based on his current "body of work", just revisit the CJ is a bust thread from a couple of years ago. Stotts is consistent about playing vets over rookies. Once Chief is back, I expect to see Biggie take a seat again too.

One quibble, summer league doesn't mean shit for experience.

 

[e_blazer]

One quibble, summer league doesn't mean shit for experience.

Probably not, but its a chance for a rookie to impress his coaches. Biggie’s great summer showing didn’t hurt his chances to be getting PT now instead of Zach.