Jerry Crasnick called out about half dozen so called "sluggers" today, all of whom are failing to produce the numbers expected of a cleanup hitter. These players include Jeromy Burnitz, Preston Wilson, Richie Sexson, Frank Thomas, Adrian Beltre, Cliff Floyd, and Rondell White. But are these disappointments really a surprise? Should we really be expecting better out of these players? GM's need to learn some basic rules about understanding statistics before throwing money at players that will ultimately fail to earn the millions dollars that they're getting.
Jeromy Burnitz:
I have detested this guy ever since the Mets made the move to get him. I'll give him credit, he can hit 30 home runs a year but that's the extent of his skills. He lacks any defensive skills and has minimal speed (don't quote me his 20 sb's in 97 cause he also got caught 13 times, and his sb/cs totals are an ugly 74/58). As for the hitting, never rely on a guy who can't consistently .260 and strikeouts out as often as he gets a hit. Players who lack the ability to put the ball in play will struggle far more often than contact hitters. DO NOT BUILD AROUND ALL OR NOTHING HITTERS (RULE #1).
Note: Everything I just said is applicable to Preston Wilson (except he actually can run) and Richie Sexson (who has slightly more power as a result of his 6-8 stature).
Franks Thomas:
I'll waste no time; DO NOT RELY ON INJURY RECOVERING VETERANS (RULE #2). This rule is even more important when the player is no longer physically fit (ie: Mo Vaughn). Thomas hasn't been a true offensive threat since 2000 and has battled through numerous injuries and significant weight gain since that time. Don't buy into this kind of player making a comeback, don't expect anything more than production you could just as easily get from one of your bench players.
Adrian Beltre:
A highly touted prospect who provided the dodgers with 5 and a half years of disappointment until what many obviously recognized as a fluke season in 2004. The Mariners sadly were not able to see through Beltre's facade and disobeyed RULE #3: DON'T MISTAKE A FLUKE SEASON FOR ACTUAL TALENT. Look for consistency in a player's performance, Beltre sudden transformation in after five years in the majors would clearly not last. Beltre's lack of talent was magnified when he moved from a hitters ballpark and division without pitching staffs, to a much larger park where he would have to face the aces of Oakland and Anaheim (not Los angeles or california or whatever district they are clinging to now) more than dozen times each.
Rondell White:
Never was a big hitter for the sole reason that he only had > 500 at bats twice in his career. The guy's various health problems make him the quintessential offensive tool off the bench. That being said, his numbers this season are shockingly poor, but the Twins should not be in a position where they are relying on aging player who is now on his 7th team in 8 years for big numbers. White's struggles reveal a trend more than a rule: When a player gets tossed around from team to team, and is unable to settle into any clubhouse or grove, his numbers will suffer. A player needs one hitting (or pitching, or bench, etc.) coach whispering in his ear, not half a dozen. Cliff Floyd sadly endured the same difficulties and his hoping from team to team (which was not his fault) may be the cause of his collapse.
Aramis Ramirez:
Frankly I don't understand this kid. His ability to hit one season but not the next is something I've never witnessed. Frankly, if a player's average is deviating over 20 points every year, you shouldn't be giving him more than 10 million dollars. (Rule #4) DON'T INVEST MAJOR MONEY UNLESS YOU ARE POSITIVE THE PLAYER WILL PERFORM ACCORDINGLY. Wanna know why the Cubs haven't made an effort to support their pitching staff or lineup in the past few off-seasons or possibly dedicated a little more money to the medical staff? Because they gave all their money to Ramirez, and now have to suffer while they watch him fail to fill the shows of Derek Lee.
They major message is to look for consistency in performance. If you wanna take a risk in a streaky player like Ramirez or White, don't make him the centerpiece of your offense and certainly don't sacrifice a significant portion of your budget to obtain him.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
NBA Draft Analysis
Welcome welcome!
The 2006 NBA Draft class, much as I hate to say it, is currently projecting to be one of the weaker draft classes in recent memory. Not every draft can be 2003 of course, but this draft has little depth and suffers from the lack of talent that would be available if not for the latest early-entry draft rule. I am currently working on an extensive analysis of the 2006 draft, and I will ultimately reveal who I consider to be the top 60 talents available (regardless of position and team needs). For now, however, I will start by analyzing some of the most important players in this year's draft, based on how they produced for their college teams. Next to player names in parentheses I will include his stats scaled to 32 minutes and average team game pace (some teams play much slower or faster than others, skewing their players' statistics)
Tyrus Thomas, F, LSU (14.7 pts, 11 rbs, 3.7 blks, 1.2 stls, .608 fg%)
The word on Thomas is that he's raw, but with a lot of upside. Normally, this sort of language makes me wince, but in this case, it makes me fairly certain that Tyrus Thomas is a worthy #1 overall choice. Obviously, his great NCAA Tournament performance brought him into the national spotlight, and his impact on the tournament, especially on the defensive end, was certainly #1-pick worthy. If he was able to play so well on college basketball's biggest stage, can he really be considered undeveloped? I say he's already ready to play in the NBA. His surface numbers don't look amazing (12.3 ppg, 9.2 rpg), but one must remember that Thomas only played 25.9 minutes per game. Scaled to 32 minutes per game (non pace-adjusted), Thomas comes out with averages of 15.2 points, 11.4 rebounds, a whopping 3.8 blocks, a .608 field goal percentage, and 1.2 steals for good measure. Add in the fact that he's only 19 years old, and I feel very good about his future.
LaMarcus Aldridge, F, Texas (14.4 pts, 8.8 rbs, 2 blks, 1.4 stls, .569 fg%)
To me, Aldridge, despite supposedly having more of an offensive game than Thomas, is not anywhere near as far along. Aldridge is considered to be a talented player, but potentially soft, and his weak rebounding numbers seem to back that assertion up. The rebounding is definitely a concern as rebounding is the one statistic that has a very strong correlation between college and the NBA. If Aldridge is only able to average 6-7 rebounds a game in the NBA, as his numbers suggest, he will lose a lot of his potential value. He is only a sophomore, so is still worth a high pick for the benefits of his upside, but I don't feel that he has proven himself to be an elite college player as Thomas already has. As far as I'm concerned, Thomas basically has proven himself to be a better player than Aldridge in every way. Let's not forget that in their head-to-head matchup in the Elite 8, Thomas posted 21 points and 13 rebounds on 10-14 shooting, while Aldridge had 4 points on a woeful 2-14 shooting. One game is a small sample size, but Thomas clearly dominated all the same.
Adam Morrison, F, Gonzaga (24 pts, 4.7 rbs, 1.5 asts, .496 fg%, .428 3p%)
If Adam Morrison played for another West Coast Conference team like Pepperdine, instead of media darling Gonzaga, would he be considered anywhere near a top 3 pick? A lot of players have scored a lot in non-major conferences and not had much to show for it after their college careers were over. In Morrison's case, I do think that he is better than the average player who racks up big numbers against mediocre competition, because after all, he did have some of his biggest scoring nights against teams like Michigan State and Washington. Yet if one were to downgrade his numbers even a small amount for playing half his games against West Coast teams, he wouldn't have much going for him. I like to see versatility in college prospects, but his game consists solely of scoring. Subjectively, I think he's a player with a lot of heart and desire, and a player that will be able to find a role for himself on an NBA team, but his college numbers pale against those of the man he is often compared to, Larry Bird. Bird averaged 14.9 rebounds per game in college, as well as over 5 assists per game. That kind of versatility points to a star. A player like Morrison will have a much tougher going of it.
Brandon Roy, G, Washington (18.9 pts, 5.2 rbs, 3.8 asts, .508 fg%, .402 3p%)
Brandon Roy may be the best guard in this draft, and the reason is his versatility. Although he does not score as much as Morrison, his shooting percentages are excellent, he rebounds more (despite being a shooting guard), and also has great passing numbers. His actual numbers look even better than the stats I have listed (20.2 pts, 5.6 rbs, 4.1 asts), but Washington is one of the faster teams in the country. Although I don't necessarily forecast Roy to be a star, he is a polished, athletic guard who will be able to contribute to an NBA team in any number of ways, making him worth a top 5 pick in my book.
Rudy Gay, F, Connecticut (14.8 pts, 6.3 rbs, 1.6 blks, 1.8 stls, .461 fg%, .318 3p%)
What you hear about Rudy Gay is basically all true. Wildly talented, but hasn't shown an ability to dominate, to raise his game. His stats reveal a solid player, but not an outstanding one. He is still young (only a sophomore), but I would feel a lot better about his chances if he had shown any kind of ability to dominate the college game. What interests me about Gay is that he seems to be the quintessential 'upside trap' player, the player who never cashes in on his upside because he was never that great of a basketball player to begin with. Being an athlete and being a good NBA player ultimately are two different things. One helps the other, but I would still rather take a solid athlete who knows how to play good basketball than an outstanding athlete who is still learning the game. However, every analyst knows that Gay is an 'upside trap' player. Almost every article written about Gay says this, and all I'm doing is adding to the chorus If this is agreed upon, then why is he still considered to be a top 5 pick? To me, his inability to take over the college game is enough of a red flag that I wouldn't take him until at least after the first 10 picks.
JJ Redick, G, Duke (21.7 pts, 2.1 asts, 1.6 rbs, 1.1 stls, .470 fg%, .421 3p%)
I won't rag on JJ too much considering that his draft stock has fallen off quite a bit, but I don't really see him being anything more than a spot shooter in the NBA. He has zero versatility (look at his horrific rebounding in particular), and his scoring numbers don't look near as impressive if you adjust for the fact that he played 37 minutes per game for a fast-paced team. He may fall under the so-called Dukie curse, but most of the curse stems from the fact that a lot of Dukies' college exploits are overrated. What really interests me about JJ is that he was not the only big major-conference scorer in the NCAA this year, and his counterpart had a far better season, albeit for an also-ran. That player is:
Quincy Douby, G, Rutgers (23 pts, 2.5 asts, 3.9 rbs, 1.6 stls, .462 fg%, .401 3p%)
Douby quietly averaged 25.4 points per game this season, not far behind Redick's 26.8 number, and as shown in the stats line next to his name, he was actually a more potent scorer on a per possession basis. Yet despite scoring even more than Redick, he had superior numbers in terms of assists, rebounds (significantly so), and steals, and was only a little bit behind in terms of shooting percentages. To go even further, Douby is a year younger than Redick, and much as Tyrus Thomas was better than LaMarcus Aldridge in every way, Quincy Douby had a substantially better season than national player of the year JJ Redick.
Well, that's all for now. College numbers aren't a perfect predictor of NBA success, but they are more reliable than a lot of people suspect. The flaw in translating college success to pro success is usually not in the numbers, but in interpretation of the numbers. Better indicators of a player's skill than high scoring averages are his versatility (how he contributes in the triple-double categories) and blocks/steals rates (an indicator of athleticism). I will come back to this topic near NBA draft time in order to reveal my personal Big Board.
The 2006 NBA Draft class, much as I hate to say it, is currently projecting to be one of the weaker draft classes in recent memory. Not every draft can be 2003 of course, but this draft has little depth and suffers from the lack of talent that would be available if not for the latest early-entry draft rule. I am currently working on an extensive analysis of the 2006 draft, and I will ultimately reveal who I consider to be the top 60 talents available (regardless of position and team needs). For now, however, I will start by analyzing some of the most important players in this year's draft, based on how they produced for their college teams. Next to player names in parentheses I will include his stats scaled to 32 minutes and average team game pace (some teams play much slower or faster than others, skewing their players' statistics)
Tyrus Thomas, F, LSU (14.7 pts, 11 rbs, 3.7 blks, 1.2 stls, .608 fg%)
The word on Thomas is that he's raw, but with a lot of upside. Normally, this sort of language makes me wince, but in this case, it makes me fairly certain that Tyrus Thomas is a worthy #1 overall choice. Obviously, his great NCAA Tournament performance brought him into the national spotlight, and his impact on the tournament, especially on the defensive end, was certainly #1-pick worthy. If he was able to play so well on college basketball's biggest stage, can he really be considered undeveloped? I say he's already ready to play in the NBA. His surface numbers don't look amazing (12.3 ppg, 9.2 rpg), but one must remember that Thomas only played 25.9 minutes per game. Scaled to 32 minutes per game (non pace-adjusted), Thomas comes out with averages of 15.2 points, 11.4 rebounds, a whopping 3.8 blocks, a .608 field goal percentage, and 1.2 steals for good measure. Add in the fact that he's only 19 years old, and I feel very good about his future.
LaMarcus Aldridge, F, Texas (14.4 pts, 8.8 rbs, 2 blks, 1.4 stls, .569 fg%)
To me, Aldridge, despite supposedly having more of an offensive game than Thomas, is not anywhere near as far along. Aldridge is considered to be a talented player, but potentially soft, and his weak rebounding numbers seem to back that assertion up. The rebounding is definitely a concern as rebounding is the one statistic that has a very strong correlation between college and the NBA. If Aldridge is only able to average 6-7 rebounds a game in the NBA, as his numbers suggest, he will lose a lot of his potential value. He is only a sophomore, so is still worth a high pick for the benefits of his upside, but I don't feel that he has proven himself to be an elite college player as Thomas already has. As far as I'm concerned, Thomas basically has proven himself to be a better player than Aldridge in every way. Let's not forget that in their head-to-head matchup in the Elite 8, Thomas posted 21 points and 13 rebounds on 10-14 shooting, while Aldridge had 4 points on a woeful 2-14 shooting. One game is a small sample size, but Thomas clearly dominated all the same.
Adam Morrison, F, Gonzaga (24 pts, 4.7 rbs, 1.5 asts, .496 fg%, .428 3p%)
If Adam Morrison played for another West Coast Conference team like Pepperdine, instead of media darling Gonzaga, would he be considered anywhere near a top 3 pick? A lot of players have scored a lot in non-major conferences and not had much to show for it after their college careers were over. In Morrison's case, I do think that he is better than the average player who racks up big numbers against mediocre competition, because after all, he did have some of his biggest scoring nights against teams like Michigan State and Washington. Yet if one were to downgrade his numbers even a small amount for playing half his games against West Coast teams, he wouldn't have much going for him. I like to see versatility in college prospects, but his game consists solely of scoring. Subjectively, I think he's a player with a lot of heart and desire, and a player that will be able to find a role for himself on an NBA team, but his college numbers pale against those of the man he is often compared to, Larry Bird. Bird averaged 14.9 rebounds per game in college, as well as over 5 assists per game. That kind of versatility points to a star. A player like Morrison will have a much tougher going of it.
Brandon Roy, G, Washington (18.9 pts, 5.2 rbs, 3.8 asts, .508 fg%, .402 3p%)
Brandon Roy may be the best guard in this draft, and the reason is his versatility. Although he does not score as much as Morrison, his shooting percentages are excellent, he rebounds more (despite being a shooting guard), and also has great passing numbers. His actual numbers look even better than the stats I have listed (20.2 pts, 5.6 rbs, 4.1 asts), but Washington is one of the faster teams in the country. Although I don't necessarily forecast Roy to be a star, he is a polished, athletic guard who will be able to contribute to an NBA team in any number of ways, making him worth a top 5 pick in my book.
Rudy Gay, F, Connecticut (14.8 pts, 6.3 rbs, 1.6 blks, 1.8 stls, .461 fg%, .318 3p%)
What you hear about Rudy Gay is basically all true. Wildly talented, but hasn't shown an ability to dominate, to raise his game. His stats reveal a solid player, but not an outstanding one. He is still young (only a sophomore), but I would feel a lot better about his chances if he had shown any kind of ability to dominate the college game. What interests me about Gay is that he seems to be the quintessential 'upside trap' player, the player who never cashes in on his upside because he was never that great of a basketball player to begin with. Being an athlete and being a good NBA player ultimately are two different things. One helps the other, but I would still rather take a solid athlete who knows how to play good basketball than an outstanding athlete who is still learning the game. However, every analyst knows that Gay is an 'upside trap' player. Almost every article written about Gay says this, and all I'm doing is adding to the chorus If this is agreed upon, then why is he still considered to be a top 5 pick? To me, his inability to take over the college game is enough of a red flag that I wouldn't take him until at least after the first 10 picks.
JJ Redick, G, Duke (21.7 pts, 2.1 asts, 1.6 rbs, 1.1 stls, .470 fg%, .421 3p%)
I won't rag on JJ too much considering that his draft stock has fallen off quite a bit, but I don't really see him being anything more than a spot shooter in the NBA. He has zero versatility (look at his horrific rebounding in particular), and his scoring numbers don't look near as impressive if you adjust for the fact that he played 37 minutes per game for a fast-paced team. He may fall under the so-called Dukie curse, but most of the curse stems from the fact that a lot of Dukies' college exploits are overrated. What really interests me about JJ is that he was not the only big major-conference scorer in the NCAA this year, and his counterpart had a far better season, albeit for an also-ran. That player is:
Quincy Douby, G, Rutgers (23 pts, 2.5 asts, 3.9 rbs, 1.6 stls, .462 fg%, .401 3p%)
Douby quietly averaged 25.4 points per game this season, not far behind Redick's 26.8 number, and as shown in the stats line next to his name, he was actually a more potent scorer on a per possession basis. Yet despite scoring even more than Redick, he had superior numbers in terms of assists, rebounds (significantly so), and steals, and was only a little bit behind in terms of shooting percentages. To go even further, Douby is a year younger than Redick, and much as Tyrus Thomas was better than LaMarcus Aldridge in every way, Quincy Douby had a substantially better season than national player of the year JJ Redick.
Well, that's all for now. College numbers aren't a perfect predictor of NBA success, but they are more reliable than a lot of people suspect. The flaw in translating college success to pro success is usually not in the numbers, but in interpretation of the numbers. Better indicators of a player's skill than high scoring averages are his versatility (how he contributes in the triple-double categories) and blocks/steals rates (an indicator of athleticism). I will come back to this topic near NBA draft time in order to reveal my personal Big Board.
Monday, May 22, 2006
Page 2's demise
Page 2. I once revered this section as a comical delight. The writers provided a comedic twist on the sports world that was more daring than the generic breed of writers (that is not to say they were without restrictions but there was a sense of greater freedom). With the growing number of pieces restricted to insider, I've spent more time on Page 2, but have been supremely disappointed by the work of multiple writers.
Part 1: Patrick Hruby's assault on Bonds
I hate Bonds. Steroid user. Racist. Abusive figure that pretends to be a victim. When Page 2 responded to his 714th round tripper I was thrilled. They had done what every statisician dreams of doing in the wake of Bonds' outright cheating: determine Bonds' true home run total without the cream, gel, juice, and whatever other substances entered Barry's system.
Research with steroid and physics specialists, equations and numerical computations...Patrick Hruby was on his way to becoming my hero until numbers don't start matching up. He calls 16% and 22% "in the same ballpark" and somehow considers this massive discrepency negligible.
Then to validify his sub-totals, Hruby approaches Bonds' homers from an aging perspective as opposed to the strength and stamina angle. Surely his calculations will correspond and confirm the numbers that he is essentially deriving straight out of thin. Then out come the two totals: 69 and 83 which is "pretty close".
To utterly erase any shred of authority that article was clinging to, Hruby then pulls a number right out of his ass to signify the number of home runs that we generated as a result of the confidence boost Bonds' enjoyed while using steroids. 15 home runs should be erased (three per year) according to Hruby (who is an expert in what) and one scout's comments on confidence.
Hruby go back to your little useless daily dimes; you should leave the numbers to the big boys. Your statisical approach was abismal and ultimately was a disgrace to guys like Tim Kurkjian and Alan Schwarz, who aren't directly affiliated with any statisical organization but still successfully incoporate numbers into their articles on ESPN.
Part 1: Patrick Hruby's assault on Bonds
I hate Bonds. Steroid user. Racist. Abusive figure that pretends to be a victim. When Page 2 responded to his 714th round tripper I was thrilled. They had done what every statisician dreams of doing in the wake of Bonds' outright cheating: determine Bonds' true home run total without the cream, gel, juice, and whatever other substances entered Barry's system.
Research with steroid and physics specialists, equations and numerical computations...Patrick Hruby was on his way to becoming my hero until numbers don't start matching up. He calls 16% and 22% "in the same ballpark" and somehow considers this massive discrepency negligible.
Then to validify his sub-totals, Hruby approaches Bonds' homers from an aging perspective as opposed to the strength and stamina angle. Surely his calculations will correspond and confirm the numbers that he is essentially deriving straight out of thin. Then out come the two totals: 69 and 83 which is "pretty close".
To utterly erase any shred of authority that article was clinging to, Hruby then pulls a number right out of his ass to signify the number of home runs that we generated as a result of the confidence boost Bonds' enjoyed while using steroids. 15 home runs should be erased (three per year) according to Hruby (who is an expert in what) and one scout's comments on confidence.
Hruby go back to your little useless daily dimes; you should leave the numbers to the big boys. Your statisical approach was abismal and ultimately was a disgrace to guys like Tim Kurkjian and Alan Schwarz, who aren't directly affiliated with any statisical organization but still successfully incoporate numbers into their articles on ESPN.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)