Beasley another huge bust?: Statistical Analysis of the NBA Rookie Class
First Adam Morrison, then Kevin Durant, now Michael Beasley. 3 highly drafted players who were wildly productive at the collegiate level but have not been able to translate that production to the NBA. Beasley, last summer's second pick overall, has been so bad that he is on pace to produce 4.2 fewer wins than the Miami Heat could have gotten from a scrub level player. That's terrible.
In each of the 3 aforementioned cases, the unusually large dropoffs in production all seem to be caused by: a sharp decrease in the player's gaudy collegiate rebounding statistics, a greater propensity to commit turnovers than the player evinced in college, and a sharp decrease in the player's collegiate scoring efficiency.
It seems each of the three players benefited from some hidden inflation in their collegiate statistics that went beyond the norm. It may be time to consider evaluating collegiate statistics differently. For instance, it might be time to discriminate amongst the quality of rebounds gathered and the number of points produced as a result of uncontested shots. Just a thought.
Click here to see my statistical analysis of the contributions made so far by the 2008-09 Rookie Class
Notes on the rest of the rookie class
1. The race for Rookie of the Year looks like a battle between Greg Oden and Derrick Rose. I would give the edge to Oden at the moment. If Oden received as much playing time as Rose it would be no contest. In terms of Marginal Win Score, Oden is by far the best rookie performer so far.
2. The steal of the draft has been Miami's second round pick, Mario Chalmers -- the point guard from Kansas. Although he won't get it, at this point he also deserves consideration for Rookie of the Year.
3. The Bucks seem to have blown it with their first choice, Joe Alexander, but... like Miami... they seem to have hit on their second round pick, Luc Moute.
4. The worst performing rookie so far, in terms of Marginal Win Score, has been Roy Hibbert, center for the Indiana Pacers. He has been awful.
5. Kevin Love has been disappointing, when one considers his collegiate numbers, but he hasn't been a bust. Hes still above average. Statistics show he is much better at the center position. If the Timberwolves played him at center more often than power forward, his numbers would be much better.
In each of the 3 aforementioned cases, the unusually large dropoffs in production all seem to be caused by: a sharp decrease in the player's gaudy collegiate rebounding statistics, a greater propensity to commit turnovers than the player evinced in college, and a sharp decrease in the player's collegiate scoring efficiency.
It seems each of the three players benefited from some hidden inflation in their collegiate statistics that went beyond the norm. It may be time to consider evaluating collegiate statistics differently. For instance, it might be time to discriminate amongst the quality of rebounds gathered and the number of points produced as a result of uncontested shots. Just a thought.
Click here to see my statistical analysis of the contributions made so far by the 2008-09 Rookie Class
Notes on the rest of the rookie class
1. The race for Rookie of the Year looks like a battle between Greg Oden and Derrick Rose. I would give the edge to Oden at the moment. If Oden received as much playing time as Rose it would be no contest. In terms of Marginal Win Score, Oden is by far the best rookie performer so far.
2. The steal of the draft has been Miami's second round pick, Mario Chalmers -- the point guard from Kansas. Although he won't get it, at this point he also deserves consideration for Rookie of the Year.
3. The Bucks seem to have blown it with their first choice, Joe Alexander, but... like Miami... they seem to have hit on their second round pick, Luc Moute.
4. The worst performing rookie so far, in terms of Marginal Win Score, has been Roy Hibbert, center for the Indiana Pacers. He has been awful.
5. Kevin Love has been disappointing, when one considers his collegiate numbers, but he hasn't been a bust. Hes still above average. Statistics show he is much better at the center position. If the Timberwolves played him at center more often than power forward, his numbers would be much better.
posted by Ty Will @ Tuesday, December 02, 2008
5 Comments:
I do not understand how you could say Beasley and Durrant are busts?! Oden is starting to play better but he is not playing anywhere near as good as people thought he would. Hopefully he is a slow bloomer but he will not get alot of attention on a team like portland which has tons of young talent. Durrant has not been a bust by any means if he were to put on some muscle he would be noticably better but I am sure anytime would take durrant. I am suprised you did not mention OJ he is a beast offensivley and can showcase his talent because the grizzles seem to be lacking in almost every category. What about DJ on the bobcats? He is way better than I could of imagined.
Oden is pretty nasty. Even though you overrate rebounds, especially defensive ones, his offensive rebounding is elite.
However, it's not like he CAN play 35-40 minutes but Nate chooses not to. He physically can't. Minutes is a skill. It's why Kobe > Manu.
Rose deserves it right now, in part because you can bank on nearly 40 minutes a night out of the guy.
As always Ty, thanks for cranking out interesting material every day. I can't imagine the work that goes into all this.
If I understand your chart right as it relates to Brook Lopez, the Bucks should have 4.7 more wins over the course of an 82 game season if they had Lopez on the roster instead of a "replacement player" ala Francisco Elson. Is that accurate?
this is the biggest load of croc I have ever read on Michael Beasly and Kevin Durant...unbelievable that you would call Kevin Durant a bust. Who do you recall from that draft class doing anything better than him? Greg Oden better than Derrick Rose...not even in college! and Michael Beasly isn't horrible but he is kind of a bust
Kevin Durant is now the NBA scoring champ...and your were saying?
Post a Comment
<< Home