Pelton also writes about the "lingering value of potential", how players' prep rankings follow them all the way to the NBA draft.
Pelton's WARP Projections
- Thread starter r_u_s_t_b_u_c_k_e_t
- Start date
Jazz4ever
Well-Known Member
The college game is just a totally different animal than the NBA game. Some players have college 3 point range but not NBA (Derrick Williams). NBA spacing helps some players more than others and there is no way to predict it. The overall sample size of games is tiny especially for a one year player. I think the vanilla RSB/40 probably does a better job.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Scientific method would be taking the mocks and seeing how closely they correlate to actual player performances. Seat of the pants here, but I'd say they're probably as accurate as Pelton. However, instead of the mocks, which are put together by writers, you'd need to get actual draft boards. These are put together by teh scouts and GM's who watch countless hours of film and attend hundreds of games.
This is exactly what Pelton is doing. He runs his WARP projections for old drafts. Then he compares those to the way the players actually performed in the NBA and attempts to adjust his formula to make it more accurate going forward.
That's back testing, which was a given Pelton does this in the first place. I didn't understand the request for "scientific method". What Core really wants is past predictions.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Scientific method is taking your theory and applying it, then examining the results to see if there is a significant statistical difference vs the control sample. In this case, the "control" would be some compilation of mock drafts. If Pelton has come up with a better method of prognostication, he should be able to compare side-by-side, his predictions/results for a set number of years vs. the mocks and by how much he outperformed those. And you can't just pick and choose, or change methodologies each year to "skew" results which may have been unfavorable.
They are all there on that page. I can't include them here since they are Insider. Anyway, it is clear to me that Pelton has done his homework.
This is a very good description of the material included on the Insider page.
Game6Conley
Well-Known Member
The French Pro-A League is really not that good, its mediocre at best..
Rendering Clint Capela at #2 without an asterisk is misleading and ultimately bogus.
Rendering Clint Capela at #2 without an asterisk is misleading and ultimately bogus.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
This needs to be revisited next year. My "bold" prediction is that we will all be loling even harder about it in 2015.
on the hype: Scouts & GMs do have a ranking system Tier 1 is superstars. None of this years draft prospects were ranked tier 1 if I remember correctly. Lots of tier 2s and 3s though. It's a good draft but it's not 2003.
These are 5-year predictions.
Don't agree that this article is good. It's almost the definition of "cranky old guy." It doesn't even play particularly honest, blaming an emphasis on analytics for Memphis' 10-15 start and crediting a change of play style based upon "old fashioned" coaching and principles to get the back to playing well. The reality is that those numbers are about Marc Gasol's injury.
The real question would be whether these types of analytic projections are better by a statistically significant margin that traditional processes. That's pretty hard to tell today given that these analytics obviously influence the actual picks. I remember when Hollinger rolled out his system there was a substantial amount of retro testing before he landed at exact coefficients to give weight to various factors. Some looked good in retrospect (I think he had Boozer rated near the top of his class instead of as a second rounder) others didn't look so good, but that's the case with the actual drafts too.
I was under the impression (given Chad Ford's tier article) that the opposite was true. That Parker, Wiggins, and Embiid were all considered Tier 1 prospects.
I was under the impression (given Chad Ford's tier article) that the opposite was true. That Parker, Wiggins, and Embiid were all considered Tier 1 prospects.