[mrist111Participant]

I’ve been coming to this site and these forums for years now, only recently registered and started posting. I’m wondering what some of you think about scouting and grading prospects, do you use strictly the eye test, do you go by stats/advanced stats/efficiency/etc., or some combination of both?

Personally I’m an eye test guy and have been armchair scouting/evaluating players for over 10 years now. It definitely has its flaws. But there seems to be a growing use of advanced stats, for better or for worse, within the NBA and in front offices. Wondering what some of your thoughts are and how do you scout players?

[NihochuParticipant]

I think its different for different players. If a prospect is considered a scorer or labelled as one, I look at his creativity on the court but also the efficiency in his stats. If it is a player known as a great defender I often pay attention on how he affects the game, as defense (especially on ball) rarely shows up on the stat sheet. So for me, its just a matter of what type of player I am evaluating.

[NihochuParticipant]

I think its different for different players. If a prospect is considered a scorer or labelled as one, I look at his creativity on the court but also the efficiency in his stats. If it is a player known as a great defender I often pay attention on how he affects the game, as defense (especially on ball) rarely shows up on the stat sheet. So for me, its just a matter of what type of player I am evaluating.

[arowsky205Participant]

I think you have to use a combination of everything. Scouting isn’t an exact science, so using a variety of methods for every player is most effective, in my opinion.

[arowsky205Participant]

I think you have to use a combination of everything. Scouting isn’t an exact science, so using a variety of methods for every player is most effective, in my opinion.

[kazamParticipant]

I agree with Arowksy, its a combination of both. It is important to use the analytics and specific statistic breakdowns in scouting prospects especially but you can also tell if a guy "gets" how to play and what needs to be done.

If I’m a GM drafting for a team that needs a guy who can defend the P&R and knock down mid-range jumpshots, I’m going to look at those statistics. In addition, I’m going to see what his jumper looks like to see if there is room for growth. So it is definetly a combination. 

[kazamParticipant]

I agree with Arowksy, its a combination of both. It is important to use the analytics and specific statistic breakdowns in scouting prospects especially but you can also tell if a guy "gets" how to play and what needs to be done.

If I’m a GM drafting for a team that needs a guy who can defend the P&R and knock down mid-range jumpshots, I’m going to look at those statistics. In addition, I’m going to see what his jumper looks like to see if there is room for growth. So it is definetly a combination. 

[ChewyParticipant]

 1. It seems like there are a million stat categories. Like any good lobyist will tell you: you can make numbers say whatever you want.

2. Player development is so dependent on which team they go to. Who is on the roster that will help them? Do coaches focus on development or win now? Pretty much every player in the last 20 years would have benefited by being drafted by the Spurs.

I use the eye test, but if I had a 6 figure job riding on my decisions… I’d probably double check the stats too.

 

 

[ChewyParticipant]

 1. It seems like there are a million stat categories. Like any good lobyist will tell you: you can make numbers say whatever you want.

2. Player development is so dependent on which team they go to. Who is on the roster that will help them? Do coaches focus on development or win now? Pretty much every player in the last 20 years would have benefited by being drafted by the Spurs.

I use the eye test, but if I had a 6 figure job riding on my decisions… I’d probably double check the stats too.

 

 

[mrist111Participant]

Here’s a site I found with a draft formula, it seems to be the only one now that Hollinger and shutupandjam are no longer doing there’s publicly. This combines advanced stats and eye test, it’s pretty cool.

http://www.mentorsports.com/nbadraft2014/

[mrist111Participant]

Here’s a site I found with a draft formula, it seems to be the only one now that Hollinger and shutupandjam are no longer doing there’s publicly. This combines advanced stats and eye test, it’s pretty cool.

http://www.mentorsports.com/nbadraft2014/

[trelos6Participant]

Sometimes, a player looks like they aren’t doing much, but then you look at the box score and they are 4-6 for 12 points.   So being quietly efficient is also a useful contribution.

I think Andrew Wiggins will be a guy like this.  With ball dominant players like Kyrie, Dion, Lebron, his ability to work his way into the offense will be huge.

 

 

[trelos6Participant]

Sometimes, a player looks like they aren’t doing much, but then you look at the box score and they are 4-6 for 12 points.   So being quietly efficient is also a useful contribution.

I think Andrew Wiggins will be a guy like this.  With ball dominant players like Kyrie, Dion, Lebron, his ability to work his way into the offense will be huge.

 

 

[thparadoxParticipant]

The short answer is: both.

Both stats and "eye test" are useful. I think the problems arise from using one without considering the other.

1) To use stats, you have to understand the stats. Advanced stats are very useful, but if you won’t understand how they’re derived, then they can play tricks one you. Advanced stats like PER and WS can be confusing, and you shouldn’t rely on them exclusively. PER, in particular, overweights scoring contributions. A good start to understanding advanced stats is to ask google for Dean Oliver’s Four Factors.

2) Simple stats are often more misleading that the advanced stats. Advanced stats are good because they help with comparability. It’s much easier to compare 2 big men on the basis on rebound %, than to look at 12 rpg vs 9 rpg. Why? You have to adjust for the pace of the game, and minutes played.

3) Small sample size is a huge dowfall of many stats. Shooting 45% from the 3pt line isn’t very impressive if you only take 20 3pt shots for the season. Plus/minus has similar issues, and seems to be more applicable to some players than others. (e.g. Anderson Varejao, Nick Collison, etc. have finished in the top 10. This reveals how the stat can both be useful and misleading at the same time)

4) It’s important to use Stats and the Eye test against each other. It gives you disconfirming evidence.

 Let’s say your friend says "Lebron is a bad midrange shooter". Bold statement. How do you disprove this? Using the eye test, you’ll have to remember every shot you’ve seen Lebron take. Also, maybe Lebron is playing on TV right now. So you watch his shot, and see if it goes in. You can see how he shoots, and if it looks like he’s a good shooter. The problem is that your brain probably can’t remember all the shots. Plus, if you use the current game, you might only see him take 8 midrange jumpers. That’s too small a sample from which to make a clear decision. So you go on youtube, and you watch Lebron take 100 more shots. But that’s probably a biased sample… his highlights are probably shots that went in. BUT, you DO get some information. You can see how the ball comes out of his hand. You can judge how he shoots with different defenders. Maybe the defense is just playing him WAY harder than they play James Jones.

Now, you compare it to the statistics. You look up his FG%. Not bad. But it includes dunks, and layups. ok, so we go to hoopdata.com and look up his FG% from specific shooting locations. Now we have some good stats. We see that in 2013, LBJ shot 46% from 16-23 feet. Comparing that to other players, considering the sample size, and factoring in how well defended he is, we can conclude that Lebron is a pretty great midrange shooter. Or he was just extremely lucky in 2013.

Scouting:

 Applying stats specifically to scouting, I think you have to start from the overall strategy. My strategy would be to go for the home run pick. I love stats, but you can’t just use stats to evaluate prospects, because some of the players with the most potential will not show up. It depends on the situation.

 A player like Damian Lillard was a great pick. And you could see it in the stats. He was an experienced player, and the stats showed that he could score efficiently from everywhere, in pretty much every situation.

Whereas, nobody is drafting Dante Exum based on stats. But he’s worth it because you can see how he moves on the court. You have the physical stats and combine stats, which confirm how quick he is.

Contrast that with Aaron Gordon. People compared him to Shawn Marion or AK47. But Gordon’s prospects of developing a shot are FAR below those comparisons. Gordon shot 42% from the FT line. Marion and AK47 were both in the mid 70s from the FT line in college. Marion in particular is a great finisher around the basket. So in this case, the stats can disprove the eye test.

[thparadoxParticipant]

The short answer is: both.

Both stats and "eye test" are useful. I think the problems arise from using one without considering the other.

1) To use stats, you have to understand the stats. Advanced stats are very useful, but if you won’t understand how they’re derived, then they can play tricks one you. Advanced stats like PER and WS can be confusing, and you shouldn’t rely on them exclusively. PER, in particular, overweights scoring contributions. A good start to understanding advanced stats is to ask google for Dean Oliver’s Four Factors.

2) Simple stats are often more misleading that the advanced stats. Advanced stats are good because they help with comparability. It’s much easier to compare 2 big men on the basis on rebound %, than to look at 12 rpg vs 9 rpg. Why? You have to adjust for the pace of the game, and minutes played.

3) Small sample size is a huge dowfall of many stats. Shooting 45% from the 3pt line isn’t very impressive if you only take 20 3pt shots for the season. Plus/minus has similar issues, and seems to be more applicable to some players than others. (e.g. Anderson Varejao, Nick Collison, etc. have finished in the top 10. This reveals how the stat can both be useful and misleading at the same time)

4) It’s important to use Stats and the Eye test against each other. It gives you disconfirming evidence.

 Let’s say your friend says "Lebron is a bad midrange shooter". Bold statement. How do you disprove this? Using the eye test, you’ll have to remember every shot you’ve seen Lebron take. Also, maybe Lebron is playing on TV right now. So you watch his shot, and see if it goes in. You can see how he shoots, and if it looks like he’s a good shooter. The problem is that your brain probably can’t remember all the shots. Plus, if you use the current game, you might only see him take 8 midrange jumpers. That’s too small a sample from which to make a clear decision. So you go on youtube, and you watch Lebron take 100 more shots. But that’s probably a biased sample… his highlights are probably shots that went in. BUT, you DO get some information. You can see how the ball comes out of his hand. You can judge how he shoots with different defenders. Maybe the defense is just playing him WAY harder than they play James Jones.

Now, you compare it to the statistics. You look up his FG%. Not bad. But it includes dunks, and layups. ok, so we go to hoopdata.com and look up his FG% from specific shooting locations. Now we have some good stats. We see that in 2013, LBJ shot 46% from 16-23 feet. Comparing that to other players, considering the sample size, and factoring in how well defended he is, we can conclude that Lebron is a pretty great midrange shooter. Or he was just extremely lucky in 2013.

Scouting:

 Applying stats specifically to scouting, I think you have to start from the overall strategy. My strategy would be to go for the home run pick. I love stats, but you can’t just use stats to evaluate prospects, because some of the players with the most potential will not show up. It depends on the situation.

 A player like Damian Lillard was a great pick. And you could see it in the stats. He was an experienced player, and the stats showed that he could score efficiently from everywhere, in pretty much every situation.

Whereas, nobody is drafting Dante Exum based on stats. But he’s worth it because you can see how he moves on the court. You have the physical stats and combine stats, which confirm how quick he is.

Contrast that with Aaron Gordon. People compared him to Shawn Marion or AK47. But Gordon’s prospects of developing a shot are FAR below those comparisons. Gordon shot 42% from the FT line. Marion and AK47 were both in the mid 70s from the FT line in college. Marion in particular is a great finisher around the basket. So in this case, the stats can disprove the eye test.

[Author]

Posts