Re: [情報] Aaron Brooks 的後續...

[SMALLZCH (嗯嗯嗯)]

他的體測
              未穿鞋     穿鞋       體重     翼展    垂直    MAX
               身高      身高                        起跳    起跳
Aaron Brooks  5'10.5"   5'11.75"    161      6'4"    32.5    39.5


06/07
Name         GP Min  Pts  FG  FGA  FG%  FTM FTA FT%  3Pt 3PtA 3P%  Off Def TOT
Aaron Brooks 35 36.8 17.7 6.1 13.2 46.0 3.3 3.9 84.6 2.3 5.7  40.4 0.9 3.4 4.3

Asts Stls Blks TOs PFs
4.3  1.4  0.2  2.5 2.5





以下是外國鄉民對Aaron Brooks的分析


I used the Hollinger statistical analysis and applied it to our boy Aaron
Brooks! I copied the article in the NBA Dish forum and added commentary in
bold.

My conclusion is that Brooks is underrated due to his size. He ranks up very
well in 2 key factors- rebounding and 3 pt shooting. In fact, he may be the
BEST guard in those 2 categories. No wonder Morey liked him

Here is the link to the thread about the Hollinger method:
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthrea...340#post2997340

THE KEY FACTORS

I use PER (Player Efficiency Rating) as one of the factors in my rating
formula, but it doesn't come close to telling the whole story.

The other six factors that are indicative of pro success are:

1. Age. Everything about the draft has to be seen through the prism of age.
This is hugely important, yet teams underestimate it almost every year.

That's why "veteran" rookies like Ely, Dickau, Rafael Araujo and Francisco
Garcia have underwhelmed at the NBA level, while the freshman stats of a
player like Chris Bosh take on new meaning when you understand his youth..

Uh-oh... lil 'Ron stayed all four years and is 22. It should be noted,
though, that Brooks had a really good season as a Sophomore. So he was good
at a young age

[1 negative.]


2. Steals. Though perhaps the most worthless stat for NBA analysis, there's
no denying that college players who get a ton of steals tend to fare much
better in the NBA than their less sticky-fingered brethren. This is the one
item that gets the most weight, actually -- it's even more important than
PER!

For this year's draft, that's a big positive for Mike Conley, Jr., who picked
off more than two balls a game, and a big negative for players like Arron
Afflalo (22 all season), Nick Young (27) and Ramon Sessions (29).

48 steals for Brooks this year, and he averaged 1.37 per game. Not bad, but
that is well below Conley's 87 and 2.2 per game.

Steal averages of other guards drafted:
Conley- 2.2
Law- 1.1
Stuckey-2.4
Crittenton- 2.0
Cook- 0.7
Almond- 1.2
Affalo- 0.6

I'll put this as 1/2 positive.

3. Blocks. This is the big man counterpart to steals, basically, although
it's not quite as important.

6 blocks for Brooks. Probably totally worthless to look at this for a guard.
Conley had only 10.

Net neutral outcome.

4. Rebounds. Boards, especially offensive boards, are a good indicator of
future pro success as well.

Note that it isn't necessarily the absolute rebounds as much as the rebounds
given a player's height. Wade, for instance, has the best rebound rate in the
past five years of any player 6-4 or shorter -- a whopping 13.0 his sophomore
year. Rajon Rondo was the best under 6-2 (11.5), and Nate Robinson was the
best under six foot (8.6 his sophomore year).

4.3 rebounds per game for Lil Brooks! That sounds pretty good to me. That is
more than Mike Conley Jr., who only averaged 3.4!

Here are the rebounding averages of the guards drafted ahead of him:
Conley- 3.4
Law- 3.3
Stuckey- 4.5 (he is 6'5")
Crittendon- 3.7
Cook- 4.3 (he is also 6'5")

Holy crap, this is definitely a big positive for Brooks.

Totals:
[1.5 positives]

[1 negative.]

5. 3-pointers. Those previous three items are markers for athleticism, while
these next two are markers of skill.

Despite the longer line, college 3-point shooting translates very well to the
NBA level, albeit sometimes with a year or two of adjustment needed. The key
here is to look for players who both make a ton of 3s and shoot a high
percentage.

Brooks averaged 5.7 attempts per game as a senior and made 2.3 per game for a
40.4% clip. He nailed 80 out of 198. Not bad. Not bad at all.

Here are the per game 3pt stats for other guards drafted before and right
after him:
Conley- 0.5 out 1.8 for 30.4%, (weak!)
Stuckey- 1.5 out of 5.6 for 26.7%, (stop shooting please!)
Crittenton- 1.1 out of 3.2 for 35.6%
Cook- 1.4 out of 3.3 for 41.5% (getting better, but you're no Lil Ron)
Afflo- 2.4 out of 6.4 for 37.5% (close, but no cigar!)

Another HUGE postive for Brooks here. It looks like he is the best 3 point
shooting guard taken in the 1st round.

Totals:
[2.5 positives]

[1 negative.]

6. Pure point ratio. I thought this might just separate the wheat from the
chaff among point guards, but it actually helps at every position.

Obviously, guards such as Deron Williams, Marcus Williams, T.J. Ford and
Steve Blake differentiate themselves by having college pure point ratings
well over 2.0, but wingmen like Andre Iguodala and Luke Walton also helped
themselves with extremely strong ratings in this category.

On the other hand, Alexander Johnson and Rafael Araujo both put up -3.4 marks
-- perhaps that should have been a warning sign.

In this year's draft, Conley's 2.45 mark stands out with an exclamation point
-- it's the fourth-best of any college player in the past six years with at
least 500 minutes played, and easily No. 1 among this year's players.

At the other end, Nick Young (-1.8) and Morris Almond (-2.9) have
disastrously bad ratings for backcourt players.


I don't know what this is! I'd appreciate it if someone help me out here and
add it to the analysis1


THE RED FLAGS

I use the six factors above to produce a "rating" of a player's pro
potential, but that's not the end of the story. It turns out just using the
rating only gets you about halfway there, and still leads to a lot of
mistakes.

The rest of it is taken care of by what I call the four "red flags":

Short guys. We're all familiar with the great hordes of 5-11 guards who have
put up spectacular college hoops numbers only to implode upon reaching the
pros. I had to put in a system of deductions to account for this.

Will Mike Conley's lack of height be an issue in the NBA?

At the guard spot, a player got a minor deduction for being "somewhat short"
if he was a 6-3 or 6-4 shooting guard, or a 6-1 or 6-2 point guard. He got a
much larger deduction for being "very short" if he was a 6-2 or smaller
shooting guard, or a 6-0 or smaller point guard. This seemed to even out a
lot of the small-guard issues, as the best small players were able to
overcome their size, but the others weren't.

Uh-oh, that's a negative.

Totals:
[2.5 positives]

[2 negatives.]

Perimeter players who don't make 3s. Making fewer than 25 3-pointers in the
year before being drafted is a pretty strong negative indicator for outside
players.

Some are good enough in other areas to overcome it -- most notably Wade. Many
others fail because of it, however, as the athleticism they relied on to
dominate in college isn't nearly as singular at the pro level.

No problem here!

Really bad rebounders. This is a huge red flag -- if a player has an
extremely poor rebound rate for his size, it's a strong indication that his
athleticism is taxed to the limit even at the college level and he's going to
be completely overwhelmed in the pros.

This has several subsets by position, and as you can see it's kind of a
gallery of busts:

Guards with a rate below 5.0: Stoudamire and Jannero Pargo overcame this
enough to become quasi-useful; perhaps J.J. Redick will too. Others include
Dickau, Daniel Ewing, Reece Gaines, Dajuan Wagner and Roger Mason. This
year's draftees who get red-flagged on this metric are JamesOn Curry, Taurean
Green and Gabe Pruitt.[/b]

No problem here!


THE ONE ANTI-RED FLAG

ne positive, surprisingly, was if a player had a previous season that was
better than the one just before the draft.

You might think that this meant a player was "on the downswing," but actually
counting one-third the previous season and two-thirds the current one
improved the quality of the draft ratings significantly. Interestingly
enough, the opposite didn't work -- counting a previous season where a player
was worse didn't help at all.

What this tells us, apparently, is that with players this young we should
take most one-year improvements at face value.

Well, Brooks did have a really good Sophomore campaign.

He averaged 14.7 ppg, 4.6 assists, 1.0 stls, .429 FGs, .371 3PT

Not as good as his senior year though, when he averaged 177 ppg, 4.3 ast, 1.4
stls, and shot .460 from the field and .404 from three point land.

Net neutral on this one.

SUMMING IT UP

After all that, we finally end up with a numerical rating for each player.
While assigning each player a single number can't possibly address all the
complexities involved in a draft (present versus future, team needs versus
best player, etc.), it does allow us to do a few neat things.

For starters, we can compare drafts between years, which allows us to see
almost immediately that this year's draft is, indeed, absolutely freaking
loaded. It has the highest-rated player of the past six years, and seven of
the top 23 collegians in that stretch.

Second, we can denote differences between players much more finely than we
can by just using a ranking system. For example, the difference in the 2006
draft between the top-rated player, Tyrus Thomas, and the second-ranked
collegian, Shelden Williams, was greater than that between Williams and the
No. 35 player -- which would clue you in to just draft Thomas, regardless of
need. On the other hand, the difference between Andrew Bogut and Channing
Frye in the 2005 draft was only three hundredths of a point.

Best of all, the system works. Obviously, you want more than just my word, so
below are charts showing the top 12 collegians in each draft using my
formula, compared to where they actually were picked among collegians and
what players went in their place.

Yes, there are a few stinking dogs thrown in -- Vincent Yarbrough didn't
quite pan out, for instance, and the Paul Davis Era in Los Angeles is off to
a slow start.

That's OK. As I said, this is just the initial version of the system, and for
it to work, we just have to have fewer busts than in the real drafts. And as
you'll see, there are substantial fewer in the lists below.

Totals:
[2.5 positives]

2 negatives.

And his 2 negatives are due to age and size, while his 2.5 positives are
actuall statistics- steals, 3 point shooting and rebounding!

CLIFF NOTES: Aaron Brooks gets huge points for his rebounding and 3 point
shooting in statistical analysis. He is hurt by his size and his age

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) 
◆ From: 218.171.111.172
推 ARMARNIE:怎麼沒評助攻/失誤/open court概念?(居然看完了>"<)
→ ARMARNIE:不過就數據來說~他的確是第一輪後衛裡面三分跟籃板最好的
推 popolove:體重161KG  這真的還假的阿?
推 kangol:161磅
推 popolove:哈哈~~我耍笨了>"<
推 nba1ook:FG%46.0 3P%40.4 真的假的....
推 SMALLZCH:這是大學最後一季的成績