Play Fantasy Use your Fantasy skills to win Cash Prizes. Join or start a league today. Play Now
Blog Entry

An explanation (for those who can't read)

Posted on: October 9, 2008 2:34 pm
Edited on: December 8, 2008 11:33 am
 

I was going to try to get through the day without posting this blog.

But I knew I'd never make it.

Unfortunately, some of my readers -- not you reading this; just the stupid ones -- lack reading comprehension skills, which causes me to often times explain things over and over again as if I'm talking to my 5-year-old son. It's frustrating. But it comes with the territory. So let me use this space to further explain my column about "NBA talent" on college teams and address some emails I've received this morning.

Ready?

Here we go!

Question: My favorite team (insert name here) has a great player named (insert name here) who is probably a lottery pick. How could you not count him as being drafted this year or next year?

Answer: As I clearly stated, whether prospects are considered "NBA talents" is not something I decided for the purposes of this column. I turned that over to DraftExpress.com. In other words, this was a simple process for me. If DraftExpress.com had a player listed as going in the first round or second round of the 2009 or 2010 NBA Draft, I listed him accordingly. If not, I didn't. So any questions about the status of prospects should be directed to DraftExpress.com's Jonathan Givony, not me.

(Sorry Jonathan!)

Also, I explained in the column that this is not an exact science or an absolute predictor of which teams will and will not be great. One reason is because many players considered "NBA talents" in October won't be considered "NBA talents" in March, and vice versa. Another reason is because though I believe with every ounce of my brain that "NBA talents" are necessary to win the national title (just look at the recent history of national champions), I do not believe they are required to make an Elite Eight or even Final Four. For example, I think Notre Dame is going to be great this season, but (according to DraftExpress.com) there isn't a future first-round pick on the team. So while history suggests this suggests the Irish won't be our national champions, it doesn't mean they can't win the Big East and much more.

Question: My favorite team (insert name here) has committed (insert name here). He's ranked 10th in the Class of 2009 and will surely be a first-round pick. Why are you not counting him?

Answer: What on earth does a Class of 2009 prospect have to do with this season?

Regardless of where John Wall signs, he won't have anything to do with what happens on the court in the 2008-09 season because he won't play college basketball until the 2009-2010 season. Same goes for Abdul Gaddy. And Renardo Sidney. And Derrick Favors. And you get the idea, don't you?

Bottom line, only players on the current roster matter.

People who may or may not come in the future have nothing to do with this column.

Question: Why did you only list teams with at least eight points?

Answer: Because there were nine teams with at least eight points, and that took me to 1,500 words. That was plenty. But I did use the same exercise to go further down the list. In all, there were 16 teams with at least six points. So if you want to look at the rest of the list, well, here you go ...

-- Pittsburgh --

  • Number of projected draft picks:  2
  • Number of points: 7
  • 2009 first round: Sam Young (4 points)
  • 2010 first round: DeJuan Blair (3 points)
  • 2009 second round: NA
  • 2010 second round: NA

-- Oklahoma --

  • Number of projected draft picks: 2
  • Number of points: 7
  • 2009 first round: Blake Griffin (4 points)
  • 2010 first round: Willie Warren (3 points)
  • 2009 second round: NA
  • 2010 second round: NA

-- Tennessee --

  • Number of projected draft picks: 2
  • Number of points: 7
  • 2009 first round: Tyler Smith (4 points)
  • 2010 first round: Scotty Hopson (3 points)
  • 2009 second round: NA
  • 2010 second round: NA

-- Arizona State --

  • Number of projected draft picks: 2
  • Number of points: 6
  • 2009 first round: James Harden (4 points)
  • 2010 first round: Jeff Pendergraph (2 points)
  • 2009 second round: NA
  • 2010 second round: NA

-- Georgetown --

  • Number of projected draft picks: 3
  • Number of points: 6
  • 2009 first round: NA
  • 2010 first round:  Greg Monroe (3 points)
  • 2009 second round: DaJuan Summers (2 points)
  • 2010 second round: Austin Freeman (1 point)

-- Memphis --

  • Number of projected draft picks: 2
  • Number of points: 6
  • 2009 first round: Tyreke Evans (4 points)
  • 2010 first round: NA
  • 2009 second round: Robert Dozier (2 points)
  • 2010 second round: NA

-- Texas --

  • Number of projected draft picks: 2
  • Number of points: 6
  • 2009 first round: Damion James (4 points)
  • 2010 first round: NA
  • 2009 second round: Connor Atchley (2 points)
  • 2010 second round: NA
Comments

Since: Dec 8, 2008
Posted on: December 8, 2008 1:14 pm
 

An explanation (for those who can't read)

Oh Gary, It has to be hard to deal with such idiots all day.  I couldn't imagine doing what you have to do.  To be such a genius at your craft and then only to deal with Fanatical Lunatics who judge only with their Heart instead of their Head.  It must be like chasing a friend down the street who is chasing a dog he thinks is yours into someone else's house......these people are CRAZY! 

Whose your pick in the Mem/Georgetown game?




Since: Mar 8, 2008
Posted on: October 10, 2008 4:17 pm
 

An explanation (for those who can't read)

Lol good job Gary. Don't worry, some people are just stupid.



Since: Mar 21, 2008
Posted on: October 10, 2008 10:34 am
 

An explanation (for those who can't read)

Hey Gary,

Nice work. I like to try these exercises too. I also believe that talent is a great predictor of success.

QUESTION: Do you have the information to do the same projection, in retrospect, for last year?

I did a similar project using different data for 'talent'. My results are:

Predicted 2009 Final Four (FF) and Elite Eight (EE)

UNC - FF, NC

UConn - FF, NC runner-up

UCLA - FF

Pitt - FF

Lville - EE

Gonzaga - EE

Tennessee - EE

KU - EE

Using my data and system, seems to overrate the talent and success relationship. For instance, KU has a lot of talented young players, but I doubt if they are ready for prime time, and an Elite Eight seems a really big stretch, but I used my data consistently and these are the results!

I wanted to check and see how good a predictor this would have been last year. Turns out KU wouldn't have been predicted to get to the Final Four last year, only the Elite Eight. Memphis would have been predicted to win the championship, and Davidson would not have made the Elite Eight.

I found this attempt to be a fun exercise. But do I think my method is going to predict accurately?  NO. I just showed that for last year it didn't do anywhere close to a perfect job. My method isn't a polished gem of a tool, rather a crude predictor using one dimension, predicted talent level, to predict future success. What it does is give me some idea of which teams have the best talent, then predicts a cause and effect relationship between talent and winning. Good luck in explaining that to "those lacking comprehension skills" LOL.



The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com