Vlade4GM
All-Star
Do you really not think there's any bias in scouting? There is. Its not intentional or malicious, but its out there.
If there is, then I don't athletic testing is a way to uncover it.
Do you really not think there's any bias in scouting? There is. Its not intentional or malicious, but its out there.
Udo has an impressive no-step vertical. Davis tested well. It will be very interesting to see who GP takes. It's very difficult to call.
And Udoh gets off the floor very quickly, another plus.
Agreed about Aminu on the athleticism but really I think all that does is serve to educate us on the source of his abilities. At times he seems to soar over the rest to grab rebounds etc but it must come from his quickness, long arms and good fundamentals.
Regarding the tests and measurements- the system may be flawed but it's what we have. To guys like us perhaps those numbers reveal nothing, but to a GM or scout that has particular concerns about a player it can possibly be quite valuable information.
Another thing- I keep seeing many here say they trust their eyes over measurements but so many prospects were forgotten about after the measurements were released.
IDK but I'll be honest with you- I think very few here are using the information correctly.
In what sense?
That's a bit too broad of a question- can you get more specific?
Sorry. Which players were forgotten after which measurements were released?
That's not really comparable to what I was saying though. Height, length, reach, weight, body fat, etc. are much more reliable measurements than athletic tests. They tell exactly what they're meant to tell. I mean, you might get little variances here and there if you measured those things multiple times, but I think you'll get large variances if you did the same thing with athletic tests. Athletic tests (especially the way they administer them) ignore way too many variables.
Actually those tests are similar. Height weight etc can be just as misleading as the rest- they paint a physical picture of the player but how it's used is not in the discussion. I know that we were speaking of different things though.
Also I know that we have had this discussion before, and despite the example I site being a player you may have felt that way about it was not you I was thinking about when I wrote that.
Increasingly I see guys show the numbers, then compare to what they've seen and prefer the numbers. I just don't get it.
You're talking about how much importance are attached to those numbers, that's an entirely different discussion.
If athletic tests accurately measured athleticism that was most important to in-game play, then I would place a lot of importance onto them, but they don't do that. Even if you ignore how poor (by design) these tests are at showing how good their in-game athleticism, you still have a big issue with all the variances. Damion James' max vertical was 4 inches less this year than it was last year. There are too many variables that will affect the results for these results to have that much meaning. Height, weight, length, etc. are much more quantifiable.
Some super surprising things @ the athleticism tests
- Ed Davis vert = 36 while Favors is only 35.5 and Udoh was way behind at 33.5
- Luke Babbit came in at 37.5 beating WESLEY JOHNSON who recorded at a 37 and Gordan Hayward came in 34.5 while Aminu(who was considered a "super athlete") came in at 33.5
Babbit's stock has to be sky rocketing..measured well..proved his athletic and can shoot lights out
setting himself up as a top 10 pick
As an isolated measurement, it's hard to get excited about it. One big factor with jumping is how quickly you jump. As far as I know, they don't measure that.
As an aside, I remember years ago reading in SI that David Thompson's vertical was measured at 44 inches. Those are some kind of hops.
Some super surprising things @ the athleticism tests
- Ed Davis vert = 36 while Favors is only 35.5 and Udoh was way behind at 33.5
- Luke Babbit came in at 37.5 beating WESLEY JOHNSON who recorded at a 37 and Gordan Hayward came in 34.5 while Aminu(who was considered a "super athlete") came in at 33.5
Babbit's stock has to be sky rocketing..measured well..proved his athletic and can shoot lights out
setting himself up as a top 10 pick
These athletic measurements are not "proof" of in-game athleticism.
So true. Just look at Luke Jackson and Jodie Meeks. Gordon Hayward is another good example. He put up equal if not better combine numbers then Turner and Aminu, but on the court he isn't the athlete those guys are.
The combine is what it is. Just another set of figures you can look at. What it isn't, is reactionary. I've always beleived that how you react during a game, how you jump, or how quickly you move is almost always going to be superior to how you jump, move, etc during a combine.
When I played baseball I was a centerfielder. During one game our third baseman was injured. Since I had played the infield before, they moved me into play third. I hated playing third by the way. The next inning a batter for the other team hit a scorching linedrive headed toward left field. I leaped into the air and managed to snag it in the webbing of my glove. Later I was showed a picture someone had snapped of my catch. My feet looked to be a good 40 or so inches off the ground.
David Thompson was one of my favorite players. Probably could have been a HOF player if he hadn't gotten injured. Great hops and lightning quick. Just a great player.
As far as the measurements and agility drills go. I think they're interesting and can sometimes confirm our suspicions about one thing or another. But unless someone is listed at 6'10" and turns out to be 6'7", I don't think they really play that much into a teams decisions.
You don't watch a player for 3 or 4 years from highschool and into college, and throw it all out the window over an inch here or a slow agility drill there. I do think the individual workouts can be influencial because you have the opportunity to pit players you might have rated somewhat equal against one another. Such as last year when Tyreke made such a big impression against Jennings, Curry and company.
We've had this discussion before and I suspect there will always be disagreement between the the skill camp and the athletic camp. Naturally you want the best of both worlds if possible. If you get one of those, then you've got a player. Remember, in every draft class, the measuring stick for every player are the other players in his draft class. Because thats who they've been competing against. The higher the overall quality of the draft class, the better your chances of getting a good player.
One of my mind games is to take a player I really like and project him into a past draft. Would he go higher, or perhaps lower. For instance. Last years draft was deep in point guards, and weak in big men. After Griffin, there was no solid all around big man. Monroe dropped out, and I think at one time he was projected around 8th or perhaps a little higher. So the fact that he's been projected as high as 4th on some boards, and in a class deep in bigs, tells me that he's more highly thought of this year. Rightly or wrongly. By the same token, a player like Jerome Jordan, who last year was on the bubble between the bottom of the first round and the top of the second round, must have showed little improvement to be projected in the middle of the second round this year. Again, rightly or wrongly.
Its far from an exact science..