That was not college basketball...

[cyptomcat]

Originally Posted by gtfan088

Yes. I'm assuming we agree on that...so I'm not really sure what your statement about players before the age rule and after was supposed to mean. Can you clarify?

The post I replied to had this claim:
-- NBA teams avoid making bad choices because they get to evaluate players performance in college for 1 more year.

my reply was:
-- NBA teams still suck at picking.

I think your data actually backs me up, because there is only 2 point per game difference between the two sets, and some of that difference is actually due to one set being older/stronger and better trained.

I don't disagree that NBA teams should make a better choice with 1 more year of data, but not that much better according to your data. Definitely it wouldn't compensate for missing 1 year of Lebron James, Dwight Howard, Stoudemire etc. ticket and jersey sales.

One look into how NBA teams suck at picking is the win-shares by the pick number over the last 21 years.
http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpre...draft-lottery/

[gtfan088]

I don't think the teams really suck at picking...there's just only a handful of players in each draft who are going to have a major impact in a star-driven league like the NBA. The data shows that picking near the top gives you a much greater chance at landing a great player, and now at least those guys have been observed on the collegiate level and they are usually household names well before the draft.

Sure, Lebron and Dwight Howard were already well known before the draft, but guys like Kobe and Amare were drafted in the latter half of the lottery. There would have certainly been more buzz about either of those guys coming into the league if they had dominated the college game for a year and been picked top 3.