For a long time the rationale of valuing "potential", specifically NBA projectibility, over production has always reminded me of something that
always remained at the tip of my proverbial tongue. That is, until last night.
Prior to going to sleep, I was thumbing through Michael Lewis' Moneyball, which I haven't read since it was published in early 2003. I tend to "rabbit ear" pages in books that I particularly like, and one of those passages relates to basketball recruiting, much like it does for baseball. Here is the passage:
Evaluating basketball players is much the same. The reason why we have "busts" and "under-the-radar" guys, largely is rooted in the fact the evaluation being done is closer to the "fat scout" from Moneyball vs Billy Beane/Paul DePodesta. The term "looks like Tarzan plays like Jane" is a perfectly concise way of wrapping together my point. Production, which can be easily tracked from game performance, is far more important that "looking the part." Things like will or guts or determination are only intangible if you let them be. If you actually judge a player by how he plays, those "intangibles" will be bundled into the performance. Furthermore, and possibly more importantly, the opposite is also true.
Give me a undersized basketball player, who wins basketball games, and performs in competition. You can keep the guy who is basketball-retarded, but could work as an Under Armor spokes model.
Out.
Prior to going to sleep, I was thumbing through Michael Lewis' Moneyball, which I haven't read since it was published in early 2003. I tend to "rabbit ear" pages in books that I particularly like, and one of those passages relates to basketball recruiting, much like it does for baseball. Here is the passage:
...The two sides are, on the one hand, the old scouts and, on the other, Billy Beane. The old scouts are like a Greek chorus; it is the job to underscore the eternal themes of baseball. The eternal themes are precisely what Billy Beane wants to exploit for profit - by ignoring them.
One by one Billy takes the names of players the old scouts have fallen in love with, and picks apart their flaws. The first times he does this an old scout protests.
"The guy's an athlete, Billy," the old scout says. "There's a lot of upside there."
"He can't hit, says Billy.
"He's not that bad a hitter," says the old scout.
"Yeah, what happens when he doesn't know a fastball is coming?" says Billy.
"He's a tools guy," says the old scout defensively. "The old scouts aren't built to argue; they are built to agree. The are part of a tightly woven class of former baseball players. The scout looks left and right for support. It doesn't arrive.
"But can he hit?" asks Billy.
"He can hit," says the old scout unconvincingly.
Paul (DePodesta) reads the player's college batting statistics. They contain a conspicuous lack of extra base hits and walks.
"My only question is," says Billy, "if he's that good a hitter why doesn't he hit better?"
"The swing needs some work. You have to reinvent him. But he can hit."
"Pro baseball's not real good at reinventing guys," says Billy.
Whatever happened when an older man who failed to become a big league stars looks at a younger man with a view to imagining whether he might become a big league star, Billy wanted nothing more to do with it. He'd been on the receiving end of the dreams of older men and he knew what they were worth. Over and over the old scouts will say, "The guy has a great body." or "This guy may be the best body in the draft." And every time they do, Billy will say, "We're not selling jeans here," and deposit yet another highly touted player, beloved by the scouts, onto his "*@+@ list.".......(Lewis, Moneyball: page 30)
Evaluating basketball players is much the same. The reason why we have "busts" and "under-the-radar" guys, largely is rooted in the fact the evaluation being done is closer to the "fat scout" from Moneyball vs Billy Beane/Paul DePodesta. The term "looks like Tarzan plays like Jane" is a perfectly concise way of wrapping together my point. Production, which can be easily tracked from game performance, is far more important that "looking the part." Things like will or guts or determination are only intangible if you let them be. If you actually judge a player by how he plays, those "intangibles" will be bundled into the performance. Furthermore, and possibly more importantly, the opposite is also true.
Give me a undersized basketball player, who wins basketball games, and performs in competition. You can keep the guy who is basketball-retarded, but could work as an Under Armor spokes model.
Out.
