Superstar U: Which program is best at producing NBA stars?

[DevilHorns]

The answer won't surprise many here (though I'm sure 95% of basketball fans in general will be jaw-droppingly surprised).

Question: Which college program presently produces the most quality NBA players?

Methods: All NBA players that attended college are given an objective point assessment. Players that attended the same college have their individual point assessments added up to generate a numerical score for that given college.

Objective point assessment tool:
Multiple MVP awards = 10
MVP/finals MVP = 9
Multiple All-NBA selections = 8
All-NBA = 7
Multiple All-Star = 6
Multiple DPOY awards = 5
All-Star = 4
DPOY = 3
Multiple All-Defensive selections = 2
All-Def/ROY/6th Man winner = 1

You'll have to click the link to see who the winner is :)

http://www.slamonline.com/online/nba/2010/10/superstar-u/

And the best part is, the river of talent is still flowing through Durham!

[striker219]

So, it's nice that Google Chrome lets you bookmark a page with one click, but is there an add-on that will instantly send a page to your entire address book? Or maybe to a sub-folder within your address book? Because that would be really handy sometimes.

[snowdenscold]

Internet comments never cease to amaze me. I think many parts of "Web 2.0" have made us all a stupider place.

[JohnGalt]

Internet comments never cease to amaze me. I think many parts of "Web 2.0" have made us all a stupider place.

Agree 100%. I am now stupider for having read a few of those comments.

I loved this quote from the article:


You would expect mighty North Carolina to be much higher on this list, but in reality things have dried up for them as of late (at least in terms of producing NBA stars). With high draft picks such as Marvin Williams and Brandan Wright not becoming stars (yet) like had been projected for them, the Tar Heels have gone over a decade since they last produced a star player.

To which one user replied..."UNC had MJ, enough said." Evidently, one player means a school is the best at developing NBA talent...forever? Regardless of coaching? Yikes.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I do agree with a view of the posters that the system of ranking schools is completely flawed. However, Duke has to be considered in the top 3 (at least). I would have liked to see a formula that incorporates the number of players and number of years served with something about draft placement incorporated in there rather than All-Star appearances et al. If this were the case, Duke would probably also be number one.

We've produced so many NBA players with longevity. Some who looked like they weren't going to pan out did (JJ, McBob, Dahntay, Duhon) and others who were supposed to be role players are either stars and borderline-stars (Boozer, Battier, Deng). Like any school, we've had players that just didn't work out for one reason or the other (Langdon, Avery, Ewing, Shelden)

[JBDuke]

... Like any school, we've had players that just didn't work out for one reason or the other (Langdon, Avery, Ewing, Shelden)

I'm not quite willing to give up on Shelden yet. I still have hope that he'll catch on (maybe in Denver) and become a regular part of someone's rotation.

[Duvall]

Internet comments never cease to amaze me. I think many parts of "Web 2.0" have made us all a stupider place.

Nah. I think it's much more likely that the Web has revealed just how stupid we have always been.

[Spret42]

Nah. I think it's much more likely that the Web has revealed just how stupid we have always been.

This.

And colleges don't "produce" superstars in basketball. College programs can produce solid role players and long term successful professionals.

Great NBA players become so because they have a great talent and an inborn desire to be great. They may learn some stuff in college but 95% of their professional status comes from talent and will. Kevin Durant isn't becoming an unstoppable force of nature because he went to Texas for a year. And someone like Tim Duncan was going to become Tim Duncan whether he went to Wake Forest - Michigan State - or whereever for four years.

[Lord Ash]

So let me ask; everyone who has looked at that article has basically pooh-poohed the "math" they used.

So... can we come up with a better formula for NBA success? One that is easy to use, and yet reflects some NBA worth? I am not a fan of things like All-Star selections and all of that... most of those are a limited number of spots, thus leaving certain players out. Likewise, I don't like championships and MVP awards... those are often dependent on the players around a guy.

Personally I think three stats worth looking at are...

Number of players in the league: Obvious, I think, but really needs to be combined with the next stat, so that a single guy who gets lots of minutes overwhelms a group of regular guys who get decent minutes.

Minutes played per player: I think this can easily replace any of the main stats. Frankly, if a player is deemed good enough to get X minutes by an NBA coach, then their stats will usually reflect it. Superstars play superstar minutes; role players play role player minutes. If a guy is good, he'll see the floor. Minutes often directly reflect a players value.

Money earned: Again, like the above stat, a player is played based mostly on their value to the NBA and to an NBA franchise. If a player is well paid, he is probably worth more than a player who is not.

Could a simple formula be some sort of formula that uses the above three stats to generate "Program NBA production?"

If ANY forum can produce a simple to use, fairly-accurate formula, it should be DBR.

[striker219]

Kevin Durant isn't becoming an unstoppable force of nature because he went to Texas for a year.

Wait, so you're telling me that Rick Barnes wasn't instrumental in the development of one of the best basketball players in the world? Well my universe has been officially turned upside down.

[camion]

Wait, so you're telling me that Rick Barnes wasn't instrumental in the development of one of the best basketball players in the world? Well my universe has been officially turned upside down.

OTOH, Durant has now been K-coached. And he will be better next year. In this case correlation=causation. :o

[DukeFanSince1990]

This.

And colleges don't "produce" superstars in basketball. College programs can produce solid role players and long term successful professionals.

Great NBA players become so because they have a great talent and an inborn desire to be great. They may learn some stuff in college but 95% of their professional status comes from talent and will. Kevin Durant isn't becoming an unstoppable force of nature because he went to Texas for a year. And someone like Tim Duncan was going to become Tim Duncan whether he went to Wake Forest - Michigan State - or whereever for four years.

I have been saying that for years now.....Like Indiana State had anything to do with Larry Bird being Larry Bird, or Marquette making Wade into a star.

[G man]

http://davissportsdeli.com/wordpress/?p=370


seems pretty fair to me

[Jaymf7]

While others have noted the imperfections with their methodology (weighing a laundry list of players' accomplishments over the # of players, $ earned, or perceived talent of young players who have not year collected accolades), it also bears noting that we benefit on this list from the recent retirement of Sheed and Stackhouse. If they were still in the league (I think both are out), UNC would have a few more points.

Similarly, in a year or two we will likely drop as Grant is replaced by guys like Kyle, Nolan, Mason, Kyrie, etc. (which would certainly be a talent UPGRADE for the league from our school, but will be a step down based on this criteria).

That said, any list that places us ahead of the Heels while also disproving a long-antiquated jab at Duke is worth reading and sharing.

[DevilHorns]

I honestly think this is about as objective a measurement one can make as points are rewarded on league honors.

Objective point assessment tool:
Multiple MVP awards = 10
MVP/finals MVP = 9
Multiple All-NBA selections = 8
All-NBA = 7
Multiple All-Star = 6
Multiple DPOY awards = 5
All-Star = 4
DPOY = 3
Multiple All-Defensive selections = 2
All-Def/ROY/6th Man winner = 1

I think the tool is also pretty fair. I think a finals MVP should be worth less, but the rest of the point assessments seem fair in relation to one another.

To critique some of the ideas thrown around in this thread:

Number of players? This author's objective is centered on quality of players, not quantity.

Draft placement? Hardly guarantees that a player becomes a star player. Would be more appropriate if we were talking about which college produces the most first rounders, and that would be Duke if we're looking at the last 15-20 years.

Number of years? Similar to quantity rather than quality as a descriptive variable, but I see the point for longevity. I would argue however that a player that has stayed around a long time and has developed into a star player would accrue more points in the tool (as there are benefits for multiple awards), and therefore longevity is rewarded for quality players, albeit indirectly.

Minutes played per player? Flawed since most colleges in the running have produced a mixture of star players, role players, and bench players that only get time during blow outs. If the scale is tipping to more of those bench players during a given year, than they may actually end up hurting the average for minutes played total. Add a few players that barely make a roster and its suggested that this college produces less quality players by this attribute, though they may have the same number of star players as the year before. Also, though I agree star players generally get more playing time, the true amount of time also depends on depth at the position, style of play, etc. In the end, I would have to see its a shaky measure.

Money earned? Completely dependent on the situation. Look how much Brand is getting paid. What about Lebron? Players are often overpaid or underpaid depending on salary cap space, competition in the free agent market, etc. Generally I agree that star value correlates with salary, but as a reference measure, I think it would be too inconsistent.

I actually like the system the author used as its based on awards. Wouldn't you agree that this is a natural way to measure star value? I agree that all-stars, though generally picked correctly, can have some poor selections each year as they are selected by the lay public. However, MVP, DPOY, All-NBA, etc are decided by the league. Anybody who is truly in the running for awards like that are stars. No doubt about it.

[chrisheery]

I'm not quite willing to give up on Shelden yet. I still have hope that he'll catch on (maybe in Denver) and become a regular part of someone's rotation.

Reports from many sources indicate Sheldon is looking very very good at camp. In fact, their Carolina alumnus coach has said as much in interviews. Expectations are that he will start the season as the starter and should play well in the system. We'll see. I sure hope so. He is just a great guy from all indications and he was and is a great representative of Duke University.

[brevity]

So... can we come up with a better formula for NBA success? One that is easy to use, and yet reflects some NBA worth? I am not a fan of things like All-Star selections and all of that... most of those are a limited number of spots, thus leaving certain players out. Likewise, I don't like championships and MVP awards... those are often dependent on the players around a guy.

I don't have a great answer, but I have some ideas. I would start by saying that I have little interest in correlating college affiliation with NBA superstardom. The Kevin Durant example above is terrific; Texas can claim him as theirs, but Rick Barnes' role in his development pales in comparison to the coaches he's had since he became a pro (see how I phrased that?).

But if you really want some way to rank colleges based on their players in the NBA, then it makes to most sense to include all active players, and not just those in the last 10 years. In other words, LSU takes a serious hit when Shaq retires... if Shaq retires.

And to best measure NBA success, the goal here is a sustained NBA career, not superstardom. Factors to consider for each player:

Total number of NBA regular season games played: Counting seasons is misleading because of injuries, overseas play, etc. And I don't think starting the game is all that important. I'd have to be convinced that playoff games have any relevance in this particular measure; that's more a function of team play than individual play.

Career average of minutes per NBA regular season game played: As Lord Ash mentioned above, I think a coach puts a player on the floor for some length of time because they provide some defined value -- scoring, rebounding, passing, defense, intangibles. The longer they are on the floor, the better they must be at doing something. As they get older and play fewer minutes, this number steadily decreases. This feels like a better measure than, say, points per game.

Multiplying the above two factors just gives us career minutes in regular season games, which is only part of the story. You would also want to take into account the number of NBA players that went to a particular college, and weigh the length of time they played in college. (If their NBA numbers were equal, Duke should get more credit for a 4-year player than a 2-year player. Twice as much credit? I don't know.)

I think the career salary idea is interesting, but ultimately flawed, if we're not dealing with the measure of superstardom.

The best answer is probably some convoluted formula that will be hard to nitpick. Calling DBR statisticians...

[camion]

I think a better title for the thread would be, "Which program is best at recruiting future NBA stars?"

NBA stars, the very best of the best, are generally born, not made at the college level. This is particularly true of the present system where those with star potential only stay for a year or two and the influence of the college coach is reduced. If conditions remain the same I wouldn't be surprised to see Kentucky produce an inordinate number of NBA stars while having relatively moderate NCAA success since the will have five or so new stars coming through each year.

Now if you are talking about mid-level NBA players who stay three or four years in college I think the college program could have a more significant effect in preparing them to compete for a position on a professional team.

[Jderf]

Career average of minutes per NBA regular season game played: As Lord Ash mentioned above, I think a coach puts a player on the floor for some length of time because they provide some defined value -- scoring, rebounding, passing, defense, intangibles. The longer they are on the floor, the better they must be at doing something. As they get older and play fewer minutes, this number steadily decreases. This feels like a better measure than, say, points per game.

This is on the right track, I think. But do we need to even take the averages? Why not just total up the minutes played per season per school? That would at least give us a simple, objective measure for which school is most represented in the NBA each season. It wouldn't tell us who the stars are, but it would tell us what school is seen most on the court.

I'd be extremely curious if anyone actually decided to run the numbers on this.

[basket1544]

I think it would need to be adding up minutes per game to get a good range. There are some older players in the league that would skew the results wildly. Can't properly compare young players with the Shaqs in the NBA otherwise. Unless that's the point and you are trying to show a college has been producing NBA stars for a while.
I'm not sure.

[basket1544]

I think it would need to be adding up minutes per game to get a good range. There are some older players in the league that would skew the results wildly. Can't properly compare young players with the Shaqs in the NBA otherwise. Unless that's the point and you are trying to show a college has been producing NBA stars for a while.
I'm not sure.

For example, Alabama has 5 players in the NBA with total minutes of 57664. Or an average of 21.02 minutes (including a rookie with 0 minutes). Which paints the better picture?

[devildeac]

"Duke has had 73 players drafted into the NBA."

"They suck."

(for those who might not recognize the quotes: http://www.dukehoopblog.com/2010/09/29/what-its-like-to-be-a-duke-fan-nsfw/)

[Jderf]

I think it would need to be adding up minutes per game to get a good range. There are some older players in the league that would skew the results wildly. Can't properly compare young players with the Shaqs in the NBA otherwise. Unless that's the point and you are trying to show a college has been producing NBA stars for a while.
I'm not sure.

Well, it's sort of a non-issue since I don't think anyone around here has the time or resources to crunch the numbers, but I was thinking in terms of minutes per year (not per game). So it would depend on the timespan that we wanted to test. Taking Shaq as an example, if we were testing for the best NBA factories over a ten year period, his minutes played prior to that ten year period would not get considered at all.

The reason I'd prefer this is because it would give you a simple, directly measurable quantity for how much time a certain college program is represented on NBA courts. The only problem is that it doesn't necessarily measure the "star factor," so it's really just answering a slightly different question.

[basket1544]

Minutes per year makes sense. ESPN's website does at least organize NBA players by college, but then looking up each player's stats would take a lot of time. Maybe a new project for while I'm watching NBA's pre-season games.

[dukeballboy88]

http://www.slamonline.com/online/nba/2010/10/superstar-u/

Thought this was interesting news since everyone thinks UNC has some kind of mysterious hold on NBA talent. Ive ben saying this for a while now that UNC and the NBA isnt quite as strong as it was when Dean was coaching and today the Duke players make more money.

[kong123]

http://www.slamonline.com/online/nba/2010/10/superstar-u/

Thought this was interesting news since everyone thinks UNC has some kind of mysterious hold on NBA talent. Ive ben saying this for a while now that UNC and the NBA isnt quite as strong as it was when Dean was coaching and today the Duke players make more money.

the same info was posted a month ago

[dukeballboy88]

thanks, i figured it did.