Minnesota Sports Forum

I have asked a few times and have read a bunch of bad articles about "what is potential" and how its measured and I have come away with a worse understanding of what it is.

Here is what I do know:
Specific physical attributes play a very important role in a player career arc, but they do not change, or not significantly after age 20. Height, wingspan, overhead reach, and jumping height. They are very important in college and are

Some attributes can change, but usually small amounts: Weight, speed, agility, quickness - these are more than likely things that are made better due to more organized or better resources available to the player - especially coaching.

We also have pre-NBA statistics that can be measured based on the player's actual performance - (those stats are not all the same as the context changes the meaning of the numbers). Sometimes these statistics (using advanced matrix) are things that translate well into how a player will perform at the next level. Lip always cites Rebounding and Blocks - FT% is another one. All other stats, as far as I am aware, are all context driven and the translation to the pro game is not directly related.

As you would imagine - cognitive based skills have the potential to get better but are also reliant on the system and team member to some extent. Turnover %, shot selection, assist % to name a few.

Then there are the intangibles - things that cant be measured but appear to have a pretty significant impact on a player arc. BBIQ is talked about a lot - not sure how its measured but it is used an awful lot. Paul Pierce is a HoF guy but is not very bright and has what some call a low BB-IQ. Tyus is the opposite, labeled as a smart player but lacks the physical tools

As far as I can tell right now - the best indicator of success is a success at a lower level. If you are a star in college you will have a better shot at being a star in the NBA, it is the exception the other way. It also leads to more playing time, which means better skill development, resulting in advancement.

So potential = randomly applying a career arc window based on a starting point exclusively on physical ability and with measurable stats to reduce this arc window. Did I get that right?

I don't want this to be about Wiggins, but he and Tyus are interesting from a "potential evaluation" standpoint.
Some parts I dont get. Wiggins is below the 25-year-old take off window for development - but there are few (if any) players that have been as average as him and then take off. SO why is that then - and why did everyone miscalculate him and say underrate people like Tyus (I know the answer to Tyus, he lacks several physical attributes).


Some articles on development:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-018-1183-8Not that good, long and does a bad job in context

https://fansided.com/2018/06/12/nylon-calculus-college-prospect-growth-curve/much better

I would like to hear more about evaluating "potential"

Good stuff. I think you are right, it's ultimately physical/athletic measurables + performance X an age-based factor that is inversely related to actual age.

Let's call these variables X, Y, and Z. Wiggins was off the charts on X, good but not great on Y (based on his one year at Kansas), and got the benefit of still being young with Y. He probably deserved to be drafted 1 or 2 as the upside was just too tantalizing to be overpowered by early concerns about his handles, motor and competitiveness. It turns out all three of those concerns turned out to be right, but what if he had overcome them? He'd be a superstar.

Tyus Jones was below average on X, pretty good on Y, and also very good on Z. I'd actually say he was probably drafted at the appropriate spot as a late 1st rounder, so I wouldn't say that was underrated.

Kawhi is a guy that can't be predicted in my opinion. He was really good on X, solid but not great at Y, and solid but not great on Z. What no one saw coming was his almost immediate improvement as a shooter once he turned pro. He was a 25% college 3-point shooter (41 for 164, so seems like a pretty good sample size) and he's since turned out to be a 41% career 3-pt shooter. He'd may be have an Iggy-ish type career without that.

Basketball skills + physical makeup

Potential is the area where players can reasonably improve one or both of those items (i.e. get stronger, improve 3pt shot, work on handle, etc.). KD had a lot of potential based on his combination of those 2 items in addition to his ability to improve in those areas at the same time. The same goes for Kawhi. Some guys have physical limitations that lower their potential while others lack basketball skills that they just can't improve that lower their potential. A guy like Wiggins had very high potential as a basketball player until his hands just prevented him from being able to improve his handle to a point where he could be a really good offensive player. He also didn't improve his strength enough to reach his potential. He is an under performer in both categories based on his potential. A guy like Okogie also has high potential because he has the physical makeup of a good SG and developing his shot and finishing ability at the rim are areas he could reasonably see improvement to reach his potential. Guys like Steve Nash and Steph have world class basketball skills, but have physical limitations and that's why they aren't in the same conversation as the elite of the elite players like Lebron, Jordan, etc. Their potential was capped by their physical abilities. If you put their skills in Anthony Randolph's body, it's an all time elite player that challenges Lebron and Jordan. So that's why potential is basketball skills + physical makeup and your ability to improve in both categories. Then you just have to factor in once you're in the league so long it's less and less likely you can improve in those areas. If you can't shoot 3's by years 4,5,6 in the league it's not likely you can become a 3pt shooter. There are exceptions like Kidd, but they are the exceptions and he only got the chance to improve that area because of his longevity in the league due to his other skills.

I guess I am looking for a quantitative answer - I have read enough subjective "I can tell he will be great" type of potential bullshit. The carmelo stuff looks to be bs as well - they are using subjective measuring points to make quantitative results - it's silly.

I would think a better model of mapping potential would be taking the range of unchanging physical attributes then creating the career arc (based on other players with the near identical matching physical attributes, then converting them to the relative time period) - then plugging in their other physical attributes (that may change as the player ages) to get a more narrow window. From there, using advanced metrics to compare the statistical output from the player (with a heavy emphasis on the player's relative statistics - meaning how he AND his team performs using things the player or coach does to impact those statistics) - then forecast that out - I am sure there are several key metrics that could be produced.

That is what potential means to me - I was hoping someone had access to or knows about a site with the above info. Not, he is fast so he might be good but he is dumb so maybe.

apollotsg wrote:I guess I am looking for a quantitative answer - I have read enough subjective "I can tell he will be great" type of potential bullshit. The carmelo stuff looks to be bs as well - they are using subjective measuring points to make quantitative results - it's silly.

I would think a better model of mapping potential would be taking the range of unchanging physical attributes then creating the career arc (based on other players with the near identical matching physical attributes, then converting them to the relative time period) - then plugging in their other physical attributes (that may change as the player ages) to get a more narrow window. From there, using advanced metrics to compare the statistical output from the player (with a heavy emphasis on the player's relative statistics - meaning how he AND his team performs using things the player or coach does to impact those statistics) - then forecast that out - I am sure there are several key metrics that could be produced.

That is what potential means to me - I was hoping someone had access to or knows about a site with the above info. Not, he is fast so he might be good but he is dumb so maybe.

You are trying to quantify something that is impossible to quantify. If it could be done that person would be the richest analyst in the history of sports. You can't mix stats with physical qualities and come up with player A will succeed and player B will fail. Carmelo is the closest thing there is and it's wrong all the time because you can't quantify unknowable things like how hard are they going to work to improve on top of those defined measurements you want.

Q12543 wrote:Good stuff. I think you are right, it's ultimately physical/athletic measurables + performance X an age-based factor that is inversely related to actual age.

Let's call these variables X, Y, and Z. Wiggins was off the charts on X, good but not great on Y (based on his one year at Kansas), and got the benefit of still being young with Y. He probably deserved to be drafted 1 or 2 as the upside was just too tantalizing to be overpowered by early concerns about his handles, motor and competitiveness. It turns out all three of those concerns turned out to be right, but what if he had overcome them? He'd be a superstar.

Tyus Jones was below average on X, pretty good on Y, and also very good on Z. I'd actually say he was probably drafted at the appropriate spot as a late 1st rounder, so I wouldn't say that was underrated.

Kawhi is a guy that can't be predicted in my opinion. He was really good on X, solid but not great at Y, and solid but not great on Z. What no one saw coming was his almost immediate improvement as a shooter once he turned pro. He was a 25% college 3-point shooter (41 for 164, so seems like a pretty good sample size) and he's since turned out to be a 41% career 3-pt shooter. He'd may be have an Iggy-ish type career without that.

Q - I like the way you've distilled the analysis down to a simple formula, although we all know how difficult and uncertain it is to apply the formula. Also, thanks to Apollo for starting an interesting thread.

I would add another variable to the formula: skills, which would include both the level and breadth of a player's skill set. After assessing a prospect's potential, there's another important layer of analysis, namely the likelihood the prospect will reach his potential. So I'd lay out the analysis and variables as follows:

POTENTIAL

A+ (B-C) = Player Potential (i.e, how good the player can ultimately be)
A = physical attributes (size/strength, quickness/athleticism)
B = performance as measured by the player's stats
C = player's age + yrs of experience (reduces the value of player's stats by some amount)

Then I think you have to qualitatively assess the player's skills, including breadth of skills (more v fewer) and level of each skill. A player's skills might not be reflected entirely in his stats, so a qualitative eye-test assessment needs to be part of determining potential. I'll use Wiggins as an example. We often talk about him as having unlimited potential without the mental/emotional/character attributes to achieve that potential. But looking at his skill set qualitatively, he had a very poor handle in college as he still does today for a wing - a clue perhaps that his potential wasn't quite what his physical attributes would suggest.

Of course, some physical attributes and stats are more indicative of potential than others and the weight of some attributes might differ depending on the player's position. For example, I think overhead reach matters more for a C or PF while wingspan matters more for a wing or PG. In my view rebounding tells us more about a PF or C's potential than 3-point shooting while the reverse may be true for guards. And overall college rebounding stats seem to be more telling than other stats for predicting NBA performance.

PROBABILITY OF REACHING POTENTIAL

The next part of evaluating a prospect is trying to ascertain the likelihood that the player will reach his potential. This is a more qualitative assessment than determining potential, although rating a player's skill set involves a highly qualitative "eye-test" evaluation. There are any number of variables we could use and they are all hard to pin down. In my mind the big four are (1) work ethic (discipline & inclination to work hard), (2) competitiveness (drive to push yourself to get better and be better than everyone else), (3) intensity/ability to concentrate, and (4) intelligence. Of course, vulnerability to substance abuse can be another variable that stifles or totally derails a player's development

I suppose all these factors are reflected to some degree in a player's performance stats in college. But a lot of players are so physically gifted that they can put up very good college numbers without the worth ethic and competitive drive required to succeed at the NBA level. It's the Wiggins phenomenon. The fact that his college numbers weren't as impressive as his incredible physical attributes suggested should have offered a clue that he was lacking some or all of these qualitative attributes needed to reach his potential. Analysts observed at the time that Wiggins had motor issues - proving further caution concerning the probability of him reaching his potential.

This second level of analysis is what makes me so upbeat about Okogie.

Obviously, Okogie's physical attributes are off the charts. His 7'0 wingspan is exceedingly rare among NBA SGs. And while some players have freakish length like Okogie, it's even more rare for a player with freakish length to also be extraordinarily athletic. Okogie was at or near the top in every athletic test at last year's combine. Regarding performance, Okogie's college stats were also impressive in several key areas, including FT attempts, rebounds, steals and 3-point percentage. And he put up those numbers as a relatively young sophomore, not as an upperclassman. His biggest weaknesses are decision-making and shooting consistency. Those are among the most fixable and improvable areas for an NBA player in my view. So I see Okogie as having truly elite potential.

But what really intrigues me about Okogie is his obvious passion for the game, relentless energy and by all accounts his terrific worth ethic. It would seem he has the characteristics that tend to propel a player towards achieving his full potential. Of course, there is no way to know until we see it. Good coaching and adequate playing time will be critical.

Michael Beasley is another great example of why it is so critical to evaluate factors related to a player's probability of reaching his potential. If your compare Michael Beasley and Kevin Durant on the metrics we've discussed for determining potential, Michael Beasley had the potential to be just as much of a star. They have nearly identical length with similar skill sets. There college stats were very similar. They even played for the same college, Kansas. But obviously, these two players differ dramatically in the qualities that determine the probability of reaching a player's potential.

lipoli390 wrote:Michael Beasley is another great example of why it is so critical to evaluate factors related to a player's probability of reaching his potential. If your compare Michael Beasley and Kevin Durant on the metrics we've discussed for determining potential, Michael Beasley had the potential to be just as much of a star. They have nearly identical length with similar skill sets. There college stats were very similar. They even played for the same college, Kansas. But obviously, these two players differ dramatically in the qualities that determine the probability of reaching a player's potential.

Didn't Beasley play for Kansas State and Durant for Texas? Other than that yes, Beasley was a problem.

I would also say a huge thing that can't be quantified is the role that you play on your respective team when you join the NBA.

Like would Wiggins be a lot better of player if he didn't have to carry the offense early in his career, If the Cavs trade never happened would Wiggins be an elite 3 and D guy because that is all he would have had to focus on in the NBA with LBJ.

I remember listening to the Ringer NBA podcast way early in the year and KOC and Chris Vernon were talking about Marshon Brooks. Marshon Brooks says that a thing that really killed his career was his team sucked and later in his rookie year he picked up really bad habits on the court that he could really never break out of.

There are so many plays that get drafted in a terrible situation or organization that kills players potential and development. I do think there is a reason why the Wolves really struggle at drafting the right player. Wolves are a terrible organization. Would Curry be Curry if the Wolves drafted him, I am not sure and it is a question we will never know.

I'm distilling this thread into a nonogon matrix and using it as my pitch for an NBA front office job. Don't worry though I won't forget you guys. I'll drop in and give ya'll a few insider tidbits. I already know what my potential is thanks to all of you. :)