Many NBA players have already finished four years in college and gotten their degrees by the time they are drafted.  These players are generally looked at in a certain way: they’re experienced, polished players who have already learned how to play the game the “right” way.  But in which ways does this experience help?  Does it help point guards, who must run offenses and be the “quarterback” of the team?  Or does it help big men, who have already learned and perfected their post moves and rebounding techniques?

            To find out, I performed a study on college seniors drafted in the first round from 1995-2002 and broke them down into three categories: point guards, shooting guards/small forwards, and big men (power forwards/centers).  93 players were included in the study.  The main statistic I will be using to judge these players is PER.  PER, or Player Efficiency Rating, was developed by ESPN’s John Hollinger.  According to Hollinger, “Player Efficiency Rating is a rating of a player’s per-minute productivity.”  The league average is set at 15.  More information can be found here: http://www.alleyoop.com/prates.shtm.

For each pick, I calculated an expected PER.  For a #1 pick to be a success, he had to have a career PER of at least 16.8.  For a #2 pick, 16.6.  I subtracted .2 from each subsequent required PER, all the way down to pick #30 which needed a PER of 11 to be a success. I then took a look at the difference between what a player’s PER actually was and what a player of that pick should be expected to attain. 

Note: Because a lot of players were included in the study, the lists are pretty long.  Bear with me.

            As you can see, most teams prefer older point guards.  No other age group had more than 6 points guards taken in the first round.  The seniors had 19.  Not only that, but a lot of the senior point guards have been very productive.  Nash, Miller, and Terry are in the upper echelon of their position, and there are other quality players on this list.  Delk, Knight, Sura, Jackson, Claxton, Tinsley, Dickau, Fisher, Stoudamire, and Daniels are all useful players.  It appears college experience helps point guards -- and teams, agents, and players know it.

            Senior shooting guards and small forwards are generally below average and unspectacular.  Even in this very long list of players, the closest you have to a star is Michael Finley.  The reason this might have happened is because playing these positions generally requires a lot of athleticism.  Scouts see these players enough to know early on in players’ lives which ones are the most athletic.  Therefore, the players the scouts like generally get taken earlier.  There are obviously some exceptions, notably Fred Jones, Finley, and Desmond Mason.

            Just like with the last section, senior big men are generally below average and unspectacular.  Besides Tim Duncan, the best player in this list statistically in terms of PER is Raef LaFrentz.  No offense to the former Jayhawk, but he’s not exactly dominant.  I think the argument regarding athleticism applies to these players as well.

That wraps up the series.  To sum it all up, here are my general observations:

Information from thedraftreview.com and basketball-reference.com was used in this study.

Copyright © 2009 Basketball-Statistics.com