The article is suprisingly light on specifics…I assume there was some sort of regression model (that predicts draft position) to support this? If so, I would expect some sort of binary variable of “final four appearance” to be a part of it…

It sounds like the article suggests at least some correlation between final four appearances and draft position…but is it really saying one causes the other? I doubt it.

Just because there might be some correlation between the two doesn’t necessarily mean GM’s are just using that for their draft prep…

All this said, I have no horse in this war on advanced stats…I’m a moderate and care about objectivity…

The 12 spot improvement—-Is this based on a comparison to their projected draft position after the Final Four appearance to the projected position just before the tournament? Or is it based on a player’s projected position the year before and (if available) the year after the year they go to the Final Four? Or finally is it based on a database full of players with X college stats, who typically are drafted at Y position (which would cause countless problems)? I expect it’s the first one.

Draft scouts—-These guys might have the most consequence-free job in the world. They screw up and draft a bust early, it’s the guy’s fault for not translating to the NBA’s speed and athleticism. If they draft a star late, they look like complete studs who could find a diamond in an ice storm. And if they draft a bust late or a star early, it’s just business as usual.

Drafting based on the tournament and the eye-test—-I think the underlying difficulty with accurately drafting from collegiate athletes is that they play the majority of their games within their conference. This means that there are rarely any opportunities to watch NBA-level players play against each other. The best opportunity, it would appear, would be the NCAA Tournament, particularly in the later rounds. So these scouts place heavier value on these games because they think the competition is probably as good as it’s going to get. This is obviously flawed logic and a huge misuse of the eye-test. (I’d like to think the eye-test that many of us talk about involves watching a player on a team for a more significant amount of time than the NCAA Tournament.)

Draft position and NBA careers—-I remember earlier someone who had previously discussed that draft position has a large impact on the longevity of an NBA player’s career. Was that you John R? If not, someone refresh my memory. Anyhow, I think that concept might conflict with Berri’s argument here. Berri infers that some players are improperly being drafted 12 slots higher, but if highly-drafted players tend to have longer careers, doesn’t that imply that they are also more talented? If so, then the phenomenon Berri discusses probably represents a largely insignificant portion of NBA draftees from the NCAA.