Jalen Adams by the numbers

[Matrim55]

tcf15 on Twitter

One of the most well-rounded PGs of the last quarter century of college hoops. (Would love to see that sorted by FG% and 3fg% as well)

Also, @tcf15 is a GD treasure. I feel bad for fanbases that don't have someone as dedicated to preserving and contextualizing the history of the team like he does for us.

 

[tcf15]

 

[tcf15]

tcf15 on Twitter

One of the most well-rounded PGs of the last quarter century of college hoops. (Would love to see that sorted by FG% and 3fg% as well)

Also, @tcf15 is a GD treasure. I feel bad for fanbases that don't have someone as dedicated to preserving and contextualizing the history of the team like he does for us.

By FG%:

                                                      Shoo
Rk            Player  Season                   School  FG%
1     Speedy Claxton 1997-98                  Hofstra .485
2      Nick Calathes 2008-09                  Florida .482
3          Kris Dunn 2014-15               Providence .474
4         Jason Kidd 1993-94 University of California .472
5         Jalan West 2013-14       Northwestern State .463
6         Chris Paul 2004-05              Wake Forest .451
7       Nate Wolters 2010-11       South Dakota State .448
8        Jalen Adams 2016-17              Connecticut .446
9       David Bailey 2000-01              Loyola (IL) .435
10   Greivis Vasquez 2007-08                 Maryland .432
11        Kay Felder 2014-15                  Oakland .422
12     Chaz Williams 2011-12            Massachusetts .410
13       D.J. Cooper 2010-11                     Ohio .382

Provided by CBB at Sports Reference: View Original Table
Generated 2/17/2017.

By 3FG%:

Rk            Player  Season                   School  3P%
1         Chris Paul 2004-05              Wake Forest .474
2      Chaz Williams 2011-12            Massachusetts .419
3         Jalan West 2013-14       Northwestern State .409
4       Nate Wolters 2010-11       South Dakota State .408
5      Nick Calathes 2008-09                  Florida .390
6        Jalen Adams 2016-17              Connecticut .385
7         Jason Kidd 1993-94 University of California .362
8          Kris Dunn 2014-15               Providence .351
9         Kay Felder 2014-15                  Oakland .338
10      David Bailey 2000-01              Loyola (IL) .328
11   Greivis Vasquez 2007-08                 Maryland .309
12       D.J. Cooper 2010-11                     Ohio .299
13    Speedy Claxton 1997-98                  Hofstra .182

Provided by CBB at Sports Reference: View Original Table
Generated 2/17/2017.

 

[Onions]

tcf15 on Twitter

One of the most well-rounded PGs of the last quarter century of college hoops. (Would love to see that sorted by FG% and 3fg% as well)

Also, @tcf15 is a GD treasure. I feel bad for fanbases that don't have someone as dedicated to preserving and contextualizing the history of the team like he does for us.

While I love me some Jalen Adams, this kind of artificial cross indexing of statistics tells you very little. If the requirement was 15 points a game, Jalen wouldn't be on it. If you dropped or raised any of the other, totally unrelated statistical boundaries by as much as a tenth of a point Jalen might drop 40 places. This is what happens when you use stats the way a drunk uses a light-post - for support instead of illumination. You take a player you like, you use his profile to select a handful of unrelated categories, you make the lower boundary fit exactly to your players stats, and you wind up with Jason Giambi trailing only Babe Ruth and Ted Williams.

 

[Matrim55]

This is what happens when you use stats the way a drunk uses a light-post - for support instead of illumination.

I get what you're trying to say, but you're wrong.

1. Points, rebounds & assists are all measurable, positive data-points. Anyone in the world would know "PG who averages 15/4/6 is pretty damn good." The illumination of those #s are provided by the company he keeps.
2. Further illumination is provided by the FG and 3FG percents, which illustrate Jalen's relative shot-making efficiency
3. If you play around on sports reference you'll find more advanced underlying #s that give further and deeper context

Anyway, there's not a pg in the country I'd rather have leading this team next year. Hopefully he'll still be around to do so.

 

[Ewekon]

The only numbers I don't want Jalen worrying about are those that follow this: $$$$$$$$$

 

[James]

While I love me some Jalen Adams, this kind of artificial cross indexing of statistics tells you very little. If the requirement was 15 points a game, Jalen wouldn't be on it. If you dropped or raised any of the other, totally unrelated statistical boundaries by as much as a tenth of a point Jalen might drop 40 places. This is what happens when you use stats the way a drunk uses a light-post - for support instead of illumination. You take a player you like, you use his profile to select a handful of unrelated categories, you make the lower boundary fit exactly to your players stats, and you wind up with Jason Giambi trailing only Babe Ruth and Ted Williams.

even if you use 12 ppg 4 rbs and 6 assists with 35% 3pt shooting for underclassmen, its still an great list of 19 players stocked with pros. I would also say the categories point to well roundness at the pg position, its hard to distribute and score.

 

[Onions]

I get what you're trying to say, but you're wrong.

1. Points, rebounds & assists are all measurable, positive data-points. Anyone in the world would know "PG who averages 15/4/6 is pretty damn good." The illumination of those #s are provided by the company he keeps.
2. Further illumination is provided by the FG and 3FG percents, which illustrate Jalen's relative shot-making efficiency
3. If you play around on sports reference you'll find more advanced underlying #s that give further and deeper context

Anyway, there's not a pg in the country I'd rather have leading this team next year. Hopefully he'll still be around to do so.

This has nothing to do with Jalen, who I think is great.

Yes, any PG who averages 15/4/6 is good. So are the ones that averge 14/6/8 - who don't make this list. Or who average 18/3/7 who don't make this list. Or who Average 20/8/5 - who don't make this list. You pick 3 categories, you pick 3 arbitrary cut off points and you pick your hero - that's statistical BS. Like the so called 30-30 club, as though a player who hits 50 HR's and steals 28 bases is somehow not as good as someone who goes 30 & 30. It's not the categories that are artificial, it's the use of totally arbitrary cutoff points. If you really like 15/4/6 then just say ANY combination of points rebounds and assists that gets you to 25 or more makes the cut - and now you'll have something meaningful to look at.

 

[DonaldDraper]

I don't mean to take anything away from jalen, but he doesn't really have a sidekick to push production to and that allows his numbers to get a bit inflated. That is one of the reasons why the team loses so much. It likely wouldn't be that way if Gilbert was healthy. I would argue boatwright as a junior was capable of putting up Jalen's numbers on this team. Shabazz was too good that year to ever let them run the offense in a way where Boatright would get those numbers consistently.

Jalen Has the potential to make a name for himself at the next level and is a special talent but I don't think that particular bag of stats has any predictive power.

 

[aceboon]

I don't mean to take anything away from jalen, but he doesn't really have a sidekick to push production to and that allows his numbers to get a bit inflated. That is one of the reasons why the team loses so much. It likely wouldn't be that way if Gilbert was healthy. I would argue boatwright as a junior was capable of putting up Jalen's numbers on this team. Shabazz was too good that year to ever let them run the offense in a way where Boatright would get those numbers consistently.

Jalen Has the potential to make a name for himself at the next level and is a special talent but I don't think that particular bag of stats has any predictive power.

Boat wouldn't put up these assist numbers, yes Jalen has to dominate the ball because he doesn't really have another creator/playmaker next to him but Jalen creates scoring opportunities for others with his vision and next level skip passes, Boat didn't have that in his bag and I couldn't see him with all these dbl digit assist games. Let's remember that KO actually installed Boat as the primary PG on the 2012-2013 team because he felt like Boat's speed and athleticism would allow him to push the pace and get in the lane in a way that Bazz couldn't, and then he switched it up after the NC State loss because Boat didn't have the PG instincts that Bazz had. Boat having to play PG by himself with no Bazz when Bazz got hurt at the end of the year was an ugly sight. His junior year I thought he made improvements taking care of the ball and playing at a better pace while his shooting from the field dipped, but I still don't think his vision was anything special, he used to miss Giffey a ton on pick and pops after Giffey's shooting took off his senior year.

 

[champs99and04]

This has nothing to do with Jalen, who I think is great.

Yes, any PG who averages 15/4/6 is good. So are the ones that averge 14/6/8 - who don't make this list. Or who average 18/3/7 who don't make this list. Or who Average 20/8/5 - who don't make this list. You pick 3 categories, you pick 3 arbitrary cut off points and you pick your hero - that's statistical BS. Like the so called 30-30 club, as though a player who hits 50 HR's and steals 28 bases is somehow not as good as someone who goes 30 & 30. It's not the categories that are artificial, it's the use of totally arbitrary cutoff points. If you really like 15/4/6 then just say ANY combination of points rebounds and assists that gets you to 25 or more makes the cut - and now you'll have something meaningful to look at.

I don't think anybody is arguing that it isn't arbitrary; it obviously is. The point is that not just anybody can wind up on a list with a dozen or so pros, even with some goalpost tweaking. Try to do the same with Terrence Samuel and I'll concede the point if you can pull it off.

Being on an arbitrary list doesn't demonstrate his intrinsic worth, but it does provide context to his skill set. He's well rounded.

 

[auror]

This has nothing to do with Jalen, who I think is great.

Yes, any PG who averages 15/4/6 is good. So are the ones that averge 14/6/8 - who don't make this list. Or who average 18/3/7 who don't make this list. Or who Average 20/8/5 - who don't make this list. You pick 3 categories, you pick 3 arbitrary cut off points and you pick your hero - that's statistical BS. Like the so called 30-30 club, as though a player who hits 50 HR's and steals 28 bases is somehow not as good as someone who goes 30 & 30. It's not the categories that are artificial, it's the use of totally arbitrary cutoff points. If you really like 15/4/6 then just say ANY combination of points rebounds and assists that gets you to 25 or more makes the cut - and now you'll have something meaningful to look at.

Being on an arbitrary list doesn't demonstrate his intrinsic worth, but it does provide context to his skill set. He's well rounded.

I think Sir Onion's point is that the stats are being used AFTER already determining he's great (as mentioned upthread), not using them to prove that he's great. So what's the point of the stats then? If you're using them to illustrate degree of greatness by the company he keeps, then the endpoints do become important as that determines the list.

I'd like to see some combination of pure point rating and points per possession, and take the cross-section of players in the top say 90th percentile of both. Still arbitrary (note the "say"), but at least it's mathematically arbitrary and not cherry-picked haha. Plus I'd like to see turnovers involved (as in pure point rating), because PGs limiting turnovers is incredibly important.

DraftExpress does have pure point rating and PPP, but you can't filter. Spoiler alert, there's a bunch of freshman and sophomores who have both higher PPR and PPP

(PS Lonzo Ball looks like a stud in this).

 

[champs99and04]

I think Sir Onion's point is that the stats are being used AFTER already determining he's great (as mentioned upthread), not using them to prove that he's great. So what's the point of the stats then? If you're using them to illustrate degree of greatness by the company he keeps, then the endpoints do become important as that determines the list.

I'd like to see some combination of pure point rating and points per possession, and take the cross-section of players in the top say 90th percentile of both. Still arbitrary (note the "say"), but at least it's mathematically arbitrary and not cherry-picked haha. Plus I'd like to see turnovers involved (as in pure point rating), because PGs limiting turnovers is incredibly important.

DraftExpress does have pure point rating and PPP, but you can't filter. Spoiler alert, there's a bunch of freshman and sophomores who have both higher PPR and PPP

(PS Lonzo Ball looks like a stud in this).

I get his point, and to be honest, I don't think Adams is a great player...yet. But I can still appreciate the skill set it requires to end up on a list like this, just like you can appreciate - to use his example - Jason Giambi ending up on the same list as Ruth and Williams. Technically, all statistics are arbitrary, so you're not illustrating the degree of greatness so much as you're broadening the scope of his abilities. "Player x can score at the 75th percentile, pass at the 90th percentile, and rebound at the 80th percentile" is no more or less impressive than any other statistic that doesn't have context. I think we're all aware that he's not Jason Kidd quite yet, but perhaps Adams winding up on a list like this demonstrates that, holistically, his impact on the game is rivaled by few others in the country and that it bodes well for our future.

 

[yukonyc212]

Man Jason Kidd did some work in college as a sophomore... 17/9/7/3. Amazing. He prob would have averaged a triple double if he played his junior year or beyond.