Jaylen Barford's NBA combine measurables

http://www.wholehogsports.com/news/2018 … t-combine/

I’ve learned to accept inflated listed heights, but Jaylen at 6’1 and a quarter really surprised me. He looked and played much bigger.

That was without shoes on which took away an inch. Also, his hair probably gave him another inch.

Jaylen’s body fat percentage was a little surprising, right? I know he’s not chiseled by any means, but he’s grown-man strong. Can’t even imagine what 3 percent body fat feels like (Shai Gilgeous-Alexander). And I thought Michael Qualls’ 4 percent was wild.

Just a suggestion, Scottie.

This isn’t a “slow” bunch around here, but I wouldn’t throw a metric like “points above median for 3 point shooting” around and just assume that your readers knows what that is, or what it means. I’ll bet there aren’t 5 members of this site that can explain what PAM for 3 Points iis - much less, tell us how to calculate it and/or what a good/bad PAM would be (without consulting Mr. Google, that is). And even if there are, then there’s “A large number” - 5 that can’t.

Would suggest that you include the formula and a narrative about what it is (and what it is supposed to represent) when you reference such an obscure statistic. Note that I’m not saying it is a meaningless statistic; nor am I criticizing you for including it in the story on Jalen. Now that I’ve done a little bit of research and figured out what it is, I can see the value in it (for stat geeks - most others wouldn’t really care). I am just saying, however, that it’s a mistake to assume readers are familiar with that metric.

Yes, that’s my mistake. I had every intention of throwing in a note further detailing what it means and forgot apparently. I’ve added it to the story for clarity. Thank you.

The story has been updated to include Barford’s spot-up and non-stationary shooting numbers from today.

Does Mike and his staff compile such data on our players? Seems like it would be very useful information to have. And if we don’t do this, do any other college teams compile such data?

If I was Barford, I would have loved to have this data before I went to the combine. I would have known what to work on.

So, is someone going to summarize where he wound up when compared to the competition? Obviously there is room for improvement, but did he do well enough to look like a good solid NBA draft pick?

One assumes that the 18.0 PAM for 3 point shooting by another Razorback (you mentioned in the article) was Macon’s. Providing Trey Young’s PAM would have given some good perspective, IMO. It’s still hard for the common fan to know what a “good” or “great” PAM is, especially for 3 pointers - since we have no frame of reference. And, I’d suggest PAM/game played is a better stat, as it normalizes it. Kind of like Points per game is the standard metric, not points scored in a season.

I wrote in the story that Macon’s was 61.1. If Trae Young is your reference point then his 3-point PAM was 39.1. It should be noted Young made a lot of his hay at the line, so his PAM is much, much higher there. He was among the nation’s leaders in free throw attempts, which makes sense.

I should have added this, I understand. So when looking at points above median, the higher the figure is the better.

I’ve added how his shooting numbers compare. Wanted to wait to be sure all of the data had been reported.

Yes you did - my mistake. In quickly scanning your revised story, I re-read the last line of the graph . . . “No other Razorback finished with a PAM higher than 18.0 on 3-point attempts.” and forgot that you had - in fact - specified Macon’s PAM earlier in the story.

For a metric most have never heard of, more perspective than less is a good thing. Yes, we all know that the higher the number, the better. But if the national leader in that statistic was, say, 205, then 68 is good, but not fantastic. If the leader’s number is 74, then 68 is pretty doggone good. Young obviously wasn’t “the leader”, but he is a name almost any college basketball fan is familiar with, so he provides some sort of barometer - along with Macon, who you did include.

I’m working right now to add some SEC perspective on that figure, too. There’s no national leaderboard for this metric on the site I use. That would take forever to figure out on my own. I’m not sure how 68.0 compares to other SEC players last season, so that, I think, will provide at least a bit more insight into just how effective JB was from 3 last season.

So, is he performing well?

After looking at each SEC school’s HoopLens page, I found that Barford’s 68.0 ranked second in the league behind Missouri’s Kassius Robertson (81.7). Robertson and Barford were No. 2 and 3 in the SEC in 3FG percentage, respectively. All in all, it’s a measurement to see how a player impacts a team’s offensive efficiency in a certain area. Jaylen was great from 3, and this kind of reiterates that.

I believe so. I would say his shooting numbers are pretty solid. It can be hard to truly evaluate some guys in these combine scrimmages when literally everyone else on the floor is all about getting their numbers and impressing. I’ll add that I watched Jaylen’s team play yesterday for a little while and didn’t see him take a shot, and he didn’t play in the final minutes when the game was close. Hopefully over the course of the next few days he will further prove himself.

Thanks for that research, Scottie. I didn’t think that this stat was widely enough followed that there would be easy access to the “National Leaders” in it, as there is for most of the more common stats. That’s why I suggested Young - someone virtually everybody knows - as a benchmark. Interesting that some obscure guy from Mizzou (obscure to me - he’s probably a good player, but I don’t remember him from our games with Mizzou this past season) was the conference leader.

PAM appears to be an attempt to blend volume and efficiency into a single metric - in much the same way that "Yards per attempt’ does for passing. Someone with a lot of yards tells you some things, but if it takes someone 450 passes to get to 3,000 yards, while someone else gets there in 375 passes - well, that gives you even more information. In the same way, if someone completes 70% of their passes, on the surface (if that’s all you knew), you’d probably think he was a “better” passer compared to someone who only completed 60% of his tosses. But if you then discovered that the average yard per completion was 7 yards for the 70% passer, but 10.5 yards for the 60% guy, that again adds more perspective - because the longer the t hrow, the more difficult it is to complete a high percentage of them, all other things being equal. Using Yards per attempt (not per completion) blends the metrics of completion percentage and yards per completion to give a much more meaningful metric.

Back to hoops, someone shooting 55% on 3’s would be viewed - on the surface - as a “better” distance shooter who hits 43% of his long-range shots. But if the first guy has only taken 35 shots all year (around 1 per game in college), while the second fellow shoots 5 per game (around 150 - 175 or so during a season), then - clearly - the second guy has more of a scoring impact (i.e., PAM) than the first guy.