How much do you weigh NCAA tournament performance?

[LooseCannon]

I suppose I am inspired by Jabari Parker and Duke being bounced in the first round.

Does the NCAA tournament matter that much in how you evaluate prospect?  Having a bad game in a first-round upset is still a small sample size of one game.  Is someone being stupid if they say the Mercer game is likely to drop Parker a spot or two in the draft?

Should we be wary of players whose stock rises dramatically due to a strong tournament run?  What is the track record of players who were seen as a likely second-round pick until their play in the NCAA tournament gave them a possible boost into the first round?

[KGs Knee]

Not much.

No single player solely propels a team far in the tourney.  In college, the hottest team wins.

[D.o.s.]

I think that a strong tournament showing helps much more than a weak tournament showing hurts -- you're not going to lose inches off your vertical just because you didn't make the Elite Eight.

[Donoghus]

I think its foolish to drop someone based on a "one & done" performance in the tourney.  The body of work far extends beyond that one game.

Plus, I think when it comes to the college game and pro evaluation, don't "scout stats".  The college game is so fickle & uneven, its tough to get a true gauge on things.

I do think it can help in instances of similar talents.    I mentioned in another thread but if Wiggins has a solid game or two in the tourney, I think he itches above Parker if he wasn't there already. 

Instances like that is where I think it impacts things.

I also think a great tourney can help a kid's draft stock (esp mid-major kids) much more than a poor performance can hinder draft stock if that makes sense.

[LooseCannon]

Plus, I think when it comes to the college game and pro evaluation, don't "scout stats".  The
college game is so fickle & uneven, its tough to get a true gauge on things.

It doesn't have to be stats.  If a player seemed to lack energy and settle for jump shots while taking plays off on defense in a tournament game after being much better throughout the regular season, will some people hold it against that player?  What if the player does it two years in a row, leading to his team getting upset in the first round twice?

[LooseCannon]

I think that a strong tournament showing helps much more than a weak tournament showing hurts -- you're not going to lose inches off your vertical just because you didn't make the Elite Eight.

A strong tournament showing is still a small sample size.  Does it sometimes lead to players being overrated on draft day?

[Donoghus]

I think that a strong tournament showing helps much more than a weak tournament showing hurts -- you're not going to lose inches off your vertical just because you didn't make the Elite Eight.

A strong tournament showing is still a small sample size.  Does it sometimes lead to players being overrated on draft day?

Oh yeah.  That'd only be a natural response.

[D.o.s.]

I think that a strong tournament showing helps much more than a weak tournament showing hurts -- you're not going to lose inches off your vertical just because you didn't make the Elite Eight.

A strong tournament showing is still a small sample size.  Does it sometimes lead to players being overrated on draft day?

my gut feeling is that it certainly has, but I'd have to go back and look after I finish working to see if anyone actually measures up -- I don't cover the tournament, so no one's coming to mind right away.

At least, it feels more likely that players would be overrated after a positive showing than the converse.  Right? I'm not crazy, am I?

[Donoghus]

I think that a strong tournament showing helps much more than a weak tournament showing hurts -- you're not going to lose inches off your vertical just because you didn't make the Elite Eight.

A strong tournament showing is still a small sample size.  Does it sometimes lead to players being overrated on draft day?

my gut feeling is that it certainly has, but I'd have to go back and look after I finish working to see if anyone actually measures up -- I don't cover the tournament, so no one's coming to mind right away.

At least, it feels more likely that players would be overrated after a positive showing than the converse.  Right? I'm not crazy, am I?

Definitely. 

Jared Jeffries is one guy, right away, that comes to mind.  '02 tournament.

EDIT:  Faried in '11 also comes to mind.

[Tr1boy]

It matters. Its ridiculous to say otherwise. Sure there are fluky performances. Or performances by guys who did little in the regular season. But outside of these exceptions how far you help your team and how well you indvidual perform does matter.

It shows your abilility to meet and exceed stressful situations. Ability to focus,  utilize your talents,  leadership skills etc.

Parker played poorly , looked flustered ,  and in the end didnt look like a top 3 talent. I expected more but clearly iam not surprised. He is still young and needs to work on alot of little things(especially body, defense) to take his game to another level. He has to play with more fire.

 If he declares , he is now no lock to go in the top 3. Teams that pick in the top 3 are desperate for guys who can help/carry them to wins. 

[Celtics4ever]

If a guy gets hot it can make him.   Hail, Gordon Haywood.   I think it can make a guy drop a bit but not as much as it can make a guy rise.

[sofutomygaha]

It matters. Its ridiculous to say otherwise. Sure there are fluky performances. Or performances by guys who did little in the regular season. But outside of these exceptions how far you help your team and how well you indvidual perform does matter.

It shows your abilility to meet and exceed stressful situations. Ability to focus,  utilize your talents,  leadership skills etc.

Parker played poorly , looked flustered ,  and in the end didnt look like a top 3 talent. I expected more but clearly iam not surprised. He is still young and needs to work on alot of little things(especially body, defense) to take his game to another level. He has to play with more fire.

 If he declares , he is now no lock to go in the top 3. Teams that pick in the top 3 are desperate for guys who can help/carry them to wins.

Disagree strongly. He sucked in the tourney but he has the best body of work over the season of any of the elite prospects. He's a 100% mortal lock to go in the top 3 if there are no medical issues.

[Eddie20]

It matters. Its ridiculous to say otherwise. Sure there are fluky performances. Or performances by guys who did little in the regular season. But outside of these exceptions how far you help your team and how well you indvidual perform does matter.

It shows your abilility to meet and exceed stressful situations. Ability to focus,  utilize your talents,  leadership skills etc.

Parker played poorly , looked flustered ,  and in the end didnt look like a top 3 talent. I expected more but clearly iam not surprised. He is still young and needs to work on alot of little things(especially body, defense) to take his game to another level. He has to play with more fire.

 If he declares , he is now no lock to go in the top 3. Teams that pick in the top 3 are desperate for guys who can help/carry them to wins.

Disagree strongly. He sucked in the tourney but he has the best body of work over the season of any of the elite prospects. He's a 100% mortal lock to go in the top 3 if there are no medical issues.

Irrelevant. If a GM is drafting based solely on 1 game he's not suited for the job. You take the overall body of work to make a determination. Ainge in an interview a couple of years back said something to the effect. He said that he watches the tournament, but it doesn't impact positively or negatively how they views/draft players.

[Mr October]

It helps paint more of a picture of the player, but it isn't a deal breaker.

I thought Parker was a top 4 pick before today's game, as well as after the game.

The tournament probably helps players later in the draft, even in that they become a marketable name, to sell to the fans/media. Guys like Payne on Michigan State, Harrell on Louisville, Johnson and Hollis-Jefferson on Arizona, etc come to mind.

[Donoghus]

The tournament probably helps players later in the draft, even in that they become a marketable name, to sell to the fans/media. Guys like Payne on Michigan State, Harrell on Louisville, Johnson and Hollis-Jefferson on Arizona, etc come to mind.

Definitely.  Role players on high caliber teams and studs on mid-major teams seems to be the ones to most benefit.