Most productive colleges in NBA history

[donniesyracuse]

but how does this affect that?

It doesn't directly. The NBA finals thing could lead some to conclude that Syracuse players have not been all that successful in the NBA. The stats being referred to in this thread demonstrate how successful Syracuse players have been in the NBA. It was just an insignificant point.

 

[donniesyracuse]

The implication was that Syracuse didn't/doesn't have talent in the NBA. Ranking so highly in these statistical categories shows that Syracuse does have and has had a good amount of talent in the NBA.

Thank you, you beat me to it.

 

[CusefanATL]

The implication was that Syracuse didn't/doesn't have talent in the NBA. Ranking so highly in these statistical categories shows that Syracuse does have and has had a good amount of talent in the NBA.

but you have to look at the stats comparable to the program. and it clearly shows syracuse nba is behind syracuse college.

if you want to use those stats to show that syracuse college team overachieves, i guess thats your prerogative. id rather be really good with really good players to consistently root for in nba

 

[br801]

The implication was that Syracuse didn't/doesn't have talent in the NBA. Ranking so highly in these statistical categories shows that Syracuse does have and has had a good amount of talent in the NBA.

In total, 46 SU players have appeared in an NBA game, and of those, 21 made their NBA debut in 2001 or later. Clearly, the program is attracting and developing more NBA talent than ever before.
NBA & ABA Players Who Attended Syracuse University | Basketball-Reference.com

 

[Brooky03]

but you have to look at the stats comparable to the program. and it clearly shows syracuse nba is behind syracuse college.

if you want to use those stats to show that syracuse college team overachieves, i guess thats your prerogative. id rather be really good with really good players to consistently root for in nba

I don't have a strong preference one way or the other when it comes to NBA talent. I just made an observation of the stats. Syracuse is a better college program, in terms of on-court success, than NBA factory. We agree on this, I think, so is it just a question of the magnitude of the difference between the two? I'd say the stats show it's not an unusually wide margin. We're usually hanging around 8 or 9 in all-time college bball rankings and these NBA stats put the program around 20th in NBA production. 10 or so spots falls within a reasonably expected margin, imo. So, from my perspective, we're a program that has had great college success and NBA player production, with a slight to moderate edge towards college success. I'd rather fall on the 'overachieving' end of the spectrum than the 'underachieving' end. Feeling like we got a lot out of our players, rather than feeling like talent was squandered, is preferable to me. Maybe this is where we differ. Regardless, earlier, I was just observing that the stats seem to back up the narrative that the program has done more with less, hyperbole aside.

As for the Finals comment; an assertion or inference that a lack of Finals appearances by ex-SU players shows that the program doesn't produce good NBA talent would be false, imo. The stats show that the program has, in absolute terms instead of relative terms, produced more talent than most colleges. It's certainly odd that we haven't had players in the Finals, but it's not indicative of a lack of pro talent coming from the school.

 

[RandygoCuse]

Ewing, Mutombo, Mourning and Iverson really carried Georgetown pretty high on the list. Now that they are retired, they will probably drop as other schools catch up.

Interesting...I'm sure the statisticians on the board would recommend taking away the most productive player to avoid skewing results. Kind of like in the Olympics where they take off the highest and lowest scores - taking away the least productive in this situation wouldn't make sense.

 

[donniesyracuse]

Interesting...I'm sure the statisticians on the board would recommend taking away the most productive player to avoid skewing results. Kind of like in the Olympics where they take off the highest and lowest scores - taking away the least productive in this situation wouldn't make sense.

Taking away Anthony probably would not help our cause. He has to be skewing the data significantly. He is miles ahead of Dave Bing in points anyway.

 

[orangefog]

Taking away Anthony probably would not help our cause. He has to be skewing the data significantly. He is miles ahead of Dave Bing in points anyway.

Is longevity weighed in this? I haven't had the time to check it out. If so, then Danny Schayes' 47 year career in the NBA has to weigh significantly.

 

[donniesyracuse]

Is longevity weighed in this? I haven't had the time to check it out. If so, then Danny Schayes' 47 year career in the NBA has to weigh significantly.

looks like they just counted points, rebounds, steals, assists, and blocks