Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
Moderators: LyricalRico, nate33, montestewart
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
-
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 47,909
- And1: 11,579
- Joined: Jul 17, 2001
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
Hey, I should get credit for predicting that Curry would be nothing more than a good 3rd guard. It's not easy to miss by that much.
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." - Douglas Adams
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
- doclinkin
- RealGM
- Posts: 13,202
- And1: 5,340
- Joined: Jul 26, 2004
- Location: .wizuds.
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
Dat2U wrote:gtn130 wrote:Dat2U wrote:Remember when half the board thought he had the best upside in the 2013 draft?
That can still be true. The results don't disprove that. Do you think people were embarrassingly wrong for not assuming Curry would be an MVP? Odds of him hitting is ceiling were quite low.
I think the results show the proof that much of that upside was imagined. I'm probably the wrong one to ask about Curry, doc and I were two of his biggest supporters and honestly I'm not surprised about how dominant an offensive player he's become considering what he did at Davidson all four years. If anything, it's his defense... he's become a solid team defender... that's really surprised me. I thought if anything would hold him back it would be that.
Credit Bob Knight too. Any time he speaks definitively about something basketball related it's smart to listen.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JyTIQq5H-g[/youtube]
This from the guy who when told Portland needed a center said: "Then take Michael Jordan and play him as a Center".
Me I loved Stef when I saw him dissect Georgetown as a freshman. You can make a thinslice decision on people's heads-up awareness if not their desire simply by seeing how they play. Smarts are a talent that shows in the stats if you know what you're looking for. And you can see when people are perceiving the game quicker than others, when that is their key advantage. Stef was never the quickest player on the court, but he was still killing his opponents despite triple teams. At an incredibly efficient clip. That coach Knight confirmed what I was seeing, was affirmation to what I already knew: this was the guy I wanted most.
Loved Harden for a similar reason, he was a tubby janitor looking dude in college and remarkably efficient. But Stef was something else, something we needed and a more sure bet to me. Importantly too with Gil's injury history it seemed only sensible to me to line up a back-up or successor or backcourt mate who had the thing that Larry Hughes for instance did not have when paired with Gil: a reliable outside threat to really clear out the middle and give him room to drive. Harden would have played the Hughes role: even to the point of ballhogging like Hughes did, but Stef was a willing passer with an outside shot, offensively he would enhance Gil if anything. I saw the synergy, but knew this kid would be special regardless of fit.
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
- doclinkin
- RealGM
- Posts: 13,202
- And1: 5,340
- Joined: Jul 26, 2004
- Location: .wizuds.
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
But will to win and BBIQ are not tough to spot in stats. The two key simple stats that let you spot standout smarts and will to win are assists and defensive rebounds, compared for position (ie assessing PGs vs PGs etc). Assist and defensive boards are about positioning and prediction. You don't need to be more athletic to make that play, the question is: do you know where you players are, and do you know where their players are. Can you box out, can you make a bounce pass, do you know where the ball is going before it gets there, or as soon as the shot is up. Do you know where your man is going to be in a half second and can you get him the ball where he needs it to be able to score?
Efficient scoring tells the rest of the story, and you have to correct for strength of competition in the NCAA, but you can get a pretty good eyeball read on a player's future effort or understanding of the game simply by checking those stats first.
Efficient scoring tells the rest of the story, and you have to correct for strength of competition in the NCAA, but you can get a pretty good eyeball read on a player's future effort or understanding of the game simply by checking those stats first.
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
- gtn130
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,512
- And1: 2,740
- Joined: Mar 18, 2009
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
^ you should be a GM then. Seems like you've got everything figure out.
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 23,512
- And1: 7,090
- Joined: Jun 23, 2001
- Location: Columbus, OH
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
gtn130 wrote:^ you should be a GM then. Seems like you've got everything figure out.
No, I think he's saying the answers are usually there if you know where to look. One didn't need to be a draft savant to figure out Curry was going to be pretty good. Curry's performance on the college level gave significant clues to how he'd succeed on the NBA level as well. MVP good? If you want to hold folks to that level of prediction then no, we didn't call it. But a few thought potential all-star including me. The recently exiled hands11 deserves some credit too as he was a big Curry backer as well.
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
- gtn130
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,512
- And1: 2,740
- Joined: Mar 18, 2009
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
Dat2U wrote:gtn130 wrote:^ you should be a GM then. Seems like you've got everything figure out.
No, I think he's saying the answers are usually there if you know where to look. One didn't need to be a draft savant to figure out Curry was going to be pretty good. Curry's performance on the college level gave significant clues to how he'd succeed on the NBA level as well. MVP good? If you want to hold folks to that level of prediction then no, we didn't call it. But a few thought potential all-star including me. The recently exiled hands11 deserves some credit too as he was a big Curry backer as well.
This is silly. The "answers" you're referring to are extremely nebulous and difficult to parse. If you guys were certain Curry would be an all-star, you should all be GMs and you'd be significantly more efficient than everyone in the league at drafting talent. Curry was taken at #7 and nobody was trading up to pick him, so I guess you guys must have outsmarted the other 29 GMs.
Sam Hinkie has basically said that the draft is much, much closer to a crapshoot than a science:
"We will not bat a thousand on every single draft pick. We also have them by the bushelful, in part, because of that. We don't have any hubris that we will get them all right. We're not certain that we have an enormous edge over anybody else. In some cases, we might not have an edge at all."
http://www.businessinsider.com/sam-hinkie-explains-sixers-tanking-plan-2015-2
You can find the 40 minute post-deadline press conference from last February somewhere online, but what Hinkie is saying is that expecting to hit on every single draft pick is extremely unrealistic. His entire philosphy is based on optionality -- having assets and flexibility so that he can make better decisions with more information later. Planning to be a draft savant gives you absolutely zero margin for error. Daryl Morey and Mark Cuban/Donnie Nelson have foregone the draft for the most part because, well, it's really tough to hit on picks and missing can set your franchise back a while.
Were you guys also certain Steve Nash would be an all-star coming out?
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 23,512
- And1: 7,090
- Joined: Jun 23, 2001
- Location: Columbus, OH
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
gtn130 wrote:Dat2U wrote:gtn130 wrote:^ you should be a GM then. Seems like you've got everything figure out.
No, I think he's saying the answers are usually there if you know where to look. One didn't need to be a draft savant to figure out Curry was going to be pretty good. Curry's performance on the college level gave significant clues to how he'd succeed on the NBA level as well. MVP good? If you want to hold folks to that level of prediction then no, we didn't call it. But a few thought potential all-star including me. The recently exiled hands11 deserves some credit too as he was a big Curry backer as well.
This is silly. The "answers" you're referring to are extremely nebulous and difficult to parse. If you guys were certain Curry would be an all-star, you should all be GMs and you'd be significantly more efficient than everyone in the league at drafting talent. Curry was taken at #7 and nobody was trading up to pick him, so I guess you guys must have outsmarted the other 29 GMs.
Sam Hinkie has basically said that the draft is much, much closer to a crapshoot than a science:"We will not bat a thousand on every single draft pick. We also have them by the bushelful, in part, because of that. We don't have any hubris that we will get them all right. We're not certain that we have an enormous edge over anybody else. In some cases, we might not have an edge at all."
http://www.businessinsider.com/sam-hinkie-explains-sixers-tanking-plan-2015-2
You can find the 40 minute post-deadline press conference from last February somewhere online, but what Hinkie is saying is that expecting to hit on every single draft pick is extremely unrealistic. His entire philosphy is based on optionality -- having assets and flexibility so that he can make better decisions with more information later. Planning to be a draft savant gives you absolutely zero margin for error. Daryl Morey and Mark Cuban/Donnie Nelson have foregone the draft for the most part because, well, it's really tough to hit on picks and missing can set your franchise back a while.
Were you guys also certain Steve Nash would be an all-star coming out?
OMG what exactly are you even debating? There's not a single person here that thinks you can hit on every single pick. No one here is calling themselves a genius either so why are you so desperate to make a point that's already a given?
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
- gtn130
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,512
- And1: 2,740
- Joined: Mar 18, 2009
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
Dat2U wrote:gtn130 wrote:Dat2U wrote:
No, I think he's saying the answers are usually there if you know where to look. One didn't need to be a draft savant to figure out Curry was going to be pretty good. Curry's performance on the college level gave significant clues to how he'd succeed on the NBA level as well. MVP good? If you want to hold folks to that level of prediction then no, we didn't call it. But a few thought potential all-star including me. The recently exiled hands11 deserves some credit too as he was a big Curry backer as well.
This is silly. The "answers" you're referring to are extremely nebulous and difficult to parse. If you guys were certain Curry would be an all-star, you should all be GMs and you'd be significantly more efficient than everyone in the league at drafting talent. Curry was taken at #7 and nobody was trading up to pick him, so I guess you guys must have outsmarted the other 29 GMs.
Sam Hinkie has basically said that the draft is much, much closer to a crapshoot than a science:"We will not bat a thousand on every single draft pick. We also have them by the bushelful, in part, because of that. We don't have any hubris that we will get them all right. We're not certain that we have an enormous edge over anybody else. In some cases, we might not have an edge at all."
http://www.businessinsider.com/sam-hinkie-explains-sixers-tanking-plan-2015-2
You can find the 40 minute post-deadline press conference from last February somewhere online, but what Hinkie is saying is that expecting to hit on every single draft pick is extremely unrealistic. His entire philosphy is based on optionality -- having assets and flexibility so that he can make better decisions with more information later. Planning to be a draft savant gives you absolutely zero margin for error. Daryl Morey and Mark Cuban/Donnie Nelson have foregone the draft for the most part because, well, it's really tough to hit on picks and missing can set your franchise back a while.
Were you guys also certain Steve Nash would be an all-star coming out?
OMG what exactly are you even debating? There's not a single person here that thinks you can hit on every single pick. No one here is calling themselves a genius either so why are you so desperate to make a point that's already a given?
You made the hilariously wrong claim that "the answers are usually there if you know where to look". My post was me disagreeing with that. There are infinite examples of players defying logic and ending up being really good or really bad in the NBA.
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
-
- General Manager
- Posts: 8,327
- And1: 1,364
- Joined: Jul 20, 2006
- Location: Herndon, VA
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
gtn130 wrote: If AB had a different head on his shoulders, he could have been a good player, and the same can be said for about a million other players across all sports.
Is AB talking about Bennett or Blatche?
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
- gtn130
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,512
- And1: 2,740
- Joined: Mar 18, 2009
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
TheSecretWeapon wrote:I don't think the point is that people predicted on draft day that Curry was a future MVP candidate. The point is that back in 2009, dat and doc and others were arguing that Curry would likely be a good pro -- better than Rubio or the Dynamic Duo the Wizards got from Minnesota in exchange for that 5th pick.
It doesn't make much sense to imply the "draft Curry he's gonna be good" crowd are somehow wrong (or less than prescient) because they failed to say he'd be a future MVP. At least not to me.
Give credit where it's due. They said he'd be good, and he damn sure has been.
What? I've exclusively been talking about the idea of predicting that Curry would be an MVP caliber player. My point was that Curry hitting his ceiling was extremely unlikely, and it was also pretty unlikely that Anthony Bennett would hit his absolute floor, which he has. Someone was pointing out how wrong people were for thinking Bennett had a ton of potential, and my argument is that even though Bennett has been awful and is not an NBA player, it doesn't necessarily mean people were wrong about his potential.
If people want to take credit for thinking Curry would be a good basketball, that's fine, but it has absolutely nothing to do with anything I'm talking about.
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
- doclinkin
- RealGM
- Posts: 13,202
- And1: 5,340
- Joined: Jul 26, 2004
- Location: .wizuds.
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
Dat2U wrote:gtn130 wrote:Dat2U wrote:
No, I think he's saying the answers are usually there if you know where to look. One didn't need to be a draft savant to figure out Curry was going to be pretty good. Curry's performance on the college level gave significant clues to how he'd succeed on the NBA level as well. MVP good? If you want to hold folks to that level of prediction then no, we didn't call it. But a few thought potential all-star including me. The recently exiled hands11 deserves some credit too as he was a big Curry backer as well.
This is silly. The "answers" you're referring to are extremely nebulous and difficult to parse. If you guys were certain Curry would be an all-star, you should all be GMs and you'd be significantly more efficient than everyone in the league at drafting talent. Curry was taken at #7 and nobody was trading up to pick him, so I guess you guys must have outsmarted the other 29 GMs.
Sam Hinkie has basically said that the draft is much, much closer to a crapshoot than a science:"We will not bat a thousand on every single draft pick. We also have them by the bushelful, in part, because of that. We don't have any hubris that we will get them all right. We're not certain that we have an enormous edge over anybody else. In some cases, we might not have an edge at all."
http://www.businessinsider.com/sam-hinkie-explains-sixers-tanking-plan-2015-2
You can find the 40 minute post-deadline press conference from last February somewhere online, but what Hinkie is saying is that expecting to hit on every single draft pick is extremely unrealistic. His entire philosphy is based on optionality -- having assets and flexibility so that he can make better decisions with more information later. Planning to be a draft savant gives you absolutely zero margin for error. Daryl Morey and Mark Cuban/Donnie Nelson have foregone the draft for the most part because, well, it's really tough to hit on picks and missing can set your franchise back a while.
Were you guys also certain Steve Nash would be an all-star coming out?
OMG what exactly are you even debating? There's not a single person here that thinks you can hit on every single pick. No one here is calling themselves a genius either so why are you so desperate to make a point that's already a given?
Bullspittle. I'm calling ME a genius and anyone who don't like it can go soak they head.
But yes I do think there are posters on this particular board with a better track record than most GMs when it comes to value for draft pick. Production vs draft slot. And I feel like if it is good enough for the CIA then it's good enough for pro sports: a savvy front office might find a way on the hush-hush to track the collective intelligence of NBA fandom to find statistical standouts, crowdsourcing their intel to identify some savvy volunteer talent scouts as a check and balance against getting too set in their own certainty.
I never heard of Steve Nash coming out. And that squad already had two HOF point guards on squad already (KJ and Kidd) and also Sam Cassell, what an embarrassment of riches. So I doubt I would have picked him. I will cede that Jerry Colangelo would've outfoxed me there. Sure. He's a smart fella.
My picks:
2015 -- I would've traded down for Richaun Holmes and a future pick. I agree with the philosophy of getting more bites at the apple.
2014 -- We'd traded our pick so i barely paid attention. At the PHX pick slot I think liked Shabazz Napier and Mitch McGary. Flip a coin.
2013 -- I liked Otto fine. Would have taken Nerlens when he fell to us. Before we moved up in the lotto I would have traded down and taken Giorgui Dieng and Andre Roberson.
2012 -- Liked Beal, but 2nd round we all woulda taken Jae Crowder.
2011 -- Liked Kenneth Faried talked much shxt about him, would have traded down to get him plus one of whomever else fell. Liked Kemba Walker, Klay Thompson, Nikola Vucevic. Anybody but Vesely, though I did like Singleton just fine. 2nd round I had Chandler Parsons, since Justin Harper was taken before our pick. Woulda lucked out there, unless I took Harper with that extra pick.
2010 -- John Wall of course. DAT was big on Hassan Whiteside I have to say. I didnt have a 2nd rounder.
2009 -- I was on Stef Curry since before the season. Did not like Rubio. Would have been fine with Harden. Nick Calathes was my 2nd round guy, with his greek citizenship I knew he was a decent stash target. Though I was assuming DJ Blair would be gone in the 1st round, so I likely would have taken him.
2008 -- If I couldn't trade up for HIbbert I would have taken Nico Batum. 2nd round I liked Sasha Kaun and Richard Hendrix both ended up with good Euro careers, hah! Kaun is now back playing for my 2nd coaching target David Blatt (after Dave Joerger) under whom he had success in Russia. The Cavs should be rough this year.
2007 -- Since Rodney Stuckey was gone one pick before ours I would have been torn between Rudy Fernandez and Morris Almond. I was willing to trade down a couple spots and pick whichever was left. 2nd round I was ecstatic with Dom McGuire but also coveted Marc Gasol who had shown well in Euroball. We needed a Princeton center under Eddie Jordan and the metaphysics suggested he would play well with Eddie who was frustrated with his center play (Haywood could neither pass nor hit a midranged shot, was wooden on the block and ended up in Eddies doghouse) I figured the Spaniard would get along with EFJ since Gasol and Eddie had the same birthday (zodiac for the win!). I liked the idea of pairing Rudy with Gasol since they played well in Spain. I thought Marc and McGuire wold both be gone in the 1st round. Had not yet learned my lesson on the Mountain West conference (hint: they suck, all of 'em).
2006 -- I liked Rajon Rondo and Kyle Lowry. I felt like we needed a backup defender at PG, both were fierce defenders at the spot, and I liked Rondos USA ball play. He put up 50 I think in one U18 game in Europe, scored 100 pts in highschool knew he was suppressed playing Tubby Ball at KY and would be unleashed as soon as he had someone worth passing to. Lowry I knew was a tough defender at Nova, in their 5 guard sets he would hold his own defending PFs and Centers. Played next to Randy Foye as an undersized but never undermoxied SF if you can believe it. Tough mug. CCJ loved Paul MIllsapp and wasn't JJ Barea undrafted that year? I had him tabbed.
2005 -- I forget why we had no draft pick, was this the one Jordan had swapped for Haywood? Woulda taken Ryan Gomes over Dray Blatche. but Dray was a better pick oh well.
2004 -- Wanted Iguodala so bad. I was pissed at the Jamison trade, but that I suppose worked better for us. In its way. Not on defense but whatever. 2nd round wanted Romain Sato who went on to all Euro defensive accolades.
2003 -- and earlier didnt really care. Though I liked the selection of Steve Blake.
So in general hindsight suggests I'd be alright. Lucking out in some cases since my first choices were taken earlier. Some coin flips would have averted disaster.
Now would I or any of us be better at the general day to day stuff? Me? no. Collectively sure, possibly, we have some savvy minds on here, I have no doubt with salary depending on it we could assemble a team that could out perform the front office we currently have. I was willing to change my tune on that if Glenn Rice Jr panned out. Now it's Oubre who is the wait-and-see candidate since I would not have traded up for either one. If Oubre works out great then cool, happy they are better than me.
But whatever, my assertion is simply that with even a year of college you can see trends in how hard a player is willing to work, and in BBIQ. You can see evidence in the stats that seem to pan out well in future game play. The rest is about relative talent level, athleticism and all. This is hinted at since we have access to the combine testing database. Point being, a handful of people on here consistently in their mock drafts outperform front offices just by squinting at stats and catching a few games on TV. yes I'm not in awe of front offices simply because they have a title and a salary. Quite often I think that fact causes front offices to outsmart themselves at times, is all.
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
- gtn130
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,512
- And1: 2,740
- Joined: Mar 18, 2009
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
doclinkin wrote:But whatever, my assertion is simply that with even a year of college you can see trends in how hard a player is willing to work, and in BBIQ. You can see evidence in the stats that seem to pan out well in future game play. The rest is about relative talent level, athleticism and all. This is hinted at since we have access to the combine testing database. Point being, a handful of people on here consistently in their mock drafts outperform front offices just by squinting at stats and catching a few games on TV. yes I'm not in awe of front offices simply because they have a title and a salary. Quite often I think that fact causes front offices to outsmart themselves at times, is all.
Bolded is where I don't really agree. I think that stuff is much more fluid and can change pretty quickly to the extent that only players with serious red flags should be downgraded because of BBIQ or work ethic problems. Players are humans who can change for better or worse.
If people knew today that Dion Waiters would be as cancerous on and off the court as he is, he never would have been drafted as high as he was. Here are the data points we had on Waiters' character:
-Was in the doghouse his freshman season
-Reported to practices overweight during his freshman year
-Came off the bench for Syracuse
Are those really reasons to pass on him? I'm sure every single person in Waiters' corner was saying, "He's just a kid! He was a freshman!", and I don't think those people were necessarily wrong. Some 20 year old kid who is immature and probably a bit lazy but has big time NBA potential? Every GM will think they can change his bad habits. How do you gauge how stubborn or unmotivated or selfish a player is? A couple interviews where they tell you what they think you want to hear?
Drafting seems like a really complex process to me, and I think we tend to be reductive in how we approach it as fans -- and we are definitely way too results-oriented. Sometimes **** just isn't predictable.
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
- doclinkin
- RealGM
- Posts: 13,202
- And1: 5,340
- Joined: Jul 26, 2004
- Location: .wizuds.
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
In the case of Bennett: he was notably lazy in college, came in to the combine overweight (albeit with an injury, to say nothing of his asthma which makes getting in shape an uphill battle) faded against the best competition and wasn't the best player on his team, in a weak conference. And in the hustle stats he didn't pull his own weight, regularly putting up anemic rebounding totals, and at a power position he seemed to want to be a guard. Fading the more playing time he got, and scared of contact.
So what the hell are you talking about? No one could have predicted he would seriously underperform for the slot where he was picked? Many people did predict it. Pundits and ordinary message board mouth breathers were all scratching our heads befuddled that he was picked number one. Coaches do not play players who don't work hard. For all your 'infinite' numbers of players who defy predictions, you have far more who live up to the work ethic suggested by their track record. This is a league where even overachievers fail, where only super talents succeed with half ass work. Occasionally you get a Dwight Howard who underperforms and still succeeds but he is built like a god among men, not a doughy schmoe from canada who is underheight at his position and is a gentle character with little heart for battle.
Its not an absurd assertion that willingness to work shows up in the stats and can be predicted. Sure maybe it says less about a player's 'potential' and 'upside' -- but it says a great deal about whether or not they will max out that upside. Is it 100% flawless? Nope. But are tendencies indicated and trends suggested? Yep. Its easier to see if you get a player who stays more than one year, but progress in certain stats are strong heralds of future improvement.
As for Stef Curry. When you have an irascible and brilliant bball sage like Bob Knight saying he was the best passer he has ever seen at the college level, and he is already a hyper efficient shooter, then yes you can predict he will likely be a very very special player in the NBA. Even if you don't trust anonymous message board self-proclaimed BBALL djinnis and geniuses. He got better, was already good, and given his rise and improvement in college, it looked like a strong certainty that he would continue to climb that very steep mountain.
So what the hell are you talking about? No one could have predicted he would seriously underperform for the slot where he was picked? Many people did predict it. Pundits and ordinary message board mouth breathers were all scratching our heads befuddled that he was picked number one. Coaches do not play players who don't work hard. For all your 'infinite' numbers of players who defy predictions, you have far more who live up to the work ethic suggested by their track record. This is a league where even overachievers fail, where only super talents succeed with half ass work. Occasionally you get a Dwight Howard who underperforms and still succeeds but he is built like a god among men, not a doughy schmoe from canada who is underheight at his position and is a gentle character with little heart for battle.
Its not an absurd assertion that willingness to work shows up in the stats and can be predicted. Sure maybe it says less about a player's 'potential' and 'upside' -- but it says a great deal about whether or not they will max out that upside. Is it 100% flawless? Nope. But are tendencies indicated and trends suggested? Yep. Its easier to see if you get a player who stays more than one year, but progress in certain stats are strong heralds of future improvement.
As for Stef Curry. When you have an irascible and brilliant bball sage like Bob Knight saying he was the best passer he has ever seen at the college level, and he is already a hyper efficient shooter, then yes you can predict he will likely be a very very special player in the NBA. Even if you don't trust anonymous message board self-proclaimed BBALL djinnis and geniuses. He got better, was already good, and given his rise and improvement in college, it looked like a strong certainty that he would continue to climb that very steep mountain.
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
-
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 47,909
- And1: 11,579
- Joined: Jul 17, 2001
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
Btw, I should also get credit for making a pre-season choice of Josh Boone to be the #1 pick in the 2006 draft. His pro career has been almost as glorious as Hilton Armstrong's.
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." - Douglas Adams
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 21,949
- And1: 7,868
- Joined: May 02, 2012
- Location: On the Atlantic
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
Usually I'm the one pontificating w/ certainty (either positively or negatively -- or both!), and I'm also usually the one debunking a claim dat or someone else makes, and I'm also usually the one claiming I had all the right picks figured out in all the drafts. Oh, and I'm also right, whatever I say, and the only reason you (any "you" I mean) disagree w/ me is because you (whichever "you" you are) don't know what you're talking about.
Since in this case -- this *rare* case -- I'm the voice of reason, I see all the flaws in the positions all 3 of you (gtn, dat & doc) are taking. Would you like me to point them all out to you?
I knew you would.
Doc -- you mention only Wall in re: the 2010 draft, but we had 3 R1 picks that year. I remember that you were high on Craig Brackins, right? I think you also kind of liked Dexter Pittman and Dominique Jones too, didn't you? I'll leave it at that.
gtn -- you are extrapolating ridiculously. Hinkie didn't say the draft is "much, much closer to a crapshoot than a science," he said it involved chance, and having more picks helps w/ that problem. Duh.
Nor are there "infinite examples of players defying logic and ending up being really good or really bad in the NBA." There are plenty of cases where guys who put up outstanding numbers in college didn't succeed in the league, but there are almost no cases where guys who put up bad numbers in college did succeed in the league. Show me a few, why don't you?
dat -- where I agree w/ you is that the best indicator of whether a guy will be good in the league is whether he was good in college. But to say that "the answers are usually there if you know where to look" is only true in retrospect. It's always possible to explain something that way. But those "answers" aren't predictive looking forward. Fortunately, you don't need that kind of second sight to make draft picks. You do your best based on the numbers, and you don't throw away picks to make up for your other mistakes.
Stef Curry was tremendous in college. James Harden was tremendous in college. No second sight was required to pick them high. But Jonny Flynn was *not* particularly good in college, and he didn't improve from Freshman to Sophomore years. It didn't take second sight to steer away from him -- yet he was picked high that same year. That was stupid.
The problem comes w/ a guy like Hasheem Thabeet, who improved every year in college and had a tremendous junior year. It wasn't stupid to pick him high, even though he didn't pan out. He's a poster child for the element of chance in the draft. But Flynn isn't that -- there was no chance he'd be good.
There you go.... Now, back to regularly scheduled programming!
Since in this case -- this *rare* case -- I'm the voice of reason, I see all the flaws in the positions all 3 of you (gtn, dat & doc) are taking. Would you like me to point them all out to you?
I knew you would.
Doc -- you mention only Wall in re: the 2010 draft, but we had 3 R1 picks that year. I remember that you were high on Craig Brackins, right? I think you also kind of liked Dexter Pittman and Dominique Jones too, didn't you? I'll leave it at that.
gtn -- you are extrapolating ridiculously. Hinkie didn't say the draft is "much, much closer to a crapshoot than a science," he said it involved chance, and having more picks helps w/ that problem. Duh.
Nor are there "infinite examples of players defying logic and ending up being really good or really bad in the NBA." There are plenty of cases where guys who put up outstanding numbers in college didn't succeed in the league, but there are almost no cases where guys who put up bad numbers in college did succeed in the league. Show me a few, why don't you?
dat -- where I agree w/ you is that the best indicator of whether a guy will be good in the league is whether he was good in college. But to say that "the answers are usually there if you know where to look" is only true in retrospect. It's always possible to explain something that way. But those "answers" aren't predictive looking forward. Fortunately, you don't need that kind of second sight to make draft picks. You do your best based on the numbers, and you don't throw away picks to make up for your other mistakes.
Stef Curry was tremendous in college. James Harden was tremendous in college. No second sight was required to pick them high. But Jonny Flynn was *not* particularly good in college, and he didn't improve from Freshman to Sophomore years. It didn't take second sight to steer away from him -- yet he was picked high that same year. That was stupid.
The problem comes w/ a guy like Hasheem Thabeet, who improved every year in college and had a tremendous junior year. It wasn't stupid to pick him high, even though he didn't pan out. He's a poster child for the element of chance in the draft. But Flynn isn't that -- there was no chance he'd be good.
There you go.... Now, back to regularly scheduled programming!
Breaking News: In a shocking development, Wizards owner Ted Leonsis has sold the NBA franchise to a consortium of participants in a discussion board devoted to the team on realgm.com. Details to follow....
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 21,949
- And1: 7,868
- Joined: May 02, 2012
- Location: On the Atlantic
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
Ruzious wrote:Btw, I should also get credit for making a pre-season choice of Josh Boone to be the #1 pick in the 2006 draft. His pro career has been almost as glorious as Hilton Armstrong's.
Even Homer nods, Ruzious.
(I liked Boone too, btw.)
Breaking News: In a shocking development, Wizards owner Ted Leonsis has sold the NBA franchise to a consortium of participants in a discussion board devoted to the team on realgm.com. Details to follow....
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
- doclinkin
- RealGM
- Posts: 13,202
- And1: 5,340
- Joined: Jul 26, 2004
- Location: .wizuds.
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
payitforward wrote:Usually I'm the one pontificating w/ certainty (either positively or negatively -- or both!), and I'm also usually the one debunking a claim dat or someone else makes, and I'm also usually the one claiming I had all the right picks figured out in all the drafts. Oh, and I'm also right, whatever I say, and the only reason you (any "you" I mean) disagree w/ me is because you (whichever "you" you are) don't know what you're talking about.
Since in this case -- this *rare* case -- I'm the voice of reason, I see all the flaws in the positions all 3 of you (gtn, dat & doc) are taking. Would you like me to point them all out to you?
I knew you would.
Doc -- you mention only Wall in re: the 2010 draft, but we had 3 R1 picks that year. I remember that you were high on Craig Brackins, right? I think you also kind of liked Dexter Pittman and Dominique Jones too, didn't you? I'll leave it at that.
I was high on Brackins before he climbed into the first round, seemed like a value for pick risk in the 2nd round. No on Dexter Pittman, that was you if I recall and I liked Dominique Jones as a defender but he was behind first Trevor Booker and then Damion James, and was a coin flip with Quincy Pondexter so would have dodged that bullet. I liked Cole Aldrich though so that's maybe a failure? Though he went way high though so nope. Yeah my 2nd rounders that year (of the ones left by our selection) would have been Luke Harangody and Landry Fields though I was hoping General Greivis would fall.
GMEG worked magic to get the extra picks, I would not have. If we had I would have ended up with: Booker and Damion James, maybe Vasquez. Still not bad.
No my worst miss: I liked Cedric Simmons and Hilton Armstrong when we were looking for a back-up stretch 4 when Antawn Jamison created the position and EFJ's offense showed its value. So that would have been an ugly failure if they hadn't been taken before we got Pecherov. Since they were both gone I would have taken best player available: Rondo and Lowry. Woulda lucked out that way which reminded me to always always take best player available instead of trying to simply fill a role.
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 23,512
- And1: 7,090
- Joined: Jun 23, 2001
- Location: Columbus, OH
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
dom jones was my guy too... never developed that jumper, ugh. lol.
Bennett you could tell like doc said. He's been completely unplayable and honestly those Rodney Rogers comparisons I had for him gave far too much credit.
Work ethic is more anecdotal than having a pure stats based analysis. Stats are very good but they often need perspective - that perspective takes into account their athleticism (can't go off what a scouting report says, you actually have to see them in action), work ethic and willingness to listen and take criticism (are they coachable?). Some of this you can't always catch in a scouting report or highlight video. You really have to watch the games and see how they interact with their teammates and coaches.
Bennett you could tell like doc said. He's been completely unplayable and honestly those Rodney Rogers comparisons I had for him gave far too much credit.
Work ethic is more anecdotal than having a pure stats based analysis. Stats are very good but they often need perspective - that perspective takes into account their athleticism (can't go off what a scouting report says, you actually have to see them in action), work ethic and willingness to listen and take criticism (are they coachable?). Some of this you can't always catch in a scouting report or highlight video. You really have to watch the games and see how they interact with their teammates and coaches.
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
- nate33
- Forum Mod - Wizards
- Posts: 66,993
- And1: 19,296
- Joined: Oct 28, 2002
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
Dat2U's rankings just before the 2013 draft:
As usual, he pretty much nailed it. The only real misses are Gobert (too low) and Burke (too high). Everyone else is in the right tier more or less. Maybe Adams should be Tier Three.
MCW is an interesting case. He's been a starter for most of his career so one could definitely argue that he doesn't belong in Tier Five, but I also question whether a team can win with MCW as a starter. The Bucks fell apart once they traded for him.
Dat2U wrote:My TIERs are becoming clearer to me now.
TIER ONE ... none
TIER TWO ... Noel, Porter, Oladipo
TIER THREE ... Len, Zeller, Olynyk, Burke
TIER FOUR ... Bennett, Dieng, Adams, Rice, Muhammad, McLemore, Schroder, McCollum
TIER FIVE ... Gobert, Muscala, Withey, Noguiera, Saric, Adetokunbo, KCP, Franklin, Green, Canaan
Jackson, Larkin, MCW
TIER SIX ... Jatieh, Plumlee, Mitchell, Kelly, Harris, Karasev, Bullock, Crabbe, Ledo, Hardaway, Curry, Wolters (12)
As usual, he pretty much nailed it. The only real misses are Gobert (too low) and Burke (too high). Everyone else is in the right tier more or less. Maybe Adams should be Tier Three.
MCW is an interesting case. He's been a starter for most of his career so one could definitely argue that he doesn't belong in Tier Five, but I also question whether a team can win with MCW as a starter. The Bucks fell apart once they traded for him.
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
- gtn130
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,512
- And1: 2,740
- Joined: Mar 18, 2009
Re: Discussing Other Teams' Moves Part 5
payitforward wrote:gtn -- you are extrapolating ridiculously. Hinkie didn't say the draft is "much, much closer to a crapshoot than a science," he said it involved chance, and having more picks helps w/ that problem. Duh.
Nor are there "infinite examples of players defying logic and ending up being really good or really bad in the NBA." There are plenty of cases where guys who put up outstanding numbers in college didn't succeed in the league, but there are almost no cases where guys who put up bad numbers in college did succeed in the league. Show me a few, why don't you?
From the article I linked:
Hinkie said part of the reason he hoards picks is that the draft is fundamentally a crapshoot. You can't draft better than the rest of the NBA, but you can more often than the rest of the NBA:
I had assumed the writer was pulling it from the 40 minute press conference.
To your other point -- when did I intimate that players who put up bad numbers in college have ended up being good? I was saying that players who nobody expected to be good in the NBA ended up being good. Not close to the same thing.