Josh Giddey Thread 2.0

[samwana]

Do you guys actually hope Giddey signs just before camp, so you still have something to discuss? I'm torn between can we please have him signed and please let our board go at it till NBA season is starting. Thanks for entertaining us through the most boring time of the off season!

[nomorezorro]

this thread is honestly one of the most fascinating funhouse mirror environments i can remember in this board's history. there's honestly not even that much disagreement over what giddey's actual contract should/will end up being! but in the absence of an opportunity to argue over that point, we managed to find a way to have multi-page debates over a single data point that no one has ever claimed to be of any larger significance than "it could reflect one person's genuine belief of josh giddey's worth"

[jnrjr79]

Well, if you want to be critical of the article, it seems to me the right critique is that it's averaging the numbers at all, not that it's including an outlier data point. An NBA player's market value isn't determined by averaging - setting aside the limitations of who has cap space available, an NBA player is worth whatever the most any NBA team is willing to pay that player. The Bulls will probably luck out in this regard, though, since there aren't any other teams capable of bidding right now.

My criticism is really just of criticism. Strat made a perfectly valid point - again, a legitimate method of critique used by experts in a massively wide variety of fields every day - and received responses like he was coming out of left field with some baseless concern. "Wild take" was the first phrase and then everyone started defending inclusion of the outlier.

Come on, many of these same posters minimize if not outright reject Giddey's performance post-Lavine trade in evaluating him as a player because its a statistical outlier in certain categories and they default to criticisms based on the larger, older historical data. Just like yesterday and the day before Doug said Giddey was "incapable" of contributing offensively off the ball despite that he shot 38% from 3 last year on 5 attempts per 36. The only way someone make that argument is by ignoring an entire year's worth of data (the most recent year's worth of data) because its unlike the prior 3 years. And that full season worth of objectively verifiable data matters substantively a hell of a lot more than one random FO employee's subjective opinion which no one disagrees is, in fact, utter nonsense.

I'm not going to get sucked into a broader discussion of the Giddey discourse and who is saying what. My whole point is the article presents this "one random FO employee's subjective opinion" in a perfectly fine context. And I roll my eyes at the people suggesting that this person must be an idiot or maybe not really involved in the basketball side of things at all to hold such an opinion. I presume the folks that are high on Giddey (I am, but I also like the current market dynamics) wouldn't be freaking out if one of the sources of the piece suggested Giddey was worth $35M.

[DuckIII]

i don't understand the insistence that the response is facetious and the result of "bias". they asked people what they thought a fair contract would be for giddey. if you are a basketball evaluator who does not think giddey is a particularly valuable basketball player, you could earnestly and genuinely respond to that question with a pretty low number.

if someone was willing to pay him the max because they were really high on his game, that would also be a giant outlier, but it'd be a perfectly valid response. it's not "biased" in this context to have a heterodox evaluation of how good josh giddey is at basketball

Maybe its not facetious. But it reads to me very much like "I don't like Giddey's game, I wouldn't even pay him the MLE." Like hyperbole. But if you want to call it his real number, fine. Changes nothing about the merit of criticizing the inclusion of a wild outlier in establishing a reliable mean.

I don't understand why anyone is even batting an eye at this criticism. Rejection of outlier data happens in here all the time, including with Giddey's recent positive outlier stats as way to diminish their significance in the larger discussion. Which, by the way, is also valid. Three years of historical data weighed against one albeit more recent outlier year, is a meaningful consideration. That approach appears to be selectively applied to Giddey.

Kinda like the oddity of comparing him to franchise players when discussing whether to pay him 3/4 guy money. These types of discussions have been unique to Giddey on this board. He's truly been one of one around here.

[nomorezorro]

i don't think there would have been much/any pushback if he said "i think it's silly to include this one figure that's way out of wack with the rest of the responses" (especially because as mentioned earlier, throwing out that data point doesn't actually shift the "average value" figure that much!)

i think the reason there was pushback is because he repeatedly said the response was either "talking bs" or from an "idiot," and that the inclusion of that response "casts doubt on everyone involved" in the larger article.

[DuckIII]

I presume the folks that are high on Giddey (I am, but I also like the current market dynamics) wouldn't be freaking out if one of the sources of the piece suggested Giddey was worth $35M.

That number should also be excluded from establishing a mean value that is worth anything in this context. That's the whole point!

[nomorezorro]

if a front office person genuinely believed josh giddey was worth the max, i would absolutely find that to be worthwhile information regarding his market value!

[jnrjr79]

i don't understand the insistence that the response is facetious and the result of "bias". they asked people what they thought a fair contract would be for giddey. if you are a basketball evaluator who does not think giddey is a particularly valuable basketball player, you could earnestly and genuinely respond to that question with a pretty low number.

if someone was willing to pay him the max because they were really high on his game, that would also be a giant outlier, but it'd be a perfectly valid response. it's not "biased" in this context to have a heterodox evaluation of how good josh giddey is at basketball

Maybe its not facetious. But it reads to me very much like "I don't like Giddey's game, I wouldn't even pay him the MLE." Like hyperbole. But if you want to call it his real number, fine. Changes nothing about the merit of criticizing the inclusion of a wild outlier in establishing a reliable mean.

I don't understand why anyone is even batting an eye at this criticism. Rejection of outlier data happens in here all the time, including with Giddey's recent positive outlier stats as way to diminish their significance in the larger discussion. Which, by the way, is also valid. Three years of historical data weighed against one albeit more recent outlier year, is a meaningful consideration. That approach appears to be selectively applied to Giddey.

Kinda like the oddity of comparing him to franchise players when discussing whether to pay him 3/4 guy money. These types of discussions have been unique to Giddey on this board. He's truly been one of one around here.

I'm assuming you haven't read the entire article, but the reason it's silly to criticize including all the data in the mean is that the article does not argue that the mean is predictive of what Giddey will actually get.

I'd note only 10 of the 16 respondents said they would give Giddey a 4 or 5 year deal, so for some of these respondents, they might be pegging Giddey at $25M, but just for 2 years. That should also be factored in when considering what a player is "worth."

[jnrjr79]

I presume the folks that are high on Giddey (I am, but I also like the current market dynamics) wouldn't be freaking out if one of the sources of the piece suggested Giddey was worth $35M.

That number should also be excluded from establishing a mean value that is worth anything in this context. That's the whole point!

The whole point is that a mean value is meaningless in the first place because players aren't paid based on mean values. The top of the market wins!

Heck, that sort of a data point would potentially be more relevant than any other, because if a team had $35M of space and valued Giddey at $35M, then Giddey would be getting a $35M contract, because he's not being paid the mean of what front offices think he's worth.

[Jcool0]

It happens every off season. Nothing is happening so everything becomes more important. We all know articles with anonymous from office people (never GMs because they have much better uses of their time) ranking things are the clickest of bait and meaningless, but they get these kind of discussions going.

[nomorezorro]

i don't think a paywalled article about a 16-person survey that includes one person saying "i would give josh giddey a 4 year, $50 million contract, but i know i'm way lower on him than most people" qualifies as clickbait. probably could have gotten someone to say something a lot more incendiary if the goal of the exercise was baiting people into clicking

[DuckIII]

if a front office person genuinely believed josh giddey was worth the max, i would absolutely find that to be worthwhile information regarding his market value!

I sure wouldn't. Unless that FO person actually made that offer. Because then we could stop talking about Giddey altogether except to say "can you believe what those morons paid Giddey?"

[dougthonus]

12.5 mil isn't an "outlier opinion". It's idiocy. It's either plain stupidity, ignorance, or trolling. It's why they throw the top and bottom numbers out in a pool that small because they know any idiot can sway the results. It is pretty wild that you won't call "stupid" stupid.

If you were only looking at the average you could do that, but they noted the most common number was 25M (which was also the peak number). The article wasn't written in such a way that emphasized the average, in such a way that this really mattered.

12.5M definitely is not "idiocy" for someone who would look at Giddey and say the weaknesses he has do not fit into our team under almost any circumstances, and we'd only take them at a severe discount. Lots of successful companies will have core values that they will not deviate from unless there is an exceptional reason to do so. It is mildly interesting to know that there is at least some subset of people that think that way.

If you don't find that interesting, fair enough. I find that interesting and am glad that fact was included within the data and I got to read it. The overall picture of the data was presented in a rational way, and this fact did not have a meaningful impact on the results or analysis (which is as it should be).

[Infinity2152]

I presume the folks that are high on Giddey (I am, but I also like the current market dynamics) wouldn't be freaking out if one of the sources of the piece suggested Giddey was worth $35M.

That number should also be excluded from establishing a mean value that is worth anything in this context. That's the whole point!

The whole point is that a mean value is meaningless in the first place because players aren't paid based on mean values. The top of the market wins!

Heck, that sort of a data point would potentially be more relevant than any other, because if a team had $35M of space and valued Giddey at $35M, then Giddey would be getting a $35M contract, because he's not being paid the mean of what front offices think he's worth.

Great point. Like I said, I appreciate Doug posting the data. At least it's something. Wouldn't trust it to be extremely accurate. I'm sure all those GM's have an idea of what offer is on the table, probably better than we do. None of them can actually bid, so they can say anything. If they know the current offer is $20-$22 mill, what benefit would it be to them to say they would pay Giddey $30 mill? Or $35 mill? Not putting any pressure on the Bulls, since they can't actually do it.

Actually benefits them to say they'd pay Giddey less, especially if any of those teams are the Nets, Warriors, Philly, or every team that will be dealing with this same issue next year. Like a GM is ever really going to state their top offer up front. I don't think "Everybody else is saying $18-$20 mill, I'd pay $30 mill for him!" makes a GM look particularly clever or shrewd. They're saying numbers they know the Bulls would match, so they're basically saying they wouldn't offer him a contract even if they had the cap space. I just don't believe that's true for over half the league.

If I ask a bunch of broke guys what they would pay for a Benz and they know the current market offer is $60k, how many are likely to say they'd pay 80K? Do we think the Bulls top offer is 4yrs/$80? Oops, I mean $22.5 mill AAV, didn't they already change what they would pay Giddey? Is that their top offer for real, because they say it?

[Stratmaster]

12.5 mil isn't an "outlier opinion". It's idiocy. It's either plain stupidity, ignorance, or trolling. It's why they throw the top and bottom numbers out in a pool that small because they know any idiot can sway the results. It is pretty wild that you won't call "stupid" stupid.

If you were only looking at the average you could do that, but they noted the most common number was 25M (which was also the peak number). The article wasn't written in such a way that emphasized the average, in such a way that this really mattered.

12.5M definitely is not "idiocy" for someone who would look at Giddey and say the weaknesses he has do not fit into our team under almost any circumstances, and we'd only take them at a severe discount. Lots of successful companies will have core values that they will not deviate from unless there is an exceptional reason to do so. It is mildly interesting to know that there is at least some subset of people that think that way.

If you don't find that interesting, fair enough. I find that interesting and am glad that fact was included within the data and I got to read it. The overall picture of the data was presented in a rational way, and this fact did not have a meaningful impact on the results or analysis (which is as it should be).

You just added a ton of context that wasn't included in the question. Which was one of the major problems. The question was what they think fair value is. Fair market value and how much I will pay in my specific position are, to use your term, wildly different.

12.5 million is an absurd number based on the question that was asked. Why you refuse to acknowledge that is beyond me.

[Jcool0]

i don't think a paywalled article about a 16-person survey that includes one person saying "i would give josh giddey a 4 year, $50 million contract, but i know i'm way lower on him than most people" qualifies as clickbait. probably could have gotten someone to say something a lot more incendiary if the goal of the exercise was baiting people into clicking

Clickbait might not be the right term but its designed for engagement not learning anything meaningful.

[dougthonus]

Wow. That's what you're going with? This isn't data. It's opinions. And we are talking averages of numbers here.

It's effectively a market survey data from the people who will make the market.

I guess if I poll 5 people on what the temperature is outside, 4 people say it is 85 degrees and 1 person says it is 42 degrees, I should keep the 42 degrees in my calculations and conclude that the temperature is 76 degrees? Even though I know that is impossible?

Temperature doesn't shift based on the opinion of how hot or cold people think it is. Giddey's contract is exactly based on those opinions. It's a nonsensical comparison to take ask people a factual question and compare answers to asking people how much would you pay for a product when trying to determine the products price.

In such a question, you don't necessarily use the average (or even care about the average). That's why I noted in my response to the article, that based on it, Giddey's market value was 25M (peak value), not the average value, and made no point about the average value at all.

You seem to be debating just for the sake of debating.

No, from an integrity standpoint, it is much better to include the number and note it as an outlier than to note include the number. As I said, the article did not emphasize the average, and emphasized in much greater amounts of words the commonality of 4 years and 25M per year.

Is there any world any reasonable person believes Giddey's next contract will be 4/50?

In the world where someone doesn't like the fit of the player on their team which I would infer is due to a lot of the reasons that have been brought up in this thread, and yes, there are organizations that have a core set of beliefs and will only take something that violates those beliefs with extreme incentives to do so.

[jnrjr79]

That number should also be excluded from establishing a mean value that is worth anything in this context. That's the whole point!

The whole point is that a mean value is meaningless in the first place because players aren't paid based on mean values. The top of the market wins!

Heck, that sort of a data point would potentially be more relevant than any other, because if a team had $35M of space and valued Giddey at $35M, then Giddey would be getting a $35M contract, because he's not being paid the mean of what front offices think he's worth.

Great point. Like I said, I appreciate Doug posting the data. At least it's something. Wouldn't trust it to be extremely accurate. I'm sure all those GM's have an idea of what offer is on the table, probably better than we do. None of them can actually bid, so they can say anything. If they know the current offer is $20-$22 mill, what benefit would it be to them to say they would pay Giddey $30 mill? Or $35 mill? Not putting any pressure on the Bulls, since they can't actually do it.

Actually benefits them to say they'd pay Giddey less, especially if any of those teams are the Nets, Warriors, Philly, or every team that will be dealing with this same issue next year. Like a GM is ever really going to state their top offer up front. I don't think "Everybody else is saying $18-$20 mill, I'd pay $30 mill for him!" makes a GM look particularly clever or shrewd.

If I ask a bunch of broke guys what they would pay for a Benz and they know the current market offer is $60k, how many are likely to say they'd pay 80K?

Since they're anonymously sourced, I doubt they care too terribly much about the perception of what they say, but I agree as a general matter front office people might be inclined to give somewhat lower numbers than what actual value is since they want to be able to sign players on the cheap themselves when they have cap space.

[Stratmaster]

if a front office person genuinely believed josh giddey was worth the max, i would absolutely find that to be worthwhile information regarding his market value!

That would be an idiotic response. Like 12.5 it is completely out of touch with reality. If you see clueless opinions and input as worthwhile information... well, I guess welcome to internet journalism. When does your podcast start airing?

[jnrjr79]

12.5 mil isn't an "outlier opinion". It's idiocy. It's either plain stupidity, ignorance, or trolling. It's why they throw the top and bottom numbers out in a pool that small because they know any idiot can sway the results. It is pretty wild that you won't call "stupid" stupid.

If you were only looking at the average you could do that, but they noted the most common number was 25M (which was also the peak number). The article wasn't written in such a way that emphasized the average, in such a way that this really mattered.

12.5M definitely is not "idiocy" for someone who would look at Giddey and say the weaknesses he has do not fit into our team under almost any circumstances, and we'd only take them at a severe discount. Lots of successful companies will have core values that they will not deviate from unless there is an exceptional reason to do so. It is mildly interesting to know that there is at least some subset of people that think that way.

If you don't find that interesting, fair enough. I find that interesting and am glad that fact was included within the data and I got to read it. The overall picture of the data was presented in a rational way, and this fact did not have a meaningful impact on the results or analysis (which is as it should be).

You just added a ton of context that wasn't included in the question. Which was one of the major problems. The question was what they think fair value is. Fair market value and how much I will pay in my specific position are, to use your term, wildly different.

12.5 million is an absurd number based on the question that was asked. Why you refuse to acknowledge that is beyond me.

I don't think there's anything for me to "acknowledge" here and I find that sort of a mindset to be weird in this context. There was one guy who admitted he had a much dimmer view of Giddey than others, and therefore his view of a fair contract was outside the consensus. I have zero idea why anyone would be even a teency weency bit mad about that.

I don't agree with the guy - I'd pay Giddey $25M were I an NBA front office person, so I'm not saying he's right, I just don't get why people are taking offense to someone saying "I wouldn't pay the market rate because I don't like him as much as others do." That's a perfectly normal sentiment!