Hinkie in Hindsight?

[The KnicksFix]

Honestly. As a Knicks fan. Hinkie was a genius. If Simmons remains hurt again this year, the record will still net you a high draft pick. That coupled with the pick from the mcw swap.

You guys have embiid. Who looks amazing. Him paired with ok4. With Simmons. And oh yea. Nerlens Noel. I wish the Knicks had patience to do what hinkie did.

Genius man. Time flies and when u think about it you are set up for a long long time.

[TTP]

The salary cap is another variable you can add to the equation, along with player floor and ceiling. You're missing the point, which is that player evaluation boils down to a game of numbers. A good GM correctly identifies the odds and makes the smart bet.

I agree with what you just said but it's incongruent with what you previously said. All of your posts prior implied that the safest bet is the best, which is a pretty big misconception. Best bet means highest expected value after considering both probability and payout. A good GM considers both. Bad GMs go for the safe bets to keep their jobs.

No, there's a difference between a safe bet and a smart bet. Say you could buy a scratch ticket for $1 with a 1/10 chance of winning $5, or you could buy a scratch ticket for $2 with a 1/250 chance of winning $400. You're more likely to see a return on the first 'safe' bet, but the second bet produces the better ROI. I never implied that the safe bet is the smart bet.

Neither is a smart bet in this case.

Your initial post stated that the better GM takes the guy with the 75% chance of being a good player over the 50% and 25%. This implies that you only considered safety and not expectation. That's where I was improving your incomplete argument.

[eagereyez]

I agree with what you just said but it's incongruent with what you previously said. All of your posts prior implied that the safest bet is the best, which is a pretty big misconception. Best bet means highest expected value after considering both probability and payout. A good GM considers both. Bad GMs go for the safe bets to keep their jobs.

No, there's a difference between a safe bet and a smart bet. Say you could buy a scratch ticket for $1 with a 1/10 chance of winning $5, or you could buy a scratch ticket for $2 with a 1/250 chance of winning $400. You're more likely to see a return on the first 'safe' bet, but the second bet produces the better ROI. I never implied that the safe bet is the smart bet.

Neither is a smart bet in this case.

Your initial post stated that the better GM takes the guy with the 75% chance of being a good player over the 50% and 25%. This implies that you only considered safety and not expectation. That's where I was improving your incomplete argument.

One bet in that case is smarter than the other, which is the point.

My initial post was intentionally over-simplified. I acknowledged that a while back.

[Unbreakable99]

Honestly. As a Knicks fan. Hinkie was a genius. If Simmons remains hurt again this year, the record will still net you a high draft pick. That coupled with the pick from the mcw swap.

You guys have embiid. Who looks amazing. Him paired with ok4. With Simmons. And oh yea. Nerlens Noel. I wish the Knicks had patience to do what hinkie did.

Genius man. Time flies and when u think about it you are set up for a long long time.

Simmons will play this season. Most likely around late January or early February.

[Sixerscan]

There are very few GMs that are good at identifying and drafting talent, but the few that are good are easy to identify. It's asinine to say the draft is luck. The lottery is luck. Projecting NBA talent isn't luck.

There are guys that can get All-star players without having top 5 picks Jerry West, Larry Bird, Masai Ujiri, R.C. Buford (Gregg Popovich when he was a GM) and believe it or not Isaiah Thomas was a great in the draft. Bob Meyers is also great, but I don't know if it's him or Jerry West identifying the talent. Those guys know what they are doing at the draft. It's not luck.

The luck comes with regards to the generational talents. Where you can only get them in the top 3 picks. But even then you have to have some skill and not get stuck with low upside players like Evan Turner or Okafor when you have the opportunity to draft that high. A GM with an eye to project talent wouldn't make those mistakes.

Of course there's luck. the Warriors didn't know with 100% certainty that Steph Curry was going to be a league MVP, no more that they knew one year later with 100% certainty that Epke Udoh was going to have a better career than Paul George. These aren't computer programs, they are human beings, you can project how they will develop but at the end of the day there are uncertainties and you put yourself in the best position to get "lucky."

The "luck" that Golden State had with Steph Curry, comes from the huge number of organizations in the NBA that employ GMs do not have enough skill to project talent. There is a reason why the Warriors get Curry and Thompson outside of the top 7 and Draymond and even now McCaw in the 2nd round. There is a reason Larry Bird can get Danny Granger, Paul George, Khawi Leonard and Myles Turner from outside the #10 pick. That's not luck. That's bad drafting GMs selecting Rodney Carney, Evan Turner and Jahlil Okafor over them. Other GMs that can't identify talent, pass on Khawi Leonard and Paul George. The guys who consistently get All-star players while not having top 5 picks have that skill and many of the guys that draft in front of them dont have that skill. If you're of the mindset that most teams have competent GMs and Front offices, then you may think that many All-stars that are drafted late, are "lucky" picks. I don't see it that way. I think there are less good GMs than good ones. That's why the same teams always get good players in the draft.

So why did the Warriors take Udoh over George the year after the Curry pick? What did they decide that they got such a steal the year before they could take a year off?

Obviously evaluation skill plays a role too. The skill allows you to put yourself in position to have the best odds possible when it comes to the luck/uncertainty/whatever.

[LloydFree]

Of course there's luck. the Warriors didn't know with 100% certainty that Steph Curry was going to be a league MVP, no more that they knew one year later with 100% certainty that Epke Udoh was going to have a better career than Paul George. These aren't computer programs, they are human beings, you can project how they will develop but at the end of the day there are uncertainties and you put yourself in the best position to get "lucky."

The "luck" that Golden State had with Steph Curry, comes from the huge number of organizations in the NBA that employ GMs do not have enough skill to project talent. There is a reason why the Warriors get Curry and Thompson outside of the top 7 and Draymond and even now McCaw in the 2nd round. There is a reason Larry Bird can get Danny Granger, Paul George, Khawi Leonard and Myles Turner from outside the #10 pick. That's not luck. That's bad drafting GMs selecting Rodney Carney, Evan Turner and Jahlil Okafor over them. Other GMs that can't identify talent, pass on Khawi Leonard and Paul George. The guys who consistently get All-star players while not having top 5 picks have that skill and many of the guys that draft in front of them dont have that skill. If you're of the mindset that most teams have competent GMs and Front offices, then you may think that many All-stars that are drafted late, are "lucky" picks. I don't see it that way. I think there are less good GMs than good ones. That's why the same teams always get good players in the draft.

So why did the Warriors take Udoh over George the year after the Curry pick? What did they decide that they got such a steal the year before they could take a year off?

Obviously evaluation skill plays a role too. The skill allows you to put yourself in position to have the best odds possible when it comes to the luck/uncertainty/whatever.

So Bob Meyers makes (1) bad pick so that means he was lucky to draft Curry, Thompson and Draymond the other years. Got it.

[Ericb5]

There is a skill in selecting players who thrn out good. Jerry West is the greatest GM ever. What he has done throughout the years isn't luck. It's skill. It's not luck that wherever he goes he makes the team better and drafts great players.

There are very few GMs that are good at identifying and drafting talent, but the few that are good are easy to identify. It's asinine to say the draft is luck. The lottery is luck. Projecting NBA talent isn't luck.

There are guys that can get All-star players without having top 5 picks Jerry West, Larry Bird, Masai Ujiri, R.C. Buford (Gregg Popovich when he was a GM) and believe it or not Isaiah Thomas was a great in the draft. Bob Meyers is also great, but I don't know if it's him or Jerry West identifying the talent. Those guys know what they are doing at the draft. It's not luck.

The luck comes with regards to the generational talents. Where you can only get them in the top 3 picks. But even then you have to have some skill and not get stuck with low upside players like Evan Turner or Okafor when you have the opportunity to draft that high. A GM with an eye to project talent wouldn't make those mistakes.

Of course there's luck. the Warriors didn't know with 100% certainty that Steph Curry was going to be a league MVP, no more that they knew one year later with 100% certainty that Epke Udoh was going to have a better career than Paul George. These aren't computer programs, they are human beings, you can project how they will develop but at the end of the day there are uncertainties and you put yourself in the best position to get "lucky."

That's not the point. It isn't whether you get an MVP or not. It's whether you can draft successful players over busts.

Plus, it isn't like you just select a player and then have no influence on their development. Part of the skill is developing what you draft.

What would curry have been if he had been drafted on the Kings?

Drafting skill is more about avoiding busts than it is finding great players. There usually aren't great players available at the 8th pick, but there are lots of good players available in every draft at that slot, and making sure you get a good player and avoiding the busts is the real key.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sixerscan]

There are very few GMs that are good at identifying and drafting talent, but the few that are good are easy to identify. It's asinine to say the draft is luck. The lottery is luck. Projecting NBA talent isn't luck.

There are guys that can get All-star players without having top 5 picks Jerry West, Larry Bird, Masai Ujiri, R.C. Buford (Gregg Popovich when he was a GM) and believe it or not Isaiah Thomas was a great in the draft. Bob Meyers is also great, but I don't know if it's him or Jerry West identifying the talent. Those guys know what they are doing at the draft. It's not luck.

The luck comes with regards to the generational talents. Where you can only get them in the top 3 picks. But even then you have to have some skill and not get stuck with low upside players like Evan Turner or Okafor when you have the opportunity to draft that high. A GM with an eye to project talent wouldn't make those mistakes.

Of course there's luck. the Warriors didn't know with 100% certainty that Steph Curry was going to be a league MVP, no more that they knew one year later with 100% certainty that Epke Udoh was going to have a better career than Paul George. These aren't computer programs, they are human beings, you can project how they will develop but at the end of the day there are uncertainties and you put yourself in the best position to get "lucky."

That's not the point. It isn't whether you get an MVP or not. It's whether you can draft successful players over busts.

Plus, it isn't like you just select a player and then have no influence on their development. Part of the skill is developing what you draft.

What would curry have been if he had been drafted on the Kings?

Drafting skill is more about avoiding busts than it is finding great players. There usually aren't great players available at the 8th pick, but there are lots of good players available in every draft at that slot, and making sure you get a good player and avoiding the busts is the real key.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whether or not you draft a player that turns into a success or a bust has a degree of luck or uncertainty in it.

Whether or not you can develop a player's skill after you draft him has a degree of luck or uncertainty in it.

Can't believe you guys are really arguing against this... do you guys actually think the only factor in success or failure in this league is competency? Like you follow a team that has waited for 2 years to see if Joel Embiid could get healthy come on...

[Ericb5]

Of course there's luck. the Warriors didn't know with 100% certainty that Steph Curry was going to be a league MVP, no more that they knew one year later with 100% certainty that Epke Udoh was going to have a better career than Paul George. These aren't computer programs, they are human beings, you can project how they will develop but at the end of the day there are uncertainties and you put yourself in the best position to get "lucky."

That's not the point. It isn't whether you get an MVP or not. It's whether you can draft successful players over busts.

Plus, it isn't like you just select a player and then have no influence on their development. Part of the skill is developing what you draft.

What would curry have been if he had been drafted on the Kings?

Drafting skill is more about avoiding busts than it is finding great players. There usually aren't great players available at the 8th pick, but there are lots of good players available in every draft at that slot, and making sure you get a good player and avoiding the busts is the real key.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whether or not you draft a player that turns into a success or a bust has a degree of luck or uncertainty in it.

Whether or not you can develop a player's skill after you draft him has a degree of luck or uncertainty in it.

Can't believe you guys are really arguing against this... do you guys actually think the only factor in success or failure in this league is competency? Like you follow a team that has waited for 2 years to see if Joel Embiid could get healthy come on...

There is a degree of luck. I agree. The overwhelming factor is skill.

Nobody gets it right every time, and the best guys still draft bad players every once in a while, but it isn't 50-50 between luck and skill. It is more like 80-20 skill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ericb5]

More importantly, there is value in having the right philosophy when drafting.

The classic mistake that should never ever be made by anyone ever again is not drafting a player because you drafted a similar player the year before.

If you go into the draft thinking that you need to find a certain position, and he BPA on the board isn't that position, you have two options. You either take the BPA, or you trade out.

The guys that have bad results often aren't following the right philosophy.

You draft for talent, and you trade for fit. You also sign free agents for fit.

Especially in the modern basketball era where the most talented prospects are often not ready for the league yet, you have patience and discipline, and draft for talent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sixerscan]

Ok I'm on board with that.

[zimpy27]

Jordan, Thomas, Bird, Magic, Kareem, Olajuwon, Shaq, Duncan, Wade, Kobe, Garnett, Dirk, LeBron, Curry

Going back over 30 years in NBA history and every team that ever won the NBA championship had a top 5 player all time at their position (04 pistons is the only exception).

Hinkie knew this, so he kept selecting the player in each draft believed to be the best player regardless of their position.

Well Embiid can be that guy. Plus you get Simmons and Okafor who could both potentially be top 10 talents at their position. Then above average NBA talent in Saric and Noel.

[LloydFree]

Jordan, Thomas, Bird, Magic, Kareem, Olajuwon, Shaq, Duncan, Wade, Kobe, Garnett, Dirk, LeBron, Curry

Going back over 30 years in NBA history and every team that ever won the NBA championship had a top 5 player all time at their position (04 pistons is the only exception).

Hinkie knew this, so he kept selecting the player in each draft believed to be the best player regardless of their position.

Well Embiid can be that guy. Plus you get Simmons and Okafor who could both potentially be top 10 talents at their position. Then above average NBA talent in Saric and Noel.

It is so irritating that guys keep trying to slip Okafor's name into a grouping with Embiid and Simmons as potential great players. Okafor isn't going to be anybody's top 10 anything.

[zimpy27]

Jordan, Thomas, Bird, Magic, Kareem, Olajuwon, Shaq, Duncan, Wade, Kobe, Garnett, Dirk, LeBron, Curry

Going back over 30 years in NBA history and every team that ever won the NBA championship had a top 5 player all time at their position (04 pistons is the only exception).

Hinkie knew this, so he kept selecting the player in each draft believed to be the best player regardless of their position.

Well Embiid can be that guy. Plus you get Simmons and Okafor who could both potentially be top 10 talents at their position. Then above average NBA talent in Saric and Noel.

It is so irritating that guys keep trying to slip Okafor's name into a grouping with Embiid and Simmons as potential great players. Okafor isn't going to be anybody's top 10 anything.

Why can't he? He's 20 years old, had a 17.9 PER rookie season, will be learning defense against embiid in practice, got in better shape. I still think he has the potential, he has great footwork and touch.

[76thBearCub]

Jordan, Thomas, Bird, Magic, Kareem, Olajuwon, Shaq, Duncan, Wade, Kobe, Garnett, Dirk, LeBron, Curry

Going back over 30 years in NBA history and every team that ever won the NBA championship had a top 5 player all time at their position (04 pistons is the only exception).

Hinkie knew this, so he kept selecting the player in each draft believed to be the best player regardless of their position.

Well Embiid can be that guy. Plus you get Simmons and Okafor who could both potentially be top 10 talents at their position. Then above average NBA talent in Saric and Noel.

It is so irritating that guys keep trying to slip Okafor's name into a grouping with Embiid and Simmons as potential great players. Okafor isn't going to be anybody's top 10 anything.

I don't have giant expectations for him either, but you seem to have some sort of serious agenda against him.

[LloydFree]

Jordan, Thomas, Bird, Magic, Kareem, Olajuwon, Shaq, Duncan, Wade, Kobe, Garnett, Dirk, LeBron, Curry

Going back over 30 years in NBA history and every team that ever won the NBA championship had a top 5 player all time at their position (04 pistons is the only exception).

Hinkie knew this, so he kept selecting the player in each draft believed to be the best player regardless of their position.

Well Embiid can be that guy. Plus you get Simmons and Okafor who could both potentially be top 10 talents at their position. Then above average NBA talent in Saric and Noel.

It is so irritating that guys keep trying to slip Okafor's name into a grouping with Embiid and Simmons as potential great players. Okafor isn't going to be anybody's top 10 anything.

Why can't he? He's 20 years old, had a 17.9 PER rookie season, will be learning defense against embiid in practice, got in better shape. I still think he has the potential, he has great footwork and touch.

If Okafor was a potential top 10 Center in this league, there would be teams breaking down the 76ers door trying to get him. The 76ers couldn't trade Okafor for anybody drafted in the top 10 of last year's draft, outside of that sorry Frank "The tank".

[TTP]

Jordan, Thomas, Bird, Magic, Kareem, Olajuwon, Shaq, Duncan, Wade, Kobe, Garnett, Dirk, LeBron, Curry

Going back over 30 years in NBA history and every team that ever won the NBA championship had a top 5 player all time at their position (04 pistons is the only exception).

Hinkie knew this, so he kept selecting the player in each draft believed to be the best player regardless of their position.

Well Embiid can be that guy. Plus you get Simmons and Okafor who could both potentially be top 10 talents at their position. Then above average NBA talent in Saric and Noel.

It is so irritating that guys keep trying to slip Okafor's name into a grouping with Embiid and Simmons as potential great players. Okafor isn't going to be anybody's top 10 anything.

Why can't he? He's 20 years old, had a 17.9 PER rookie season, will be learning defense against embiid in practice, got in better shape. I still think he has the potential, he has great footwork and touch.

If you're going to use one advanced stat to measure a player (which is a mistake to begin with), PER is a pretty bad choice. It doesn't really measure defense. It also rewards black hole volume scorers.

RPM, while also imperfect, is a much better all-encompassing stat and does a better job measuring intangible contributions like good defense that doesn't result in a block or steal.

Okafor is the type of player that benefits from PER but gets crushed in advanced statistics that accurately measure team offensive and defensive contributions that don't show up in the box score.

[Ericb5]

Jordan, Thomas, Bird, Magic, Kareem, Olajuwon, Shaq, Duncan, Wade, Kobe, Garnett, Dirk, LeBron, Curry

Going back over 30 years in NBA history and every team that ever won the NBA championship had a top 5 player all time at their position (04 pistons is the only exception).

Hinkie knew this, so he kept selecting the player in each draft believed to be the best player regardless of their position.

Well Embiid can be that guy. Plus you get Simmons and Okafor who could both potentially be top 10 talents at their position. Then above average NBA talent in Saric and Noel.

It is so irritating that guys keep trying to slip Okafor's name into a grouping with Embiid and Simmons as potential great players. Okafor isn't going to be anybody's top 10 anything.

He isn't going to be a "great" player in the class of Simmons or Embiid, but he can still be an all star. Probably not with us, but he is more talented than you give him credit for.

I don't count Okafor as part of the core, but I think he is still auditioning for that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Unbreakable99]

Jordan, Thomas, Bird, Magic, Kareem, Olajuwon, Shaq, Duncan, Wade, Kobe, Garnett, Dirk, LeBron, Curry

Going back over 30 years in NBA history and every team that ever won the NBA championship had a top 5 player all time at their position (04 pistons is the only exception).

Hinkie knew this, so he kept selecting the player in each draft believed to be the best player regardless of their position.

Well Embiid can be that guy. Plus you get Simmons and Okafor who could both potentially be top 10 talents at their position. Then above average NBA talent in Saric and Noel.

It is so irritating that guys keep trying to slip Okafor's name into a grouping with Embiid and Simmons as potential great players. Okafor isn't going to be anybody's top 10 anything.

I'm so angry with Hinkie that he drafted Okafor over Porzingis. Ugh. If we had Embiid Porzingis and Simmons's we would be a serious problem. We still should be a problem with Embiid and Simmons but damn we should have Porzingis too. I'll never forgive Hinkie for that and I love him in every other thing he did but he blew it last year. And now thinking more and more about it it makes me even more angry because even if Embiid wasn't healthy and he had concerns about his health, what was the benefit of drafting another Center when we already had Noel as the Embiid insurance? Yeah maybe he wanted Russell but who cares he was gone. Porzingis should have been the pick not another Center who had serious flaws on the defensive end.

[Embiid P]

Jordan, Thomas, Bird, Magic, Kareem, Olajuwon, Shaq, Duncan, Wade, Kobe, Garnett, Dirk, LeBron, Curry

Going back over 30 years in NBA history and every team that ever won the NBA championship had a top 5 player all time at their position (04 pistons is the only exception).

Hinkie knew this, so he kept selecting the player in each draft believed to be the best player regardless of their position.

Well Embiid can be that guy. Plus you get Simmons and Okafor who could both potentially be top 10 talents at their position. Then above average NBA talent in Saric and Noel.

It is so irritating that guys keep trying to slip Okafor's name into a grouping with Embiid and Simmons as potential great players. Okafor isn't going to be anybody's top 10 anything.

I'm so angry with Hinkie that he drafted Okafor over Porzingis. Ugh. If we had Embiid Porzingis and Simmons's we would be a serious problem. We still should be a problem with Embiid and Simmons but damn we should have Porzingis too. I'll never forgive Hinkie for that and I love him in every other thing he did but he blew it last year. And now thinking more and more about it it makes me even more angry because even if Embiid wasn't healthy and he had concerns about his health, what was the benefit of drafting another Center when we already had Noel as the Embiid insurance? Yeah maybe he wanted Russell but who cares he was gone. Porzingis should have been the pick not another Center who had serious flaws on the defensive end.

Who knows? If we had Porzingis, we might not have even gotten Simmons. I get that Porzingis is turning out to be the better player but Okafor was the no-brainer pick at the time. Plus, didn't Harris and co. all but force Hinkie to take Okafor after the Embiid setback? Not to mention that Porzingis's agent told Hinkie before the draft not to take his client.