2022 NBA Draft Part II

[Ruzious]

Continued from viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2074868&start=2040#p97703811

[clyde21]

Guess you just glossed over my entire post.

i didn't - you didn't answer my question.

look - this is simple...can you prove correlation for these guys in terms of NBA success and tournament play? yes or no? if you can't, you don't have an argument here.

[jman3134]

Guess you just glossed over my entire post.

i didn't - you didn't answer my question.

look - this is simple...can you prove correlation for these guys in terms of NBA success and tournament play? yes or no? if you can't, you don't have an argument here.

Statement 1: "The tournament is completely irrelevant."

Statement 2: "The tournament is completely irrelevant for blue chip recruits."

Statement 3: "Look at the MOPs of the NCAA tournament. Does that look like NBA success?" Literally you could do the same for college regular season ppg list.

Statement 4: "Prove the correlation between NCAA tournament success and NBA success." I could say prove the correlation between college success and NBA success for blue chip recruits and then cherry pick examples where players performed poorly in college and then were drafted high and had good careers. Obviously, that is not true either though.

No one is answering your question because it is an unanswerable question, as I have stated 20 times. You can't prove a correlation with 0 data points (NBA front office sentiment before tournament, NBA front office sentiment after tournament) or arbitrary definitions of "good tournament, bad tournament" (Ja apparently performed poorly because he shot 38% one game). So now let's arbitrarily shift the argument to the player needs to outperform their metrics in every game of the tournament. If they don't outperform in every game, then obviously the NCAA tournament has 0 impact on NBA draft position. The entire line of reasoning is flawed and inconsistent.

And all of your examples were cherry picked data points (I provided 5 counters immediately after your first post). Neither of our examples proved either argument. I provided 3 blue chips from the last draft whose draft position likely changed. As I explained, improvement in draft position equates to greater NBA success. I am sure you would concede that. NCAA tournament performances have raised and lowered draft stock as far as we can tell as people outside NBA front offices. Thus, the NCAA tournament matters.

Your entire argument replete with shifting goalposts, is an attempt to try to wiggle out of an obviously false statement. Proving a correlation between NBA success and NCAA tournament stats is not the same as "the tournament is irrelevant." And because there is no definition of "good" NCAA tournament stats, this entire conversation is hot air to mask the fact that your first statement was obviously wrong. I'm ok dropping this and moving on if you are.

[clyde21]

Guess you just glossed over my entire post.

i didn't - you didn't answer my question.

look - this is simple...can you prove correlation for these guys in terms of NBA success and tournament play? yes or no? if you can't, you don't have an argument here.

Statement 1: "The tournament is completely irrelevant."

Statement 2: "The tournament is completely irrelevant for blue chip recruits."

Statement 3: "Look at the MOPs of the NCAA tournament. Does that look like NBA success?" Literally you could do the same for college regular season ppg list.

Statement 4: "Prove the correlation between NCAA tournament success and NBA success." I could say prove the correlation between college success and NBA success for blue chip recruits and then cherry pick examples where players performed poorly in college and then were drafted high and had good careers. Obviously, that is not true either though.

No one is answering your question because it is an unanswerable question, as I have stated 20 times. You can't prove a correlation with 0 data points (NBA front office sentiment before tournament, NBA front office sentiment after tournament) or arbitrary definitions of "good tournament, bad tournament" (Ja apparently performed poorly because he shot 38% one game). So now let's arbitrarily shift the argument to the player needs to outperform their metrics in every game of the tournament. If they don't outperform in every game, then obviously the NCAA tournament has 0 impact on NBA draft position. The entire line of reasoning is flawed and inconsistent.

And all of your examples were cherry picked data points (I provided 5 counters immediately after your first post). Neither of our examples proved either argument. I provided 3 blue chips from the last draft whose draft position likely changed. As I explained, improvement in draft position equates to greater NBA success. I am sure you would concede that. NCAA tournament performances have raised and lowered draft stock as far as we can tell as people outside NBA front offices. Thus, the NCAA tournament matters.

Your entire argument replete with shifting goalposts, is an attempt to try to wiggle out of an obviously false statement. Proving a correlation between NBA success and NCAA tournament stats is not the same as "the tournament is irrelevant." And because there is no definition of "good" NCAA tournament stats, this entire conversation is hot air to mask the fact that your first statement was obviously wrong. I'm ok dropping this and moving on if you are.

and you have been disputing every single one of those statements as the conversation evolved, yet gave us ZERO data points every step of the way and pretended you're making an argument here.

let's simplify it:

how much correlation do you think there is between success in the tournament and going on to being a great player in the NBA? specifically for the blue chip prospects we're talking about.

you must seem to think there is some level of correlation here, prove it. and no, you don't prove correlation with three players.

ill save you the trouble and tell you there is no correlation, hence the 'irrelevant' part. no one is taking a 2 game sample size over 30. ESPECIALLY when you're talking about 18/19 yr olds where high variance exists.

[jman3134]

no one is taking a 2 game sample size over 30.

20th Strawman

From me 4 posts ago:

I still don't think you see what I am saying. 1 or 2 games do not negate the whole of the overall profile or establish a "new top prospect". The sample size is too small for that. No one is saying that. Nor is anyone saying that it is more important than all regular season games combined. I explained that multiple times.

We are just spinning in circles. Sentiment is not the same as statistical correlation.

how much correlation do you think there is between success in the tournament and going on to being a great player in the NBA? specifically for the blue chip prospects we're talking about.

My entire argument is that the games impact sentiment and thus affect stock, draft position, and ultimately NBA success. I have not deviated from this the entire time. There is no way to prove or disprove the preceding statement because we do not have execs boards pre and post tournament.

So now you are reframing your statement and arguing that there has to be a correlation between NCAA tournament stats and NBA performance, which I haven't even addressed. This again isn't my argument, and also wasn't your original statement. Hypothetically, if there was no correlation, this would not even prove that the NCAA tournament is irrelevant. The whole thing is a false equivalency.

But, if I were to prove such a thing (which I won't bother b/c it is a small sample), by what standard would something be considered a "good NCAA tournament performance?" And what is NBA success? We previously used basic stats as a proxy because we can't even agree on what is considered a "good NCAA tournament" because you will then cherry pick FG% of one game and say Ja Morant had a bad tournament.

As I have said 50 times: just because a player has 10 rebounds in the NCAA tournament, I am in no way saying that this equates to at least 3 rebounds per game in the NBA. That has never been what I am saying or trying to prove. I wouldn't try to run that correlation for full season NCAA scoring or full season TS% either. This is not how correlations work and such a correlation wouldn't work with 2 data points.

Five days ago, I wrote this statement in an article pre tournament:

While most of college basketball’s top players are known commodities (or their role is fixed and this event won’t boost their draft stock, like Indiana’s Trayce Jackson-Davis), there are still a few guys who can improve their standing if they flash in this year’s NCAA tournament.

[SelfishPlayer]

Jalen Williams out of Santa Clara looks interesting. He has great length for a guard. He has the length of a wing. His passing ability is one of the best that I've seen from all of the prospects alongside Alondes Williams. Being that he's required to do a variety of different things for his team, and produces well, he looks like a nice roll of the dice on a role player prospect.

[clyde21]

I still don't think you see what I am saying. 1 or 2 games do not negate the whole of the overall profile or establish a "new top prospect". The sample size is too small for that. No one is saying that. Nor is anyone saying that it is more important than all regular season games combined. I explained that multiple times.

that's the entire point - tournament play almost never deviates a prospect's status. blue chip guys are still blue chip guys regardless of how they perform in the tournament, and it has no bearing on their outlooks in the NBA...sounds like you agree?

My entire argument is that the games impact sentiment and thus affect stock, draft position, and ultimately NBA success. I have not deviated from this the entire time. There is no way to prove or disprove the preceding statement because we do not have execs boards pre and post tournament.

except they don't - i have given u numerous examples countering this.

Deandre Ayton - was a 1AD in the tournament, lost against Buffalo and shot 46% from the field (vs 61% in the reg season)
Marvin Bagley - played FOUR games, averaged 21/8 and shot 70%

Ayton still went ahead of Bagley, and guess who went on to be the better player in the NBA?

So now you are reframing your statement and arguing that there has to be a correlation between NCAA tournament stats and NBA performance, which I haven't even addressed. This again isn't my argument, and also wasn't your original statement. Hypothetically, if there was no correlation, this would not even prove that the NCAA tournament is irrelevant. The whole thing is a false equivalency.

of course there has to be correlation if you're claiming that it matters. if there is no correlation why does it matter?

But, if I were to prove such a thing (which I won't bother b/c it is a small sample), by what standard would something be considered a "good NCAA tournament performance?" And what is NBA success? We previously used basic stats as a proxy because we can't even agree on what is considered a "good NCAA tournament" because you will then cherry pick FG% of one game and say Ja Morant had a bad tournament.

this entire discussion started by Big J saying these guys have been underperforming in the tournament - that was the entire point...showing him that that there are many blue chip players who have underperformed in the tournament and it didn't matter whatsoever...in fact it happens more often than not seemingly.

at this point it seems like you're trying to be play both sides, you agree that it does matter but also agree the small sample size is meaningless...which is it?

[Ruzious]

Jalen Williams out of Santa Clara looks interesting. He has great length for a guard. He has the length of a wing. His passing ability is one of the best that I've seen from all of the prospects alongside Alondes Williams. Being that he's required to do a variety of different things for his team, and produces well, he looks like a nice roll of the dice on a role player prospect.

Yeah, I think he's making the case for being a late first.

[Kobblehead]

Jalen Williams out of Santa Clara looks interesting. He has great length for a guard. He has the length of a wing. His passing ability is one of the best that I've seen from all of the prospects alongside Alondes Williams. Being that he's required to do a variety of different things for his team, and produces well, he looks like a nice roll of the dice on a role player prospect.

Good call on Jalen Williams. I like him a bit. He's got really good SG size at 6'6" 190ish and he's good some quality offensive skill with his combination of shooting/passing.

[Ruzious]

A player from the NIT I think has gone way underrated (though we do have a separate thread for him) is Isiaih Mosely (as opposed to Isaiah Mobley) from Missouri State. Pure scorer with a great touch - from 3 as well as floaters. Great step-back. Can score in so many ways. 50/40/90 shooter.

Watch on YouTube

Does anyone have him even being drafted. He's a junior but I assume he'll go pro - since he'll turn 22 in May, and he's got nothing to prove in college.

[NYPiston]

this entire discussion started by Big J saying these guys have been underperforming in the tournament - that was the entire point...showing him that that there are many blue chip players who have underperformed in the tournament and it didn't matter whatsoever...in fact it happens more often than not seemingly.

at this point it seems like you're trying to be play both sides, you agree that it does matter but also agree the small sample size is meaningless...which is it?

You don't even have to go far back to support your point.
Two of the best rookies this season in Barnes and Wagner were virtual non factors in the tournament on teams that made a deep run, Wagner was actually terrible in the UCLA game. Mobley was kind of meh, Cade struggled a bit with Oregon State.

The problem with correlating tournament performance to future NBA success is that it's a small sample size in a tournament where a whole bunch of random stuff happens. When discussing prospects that are fairly even going into the tournament, performance can maybe sway an opinion slightly in one direction or the other but by and large, tourney performance is pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. It's more a talking point for fans than anything else.

Of course, scouts want to see how these guys perform on the big stage but at this point, they have a pretty good idea of what these players are all about especially the top guys who have been scouted to death for months/years.

[reanimator]

IMO the tournament is more important for smaller school prospects who may not have enough games vs top tier talent as data points (Chet maybe the best example this year). Otherwise, tournament games should be weighed as any other.

[SeattleJazzFan]

A player from the NIT I think has gone way underrated (though we do have a separate thread for him) is Isiaih Mosely (as opposed to Isaiah Mobley) from Missouri State. Pure scorer with a great touch - from 3 as well as floaters. Great step-back. Can score in so many ways. 50/40/90 shooter.

Watch on YouTube

Does anyone have him even being drafted. He's a junior but I assume he'll go pro - since he'll turn 22 in May, and he's got nothing to prove in college.

thanks for mentioning this guy. his production is very impressive. if they are still in it i will definitely be taking a look

(edit) nvm, they lost to OU in the first round, but mosley put 28 and 10 on OU in the loss.

[jman3134]

that's the entire point - tournament play almost never deviates a prospect's status. blue chip guys are still blue chip guys regardless of how they perform in the tournament, and it has no bearing on their outlooks in the NBA...sounds like you agree?

This will be my last try here.

It usually or should not deviate who a prospect is. If it does, either the scout hasn't done much work on the player, or there is something unique about the style contrast in the tournament game that was not seen in the regular season. I said that at like post 2. For midmajor guys like McCollum, Morant (non-blue chips), it would obviously hold more weight, though these guys were known commodities coming into the games as well. No one ever said use tournament games in a vacuum and judge them vs. NBA statistics. That's a strawman you keep repeating. The entire procedure is qualitative btw. If CJ McCollum pops (or stinks it up if it is another midmajor prospect) during an NCAA tournament game, you more heavily weight those games in your assessment than other regular season games, but continue to examine who he is in workouts and the combine. It is a process, not a vacuum ("like oh the tournament's over, my work is done").

except they don't - i have given u numerous examples countering this.

Deandre Ayton - was a 1AD in the tournament, lost against Buffalo and shot 46% from the field (vs 61% in the reg season)
Marvin Bagley - played FOUR games, averaged 21/8 and shot 70%

Ayton still went ahead of Bagley, and guess who went on to be the better player in the NBA?

Ok, so a two game sample did not differentiate two prospects. That does not prove your point that it has never differentiated any prospects, and therefore tournament games are irrelevant for valuation sake? Of course not every prospect is differentiated by their tournament performance. Not every prospect is even in the tournament. None of this suggests the games are irrelevant and we might as well not bother watching. Even at the lowest concession point (I think they generally matter a bit more), NCAA tournament games matter, but would be weighted the same as other games. How they would/could change a player's value, as I stated earlier, is if they show a style contrast the prospect did not see during the year.

It is impossible for your examples to have proven sentiment before and after the tournament unless you are an NBA scout with the Warriors' big board pre tournament and post tournament. Your statements of fact do not say anything about scout's sentiment during a specific period in time. You and I are not NBA scouts (at least that's what I am guessing). We can assume that they more heavily weight 30 games vs. 2 generally, but we can't prove anything about sentiment unless we have inside information.

of course there has to be correlation if you're claiming that it matters. if there is no correlation why does it matter?

A "correlation" by definition is a statistical term describing the degree to which two variables move in coordination with one another.

Point 1: you correlate two statistical variables. I asked you which statistical variables to correlate and you did not provide any. If we were to rely on points, you could say some prospects are drafted for their rebounding and defense. Maybe you would use PER, but still, the defensive argument would still apply.

Point 2: The data derived from correlating a 2 game sample is meaningless and random. It would not tell you anything statistically and therefore it cannot be used to prove your point.

Correlating "tournament success" to "NBA success" would be like saying (I'm making this up) there is a relationship between tournament ppg and NBA ppg. No such relationship exists for college ppg over the entire season vs. NBA ppg. So, it proves absolutely nothing. If you then applied your same logic to college ppg, you would be suggesting that all college games are "irrelevant".

this entire discussion started by Big J saying these guys have been underperforming in the tournament - that was the entire point...showing him that that there are many blue chip players who have underperformed in the tournament and it didn't matter whatsoever...in fact it happens more often than not seemingly.

at this point it seems like you're trying to be play both sides, you agree that it does matter but also agree the small sample size is meaningless...which is it?

The post I quoted was literally from my first or second response to you. So I have held the same argument the entire time. This started because you made the statement, "Tournament games are completely irrelevant" or something to that effect. I stated that I disagreed with that. That was all.

[clyde21]

they ARE irrelevant, and you've agreed with it multiple times already without even realizing it.

Chet/Paolo can **** the bed in their next game and take the L, and they are still gonna be top 3 picks, and it has very little bearing on their outlook in the NBA.

[Chanel Bomber]

Guess you just glossed over my entire post.

i didn't - you didn't answer my question.

look - this is simple...can you prove correlation for these guys in terms of NBA success and tournament play? yes or no? if you can't, you don't have an argument here.

Statement 1: "The tournament is completely irrelevant."

Statement 2: "The tournament is completely irrelevant for blue chip recruits."

Statement 3: "Look at the MOPs of the NCAA tournament. Does that look like NBA success?" Literally you could do the same for college regular season ppg list.

Statement 4: "Prove the correlation between NCAA tournament success and NBA success." I could say prove the correlation between college success and NBA success for blue chip recruits and then cherry pick examples where players performed poorly in college and then were drafted high and had good careers. Obviously, that is not true either though.

No one is answering your question because it is an unanswerable question, as I have stated 20 times. You can't prove a correlation with 0 data points (NBA front office sentiment before tournament, NBA front office sentiment after tournament) or arbitrary definitions of "good tournament, bad tournament" (Ja apparently performed poorly because he shot 38% one game). So now let's arbitrarily shift the argument to the player needs to outperform their metrics in every game of the tournament. If they don't outperform in every game, then obviously the NCAA tournament has 0 impact on NBA draft position. The entire line of reasoning is flawed and inconsistent.

And all of your examples were cherry picked data points (I provided 5 counters immediately after your first post). Neither of our examples proved either argument. I provided 3 blue chips from the last draft whose draft position likely changed. As I explained, improvement in draft position equates to greater NBA success. I am sure you would concede that. NCAA tournament performances have raised and lowered draft stock as far as we can tell as people outside NBA front offices. Thus, the NCAA tournament matters.

Your entire argument replete with shifting goalposts, is an attempt to try to wiggle out of an obviously false statement. Proving a correlation between NBA success and NCAA tournament stats is not the same as "the tournament is irrelevant." And because there is no definition of "good" NCAA tournament stats, this entire conversation is hot air to mask the fact that your first statement was obviously wrong. I'm ok dropping this and moving on if you are.

Not jumping into your debate with clyde21, but can you expand a little bit on the bolded part? I'm genuinely curious, and interested to read more.

It would make sense that a player who improves his draft position late has shown gradual progress (on an upwards trend), whereas a player who stays put or regresses likely still benefits from the perception from his days in high-school i.e. outdated information.

I remember hearing (I think) that players whose draft position rises in the weeks and months leading to the draft tend to have a higher success rate. I think it was mentioned in a conversation about Westbrook. I haven't done any research on my end that would prove or disprove this.

[jman3134]

i didn't - you didn't answer my question.

look - this is simple...can you prove correlation for these guys in terms of NBA success and tournament play? yes or no? if you can't, you don't have an argument here.

Statement 1: "The tournament is completely irrelevant."

Statement 2: "The tournament is completely irrelevant for blue chip recruits."

Statement 3: "Look at the MOPs of the NCAA tournament. Does that look like NBA success?" Literally you could do the same for college regular season ppg list.

Statement 4: "Prove the correlation between NCAA tournament success and NBA success." I could say prove the correlation between college success and NBA success for blue chip recruits and then cherry pick examples where players performed poorly in college and then were drafted high and had good careers. Obviously, that is not true either though.

No one is answering your question because it is an unanswerable question, as I have stated 20 times. You can't prove a correlation with 0 data points (NBA front office sentiment before tournament, NBA front office sentiment after tournament) or arbitrary definitions of "good tournament, bad tournament" (Ja apparently performed poorly because he shot 38% one game). So now let's arbitrarily shift the argument to the player needs to outperform their metrics in every game of the tournament. If they don't outperform in every game, then obviously the NCAA tournament has 0 impact on NBA draft position. The entire line of reasoning is flawed and inconsistent.

And all of your examples were cherry picked data points (I provided 5 counters immediately after your first post). Neither of our examples proved either argument. I provided 3 blue chips from the last draft whose draft position likely changed. As I explained, improvement in draft position equates to greater NBA success. I am sure you would concede that. NCAA tournament performances have raised and lowered draft stock as far as we can tell as people outside NBA front offices. Thus, the NCAA tournament matters.

Your entire argument replete with shifting goalposts, is an attempt to try to wiggle out of an obviously false statement. Proving a correlation between NBA success and NCAA tournament stats is not the same as "the tournament is irrelevant." And because there is no definition of "good" NCAA tournament stats, this entire conversation is hot air to mask the fact that your first statement was obviously wrong. I'm ok dropping this and moving on if you are.

Not jumping into your debate with clyde21, but can you expand a little bit on the bolded part? I'm genuinely curious, and interested to read more.

It would make sense that a player who improves his draft position late has shown gradual progress (on an upwards trend), whereas a player who stays put or regresses likely still benefits from the perception from his days in high-school i.e. outdated information.

I remember hearing (I think) that players whose draft position rises in the weeks and months leading to the draft tend to have a higher success rate. I think it was mentioned in a conversation about Westbrook. I haven't done any research on my end that would prove or disprove this.

This hits at the crux of what we are debating. My point is that it does not matter whether or not a player's perception "should" change based on a late game sample. The question is whether they "do". I do not have data regarding NBA teams and their pre and post tournament perceptions. The only proxy I could use is ESPN (and I have not tracked that) because they talk to teams and develop a consensus in their mocks. To suggest that someone is a late riser in the draft, in and of itself, goes against what clyde is saying. We clearly see ESPN's mocks change pre-, post tournament, and every couple of weeks leading up to the draft. The issue is they do not update frequently during the year and their data points are probably from their own scouting initially, which often is at odds with reality (which many of us point out year after year and is the reason we go on here).

I know "the tournament is irrelevant" to be factually inaccurate because anecdotally, I attend the PIT every season and learn through the grape vine what unnamed execs (no one ever gives sources obviously) are saying about some of these guys. Things like, "I liked what so and so did well because it was a new wrinkle he did not show at his school." So I understand that every data point is fundamentally important and can sway someone one way or another.

Also, I know human beings. We have cognitive biases, not the least of which is recency bias. Scouting is an inexact science and not everyone is putting regular season data points into a model, and then the model spits out the name of a player they will draft. If that were the case, about a quarter of the teams would be using the same system as Family Guy does to create jokes (via the South Park skit) lol. Every data point is significant and relevant.

Now, for your question:
I understand your logic, but I don't think that is what happens in most circumstances. Oftentimes, there is a ton that goes into these decisions that can make a prospect rise or fall. If you have ever watched the movie Draft Day with Kevin Costner, it is like this on steroids. There is disinformation, telephone, all kinds of things out there. Teams can workout a player (public information) as a smokescreen for a player they are 100% certain they are picking and have promised already. So part of the down and up trending, has to do with consensus from this game of telephone regarding what players other teams are valuing. Sometimes there are murmurings that a player performed super well in a workout with another team, and if he is high on that team's draft board, maybe they reach for him. None of that has anything to do with college statistics whatsoever or tournament performance. My point is that late draft, there are a ton of things from workouts to rumors that can shift the landscape and are not even performance based necessarily.

I think it makes sense that players who rise late in the process have higher success rates. The reason for this is probably because they worked them out against some of their current players, and possibly these guys stood out. That, coupled with their performances at the combine/PIT, take them out of their college system and gauge how adaptable they are at fitting in on the fly with other players utilizing a generic horns set playbook. Context is important in this case. For example, I watched John Konchar look fairly mediocre at the PIT, but we all knew this should not impact his stock as much because of the touches he was getting. He was being forced to create his own shot and not taking open threes. So context is everything. The same thing happened for Terence Mann, who was AWFUL at the PIT, yet I think he played well at the combine. Mann didn't shoot well, but we all knew he can ball and simply didn't have the ball in his hands enough to perform well. On the other hand, I've seen Richaun Holmes go from unknown to stud (he was amazing at the PIT) almost overnight. Robert Covington too. I'm providing all this extra detail beyond your question because I hope it provides insight.

What you said about high school perception can apply to certain blue chip recruits. I am speculating, but I imagine that this happened to BJ Boston last year. Then again, there are highly rated guy like Bazley who I think only went to prep school, but showed out at the combine and was drafted in the 1st round. The issue I was bringing up earlier is also that it relates to perceived consensus. If you think everyone soured on BJ Boston and you can get him in the 2nd round, you might wait even though you still have him highly rated as a prospect. As a general rule though, I think many late draft risers are probably guys teams thought they could sneak into getting late in the draft until they saw some teams working them out.

As for research, I don't have any research on the success rate of late draft risers being successful. I only have my own anecdotal/inexact experience from following the draft.

However, as to the bolded point, improvement in draft position equates to greater success, here is something super basic I found.
https://sportsanalytics.berkeley.edu/articles/trash-or-treasure.html

For me, I personally play Dynasty Fantasy Football as well, and football front offices' cognitive biases are even more pronounced. Round 1-4 picks are almost never cut. Not because they are great players necessarily, but because a GM's job is often on the line if their first round pick is out of the league in 3 years. The same is true in basketball and every other sport, to a lesser degree. As this data shows, a greater % of drafted lottery picks remain in the league vs. regular first round picks, and so on. This is common sense, but importantly it shows that draft position matters.

[Chanel Bomber]

Statement 1: "The tournament is completely irrelevant."

Statement 2: "The tournament is completely irrelevant for blue chip recruits."

Statement 3: "Look at the MOPs of the NCAA tournament. Does that look like NBA success?" Literally you could do the same for college regular season ppg list.

Statement 4: "Prove the correlation between NCAA tournament success and NBA success." I could say prove the correlation between college success and NBA success for blue chip recruits and then cherry pick examples where players performed poorly in college and then were drafted high and had good careers. Obviously, that is not true either though.

No one is answering your question because it is an unanswerable question, as I have stated 20 times. You can't prove a correlation with 0 data points (NBA front office sentiment before tournament, NBA front office sentiment after tournament) or arbitrary definitions of "good tournament, bad tournament" (Ja apparently performed poorly because he shot 38% one game). So now let's arbitrarily shift the argument to the player needs to outperform their metrics in every game of the tournament. If they don't outperform in every game, then obviously the NCAA tournament has 0 impact on NBA draft position. The entire line of reasoning is flawed and inconsistent.

And all of your examples were cherry picked data points (I provided 5 counters immediately after your first post). Neither of our examples proved either argument. I provided 3 blue chips from the last draft whose draft position likely changed. As I explained, improvement in draft position equates to greater NBA success. I am sure you would concede that. NCAA tournament performances have raised and lowered draft stock as far as we can tell as people outside NBA front offices. Thus, the NCAA tournament matters.

Your entire argument replete with shifting goalposts, is an attempt to try to wiggle out of an obviously false statement. Proving a correlation between NBA success and NCAA tournament stats is not the same as "the tournament is irrelevant." And because there is no definition of "good" NCAA tournament stats, this entire conversation is hot air to mask the fact that your first statement was obviously wrong. I'm ok dropping this and moving on if you are.

Not jumping into your debate with clyde21, but can you expand a little bit on the bolded part? I'm genuinely curious, and interested to read more.

It would make sense that a player who improves his draft position late has shown gradual progress (on an upwards trend), whereas a player who stays put or regresses likely still benefits from the perception from his days in high-school i.e. outdated information.

I remember hearing (I think) that players whose draft position rises in the weeks and months leading to the draft tend to have a higher success rate. I think it was mentioned in a conversation about Westbrook. I haven't done any research on my end that would prove or disprove this.

This hits at the crux of what we are debating. My point is that it does not matter whether or not a player's perception "should" change based on a late game sample. The question is whether they "do". I do not have data regarding NBA teams and their pre and post tournament perceptions. The only proxy I could use is ESPN (and I have not tracked that) because they talk to teams and develop a consensus in their mocks. To suggest that someone is a late riser in the draft, in and of itself, goes against what clyde is saying. We clearly see ESPN's mocks change pre-, post tournament, and every couple of weeks leading up to the draft. The issue is they do not update frequently during the year and their data points are probably from their own scouting initially, which often is at odds with reality (which many of us point out year after year and is the reason we go on here).

I know "the tournament is irrelevant" to be factually inaccurate because anecdotally, I attend the PIT every season and learn through the grape vine what unnamed execs (no one ever gives sources obviously) are saying about some of these guys. Things like, "I liked what so and so did well because it was a new wrinkle he did not show at his school." So I understand that every data point is fundamentally important and can sway someone one way or another.

Also, I know human beings. We have cognitive biases, not the least of which is recency bias. Scouting is an inexact science and not everyone is putting regular season data points into a model, and then the model spits out the name of a player they will draft. If that were the case, about a quarter of the teams would be using the same system as Family Guy does to create jokes (via the South Park skit) lol. Every data point is significant and relevant.

Now, for your question:
I understand your logic, but I don't think that is what happens in most circumstances. Oftentimes, there is a ton that goes into these decisions that can make a prospect rise or fall. If you have ever watched the movie Draft Day with Kevin Costner, it is like this on steroids. There is disinformation, telephone, all kinds of things out there. Teams can workout a player (public information) as a smokescreen for a player they are 100% certain they are picking and have promised already. So part of the down and up trending, has to do with consensus from this game of telephone regarding what players other teams are valuing. Sometimes there are murmurings that a player performed super well in a workout with another team, and if he is high on that team's draft board, maybe they reach for him. None of that has anything to do with college statistics whatsoever or tournament performance. My point is that late draft, there are a ton of things from workouts to rumors that can shift the landscape and are not even performance based necessarily.

I think it makes sense that players who rise late in the process have higher success rates. The reason for this is probably because they worked them out against some of their current players, and possibly these guys stood out. That, coupled with their performances at the combine/PIT, take them out of their college system and gauge how adaptable they are at fitting in on the fly with other players utilizing a generic horns set playbook. Context is important in this case. For example, I watched John Konchar look fairly mediocre at the PIT, but we all knew this should not impact his stock as much because of the touches he was getting. He was being forced to create his own shot and not taking open threes. So context is everything. The same thing happened for Terence Mann, who was AWFUL at the PIT, yet I think he played well at the combine. Mann didn't shoot well, but we all knew he can ball and simply didn't have the ball in his hands enough to perform well. On the other hand, I've seen Richaun Holmes go from unknown to stud (he was amazing at the PIT) almost overnight. Robert Covington too. I'm providing all this extra detail beyond your question because I hope it provides insight.

What you said about high school perception can apply to certain blue chip recruits. I am speculating, but I imagine that this happened to BJ Boston last year. Then again, there are highly rated guy like Bazley who I think only went to prep school, but showed out at the combine and was drafted in the 1st round. The issue I was bringing up earlier is also that it relates to perceived consensus. If you think everyone soured on BJ Boston and you can get him in the 2nd round, you might wait even though you still have him highly rated as a prospect. As a general rule though, I think many late draft risers are probably guys teams thought they could sneak into getting late in the draft until they saw some teams working them out.

As for research, I don't have any research on the success rate of late draft risers being successful. I only have my own anecdotal/inexact experience from following the draft.

However, as to the bolded point, improvement in draft position equates to greater success, here is something super basic I found.
https://sportsanalytics.berkeley.edu/articles/trash-or-treasure.html

For me, I personally play Dynasty Fantasy Football as well, and football front offices' cognitive biases are even more pronounced. Round 1-4 picks are almost never cut. Not because they are great players necessarily, but because a GM's job is often on the line if their first round pick is out of the league in 3 years. The same is true in basketball and every other sport, to a lesser degree. As this data shows, a greater % of drafted lottery picks remain in the league vs. regular first round picks, and so on. This is common sense, but importantly it shows that draft position matters.

Awesome post, thanks for taking the time. Great insights. Appreciated how you didn't speak in absolutes.

[Big J]

[clyde21]

I know "the tournament is irrelevant" to be factually inaccurate because anecdotally, I attend the PIT every season and learn through the grape vine what unnamed execs (no one ever gives sources obviously) are saying about some of these guys. Things like, "I liked what so and so did well because it was a new wrinkle he did not show at his school." So I understand that every data point is fundamentally important and can sway someone one way or another.

you can attend whatever you want, you still haven't provided a single shred of evidence that performance in the tournament is, in any way, correlated to a higher success rate in the NBA. you haven't even done it for upperclassmen let alone blue chippers. if it's so true, there has to be verifiable data points that prove it.

that was the crux of the argument which you have apparently agreed with multiple times already yet for some reason continue to to argue against it.

either these games do matter and they change 1) draft position and 2) are indicators of broader success in the NBA or they are not -- you are straggling the fence on both sides here.

how about making it clear once and for al instead of posting 6 paragraphs without actually saying anything: is success/failure in the tournament an indicator of NBA performance - yes or no?