RealGM

Continued from here.

Shoe wrote:Pull up elbow jumper off an onball screen, followed by disruptive passing lane potential

I'm most impressed by the way he caught that first pass. He just palmed it right out of the air.

Shoe wrote:

Another thing we can see from the graph is that star potential goes down very quickly after the first few selections. Based on the logistic regression, the #1 overall pick has a 64% chance of becoming an All-Star. By the time pick 5 comes around, that probability is more than halved to 30%. Pick #10 has roughly half the star potential of pick #5, at 16%.

The situation is even dicier from here. Historically, picks in the back half of the first round become All-Stars only 8% of the time. Hoping to snag the next Nikola Jokic in the 2nd round? Well, only about 3% of these 2nd rounders reached All-Stardom.

So there's no meaningful correlation, except for all of this meaningful correlation.

To play Devil's advocate, one might say that the trend lines can also be drawn like this:



To which, PIF would argue that if you are picking along that second trend line, it's better to have two picks near the right end than one pick near the left end.

I don't think you have left much doubt that there is definitely an advantage in picking among the first 6 or so picks in the draft.

Let's hope the fluky luck of the #9 pick holds up for us!

nate33 wrote:

Shoe wrote:

Another thing we can see from the graph is that star potential goes down very quickly after the first few selections. Based on the logistic regression, the #1 overall pick has a 64% chance of becoming an All-Star. By the time pick 5 comes around, that probability is more than halved to 30%. Pick #10 has roughly half the star potential of pick #5, at 16%.

The situation is even dicier from here. Historically, picks in the back half of the first round become All-Stars only 8% of the time. Hoping to snag the next Nikola Jokic in the 2nd round? Well, only about 3% of these 2nd rounders reached All-Stardom.

So there's no meaningful correlation, except for all of this meaningful correlation.

To play Devil's advocate, one might say that the trend lines can also be drawn like this:



To which, PIF would argue that if you are picking along that second trend line, it's better to have two picks near the right end than one pick near the left end.

I don't think you have left much doubt that there is definitely an advantage in picking among the first 6 or so picks in the draft.

Let's hope the fluky luck of the #9 pick holds up for us!

That ignores the spike in probability in picks 9-10. The regression curve still does the best job of showing the relationship between the two variables IMO.

We can also look at something less rare than all star appearances.



Still in the mid lottery you're looking at 7-15 worp. I would wager one player worth that amount of worp is more valuable than a collection of players whose sum reach the same worp. BTW this is all on court, doesn't include any trade value retention vs. how poorly a player performs thus far.

Okongwu remains my top choice for the Zards at 9…if he’s available. I also still like Achiuwa as well as Saddiq Bey.

But the guy who’s growing on me is Okoro. Been reading up on him and checking out some of the videos breaking down his strengths and weaknesses. Okoro is a great athlete, plays with an extremely high motor and is an excellent defender…almost certainly the best-wing defender in the draft.

He moves well without the ball and knows how to finish when catching the ball near the basket, which would be a great asset playing next to Wall and Beal. Okoro also draw fouls at a high rate…and is good passer with solid court vision.

Okoro’s biggest and most obvious weakness is his shooting, especially from three. So if you draft him you’re taking the risk that he never improves substantially as an outside shooter.

But if Okongwu is gone and Okoro is available when the Zards pick at 9 he’d be my top choice.

This is draft expert Sam Vecenie on Okoro:

“I totally get the shot concern with Okoro,” Vecenie said. “I also share the shot concern about Isaac Okoro. But he’s a super professional kid, the kinda guy that you wanna buy into improving his jumper over time, because realistically, all he’s gonna have to do is get to the level better than Jimmy Butler is now. Not crazy better.

“If he can knock down shots off the catch at a 35 percent clip — there’s a lot of (Andre) Iguodala-y stuff to his game, because he can really drive. He’s powerful. He’s physical, has a lot of interesting footwork around the basket, has really impressive passing ability that I think has gone underrated through the draft process. He could whip one-handed passes across the court. He really reads the second and third level of defenses really well.

Shoe wrote:(snip meaningless unrelated content)
So there's no meaningful correlation, except for all of this meaningful correlation.

I give up on you, Shoe. You don't seem to understand what the word "correlation" means, don't bother with methodology, & try repeatedly to light a fire with the wrong end of the match.

Another thing you don't do is ask a question. So... bye son -- you're on ignore for now.

nate33 wrote:To play Devil's advocate, one might say that the trend lines can also be drawn like this:

To which, PIF would argue that if you are picking along that second trend line, it's better to have two picks near the right end than one pick near the left end.

I don't think you have left much doubt that there is definitely an advantage in picking among the first 6 or so picks in the draft....

nate, of course it's better to own one of the top picks in the draft than to own one of the lower picks in the draft.

If that were not the case, why would you be able to use a single high pick (say #5) to buy multiple lower picks (say #14 & #21).

How much more obvious could this be? How could I or anyone in his right mind think otherwise? Nor, of course, have I written otherwise.

payitforward wrote:

nate33 wrote:

Shoe wrote:So there's no meaningful correlation, except for all of this meaningful correlation.

To play Devil's advocate, one might say that the trend lines can also be drawn like this:

To which, PIF would argue that if you are picking along that second trend line, it's better to have two picks near the right end than one pick near the left end.

I don't think you have left much doubt that there is definitely an advantage in picking among the first 6 or so picks in the draft.

Let's hope the fluky luck of the #9 pick holds up for us!

I give up on Shoe, who doesn't understand what the word "correlation" means, doesn't bother with methodology, & keeps trying to light a fire with the wrong end of the match.

As to what you add, nate, of course it's better to own one of the top picks in the draft than to own one of the lower picks in the draft. No one in his right mind could view the matter otherwise -- &... I've said this more than once.

That's why a single high pick (say #5) will buy you multiple lower picks (say #14 & #21).

How much more obvious could this be?

I think Shoe's argument is that a #5 pick may indeed be better than, say, #14 and #21. His chart suggests a 30% chance of landing an All-Star with a #5 pick versus a roughly 10% chance of landing one at #14 plus an 8% chance of landing one at #21. I think that's fair.

What I'm saying is that the #20 plus #25 is probably better than #12 or so. Once you get out of the top 10, the curve is pretty flat.

DCZards wrote:Okongwu remains my top choice for the Zards at 9…if he’s available. I also still like Achiuwa as well as Saddiq Bey.

But the guy who’s growing on me is Okoro. Been reading up on him and checking out some of the videos breaking down his strengths and weaknesses. Okoro is a great athlete, plays with an extremely high motor and is an excellent defender…almost certainly the best-wing defender in the draft.

He moves well without the ball and knows how to finish when catching the ball near the basket, which would be a great asset playing next to Wall and Beal. Okoro also draw fouls at a high rate…and is good passer with solid court vision.

Okoro’s biggest and most obvious weakness is his shooting, especially from three. So if you draft him you’re taking the risk that he never improves substantially as an outside shooter.

But if Okongwu is gone and Okoro is available when the Zards pick at 9 he’d be my top choice.

This is draft expert Sam Vecenie on Okoro:

“I totally get the shot concern with Okoro,” Vecenie said. “I also share the shot concern about Isaac Okoro. But he’s a super professional kid, the kinda guy that you wanna buy into improving his jumper over time, because realistically, all he’s gonna have to do is get to the level better than Jimmy Butler is now. Not crazy better.

“If he can knock down shots off the catch at a 35 percent clip — there’s a lot of (Andre) Iguodala-y stuff to his game, because he can really drive. He’s powerful. He’s physical, has a lot of interesting footwork around the basket, has really impressive passing ability that I think has gone underrated through the draft process. He could whip one-handed passes across the court. He really reads the second and third level of defenses really well.

He definitely looks to be in the Jimmy Butler mold. And Butler was great in the playoffs this year without being much of a 3 point threat - Miami had plenty of other 3 point shooting threats, and I think that was a big factor in him being so effective. Interesting note - Okoro can be knocked for having a relatively short wingspan (6'8) for a forward, but Butler has that same wingspan, so if he pictures himself as the next Butler and fights to do it, it's not inconceivable. He seems to have that kind of mental toughness, and having Bruce Pearl as his college coach means a lot in that regard - Pearl seems to me to be insanely competitive in a good way. Pearl had this quote when asked about Okoro in the NBA: "He's going to win." I want a guy like that on my side.

DCZards wrote:Okongwu remains my top choice for the Zards at 9…if he’s available. I also still like Achiuwa as well as Saddiq Bey.

But the guy who’s growing on me is Okoro. Been reading up on him and checking out some of the videos breaking down his strengths and weaknesses. Okoro is a great athlete, plays with an extremely high motor and is an excellent defender…almost certainly the best-wing defender in the draft.

He moves well without the ball and knows how to finish when catching the ball near the basket, which would be a great asset playing next to Wall and Beal. Okoro also draw fouls at a high rate…and is good passer with solid court vision.

Okoro’s biggest and most obvious weakness is his shooting, especially from three. So if you draft him you’re taking the risk that he never improves substantially as an outside shooter.

But if Okongwu is gone and Okoro is available when the Zards pick at 9 he’d be my top choice.

This is draft expert Sam Vecenie on Okoro:

“I totally get the shot concern with Okoro,” Vecenie said. “I also share the shot concern about Isaac Okoro. But he’s a super professional kid, the kinda guy that you wanna buy into improving his jumper over time, because realistically, all he’s gonna have to do is get to the level better than Jimmy Butler is now. Not crazy better.

“If he can knock down shots off the catch at a 35 percent clip — there’s a lot of (Andre) Iguodala-y stuff to his game, because he can really drive. He’s powerful. He’s physical, has a lot of interesting footwork around the basket, has really impressive passing ability that I think has gone underrated through the draft process. He could whip one-handed passes across the court. He really reads the second and third level of defenses really well.

I like Okoro's 'everybody eats' game and competitive mindset, win-oriented, focused, determined. I don't like that he came up smaller against his biggest competition (UK, LSU, Georgia), but he does read as the sort of player who will work ferociously to get better because basketball is life for him. As for fit with the team, yeah like Troy he will need a 3 pt shot. I don't like his sub 70% free throw shooting, but we have a solid shooting mechanics team that I expect will give him solid guidance. He does have athletic upside.

edit: I like his defensive versatility at the SF position, able to stay active on the perimeter and recover for the block if he is beat on the blow-by. He's also strong enough to hold his own on switches against bigger players and to be effective if he is forced to defend the paint. He will gamble on being able to block a shot from behind when he fails to keep his man in front of him. I tab Vassell as a better pure perimeter defender, Josh Green one of the most fundamentally solid defenders at the position (ready for the Spurs today). But Okoro's outside/inside versatility is a benefit on a squad that lacks both. Still he lacks ideal length as a defender. Has to do it by efforts, athleticism and moxie. Fortunately for him those are the qualities he does have at an NBA level.

DCZards wrote:Okongwu remains my top choice for the Zards at 9…if he’s available. I also still like Achiuwa as well as Saddiq Bey.

But the guy who’s growing on me is Okoro. Been reading up on him and checking out some of the videos breaking down his strengths and weaknesses. Okoro is a great athlete, plays with an extremely high motor and is an excellent defender…almost certainly the best-wing defender in the draft.

He moves well without the ball and knows how to finish when catching the ball near the basket, which would be a great asset playing next to Wall and Beal. Okoro also draw fouls at a high rate…and is good passer with solid court vision.

Okoro’s biggest and most obvious weakness is his shooting, especially from three. So if you draft him you’re taking the risk that he never improves substantially as an outside shooter.

But if Okongwu is gone and Okoro is available when the Zards pick at 9 he’d be my top choice.

This is draft expert Sam Vecenie on Okoro:

“I totally get the shot concern with Okoro,” Vecenie said. “I also share the shot concern about Isaac Okoro. But he’s a super professional kid, the kinda guy that you wanna buy into improving his jumper over time, because realistically, all he’s gonna have to do is get to the level better than Jimmy Butler is now. Not crazy better.

“If he can knock down shots off the catch at a 35 percent clip — there’s a lot of (Andre) Iguodala-y stuff to his game, because he can really drive. He’s powerful. He’s physical, has a lot of interesting footwork around the basket, has really impressive passing ability that I think has gone underrated through the draft process. He could whip one-handed passes across the court. He really reads the second and third level of defenses really well.

Problem with Okoro is he doesn't not have length to bother shots on perimeter with 8'4 standing reach. He has the standing reach of an average point guard not even a shooting guard at 8'8' or an elite small forward at 9'0. He has a really poor effective height. He has to leave his feet alot to challenge shots. Secondly really poor shot long range shot mechanics. He has to be torn down and completely rebuilt.
8'4 means that he can't guard big small forwards in the paint without leaving his feet. He has very uncoordinated elbow like Jared Jeffries. He can't bend dip his hips and adjust his elbow at the same time. He has years of work ahead of him. Honestly he looks like he has similar shot mechanics to troy brown. Just go to Troy Brown thread and everything applies.
8'4 standing reach means that Okoro has no future guarding in the paint. He has explosive first step which is good, but he doesn't have coordination between dipping his elbows and coordinating his elbow. Stuff like this takes years to develop.
He is a big project...if you think you can build up to be a shooting guard, not even a small forward at 8'4 standing reach. We already have okoro's ceiling in Bradley Beal. Okoro would be bradley beal in a perfect world in about 6 years of training 8 hours a day.

payitforward wrote:

Shoe wrote:(snip meaningless unrelated content)
So there's no meaningful correlation, except for all of this meaningful correlation.

I give up on you, Shoe. You don't seem to understand what the word "correlation" means, don't bother with methodology, & try repeatedly to light a fire with the wrong end of the match.

Another thing you don't do is ask a question. So... bye son -- you're on ignore for now.

Lol. Not sure what I did wrong here.

Correlate:
"to bear reciprocal or mutual relations : correspond If two things correlate, a change in one thing results in a similar or opposite change in the other thing."
So draft position vs. probability of all star/ worp, which seems to have an inverse correlation.

Methodology: Analytic Geometry? 538 uses plot graphs. Not sure what would be considered a better method to draw the data.

It bears out that trading #9 for #14 and #26 is a decrease in probability of getting an all star/ decrease in your wins over replacement player. This is based off years of the average GM selection. So you consistently pound the table for the inherently riskier strategy while portraying it as the only logical strategy. Now you know better and will acknowledge that standing pat at 9 is a legitimate and even safer bet.

You can go ahead and Un ignore me now. We effectively solved that mystery and closed that case.

Ruzious wrote:

DCZards wrote:Okongwu remains my top choice for the Zards at 9…if he’s available. I also still like Achiuwa as well as Saddiq Bey.

But the guy who’s growing on me is Okoro. Been reading up on him and checking out some of the videos breaking down his strengths and weaknesses. Okoro is a great athlete, plays with an extremely high motor and is an excellent defender…almost certainly the best-wing defender in the draft.

He moves well without the ball and knows how to finish when catching the ball near the basket, which would be a great asset playing next to Wall and Beal. Okoro also draw fouls at a high rate…and is good passer with solid court vision.

Okoro’s biggest and most obvious weakness is his shooting, especially from three. So if you draft him you’re taking the risk that he never improves substantially as an outside shooter.

But if Okongwu is gone and Okoro is available when the Zards pick at 9 he’d be my top choice.

This is draft expert Sam Vecenie on Okoro:

“I totally get the shot concern with Okoro,” Vecenie said. “I also share the shot concern about Isaac Okoro. But he’s a super professional kid, the kinda guy that you wanna buy into improving his jumper over time, because realistically, all he’s gonna have to do is get to the level better than Jimmy Butler is now. Not crazy better.

“If he can knock down shots off the catch at a 35 percent clip — there’s a lot of (Andre) Iguodala-y stuff to his game, because he can really drive. He’s powerful. He’s physical, has a lot of interesting footwork around the basket, has really impressive passing ability that I think has gone underrated through the draft process. He could whip one-handed passes across the court. He really reads the second and third level of defenses really well.

He definitely looks to be in the Jimmy Butler mold. And Butler was great in the playoffs this year without being much of a 3 point threat - Miami had plenty of other 3 point shooting threats, and I think that was a big factor in him being so effective. Interesting note - Okoro can be knocked for having a relatively short wingspan (6'8) for a forward, but Butler has that same wingspan, so if he pictures himself as the next Butler and fights to do it, it's not inconceivable. He seems to have that kind of mental toughness, and having Bruce Pearl as his college coach means a lot in that regard - Pearl seems to me to be insanely competitive in a good way. Pearl had this quote when asked about Okoro in the NBA: "He's going to win." I want a guy like that on my side.

Okoro gives me Andre Roberson/Marcus Smart vibes. Smart was a little more skilled tho coming in. The upside is maybe he finds a shot and becomes Iggy light with his ability to see the floor well. But your really drafting a one way player for at least the first few years.

Finally some measurements here: https://www.nba.com/stats/draft/combine-anthro/?dir=1&sort=STANDING_REACH

Jalen Smith measured better than I thought - not even mentioning his body fat % was 3.7. And Pif's find - Nathan Knight - measured well. Paul Reed measured better than I expected. Isaiah Stewart with a 7'4.75 wingspan! 6'3 Tyrell Terry with only a 6'1.5 wingspan. Someone will definitely give Mamadi Diakite a chance - nice wingspan of 7'4, and he started hitting 3's at UVA.

Ruzious wrote:Finally some measurements here: https://www.nba.com/stats/draft/combine-anthro/?dir=1&sort=STANDING_REACH

Jalen Smith measured better than I thought - not even mentioning his body fat % was 3.7. And Pif's find - Nathan Knight - measured well. Paul Reed measured better than I expected. Isaiah Stewart with a 7'4.75 wingspan! 6'3 Tyrell Terry with only a 6'1.5 wingspan. Someone will definitely give Mamadi Diakite a chance - nice wingspan of 7'4, and he started hitting 3's at UVA.

Xavier Tillman has interesting measurements.

He's just 6-8.5 (in shoes) but has a 7-2 wingspan giving him a respectable standing reach of 8-10. He has HUGE hands. What's noteworthy is that he has lane agility and 3/4 sprint times comparable to the other bigs in his class, but he does so while carrying an extra 30 pounds. He weighs 266. I think a proper NBA training regimen could get him down around 250 and end up making him more mobile than his peers.

Physically, he's bigger, longer, and 25 pounds heavier than Draymond Green as a prospect, but compares similarly on most of the strength/agility tests.

nate33 wrote:

Ruzious wrote:Finally some measurements here: https://www.nba.com/stats/draft/combine-anthro/?dir=1&sort=STANDING_REACH

Jalen Smith measured better than I thought - not even mentioning his body fat % was 3.7. And Pif's find - Nathan Knight - measured well. Paul Reed measured better than I expected. Isaiah Stewart with a 7'4.75 wingspan! 6'3 Tyrell Terry with only a 6'1.5 wingspan. Someone will definitely give Mamadi Diakite a chance - nice wingspan of 7'4, and he started hitting 3's at UVA.

Xavier Tillman has interesting measurements.

He's just 6-8.5 (in shoes) but has a 7-2 wingspan giving him a respectable standing reach of 8-10. He has HUGE hands. What's noteworthy is that he has lane agility and 3/4 sprint times comparable to the other bigs in his class, but he does so while carrying an extra 30 pounds. He weighs 266. I think a proper NBA training regimen could get him down around 250 and end up making him more mobile than his peers.

Physically, he's bigger, longer, and 25 pounds heavier than Draymond Green as a prospect, but compares similarly on most of the strength/agility tests.

Code: Select all

Player         Green    Tillman
Lane Agility   11.01     11.40
3/4 Sprint      3.40      3.49
Standing Vert   28.0      26.0
Max Vert        33.0      32.5
Height        6'7.50"   6'8.50"     
Wingspan      7'1.25"   7'2.00"
Reach         8'9.00"  8'10.00"
Weight           235       266

He may have issues with his lower back. Appears he can't deeply bend his his hips and arch his lower back at the same time when rising for jumpshots. I also notice stiffness in his lower back at times when he is making offensive moves and dribbling. He is a hardwork, and uses the tools he was blessed with well. But range of motion will definitely limit his ceiling and fit for this team.

nate33 wrote:

Ruzious wrote:Finally some measurements here: https://www.nba.com/stats/draft/combine-anthro/?dir=1&sort=STANDING_REACH

Jalen Smith measured better than I thought - not even mentioning his body fat % was 3.7. And Pif's find - Nathan Knight - measured well. Paul Reed measured better than I expected. Isaiah Stewart with a 7'4.75 wingspan! 6'3 Tyrell Terry with only a 6'1.5 wingspan. Someone will definitely give Mamadi Diakite a chance - nice wingspan of 7'4, and he started hitting 3's at UVA.

Xavier Tillman has interesting measurements.

He's just 6-8.5 (in shoes) but has a 7-2 wingspan giving him a respectable standing reach of 8-10. He has HUGE hands. What's noteworthy is that he has lane agility and 3/4 sprint times comparable to the other bigs in his class, but he does so while carrying an extra 30 pounds. He weighs 266. I think a proper NBA training regimen could get him down around 250 and end up making him more mobile than his peers.

Physically, he's bigger, longer, and 25 pounds heavier than Draymond Green as a prospect, but compares similarly on most of the strength/agility tests.

Code: Select all

Player         Green    Tillman
Lane Agility   11.01     11.40
3/4 Sprint      3.40      3.49
Standing Vert   28.0      26.0
Max Vert        33.0      32.5
Height        6'7.50"   6'8.50"     
Wingspan      7'1.25"   7'2.00"
Reach         8'9.00"  8'10.00"
Weight           235       266

Yeah, he just climbed even further up the charts. Grr.

Ruzious wrote:Finally some measurements here: https://www.nba.com/stats/draft/combine-anthro/?dir=1&sort=STANDING_REACH

Jalen Smith measured better than I thought - not even mentioning his body fat % was 3.7. And Pif's find - Nathan Knight - measured well. Paul Reed measured better than I expected. Isaiah Stewart with a 7'4.75 wingspan! 6'3 Tyrell Terry with only a 6'1.5 wingspan. Someone will definitely give Mamadi Diakite a chance - nice wingspan of 7'4, and he started hitting 3's at UVA.

Myles Powell looks like he has enjoyed the lockdown!

nate33 wrote:

payitforward wrote:

nate33 wrote:To play Devil's advocate, one might say that the trend lines can also be drawn like this:

To which, PIF would argue that if you are picking along that second trend line, it's better to have two picks near the right end than one pick near the left end.

I don't think you have left much doubt that there is definitely an advantage in picking among the first 6 or so picks in the draft.

Let's hope the fluky luck of the #9 pick holds up for us!

I give up on Shoe, who doesn't understand what the word "correlation" means, doesn't bother with methodology, & keeps trying to light a fire with the wrong end of the match.

As to what you add, nate, of course it's better to own one of the top picks in the draft than to own one of the lower picks in the draft. No one in his right mind could view the matter otherwise -- &... I've said this more than once.

That's why a single high pick (say #5) will buy you multiple lower picks (say #14 & #21).

How much more obvious could this be?

I think Shoe's argument is that a #5 pick may indeed be better than, say, #14 and #21. His chart suggests a 30% chance of landing an All-Star with a #5 pick versus a roughly 10% chance of landing one at #14 plus an 8% chance of landing one at #21. I think that's fair.

What I'm saying is that the #20 plus #25 is probably better than #12 or so. Once you get out of the top 10, the curve is pretty flat.

This is what I meant by trying to light the wrong end of the match, nate. The question isn't "what are my chances of landing an all star?" For starters, in the last decade, how many guys have played in the NBA? How many players have been all stars? There are *many* good players in the league who aren't all stars. Plus, being an all star is not an actual metric. All good players, obviously, but how are they chosen? & for what qualities?

In any case, my point was altogether different. If you look at players in the league & figure out how good they are, you will find a very weak correlation between quantitatively better & chosen higher in the draft (unless the player was picked #1-3). Nothing Shoe wrote addressed that question in any way. Either he doesn't understand the point (seems unlikely) or he decided not to engage it but to give me a hard time instead (far more likely).

Since I can't recall an occasion on which I gave him a hard time, I decided not to accept that from him. Too bad, as ordinarily Shoe is a perfectly nice guy, & he is likely as anyone to post something interesting -- which, unfortunately, I will now be missing. For a while anyway.

Shoe wrote:

payitforward wrote:

Shoe wrote:(snip meaningless unrelated content)
So there's no meaningful correlation, except for all of this meaningful correlation.

I give up on you, Shoe. You don't seem to understand what the word "correlation" means, don't bother with methodology, & try repeatedly to light a fire with the wrong end of the match.

Another thing you don't do is ask a question. So... bye son -- you're on ignore for now.

Lol. Not sure what I did wrong here.

Correlate:
"to bear reciprocal or mutual relations : correspond If two things correlate, a change in one thing results in a similar or opposite change in the other thing."
So draft position vs. probability of all star/ worp, which seems to have an inverse correlation.

Methodology: Analytic Geometry? 538 uses plot graphs. Not sure what would be considered a better method to draw the data.

It bears out that trading #9 for #14 and #26 is a decrease in probability of getting an all star/ decrease in your wins over replacement player. This is based off years of the average GM selection. So you consistently pound the table for the inherently riskier strategy while portraying it as the only logical strategy. Now you know better and will acknowledge that standing pat at 9 is a legitimate and even safer bet.

You can go ahead and Un ignore me now. We effectively solved that mystery and closed that case.

Juuust stirring up trouble here...

Look lively debate is one of the reasons we are here. I personally liked this exchange. Though I'd be curious to see data beyond 2012, since in the GSW era we have seen players succeed that in prior years would never have been drafted or playable due to size etc.

I think Nate's chart reading made sense. We see peaks early then a flattened curve late in terms of on court effectiveness. And Shoe's read that players selected early retain a value longer in tradeability since they are cited as Lottery picks in discussions of their talent and value.

nate33 wrote:

Shoe wrote:Pull up elbow jumper off an onball screen, followed by disruptive passing lane potential

I'm most impressed by the way he caught that first pass. He just palmed it right out of the air.

I would look closely at his hip bend. He has big hands which is good. His landing mechanics need some work. His ankles and feet are taking a real pounding based on his landing style.