Kolkmania wrote:VeryMuchWoke wrote:Kolkmania wrote:
No it's not, just because Ainge has been a decent drafter in the past doesn't mean that every pick from here on out will have a positive outcome, that would be naive and virtually impossible. You're also assuming with this assessment that Ainge did have Tatum at one, which could be false, since we have no evidence of that.
On top of that there are tons of factors which influence the performance of Tatum and Fultz from the draft until now. What if Fultz didn't miraculously hurt his shoulder and was shooting lights out, what if Tatum was hurt after landing awkwardly after Rozier's alley-oop, perhaps Fultz would be a monster already being surrounded by Celtics coaches? You just can't say that Ainge had Tatum at one, because he's been the best prospect of the class thus far.
I'm talking about probabilities and correlations and you keep acting as if I'm saying Ainge certainly had Tatum at #1.
Two things, or variables, being positively correlated just means that one thing being true (or above average) just makes it more likely that the other thing would be true (or above average), and vice-versa. If Ainge just mediocre as a GM then his pre-draft assesments (collapsed onto the set of real numbers) would be positively correlated with NBA performance (using any reasonable metric).
Well, this is what you said.
VeryMuchWoke wrote: I mean, there's really still skepticism that Ainge had Tatum at #1??
Yes, I did, and I later clarified:
VeryMuchWoke wrote:I should have used the word "dismissive" instead of skeptical. One can be reasonable and still skeptical that Ainge had Tatum at #1, but not dismissive.
Kolkmania wrote:And I know what a positive correlation is and it would be quite the thing to state that there's a positive correlation between Ainge's pre-draft assessments and future performances of every player. If there is a positive correlation it's averaged over a large number of prospects and there's still the influence of unequal environments for every draft pick. I trust a prospect to outperform his median outcome far better when he's drafted by the Celtics than the Suns for example.
The future performances of a single player hinges on so many factors, especially after what 10(?) real games. Therefore I find it quite remarkable to state he was the #1 on his board based on Tatum playing great (and Fultz being injured?!).
You clearly don't understand correlation because you keep arguing against the probabilistic implications by saying basically that "it's not deterministic". Either his pre-draft assessments are correlated with future NBA performance or they aren't. That wouldn't apply to some players and not others. He's "right" about some players and "wrong" about others but there is a positive correlation that exists across all prospects, hence high-level NBA performance makes a high pre-draft ranking more probable. This is elementary statistics.
Yes, its early so there is a lot of "noise" in the returns thus far, especially with respect to Fultz's injury (if he is in fact injured an not a headcase), but the fact remains that Tatum's stellar play thus far makes it more likely Ainge was onto something and really preferred Tatum to Fultz as opposed to just wanting the extra asset. Hence, I took exception to Simmons25 characterizing it as Ainge essentially "lucking into" a good pick.
That is all. We will have to agree to disagree.
"Danny Ainge needs to shut the **** up and manage his own team. He was the biggest whiner when he was playing, and I know that because I coached against him."
Pat Riley
or 
