Welcome Derrick White

[Feed Your Head]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

?s=20&t=zKXu9uXTwb1DbmcfGsuzYg

Definitely cleaner, mechanically speaking.

[Celts17Pride]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

?s=20&t=zKXu9uXTwb1DbmcfGsuzYg

Definitely cleaner, mechanically speaking.

D White looking good!

[Hal14]

Read on Twitter

The ball movement got much better after swapping out schroder for white.

[Hal14]

More footage of White working with Ben Sullivan (our shooting coach) on his shot:

Read on Twitter

You love to see it.

[steefP2]

His shot looks much improved. Faster and with a better/higher arc. Shot 34-35% averaged out his last 3 full seasons with the spurs. I'd bet on 35-37% this year. More importantly he needs to keep being aggressive with it, can't pass up looks.

[zoyathedestroya]

Watch on YouTube

Read on Twitter

[Smart2Nesmith43]

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2022/10/12/23399637/nba-draft-swap-picks

Food for thought for the "I can't believe Stevens traded a pick swap in 2027 for Derrick White of all people" crowd. Basically pick swaps are way overrated and there's probably a market inefficency in term of their real value vs their perceived value.

Most pick swaps don't even convey and there's really only a couple instances ever where the pick swap provided substantial value:
Celtics swapping no.27 for no.1 in 2017
Sonics swapping no.18 for no.5 in 1987 (who immediately fumbled it by trading the resulting pick aka Scottie Pippen away)
Bulls swapping no.23 for no.9 in 2007

[djFan71]

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2022/10/12/23399637/nba-draft-swap-picks

Food for thought for the "I can't believe Stevens traded a pick swap in 2027 for Derrick White of all people" crowd. Basically pick swaps are way overrated and there's probably a market inefficency in term of their real value vs their perceived value.

Most pick swaps don't even convey and there's really only a couple instances ever where the pick swap provided substantial value:
Celtics swapping no.27 for no.1 in 2017
Sonics swapping no.18 for no.5 in 1987 (who immediately fumbled it by trading the resulting pick aka Scottie Pippen away)
Bulls swapping no.23 for no.9 in 2007

Interesting article. The amount of times it conveys part is good, and the overall point stands.

But the rating pick values is always suspect. They just don't scale like that. And he uses his estimated pick values to then determine the value of swaps overall. The table where he lays out what needs to be added to move up what the swap was is crazy:

#27 => #1. Says adding a #2 would get you there. But you don't get #1 for #2 & #27 in most/any drafts.
#18 => #5. Add #16? 16 & 18 never get you 5.
#23 => #9. Add 19? Again, 23 & 19 don't get you #9.
Etc, etc

If that table were true, Brad/Danny should have moved up a LOT in the last 10 years.

This quote:

In the Kings-76ers swap in 2017, Philadelphia merely jumped from no. 5 to no. 3. As that chart shows, the difference in expected value between picks 3 and 5 is about equivalent in value to the no. 30 pick, and nobody should get too excited about what is essentially adding a late first-rounder.

He's right, nobody does get excited about pick 30. It's why you can't get pick 3 with 5 & 30.


It also doesn't factor in the play-in tournament or the changed lotto odds. Only 12 teams are guaranteed to NOT be in the lottery each year now, as opposed to 16 previously. One or 2 bad games (due to poorly timed injury, say) and a team whose pick didn't seem worth much can rocket up to top 4, where previously they would have been 1st rounder fodder and picking in the teens.

This paragraph is basically it:

One lead analyst compares swaps to the draft lottery itself—any individual tanking team probably won’t land the no. 1 pick, but it can still dream of that outcome. If a team adds a bunch of swap options—like the Rockets did in one big trade, or the Jazz did in separate transactions—then it increases the odds that at least one of them will hit big, like the Celtics did in 2017.

You're not counting on it, but you have more of a chance than without the swap.

[Smart2Nesmith43]

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2022/10/12/23399637/nba-draft-swap-picks

Food for thought for the "I can't believe Stevens traded a pick swap in 2027 for Derrick White of all people" crowd. Basically pick swaps are way overrated and there's probably a market inefficency in term of their real value vs their perceived value.

Most pick swaps don't even convey and there's really only a couple instances ever where the pick swap provided substantial value:
Celtics swapping no.27 for no.1 in 2017
Sonics swapping no.18 for no.5 in 1987 (who immediately fumbled it by trading the resulting pick aka Scottie Pippen away)
Bulls swapping no.23 for no.9 in 2007

Interesting article. The amount of times it conveys part is good, and the overall point stands.

But the rating pick values is always suspect. They just don't scale like that. And he uses his estimated pick values to then determine the value of swaps overall. The table where he lays out what needs to be added to move up what the swap was is crazy:

#27 => #1. Says adding a #2 would get you there. But you don't get #1 for #2 & #27 in most/any drafts.
#18 => #5. Add #16? 16 & 18 never get you 5.
#23 => #9. Add 19? Again, 23 & 19 don't get you #9.
Etc, etc

If that table were true, Brad/Danny should have moved up a LOT in the last 10 years.

The author is just talking about the expected value (EV) of picks so how many wins you can expect on average from a pick at that slot. Taking the Celtics/Nets exemple he is saying that the number of wins produced by your typical #2 + your typical #27 pick = number of wins produced by the #1.

That doesn't mean you should trade #1 for #2 and #27 because in the NBA it's much better to have a 10 win player and a 0 win player than two 5 wins player. There are also a lot of other reasons that cause teams to have to pay a big premium to move up in the draft especially towards the top. Teams really don't want to give up those picks. Owners want to pick at the top to have a potential star to market to fans after a tough year so they can sell season tickets. GMs would rather stay put and pick BPA than trade down and get another pick down the road (it's better for their job security because it's easier to explain that it's not your fault that the guy everybody tought was going to be a star busted than to move down four spots see a future star go before your new lower pick and be questioned until the end of time as to why you didn't stay put and just pick the guy that ended up working out)...

So yeah even if in theory the total value 2 + 27 might equal 1, in practice it's really not and you would never be able to move up from 2 to 1 with just the 27th pick. Ironically the 27th pick had a great run in the mid 2010s with Gobert, Bogdan Bogdanovic, Nance, Siakam, Kuzma and Timelord in consecutive drafts.

[djFan71]

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2022/10/12/23399637/nba-draft-swap-picks

Food for thought for the "I can't believe Stevens traded a pick swap in 2027 for Derrick White of all people" crowd. Basically pick swaps are way overrated and there's probably a market inefficency in term of their real value vs their perceived value.

Most pick swaps don't even convey and there's really only a couple instances ever where the pick swap provided substantial value:
Celtics swapping no.27 for no.1 in 2017
Sonics swapping no.18 for no.5 in 1987 (who immediately fumbled it by trading the resulting pick aka Scottie Pippen away)
Bulls swapping no.23 for no.9 in 2007

Interesting article. The amount of times it conveys part is good, and the overall point stands.

But the rating pick values is always suspect. They just don't scale like that. And he uses his estimated pick values to then determine the value of swaps overall. The table where he lays out what needs to be added to move up what the swap was is crazy:

#27 => #1. Says adding a #2 would get you there. But you don't get #1 for #2 & #27 in most/any drafts.
#18 => #5. Add #16? 16 & 18 never get you 5.
#23 => #9. Add 19? Again, 23 & 19 don't get you #9.
Etc, etc

If that table were true, Brad/Danny should have moved up a LOT in the last 10 years.

The author is just talking about the expected value (EV) of picks so how many wins you can expect on average from a pick at that slot. Taking the Celtics/Nets exemple he is saying that the number of wins produced by your typical #2 + your typical #27 pick = number of wins produced by the #1.

That doesn't mean you should trade #1 for #2 and #27 because in the NBA it's much better to have a 10 win player and a 0 win player than two 5 wins player. There are also a lot of other reasons that cause teams to have to pay a big premium to move up in the draft especially towards the top. Teams really don't want to give up those picks. Owners want to pick at the top to have a potential star to market to fans after a tough year so they can sell season tickets. GMs would rather stay put and pick BPA than trade down and get another pick down the road (it's better for their job security because it's easier to explain that it's not your fault that the guy everybody tought was going to be a star busted than to move down four spots see a future star go before your new lower pick and be questioned until the end of time as to why you didn't stay put and just pick the guy that ended up working out)...

So yeah even if in theory the total value 2 + 27 might equal 1, in practice it's really not and you would never be able to move up from 2 to 1 with just the 27th pick. Ironically the 27th pick had a great run in the mid 2010s with Gobert, Bogdan Bogdanovic, Nance, Siakam, Kuzma and Timelord in consecutive drafts.

Yep, we're on the same page with all that. To me, it just kinda degrades a little at each step. No player eval stat is perfect. Then relating that to average of that stat per pick position, then relating that to trade up value, then relating the result of all that to the value of a pick swap. To say pick swaps are worth an early 2nd after all that just piles up way too much error along the way.

And, more importantly, doesn't account for the fact that adding ANY shot for a small market team to have a chance of drafting a star to compete with is really all that matters. Those chances are few & far between, so adding any shot regardless of the odds of it paying off is more valuable than the odds would say. No matter how dumb that sounds as I type it, lol.

I'm not even really against the White trade. He's a really good player and I'm glad we have him. I would have been happier at top 4 protection (to prevent the super-unlucky play-in ouster lotto jump) and personally would have walked away if Spurs didn't budge off top 1.

My main quibble is I think people UNDER-estimate the values of swaps, tbh. If you trade an unprotected swap (or top 1), you have a non-zero chance of giving up a top 4 pick. Period. And if that happens, the fact that you get a lesser pick back in exchange doesn't really soften the blow that much. Obviously, a very long shot it happens, but as much as I like White, there should be NO shot you lose a top 4 pick when acquiring him.

People correctly value normal unprotected picks very highly. But it's no different trading an unprotected pick (non-swap variety) vs trading an unprotected swap for your chances of losing a top 4 pick. Sure, you get a consolation prize in the swap scenario, but you still lose the prize jewel of draft assets.

[djFan71]

Fun side fact on Kevin Pelton. I lived in Seattle and was on a Sonics forum with him way back in the Kemp/Payton days. He was still in high-school, I think, but either way, he was already posting like he writes now. We basically agreed on our Sonics takes, and I think he's a great dude and smart basketball stat mind - I just don't happen to like the one in use here.

[BK_2020]

My main quibble is I think people UNDER-estimate the values of swaps, tbh. If you trade an unprotected swap (or top 1), you have a non-zero chance of giving up a top 4 pick. Period. And if that happens, the fact that you get a lesser pick back in exchange doesn't really soften the blow that much. Obviously, a very long shot it happens, but as much as I like White, there should be NO shot you lose a top 4 pick when acquiring him.

People correctly value normal unprotected picks very highly. But it's no different trading an unprotected pick (non-swap variety) vs trading an unprotected swap for your chances of losing a top 4 pick. Sure, you get a consolation prize in the swap scenario, but you still lose the prize jewel of draft assets.

Anytime you drive, you have a non-zero chance of dying, period. Anytime you eat at a restaurant, you have a non-zero chance of getting salmonella and dying. Anytime you go to a concert, you have a non-zero chance of dying in a stampede caused by a fire. These are much worse outcomes than an NBA team losing a top 4 pick. So do you never drive, or go outside, period? Obviously, as much as you like to eat at a restaurant, there should be NO shot you DIE?
You evaluate risks and make decisions accordingly. A future pick swap's value is evaluated as the return x probability of return (not exactly but this captures the gist). It is not valued at the highest possible return x 1.

[djFan71]

My main quibble is I think people UNDER-estimate the values of swaps, tbh. If you trade an unprotected swap (or top 1), you have a non-zero chance of giving up a top 4 pick. Period. And if that happens, the fact that you get a lesser pick back in exchange doesn't really soften the blow that much. Obviously, a very long shot it happens, but as much as I like White, there should be NO shot you lose a top 4 pick when acquiring him.

People correctly value normal unprotected picks very highly. But it's no different trading an unprotected pick (non-swap variety) vs trading an unprotected swap for your chances of losing a top 4 pick. Sure, you get a consolation prize in the swap scenario, but you still lose the prize jewel of draft assets.

Anytime you drive, you have a non-zero chance of dying, period. Anytime you eat at a restaurant, you have a non-zero chance of getting salmonella and dying. Anytime you go to a concert, you have a non-zero chance of dying in a stampede caused by a fire. These are much worse outcomes than an NBA team losing a top 4 pick. So do you never drive, or go outside, period? Obviously, as much as you like to eat at a restaurant, there should be NO shot you DIE?
You evaluate risks and make decisions accordingly. A future pick swap's value is evaluated as the return x probability of return (not exactly but this captures the gist). It is not valued at the highest possible return x 1.

Those non zeros are obviously nowhere near the scale of the non zero chance of giving up a top 4 pick, but I get the argument. And I’m not saying you never trade a swap. White is borderline to me, he’s our 7th man, but a really freakin good 7th man. I would have erred on not trading without top 4, Brad was ok with top 1. Shrug.

[BK_2020]

My main quibble is I think people UNDER-estimate the values of swaps, tbh. If you trade an unprotected swap (or top 1), you have a non-zero chance of giving up a top 4 pick. Period. And if that happens, the fact that you get a lesser pick back in exchange doesn't really soften the blow that much. Obviously, a very long shot it happens, but as much as I like White, there should be NO shot you lose a top 4 pick when acquiring him.

People correctly value normal unprotected picks very highly. But it's no different trading an unprotected pick (non-swap variety) vs trading an unprotected swap for your chances of losing a top 4 pick. Sure, you get a consolation prize in the swap scenario, but you still lose the prize jewel of draft assets.

Anytime you drive, you have a non-zero chance of dying, period. Anytime you eat at a restaurant, you have a non-zero chance of getting salmonella and dying. Anytime you go to a concert, you have a non-zero chance of dying in a stampede caused by a fire. These are much worse outcomes than an NBA team losing a top 4 pick. So do you never drive, or go outside, period? Obviously, as much as you like to eat at a restaurant, there should be NO shot you DIE?
You evaluate risks and make decisions accordingly. A future pick swap's value is evaluated as the return x probability of return (not exactly but this captures the gist). It is not valued at the highest possible return x 1.

Those non zeros are obviously nowhere near the scale of the non zero chance of giving up a top 4 pick, but I get the argument. And I’m not saying you never trade a swap. White is borderline to me, he’s our 7th man, but a really freakin good 7th man. I would have erred on not trading without top 4, Brad was ok with top 1. Shrug.

It's not just White in a vacuum though. His contract is fantastic and gives us three more of his prime years at a discount, plus he fits our offense and defense like a glove. I think it was a fantastic trade.

[djFan71]

Anytime you drive, you have a non-zero chance of dying, period. Anytime you eat at a restaurant, you have a non-zero chance of getting salmonella and dying. Anytime you go to a concert, you have a non-zero chance of dying in a stampede caused by a fire. These are much worse outcomes than an NBA team losing a top 4 pick. So do you never drive, or go outside, period? Obviously, as much as you like to eat at a restaurant, there should be NO shot you DIE?
You evaluate risks and make decisions accordingly. A future pick swap's value is evaluated as the return x probability of return (not exactly but this captures the gist). It is not valued at the highest possible return x 1.

Those non zeros are obviously nowhere near the scale of the non zero chance of giving up a top 4 pick, but I get the argument. And I’m not saying you never trade a swap. White is borderline to me, he’s our 7th man, but a really freakin good 7th man. I would have erred on not trading without top 4, Brad was ok with top 1. Shrug.

It's not just White in a vacuum though. His contract is fantastic and gives us three more of his prime years at a discount, plus he fits our offense and defense like a glove. I think it was a fantastic trade.

Weirdly I basically agree but still wouldn’t have done it, lol. Though, I think sas probably would have accepted top 4 if it came down to it, but who knows? I have even proposed trades for white previously, he’s really really good. I just never thought a top 1 protected pick would be part of the cost.

The high likelihood is you are all right and the swap never conveys or if it does it’s not significant. My only counter to that is, yeah, but still…. And if it’s that unlikely SAS would have agreed to top 4.

[BostonCouchGM]

Our 8th best player cost us Josh Richardson, Romeo Langford, a 1st round pick and a potential future 1st round swap (potentially devastating since Horford and Brown may both be long gone and Smart 30 y/o) crazy how bad this trade is. Legit one of the worst in our franchise’s history. ONLY a championship with him as a major reason for winning would make this palatable. We’re going to feel the ramifications of this for a decade

[31to6]

BCGM was that supposed to be in green font?

[jmr07019]

I was throwing out White trades all offseason but he's looked great this preseason. Much more aggressive, confident and decisive. Shot looks a lot better too.

[hugepatsfan]

Interesting article. The amount of times it conveys part is good, and the overall point stands.

But the rating pick values is always suspect. They just don't scale like that. And he uses his estimated pick values to then determine the value of swaps overall. The table where he lays out what needs to be added to move up what the swap was is crazy:

#27 => #1. Says adding a #2 would get you there. But you don't get #1 for #2 & #27 in most/any drafts.
#18 => #5. Add #16? 16 & 18 never get you 5.
#23 => #9. Add 19? Again, 23 & 19 don't get you #9.
Etc, etc

If that table were true, Brad/Danny should have moved up a LOT in the last 10 years.

The author is just talking about the expected value (EV) of picks so how many wins you can expect on average from a pick at that slot. Taking the Celtics/Nets exemple he is saying that the number of wins produced by your typical #2 + your typical #27 pick = number of wins produced by the #1.

That doesn't mean you should trade #1 for #2 and #27 because in the NBA it's much better to have a 10 win player and a 0 win player than two 5 wins player. There are also a lot of other reasons that cause teams to have to pay a big premium to move up in the draft especially towards the top. Teams really don't want to give up those picks. Owners want to pick at the top to have a potential star to market to fans after a tough year so they can sell season tickets. GMs would rather stay put and pick BPA than trade down and get another pick down the road (it's better for their job security because it's easier to explain that it's not your fault that the guy everybody tought was going to be a star busted than to move down four spots see a future star go before your new lower pick and be questioned until the end of time as to why you didn't stay put and just pick the guy that ended up working out)...

So yeah even if in theory the total value 2 + 27 might equal 1, in practice it's really not and you would never be able to move up from 2 to 1 with just the 27th pick. Ironically the 27th pick had a great run in the mid 2010s with Gobert, Bogdan Bogdanovic, Nance, Siakam, Kuzma and Timelord in consecutive drafts.

Yep, we're on the same page with all that. To me, it just kinda degrades a little at each step. No player eval stat is perfect. Then relating that to average of that stat per pick position, then relating that to trade up value, then relating the result of all that to the value of a pick swap. To say pick swaps are worth an early 2nd after all that just piles up way too much error along the way.

And, more importantly, doesn't account for the fact that adding ANY shot for a small market team to have a chance of drafting a star to compete with is really all that matters. Those chances are few & far between, so adding any shot regardless of the odds of it paying off is more valuable than the odds would say. No matter how dumb that sounds as I type it, lol.

I'm not even really against the White trade. He's a really good player and I'm glad we have him. I would have been happier at top 4 protection (to prevent the super-unlucky play-in ouster lotto jump) and personally would have walked away if Spurs didn't budge off top 1.

My main quibble is I think people UNDER-estimate the values of swaps, tbh. If you trade an unprotected swap (or top 1), you have a non-zero chance of giving up a top 4 pick. Period. And if that happens, the fact that you get a lesser pick back in exchange doesn't really soften the blow that much. Obviously, a very long shot it happens, but as much as I like White, there should be NO shot you lose a top 4 pick when acquiring him.

People correctly value normal unprotected picks very highly. But it's no different trading an unprotected pick (non-swap variety) vs trading an unprotected swap for your chances of losing a top 4 pick. Sure, you get a consolation prize in the swap scenario, but you still lose the prize jewel of draft assets.

My only quibble here is that you aren't taking into account the OTHER team getting a top 4 pick as well. We always think about the doomsday scenario of us getting a top 4 pick and the other team having a late 1st. But what if we get #4 and SA is picking #2. Or vice versa, where the consolation prize there is still worlds better than the doomsday scenarios people are making up.

You're 100% right about the non-zero chance we end up with a crazy high pick, but need to also remember that other team has a non-zero chance of that as well.

[31to6]

DW averaged 14.5/3.5/3 in four preseason games (23mpg) on 62/56/86 shooting splits -- wow is that new jumper working!
https://basketball.realgm.com/nba/preseason/team/Boston-Celtics/2/stats

I loved Josh Richardson but don't even know if he's on an NBA roster, and I'm not going to bother Googling Romeo Langford