Wiz-Board Rules, Links, Traditions and HOF Posts Thread

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

particle physics
decision matrices w linear algebra and constraints
brainstorming
organizational development

F all of that

Just give Beal and inanely stupid super max based on TEDdy billions

OK

I'm just a fan

[AFM]

apologies:


TEDS GREEK ASS
WIDER THAN THE MORNING SKY!!!

THEY SAY IT NEVER COME
WE KNEW IT WAS A LIE!!!


ALL GREEKS DIE NOW WIZ FANS ALL SUCCUMB
TIME TO KISS YOUR FANDOM GOOFBYE
THE END HAS JUST BEGUN

[payitforward]

The trouble between Greeks & Persians is millenia-long after all...!

[montestewart]

apologies:


TEDS GREEK ASS
WIDER THAN THE MORNING SKY!!!

THEY SAY IT NEVER COME
WE KNEW IT WAS A LIE!!!


ALL GREEKS DIE NOW WIZ FANS ALL SUCCUMB
TIME TO KISS YOUR FANDOM GOOFBYE
THE END HAS JUST BEGUN

My new favorite air guitar song

[AFM]

The trouble between Greeks & Persians is millenia-long after all...!

You arent wrong.
My grandmother had zero reservations about letting the museum guides in Athens know how we killed all of them. She's like 95 and had a huge smile on her face. I'm a little afraid

[payitforward]

The trouble between Greeks & Persians is millenia-long after all...!

You arent wrong.
My grandmother had zero reservations about letting the museum guides in Athens know how we killed all of them. She's like 95 and had a huge smile on her face. I'm a little afraid

Throw the Turks in there & it really gets explosive!

[payitforward]

stunt, booth, minnow, splash, button]

[payitforward]

How'd that get in there...? That's the daily Jumble for today... sorry!

[montestewart]

How'd that get in there...? That's the daily Jumble for today... sorry!

Looks like a response to a cognitive test question

[doclinkin]

stunt, booth, minnow, splash, button, jumble

Okay now write a sestina out of it.

[AFM]

When he starts posting his login and password, it'll be time to be worried

[doclinkin]

Putting this here for a minute so I don't lose track of it. I changed the search to the Top 10th guy at each slot, edited in the names of the top players at that draft pick, to indicate your rough likelihood of landing a HOF guy at that spot.

I figured out how to bang BRef/Stathead into giving me the historical stats by draft pick. If you are a subscriber to stathead.com (ie total dork) you can do it this way:

--Basketball-reference.com: NBA Draft historical data, any year.
--Next to the player's name at any given draft slot, click the hypertext link of the 'Pk' column.
--It will open in stathead.com ranked by Win Shares. (If you're not already signed in it will give you only the first few players).

(If you really want to be a dork about it you can 'Edit the Search Criteria' to sort by descending VORP instead of Win Shares. I didn't do that)


Without going into a full rundown of teams, you can get a sense of the depth of the picks by looking at say the 10th best player picked at any given pick position. Also, taking a look at how deep the high end is, picking an arbitrary number of 100 win shares which tends to indicate a Hall of Fame player. (Melo was the only one that hit this threshold who had not yet made it, until he was elected last month).

10th best player at draft position by Career Win Score. (And all players with Win Score 100 or higher at that draft position).

Tenth best #1 overall pick.
1. Walt Bellamy 130.0 -- 16 players with career Win Shares of 100 or higher.
(Allen Iverson just missing the cut at 99.0)

Tenth best players of the top 5 draft slots.
2. Tyson Chandler 102.1 -- 10 players WS 100+ (Alonzo Mourning missing the cut at 89.7)
3. Paul Arizin 108.8 -- 11 players WS 100+ (Grant Hill misses with 99.9)
4. Bob Cousy 91.1 -- 8 players WS 100+ (Jamison and Glen Rice fall short at ~ 88)
5. Sidney Moncrief 90.3 -- 8 players WS 100+ (Kevin Love outside at 94.9)

Top 10 slots, 10th best players.
6. Fred Brown 63.2 -- 3 players WS 100+ (Bird, Dantley, Dame Lillard)
7. Mike Gminski 55.9 -- (only Stef Curry)
8. George Yardley 58.5 -- 4 players WS 100+ (Robert Parish, Sikma, Schrempf, Andre Miller)
9. Dale Ellis 84.7 -- 6 players WS 100+ (Dirk, Havlicek, Matrix, DeRozan, Otis Thorpe, Iggy)
10. Willis Reed 74.9 -- 4 players WS 100+ (Pierce, Ho Grant, Jason Terry, Eddie Jones)

The next 5. Top half of the first round.
11. JJ Redick 63.7 -- (Reggie Miller WS 174.4)
12. Jim Paxson 53.7 -- ( Dr. J. WS 106.2)
13. Danny Schayes 48.8 -- 2 players (Karl Malone. Kobe)
14. K.C. Jones 38.6 -- 3 players (Drexler, 2 guys who played in the 60's)
15. Dell Curry 41.5 -- 3 players (Nash, Giannis, Kawhi)

2nd half of the 1st round, 10th best at each.
16. Brevin Knight 32.6 -- (only John Stockton)
17. Rasho Nesterović 39.9 -- (none)
18. Eric Bledsoe 46.1 -- (none)
19. Jamaal Magloire 27.7 -- (none)
20. Delon Wright 28.9 -- (only Larry Nance)
21. Morris Peterson 35.7 -- (none)
22. Chris Mills 37.7 -- (none)
23. Bobby Jackson 31.4 -- (only Alex English)
24. Arvydas Sabonis 47.3 -- (Kyle Lowry, Terry Porter)
25. Bob Weiss 31.2 -- (None)
26. Payton Pritchard 20.9 -- (none, Vlade Divac misses the cut at 96.4)
27. Kendrick Perkins 27.9 -- (only Rudy Gobert)
28. Ian Mahinmi 26.1 -- (only Tony Parker)
29. Nazr Mohammed 34.3 -- (none)
30. Ollie Johnson 5.0 -- (only Jimmy Butler)

Pretty steady decline in depth when you look at the top 10 players at any draft slot. The career numbers of the 10th pick is generally worse than the players above them. 18 & 24 are a blip, deeper in playably good guys. But the HOF players follow the trend. Yes a few slip through the cracks but the tiers seem to hold solid:

#1 overall is deep in hall of famers.
Top 5 regularly pumps out more than a handful of career winners.
Top 10 has a few at each draft slot.
The rest of the top half of the first round may produce one or two at each spot over time.
The 2nd half of the first round tails off with sporadic top end players.

The takeaway:

Scouting works. The professionals who have risen to the top of the sport often know what they are doing.
The best players are rarely surprises. If you are picking at the top of the draft it is easier to be smart. Easier to be lucky. Easier to make the right pick. Doesn't mean it is impossible lower down, just that the better picks have generally been selected earlier and are not on the board by then.

[AFM]

This guy just put his own post in the HOF thread.

[doclinkin]

This guy just put his own post in the HOF thread.

Yep. I do that. Check page one. My idea, my gift to the masses. I dub myself the People’s Moderator. I love me some me.

[doclinkin]

I'd also suggest we let this thread also serve as a Hall of Fame, thread for instant classic posts. How else to understand what we value in the 'culture' of this board. Que no?

See me?

[doclinkin]

Again. Putting this here since otherwise I know I’ll drive myself mad searching for it. Draft trade by tiers:

There is a steep decline in star-caliber talent as you go from 1 on down through the end of the lottery. In the back half of the draft, the slope of that line flattens considerably, so trading down from say #18 to get two picks in the late 20's might make sense. But on a team like ours in need of star-caliber talent, it would be insane to trade down out of the lottery.

Right. Why I broke it into tiers. Where trades within those tiers may be okay. But otherwise history suggests it’s not worth it.

Top pick.
1 overall. (Or 1-3 in a year with no standout consensus top pick).

Top 5.
2-5. (a Trae Young for Luka type deal). Teams regularly pick all stars in this range.

Top 10.
6-10. Here you are likely to find stars in players who produce good stats but are undersized or young. Late bloomers. Or foreign. Or guards that do produce.

There’s a bias towards tall players at the top of the draft. Star guards get picked later than bigs. It’s harder to find tall human beings, so teams with need will pick one over a box score hero guard who is undersized.

Top half.
11-15. Same with fewer proven guards. Here is where you get a few players who are development superstars. Those who improve their game with focus and effort. Kawhi couldn’t shoot. Giannis was long and athletic but raw as sushi. Foreign players are tougher to measure against local competition. Young hypertalents are hard to judge.

Rest of the first round. Top of 2nd.
16-30’s.
Solid players show up regularly into the 30’s. There are fewer and fewer standout talents in this tier. But upperclassmen who produce often translate to reliable players. Trust box score stats in this range. Reach for fewer surprises unless there’s a reason they’re overlooked.

It’s a rough guideline but by breakdown of historical data of who’s available at these tiers it makes sense to me if you can trade down within tiers or trade up to get to the next grouping.

And as always teams undervalue the future. So if you can anticipate it right you get the best value by trading for the future picks from a win-now organization.

[nate33]

This is data I posted a while ago with the odds of obtaining an All-NBA player with each pick in the draft (with moving 3-day and 5-day averages)

Code: Select all

Pick   Odds   M-Avg 3   M-Avg 5
#1   38.67%      
#2   20.00%   28.45%   
#3   26.67%   20.38%   24.44%
#4   14.47%   21.17%   18.00%
#5   22.37%   14.44%   15.97%
#6    6.49%   12.91%   13.07%
#7    9.86%    9.50%   12.58%
#8   12.16%   11.34%   10.57%
#9   12.00%   12.16%   11.06%
#10  12.33%   11.10%   10.23%
#11   8.96%    9.00%    9.19%
#12   5.71%    7.20%    7.93%
#13   6.94%    6.12%    6.64%
#14   5.71%    6.18%    5.71%
#15   5.88%    5.29%    5.74%
#16   4.29%    5.35%    4.65%
#17   5.88%    3.88%    4.40%
#18   1.47%    3.94%    3.54%
#19   4.48%    2.50%    3.00%
#20   1.56%    2.55%    2.81%
#21   1.61%    2.70%    3.19%
#22   4.92%    3.31%    2.90%
#23   3.39%    3.78%    2.91%
#24   3.03%    2.68%    2.59%
#25   1.61%    1.55%    2.92%
#26   0.00%    2.72%    2.92%
#27   6.56%    3.32%    3.03%
#28   3.39%    4.51%    4.08%
#29   3.57%    5.79%   
#30   6.90%

Picks 27-30 have a really odd history of significantly outperforming picks 18-26. I'm not sure if that's just a fluke, or if it's that the really good teams who pick late pick better, or maybe young players who join good teams get developed better. All that said, past performance is no guarantee of future results.

[doclinkin]

Thanks nate I was looking for that again.