2012 Draft, Part VI (Draft Week is Here!)

[gesa2]

... let's face it, these GMs know a LOT more about Barnes than any of us do and, I'm certain, they've watched a lot more film of Barnes in recent weeks than anyone on this board has. There's a reason he's still widely considered a top 5-6 talent...

Common sense. But fallacious reasoning. On several counts:

1. It's possible to know too much in a situation where you just need to make a choice -- I imagine most of us have had an experience where knowing *more* distracted us from making a choice that at first seemed obvious and also did so in retrospect!

2. I'm sure GMs (or their staffs) have watched more film on e.g. Barnes than any of us, but don't discount the wisdom of crowds. *As a group* I'd bet we've thought more and more intensely about Barnes than Ernie and staff have.

3. "Groupthink", or "follow the leader", is a big problem in decision-making by guys who are on staff. Big disincentives to strong disagreement. The Emperor's new clothes is the classic folk-tale on the subject.

4. Finally, and conclusively, there is *little correlation* between draft order historically and the quality of NBA players out of that draft -- not none but remarkably little. That tells you without any doubt that GMs cannot reliably choose the BPA. No argument is valid against facts in front of your face!

Not to defend EG in particular, but chat boards suffer from Group Think at least as much as GM's in the NBA I would think. And point 4 doesn't prove that we would do better as a group than a particular GM, just that the error rate of drafting players based on college performance is high.

[7-Day Dray]

Heard the worst rumor but it's a trade Ernie would do

Blatche and our 3rd for Gasol

No chance this happens, but if it did, I'd lol.

[Jay81]

Heard the worst rumor but it's a trade Ernie would do

Blatche and our 3rd for Gasol

No chance this happens, but if it did, I'd lol.

If we sucked like Charlotte and didnt have to win now.....I would definitely trade Drummond. In fact, i have no idea why Charlotte is not taking Drummond as he gives them the most potential to make up for missing out on Davis. What I would do is trade the pick to Washington straight up so they can pay Drummond less and take him at 3.

[nate33]

I saw him beat my FSU squad with a last second dagger. I've seen him hit a game winning shot. That's not something I'm talking about. To me, showing up when it matters is playing with consistency, being there when teammates go down, being there wen there are issues, when they didn't have quality PG play before they discovered Marshall his freshman year he was having an absolutely miserable season, he couldn't do anything, when Marshall went down in the tourney he couldn't do anything yet again, when Henson went down UNC turned to Zeller, not him. When UNC was struggling in '10-'11 he wasn't a genuine difference maker, could he fill it up from time to time? For sure. Could he kill you with a game winning 3? For sure. But that's not what makes a genuine stud at the NBA level, a genuine stud is a guy who comes out and fights every night, that finds a way to impact a game when his shot isn't falling, that leads, and that is there for you when guys go down. Barnes was never any of that. He'd have his big games here and there, and generally speaking he could be counted on to score the ball when he got open looks, but he was sickeningly inconsistent, and generally ineffective when the lights shined brightest on him and when UNC realy needed him.

I disagree w/you entirely about them knowing a ton more about Barnes than we do. In this day and age they do not. NFL GM's sure, but not NBA nor college, a lot of stuff is hidden on NFL and college tape, stuff you can't see, because the camera isnt on it, etc. You see nearly everything in college ball.

I'd agree with you if Barnes had been sitting at 2-6 evals all year, but he wasn't, he fell like a rock in January-April as he improved not a whit in his sophmore season, and actually looked a bit worse. Barnes climb back up the boards has been accomplished entirely while getting measured, tested, and in workouts when he's not playing in actual games. The actual game tape reveals a guy who can shoot well, and has a real talent for a few particular things, for sure he could be an asset, and I think he has one of the highest floors in the draft outside of probably Davis, Beal and MKG, but his ceiling is very low and we've seen why. I watched Barnes play plenty, and while what I've said may make you think I think he sucks, I don't, what I have been trying to say is that nothing he has done on the court says he's remotely worth where he's been elevated too, and if he does reach the pie in the sky crazy ideas of these GM's, it will be entirely a product of him turning into a totally different player than he ever was in college, because in college he wasn't even a top 20 player this past year.

And for the record, I am a big believer in taking risks on guys with upside who didnt get it done in college for the right reasons. If Quincy Millers knee is okay, and he's doing a good job of rehabbing it, I like him, I like Drummond and PJ3, because i can see the raw tools for success there, though too long of odds to make me comfortable. I see no reason to do such a bet on Barnes because I don't see anything better than merely "good player" upside in him. His mental make up and approach, his production, everything to me screams, role player to above average NBA talent. If he's as good as the combine suggests, why didnt we ever see it on the court? I never saw him show anything deeply impressive with any sort of consistency to speak of in two years, a flash here or there, sure, but nothing to suggest it was his basic approach, and his every day lunch pail persona, they were just flashes whereas the bulk of the film was "meehhhh" rather than flash. I can imagine a scenario where Drummond's a star, if a bit of pain, i can imagine PJ3 getting in the right org and shining, i can see a lot of sketchy types in this draft potentially becoming something special.

I have a real hard time imagining anything of the sort for Barnes. He went to a great school, with a great coach, and good and great players, and after 70 games or so what did we really ever see from the guy? And he went out quiet as a mouse as well.

If we were Portland I'd definitely consider him with a pick, but we aren't, we're at 3, and there's not a chance in hell he's worth the slot. It's horrifying to me that we could be this foolish.

Beautiful post. Email this to EG please.

[Nivek]

What am I missing on Terrence Ross? Decent scorer, but not below average efficiency. Rebounding about average for a SF. Shooting was okay, but not excellent. Free throw shooting was average. Not many assists. Not outstanding in steals or blocks. Not a great workout at the combine. Didn't play a particularly challenging schedule. In YODA, he's a borderline 2nd round pick.

[Nivek]

Nice read on "Under the Radar Players", lead by Crowder of-course. Peeps on this board already know most of these guys. Crowder looks like the early call to have the highest Faried-like jump at the next level.
http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/1942 ... a-draftees

Interesting read. Here's where YODA has these guys rated:

Crowder -- rating consistent with a top 5 pick in most drafts

Cunningham -- late 2nd round

Ezeli -- don't draft

Eric Griffin -- borderline 2nd round

Orlando Johnson -- late 1st round

Darius Johnson-Odom -- mid-1st round

Lillard -- top 10

Machado -- early 2nd round

Khris Middleton -- don't draft

Moultrie -- 2nd round

Kevin Murphy -- don't draft

Andrew Nicholson -- borderline 2nd round

Kyle O'Quinn -- borderline 2nd round

Alex Young -- late 2nd round

[Nivek]

As for Barnes -- I have him rated as a mid-1st round pick. Even with the outstanding performance in the draft combine, I could not talk myself into picking him higher than mid-1st round.

[DCZards]

Not to defend EG in particular, but chat boards suffer from Group Think at least as much as GM's in the NBA I would think.

Thank you, gesa. You saved me the trouble. In fact, I'd argue that boards like this one suffer more from group think because, unlike GMs, there's no consequence if our opinions turn out to be wrong.

[Ed Wood]

Wouldn't that potentially encourage more (but probably also dumber) variety of opinion rather than less? I can see the argument that a lack of consequences would encourage the board to arrive at a convenient opinion rather than make more taxing analyses but higher stakes might well encourage more conservative judgments and discourage more effective but potentially riskier approaches. Something along the lines of bunting in baseball despite the consequent decrease in average runs scored or the frequency of punting in the NFL in situations in which attempting the conversion is likely in aggregate the more beneficial option, it's probably costlier for Ernie to fail than it is beneficial for him to succeed.

[Mizerooskie]

Barnes is far from a perfect player, but a majority of this post is bollocks. You're vastly, vastly underselling him.

At stake here is whether he is a good pick at #3 in this draft. Not whether he's been a good player at North Carolina. "Vanishing" is a metaphor -- he was altogether visible. What's being said is that he hasn't produced enough to merit being picked #3 in this draft. Your thoughts on that subject are...?

'Vanishing' had no implication on his draft position. It implied that he didn't play well when UNC needed him most. While he struggled this year, last season, his point totals in the ACC and NCAA tournaments were: 18, 40, 16, 24, 22, 20, 18. 22.6 PPG during the biggest games of the season is far from 'vanishing'. And before you say that the 40 point outburst skews the numbers, UNC loses that game, no question, without the outburst.

I think he's done just as much as anyone outside of Davis, Beal, and Robinson to merit that draft position (yes, that includes MKG).

[verbal8]

Nice read on "Under the Radar Players", lead by Crowder of-course. Peeps on this board already know most of these guys. Crowder looks like the early call to have the highest Faried-like jump at the next level.
http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/1942 ... a-draftees

Interesting read. Here's where YODA has these guys rated:

Crowder -- rating consistent with a top 5 pick in most drafts


Orlando Johnson -- late 1st round

Darius Johnson-Odom -- mid-1st round

Are these guys likely available with the Wizards 2nd rounder? Draftexpress has them both in the 2nd round.

[tontoz]

Barnes 47% shooting on 2s should take him out of consideration for a top 5 pick. If he can't score efficiently in college how is he going to do it in the pros? The only way is to be a Ryan Anderson type 3 pt shooter, both in accuracy and in volume.

[FAH1223]

guys, I had a vision last night in a nightmare we got Barnes.

Its happening and they want to play him at the SG spot.

Lord help us.

#LesBoulez

[fishercob]

You allude to an important point: Cleveland has nothing on the wings too. They were terrible last year and have a lot of holes to fill and distance to travel before being good again. So given that, why would they sacrifice assets to take Beal over MKG? Shouldn't they just take MKG and then guys like Denmon, Crowder, etc?

I just don't think giving up assets to get a guy in the same tier makes sense for them.

Not every team has the same players in the same tier. Cleveland may very well have Beal on a higher tier than other teams. I now have MKG on the 2nd tier by himself.

And the #24 pick isn't really a huge asset. In the scheme of things, it doesn't amount to a whole lot. Your not guaranteed an NBA player at 24 so giving it up to procure the player you want seems like a small price to pay IMO.

It's possible CLE has Beal on a second tier all by himself. I just think it's unlikely. I also like that Kyrie has personal connections to both Barnes (supposedly his best friend -- UNC-Duke notwithstanding) and MKG (HS teammates at St. Patrick's in NJ).

24 may not be a "huge asset," but when you're as terrible as Cleveland I don't think you give away any assets. 24, more than anything, is a lottery ticket. Sure, you may get a scrub. But you may get a Serge Ibaka, etc. I just don't see them being close to good enough to be all that interested consolidating many assets.

[nate33]

Not to defend EG in particular, but chat boards suffer from Group Think at least as much as GM's in the NBA I would think.

Thank you, gesa. You saved me the trouble. In fact, I'd argue that boards like this one suffer more from group think because, unlike GMs, there's no consequence if our opinions turn out to be wrong.

The solution would be for EG to listen only to MY advice.

[DCZards]

Barnes 47% shooting on 2s should take him out of consideration for a top 5 pick. If he can't score efficiently in college how is he going to do it in the pros? The only way is to be a Ryan Anderson type 3 pt shooter, both in accuracy and in volume.

GMs will be looking at a lot more than FG% when deciding where Barnes ranks in the draft.

[payitforward]

Off-topic slightly, but I wonder what you all might think about this quite positive analysis of where the Wizards are right now in their rebuild:

http://wagesofwins.com/2012/06/22/will- ... yoff-team/

(also follow to Robbie O'Malley's analysis linked in his comment)

[payitforward]

Common sense. But fallacious reasoning. On several counts:

1. It's possible to know too much in a situation where you just need to make a choice -- I imagine most of us have had an experience where knowing *more* distracted us from making a choice that at first seemed obvious and also did so in retrospect!

2. I'm sure GMs (or their staffs) have watched more film on e.g. Barnes than any of us, but don't discount the wisdom of crowds. *As a group* I'd bet we've thought more and more intensely about Barnes than Ernie and staff have.

3. "Groupthink", or "follow the leader", is a big problem in decision-making by guys who are on staff. Big disincentives to strong disagreement. The Emperor's new clothes is the classic folk-tale on the subject.

4. Finally, and conclusively, there is *little correlation* between draft order historically and the quality of NBA players out of that draft -- not none but remarkably little. That tells you without any doubt that GMs cannot reliably choose the BPA. No argument is valid against facts in front of your face!

Not to defend EG in particular, but chat boards suffer from Group Think at least as much as GM's in the NBA I would think. And point 4 doesn't prove that we would do better as a group than a particular GM, just that the error rate of drafting players based on college performance is high.

No, it doesn't prove that at all. Nor does it prove that "the error rate of drafting players... is high" for any reason -- why would one have to prove that? It's a fact.

But it does go some way towards finding a reason why the error rate is so high. As to "group-think" on a board like this -- do you imagine that the opinions in the Wizards war-room range as widely and are as vociferously stated as opinions are here? Anybody here worried that they don't want to disagree too boldly with the boss?

There's a difference between "the wisdom of crowds" and "group-think" -- not the same things at all.

[The Consiglieri]

You allude to an important point: Cleveland has nothing on the wings too. They were terrible last year and have a lot of holes to fill and distance to travel before being good again. So given that, why would they sacrifice assets to take Beal over MKG? Shouldn't they just take MKG and then guys like Denmon, Crowder, etc?

I just don't think giving up assets to get a guy in the same tier makes sense for them.

Not every team has the same players in the same tier. Cleveland may very well have Beal on a higher tier than other teams. I now have MKG on the 2nd tier by himself.

And the #24 pick isn't really a huge asset. In the scheme of things, it doesn't amount to a whole lot. Your not guaranteed an NBA player at 24 so giving it up to procure the player you want seems like a small price to pay IMO.

It's possible CLE has Beal on a second tier all by himself. I just think it's unlikely. I also like that Kyrie has personal connections to both Barnes (supposedly his best friend -- UNC-Duke notwithstanding) and MKG (HS teammates at St. Patrick's in NJ).

24 may not be a "huge asset," but when you're as terrible as Cleveland I don't think you give away any assets. 24, more than anything, is a lottery ticket. Sure, you may get a scrub. But you may get a Serge Ibaka, etc. I just don't see them being close to good enough to be all that interested consolidating many assets.

Yesteray i was listening to espn radio while running around, and I heard some guest, maybe Ford, say that Beal was #2 overall on a ton of boards, that he'd climbed ahead of MKG and Robinson on a bunch of them.

[Nivek]

This board suffers from "group think"?

I think not.

There's an array of opinions on most subjects. Smart analysis from different people lead to different conclusions, which are often well (and forcefully) stated on this Wizards board. That's the opposite of group think.