Official 2013 Draft Thread - Part II

[Nivek]

Actually, I'd call this an F so far, not an incomplete (hoping that you don't mind me tweaking you of course!! ), and Drummond is the poster child for what's wrong. On many fronts.

First, you rated Drummond tier 6 and Tyler Zeller Tier 3. Now, I assume you don't think Zeller's "physical attributes" are superior to Drummond's. In fact, it's substantially the opposite!

In the Wages of Wins 2012 "Draft Extravaganza," Drummond was rated as the 67th "best" prospect in that draft. WP had Zeller 35th. Among the top rated prospects according to WP were: William Mosley, Jesse Sanders and Ken Horton.

So it must have been his productivity (Drummond's "college numbers weren't impressive"). But what do we see in WS40 when we compare Drummond and Zeller as freshmen? Drummond had a WS40 of 10.5; Zeller was at 7. Now, Zeller didn't play much as a Freshman (that itself is testimony to Drummond!). As a Sophomore, he registered 10.2 -- a little closer to Drummond.

WS/40 and physical attributes both strongly say Drummond (your Tier 6) over Zeller (your Tier 3). And... lo and behold, Drummond outperformed Zeller as a rookie -- by a country mile! Moreover, he's way younger, meaning he has much more room to improve.

Yep, Drummond's freshman year was VASTLY superior to Zeller's. In YODA, Drummond's freshman year was also better than Zeller's sophomore and junior years. Zeller made a BIG jump in his senior year. Results like this have me taking another look at the age component in what I'm doing, as well as considering how much of a player's college career should be included in the final draft score. I've been using just the final year, but that might not be the best approach.

Now, I note that you have Davis at Tier 1 -- and for good reason off his college performance. No argument there. And then you have him outperforming Drummond as a rookie too. Sorry, you are wrong there. Wrong by a lot.

Minor stats (assists, steals, blocks, TOs, fouls): Drummond has fewer TOs, more blocks and more steals. But he's slightly down on assists and slightly higher in fouls. Still, overall these stats slightly favor Drummond.

Every 40 minutes, Drummond gets 15.2 rebounds (5.8 Orbs), Davis gets 11.2 (3.5 Orbs). Not even close.

Efg% -- Drummond .59, Davis .51 -- and TS% Drummond .56, Davis .55 -- more or less a wash, but Drummond has a little edge.

As to the usage argument, it's BS: consider this -- every 40 minutes, Davis takes 3.7 more shots, but he only makes 1.1 of them. In other words, if Drummond's teammates shoot 30% on those extra shots he leaves them, the team is is getting more from them.

Now... Davis is having an outstanding rookie year; he's a shoe-in to get the RoY award. But Drummond, who won't get it, and who has only played 1000 minutes has been minute for minute the most productive player in the NBA. Bar none. Period.

You describe him as "limiting his game to what he's good at." Apparently, what he's good at is getting his team more extra possessions than any player in the league and converting his own shots at a rate among the highest in the league. Those are the two key factors in winning basketball games.

In other words, again, in re: your comparison of them so far in the NBA, you get an F. WP48 has it right. Add Zeller into the picture. Add your *way too low* estimation of Beal and Kidd-Gilchrist in comparison to Crowder (!). And having Denmon a tier higher than BB and MK-G?? And on a level with Jason Kidd and Tim Duncan? Note that I *like* Crowder (wd have taken him @32) and Denmon (might have taken him @46).

Don't take umbrage, ok? You are doing interesting work. But the idea that YODA can predict a prospect's likely nba results is false on the face of it. It can't even assess relative performance w/ the results in front of it.

I appreciate your complete faith in WP48. I don't share it.

[DCZards]

I agree with Fish on PIF and Nivek. PIF is a smart guy whose writing can come off as a little "abrasive" at times and Nivek, to his credit, never seems to take criticism personally.

Personally, I have a love/hate vibe for both PIF and Nivek.

Drummond's skilz were pretty obvious before the draft. He's a tremendous physical speciman and great athlete for his size who has the potential to be a an extra special player player, especially as a shot blocker and rebounder. The questions about Drummond before the draft were about his work ethic and maturity. I wouldn't be surprised if he turned out to be a more dominant player than Anthony Davis.

Isn't it ironic that Detroit would draft Ben Wallace 2.0.

[Nivek]

Re: payitforward's style of posting, I take zero offense. fish's post is a good reflection of my own thoughts. I appreciate the feedback. payitforward is questioning the exact parts of YODA that I question most myself. I agree with payitforward that what I'm trying to do is hard. That's part of why I'm doing it. It's a fun and interesting challenge.

[gesa2]

Geez, payitforward ripping Nivek a new anus. To be fair, Drummond has surprised everyone.

I think PIF's criticism is extremely well-intentioned even if his writing style is grating! I think criticism of hypotheses and ideas leads to better outcomes! I think Nivek has an extremely thick skin and isn't offended by PIF's critiques or his absolutist language and his unwavering certitude -- that often comes off as arrogance! I think PIF is a smart guy whose overall contributions advance the conversation in these parts!

+1
The debate is fascinating. Kudos to PIF for voicing critique, and kudos to Nivek for having the cojones to listen and react unemotionally despite PIF's blunt style.

PIF, your posts indicate that you react to outcomes, not trusting story lines behind them. Yet you say that an algorithm of available data is unlikely to predict the future. I can't imagine you would go for the eyeball test of Dat2U, despite his track record. What criteria would you use to draft a player?

There is no drafting system or approach that never misses. The question is only -- is it better than the other approaches? Any critique of Nivek's outcomes is only valid if you compare it to another one, or your own published record. And even then it's only valid if multiple years are used, to decrease the power of chance.

[tontoz]

Yep, Drummond's freshman year was VASTLY superior to Zeller's. In YODA, Drummond's freshman year was also better than Zeller's sophomore and junior years. Zeller made a BIG jump in his senior year. Results like this have me taking another look at the age component in what I'm doing, as well as considering how much of a player's college career should be included in the final draft score. I've been using just the final year, but that might not be the best approach.

I wonder if it might not be better to focus more on the sophmore year for players who come out as seniors to get a more apples to apples comparison. It seems like YODA's big misses are on seniors.

Lilliard had a big year as a senior but was also productive as a sophmore so still would have probably rated well in YODA.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Geez, payitforward ripping Nivek a new anus. To be fair, Drummond has surprised everyone.

I think PIF's criticism is extremely well-intentioned even if his writing style is grating! I think criticism of hypotheses and ideas leads to better outcomes! I think Nivek has an extremely thick skin and isn't offended by PIF's critiques or his absolutist language and his unwavering certitude -- that often comes off as arrogance! I think PIF is a smart guy whose overall contributions advance the conversation in these parts!

+1

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Re: payitforward's style of posting, I take zero offense. fish's post is a good reflection of my own thoughts. I appreciate the feedback. payitforward is questioning the exact parts of YODA that I question most myself. I agree with payitforward that what I'm trying to do is hard. That's part of why I'm doing it. It's a fun and interesting challenge.

And that is why you are the smartest person I know, Nivek. You don't run from challenging problems. Challenging concepts seem to interest you the most.

[Nivek]

Yep, Drummond's freshman year was VASTLY superior to Zeller's. In YODA, Drummond's freshman year was also better than Zeller's sophomore and junior years. Zeller made a BIG jump in his senior year. Results like this have me taking another look at the age component in what I'm doing, as well as considering how much of a player's college career should be included in the final draft score. I've been using just the final year, but that might not be the best approach.

I wonder if it might not be better to focus more on the sophmore year for players who come out as seniors to get a more apples to apples comparison. It seems like YODA's big misses are on seniors.

Lilliard had a big year as a senior but was also productive as a sophmore so still would have probably rated well in YODA.

I'm dubious about using sophomore year for seniors making sense because there are two more years of development and work put in. In Lillard's case, as a sophomore he had the rating of a late 1st/early 2nd rounder.

[tontoz]

Comparing seniors to freshman/sophs is tough because the young guys haven't had the extra years of development. Look at Beal this year. He is shooting better from the NBA 3 than he did from the college 3.

I wasn't thinking of using only the sophmore year but rather use it as a base and then adjust it up or down depending on how they do as a senior. I definitely think using the last year alone probably isn't going to give the best results.

Projecting college players into the pros is tough no doubt. Pretty ambitious project you have taken on. Seems like a lot of work.

[stevemcqueen1]

I think the lesson on Drummond is that you can't pass up a body like that. It's not just the fact that he's tall but that he's 270lbs and can move. His potential is different than a guy like Len, or even Zeller. He's got 20-30lbs of muscle on those guys. Furthermore, as raw as he is, he's a different type of player than McGee or Ike Austen because he's got damn near 50-60 lbs on those pogo sticks.

BJ Mullens would be the most recent physical analogy.

I think this is one great lesson to take away from Drummond. It dovetails into another general point I wanted to make about drafting. I break the process of drafting down into two parts: first is evaluating a player's strengths and weaknesses as accurately as you can. Second is using that evaluation and all kinds of data you've collected from previous years of experience to make a projection of how the player will work in the NBA.

In making projections, I think a balance and proper contextualization has to be made between what the player has done at previous levels of competition and what the play's skill set suggests he can do in the NBA. I think finding the right context and perspective on all of these little pieces of the whole puzzle is extremely hard to do. And I think that's where errors in evaluation and projection typically come from.

And I think there is also a large piece of the pie that's unknowable, even to NBA GMs, and a certain level of confidence is taken out of every draft pick because of that. e.g., future injuries, personality problems that were previously undetectable/came about as a result of a change in personality, how he'll be effected by the chemical make up of the team, future opportunities that come along that change your plans and the player's value. For instance say you draft a talented young forward with the intent that he'll be a featured player within a few seasons. But a year later an opportunity to get a much better forward comes along and you have to take it. Now the previous guy's value to you has completely changed. That's essentially what happened to Michael Beasley in Miami.

Ultimately, I think it's extremely important to avoid simply writing talented players off because you see them struggling in games at the college level. That's what happened with Drummond for many people. I think you have to do extra homework with those kinds of players, really figure out why they were struggling, what makes them tick, how you can create the conditions for success for that player to come away with what might be an undervalued asset.

And I think everyone needs to keep a bottom line in mind: a proper accounting of the value of each skill the context of an NBA team. Properly value teachable skills like spot up shooting ability. Properly value NBA caliber offensive creativity. Properly value size/length/physical measurements, etc. Properly value intangibles like competitiveness and natural learning ability/bball IQ. Properly value production against low level competition (which is all DI competition compared to the NBA). Properly value athleticism--anything that would make a player stand out physically in the NBA is extremely valuable.

And finally, you absolutely need a concrete plan and role for the player in mind when you draft him and you need to do everything you can to get him into that role. Players need defined roles and minutes to develop. If you don't, you'll end up having raw talents rot on the bench before they bust out like Vesely is doing. You need to be able to picture how they can become a meaningful part of your team construction and have some individual success early on or else you really shouldn't draft them. Need to have a good picture of a long term role in mind too. Young players are impressionable and they will develop according to how they understand what their roles are.

Drafting is a monstrously complicated task. Even if you didn't have unknowables being such a large determinant in a player's success, you would still have a ton of misses from prognosticator because of how complicated the task is. Even simply evaluating a player's demonstrable strengths and weaknesses is very difficult. And you can have plenty of hits that throw you off because they hit for

P.S. I wanted to say I'm cautious about heaping too much praise on Drummond. He plays such a limited role that the conclusions you can draw about him are vague. Less than 20 MPG in just 50 games. All of his per minute and efficiency numbers need to be viewed with the huge caveat that they would likely change a great deal if he actually played a major role and got starter's minutes like Davis, Beal, Lillard, etc. That's just a few of many factors that makes comparisons between the rookies this early in their careers an apples to oranges deal.

But again, his role in Detroit offers a good insight of how successfully to use a raw young big man at the beginning of his career.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Geez, payitforward ripping Nivek a new anus. To be fair, Drummond has surprised everyone.

I think PIF's criticism is extremely well-intentioned even if his writing style is grating! I think criticism of hypotheses and ideas leads to better outcomes! I think Nivek has an extremely thick skin and isn't offended by PIF's critiques or his absolutist language and his unwavering certitude -- that often comes off as arrogance! I think PIF is a smart guy whose overall contributions advance the conversation in these parts!

+1
The debate is fascinating. Kudos to PIF for voicing critique, and kudos to Nivek for having the cojones to listen and react unemotionally despite PIF's blunt style.

PIF, your posts indicate that you react to outcomes, not trusting story lines behind them. Yet you say that an algorithm of available data is unlikely to predict the future. I can't imagine you would go for the eyeball test of Dat2U, despite his track record. What criteria would you use to draft a player?

There is no drafting system or approach that never misses. The question is only -- is it better than the other approaches? Any critique of Nivek's outcomes is only valid if you compare it to another one, or your own published record. And even then it's only valid if multiple years are used, to decrease the power of chance.

Charles Barkley is fond of saying, "I am not an expert. Only God is an expert." I think figuring the draft out is more art than science.

It helps to have a system that is sound but there are some parts that IMO you have to intuit. doclinkin does not post very often but he looks at not only draft prospect statistical data but also what he calls "metaphysicals". Yep, zodiac sign stuff. I'm highly conflicted on it as a Christian but I look at personality predictors. How well we he get along with others and how likely will he reach his potential?

Other intangible stuff I consider: HS and college wins. Winners win. They may not do a whole lot statistically but they win. Steve Blake won in HS and college. It's no surprise to me he's still playing well in the NBA. I consider fit based on team needs. Just like when you're cooking you season to taste, teams may be in need of a skill set that one potential draft pick can supply that others cannot. If you fill the greatest need with a very good player who is strongest where your team is weak you might be better off than drafting a slightly better player who has redundant skills of two or three players you already have.

From these considerations, I think intuition helps the most to decide which to factor the heaviest. Jerry West is someone who knows who to draft. I bet he has the eye for it and intuition or wisdom more than he relies on data.

A lot of this is an art. Every system makes mistakes. I think there are some like Darryl Morey who are much more locked in than others and their statistical methods are superior. At the same time some people just have a talent making picks.

[nuposse04]

^Shouldn't most top rated prospects win at lower levels? Maybe not so much in college because the talent discrepancy isn't there anymore, but HS success seems arbitrary to me.

The draft is just like option trading IMO, there are some statistical methods you can use to extrapolate some level of success, but there is always a chance you can **** over hard in the end. Sometimes you luck out hard as well. People probably use advanced stats (when used in proper context I assume) because it is "safer" then simply going off your gut, at least you have something to objectively defend your decision with.

I have no idea how EG goes about his business, but I imagine it involves a fortune telling 8 ball and an octahedral dice matched up with various Euros he fancies.

[FAH1223]

]NCAA tournament, then NBA stardom: UCLA star's dad mapped out a dream - latimes.com

According to the UCLA men's basketball media guide, he was born in Los Angeles on Nov. 13, 1993.
But a copy of Shabazz Nagee Muhammad's birth certificate on file with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health shows that he was born at Long Beach Memorial Hospital exactly one year earlier, making him 20 years old — not 19 as widely reported.

[dobrojim]

just want to say thanks to Nivek and Dat for making it easy to read
their respective histories. I think both do a really good job.

[popper]

I wish you guys would please take a look at Gobert and render some opinions on whether or not we should draft him. My sense is he might be the steal of the draft. BTW, why did Thabeet flame-out. In retrospect, what about him should have been a red flag?

[stevemcqueen1]

]NCAA tournament, then NBA stardom: UCLA star's dad mapped out a dream - latimes.com

According to the UCLA men's basketball media guide, he was born in Los Angeles on Nov. 13, 1993.
But a copy of Shabazz Nagee Muhammad's birth certificate on file with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health shows that he was born at Long Beach Memorial Hospital exactly one year earlier, making him 20 years old — not 19 as widely reported.

Good lord his dad is creepy and sleazy. They kind of buried the lead IMO, I'm curious about his criminal past and shady sources of income.

[stevemcqueen1]

I do not want to draft Shabazz's conman dad along with Shabazz. That kind of family background is a giant red flag to me. And I don't think the LAtimes piece was a hatchet job either. They mostly reported his own words!

[Nivek]

I wish you guys would please take a look at Gobert and render some opinions on whether or not we should draft him. My sense is he might be the steal of the draft. BTW, why did Thabeet flame-out. In retrospect, what about him should have been a red flag?

Haven't seen Gobert play and I haven't done enough work with international stats to render a meaningful opinion. Just eyeballing the numbers, his FG% is incredible this season, his blocks and steals look good too. Doesn't look to be an overwhelming rebounder. Competent FT shooter.

Just glanced at Thabeet's numbers and I don't see anything in the stats that should have been a warning sign. Potential red flags were in the athleticism tests at the combine: poor agility and below average strength.

[FAH1223]

Good lord his dad is creepy and sleazy. They kind of buried the lead IMO, I'm curious about his criminal past and shady sources of income.

His dad probably has 4 or 5 names out there. Its crazy.

[pcbothwel]

Gotta agree with steve. I could go on about Shabazz and the fact that I think his floor is very high simply because he puts the ball in the hoop. But I never trusted his ceiling and his lack of rebounds and assist is concerning.
What are people's perspective of Anthony Bennett after last nights game. He has been my number 1 choice if we pick around 8-9. While at first I was not please with the way he stood on the perimeter at times and his poor weakside rotation on D, i did notice a few things that give me hope about his potential.

1) I never realized how young UNLV is. I think this hurts him because most every team that has highly talented/recruited freshman can pair him with someone equally as talented to push them; or at the very least, a less talented upperclassmen who has seniority and keeps them in line. Bennett has neither. Put him with Webster, Wall, Beal, Nene, and Okafor and this kid could be something really special.

2) The second thing I noticed was his blazing speed. If you guys are impressed with the way Booker and Vesely get up and down for their size, wait till you see this kid. I believe his vertical explosiveness gets overrated (though it could improve as he shapes up) but vertical is often overrated. he has a first step like a young NeNe and runs like Booker.