Hinkie in Hindsight?

[hege53190]

If Embiid turns out healthy, Hinkies time here should be remembered as fond, and the losing records mean nothing, ( unless you're BB of course), if he isn't healthy, Hinkie's time here was basically a waste and the rebuild will continue for another 3-5 years, with losing a lot of games meaning absolutely nothing if you don't get lucky in the draft.

The NBA draft isn't luck. The draft is knowing how to project athletes and having the ability to differentiate performance from the college game to the pros.

LOL. You keep believing that. At the end of the day no matter how well you think you can project them it comes down to if that player actually turns out. And when you only have a couple of drafts to get it right it comes down to simple luck.

Yeah if you had a couple hundred outcomes to go off of, it could be considered a skill. However when the sample size is 3 drafts like Hinkie had you better have a lot of luck.

This is why as a new GM you are so ****. If you actually do it right you don't have enough time. If I was a GM and had 100 simulations and a 10 year guarantee the hinkie route is the way to go. No doubt. Hell he even got lucky a couple of times. Seriously the #6 pick and an unprotected for Jrue Holiday?, Really a minimum protected pick from a terrible team for MCW?, 2 pick swaps and an unprotected from a perennial lottery team that is about to lose its best player for cap space?

Those were master strokes. And he got fired. As a new GM in the NBA you need to get to the playoffs as quick as possible. Future assets and chances at a championship be damned.

[Ericb5]

If Embiid turns out healthy, Hinkies time here should be remembered as fond, and the losing records mean nothing, ( unless you're BB of course), if he isn't healthy, Hinkie's time here was basically a waste and the rebuild will continue for another 3-5 years, with losing a lot of games meaning absolutely nothing if you don't get lucky in the draft.

The NBA draft isn't luck. The draft is knowing how to project athletes and having the ability to differentiate performance from the college game to the pros.

LOL. You keep believing that. At the end of the day no matter how well you think you can project them it comes down to if that player actually turns out. And when you only have a couple of drafts to get it right it comes down to simple luck.

Yeah if you had a couple hundred outcomes to go off of, it could be considered a skill. However when the sample size is 3 drafts like Hinkie had you better have a lot of luck.

This is why as a new GM you are so ****. If you actually do it right you don't have enough time. If I was a GM and had 100 simulations and a 10 year guarantee the hinkie route is the way to go. No doubt. Hell he even got lucky a couple of times. Seriously the #6 pick and an unprotected for Jrue Holiday?, Really a minimum protected pick from a terrible team for MCW?, 2 pick swaps and an unprotected from a perennial lottery team that is about to lose its best player for cap space?

Those were master strokes. And he got fired. As a new GM in the NBA you need to get to the playoffs as quick as possible. Future assets and chances at a championship be damned.

There is a lot of luck involved in the lottery, and in who is taken before you, but the rest of the draft process is skill.

Identifying which prospects will grow into good players is a skill, and then nurturing, and growing those prospects are skills. Once a player is on your team, outside of the luck factor in him experiencing a personal tragedy, success is determined by mostly measurable things.

Some things are unknowable, but they are of lesser importance compared to what is knowable.

The point is that the best picks are ones made with the best information. If you maximize the quality and quantity of information available to you at the time of the decision, you maximize your chances of getting a good player.

Hinkie was excellent at that, and the choices that he has made have been excellent. Not perfect, but excellent.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hege53190]

The NBA draft isn't luck. The draft is knowing how to project athletes and having the ability to differentiate performance from the college game to the pros.

LOL. You keep believing that. At the end of the day no matter how well you think you can project them it comes down to if that player actually turns out. And when you only have a couple of drafts to get it right it comes down to simple luck.

Yeah if you had a couple hundred outcomes to go off of, it could be considered a skill. However when the sample size is 3 drafts like Hinkie had you better have a lot of luck.

This is why as a new GM you are so ****. If you actually do it right you don't have enough time. If I was a GM and had 100 simulations and a 10 year guarantee the hinkie route is the way to go. No doubt. Hell he even got lucky a couple of times. Seriously the #6 pick and an unprotected for Jrue Holiday?, Really a minimum protected pick from a terrible team for MCW?, 2 pick swaps and an unprotected from a perennial lottery team that is about to lose its best player for cap space?

Those were master strokes. And he got fired. As a new GM in the NBA you need to get to the playoffs as quick as possible. Future assets and chances at a championship be damned.

There is a lot of luck involved in the lottery, and in who is taken before you, but the rest of the draft process is skill.

Identifying which prospects will grow into good players is a skill, and then nurturing, and growing those prospects are skills. Once a player is on your team, outside of the luck factor in him experiencing a personal tragedy, success is determined by mostly measurable things.

Some things are unknowable, but they are of lesser importance compared to what is knowable.

The point is that the best picks are ones made with the best information. If you maximize the quality and quantity of information available to you at the time of the decision, you maximize your chances of getting a good player.

Hinkie was excellent at that, and the choices that he has made have been excellent. Not perfect, but excellent.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seriously it is a skill?

Most complaints I see from two of my favorite GM's; Hinkie and Ainge is that they are poor drafters because they couldn't identify that Giannis was going to be a great player. Never mind the GM that drafted Giannis took Joe Alexander #8 over Brook Lopez, Roy Hibbert or Serge Ibaka or that he moved out of the #10 spot where he could have drafted Klay Thompson in the draft to #19 to get Corey Maggette. Or that he **** picked Monta Ellis over Stephen Curry in the Bogut trade.

Unless you get the top pick in the LeBron, Duncan, Anthony Davis Or Towns draft it comes down to a lot of luck. Players develop or don't develop. It is really a crap shoot. Sure some players have a better probability of turning out or fitting in but given the number of attempts a GM has to get his feet under him it comes down to luck.

[Unbreakable99]

LOL. You keep believing that. At the end of the day no matter how well you think you can project them it comes down to if that player actually turns out. And when you only have a couple of drafts to get it right it comes down to simple luck.

Yeah if you had a couple hundred outcomes to go off of, it could be considered a skill. However when the sample size is 3 drafts like Hinkie had you better have a lot of luck.

This is why as a new GM you are so ****. If you actually do it right you don't have enough time. If I was a GM and had 100 simulations and a 10 year guarantee the hinkie route is the way to go. No doubt. Hell he even got lucky a couple of times. Seriously the #6 pick and an unprotected for Jrue Holiday?, Really a minimum protected pick from a terrible team for MCW?, 2 pick swaps and an unprotected from a perennial lottery team that is about to lose its best player for cap space?

Those were master strokes. And he got fired. As a new GM in the NBA you need to get to the playoffs as quick as possible. Future assets and chances at a championship be damned.

There is a lot of luck involved in the lottery, and in who is taken before you, but the rest of the draft process is skill.

Identifying which prospects will grow into good players is a skill, and then nurturing, and growing those prospects are skills. Once a player is on your team, outside of the luck factor in him experiencing a personal tragedy, success is determined by mostly measurable things.

Some things are unknowable, but they are of lesser importance compared to what is knowable.

The point is that the best picks are ones made with the best information. If you maximize the quality and quantity of information available to you at the time of the decision, you maximize your chances of getting a good player.

Hinkie was excellent at that, and the choices that he has made have been excellent. Not perfect, but excellent.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seriously it is a skill?

Most complaints I see from two of my favorite GM's; Hinkie and Ainge is that they are poor drafters because they couldn't identify that Giannis was going to be a great player. Never mind the GM that drafted him took Joe Alexander #8 over Brook Lopez, Roy Hibbert or Serge Ibaka or that he moved out of the #10 spot where he could have drafted Klay Thompson in the draft to #19 to get Corey Maggette. Or that he **** picked Monta Ellis over Stephen Curry in the Bogut trade.

Unless you get the top pick in the LeBron, Duncan, Anthony Davis Or Towns draft it comes down to a lot of luck. Players develop or don't develop. It is really a crap shoot. Sure some players have a better probability of turning out or fitting in but given the number of attempts a GM has to get his feet under him it comes down to luck.

There is a skill in selecting players who thrn out good. Jerry West is the greatest GM ever. What he has done throughout the years isn't luck. It's skill. It's not luck that wherever he goes he makes the team better and drafts great players.

[hege53190]

There is a lot of luck involved in the lottery, and in who is taken before you, but the rest of the draft process is skill.

Identifying which prospects will grow into good players is a skill, and then nurturing, and growing those prospects are skills. Once a player is on your team, outside of the luck factor in him experiencing a personal tragedy, success is determined by mostly measurable things.

Some things are unknowable, but they are of lesser importance compared to what is knowable.

The point is that the best picks are ones made with the best information. If you maximize the quality and quantity of information available to you at the time of the decision, you maximize your chances of getting a good player.

Hinkie was excellent at that, and the choices that he has made have been excellent. Not perfect, but excellent.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seriously it is a skill?

Most complaints I see from two of my favorite GM's; Hinkie and Ainge is that they are poor drafters because they couldn't identify that Giannis was going to be a great player. Never mind the GM that drafted him took Joe Alexander #8 over Brook Lopez, Roy Hibbert or Serge Ibaka or that he moved out of the #10 spot where he could have drafted Klay Thompson in the draft to #19 to get Corey Maggette. Or that he **** picked Monta Ellis over Stephen Curry in the Bogut trade.

Unless you get the top pick in the LeBron, Duncan, Anthony Davis Or Towns draft it comes down to a lot of luck. Players develop or don't develop. It is really a crap shoot. Sure some players have a better probability of turning out or fitting in but given the number of attempts a GM has to get his feet under him it comes down to luck.

There is a skill in selecting players who thrn out good. Jerry West is the greatest GM ever. What he has done throughout the years isn't luck. It's skill. It's not luck that wherever he goes he makes the team better and drafts great players.

Jerry West is a very good GM. But the greatest ever? How is that? When he signed onto the Lakers they already had KAJ, Magic, and Worthy in the 1980's Seriously does he get credit for that?

Sure he got Shaq to sign but I would consider that more luck and the LA market than West being a great GM. He did get Kobe but that was a lot of Kobe being a douche and not working out for other teams.

In Memphis he was unremarkable and is actually the perfect example for luck. Imagine if the 2003 lottery falls differently. Remember Detroit acquired the rights to the 2003 pick unless it was #1. Memphis I believe had the worst record in the league or some of the best chances to the #1 pick. The final two teams for LeBron James is Cleveland and Memphis. If Memphis gets LeBron they pair him with Pau and West watches over a perennial power that wins multiple championships.

Instead he doesn't get the pick. Memphis never wins a playoff series in his tenure and his final season he wins 22 games.

[LloydFree]

There is a lot of luck involved in the lottery, and in who is taken before you, but the rest of the draft process is skill.

Identifying which prospects will grow into good players is a skill, and then nurturing, and growing those prospects are skills. Once a player is on your team, outside of the luck factor in him experiencing a personal tragedy, success is determined by mostly measurable things.

Some things are unknowable, but they are of lesser importance compared to what is knowable.

The point is that the best picks are ones made with the best information. If you maximize the quality and quantity of information available to you at the time of the decision, you maximize your chances of getting a good player.

Hinkie was excellent at that, and the choices that he has made have been excellent. Not perfect, but excellent.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seriously it is a skill?

Most complaints I see from two of my favorite GM's; Hinkie and Ainge is that they are poor drafters because they couldn't identify that Giannis was going to be a great player. Never mind the GM that drafted him took Joe Alexander #8 over Brook Lopez, Roy Hibbert or Serge Ibaka or that he moved out of the #10 spot where he could have drafted Klay Thompson in the draft to #19 to get Corey Maggette. Or that he **** picked Monta Ellis over Stephen Curry in the Bogut trade.

Unless you get the top pick in the LeBron, Duncan, Anthony Davis Or Towns draft it comes down to a lot of luck. Players develop or don't develop. It is really a crap shoot. Sure some players have a better probability of turning out or fitting in but given the number of attempts a GM has to get his feet under him it comes down to luck.

There is a skill in selecting players who thrn out good. Jerry West is the greatest GM ever. What he has done throughout the years isn't luck. It's skill. It's not luck that wherever he goes he makes the team better and drafts great players.

There are very few GMs that are good at identifying and drafting talent, but the few that are good are easy to identify. It's asinine to say the draft is luck. The lottery is luck. Projecting NBA talent isn't luck.

There are guys that can get All-star players without having top 5 picks Jerry West, Larry Bird, Masai Ujiri, R.C. Buford (Gregg Popovich when he was a GM) and believe it or not Isaiah Thomas was a great in the draft. Bob Meyers is also great, but I don't know if it's him or Jerry West identifying the talent. Those guys know what they are doing at the draft. It's not luck.

The luck comes with regards to the generational talents. Where you can only get them in the top 3 picks. But even then you have to have some skill and not get stuck with low upside players like Evan Turner or Okafor when you have the opportunity to draft that high. A GM with an eye to project talent wouldn't make those mistakes.

[Sixerscan]

Seriously it is a skill?

Most complaints I see from two of my favorite GM's; Hinkie and Ainge is that they are poor drafters because they couldn't identify that Giannis was going to be a great player. Never mind the GM that drafted him took Joe Alexander #8 over Brook Lopez, Roy Hibbert or Serge Ibaka or that he moved out of the #10 spot where he could have drafted Klay Thompson in the draft to #19 to get Corey Maggette. Or that he **** picked Monta Ellis over Stephen Curry in the Bogut trade.

Unless you get the top pick in the LeBron, Duncan, Anthony Davis Or Towns draft it comes down to a lot of luck. Players develop or don't develop. It is really a crap shoot. Sure some players have a better probability of turning out or fitting in but given the number of attempts a GM has to get his feet under him it comes down to luck.

There is a skill in selecting players who thrn out good. Jerry West is the greatest GM ever. What he has done throughout the years isn't luck. It's skill. It's not luck that wherever he goes he makes the team better and drafts great players.

There are very few GMs that are good at identifying and drafting talent, but the few that are good are easy to identify. It's asinine to say the draft is luck. The lottery is luck. Projecting NBA talent isn't luck.

There are guys that can get All-star players without having top 5 picks Jerry West, Larry Bird, Masai Ujiri, R.C. Buford (Gregg Popovich when he was a GM) and believe it or not Isaiah Thomas was a great in the draft. Bob Meyers is also great, but I don't know if it's him or Jerry West identifying the talent. Those guys know what they are doing at the draft. It's not luck.

The luck comes with regards to the generational talents. Where you can only get them in the top 3 picks. But even then you have to have some skill and not get stuck with low upside players like Evan Turner or Okafor when you have the opportunity to draft that high. A GM with an eye to project talent wouldn't make those mistakes.

Of course there's luck. the Warriors didn't know with 100% certainty that Steph Curry was going to be a league MVP, no more that they knew one year later with 100% certainty that Epke Udoh was going to have a better career than Paul George. These aren't computer programs, they are human beings, you can project how they will develop but at the end of the day there are uncertainties and you put yourself in the best position to get "lucky."

[TTP]

Luck and skill in drafting aren't mutually exclusive.

[eagereyez]

There is a skill in selecting players who thrn out good. Jerry West is the greatest GM ever. What he has done throughout the years isn't luck. It's skill. It's not luck that wherever he goes he makes the team better and drafts great players.

There are very few GMs that are good at identifying and drafting talent, but the few that are good are easy to identify. It's asinine to say the draft is luck. The lottery is luck. Projecting NBA talent isn't luck.

There are guys that can get All-star players without having top 5 picks Jerry West, Larry Bird, Masai Ujiri, R.C. Buford (Gregg Popovich when he was a GM) and believe it or not Isaiah Thomas was a great in the draft. Bob Meyers is also great, but I don't know if it's him or Jerry West identifying the talent. Those guys know what they are doing at the draft. It's not luck.

The luck comes with regards to the generational talents. Where you can only get them in the top 3 picks. But even then you have to have some skill and not get stuck with low upside players like Evan Turner or Okafor when you have the opportunity to draft that high. A GM with an eye to project talent wouldn't make those mistakes.

Of course there's luck. the Warriors didn't know with 100% certainty that Steph Curry was going to be a league MVP, no more that they knew one year later with 100% certainty that Epke Udoh was going to have a better career than Paul George. These aren't computer programs, they are human beings, you can project how they will develop but at the end of the day there are uncertainties and you put yourself in the best position to get "lucky."

The way I see it, it boils down to a numbers game. For example, say you have a couple players with corresponding odds of becoming a good NBA player:

Player A: 75%
Player B: 50%
Player C: 25%

A good GM would take his chances on player A and B. That's not to say that there's no luck involved, because these guys could easily bust. It happens. But that GM is still better than the one who would take players B and C. Repeat this process over a number of years, and you get an idea of which GM's are better drafters.

[Sixerscan]

There are very few GMs that are good at identifying and drafting talent, but the few that are good are easy to identify. It's asinine to say the draft is luck. The lottery is luck. Projecting NBA talent isn't luck.

There are guys that can get All-star players without having top 5 picks Jerry West, Larry Bird, Masai Ujiri, R.C. Buford (Gregg Popovich when he was a GM) and believe it or not Isaiah Thomas was a great in the draft. Bob Meyers is also great, but I don't know if it's him or Jerry West identifying the talent. Those guys know what they are doing at the draft. It's not luck.

The luck comes with regards to the generational talents. Where you can only get them in the top 3 picks. But even then you have to have some skill and not get stuck with low upside players like Evan Turner or Okafor when you have the opportunity to draft that high. A GM with an eye to project talent wouldn't make those mistakes.

Of course there's luck. the Warriors didn't know with 100% certainty that Steph Curry was going to be a league MVP, no more that they knew one year later with 100% certainty that Epke Udoh was going to have a better career than Paul George. These aren't computer programs, they are human beings, you can project how they will develop but at the end of the day there are uncertainties and you put yourself in the best position to get "lucky."

The way I see it, it boils down to a numbers game. For example, say you have a couple players with corresponding odds of becoming a good NBA player:

Player A: 75%
Player B: 50%
Player C: 25%

A good GM would take his chances on player A and B. That's not to say that there's no luck involved, because these guys could easily bust. It happens. But that GM is still better than the one who would take players B and C. Repeat this process over a number of years, and you get an idea of which GM's are better drafters.

Well yeah, the simplicity of your example sort of underplays the role luck has though. The difficult decisions aren't when one guy has a 75% chance and one guy has a 50% or 25% chance. It's when they have 50% and 55% chance. It's difficult to even identify which player is 55% and which is 50% from the team's perspective, let alone the fans.

[eagereyez]

Well yeah, the simplicity of your example sort of underplays the role luck has though. The difficult decisions aren't when one guy has a 75% chance and one guy has a 50% or 25% chance. It's when they have 50% and 55% chance. It's difficult to even identify which player is 55% and which is 50% from the team's perspective, let alone the fans.

I agree. That's why I wouldn't judge a GM based on one or two picks. I give Colangelo a pass for Bargnani, considering the overall quality of his drafts as a whole.

[TTP]

There are very few GMs that are good at identifying and drafting talent, but the few that are good are easy to identify. It's asinine to say the draft is luck. The lottery is luck. Projecting NBA talent isn't luck.

There are guys that can get All-star players without having top 5 picks Jerry West, Larry Bird, Masai Ujiri, R.C. Buford (Gregg Popovich when he was a GM) and believe it or not Isaiah Thomas was a great in the draft. Bob Meyers is also great, but I don't know if it's him or Jerry West identifying the talent. Those guys know what they are doing at the draft. It's not luck.

The luck comes with regards to the generational talents. Where you can only get them in the top 3 picks. But even then you have to have some skill and not get stuck with low upside players like Evan Turner or Okafor when you have the opportunity to draft that high. A GM with an eye to project talent wouldn't make those mistakes.

Of course there's luck. the Warriors didn't know with 100% certainty that Steph Curry was going to be a league MVP, no more that they knew one year later with 100% certainty that Epke Udoh was going to have a better career than Paul George. These aren't computer programs, they are human beings, you can project how they will develop but at the end of the day there are uncertainties and you put yourself in the best position to get "lucky."

The way I see it, it boils down to a numbers game. For example, say you have a couple players with corresponding odds of becoming a good NBA player:

Player A: 75%
Player B: 50%
Player C: 25%

A good GM would take his chances on player A and B. That's not to say that there's no luck involved, because these guys could easily bust. It happens. But that GM is still better than the one who would take players B and C. Repeat this process over a number of years, and you get an idea of which GM's are better drafters.

This is far too simplistic and depends on the payoffs of each of the picks. Suppose players A and B are safe, high floor, low ceiling picks that are extremely likely to be rotation players but unlikely to be top 5 players. Player C could be high upside, low floor and bust a lot, but 25% of the time becomes a top 5 player. In this example, player C could arguably be the highest expectation pick.

[LloydFree]

There is a skill in selecting players who thrn out good. Jerry West is the greatest GM ever. What he has done throughout the years isn't luck. It's skill. It's not luck that wherever he goes he makes the team better and drafts great players.

There are very few GMs that are good at identifying and drafting talent, but the few that are good are easy to identify. It's asinine to say the draft is luck. The lottery is luck. Projecting NBA talent isn't luck.

There are guys that can get All-star players without having top 5 picks Jerry West, Larry Bird, Masai Ujiri, R.C. Buford (Gregg Popovich when he was a GM) and believe it or not Isaiah Thomas was a great in the draft. Bob Meyers is also great, but I don't know if it's him or Jerry West identifying the talent. Those guys know what they are doing at the draft. It's not luck.

The luck comes with regards to the generational talents. Where you can only get them in the top 3 picks. But even then you have to have some skill and not get stuck with low upside players like Evan Turner or Okafor when you have the opportunity to draft that high. A GM with an eye to project talent wouldn't make those mistakes.

Of course there's luck. the Warriors didn't know with 100% certainty that Steph Curry was going to be a league MVP, no more that they knew one year later with 100% certainty that Epke Udoh was going to have a better career than Paul George. These aren't computer programs, they are human beings, you can project how they will develop but at the end of the day there are uncertainties and you put yourself in the best position to get "lucky."

The "luck" that Golden State had with Steph Curry, comes from the huge number of organizations in the NBA that employ GMs do not have enough skill to project talent. There is a reason why the Warriors get Curry and Thompson outside of the top 7 and Draymond and even now McCaw in the 2nd round. There is a reason Larry Bird can get Danny Granger, Paul George, Khawi Leonard and Myles Turner from outside the #10 pick. That's not luck. That's bad drafting GMs selecting Rodney Carney, Evan Turner and Jahlil Okafor over them. Other GMs that can't identify talent, pass on Khawi Leonard and Paul George. The guys who consistently get All-star players while not having top 5 picks have that skill and many of the guys that draft in front of them dont have that skill. If you're of the mindset that most teams have competent GMs and Front offices, then you may think that many All-stars that are drafted late, are "lucky" picks. I don't see it that way. I think there are less good GMs than good ones. That's why the same teams always get good players in the draft.

[eagereyez]

Of course there's luck. the Warriors didn't know with 100% certainty that Steph Curry was going to be a league MVP, no more that they knew one year later with 100% certainty that Epke Udoh was going to have a better career than Paul George. These aren't computer programs, they are human beings, you can project how they will develop but at the end of the day there are uncertainties and you put yourself in the best position to get "lucky."

The way I see it, it boils down to a numbers game. For example, say you have a couple players with corresponding odds of becoming a good NBA player:

Player A: 75%
Player B: 50%
Player C: 25%

A good GM would take his chances on player A and B. That's not to say that there's no luck involved, because these guys could easily bust. It happens. But that GM is still better than the one who would take players B and C. Repeat this process over a number of years, and you get an idea of which GM's are better drafters.

This is far too simplistic and depends on the payoffs of each of the picks. Suppose players A and B are safe, high floor, low ceiling picks that are extremely likely to be rotation players but unlikely to be top 5 players. Player C could be high upside, low floor and bust a lot, but 25% of the time becomes a top 5 player. In this example, player C could arguably be the highest expectation pick.

I understand that my example was overly simplistic, but the underlying logic remains the same. I'll use 2K ratings as an example. Say Player A has a 10% chance of becoming a 95 rating, and Player B has a 50% chance of becoming a 85 rating. Play these two scenarios over a million times, and the person who chooses Player B will end up with the most value. Add the floor ratings into the equation and it becomes even more complex.

In the end, good GM's are better than bad GM's at evaluating these odds and making logical decisions based on their evaluation.

[TTP]

The way I see it, it boils down to a numbers game. For example, say you have a couple players with corresponding odds of becoming a good NBA player:

Player A: 75%
Player B: 50%
Player C: 25%

A good GM would take his chances on player A and B. That's not to say that there's no luck involved, because these guys could easily bust. It happens. But that GM is still better than the one who would take players B and C. Repeat this process over a number of years, and you get an idea of which GM's are better drafters.

This is far too simplistic and depends on the payoffs of each of the picks. Suppose players A and B are safe, high floor, low ceiling picks that are extremely likely to be rotation players but unlikely to be top 5 players. Player C could be high upside, low floor and bust a lot, but 25% of the time becomes a top 5 player. In this example, player C could arguably be the highest expectation pick.

I understand that my example was overly simplistic, but the underlying logic remains the same. I'll use 2K ratings as an example. Say Player A has a 10% chance of becoming a 95 rating, and Player B has a 50% chance of becoming a 85 rating. Play these two scenarios over a million times, and the person who chooses Player B will end up with the most value. Add the floor ratings into the equation and it becomes even more complex.

In the end, good GM's are better than bad GM's at evaluating these odds and making logical decisions based on their evaluation.

I'm not sure I agree with your first paragraph and don't think Hinkie would either. The 85 player is typically going to be a third best player on a championship team. There's also not a linear value difference for each individual rating point (the difference between 95 and 85 is significantly larger than 85 and 75) because of the way the salary cap works. I'm taking the guy with the 10% chance of being a 95.

[eagereyez]

This is far too simplistic and depends on the payoffs of each of the picks. Suppose players A and B are safe, high floor, low ceiling picks that are extremely likely to be rotation players but unlikely to be top 5 players. Player C could be high upside, low floor and bust a lot, but 25% of the time becomes a top 5 player. In this example, player C could arguably be the highest expectation pick.

I understand that my example was overly simplistic, but the underlying logic remains the same. I'll use 2K ratings as an example. Say Player A has a 10% chance of becoming a 95 rating, and Player B has a 50% chance of becoming a 85 rating. Play these two scenarios over a million times, and the person who chooses Player B will end up with the most value. Add the floor ratings into the equation and it becomes even more complex.

In the end, good GM's are better than bad GM's at evaluating these odds and making logical decisions based on their evaluation.

I'm not sure I agree with your first paragraph and don't think Hinkie would either. The 85 player is typically going to be a third best player on a championship team. There's also not a linear value difference for each individual rating point (the difference between 95 and 85 is significantly larger than 85 and 75) because of the way the salary cap works. I'm taking the guy with the 10% chance of being a 95.

The salary cap is another variable you can add to the equation, along with player floor and ceiling. You're missing the point, which is that player evaluation boils down to a game of numbers. A good GM correctly identifies the odds and makes the smart bet.

[TTP]

I understand that my example was overly simplistic, but the underlying logic remains the same. I'll use 2K ratings as an example. Say Player A has a 10% chance of becoming a 95 rating, and Player B has a 50% chance of becoming a 85 rating. Play these two scenarios over a million times, and the person who chooses Player B will end up with the most value. Add the floor ratings into the equation and it becomes even more complex.

In the end, good GM's are better than bad GM's at evaluating these odds and making logical decisions based on their evaluation.

I'm not sure I agree with your first paragraph and don't think Hinkie would either. The 85 player is typically going to be a third best player on a championship team. There's also not a linear value difference for each individual rating point (the difference between 95 and 85 is significantly larger than 85 and 75) because of the way the salary cap works. I'm taking the guy with the 10% chance of being a 95.

The salary cap is another variable you can add to the equation, along with player floor and ceiling. You're missing the point, which is that player evaluation boils down to a game of numbers. A good GM correctly identifies the odds and makes the smart bet.

I agree with what you just said but it's incongruent with what you previously said. All of your posts prior implied that the safest bet is the best, which is a pretty big misconception. Best bet means highest expected value after considering both probability and payout. A good GM considers both. Bad GMs go for the safe bets to keep their jobs.

[eagereyez]

I'm not sure I agree with your first paragraph and don't think Hinkie would either. The 85 player is typically going to be a third best player on a championship team. There's also not a linear value difference for each individual rating point (the difference between 95 and 85 is significantly larger than 85 and 75) because of the way the salary cap works. I'm taking the guy with the 10% chance of being a 95.

The salary cap is another variable you can add to the equation, along with player floor and ceiling. You're missing the point, which is that player evaluation boils down to a game of numbers. A good GM correctly identifies the odds and makes the smart bet.

I agree with what you just said but it's incongruent with what you previously said. All of your posts prior implied that the safest bet is the best, which is a pretty big misconception. Best bet means highest expected value after considering both probability and payout. A good GM considers both. Bad GMs go for the safe bets to keep their jobs.

No, there's a difference between a safe bet and a smart bet. Say you could buy a scratch ticket for $1 with a 1/10 chance of winning $5, or you could buy a scratch ticket for $2 with a 1/250 chance of winning $400. You're more likely to see a return on the first 'safe' bet, but the second bet produces the better ROI. I never implied that the safe bet is the smart bet.

[NYSixersFan]

Who thinks Hinkie gets another GM job? why or why not?

[Braggins]