queridiculo wrote:payitforward wrote:11 GMs passed on him after Tommy, yet no one taken in those picks has been anywhere near as good as him so far. Nor has anyone taken in the first 9. No particular blame falls on Sheppard that doesn't fall on at least 28 of the 30 NBA GMs.
I always feel like that kind of reasoning is a cop out....
Fair enough. Especially since I was the one saying trade down to increase your chances. I was the one pointing out that there's no correlation between pick position & success in the league after the first 3 picks. & I was the one leading the Brandon Clarke parade.
I had Brandon Clarke ranked as the 2d best player in the draft, right behind Zion -- & not just 2d best in the draft: I had him as a virtual lock to be an impact player in the NBA.( I & not you, btw, on all of that -- if it matters. Which it doesn't.)
queridiculo wrote:...Just look at that list of GMs that picked between those slots. There's a good chance that 6 to 7 of those guys aren't going to be around by the time the rookie deals they gave out this summer are up for extension....
Two problems with that: 1) Clarke has been better than every single player picked
before him as well as those picked after him, so it has nothing to do with "that list of GMs," & 2) anyway, you can make a random list of 10 GMs, & "6 to 7 of those guys aren't going to be around" in 3 years.
queridiculo wrote:...This was a mediocre to bad draft class, so why not swing for the fences, hedge your risk by increasing the number of choices you make?...
Every single year, people say "this is a bad draft," or "this is a great draft," & with extremely rare exceptions they are all basically about the same. This class will turn out the same way.
Why? Because of what I cited above: outside the top 3, guys taken earlier in the draft are not better NBA players than guys taken after them. Period. &, since most of them don't turn out particularly well, it's always a good idea, in every single draft save maybe 2-3 in the last 20 years, to trade down from the 9th pick. Every year.
2011 offers a textbook example of both these points: it was universally predicted to be a terrible draft: of course -- because no one adequately valued e.g. Kawhi Leonard, Jimmy Butler & Isaiah Thomas.
In effect, the
idea that "this is a bad draft" & the
fact that you can't predict performance from players picked after #3 are two sides of the same coin.
Now... even though you will virtually always get more talent by drafting down from e.g. #4, there can be legitimate reasons not to do so: above all, if you don't have room for more than 1 rookie. Duh.
queridiculo wrote:Falling in love with players is how you mess up, I wish Sheppard would have learned from the Vesely disaster.
Correct! A draft pick is an asset. It's like capital. You don't fall in love with an asset; you use it wisely.
