Slather me, Lather me, Blather me - 2011 Draft Thread 5

[The Consiglieri]

For those who hate our draft, or liked it but enjoy contrary opinions, I came across this, I leave the link and comment w/o any comment of my own:

http://dberri.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/ ... nd-losers/

...2. Who lost the draft?
With the #6, #18, and #34 picks, the Wizards had a chance at a huge draft haul. Instead, they walked away with Jan Vesely, Chris Singleton, and Shelvin Mack. Vesely posted a PAWS/40 of 6.76 overseas, which was only good enough for 66th place among all the players who were drafted. Singleton (8.50, 47th) and Mack (8.67, 43rd) weren’t much better, but at least they were somewhat close to average (PAWS/40 of 10) and not below the cutoff line (PAWS/40 of 7)....

[hands11]

To wrap this up I wasn't anticipating a fight breaking out or anything, particularly not between Nate and CCJ because neither of you would instigate one, but just to explain that CCJ tends to use fairly definitive language when making statements about the draft based in equal parts upon a decent track record and upon pretty good sales skills and because I feel like the "how can you be so sure your opinions are right?" question pops up pretty regularly in response. Basically just that debate about the content of anyone's views is fine and productive whereas specifically bringing into play the strength of conviction conveyed by their language doesn't ever really go anywhere.

And this was days ago and on another board but I was kidding about the signature Raf.

Aaaaannnd my guess is Faried was probably the fallback option if Singleton wasn't available at 18, unless the player who fell to 18 rather than Singleton (if it were Leonard, Thompson, one of the Morris bros) was higher on the team's board.

I didnt find anything wrong with what CJJ said. Actually I welcome his view. He has good insight on players and says it like he see it regardless of which way the wind is blowing.

[SUPERBALLMAN]

Check out the realgm wiretap article on Josh Harrelson. I'm on by phone so can't post it.

Considering we missed on Kanter, Harrelson would of been a nice pickup. A workhorse type lowpost center. NY picked him up for 750 k. That's a assertive kind of move I was looking for from Grunfeld, rather than just status quo select our picks. With our past of selling picks, I was hoping we'd be at the other end of that spectrum this year.

[closg00]

For those who hate our draft, or liked it but enjoy contrary opinions, I came across this, I leave the link and comment w/o any comment of my own:

http://dberri.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/ ... nd-losers/

...2. Who lost the draft?
With the #6, #18, and #34 picks, the Wizards had a chance at a huge draft haul. Instead, they walked away with Jan Vesely, Chris Singleton, and Shelvin Mack. Vesely posted a PAWS/40 of 6.76 overseas, which was only good enough for 66th place among all the players who were drafted. Singleton (8.50, 47th) and Mack (8.67, 43rd) weren’t much better, but at least they were somewhat close to average (PAWS/40 of 10) and not below the cutoff line (PAWS/40 of 7)....

Nice, finally a contrarian view of the draft, The Wages of Wins blog is always an good read. The piece also included this:

4. Who made the biggest reach?
Canadian Tristan Thompson had a PAWS/40 of 8.18, which put him 51st out of all the players who were drafted, and yet the Cavs selected him at #4. While I’m glad they did – it certainly removed any chance that my favorite team, the Raptors, would draft the hometown boy one pick later – it was not a good pick. They made the right choice by picking Kyrie Irving with the #1, but man…there were much better options available at #4. Honorable mentions go out to Washington (Jan Vesely, ranked 66th) and Detroit (Brandon Knight, ranked 65th).

I didn't know Knight ranked so poorly.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Well, ccj, does that mean you think Faried's rebounding ability will contribute more to the team's success than Singleton's defensive ability?

I guess it depends on Vesely. Is he a three? Then Singleton will be buried on the bench and won't contribute much at all. If you can play Vesely at the four then you can get more out of Singleton. Maybe after dumping Blatche for a future first.

But isn't Faried, a rebounding specialist with limited offensive skills, more or less condemned to a lifetime sixth man role? Or do you see him as a Yoakim Noah type of contributor?

Far be it from me to speak for CCJ, but I've always felt judging from his posts that CCJ believes that Faried is basically going to hit his ceiling potential across the board in terms of his skill set. Be a fiend on the boards, a force on D, and turn his effiency scoring in college (apparently considered a potential NBA liability as it appears he has a rudimentary collection of skills/moves, that are unlikely to be nearly as effective against NBA 3's and 4's and 5's) into at least, a league average tool (to use baseball parlance. If he did all this, at worst, he'd be a very good to above average pro.

The sense I get from CCJ is that he believes he will do all that and more (hinting at a HOF future), and for me anyway, it's a little bit of a stretch to take any prospect and project him to reach the ceiling of his potential in every tool/skill set said player has, particularly when a player has very clear weaknesses and frailities. It's certainly possible, but to suggest this is anything more than a lower end possibility, is a stretch, and to suggest its a probability or in CCJ's case, a seeming certainty, is a little beyond the pale.

For me, I think there's little chance he fails. I just don't know how successfull he'll be, in the end, I'm expecting a Noah, with a slightly better offensive game, and a slightly inferior defensive game, but that's only because like CCJ, i am very impressed with Faried, but even I'd argue that this is just a hunch, and that if i could place odds, i'd have to be honest and say even this very high ceiling is 70/30 against happening, more likely, he beomes an effective league average or above average starter or first off the bench option for his role.

Consiglieri, what I think is Faried will fare well defensively at SF. Somebody will say he's a terrific rebounder, has a motor, and can defend guys like Melo while grabbing lots of boards.

Faried would have worked exceptionally well next to both Blatche and McGee.

[doclinkin]

I don't see any honest way of assessing CCJ's views about Blair except to say that he was correct. Passing on him in lottery made sense because of concerns about his knees. Maybe even the first round. But he has been a great pick for the Spurs at 37, and a fantastic value considering how little he gets paid. I don't think he'd have changed the course of the Wizards franchise, but he'd be a valued piece of the future front line had the Wizards picked him.

Well to be clear CCJ wanted to draft him at #5, which may be way too high. (My boy Curry I guess? There are a few others a little a bit more productive. Taj Gibson, say. I dunno.) The Wiz however pi55ed away the selection entirely so we would have been better off with CCJ on the clock.

On the flipside of the flipside: John Wall. So, that.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I don't see any honest way of assessing CCJ's views about Blair except to say that he was correct. Passing on him in lottery made sense because of concerns about his knees. Maybe even the first round. But he has been a great pick for the Spurs at 37, and a fantastic value considering how little he gets paid. I don't think he'd have changed the course of the Wizards franchise, but he'd be a valued piece of the future front line had the Wizards picked him.

Well to be clear CCJ wanted to draft him at #5, which may be way too high. (My boy Curry I guess? There are a few others a little a bit more productive. Taj Gibson, say. I dunno.) The Wiz however pi55ed away the selection entirely so we would have been better off with CCJ on the clock.

On the flipside of the flipside: John Wall. So, that.

Yeah, last season I said Curry and Blair, no brainer. I said Blair was worth a 5, but don't draft him that high--trade down.

What the Wizards did getting Miller and Foye was beyond ludicrous because both guys were one-year rentals, and because I KNEW Curry was way better than Foye (the same way I KNOW Faried is better than Blatche, Singleton, Booker, or Vesely).

[GhostsOfGil]

For those who hate our draft, or liked it but enjoy contrary opinions, I came across this, I leave the link and comment w/o any comment of my own:

http://dberri.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/ ... nd-losers/

...2. Who lost the draft?
With the #6, #18, and #34 picks, the Wizards had a chance at a huge draft haul. Instead, they walked away with Jan Vesely, Chris Singleton, and Shelvin Mack. Vesely posted a PAWS/40 of 6.76 overseas, which was only good enough for 66th place among all the players who were drafted. Singleton (8.50, 47th) and Mack (8.67, 43rd) weren’t much better, but at least they were somewhat close to average (PAWS/40 of 10) and not below the cutoff line (PAWS/40 of 7)....

rose PAWS/40 3.2...

theres still hope

[Ed Wood]

Good call, Ed. You probably also know I'm leaving her alone. I've got enough kids and I'm doing things God's way. I'll just keep being a good neighbor.

Lend me some sugar big daddy.

And that negative review is sort of contrarian, but roughly everybody who owned a computer and was willing to admit to the world they like math basically had the same "beep boop, my calculations show that Jan Vesely is a scrub" conclusion so he's not THAT out there. This is not great news when you consider that while super cool dudes on the general board scoff at the very mention of John Hollinger he probably has a better predictive track record than anyone else who writes for ESPN and his numbers also informed him Ves was pretty much ass (this was also supported by my numbers, which I have chosen to conveniently ignore on the basis of what the hell else am I supposed to do a this point).

[LyricalRico]

Could this guy actually make it as a role player?

Josh Harrellson joining Amar'e Stoudemire and Carmelo Anthony isn't going to give the Knicks a Big 3 like the team in Miami that recently choked.

But the rookie big man might give them a presence every team needs to advance, especially in the playoffs.

"I'm going to protect my stars," Harrellson said yesterday at halftime of the Liberty's win over the Los Angeles Sparks at the Prudential Center. "Amar'e, Carmelo, if someone's getting rough with them, I'm going to protect them. I'm going to make my presence felt. They'll know I'm there."

Harrellson, the No. 45 overall pick whom the Knicks acquired from the Hornets in a draft-night deal for about $750,000, said he thinks he can have a long NBA career as -- his words -- a garbage man.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/knicks/t ... z1QXElrZEY

[hands11]

Well, ccj, does that mean you think Faried's rebounding ability will contribute more to the team's success than Singleton's defensive ability?

I guess it depends on Vesely. Is he a three? Then Singleton will be buried on the bench and won't contribute much at all. If you can play Vesely at the four then you can get more out of Singleton. Maybe after dumping Blatche for a future first.

But isn't Faried, a rebounding specialist with limited offensive skills, more or less condemned to a lifetime sixth man role? Or do you see him as a Yoakim Noah type of contributor?

There was an article that used to get posted around called something like.. How to build an NBA Champion. One of the key components was to have a player who had won something like, all defense team player. Now there were other pieces you needed to have and I dont know if that trend has held but if Singleton is at that level, then that is a player you want.

From the looks of the players they got, I wouldn't be surprised is Faried was on their list. The just liked Singleton more.

We aren't going to know until they play. But all things equal, Etan dreeded me out.

Ah, I think this may have been it.

http://www.82games.com/dennis.htm

Maybe some one out there now where to get or how to make an updated list of this data.

[hands11]

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/05/09/2010 ... index.html

May 12, 2011 3:43 pm
All-NBA First Team

C- Howard
F- Durant
F- James
G- Bryant
G- Rose

All-NBA Second Team

C- Stoudemire
F- Pau Gasol
F- Nowitzki
G- Wade
G- Westbrook

All-NBA third Team

C- Horford
F- Randolph
F- Aldridge
G- Ginobili
G- Paul

All-Defensive First Team

C- Howard
F- Garnett
F- James
G- Bryant
G- Rondo

All-Defensive Second Team

C- Chandler
F- Noah
F- Andre Iguodala
G- Tony allen
G- Chris Paul

http://www.nba.com/2010/news/features/j ... index.html


So could Singleton and Wall find themselves on one of these lists. Obviously getting Howard would help fill the slots. I still think we have a chance to pull this off if things work out. Chandler is on the list which gives some hope for McGee if he develops properly and matures. Plus we have a new ? in Ves.

But we don't have to have all the players we need here right now, we needed quality assets. They are going to add more players via draft, consolidation/trades and FA after the CBA.

[Kanyewest]

Check out the realgm wiretap article on Josh Harrelson. I'm on by phone so can't post it.

Considering we missed on Kanter, Harrelson would of been a nice pickup. A workhorse type lowpost center. NY picked him up for 750 k. That's a assertive kind of move I was looking for from Grunfeld, rather than just status quo select our picks. With our past of selling picks, I was hoping we'd be at the other end of that spectrum this year.

How many young players are the Wizards willing to have on their roster? Right now they have 2nd years in Wall, Seraphin, Booker, Crawford, and N'diaye. Then they have first year players including Vesley, Singleton, and Mack. Then we have the semi-young guys in McGee, Blatche, and Young (if they re-sign him). That's already 10-11 guys who are pretty young. Not sure if the Wizards need to add a 12th guy to that mix especially since they should project to add a couple more young guys in 2012.

[hands11]

opps

[doclinkin]

double...

[doclinkin]

For those who hate our draft, or liked it but enjoy contrary opinions, I came across this, I leave the link and comment w/o any comment of my own:

http://dberri.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/ ... nd-losers/

...2. Who lost the draft?
With the #6, #18, and #34 picks, the Wizards had a chance at a huge draft haul. Instead, they walked away with Jan Vesely, Chris Singleton, and Shelvin Mack. Vesely posted a PAWS/40 of 6.76 overseas, which was only good enough for 66th place among all the players who were drafted. Singleton (8.50, 47th) and Mack (8.67, 43rd) weren’t much better, but at least they were somewhat close to average (PAWS/40 of 10) and not below the cutoff line (PAWS/40 of 7)....

The Wins Score dingleberris all get my goat. This Galetti dude chief among them. They have their pet stat and tend to view the entire world through that lens without questioning what goes into the numbers. I laid out on a Galetti article's comments field the case for why the winscore numbers are skewed in Calipari's Dribble-Drive-Motion offense, that in essence you're going to see guards with suppressed rebounding and assist numbers in the system, thus lower overall PAWS. The response was: 'yes but my numbers say they are bad...' With no understanding nor interest in transition defense emphasis, zone defense schemes vs man, dribble-drive and kick attacks vs scripted plays to free catch-and-shoot attempts (thus assist vs Free throw numbers); coaching effects. They just want to make reality fit their pet number. (Well sure, quite often rebounding has a significant game effect Poindexter, but if your numbers keep coming up wrong for one winning team's players, ask yourself why. Can't call it 'Win' score if they suck but their teams keep winning. And please don't gimme no Joey Dorsey...)

Dude was still trying to say, as of preseason 2010 that Derrick Rose was a subpar player, overrated. And John Wall likely would be too.

Now granted, their win prediction was far better than our on-board pundits, but still...

Here's where they're quite possibly in error. Consider:

http://kenpom.com/index.php?s=RankAdjDE

The Berrians would have Tristan Thompson and Chris Singleton as below-average players. Why? Largely because they have semi-weak rebounding figures for power forwards (the 'P.A.' aspect of Position Adjusted 'Win' Score). Yet somebody on those squads was forcing opponents to miss. FSU and Texas were the number one and number two best defensively efficient squads.

If Tristan Thompson and Chris Singleton showed anemic rebounding numbers it's in large part the Brendan Haywood effect -- that is, they were challenging the point of attack, roaming the middle ground to deter interior drives, defending the pick and roll on the perimeter. Thus Antawn Jamison could feel free to flit around untouched and snatch uncontested bounces. All you need to know is that the PAWSys loved Antawn Jamison because he rebounded, scored pretty efficiently and never turned the ball over, (because quite frankly he never held it long enough to pass it). Nevermind the fact that Brendan Haywood, for all his weak tea defensive rebounding numbers consistently showed the greatest effect on actual success on/off court (adjusted for personnel).

Here, Singleton had nobody behind him to rebound at all, but he pretty much singlehandedly forced the number one best defensive eFG% in the NCAA last year. Tristan Thompson is largely responsible for Jordan Hamilton's swollen rebounding totals. You see similar deflated numbers in JanVes' stats. However situational iso'ed video stats show that he forced opponents to shoot 30% when faced against him, and opponent possessions resulted in a turnover one time in three. If you watch video you see him often seal his man as his top priority while another player snatches the board. I suspect if you had good on/off numbers for these players (T2 and 1'ton in particular) you would see their teams rebounded the ball at a much higher rate when they were on court.

But the CrunchBerri's stick to their single stat out of fear of nuance, and desire for a simple clean reductive number that anygeek can understand even if you were commonly picked last at the playground and couldn't point out a triple staggered screen if you spotted them the first two.

There is no sacred secret single number that will save the basketball world. Sometimes the eyeball test will tell you: dude can play. Occasionally you can add depth and complexity to your numbers if you examine them more closely in context. Feel free to question your dogma. You don't have to be scared of the real world. Nobody is gonna laugh at you anymore because you can't figure out how to put on your athletic protector (hint: it don't go in your pocket to protect your shirt from inkstains).

Individually: yes, if you get a bunch of dudes who can rebound well and don't turn the ball over, chances are you have a swarm of good players. An efficient team. No genius needed. But sometimes you got to account for things that don't show up in a box score. Sometimes it's clear a player can flat out play. Question the numbers if they tell you otherwise.

numbers also informed him Ves was pretty much ass (this was also supported by my numbers, which I have chosen to conveniently ignore on the basis of what the hell else am I supposed to do a this point).

Which is where I always am at this point in the offseason. Shopping for rose tinted Foster Grants.

[Ed Wood]

You're mostly right doc, though I think the tendency for a lot of statisticians trying to make it in sports media to be one stat men is as much a commercial decision as it is out of any genuine belief on the part of the particular dork that the one stat is in fact the stat that will describe basketball so perfectly as to destroy it. Hollinger is the beacon by which courses are charted and calculators are programmed because he makes a lot of money and he's Mr. PER so everybody wants their own stat that will conveniently tell them that Ian Mahinmi is a top tier power forward so they can write an article about it everybody can kvetch about and bring in traffic so their sponsors will properly appreciate their contribution to the cause of putting a shakeweight in every living room in the world.

That said I'm not fond of administering the eye test because between knowing dick all about real basketball (triple screens are worth three points yeah?) and not being able to watch enough game tape, and definitely not being able to watch enough of the right sort of game tape, I personally think my eye for talent blows and that it would be fired if it had to make significant NBA decisions unless it had a butt like Isiah Thomas. My mathematical skills aren't NBA caliber either but they at least got me through college.

Anyway, at this point I don't particularly mind the reductive catch-all stats because I know roughly where they're coming from and what data is being fed in to yield the product I see and from there I can make a semi-informed and semi-terrible decision about what to take seriously and to what degree (defense is the ghost in the machine in baseball as well so I'm used to dinging the Antawn's of the world when math cannot follow where I go). Plus, as we've both acknowledged, despite the frequent discovery of some goofy-ass stuff via the application of linear regression and a willingness to say that Chris Wilcox is good at basketball, stats guys tend to be more accurate over the long term than manly man game watchers who actually play basketball.

You also have to realize that while there's good work being done by a lot of people who aren't directly involved in the industry there's also some math going on within and some of that math ain't having some of the **** that's coming out of the guys who post their math on the internet. See Houston grabbing Marcus Morris, Denver taking Farried and OKC hitting up Reggie Jackson (despite already having Eric Maynor, madness) even though Hollinger's draft rater turned up its nose at them.

And you do have to keep in mind just how dumb a lot of the stuff that the more traditional approach to evaluating the sport left dead on the porch before somebody checked it on a slide rule, I mean the numbers only tree house may be a little juvenile at times but have you seen what Joe Morgan thinks about baseball? The man is a hall of famer and you'd think he'd know how he did it, but he will go to his well appointed grave looking like somebody pays him well to wear nice suits thinking some really strange things about the game of baseball.

[doclinkin]

Well of course but the above should be read with a certain appreciation for irony considering I back it all up with more abstruse stattery. On teh internets one can be both manly man and mouthbreathing stat squinter. Whatever your typing skill allows.

But yeah Dave Berri is trying to sell a book. Or the digital facsimile thereof, available for download with your dollar fitty or whatever. And when challenged on a perticlar nugget and counter-exampled into a corner and asked to esplain himself his answer is invariably : "Well buy my book and you can read all about it..."

I think he's just peeved he hasn't earned a job with a front office somewhere.

Personally seems to me the best stuff is being done via video analysis. And Mark Cuban's squad was able to earn him a ring by careful self-examination of their methodology. I'm happy that Teddy makes noises in this direction, though reports suggest he may have temporarily headed in the wrong direction (Yi ranked high in the esteem of the system he was purported to consult). That we are losing Yi (as we were losing with Yi) suggests he may have executed that particular grand vizier.

I got nothing against folks who don't know which side is up on an athletic protector. I'm just saying you got to be manly enough to examine your methodology and admit when it ain't working right.

[Ed Wood]

I'm happy that Teddy makes noises in this direction, though reports suggest he may have temporarily headed in the wrong direction (Yi ranked high in the esteem of the system he was purported to consult). That we are losing Yi (as we were losing with Yi) suggests he may have executed that particular grand vizier.

Designing a statistically based evaluative system under which Yi Jianlian is a desirable commodity. That's not math, that is art.

I got nothing against folks who don't know which side is up on an athletic protector. I'm just saying you got to be manly enough to examine your methodology and admit when it ain't working right.

No, I'm fairly certain barfing up enormous dreadnoughts of written language so nobody actually remembers you have opinions that are all wrong also works unless that last five years have been a very prolonged make a wish providing me with the experience of not being considered stupid despite fairly persuasive evidence to the contrary.


Uh, so feel free not to remind me that I really liked Tomislav Zubcic and Leon Radosevic in the second round of the 2012 draft in three years when they're not in the NBA. Unless I'm dead, then go nuts I guess.

[The Consiglieri]

Good call, Ed. You probably also know I'm leaving her alone. I've got enough kids and I'm doing things God's way. I'll just keep being a good neighbor.

Lend me some sugar big daddy.

And that negative review is sort of contrarian, but roughly everybody who owned a computer and was willing to admit to the world they like math basically had the same "beep boop, my calculations show that Jan Vesely is a scrub" conclusion so he's not THAT out there. This is not great news when you consider that while super cool dudes on the general board scoff at the very mention of John Hollinger he probably has a better predictive track record than anyone else who writes for ESPN and his numbers also informed him Ves was pretty much ass (this was also supported by my numbers, which I have chosen to conveniently ignore on the basis of what the hell else am I supposed to do a this point).

I'm not all that worried about it, especially when the sample size is so small, from different leagues, with different players, with such a young player. Players can and do make rapid changes, especially when there environments are changed in a possitive fashion. I'm a big believer in metrics, especially in baseball where the sample size is infinitely broader, less so when its done cross league, smaller samples sizes, w/radically different and less comparable set ups. I do think Hollinger and other types are more reliable than eye test things, and stuff of that primitive sort, but I also think that Vesely is not so simple as a few numbers, he's changing worlds, leagues, and environments radically, we'll see what he can do. IF the numbers told the whole story, league results nad game results would be far more predictable than they actually are. We wouldn't have stuff like Butler v VCU in the final four for instance.

The key to me is that Vesely is what league coaches, GM's and other types felt about Vesely as a young player, and they felt very good. There is no doubt that there are massive holes in his game, metrics underline that, but in the end, we really have no way of knowing if he's going to be that. For instance, this dudes metrics said the Nuggests had a great draft, Im really not so sure, ive read compelling arguments that Faried won't be able to translate his skill set on the offensive end whatsoever to the next level, and Jordan Hamilton, a guy i also liked, , was apparently trashed to high heaven by his coach, not exactly a good thing there. And as for Singleton, all the measurables on him were trending upward before an injury ruined his season, and i gotta tell you, putting up nice metrics on say, Texas, is very different than Singleton trying to get his offense down surrounded by the Flordia State chapter of Mason's.

I think we did fine, i think Vesely's gonna take time, but get it down, i think we hit a home run, or at worst, a ground rule double with Singleton, and Mack was a 2nd rounder likely to stick, and certainly if nothing else, a better bet than most 2nd rounders.