[joe2324Participant]

I just wanted to get some thoughts on which style you prefer when drafting players or if it depends on the situation. I believe drafting best player is always the right approach. The reason I bring this up is because the Sixers are in an unusual situation. They currently have Nerlens Noel at center who is proving to be a defensive force and a rookie of the year canadiate. They also have Joel Embiid waiting who many see Tim Duncan qualities in him. In my opinion, the best player in the draft is Okafur. I am not sure how this would work because it would involve these guys making sacrifices. Could you imagine a front line of those 3? In spite of their need at point guard, if the sixers have the first pick, i’m not trading it and i’m not reaching for Russell or Mudiay; i’m taking the best player.

The rockets made it work in the 80s with Hakeem and Sampson. Could Noel play the 3 while Okafur plays center and Embiid at PF? Or would Noel have to come off the bench? Where would you put Saric in that mix? These are fun and exciting problems to have. I wish the Knicks had this much talent. Either way, i see the Sixers as a strong team next year. I see them competing for the 8th seed in a weak eastern conference next year.

[joe2324Participant]

Not drafting the best player is what caused the Blazers to pass on Jordan in the 84 draft because they had Drexler. Instead they drafted for position and took Sam Bowie. Obviously, we all know how that played out.  

[joe2324Participant]

Not drafting the best player is what caused the Blazers to pass on Jordan in the 84 draft because they had Drexler. Instead they drafted for position and took Sam Bowie. Obviously, we all know how that played out.  

[HitsterParticipant]

 It depends what the team’s situation is, who the BPA available is, who the existing player in that position is. For the frontcourt you can often fit in two guys alongside each other or run a 3 man rotation, you can sometimes start a guy at SG and he then moves to SF. With PG’s it becomes a bit more difficult as one may have to play off ball but teams sometimes now use a double PG line up.

As regards Philly, I don’t see Noel going to the bench anytime soon if they did draft Okafor or Towns, one of those two and Embiid would be competing to play alongside Noel I feel.

 

[HitsterParticipant]

 It depends what the team’s situation is, who the BPA available is, who the existing player in that position is. For the frontcourt you can often fit in two guys alongside each other or run a 3 man rotation, you can sometimes start a guy at SG and he then moves to SF. With PG’s it becomes a bit more difficult as one may have to play off ball but teams sometimes now use a double PG line up.

As regards Philly, I don’t see Noel going to the bench anytime soon if they did draft Okafor or Towns, one of those two and Embiid would be competing to play alongside Noel I feel.

 

[omphalosParticipant]

I feel like you should avoid positional overlap with top-5 picks in the draft unless you’re prepared to move one on.

Noel and Embiid can probably play the 4/5, but there’s no way you’d take Okafor or even Towns first overall if you’re Philly unless you wanted to trade down later.

When you have too many guys with potential at similar positions it just about guarantees that some of them won’t pan out.

It’s hard for young guys to grow knowing there’s another young guy fighting for the same spot.

In general I’m a team-need guy, but it goes beyond positions and is to do with fit in terms of skillset as well.

For example, the Kings had Cousins, a C and drafted Thomas Robinson, a PF, but because Robinson had no shooting range it didn’t make sense alongside DMC and he got shipped out

 

 

 

 

 

 

[omphalosParticipant]

I feel like you should avoid positional overlap with top-5 picks in the draft unless you’re prepared to move one on.

Noel and Embiid can probably play the 4/5, but there’s no way you’d take Okafor or even Towns first overall if you’re Philly unless you wanted to trade down later.

When you have too many guys with potential at similar positions it just about guarantees that some of them won’t pan out.

It’s hard for young guys to grow knowing there’s another young guy fighting for the same spot.

In general I’m a team-need guy, but it goes beyond positions and is to do with fit in terms of skillset as well.

For example, the Kings had Cousins, a C and drafted Thomas Robinson, a PF, but because Robinson had no shooting range it didn’t make sense alongside DMC and he got shipped out

 

 

 

 

 

 

[kdtriv01Participant]

I think a general rule of thumb is that if you are drafting in the top 10 or in the lottery you go BPA, the other teams are already playoff teams and therefore can afford to draft for need. All of this within reason of course.

[kdtriv01Participant]

I think a general rule of thumb is that if you are drafting in the top 10 or in the lottery you go BPA, the other teams are already playoff teams and therefore can afford to draft for need. All of this within reason of course.

[XYRYXParticipant]

Personally, I don’t really like drafting only for potential or BPA (which are two different things who get used as the same term sometimes even on here). 

On the other hand you really need to have balls to pass on a clearly better prospect just to fill team needs, or to be more precise use your top 3 or 5 pick on a player who seems to be proven at his position. 

To me, the only right way to evaluate top tier draft prospects prior to the draft is by going for the right FIT. To me this means a lot more than positional fit to a team. One big reason for OKCs success in my opinion is that Presti and his crew looked at all talent available and asked themselves who is a guy I would hand the keys to this team? Who is driven enough to sooner or later reach his potential when given big minutes. 

A rookie player has to fit a culture with his new team. Cousins for example was always a winner before he joined the Kings and had truckloads of problems dealing with coaching changes or just losing. First of all you need a good feeling about a player AND need to know what you expect out of him from a team perspective, then the list of talent you could really draft will get much shorter. Just my 2c

[XYRYXParticipant]

Personally, I don’t really like drafting only for potential or BPA (which are two different things who get used as the same term sometimes even on here). 

On the other hand you really need to have balls to pass on a clearly better prospect just to fill team needs, or to be more precise use your top 3 or 5 pick on a player who seems to be proven at his position. 

To me, the only right way to evaluate top tier draft prospects prior to the draft is by going for the right FIT. To me this means a lot more than positional fit to a team. One big reason for OKCs success in my opinion is that Presti and his crew looked at all talent available and asked themselves who is a guy I would hand the keys to this team? Who is driven enough to sooner or later reach his potential when given big minutes. 

A rookie player has to fit a culture with his new team. Cousins for example was always a winner before he joined the Kings and had truckloads of problems dealing with coaching changes or just losing. First of all you need a good feeling about a player AND need to know what you expect out of him from a team perspective, then the list of talent you could really draft will get much shorter. Just my 2c

[HitsterParticipant]

Teams can be high in the draft but have a specific need to round off a team, for the Thunder it worked as they took KD, Green, Westbrook, Harden across 3 drafts with each playing a slightly different role.

The T-Wolves, Cavs in recent years have had a load of high drafts and maybe drafted with positions in mind but with a lot less success.

In 2010 the Pacers had a top 10 pick and took Paul George which a lot of us thought was strange as he played the same position mainly as Danny Grainger then their best player. This was probably a case of taking BPA and itr worked out as George became an All Star in his own right and Grainger had injury issues and was eventually traded.

Boston last year took Marcus Smart when they already had Rondo and Bradley in place, it was probably a safety net in case Rondo moved on but also a case of BPA.

 

[HitsterParticipant]

Teams can be high in the draft but have a specific need to round off a team, for the Thunder it worked as they took KD, Green, Westbrook, Harden across 3 drafts with each playing a slightly different role.

The T-Wolves, Cavs in recent years have had a load of high drafts and maybe drafted with positions in mind but with a lot less success.

In 2010 the Pacers had a top 10 pick and took Paul George which a lot of us thought was strange as he played the same position mainly as Danny Grainger then their best player. This was probably a case of taking BPA and itr worked out as George became an All Star in his own right and Grainger had injury issues and was eventually traded.

Boston last year took Marcus Smart when they already had Rondo and Bradley in place, it was probably a safety net in case Rondo moved on but also a case of BPA.

 

[ProudGrandpaParticipant]

 Yeah, I like to draft based off team need.

For example, if I’m the 76ers, I’m a team that needs talent, so I will (try) to draft a player with talent.

[ProudGrandpaParticipant]

 Yeah, I like to draft based off team need.

For example, if I’m the 76ers, I’m a team that needs talent, so I will (try) to draft a player with talent.

[BallBeenLifeParticipant]

If the Sixers win the lottery and are sitting at the #1 spot I could see them trading down to 3 or 4 if the right deal is in place. Noel is showing the potiental and is starting to really develop nicely in Philly. I think that the "red-shirt" year that Noel went through his first offical year in the NBA did wonders for him! If he continues to work on his shot and touch around the rim I think he’ll be able to play the PF next to Embid.

 

 

 

 

[BallBeenLifeParticipant]

If the Sixers win the lottery and are sitting at the #1 spot I could see them trading down to 3 or 4 if the right deal is in place. Noel is showing the potiental and is starting to really develop nicely in Philly. I think that the "red-shirt" year that Noel went through his first offical year in the NBA did wonders for him! If he continues to work on his shot and touch around the rim I think he’ll be able to play the PF next to Embid.

 

 

 

 

[HitsterParticipant]

 Another food point to consider is that often we start looking at a high lottery team’s line up and thinking, he’s a good player, he shows potential etc and almost looking for reasons not to draft a player. Often we forget that team may have only won say 25 games that season so whilst the team may have upside, the parts don’t fit together yet.

Good examples of that this year could be teams like Orlando and T-Wolves.

 

[HitsterParticipant]

 Another food point to consider is that often we start looking at a high lottery team’s line up and thinking, he’s a good player, he shows potential etc and almost looking for reasons not to draft a player. Often we forget that team may have only won say 25 games that season so whilst the team may have upside, the parts don’t fit together yet.

Good examples of that this year could be teams like Orlando and T-Wolves.

 

[omphalosParticipant]

I disagree that the Wolves have parts that don’t fit together yet.

Wiggins and Lavine are a natural 2/3 combination with great athleticism, developing shooting ability and marked improvement within the season.

Muhammad is the ideal 6th man or as a 2/3 alongside Wiggins or Lavine, especially now that Wiggins has expanded his game beyond post-ups.

Rubio is a pass-first PG with two guys who like to run in transition and can finish lobs with easy in Wiggins and Lavine.

Dieng is a big guy who can run, has decent range and is low-key.

Bennett in theory is a stretch PF who can get boards and shoot from outside while still holding his own in the post but just can’t get his fitness/health right yet.

Also Payne is a solid big guy at PF.

It’s not a matter of the parts fitting together for T’Wolves, it’s just youth, and also that the vets they have aren’t helping them.

Kevin Martin and his chucking mentality needs to go so Wiggins and Lavine are given more responsibility, and Pekovic when he’s healthy slows down their running game and compromises their spacing.

If the T’Wolves draft Okafor it would be getting basically a young Pekovic, do we really want to see Jahlil take touches away from Wiggins at this point?
 

It’s possible I’ve misinterpreted your post the more I look at it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[omphalosParticipant]

I disagree that the Wolves have parts that don’t fit together yet.

Wiggins and Lavine are a natural 2/3 combination with great athleticism, developing shooting ability and marked improvement within the season.

Muhammad is the ideal 6th man or as a 2/3 alongside Wiggins or Lavine, especially now that Wiggins has expanded his game beyond post-ups.

Rubio is a pass-first PG with two guys who like to run in transition and can finish lobs with easy in Wiggins and Lavine.

Dieng is a big guy who can run, has decent range and is low-key.

Bennett in theory is a stretch PF who can get boards and shoot from outside while still holding his own in the post but just can’t get his fitness/health right yet.

Also Payne is a solid big guy at PF.

It’s not a matter of the parts fitting together for T’Wolves, it’s just youth, and also that the vets they have aren’t helping them.

Kevin Martin and his chucking mentality needs to go so Wiggins and Lavine are given more responsibility, and Pekovic when he’s healthy slows down their running game and compromises their spacing.

If the T’Wolves draft Okafor it would be getting basically a young Pekovic, do we really want to see Jahlil take touches away from Wiggins at this point?
 

It’s possible I’ve misinterpreted your post the more I look at it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[arambone2]

 I’m starting to think the biggest danger in the draft process can be having a high pick. Just by the nature of the pre-draft media analysis, in which the "consensus" "knowledge" totally f’s up the thinking process of front offices and their fans. 

Front offices and fans get locked into a handful or less of prospects, and the question of need vs talent becomes a question limited to only that handful of "consensus" "top prospects". And if a front office even THINKS about drafting somebody not on that short-list, fans would collectively demand the immediate firing of the GM who strayed from the "consensus". 

If the Cavs had drafted Rudy Gobert #1 two years ago instead of Bennett, (who was borderline on the "consensus" list of top 10 prospects), there would have been riots in the streets, and plenty of video clips of Cavs fans at the draft freaking out (more than they did).

In that same draft, the Washington Wizards faced the same question of "talent" vs "need", but the whole converstion revolved around 5-10 prospects, of which they went with "need" and drafted Otto Porter. As if Washington "needed" Otto Porter. As if Greek Freak wouldn’t have filled the same need, while also offering much more upside. But there’s no way Washington could have drafted Anetokoumpo at #3 even if they had the wisdom to want him. Fans would have crucified the front office. Before Bruno Caboclo, Greek Freak was the guy dismissed as "two years away from two years away" by the talking heads, who just parrot each other and try to out-certain each other. The talking heads are the leaders of the fan backlashes whenever a team goes out on a limb based strictly on their basketball analysis.

In the vast majority of drafts, it’s better to have two picks in the teens than a top 5 pick. Just this past year, Denver traded down from like 8 with the Bulls, and got pick 16 and 18 in return. Nurkic is already clearly a better prospect than McDermott, but the Nuggets and Bulls would have been crucified for taking Nurkic at 8.

The odds of a star are much higher in the top 5-10, but so is the collective group think of the basketball world. Outside of that range, there is a lot more freedom to make a smart, dispassionate draft pick, and the fan expectations are low/nil. I bet Denver fans were freaking out all summer after they traded down, and "missed out" on McDermott and Stauskas and Tyler Ennis.

I remember three years ago, the Celtics tried desperately to trade picks 21 and 22 for the 9th-10th pick so that they could grab Austin Rivers. No dice, lol. So they ended up with Jared Sullinger and Fab Melo, but Sullinger is far and away better than Rivers. And to think they could have drafted Sullinger and Draymond Green. Sometimes it’s just better to get more chances, and to be drafting in a position where the choice isn’t practically already made for you.

Two years ago, the Hawks had two picks in the teens, and I thought they were in a better position than any of the teams with top 5 picks. They needed a backup point guard, and "missed out" on MCW, Trey Burke, and combo guard CJ McCollum. They got stuck with Dennis Schroeder, who might be the best of the bunch, and a guy who front offices would have been crucified if they had taken him top 10. With their other pick in the teens the Hawks took Lucas Noguiera, who looks like a bust (for Rapters now), but they made that choice without "consensus knowledge" forcing them into that choice. They easily could have taken Mason Plumlee, Dieng, or Rudy Gobert, in addition to Dennis Schroeder. 

So in retrospect, nobody in the world would trade Stifle Tower and Schroeder for Otto freaking Porter, and yet at the time not many people in their right mind would have traded down from pick #3 to picks #16 and #17.

Sometimes while we’re debating Need vs Potential, we end up ignoring the real question, which is, "are we looking at the right group of players?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

[arambone2]

 I’m starting to think the biggest danger in the draft process can be having a high pick. Just by the nature of the pre-draft media analysis, in which the "consensus" "knowledge" totally f’s up the thinking process of front offices and their fans. 

Front offices and fans get locked into a handful or less of prospects, and the question of need vs talent becomes a question limited to only that handful of "consensus" "top prospects". And if a front office even THINKS about drafting somebody not on that short-list, fans would collectively demand the immediate firing of the GM who strayed from the "consensus". 

If the Cavs had drafted Rudy Gobert #1 two years ago instead of Bennett, (who was borderline on the "consensus" list of top 10 prospects), there would have been riots in the streets, and plenty of video clips of Cavs fans at the draft freaking out (more than they did).

In that same draft, the Washington Wizards faced the same question of "talent" vs "need", but the whole converstion revolved around 5-10 prospects, of which they went with "need" and drafted Otto Porter. As if Washington "needed" Otto Porter. As if Greek Freak wouldn’t have filled the same need, while also offering much more upside. But there’s no way Washington could have drafted Anetokoumpo at #3 even if they had the wisdom to want him. Fans would have crucified the front office. Before Bruno Caboclo, Greek Freak was the guy dismissed as "two years away from two years away" by the talking heads, who just parrot each other and try to out-certain each other. The talking heads are the leaders of the fan backlashes whenever a team goes out on a limb based strictly on their basketball analysis.

In the vast majority of drafts, it’s better to have two picks in the teens than a top 5 pick. Just this past year, Denver traded down from like 8 with the Bulls, and got pick 16 and 18 in return. Nurkic is already clearly a better prospect than McDermott, but the Nuggets and Bulls would have been crucified for taking Nurkic at 8.

The odds of a star are much higher in the top 5-10, but so is the collective group think of the basketball world. Outside of that range, there is a lot more freedom to make a smart, dispassionate draft pick, and the fan expectations are low/nil. I bet Denver fans were freaking out all summer after they traded down, and "missed out" on McDermott and Stauskas and Tyler Ennis.

I remember three years ago, the Celtics tried desperately to trade picks 21 and 22 for the 9th-10th pick so that they could grab Austin Rivers. No dice, lol. So they ended up with Jared Sullinger and Fab Melo, but Sullinger is far and away better than Rivers. And to think they could have drafted Sullinger and Draymond Green. Sometimes it’s just better to get more chances, and to be drafting in a position where the choice isn’t practically already made for you.

Two years ago, the Hawks had two picks in the teens, and I thought they were in a better position than any of the teams with top 5 picks. They needed a backup point guard, and "missed out" on MCW, Trey Burke, and combo guard CJ McCollum. They got stuck with Dennis Schroeder, who might be the best of the bunch, and a guy who front offices would have been crucified if they had taken him top 10. With their other pick in the teens the Hawks took Lucas Noguiera, who looks like a bust (for Rapters now), but they made that choice without "consensus knowledge" forcing them into that choice. They easily could have taken Mason Plumlee, Dieng, or Rudy Gobert, in addition to Dennis Schroeder. 

So in retrospect, nobody in the world would trade Stifle Tower and Schroeder for Otto freaking Porter, and yet at the time not many people in their right mind would have traded down from pick #3 to picks #16 and #17.

Sometimes while we’re debating Need vs Potential, we end up ignoring the real question, which is, "are we looking at the right group of players?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

[publius2481Participant]

 BPA is usually the best strategy. If you are drafting a less valuable player, you are selling that asset short. At worst you have a more valueable trade chip.

[publius2481Participant]

 BPA is usually the best strategy. If you are drafting a less valuable player, you are selling that asset short. At worst you have a more valueable trade chip.

[benny15Participant]

 thing is though, BPA is subjective. sure there are general consensus oppinions on certain prospects, but even then, each team that make their pick take the prospect they feel is the best for them, whether thats over-all or as a fit to the team and community.

a couple examples of how this has broken down:

-the detroit pistons using the second over-all pick back in 2003 on a consensus top prospect despite not doing in depth analysis of the player. this turned out as a bust and one of the bigger ones in NBA history just because of the caliber of players that were taken after him and how their respective careers turned out.

-the washington wizzards using the top pick on the 2001 draft on a non-consensus top prospect in Kwame Brown. for most of the year, Tyson Chandler was seen as the draft’s best prospect but Kwame had a really good work-out against him and was able to win washington’s confidence. this also turned out as a bust 

-the cleveland cavaliers taking the consensus top prospect in 2011 despite the said prospect was injured for most of the season and another player was having a huge year. this turned out well for the cavs since Kyrie Irving has become one of the better scoring guards in the league while Derrick Williams has already been traded and has had inconsistent playing time in his pro career.

-the chicago bulls taking the hometown prospect that wasnt considered as the top consenus player back in 2008. this was a big homerun for the bulls despite rose’ health issues lately. they ended up picking an eventual MVP over a guy who played in China for majority of this past season. 

this just shows that there are times that taking the consensus top player sometimes works for you, and sometimes it doesnt. sometimes it shows that taking on need, kyrie and kwame, can work and on other times wont. taking BPA, as per Rose and Darko, could also be a touchdown or a complete waste of a pick. its really all subjective and there really isnt any general guidelines to go with.

 

 

 

 

[benny15Participant]

 thing is though, BPA is subjective. sure there are general consensus oppinions on certain prospects, but even then, each team that make their pick take the prospect they feel is the best for them, whether thats over-all or as a fit to the team and community.

a couple examples of how this has broken down:

-the detroit pistons using the second over-all pick back in 2003 on a consensus top prospect despite not doing in depth analysis of the player. this turned out as a bust and one of the bigger ones in NBA history just because of the caliber of players that were taken after him and how their respective careers turned out.

-the washington wizzards using the top pick on the 2001 draft on a non-consensus top prospect in Kwame Brown. for most of the year, Tyson Chandler was seen as the draft’s best prospect but Kwame had a really good work-out against him and was able to win washington’s confidence. this also turned out as a bust 

-the cleveland cavaliers taking the consensus top prospect in 2011 despite the said prospect was injured for most of the season and another player was having a huge year. this turned out well for the cavs since Kyrie Irving has become one of the better scoring guards in the league while Derrick Williams has already been traded and has had inconsistent playing time in his pro career.

-the chicago bulls taking the hometown prospect that wasnt considered as the top consenus player back in 2008. this was a big homerun for the bulls despite rose’ health issues lately. they ended up picking an eventual MVP over a guy who played in China for majority of this past season. 

this just shows that there are times that taking the consensus top player sometimes works for you, and sometimes it doesnt. sometimes it shows that taking on need, kyrie and kwame, can work and on other times wont. taking BPA, as per Rose and Darko, could also be a touchdown or a complete waste of a pick. its really all subjective and there really isnt any general guidelines to go with.

 

 

 

 

[omphalosParticipant]

I feel like the higher the pick the more important it is to consider the right fit, because it’s a bigger investment.

If you’re using a top-5 pick on someone they should be expected to start, and if you’ve already got a top-5 pick that plays the same position exclusively it’s not really smart to take that player, because their value will be diminished playing in a bad situation.

Conversely, late lottery and general first round picks are easier to acquire and are a good way to fill out a bench.

I think there’s also another element that needs to be considered, which is high risk or a safe pick.

A team like Boston drafted for team need but also with a safe or low upside pick in Marcus Smart last year.

There’s a great article on Grantland right now which basically reveals the extent to with the Celtics are boned by their rush back to the playoffs.

It mentions that Ainge hits solid singles in the late lottery to mid-first round, but that’s not good enough when you pass on a guy you called like Scottie Pippen in Giannis.

My bad for tangent, but still.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[arambone2]

 The Grantland article is more of the same consensus group-think that is always best taken with a grain of salt.

Any time a team gets better without winning a championship the same year, the media and fans through out the same stale tropes about how the team is stuck in mediocrity. As if the normal path to a championship is basement to championship in one year.

It’s just mindless b.s., and the same writers would be calling the Celtics a joke if they tanked instead of building an impressive winning culture that competes and grinds it out on the defensive end every single night.

If the Grantland writer is wrong, and the Celtics are able to recruit a big free agent because of the winning culture in place, then the writer doesn’t face much blowback, if any. So they can throw this tripe against the wall.

Without even looking, I would bet that Grantland writer previously derided and wrote off the Celtics as a bottom five team in the NBA, and questioning the unexpected turnaround is in part sour grapes at being so wrong about the Celtics. Even Celtics fan Bill Simmons wrote this team off completely, and he’s supposedly a die hard Celtics fan, Hollywood style.

It’s not like there’s some huge gap between the talent available at pick 9-10 and pick 14-15.

It’s not even clear that the top wings like Winslow and Johnson are going to be better than Rondae Hollis-Jefferson.

Most of the best rookies in recent years have come outside the top 5, and about half seem to have come from outside the top 10. So having a bunch of picks like the Celtics have should be seen as just as valuable if not more as having a top 5 or top 10 pick and a losing, tanking team culture.

Most of these writers also simply don’t understand some of the non-statistical factors of success like team culture, playing for each other, liking each other, and playing all out every night.

Sometimes I feel like listening to these stat geek basketball writers explain how to build a successful team is a lot like asking reclusive nerds how to pick up girls like a playa. They might have memorized every word of "The pick-up Artist’s Bible" or whatever, but do they really know what they’re talking about?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[arambone2]

 The Grantland article is more of the same consensus group-think that is always best taken with a grain of salt.

Any time a team gets better without winning a championship the same year, the media and fans through out the same stale tropes about how the team is stuck in mediocrity. As if the normal path to a championship is basement to championship in one year.

It’s just mindless b.s., and the same writers would be calling the Celtics a joke if they tanked instead of building an impressive winning culture that competes and grinds it out on the defensive end every single night.

If the Grantland writer is wrong, and the Celtics are able to recruit a big free agent because of the winning culture in place, then the writer doesn’t face much blowback, if any. So they can throw this tripe against the wall.

Without even looking, I would bet that Grantland writer previously derided and wrote off the Celtics as a bottom five team in the NBA, and questioning the unexpected turnaround is in part sour grapes at being so wrong about the Celtics. Even Celtics fan Bill Simmons wrote this team off completely, and he’s supposedly a die hard Celtics fan, Hollywood style.

It’s not like there’s some huge gap between the talent available at pick 9-10 and pick 14-15.

It’s not even clear that the top wings like Winslow and Johnson are going to be better than Rondae Hollis-Jefferson.

Most of the best rookies in recent years have come outside the top 5, and about half seem to have come from outside the top 10. So having a bunch of picks like the Celtics have should be seen as just as valuable if not more as having a top 5 or top 10 pick and a losing, tanking team culture.

Most of these writers also simply don’t understand some of the non-statistical factors of success like team culture, playing for each other, liking each other, and playing all out every night.

Sometimes I feel like listening to these stat geek basketball writers explain how to build a successful team is a lot like asking reclusive nerds how to pick up girls like a playa. They might have memorized every word of "The pick-up Artist’s Bible" or whatever, but do they really know what they’re talking about?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[arambone2]

 It was analytics false-god Morey who, disgusted by the idea of "hitting singles", drafted Royce White in the mid-first round instead of taking Jared Sullinger.

Perfect example of these stat geeks being clueless in the real world. Morey’s intelligence is almost entirely based in the abstract and mathamatical realm, and he doesn’t have much knowledge of human psychology, chemistry, and all the intangible factors that make a championship team outside of his calculator and geek clubs.

All of his pre-draft analysis on Royce White revolved around his calculation that White had slightly higher ALL STAR potential than Sullinger or the other prospects, and NONE of his analysis actually looked at White’s psychological makeup. As long as White was .003% more likely to make an All Star team than Sullinger and the others, it didn’t even cross his mind that White was 99.9% less likely to even be able to get on a plane regularly and not self-destruct. Morey didn’t have the psychology knowledge needed to make a wise decision, and most of these writers similarly lack the psychology knowledge necessary to put together a cohesive, hard working, selfless roster that makes all of the individual players better as a group than they are individually.

Another example of Morey and the math nerd mentality outsmarting itself is his idiotic decision not to pick up the $400,000 (or whatever) team option for Chandler Parsons. Morey completely outsmarted himself, was a complete bonehead about the human/psychology element, and forgot to calculate into his computer the fact that he had pissed off Parsons. When the Rockets come up just short this year, history will remember the ridiculous refusal to pick up Parsons tiny team option, and history will remember that that was the difference.

Except the fellow stat nerd club of writers who never played basketball might circle the wagons around their fellow nerd Morey, while casting doubts on teams that don’t follow the statistical trend of the day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sitlbitoParticipant]

Wow,I missed the ‘analytics are for idiots” argument. EVERY DAMN TEAM USES THEM get over it already!!!!!!

As for Morey,he basically succeeded on 90% of the things he’s done. The draft you talk about for half your post,you only talk about Royce white. So cute you forget to mention,he also drafted Jones with the 18th pick who’s now a starter(not always the case with 18h picks) and Lamb with the 12th,used in the trade with a player named James Harden. Oh a MVP candidate this year. Thanks to having Harden he was able to recruit Howard. He let Parsons go and got Ariza in return,not saying Ariza is a better overall player than Parsons,because it’s mostly due to team needs,but he’s clearly a better fit,and you know what? Ariza is a great defender,and all of a sudden Houston is a good defensive team. Or as your anti-analytics hero would say “they conceded 118 points in a fast-paced win once so they’re not a good defensive team”?
But it’s not finished,at the beginning of he season,he failed miserably in his gambles in order to acquire Bosh,and even with that his team is tied for the 3rd best record in the NBA,2nd best in the inhuman Western conference. Why? Also because he acquired Brewer,Prigioni,and Terry over the course of last year who are now all pretty good contributors on the team. Oh ,and he still has cap space for the next few years+a likely late lottery pick this year to improve the roster even more,added to the Capela pick who could pay dividends in the near future.

All of that my friend is a much better job than most GM’s have done in the last 2-3 years.

[sitlbitoParticipant]

Wow,I missed the ‘analytics are for idiots” argument. EVERY DAMN TEAM USES THEM get over it already!!!!!!

As for Morey,he basically succeeded on 90% of the things he’s done. The draft you talk about for half your post,you only talk about Royce white. So cute you forget to mention,he also drafted Jones with the 18th pick who’s now a starter(not always the case with 18h picks) and Lamb with the 12th,used in the trade with a player named James Harden. Oh a MVP candidate this year. Thanks to having Harden he was able to recruit Howard. He let Parsons go and got Ariza in return,not saying Ariza is a better overall player than Parsons,because it’s mostly due to team needs,but he’s clearly a better fit,and you know what? Ariza is a great defender,and all of a sudden Houston is a good defensive team. Or as your anti-analytics hero would say “they conceded 118 points in a fast-paced win once so they’re not a good defensive team”?
But it’s not finished,at the beginning of he season,he failed miserably in his gambles in order to acquire Bosh,and even with that his team is tied for the 3rd best record in the NBA,2nd best in the inhuman Western conference. Why? Also because he acquired Brewer,Prigioni,and Terry over the course of last year who are now all pretty good contributors on the team. Oh ,and he still has cap space for the next few years+a likely late lottery pick this year to improve the roster even more,added to the Capela pick who could pay dividends in the near future.

All of that my friend is a much better job than most GM’s have done in the last 2-3 years.

[arambone2]

 Morey was in the right place at the right time, with his Jeremy Lamb/Kevin Martin super-package right before the season started, when few if any other teams were in wheeler/dealer mode.

And he also got lucky with Houston being the team Yao Ming played for. DHoward and his reps knew that Howard could make a mint in China if he played for the Rockets, in addition to the lowe Texas income tax rate.

But go ahead and call it a brilliant move. 

Rockets players know Morey views them purely as chips and not as human beings, so there’s no loyalty there from the players. And the diva party is working out right now because the team is winning, but Howard and Harden will be whining and not dining as soon as the team goes through some adversity.

I’m not bashing analytics in itself, I’m bashing the autism spectrum level lack of social skills and psychological understanding of many analytics die hards.

If Morey was running Milwakee he’d be tanking for 10 years, adamant that it was the only True way to a championship. And he’d still be a Grantland hero.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[arambone2]

 Morey was in the right place at the right time, with his Jeremy Lamb/Kevin Martin super-package right before the season started, when few if any other teams were in wheeler/dealer mode.

And he also got lucky with Houston being the team Yao Ming played for. DHoward and his reps knew that Howard could make a mint in China if he played for the Rockets, in addition to the lowe Texas income tax rate.

But go ahead and call it a brilliant move. 

Rockets players know Morey views them purely as chips and not as human beings, so there’s no loyalty there from the players. And the diva party is working out right now because the team is winning, but Howard and Harden will be whining and not dining as soon as the team goes through some adversity.

I’m not bashing analytics in itself, I’m bashing the autism spectrum level lack of social skills and psychological understanding of many analytics die hards.

If Morey was running Milwakee he’d be tanking for 10 years, adamant that it was the only True way to a championship. And he’d still be a Grantland hero.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[arambone2]

 It was analytics false-god Morey who, disgusted by the idea of "hitting singles", drafted Royce White in the mid-first round instead of taking Jared Sullinger.

Perfect example of these stat geeks being clueless in the real world. Morey’s intelligence is almost entirely based in the abstract and mathamatical realm, and he doesn’t have much knowledge of human psychology, chemistry, and all the intangible factors that make a championship team outside of his calculator and geek clubs.

All of his pre-draft analysis on Royce White revolved around his calculation that White had slightly higher ALL STAR potential than Sullinger or the other prospects, and NONE of his analysis actually looked at White’s psychological makeup. As long as White was .003% more likely to make an All Star team than Sullinger and the others, it didn’t even cross his mind that White was 99.9% less likely to even be able to get on a plane regularly and not self-destruct. Morey didn’t have the psychology knowledge needed to make a wise decision, and most of these writers similarly lack the psychology knowledge necessary to put together a cohesive, hard working, selfless roster that makes all of the individual players better as a group than they are individually.

Another example of Morey and the math nerd mentality outsmarting itself is his idiotic decision not to pick up the $400,000 (or whatever) team option for Chandler Parsons. Morey completely outsmarted himself, was a complete bonehead about the human/psychology element, and forgot to calculate into his computer the fact that he had pissed off Parsons. When the Rockets come up just short this year, history will remember the ridiculous refusal to pick up Parsons tiny team option, and history will remember that that was the difference.

Except the fellow stat nerd club of writers who never played basketball might circle the wagons around their fellow nerd Morey, while casting doubts on teams that don’t follow the statistical trend of the day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[omphalosParticipant]

I feel like the higher the pick the more important it is to consider the right fit, because it’s a bigger investment.

If you’re using a top-5 pick on someone they should be expected to start, and if you’ve already got a top-5 pick that plays the same position exclusively it’s not really smart to take that player, because their value will be diminished playing in a bad situation.

Conversely, late lottery and general first round picks are easier to acquire and are a good way to fill out a bench.

I think there’s also another element that needs to be considered, which is high risk or a safe pick.

A team like Boston drafted for team need but also with a safe or low upside pick in Marcus Smart last year.

There’s a great article on Grantland right now which basically reveals the extent to with the Celtics are boned by their rush back to the playoffs.

It mentions that Ainge hits solid singles in the late lottery to mid-first round, but that’s not good enough when you pass on a guy you called like Scottie Pippen in Giannis.

My bad for tangent, but still.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[HitsterParticipant]

 The Cavs took Waiters as apparently they liked the type of shots he took. They had broke his play down so much and tried to equate that into their offence to come to that conclusion.

Guys like Thomas Robinson and Otto Porter were seen by many in their respective drafts as safer picks but with less upside, so the chances of them being a bust was supposed to be reduced. Sadly Robinson was traded in his rookie year and Porter hasn’t done much yet for the Wizards.

Given the Spurs more often than not seem to draft well later in the draft or by moving up to get Leonard, I’d love to know how Coach Poppovich, Ric Burford and their think tank analyize players as they must be doing something right or do they just take BPA?

With Leonard, I believe the Spurs probably rated him as a top 10 talent and when they saw he was falling decided to pull out all the stops to ger him as they figured his potential was much greater than his likely draft position.

 

 

 

[HitsterParticipant]

 The Cavs took Waiters as apparently they liked the type of shots he took. They had broke his play down so much and tried to equate that into their offence to come to that conclusion.

Guys like Thomas Robinson and Otto Porter were seen by many in their respective drafts as safer picks but with less upside, so the chances of them being a bust was supposed to be reduced. Sadly Robinson was traded in his rookie year and Porter hasn’t done much yet for the Wizards.

Given the Spurs more often than not seem to draft well later in the draft or by moving up to get Leonard, I’d love to know how Coach Poppovich, Ric Burford and their think tank analyize players as they must be doing something right or do they just take BPA?

With Leonard, I believe the Spurs probably rated him as a top 10 talent and when they saw he was falling decided to pull out all the stops to ger him as they figured his potential was much greater than his likely draft position.

 

 

 

[CynthiaParticipant]

Personally I’ve always had more of a team-need mentality when it comes to the draft. But I also believe if the BPA is significant enough then you have to jump on it. So it’s kind of situational, and it really depends on how much better than BPA is than your teams direct need, usually it’s not big enough of a difference to matter, but sometimes it is and you need to make that call. 

However I’ve been a long time fan of the Sonics/Thunder and watching them draft Centers year after year and none of them pan out has skewed my view on team-need a bit. With BPA you can always trade down or just draft the player and package him or one of your current players.

All in all it’s entirely situational, but I’d more times than not draft for need over BPA.

[CynthiaParticipant]

Personally I’ve always had more of a team-need mentality when it comes to the draft. But I also believe if the BPA is significant enough then you have to jump on it. So it’s kind of situational, and it really depends on how much better than BPA is than your teams direct need, usually it’s not big enough of a difference to matter, but sometimes it is and you need to make that call. 

However I’ve been a long time fan of the Sonics/Thunder and watching them draft Centers year after year and none of them pan out has skewed my view on team-need a bit. With BPA you can always trade down or just draft the player and package him or one of your current players.

All in all it’s entirely situational, but I’d more times than not draft for need over BPA.

[Author]

Posts