snowmanny said:He gives the Celtics (along with the Grizzlies and the Jazz) an "F" grade for their draft.
On the bright side, well okay just downright depressing side they had a great day compared to the Bruins yesterday.
snowmanny said:He gives the Celtics (along with the Grizzlies and the Jazz) an "F" grade for their draft.
Lastly, Rozier wasn't evaluated poorly by all of the analytic models. New Hampshire Math Professor Steven Shea's CPR rating had Rozier as the thirteenth best prospect. That in and of itself is not necessarily that interesting, any NBA worthy prospect can come out as well rated in one public draft model given how many there are now.
But, it does get more interesting for two reasons. First, Shea's model rated all of the Celtics' first three picks well; rating R.J. Hunter as 11th and Jordan Mickey as 14th overall. Second, Shea's methodology focuses on the ten max performances by a prospect using game log data, then adjusted for class, suggesting those max performances may be more indicative than average performance of potential. What makes that interesting is that the Celtic's Director of Analytics, David Sparks, developed a game log metric back when he was a writer for Hardwood Paroxysm, so there's reason to believe the Celtics might be looking more at peak game performance as part of their analytic evaluation. I think there are pluses and minuses to that approach, especially if only a subset of games is used, however, I feel more confident in the Celtics selections thinking there was more than Danny's gut involved in the process.
Why is it interesting that Shea's model rated the players we selected well? Wouldn't that be expected? I'd be more surprised if one of our key evaluators had the guys we selected rated 38th, 46th, and 53rd overall.But, it does get more interesting for two reasons. First, Shea's model rated all of the Celtics' first three picks well; rating R.J. Hunter as 11th and Jordan Mickey as 14th overall.
Shea doesn't work for the team, and isn't associated with them in any way. Johnson just noted that his model was very high on all the Celtics' picks. He then pulled from what Shea's model uses and the hiring of David Sparks from HP, to guess that game log and peak performance were a bigger part of the Celtics' process than other teams.HomeRunBaker said:Why is it interesting that Shea's model rated the players we selected well? Wouldn't that be expected? I'd be more surprised if one of our key evaluators had the guys we selected rated 38th, 46th, and 53rd overall.
I think it would be more of a factor in a "best games" type of approach.bowiac said:Shea does not address quality of competition, no. That said, while I would hope the Celtics do adjust for competition, there have been a couple studies showing that schedule plays a surprisingly small role in a prospect's pro potential. (i.e., it matters, but its less overwhelming so long as you played D1 ball than you might think).
I definitely don't agree on that. Some of the players after Oubre are more likely to be in the league in 10 years than Oubre and some of the players before him. The problem is they will be there as bench guys, trusty bench PG, Bench shooter, backup big etc. and most don't have the upside of being a starter at any point.nighthob said:I never really had a problem with it because once Oubre came off the board my list of guys that would still be in the NBA in ten years was gone.
Whoa now. Shitty Kyle Korver is the better comp to me.ALiveH said:I'm sure you looked at way more mocks than me, but the ones i looked at were all over the place on Rozier & Hunter as both being anywhere from late 1st to 2nd. The highest I've seen either of them is Hunter @ 22, and he seemed to be ranked higher more often than not, so maybe you're right, but he still would've been a significant "reach" at 16.
Hunter seems like a very marginal NBA athlete, but he's got a sick quick release. To borrow a Simmonsism, all I could think was that he's a bigger homeless man's Steph Curry.