The Plan For the #1, er, #3 Overall Pick?
- Thread starter pdaj
- Start date
I don't understand this idea that Ainge and the Celts had Fultz in for a workout and he wasn't as explosive as they had hoped. Didn't he say that they've been watching all these guys for years? Just like Tatum hitting 15 threes in a row isn't going to move the needle much, why would Fultz's workout unless it was indicative of a medical issue? Plus, I thought that Fultz's game is less explosion and more shiftiness?
If things happen that way, I suspect the Celtics will end up moving down. If Fultz was really their target I think they would have stood pat.
So you think the NFL combines are meaningless?
Putting numbers to these measurable can tell a team how a prospect will compete at the next level. Fultz may not have needed all his "explosiveness" at Washington because of the talent disparity--he's just better than most of the guys guarding him that will be working for an insurance company within 2 years. He will need it in the NBA. So until you put a number on it, you don't know how it compares.
Coach K on Mike and Mike with effusive praise of Tatum.
"Easily best pure scorer in draft. 20 PPG+ scorer."
"Great kid who's a sponge and incredibly coachable."
"Easily best pure scorer in draft. 20 PPG+ scorer."
"Great kid who's a sponge and incredibly coachable."
Yeah, TSC threw cold water on that ringing Tatum endorsement before I even had a chance to bask in it.
No matter how true or relevant it is, they are leaking as much info as possible to placate a fanbase that was excited to have the #1 pick and fully ready to use it on Fultz.
Yeah, Coach K's opinion on any Duke player is pretty much worthless. What is he supposed to say?
Certainly biased but before the 1999 draft, he did not give warm praise about William Avery in an interview I saw and he busted out of the league pretty quickly despite being the 14th pick.
This seems like a poor business decision to me. Does their fan base need placating and does leaking this report do anything to placate the fanbase?
Visualization of various draft models, and how they compare. However over player names. Also check out past years.
If you navigate to the overall page, they grade the various models over time. The winner in terms of average value, and ceiling is the Advanced Consensus (not a shock).
Shea's model is based around your peak performances. He essentially throws out your worst games, and compares each prospect's best against everyone else's best. Spits out some weird results. I don't generally take it seriously, but I appreciate it as an "off-consensus" stats model.
ESPN analytics with their evaluation, ranking prospects by chances of being an All-Star, chances of being a starter, and chances of being a bust: http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19681478/most-likely-all-stars-starters-role-players-top-2017-nba-draft
Slight correction. The black bar is chances of being a role player. Chances of being a bust are all three percentages added up subtracted from 100.
How does Ntilikina rank so low if he has almost twice the chance as anyone else to be an all star? Huge bust rate I guess.
just for kicks, a snippet of 2016 picks (granted they are projecting years 2-5 in this exercise)
Rank, Player, AS, Starter, Role Player, Bust
1 Ingram 25, 24, 26, 26
2 Dunn 18, 21, 34, 26
3 Poetl 12, 32, 41, 16
4 Simmons 25, 20, 20, 35
5 Chriss 21, 23, 25, 31
6 Murray 20, 21, 25, 34
11 Brown 8, 21, 34, 38
out of top 40: Brogdon
2015:
1 KAT 13.5, 42.5, 16.3, 17.5
2 Winslow (guess Danny reads the shit out of 538) 8.4, 51.1, 17.7, 22.9
4 Okafor 5.9, 41.0, 23.6, 29.6
15 Turner 2.9, 33.6, 31.9, 31.6
NR Nance - a useful role player taken at the back end of the first round.
Porzingis not rated because it's a system for projecting college players.
There is a relatively small sample for this, but I think generally, analytics folks overestimate the ability of analytics to outperform scouting (KAT was the consensus pick from scouts as well). Much like the early days of advanced baseball analysis and projection, which I was on the periphery of and remember well. Analytics to me seem great for measuring what was, but for trying to figure out which amateurs (or minor leaguers) are breakout candidates, etc., it's much more difficult once you get beyond cherry picking examples. I'm not saying they are useless, just they are another piece of information.
Rank, Player, AS, Starter, Role Player, Bust
1 Ingram 25, 24, 26, 26
2 Dunn 18, 21, 34, 26
3 Poetl 12, 32, 41, 16
4 Simmons 25, 20, 20, 35
5 Chriss 21, 23, 25, 31
6 Murray 20, 21, 25, 34
11 Brown 8, 21, 34, 38
out of top 40: Brogdon
2015:
1 KAT 13.5, 42.5, 16.3, 17.5
2 Winslow (guess Danny reads the shit out of 538) 8.4, 51.1, 17.7, 22.9
4 Okafor 5.9, 41.0, 23.6, 29.6
15 Turner 2.9, 33.6, 31.9, 31.6
NR Nance - a useful role player taken at the back end of the first round.
Porzingis not rated because it's a system for projecting college players.
There is a relatively small sample for this, but I think generally, analytics folks overestimate the ability of analytics to outperform scouting (KAT was the consensus pick from scouts as well). Much like the early days of advanced baseball analysis and projection, which I was on the periphery of and remember well. Analytics to me seem great for measuring what was, but for trying to figure out which amateurs (or minor leaguers) are breakout candidates, etc., it's much more difficult once you get beyond cherry picking examples. I'm not saying they are useless, just they are another piece of information.
Most individual player "advanced stats" don't beat the eye test. I'll admit that Real plus minus is pretty cool though.
The converse is also true though. So as you said, it is all part of a larger picture
I totally agree. And I should add, I think with analytics you're going to have a better chance of figuring out professional success (projecting forward players and teams). This is one reason I'm a little down on Brown after his rookie year, even though he had flashes.
But the amateur/pro disconnect is still quite large, I think. I mean there still isn't a great model for projecting Div 1 NCAA baseball players to MLB, and you can largely ignore team effects when projecting baseball players.
But the amateur/pro disconnect is still quite large, I think. I mean there still isn't a great model for projecting Div 1 NCAA baseball players to MLB, and you can largely ignore team effects when projecting baseball players.
So at best top picks only have a 7-8% chance of being an All Star in years 2-5? That's much lower than I would have guessed, and just reinforces the notion that the Draft is a crap shoot. Trade for Butler.
On the other hand no one ever accused Okafor of being a gym rat. My preference is always for the talented guys that are gym rats, because they're generally better bets to hit their ceiling, and Tatum's got a pretty high ceiling.
If you want to use analytics to project how the players in this draft will perform, fine. But using probabilities from prior drafts is irrelevant in my view. The events are independent. How well a player drafted this year will do is dependent on a whole range of factors: current skills, willingness to put in the work to improve, coachability, etc. etc. It has absolutely nothing to do with how the players picked at the same spot in prior years have performed.
Let's say you are flipping coins in two rooms. The coins are identical and unbiased. In room #1 the coin comes up heads 9 times in 10 flips. In room #2 the odds are still 50-50 no matter what happened in room #1.
The performance of players picked in the same spot in prior years is a proxy for scouting. Tatum will rise and fall on his own, independent of how good Jaylen, Jahlil, and Jordan have been, but we don't have some objective measure of how good Tatum's actual talent is. Using pick number serves as a pretty effective proxy.
Andrew Perna @Andrew_Perna 23s24 seconds ago
Two sources told me they’ve each heard Tatum is Boston’s current choice at No. 3, but one stressed about of time left.
Two sources told me they’ve each heard Tatum is Boston’s current choice at No. 3, but one stressed about of time left.
I feel fairly comfortable that the Lakers won't make a move for George. Given that they've drafted high the last few years - and will again this year - I wouldn't be surprised that they view team building through the same filter I'd guess the Celtics are using (minus the C's current strong vet nucleus).
Golden State's going to be tough to beat the next couple of years at least, and George will do little to change that. Investing a #2 pick on a high priced vet - especially when that vet has already proclaimed he views you as his destination in a year - would be a vast overspend. It makes more sense to continue adding to your young core and look to compete in a couple of years. If George does go elsewhere and then signs elsewhere, well, you're the Lakers and a preferred destination generally.
Outside of a serious breakout or two, that Laker pick next year looks like it has a fairly solid chance to be 4-5.
Golden State's going to be tough to beat the next couple of years at least, and George will do little to change that. Investing a #2 pick on a high priced vet - especially when that vet has already proclaimed he views you as his destination in a year - would be a vast overspend. It makes more sense to continue adding to your young core and look to compete in a couple of years. If George does go elsewhere and then signs elsewhere, well, you're the Lakers and a preferred destination generally.
Outside of a serious breakout or two, that Laker pick next year looks like it has a fairly solid chance to be 4-5.
I'm not sure what you mean by "proxy" If you assume that GMs in the current year will be about as good at ranking players as GMs were in prior years, then I suppose draft position has some predictive validity, but it's way down the list of factors.
It's kind of like when you see "The Patriots are 12-1-1 against the spread versus division opponents following a loss the last 7 years."
Everyone knows that a game result from 7 years ago is meaningless in regards to a team today, but there's still some value in knowing how teams perform in that spot. And, in this case, how players picked in certain spots perform.
Dave McMenaminVerified account @mcten 2m2 minutes ago
Josh Jackson did not work out for the Celtics on Tues, multiple sources tell ESPN. Two days before the draft, BOS still hasn't seen him
Josh Jackson did not work out for the Celtics on Tues, multiple sources tell ESPN. Two days before the draft, BOS still hasn't seen him
Chad FordVerified account @chadfordinsider 42s42 seconds ago
Jackson won't workout in Boston unless the Celtics commit that 1. They're keeping the pick 2. He's their guy at No. 3.
Jackson won't workout in Boston unless the Celtics commit that 1. They're keeping the pick 2. He's their guy at No. 3.
Chad says it's a disagreement between his agent and the Celtics.
Chad FordVerified account @chadfordinsider 58s59 seconds ago
This is a disagreement between his agent and Celtics. Don't pin it on Jackson. He's the most competitive/fearless player in the draft
Is that really true? I see it more as a situation where Ainge values several players pretty equally, and was willing to gain additional assets to trade down and still be able to choose one of those 4. Jackson/Tatum may have edged out Fultz/Ball due to positional need on the team.
I just looked at the 2017 NBA All-Star rosters and there was only one player that was selected in the last five drafts (Giannis Antetokounmpo). That doesn't mean others won't blossom into All-Stars but it does show how unlikely you are to get an immediate impact talent in the draft.
Okay, that's true.
Just saying it seems really convoluted. Especially with some of the reports that came out after the trade--didn't like his college team didn't win, wasn't explosive, etc.
If that's what it takes and IF DA is confident that Jackson is his guy, then I guess maybe you commit to this. Although I would also take the additional step of cancelling the workout. Don't want to see a guy you're taking #3 overall picking up some fluke injury right before the draft during a workout that is literally valueless.
Take this tweet from Steve Kyler for what each person thinks it is worth:
"Supposedly Jackson worked out poorly for the Lakers and measured smaller than they expected. Could be hiding from the process."
