The Plan For the #1, er, #3 Overall Pick?

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,584
Imagine philly throws a curveball and drafts ball #1, LAL then trade 2 for George, IND drafts Jackson to replace George and we get fultz anyway at #3....a man can dream can't he?
Except that Ainge, from all appearances, doesn't want Fultz.
 

Baby Got Daubach

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
47
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?
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
45,714
Melrose, MA
Imagine philly throws a curveball and drafts ball #1, LAL then trade 2 for George, IND drafts Jackson to replace George and we get fultz anyway at #3....a man can dream can't he?
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.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,584
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?
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.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
20,912
St. Louis, MO
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."
 

The Social Chair

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 17, 2010
6,343
In an interview with ESPN Radio's The Herd with Colin Cowherd on Tuesday, Krzyzewski proclaimed Okafor the best player in the draft.

"He's going to be a high double-double guy in the pros. He's gifted. He's got feet and hands that you can't teach. He's got an attitude that's amazing. I think he's the best player in the draft," he said.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
52,315
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?
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.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,858
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.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,757
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.
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?
 

Imbricus

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 26, 2017
4,956
Interesting -- don't know which one Model284 is, but I think you can safely disregard it, as it has Caleb Swanigan third.
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
7,371
CA
I agree with your overall point, but you can't do math like that.

It's like saying there's a 50/50 chance--they either get it or they don't.
I know. I was playing Hearts to their checkers.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
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).
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
Shea's is even weirder. 1) Monk 2) Tatum 3) Swanigan
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.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
5,084
Saint Paul, MN
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.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
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.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
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.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
33,441
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.

Most individual player "advanced stats" don't beat the eye test. I'll admit that Real plus minus is pretty cool though.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
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.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
6,421
Cultural hub of the universe
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

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.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,816
Yeah, TSC threw cold water on that ringing Tatum endorsement before I even had a chance to bask in it.
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.
 

Big John

New Member
Dec 9, 2016
2,086
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.
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.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
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.
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.
 

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
2,950
Berkeley, CA
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.
 

Big John

New Member
Dec 9, 2016
2,086
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.
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.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,584
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.
 

Kid T

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
793
San Francisco
Except that Ainge, from all appearances, doesn't want Fultz.
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.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,675
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.
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.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,584
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.
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.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
45,714
Melrose, MA
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.
It would be high comedy if Fultz somehow slid to 3 and the Celtics traded down.
 

OnWisc

Microcosmic
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2006
7,624
Chicago, IL
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.
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.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
31,951
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
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."
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
28,226
Saskatoon Canada
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.
That also speaks to the longevity of today's stars.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,584
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.
Uh, no.

If DA was confident he was guy then they wouldn't need the workout.