It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:25 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72289
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
veganfan21 wrote:
It is luck. Here's why: if one of the teams before Presti drafts Westbrook (totally plausible), is Presti less smart now? What if Portland shocked the world in 2007 and took Durant over Oden. Is Presti less smart now because he picked the consensus no 1 pick that fell into his lap that year?

No, because the rest of his resume is still very solid. This is why I keep telling you not to judge a GM based on one draft. Not sure how many more times I need to say it.

But yeah, I do think that if Presti never drafted a bunch of great players instead of drafting a bunch of great players he wouldn't be as good of a GM. You got me there.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:16 am
Posts: 20082
pizza_Place: Aurelios
So vegan, is your position that no GMs should even draft? Just have all the experts make their lists and take the avg rankings of the players and assign them to the teams in draft order?

_________________
drinky wrote:
If you hate Laurence, then don't listen - don't comment. When he co-hosts the B&B show, take that day off ... listen to an old podcast of a Bernstein solo show and jerk off all day.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72289
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Hank Scorpio wrote:
So vegan, is your position that no GMs should even draft? Just have all the experts make their lists and take the avg rankings of the players and assign them to the teams in draft order?

He's directly saying that there is zero difference between good GMs and bad GMs when it comes to drafting. It's one of the worst takes I have ever read on here by any poster :lol:

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:38 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 16052
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Hank Scorpio wrote:
So vegan, is your position that no GMs should even draft? Just have all the experts make their lists and take the avg rankings of the players and assign them to the teams in draft order?


I'm saying most good picks are accidents of history as opposed to GMs exhibiting some sort of talent for drafting. I will give GMs more credit for trading up to nab a specific guy, but again I don't know why I should say Sam Presti is better at drafting than someone else just because Presti took the next highest ranked guy on his board after the guys he ranked higher on his board were taken by other teams.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
shakes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
Now that we're the same subject, what if a scout recommended picking Draymond Green 5th overall in 2012? I think GMs would have fired any scout who said draft Draymond Green fifth overall in 2012, including the Warriors' GM. But now they're "geniuses" for drafting him in the second round. It's all luck/chance.

No scout would have suggested that so it's an absurd hypothetical to entertain.

Your last sentence is wrong and as I said before, it's a ridiculous opinion. If it's all luck/chance than you're saying you/I/Walt/Ltg could draft as well as RC Buford and Sam Presti.


It doesn't take much skill to draft Kevin Durant once Greg Oden is off the board.



It does to take Harden and Westbrook though. Also Serge and Adams too.


What skill did it take to draft Harden, the #2 rated prospect in the draft, at #3? And Westbrook was rated #4 and drafted #4. Not exactly Mensa level thinking to come up with those picks.



You're off. Westbrook was considered a reach at the time. So was Harden.

Westbrook didn't have a position at the time and if it would have flopped he'd have been crucified due to the strength of the draft.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Last edited by long time guy on Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:36 pm
Posts: 16322
pizza_Place: Il Forno in Deerfield!
FavreFan wrote:
shakes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
Now that we're the same subject, what if a scout recommended picking Draymond Green 5th overall in 2012? I think GMs would have fired any scout who said draft Draymond Green fifth overall in 2012, including the Warriors' GM. But now they're "geniuses" for drafting him in the second round. It's all luck/chance.

No scout would have suggested that so it's an absurd hypothetical to entertain.

Your last sentence is wrong and as I said before, it's a ridiculous opinion. If it's all luck/chance than you're saying you/I/Walt/Ltg could draft as well as RC Buford and Sam Presti.


It doesn't take much skill to draft Kevin Durant once Greg Oden is off the board.



It does to take Harden and Westbrook though. Also Serge and Adams too.


What skill did it take to draft Harden, the #2 rated prospect in the draft, at #3? And Westbrook was rated #4 and drafted #4. Not exactly Mensa level thinking to come up with those picks.

IIRC the Westbrook pick was criticized at the time because he wasn't supposed to go that high.


He was rated as the #4 prospect heading into the draft so that doesn't make a lick of sense.

_________________
LTG wrote:
Trae Young will be a bust. Book It!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:40 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 16052
pizza_Place: Malnati's
FavreFan wrote:
Hank Scorpio wrote:
So vegan, is your position that no GMs should even draft? Just have all the experts make their lists and take the avg rankings of the players and assign them to the teams in draft order?

He's directly saying that there is zero difference between good GMs and bad GMs when it comes to drafting. It's one of the worst takes I have ever read on here by any poster :lol:


I'm sure you think that some bingo players are better than others too.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72289
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
veganfan21 wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Hank Scorpio wrote:
So vegan, is your position that no GMs should even draft? Just have all the experts make their lists and take the avg rankings of the players and assign them to the teams in draft order?

He's directly saying that there is zero difference between good GMs and bad GMs when it comes to drafting. It's one of the worst takes I have ever read on here by any poster :lol:


I'm sure you think that some bingo players are better than others too.

On the other hand, I'm sure you think poker is all luck. "Well, what if they hadn't gotten a full house on that one hand?"

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:36 pm
Posts: 16322
pizza_Place: Il Forno in Deerfield!
long time guy wrote:
shakes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
Now that we're the same subject, what if a scout recommended picking Draymond Green 5th overall in 2012? I think GMs would have fired any scout who said draft Draymond Green fifth overall in 2012, including the Warriors' GM. But now they're "geniuses" for drafting him in the second round. It's all luck/chance.

No scout would have suggested that so it's an absurd hypothetical to entertain.

Your last sentence is wrong and as I said before, it's a ridiculous opinion. If it's all luck/chance than you're saying you/I/Walt/Ltg could draft as well as RC Buford and Sam Presti.


It doesn't take much skill to draft Kevin Durant once Greg Oden is off the board.



It does to take Harden and Westbrook though. Also Serge and Adams too.


What skill did it take to draft Harden, the #2 rated prospect in the draft, at #3? And Westbrook was rated #4 and drafted #4. Not exactly Mensa level thinking to come up with those picks.



You're off. Westbrook was considered a reach at the time. So was Harden.

Westbrook didn't have a position at the time and if it would have flopped he'd have been crucified due to the strength of the draft.


http://www.nbadraft.net/ranking/bigboard/2009

http://www.nbadraft.net/rankings/2008_bigboard.html

:lol:

Those are from nbadraft.net, considered one of the top sites for prospect rankings.

_________________
LTG wrote:
Trae Young will be a bust. Book It!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72289
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
shakes wrote:
He was rated as the #4 prospect heading into the draft so that doesn't make a lick of sense.

rated by who? You're acting like there's an authoritative body declaring these things.

http://www.nbadraft.net/mocks/2008_nba_mock_draft.html

Taken 6th here

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3279 ... mock-draft

taken 10th here

http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-mock-draft/2008/

4th here. Guessing this is what you looked at

https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/ ... -draft.htm

Taken 6th here.

You get the idea

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:52 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 16052
pizza_Place: Malnati's
FavreFan wrote:
shakes wrote:
He was rated as the #4 prospect heading into the draft so that doesn't make a lick of sense.

rated by who? You're acting like there's an authoritative body declaring these things.

http://www.nbadraft.net/mocks/2008_nba_mock_draft.html

Taken 6th here

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3279 ... mock-draft

taken 10th here

http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-mock-draft/2008/

4th here. Guessing this is what you looked at

https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/ ... -draft.htm

Taken 6th here.

You get the idea


Reaching for someone to me is like trading into a spot to nab a specific guy. I don't know if Westbrook was a reach though. It's really not to controversial to suggest that all this draft shit is luck, especially in the NFL. Less so in the NBA, but then again you can only wait your turn and pick whoever is left. Maybe it's Kawhi Leonard, or maybe it's Drew Gooden.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:36 pm
Posts: 16322
pizza_Place: Il Forno in Deerfield!
FavreFan wrote:
shakes wrote:
He was rated as the #4 prospect heading into the draft so that doesn't make a lick of sense.

rated by who? You're acting like there's an authoritative body declaring these things.

http://www.nbadraft.net/mocks/2008_nba_mock_draft.html

Taken 6th here

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3279 ... mock-draft

taken 10th here

http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-mock-draft/2008/

4th here. Guessing this is what you looked at

https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/ ... -draft.htm

Taken 6th here.

You get the idea


Nbadraft.net and draftexpress are the two sites I consider the best. USA today is about the same as anyone here doing the rankings, no clue about bleacher report.

I was looking at big boards, not mock drafts.

_________________
LTG wrote:
Trae Young will be a bust. Book It!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:12 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 16052
pizza_Place: Malnati's
FavreFan wrote:
Hank Scorpio wrote:
So vegan, is your position that no GMs should even draft? Just have all the experts make their lists and take the avg rankings of the players and assign them to the teams in draft order?

He's directly saying that there is zero difference between good GMs and bad GMs when it comes to drafting. It's one of the worst takes I have ever read on here by any poster :lol:


This Wharton prof agrees with me. Maybe I was wrong about Wharton-grad Trump's intelligence...nah. But the piece is worth reading. It's actually a transcript but interesting nonetheless: https://www.coursera.org/learn/wharton- ... -nfl-draft

Apology accepted in advance.

Quote:
So now we're gonna give you an extended example of people analytics at work and follow that with some detailed issues involved in many analytics projects. So this example comes from my work with the national football league. As a result of some research I did a few years ago, I've been pulled in to work with some professional teams on their evaluation of players. And especially their evaluation of college players. One team in particular asked me, who is good at evaluating college players? Which team should they be paying attention to, which team should they be copying?...



Quote:
So, now what we want to know is, do teams tend to have relatively successful picks? Do they tend to have relatively unsuccessful? Or is it just randomly distributed around what would be expected? That's where we're going when we're trying to determine is there skill here? Or is there luck. So, here's an example of one of the most famous draft classes in national football league history. The Pittsburg Steelers, famous draft class of 1974, they drafted four hall of fame players, Jack Lambert, Lynn Swan, John Stallworth, Mike Webster. All these guys were hugely successful, not just for a year, but for a career. Now, if the draft, if the Center Field draft involves skill. This is a team. They drafted these players because they're especially good at their job. What would you expect to happen the next year in 1975? So, assume you've got the same scouts, you've got the same general manager. They select all these great players in '74. If that's the result of skill, what would you expect to happen in '75. Or, what would you expect to happen in 73? Let's look at 73. In 73, their 2nd round pick never played a game. Their 3rd and 4th round picks were average at best. And yet, that was just one year before they had this Hall of Fame class. What about 75? What about the next year? In 75 it was even worse. Not a single player drafted started. Out of 21 picks at this enormous draft, and not a single player drafted started. And picks in each of the top six rounds. They only played a total of 24 games for the team. So, what do we think about a process where you draft one of the best classes ever, probably the best class ever, in 74. And yet the 73 draft was completely average. And the 75 draft was actually tragically bad by any measure. What does that say about how much skill is involved in this? How much credit should we give them for that Hall of Fame class in 74? That's the idea, and that's a very general idea that's maybe the biggest lesson in the performance evaluation is. The question is, does it persist? Skill persists. Chance doesn't persist. And if the challenge is to parse skill from chance, the single most important test is persistence. Do you see it across periods? Do you see it over time? Do you see the positive performance measures persist? That's what we're gonna do here.


Quote:
We're gonna take all the years that we observed teams draft and we're gonna code them up in just the way we described. We're going to, evaluate does a player do better or worse than expectations. And for that year we're going to add up all of those deviations or the positive and the negative, do they add up to zero, whatever. We're going to evaluate every team and each year of the draft. And we're going to rank the league, one to 32 within a year on how they performed in a draft. And then we're gonna ask what happens to next year. So for all the teams that did best in a year, what happens to them in the next year's draft? And we're gonna do for the teams that rate 16th in a given year, what happens in the next years draft? That's gonna give us a test of persistence. If this is a skill based task, those teams that do well in the draft in a given year will do well the following year. Those teams that do poorly will do poorly. If it's completely chance, how a team performs in one year will have nothing to do with how they perform the next year. There'll be no correlation between the two. And if it's a mix of skill and chance, you'll see something in between. That the teams that do well one year will tend to do better the next year and the teams that do poorly will tend to do poorly but they'll regress to the mean. So that's the test. We'll find out what happens. This is what we find. I've shown all the teams, over all the years in our study here in gray. But then I've highlighted the bunch that were rated in number one, from the top in green. And then in the middle in blue, and the bottom in red. And what do we see? What do we see here about the relation between how a team does in one year and the following year? At a high level, we see essentially no relation. Consider, for example, the teams at the very top in green. These are teams that, in a given season, were the single top performing team in drafting players. What happens to them the next year? Well, one team was again the top-performing team. But, one team was also the worst-performing team. And you can see that there's a full spread, that from that number one position, they went to every other position from one to thirty-two, there was no predictive quality. About their first year performance in the next year. And conversely, the same at the bottom. You can look at the teams in red, which is 28th or so, and in one case, 28th was again 28th, almost perfect persistence. But, in the other cases, they drifted up, some were kinda middling the next year, and some were actually quite good in the following year. So, this tells us overall the correlation is slightly negative. Not different from zero but slightly negative. Essentially, zero, there's no correlation between how a team drafts at one year and how they draft the next year. And when there's no correlation, we can be sure, that means the differences that we observe are not the product of skill, the differences we observe are the product of chance.


Quote:
So, this is one performance measure, it's a starts, you can do this for other performance measures, this is how much a player receives in compensation, when he reaches free agency, you can use any number of performance measure and you get the same result. Most of the deviation goes away the next year which means that most of the deviations, most of the differences between teams are the result of chance and not skill. So, different performance stats, different player career stage. You can norm for additional factors like a player position. You can evaluate not the team level performance, but you actually look at the person in charge, whether it's a general manager or an owner, and you can track that individual's performance over his career, and again you don't see persistence. The vast majority of the variation is purely a product of chance.


Quote:
We asked people how much draft outcome is completely due to random chance versus draft outcomes are completely due to drafting skill? Where on that continuum, skill to chance, do you believe draft outcomes fall? And we asked this of NFL fans and we screened them, for actually following the NFL and what do you see, you see people, they don't think it's all skill. But the vast majority of people believe that it is on the skill side of the continuum. Almost nobody says that it's chance-related. By far the most are two-thirds, three-quarters, skill. And these are folks that actually follow NFL, follow the draft. They know that there's a little chance involved, but they greatly underestimate the amount of chance that's involved.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
shakes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
shakes wrote:
He was rated as the #4 prospect heading into the draft so that doesn't make a lick of sense.

rated by who? You're acting like there's an authoritative body declaring these things.

http://www.nbadraft.net/mocks/2008_nba_mock_draft.html

Taken 6th here

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3279 ... mock-draft

taken 10th here

http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-mock-draft/2008/

4th here. Guessing this is what you looked at

https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/ ... -draft.htm

Taken 6th here.

You get the idea


Nbadraft.net and draftexpress are the two sites I consider the best. USA today is about the same as anyone here doing the rankings, no clue about bleacher report.

I was looking at big boards, not mock drafts.



Those are two of the sites that I use also. Westbrook wasn't really considered a lock at 4. There was a lot of disagreement and even so he still could have flopped. Memphis Mayo and Beasley were drafted in front of him after all. If identifying talent is easy then how did that happen. Love was the most highly regarded prospect on that team and it would have been easy to take him. There are guys that are good at it. Look at the shit David Kahn was doing when he had the slot. Look at the drafting of Anthony Bennett and Thabeet. It's more than just pure luck. Memphis takes Westbrook and Harden the future of their franchise turns around overnight. They had the opportunity to take both.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Post draft grades provide a more definitive grade as to what people thought at the time.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... BCCCWVgocA


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... gFP0YhRGOI



Chad Ford is the definitive guy for draft analysis. He clearly stated that most people believed Westbrook to be a reach at 4.


Draftexpress is your Website Shakes. Their comments mirror what I said about not having a position and being a reach.


Sure thing? Yeah right.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Last edited by long time guy on Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:45 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 76681
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
long time guy wrote:
Akeem Olajuwon was the overwhelming choice for 1 and had Ewing decided to come out early he'd have gone ahead of all of them. Jordan would have been 4 and history would forever have been altered.

In the article Thorn said he would have selected Jordan over Bowie.

_________________
Nas: Blago, who has single handedly destroyed CFMB?

Blago: https://youtube.com/shorts/Lftdxd-YXt8?feature=share

"You can’t love your country only when you win." -President Biden

https://youtu.be/R6e4ruziZBI?si=1G4W1vbh0eGQuHfU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Nas wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Akeem Olajuwon was the overwhelming choice for 1 and had Ewing decided to come out early he'd have gone ahead of all of them. Jordan would have been 4 and history would forever have been altered.

In the article Thorn said he would have selected Jordan over Bowie.


Of course he did :lol:

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:53 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 76681
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
long time guy wrote:
Nas wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Akeem Olajuwon was the overwhelming choice for 1 and had Ewing decided to come out early he'd have gone ahead of all of them. Jordan would have been 4 and history would forever have been altered.

In the article Thorn said he would have selected Jordan over Bowie.


Of course he did :lol:


:lol: :lol: Well he did think Jordan was just a guy too.

_________________
Nas: Blago, who has single handedly destroyed CFMB?

Blago: https://youtube.com/shorts/Lftdxd-YXt8?feature=share

"You can’t love your country only when you win." -President Biden

https://youtu.be/R6e4ruziZBI?si=1G4W1vbh0eGQuHfU


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group