NBA - What the hell is going on?

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

Its not recency bias. Its absurdly stupid backwards logic. Players are not determined by their draft order, the draft order reflects the teams opinion on the players.

Sure but teams in all sports do a lot of research to identify the likelihood of a player's success based on when they're drafted.  Hell the NFL draft is basically governed by a trade value chart virtually every team/executive agrees to abide by.

[Proudfeet]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Sure but teams in all sports do a lot of research to identify the likelihood of a player's success based on when they're drafted.  Hell the NFL draft is basically governed by a trade value chart virtually every team/executive agrees to abide by.

I know that. I even asked a couple of months back what the expectations are, which everyone dodged/hedged by the way, but I don't see how expected average value plays into it. 

This and that are different things. I don't know how the NFL does things, but as far as I'm concerned, draft position is only relevant before you pick the player, not after. How players perform relative to expectations is different from it determining their success. Or, to put it another way, if they were expected to be that good, they wouldn't have been drafted where they were. 

Is there anything consequential worth noting even if it becomes a trend? Its not like Luka and Zion are failing their teams. Nor Embiid if we're talking about Jokic's MVP. And even if it was otherwise, its a case of teams failing to spot/develop talent, and it doesn't translate to it being better to have more or late picks, which was how it was implied.

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

but as far as I'm concerned, draft position is only relevant before you pick the player, not after.

Yes, and that's what we were talking about - whether to give up these picks for those picks.  Obviously that evaluation - for teams, media, and fans - is going to be informed by how much value those picks usually elicit.  Or it least that's how it should be in my view.  I honestly don't really understand exactly what your gripe is about.

[Proudfeet]

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yes, and that's what we were talking about - whether to give up these picks for those picks.  Obviously that evaluation - for teams, media, and fans - is going to be informed by how much value those picks usually elicit.  Or it least that's how it should be in my view.  I honestly don't really understand exactly what your gripe is about.

That you seem to agree that there's something to make of players picked later succeeding if it continues? I'm not talking about your post 374, its 376 that I quoted.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

That you seem to agree that there's something to make of players picked later succeeding if it continues? I'm not talking about your post 374, its 376 that I quoted.

Well, yes, I do agree.  Elite players (arguably even just impact players) usually come from the lottery, which informs why I would rather keep the 5th and 8th than dropping to 7th and 10th while picking up the 16th - which usually isn't gonna get you much more than an average/rotational player.  I don't see anything wrong with discussing where successful players and teams were picked in the past - that's part of how to inform that decision.  My issue isn't with Ty using previous draftees as examples, it's that his examples tend to be outliers - and recent outliers, hence recency bias.

[Proudfeet]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Well, yes, I do agree.  Elite players (arguably even just impact players) usually come from the lottery, which informs why I would rather keep the 5th and 8th than dropping to 7th and 10th while picking up the 16th - which usually isn't gonna get you much more than an average/rotational player.  I don't see anything wrong with discussing where successful players and teams were picked in the past - that's part of how to inform that decision.  My issue isn't with Ty using previous draftees as examples, it's that his examples tend to be outliers - and recent outliers, hence recency bias.

My issue is that recency isn't an issue. Outliers will be outliers. You can't plan for them no matter if they happen occasionally, just this stretch or all the time. There is nothing worth noting. It's why and how they succeeded from where they were picked. Where itself is largely irrelevant.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

My issue is that recency isn't an issue. Outliers will be outliers.

Fair enough.  Don't see much reason to argue about it though.  I mentioned recency bias to Ty in particular because he has a tendency to overestimate current players/conditions when comparing to earlier eras.

[Proudfeet]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Fair enough.  Don't see much reason to argue about it though.  I mentioned recency bias to Ty in particular because he has a tendency to overestimate current players/conditions when comparing to earlier eras.

I wasn't looking to argue. I just thought that it was the wrong approach to disagree because you were tacitly acknowledging it. We're just both a bit too defensive I suppose.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

I wasn't looking to argue. I just thought that it was the wrong approach to disagree because you were tacitly acknowledging it. We're just both a bit too defensive I suppose.

Wasn't trying to be defensive, more just confused.  

[Maithanet]

NBA teams are better at identifying and developing talent than other professional leagues.  Not that they don't miss the potential of some guys (jokic, Kawhi and Giannis), but those are relatively rare.  If you look at the 2000-2019 drafts (twenty years) and divide them into three piles of #1, picks 2-4 and picks 5 and later, which 5 man team is the best?

#1 picks - Lebron, Howard, Irving, Davis, Zion (leaving Griffin and Rose on the bench)

#2-4: Bosh, Paul, Durant, Embiid, Doncic (leaving Harden and Westbrook on the bench)

#5 and later: Wade, George, Curry, Kawhi, Giannis (leaving Lillard, Jokic and Butler on the bench)

I suppose of those three teams the #1 picks are the weakest, but not dramatically so, and that's partly because teams value size and athleticism so much with the #1 pick that you don't have a lot of shooters to choose from. 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 hours ago, DMC said:

My issue isn't with Ty using previous draftees as examples, it's that his examples tend to be outliers - and recent outliers, hence recency bias.

I’m not sure that’s entirely fair. There are simply more prospects these days that have the potential to be good players than in prior years. Historically getting the top two or three picks was all that mattered, but lately drafts have produced talent at a number of spots outside of the top ten. That’s why I was arguing that sliding back a couple slots to gain an additional middle of the first round pick has some real value. It just depends if the draft class is seen to be deep or not.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

There are simply more prospects these days that have the potential to be good players than in prior years.

This is a baseless, and unfalsifiable, assertion.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

18 minutes ago, DMC said:

This is a baseless, and unfalsifiable, assertion.

What makes you say that? There’s a lot more invested in players from an early age and the global game has also taken huge steps forward. That’s why I mentioned last night that there’s not a whole lot of difference between mid-lottery and a mid-first round pick.  

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

What makes you say that?

First, because there have always been some players that are picked lower that end up being much better than expected.  Second, because it's impossible to refute saying more prospects have the "potential" to be good players.  You can't evaluate that objectively.  Literally every player that was ever drafted was thought, by at least one decision maker or another, to have the potential to be a good player.

[BigFatCoward]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

First, because there have always been some players that are picked lower that end up being much better than expected.  Second, because it's impossible to refute saying more prospects have the "potential" to be good players.  You can't evaluate that objectively.  Literally every player that was ever drafted was thought, by at least one decision maker or another, to have the potential to be a good player.

Even Carl Lewis? I don't think this is true at all. I'm sure numerous teams towards the end of the second round have picked because they had too, assuming they were getting dogshit. 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Even Carl Lewis? I don't think this is true at all. I'm sure numerous teams towards the end of the second round have picked because they had too, assuming they were getting dogshit. 

[Maithanet]

59 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

There are simply more prospects these days that have the potential to be good players than in prior years.

That’s why I mentioned last night that there’s not a whole lot of difference between mid-lottery and a mid-first round pick.  

What is the time horizon for this?  If I were to assess whether this is true between the 2006-2015 drafts, would that suffice?  Because I think you are wrong about the difference between mid lottery and mid first round picks, but I don't want to bother if you're going to say that isn't "recent" enough and this is true exclusively for say 2015 onward.  In which case, DMC is right that this is unfalsifiable unless we want to just put a pin in this and bring it up again in 2025. 

[Proudfeet]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Not that they don't miss the potential of some guys (jokic, Kawhi and Giannis), but those are relatively rare. 

It may not necessarily be that they miss out, but that they might just be more comfortable with a player with a higher floor regardless of ceiling. Its not like people haven't tried and failed the other way round either, going for the ceiling and missing badly. Or maybe the player has an injury risk.

Or sometimes, it might just be the team or situation that fails/helps the player. Draymond only proved himself after injuries to other players gave him a chance. Or hypothetically, maybe Wiggins could have had a better career if he was put in a better position.

__

Separately, the #1 pick team is looking pretty good considering that its a pool of 20/60/520 players. I wouldn't bother with fitting them into a team though, you can't account for position after all.

[Maithanet]

34 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

It may not necessarily be that they miss out, but that they might just be more comfortable with a player with a higher floor regardless of ceiling. Its not like people haven't tried and failed the other way round either, going for the ceiling and missing badly. Or maybe the player has an injury risk.

Or sometimes, it might just be the team or situation that fails/helps the player. Draymond only proved himself after injuries to other players gave him a chance. Or hypothetically, maybe Wiggins could have had a better career if he was put in a better position.

__

Separately, the #1 pick team is looking pretty good considering that its a pool of 20/60/520 players. I wouldn't bother with fitting them into a team though, you can't account for position after all.

I would say if anything NBA talent scouts are more likely to fall in love with high ceiling guys and ignore guys who are small or unexceptional athletes who already have a strong game.  That is IMO the only explanation for how Curry goes as late as he did after how dominating he was in college. 

For the #1 pick team, yeah, the team does not fit at all.  But I remember i did a similar exercise where I'm looking at the best player at each position all time since the NBA draft began.  My (debateable) list would be Magic, Jordan, Lebron, Duncan, Kareem.  So that is four #1 picks and a #3 pick (Jordan).  Although if you make the All-time second team you do get a few later picks. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Maithanet said:

What is the time horizon for this?  If I were to assess whether this is true between the 2006-2015 drafts, would that suffice?  Because I think you are wrong about the difference between mid lottery and mid first round picks, but I don't want to bother if you're going to say that isn't "recent" enough and this is true exclusively for say 2015 onward.  In which case, DMC is right that this is unfalsifiable unless we want to just put a pin in this and bring it up again in 2025. 

I think that's a perfect range. The question is how do we want to measure it. 6-9 seems like a good starting point for middle of the lottery, but I'm not sure how large of a range we should use for the middle of the draft, and if that range should include or exclude someone like Booker, who went 13th, and Rondo, who went 21st. I just did a quick check, only looking at if a player made at least one all-star game, and while there were more guys in the mid lottery than middle of the draft, it wasn't a huge difference, but, the size of the range matters. If you include the 10th pick the gap goes up, and it goes up even more if you can't include guys in the early 20s. I think Habs original point though is that you can reasonable predict expected all-star appearances for the first few picks, but after that the average between mid lottery picks and mid round picks is fairly small (I'm not sure if he was including each all-star appearance or just whether or not the player made one AS game).