Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NBA.com's Raptors Pre-Draft Analysis

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    When you're drafting at 20 the difference between two players isn't big at all and requires a lot of luck and development.

    I don't understand the BPA theory when you're that low. When you're top 10 it makes sense because a lot of teams will not pick a specific player because they have that hole filled and pick a clearly inferior player that fits a role (ahem Ross). But past the top ten tgere usually isn't one player that's superior to another by much.

    If Masai went into this draft after scouting and said there's a 95% chance of him taking a specific position, I'm sure a lot of people would be upset but I'd be perfectly fine with it.

    Comment


    • #17
      Bonus Jonas wrote: View Post
      When you're drafting at 20 the difference between two players isn't big at all and requires a lot of luck and development.

      I don't understand the BPA theory when you're that low. When you're top 10 it makes sense because a lot of teams will not pick a specific player because they have that hole filled and pick a clearly inferior player that fits a role (ahem Ross). But past the top ten tgere usually isn't one player that's superior to another by much.

      If Masai went into this draft after scouting and said there's a 95% chance of him taking a specific position, I'm sure a lot of people would be upset but I'd be perfectly fine with it.
      I'm of the complete opposite mindset. I think a team has to look at what they value in a player (defence, hard work, coach able, athleticism, etc) then look at skill set and projections followed by fit.

      If all things are equal of course you go for fit. But to me, passing on a higher skill/higher projection player for a position might work in the short term to plug a hole but in the long term is foolish. You draft talent and develop players and of they don't fit you use them as assets to get more players.

      Unless of course you're Cleveland and you walk into the best player in the world and a bunch of 1st overall draft picks.
      Sunny ways my friends, sunny ways
      Because its 2015

      Comment


      • #18
        Uncle_Si wrote: View Post
        I'm of the complete opposite mindset. I think a team has to look at what they value in a player (defence, hard work, coach able, athleticism, etc) then look at skill set and projections followed by fit.

        If all things are equal of course you go for fit. But to me, passing on a higher skill/higher projection player for a position might work in the short term to plug a hole but in the long term is foolish. You draft talent and develop players and of they don't fit you use them as assets to get more players.

        Unless of course you're Cleveland and you walk into the best player in the world and a bunch of 1st overall draft picks.
        I agree with this, I'm not saying we should draft someone to plug a hole. In fact I don't think our pick will even get any significant minutes next season.

        And I'm not saying we should take a clearly inferior player. I'm saying the difference from player to player in the 20's is so minimal you might as well draft the guy at the position that you need the most long term.

        For example, last year I wanted very badly for us to take 1 of two guys: KJ McDaniels or Clint Capela. They both filled holes, but let's say we already had Bruno on the roster, at that point the difference in talent and foundation between the two guys is so minimal at the point of drafting them that you might as well take Capela.

        In my opinion, 75-90% of the reason a player picked in the 20's and on becomes successful is how the team develops him and less so because they happened to draft the "right" guy.

        Aka, had Manu been drafted by someone else, do you really think he would have had nearly the career he's had? Because I highly doubt it.

        Comment


        • #19
          OldSkoolCool wrote: View Post
          +100

          I'd like to use Ross as an example:

          He is a player who is solely a catch and shoot guy. Casey has been trying to get him to put the ball on the floor and play like DD, instead of running an offense that will generate open shots for him
          Why would you run an offense to get Terrence Ross shots? That's like changing the global strategic direction of Imperial Oil so that the receptionist in Cairo is happy. Who cares? If he's a system player and he doesn't fit your system, then he either changes or you get rid of him. He is not a material part of this team's success or failure.

          Comment


          • #20
            Mack North wrote: View Post
            2 words for you: Bring Back Zeke!

            As long as we could let him draft for us, we'd be just fine.
            I dunno. Isiah Thomas draft record is kind of overblown. Yes he picked T-Mac, who was on the way to being another teenage bust under Darrell Walker until Zeke got run out of town and Butch Carter took over (and gave the young fella minutes and confidence). He got Mighty Mouse, who put up prototypical "best player on a crap team" type numbers.

            He found some nuggets like David Lee, Nate Robinson, Fields, Ariza and Frye late in the draft, but his drafting record is mostly meh.

            But he made some epic bonehead moves, like when he coughed up two first round picks for Eddy Curry, that turned into LaMarcus Aldridge and Joakim Noah ... damn.

            October 4, 2005:
            ==========
            Traded Jermaine Jackson, Mike Sweetney, Tim Thomas, a 2006 1st round draft pick (LaMarcus Aldridge was later selected), a 2007 1st round draft pick (Joakim Noah was later selected), a 2007 2nd round draft pick (Kyrylo Fesenko was later selected) and a 2009 2nd round draft pick (Jon Brockman was later selected) to the Chicago Bulls for Eddy Curry, Antonio Davis and a 2007 1st round draft pick (Wilson Chandler was later selected).

            http://www.basketball-reference.com/...homais01x.html

            Comment


            • #21
              slaw wrote: View Post
              Why would you run an offense to get Terrence Ross shots? That's like changing the global strategic direction of Imperial Oil so that the receptionist in Cairo is happy. Who cares? If he's a system player and he doesn't fit your system, then he either changes or you get rid of him. He is not a material part of this team's success or failure.
              You don't run an offense to get Terrence Ross open shots. You run an offense to get everybody open shots. If analytics (and the Spurs) have taught us anything, it's that the best shot in the NBA is an open shot. Casey's offence encourages getting to the foul line, which is a contested shot by definition and he is on the record as stating as much. It's the exact opposite of the offence that fits Ross' skillset.

              Comment


              • #22
                Bonus Jonas wrote: View Post
                I have tunnel vision and want a PG exclusively. We have young wings on this team and although they're not too enticing (Ross, bruno, Daniels) it's better than nothing. We have no pg prospects whatsoever
                We also have no PF prospects, and only one PF under contract at all. I think PF is more important right now, but I'd be fine with BPA as we could literally use prospects at every position.

                Comment


                • #23
                  slaw wrote: View Post
                  Why would you run an offense to get Terrence Ross shots? That's like changing the global strategic direction of Imperial Oil so that the receptionist in Cairo is happy. Who cares? If he's a system player and he doesn't fit your system, then he either changes or you get rid of him. He is not a material part of this team's success or failure.
                  I disagree. You always want to ask players to do what they are already good at. Players can develop skills, but as a coach you want to find them as many easy wins as you can. if they don't fit into long term plans because they don't work you trade them. Since they've been productive you'll get a better return. Ross's value is so low you can't really trade him. Had Casey had 1 play that worked to Ross's strengths that he ran successfully 2x per game, Ross would have more trade value, but mostly because it's what the Spurs do.
                  "They're going to have to rename the whole conference after us: Toronto Raptors 2014-2015 Northern Conference Champions" ~ ezzbee Dec. 2014

                  "I guess I got a little carried away there" ~ ezzbee Apr. 2015

                  "We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    slaw wrote: View Post
                    Why would you run an offense to get Terrence Ross shots? That's like changing the global strategic direction of Imperial Oil so that the receptionist in Cairo is happy. Who cares? If he's a system player and he doesn't fit your system, then he either changes or you get rid of him. He is not a material part of this team's success or failure.
                    See below

                    golden wrote: View Post
                    You don't run an offense to get Terrence Ross open shots. You run an offense to get everybody open shots. If analytics (and the Spurs) have taught us anything, it's that the best shot in the NBA is an open shot. Casey's offence encourages getting to the foul line, which is a contested shot by definition and he is on the record as stating as much. It's the exact opposite of the offence that fits Ross' skillset.
                    Because Ross is a system guy who will thrive in a system that generates open shots. It's not that we need to run specific plays for him...but we need an adaptable/flowing/motion system that will create open looks for him. Otherwise he will look like a turd.

                    Casey developmental program for ya

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      slaw wrote: View Post
                      I think one thing all the tankers, anti-tankers, rebuilders, re-toolers, etc. can agree on is this: this damn organization needs to do a better job in the draft. Look at the last 5 years!!!! And, sadly, that's probably a good of a stretch as they've had since 95-98. Jebus. It's no wonder this team has been terrible for the better part of 20 years.

                      You go back to 2000, that's 15 drafts, and they've drafted 4 useful players (MoPete, Bosh, JV, Derozan). They have never, in 20 years, had a second round pick that contributed anything to the team. Ever. This organization has not been well-served by its scouting and management teams.
                      Lol if you want to really feel bad, look at the debacle that was the 2005 draft.

                      - Pick Charlie V, a PF, redundant with Chris Bosh at #7. Andrew Bynum goes #10.
                      - Pick Joey Graham at #16, Danny Granger goes #17
                      - Golden State's original "coin toss" pick (wasn't actually a coin toss), picking Ellis at #40, we get Ukic at #41.

                      Ellis, Granger, Bosh, Bynum. Talk about an exciting young core to build with.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Primer wrote: View Post
                        We also have no PF prospects, and only one PF under contract at all. I think PF is more important right now, but I'd be fine with BPA as we could literally use prospects at every position.
                        But as I already addressed, the majority of the lottery next year is bigs. Like almost entirely. So I'd rather grab the PG now and get a PF or even two next draft

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Bonus Jonas wrote: View Post
                          But as I already addressed, the majority of the lottery next year is bigs. Like almost entirely. So I'd rather grab the PG now and get a PF or even two next draft
                          I have no evidence to support this, but I feel like that's how it is much of the time this far ahead of drafts. Mocks filled with bigs. Not sure why...I would guess that bigs are "known" to a certain extent, because their size is part of what makes them a pro prospect. However wings/guards don't often stand out until they make it to the NCAA and show what they can do.

                          I mean, again I can't really support this with anything, but I feel like last year, the 2015 mocks were all big-heavy in the lottery. Now that the season has played out, things are a bit more balanced.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            As for Ross - we did run plays to get him shots. Last year. And those plays had him entirely off the ball. And it paid off - he had a great 3 point percentage on a tonne of wide open shots coming off screens.

                            This year we cut way back in that, and pretty much entirely once DD went down, to run the offence with the ball in Ross' hands - the one scenario where he is guaranteed NOT to get spot up jumpers, his forte. Running plays to get Ross shots is not a problem - running plays where you expect Ross to create for himself and others is the problem.
                            twitter.com/dhackett1565

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              white men can't jump wrote: View Post
                              I have no evidence to support this, but I feel like that's how it is much of the time this far ahead of drafts. Mocks filled with bigs. Not sure why...I would guess that bigs are "known" to a certain extent, because their size is part of what makes them a pro prospect. However wings/guards don't often stand out until they make it to the NCAA and show what they can do.

                              I mean, again I can't really support this with anything, but I feel like last year, the 2015 mocks were all big-heavy in the lottery. Now that the season has played out, things are a bit more balanced.
                              I see the logic behind that thinking, but personally I don't think it's true. I think you can predict to an extent a year early. In my opinion out of the 14 guys deemed to go lottery next season, at least ten I would think will stay in the first round

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Bonus Jonas wrote: View Post
                                I see the logic behind that thinking, but personally I don't think it's true. I think you can predict to an extent a year early. In my opinion out of the 14 guys deemed to go lottery next season, at least ten I would think will stay in the first round
                                I don't know, I've always felt lots changes in that year, and when there are lots of non-bigs it can be a sign that there is some expectation (that could change in a year) that it will be a strong draft.

                                I just looked at the 2016 mock, and I don't know why you think it's mostly bigs.

                                nbadraft.net: There are 7 non-bigs, and that's not counting Simmons who their listing as a SF/PF.
                                draftexpress: There are 6, again not counting Simmons.

                                Not really that big-heavy.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X