Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

James Johnson Discussion

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

  • 15 dudes in 20 years eh? Bravo. You sure showed the logical half of the board.
    @sweatpantsjer

    Comment


    • Whew. Hit a nerve there, huh? I like JJ so far, but pretty much every year there is a late 1st rounder or 2nd rounder who will be better than JJ. Even in so-called weak draft years. BC's blanket statement that there won't be a draft pick better than JJ at 28th or higher is amost guaranteed to be proven wrong. That's the point. The article was just a random list of the top players, just to illustrate the obvious point that you can get value at the lower picks if you know what you're doing.

      Comment


      • I'm going to take you up on the challenge Apollo. Shouldn't be that hard....

        Using this list, which is actually a bit more comprehensive than Goldens, we have 30 good Second Round picks in the modern era. And this one covers ALL of them in my opinion. Using this number of 30, which goes back to lets say 1990, compared too ALL second round picks in that 21 years, which when we work it out looks something like this...

        There were 27 teams from 1990 to 1995. Then there were 29 teams until 2004, when there were 30. So lets say 29 is a good average with which to use as our number of picks used throughout those 21 years. 21 x 29 = 441. So 30 / 441= .06 = 6%. Which nicely works out to about ONE good pick in the Second Round each year. I DO NOT like those odds.

        Using Goldens list, you can cut that percentage in half.

        Comment


        • golden wrote: View Post
          Whew. Hit a nerve there, huh? I like JJ so far, but pretty much every year there is a late 1st rounder or 2nd rounder who will be better than JJ. Even in so-called weak draft years. BC's blanket statement that there won't be a draft pick better than JJ at 28th or higher is amost guaranteed to be proven wrong. That's the point. The article was just a random list of the top players, just to illustrate the obvious point that you can get value at the lower picks if you know what you're doing.
          One could also make the case that someone is definitely going to win the LottoMax jackpot this year as well - but it won't be us.

          Comment


          • golden wrote: View Post
            Whew. Hit a nerve there, huh? I like JJ so far, but pretty much every year there is a late 1st rounder or 2nd rounder who will be better than JJ. Even in so-called weak draft years. BC's blanket statement that there won't be a draft pick better than JJ at 28th or higher is amost guaranteed to be proven wrong. That's the point. The article was just a random list of the top players, just to illustrate the obvious point that you can get value at the lower picks if you know what you're doing.
            Let's look at the odds of getting a good player that late. Some drafts there might be three or four, in weak drafts you're lucky to find a couple. Let's say that three can be had in the second round this year. That's an optimistic stance in my opinion by the way. That's 3 in 30, 1 in 10 or in other words a 10% chance for teams to hit the "jackpot". I don't like those very optimistic odds, golden.

            Comment


            • joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
              I'm going to take you up on the challenge Apollo. Shouldn't be that hard....

              Using this list, which is actually a bit more comprehensive than Goldens, we have 30 good Second Round picks in the modern era. And this one covers ALL of them in my opinion. Using this number of 30, which goes back to lets say 1990, compared too ALL second round picks in that 21 years, which when we work it out looks something like this...

              There were 27 teams from 1990 to 1995. Then there were 29 teams until 2004, when there were 30. So lets say 29 is a good average with which to use as our number of picks used throughout those 21 years. 21 x 29 = 441. So 30 / 441= .06 = 6%. Which nicely works out to about ONE good pick in the Second Round each year. I DO NOT like those odds.

              Using Goldens list, you can cut that percentage in half.
              Strong post. That's around what I expected and totally blows my similar post out of the water.

              Comment


              • Apollo wrote: View Post
                Strong post. That's around what I expected and totally blows my similar post out of the water.
                Hopefully it'll keep them quiet.. for now. haha

                Comment


                • Apollo wrote: View Post
                  My question to you is what if they held the pick and couldn't get anything remotely as valuable?.
                  Again I have yet to be covinced that JJ is nothing but a dime a dozen player that you can find in the D league or at that pick position. Just last season everyone were raving on Sonny Weems potential and today most don't care about him but are raving on JJ like he is a new toy or something.

                  Apollo wrote: View Post
                  What if they drafted a dud? I think Colangelo made a play that made sense.
                  I have no doubt that they would have probably drafted a dud but the jury is still out whether JJ himself is a dud or not.

                  Apollo wrote: View Post
                  Colangelo was in the right place, at the right time and cashed in on another team shuffling it's assets to facilitate another move.
                  I guess we will have to wait and see.

                  Comment


                  • joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
                    I'm going to take you up on the challenge Apollo. Shouldn't be that hard....

                    Using this list, which is actually a bit more comprehensive than Goldens, we have 30 good Second Round picks in the modern era. And this one covers ALL of them in my opinion. Using this number of 30, which goes back to lets say 1990, compared too ALL second round picks in that 21 years, which when we work it out looks something like this...

                    There were 27 teams from 1990 to 1995. Then there were 29 teams until 2004, when there were 30. So lets say 29 is a good average with which to use as our number of picks used throughout those 21 years. 21 x 29 = 441. So 30 / 441= .06 = 6%. Which nicely works out to about ONE good pick in the Second Round each year. I DO NOT like those odds.

                    Using Goldens list, you can cut that percentage in half.
                    Lies, damn lies and Joey Hesketh's post. j/k. LOL. Don't try to pull a fast one, here. You're missing good players, like Marc Gasol & Aaron Brooks just off the top of my head. And if you want to make a consolidated list, you also have to add late first rounders like Tony Parker + undrafted.

                    If you're going use statistical arguments then please ..... be accurate and thorough. Go back and count all the players drafted in the last 4 picks of the first round + second round + undrafted (guys who should have been drafted, but slipped through the cracks) who became starters or solid bench players, and that is the true pool of talent available at the Miami draft position. That's far higher than your estimate. Again, it comes down to drafting ability and confidence in your (non-pro/NBA) scouting staff.
                    Last edited by golden; Tue Mar 1, 2011, 09:33 AM.

                    Comment


                    • At least I create an argument and try to back it up, as opposed to just criticizing other peoples arguments.

                      Why do we have to include Undrafted? Miami's pick would not have gotten us an Undrafted player... thats makes ZERO sense.

                      And why don't you do it Golden? Instead of just waiting for someone to do all the work and then shooting it down and criticizing someones obvious efforts to make a valid point?
                      I was just doing a very quick, basic break down. You think adding MAYBE another 10 guys (thats being generous. You've managed an extra TWO...) to the list, out of maybe another 90 picks will REALLY change the outcome of my point? The ODDS are very strongly against you when picking players at that point in the draft. Regardless of Scouting ability. The odds of getting a guy out of a program like Wake Forest, while putting up the numbers that JJ did, are even LESS.

                      ADD: And Golden, you telling me to be more thorough is like Big Pun telling someone to stop Eating. Learn to have a real debate and then we can talk.
                      Last edited by Joey; Tue Mar 1, 2011, 10:23 AM.

                      Comment


                      • golden wrote: View Post
                        If you're going use statistical arguments then please ..... be accurate and thorough. Go back and count all the players drafted in the last 4 picks of the first round + second round + undrafted (guys who should have been drafted, but slipped through the cracks) who became starters or solid bench players, and that is the true pool of talent available at the Miami draft position. That's far higher than your estimate. Again, it comes down to drafting ability and confidence in your (non-pro/NBA) scouting staff.
                        What Joey has provided is more than you have for you stance. You've just thrown out some names and conveniently disregarded the fact those players a rare, not common.

                        Comment


                        • joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
                          ADD: And Golden, you telling me to be more thorough is like Big Pun telling someone to stop Eating. Learn to have a real debate and then we can talk.
                          he stopped eating, 11 years ago

                          Comment


                          • heinz57 wrote: View Post
                            he stopped eating, 11 years ago
                            And what a horrible shame it was ... He coulda been huuge! (Size wise not Fame wise. I gave him another 200lbs before he croaked. Who knew.)
                            Last edited by Joey; Tue Mar 1, 2011, 11:03 AM.

                            Comment


                            • it's safe to say he LOOOOOVED Cinnabon

                              Comment


                              • joey_hesketh wrote: View Post

                                Why do we have to include Undrafted? Miami's pick would not have gotten us an Undrafted player... thats makes ZERO sense.
                                Actually, it makes perfect sense. All of the undrafted players after the 2011 draft would have been available at 28-29. BC's point was that the talent pool at that level and after would never, could not possibly include someone at Johnson's talent level. Theoretically, you could also answer Colangelo's position with the question, "what about asset value? Did the pick have more value than Johnson in a trade, etc.?" and expand the list of possibilities by a large factor.

                                Whether Colangelo is right or wrong won't be know for a couple of years but I think the larger point is that Colangelo is prone to making very broad, definitive declarations that often turn out to be wrong (comparing Derozan to VC, the 50-win team decree), so, people should at least raise an eyebrow.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X