Everything 2024 Draft

[Primer]

I think you're being obtuse here. Your assumption is that the experts are right, so you can't even parse the discussion from the correct opposite lens: that they are mostly wrong. If the experts (both NBA pros and media) are wrong, then yeah, the information is pretty useless. And the logical thing to do would be: use it for entertainment purposes only and take it with a huge pillar of salt.

So the reality is that draft success comes down to the talent/fit evaluation secret sauce of individual front offices vs. each other... and we don't have access to that info.

If they are mostly wrong as you assert, then would your draft strategy be to select guys that the experts have said will go undrafted. If the experts are usually wrong then selecting guys they don't even think will get picked is sure to net us the best players. Maybe we should take their rankings and go backwards. Whoever they have going 60th we should take with the 1st overall pick.

If this isn't what you're advocating, then please enlighten us as to what exactly you are advocating.

[Joey]

If they are mostly wrong as you assert, then would your draft strategy be to select guys that the experts have said will go undrafted. If the experts are usually wrong then selecting guys they don't even think will get picked is sure to net us the best players. Maybe we should take their rankings and go backwards. Whoever they have going 60th we should take with the 1st overall pick.

If this isn't what you're advocating, then please enlighten us as to what exactly you are advocating.

It's not that the 60 guys being drafted are the wrong 60 guys .. it's that they are going in the wrong order. Clearly.

[golden]

If they are mostly wrong as you assert, then would your draft strategy be to select guys that the experts have said will go undrafted. If the experts are usually wrong then selecting guys they don't even think will get picked is sure to net us the best players. Maybe we should take their rankings and go backwards. Whoever they have going 60th we should take with the 1st overall pick.

If this isn't what you're advocating, then please enlighten us as to what exactly you are advocating.

lol. First of all, to be useful for the drafting team, you definitely have to sequence talent at least in tiers or clusters. That's the first thing they get wrong. So swappig #60 with #1 is just silly hyperbole on your part and not what anybody is suggesting. I mean there are some obvious things like a player's track record and stats against a certain level of competition. If a kid has always been dominating every level of the highest competition for his age... then yeah, that's probably a no brainer. There's obvious physical tools that you can see and measure... but can a raw athlete develop BBIQ? Or can a below-average athlete still produce with super high BBIQ? Then there's age and level of competition, where it becomes very murky to project. So many un-quantifiable variables, it really is like predicting the weather back when.

Secondly, there is so much information that we will never get access to, that could/should factor into the decision. Like how a guy competes or performs in the workouts - which was a huge factor in drafting Pascal (much to everybody's surprise). And some would say that's silly to over-value the workouts, because a guy could just be having a bad day. Or character and personality. Or interviews with former coaches of the potential draftee. Or medical records.

I'm not advocating FOR an approach... maybe AI is going to solve this, lol. I'm only advocating against an approach (listening to the experts). Sorry, I'm not getting paid for this.

[Kagemusha]

lol. First of all, to be useful for the drafting, you definitely have to sequence talent at least in tiers or clusters. That's the first thing they get wrong. So swappig #60 with #1 is just silly hyperbole on your part and not what anybody is suggesting. I mean there are some obvious things like a player's track record and stats against a certain level of competition. If a kid has always been dominating every level of the highest competition for his age... then yeah, that's probably a no brainer. There's obvious physical tools that you can see and measure... but can a raw athlete develop BBIQ. Or can a below-average athlete still produce with super high BBIQ? Then there's age and level of competition, where it becomes very murky to project. So many un-quantifiable variables, it really is like predicting the weather back when.

Secondly, there is so much information that we will never get access to, that could/should factor into the decision. Like how a guy competes or performs in the workouts - which was a huge factor in drafting Pascal (much to everybody's surprise). And some would say that's silly to over-value the workouts, because a guy could just be having a bad day. Or character and personality. Or interviews with former coaches of the potential draftee. Or medical records.

I'm not advocating FOR an approach... maybe AI is going to solve this, lol. I'm only advocating against an approach (listening to the experts). Sorry, I'm not getting paid for this.

Drafting is also dependent on team needs and strategy.
Is this team drafting based on need, or the BPA.
Are they asset loading like Atlanta in 2018 where they essentially traded Luka to get another FRP.
Factors that are only revealed post draft.

[Primer]

It's not that the 60 guys being drafted are the wrong 60 guys .. it's that they are going in the wrong order. Clearly.

I would say they go in the mostly correct order. Once again they are not perfect, but they're a hell of a lot better than pulling names out of hats.

If you're expecting perfection across 60 picks I can see why you're disappointed with their accuracy.

[Joey]

I would say they go in the mostly correct order. Once again they are not perfect, but they're a hell of a lot better than pulling names out of hats.

If you're expecting perfection across 60 picks I can see why you're disappointed with their accuracy.

Based on what? Certainly not career outcome/production. If every year were to have a re-draft 5 years after the fact, I would be surprised if 10% of the picks remain in their same spot.

[Primer]

lol. First of all, to be useful for the drafting team, you definitely have to sequence talent at least in tiers or clusters. That's the first thing they get wrong. So swappig #60 with #1 is just silly hyperbole on your part and not what anybody is suggesting. I mean there are some obvious things like a player's track record and stats against a certain level of competition. If a kid has always been dominating every level of the highest competition for his age... then yeah, that's probably a no brainer. There's obvious physical tools that you can see and measure... but can a raw athlete develop BBIQ? Or can a below-average athlete still produce with super high BBIQ? Then there's age and level of competition, where it becomes very murky to project. So many un-quantifiable variables, it really is like predicting the weather back when.

Secondly, there is so much information that we will never get access to, that could/should factor into the decision. Like how a guy competes or performs in the workouts - which was a huge factor in drafting Pascal (much to everybody's surprise). And some would say that's silly to over-value the workouts, because a guy could just be having a bad day. Or character and personality. Or interviews with former coaches of the potential draftee. Or medical records.

I'm not advocating FOR an approach... maybe AI is going to solve this, lol. I'm only advocating against an approach (listening to the experts). Sorry, I'm not getting paid for this.

So exactly what I figured. Classic golden arguing against something when he doesn't have anything to offer as an alternative or that may be better. Just arguing for the sake of arguing and taking a side he knows will get push back.

I'd also note your entire first paragraph is what these draft analysts are doing.

[golden]

Drafting is also dependent on team needs and strategy.
Is this team drafting based on need, or the BPA.
Are they asset loading like Atlanta in 2018 where they essentially traded Luka to get another FRP.
Factors that are only revealed post draft.

Yeah, like PM pointed out... if you can't develop the player, then you could end up messing up his entire career. That's the legitimate argument in favor of drafting for need over talent, i.e., you can allocate real minutes for the kid and you are willing to prioritize his development because his skillset fits exactly what you need. If you duplicate a position/role, then a young guy's confidence & overall development could suffer and ultimately lower his ceiling, i.e., sensitivity to initial conditions.

[Primer]

Based on what? Certainly not career outcome/production. If every year were to have a re-draft 5 years after the fact, I would be surprised if 10% of the picks remain in their same spot.

So again you're asking for perfection. Same spot? Really?

If you look at past drafts you will find that generally the best players were selected higher than the worst players. The best players were actually drafted and not UDFA. Round 1 produces more good players than round 2. That's mostly correct and why every team uses draft analysis to make their picks, it increases their chances of getting a better player.

[Primer]

Drafting is also dependent on team needs and strategy.
Is this team drafting based on need, or the BPA.
Are they asset loading like Atlanta in 2018 where they essentially traded Luka to get another FRP.
Factors that are only revealed post draft.

Atlanta traded Luka for Trae because they didn't think they could market a white boy in Atlanta. It was straight up that stupid. They wanted Trae because they felt he would put more butts in seats, the fact they could get their guy and an extra pick was just gravy. Atlanta is probably the worst drafting franchise of all time, and their blunders are all when they ignored the expert consensus.

[Kagemusha]

If you look at past drafts you will find that generally the best players were selected higher than the worst players. The best players were actually drafted and not UDFA. Round 1 produces more good players than round 2. That's mostly correct and why every team uses draft analysis to make their picks, it increases their chances of getting a better player.

How sure are you that teams are using random draft analysis from the internet and not on analysis of their scouts and evaluators?

[golden]

So exactly what I figured. Classic golden arguing against something when he doesn't have anything to offer as an alternative or that may be better. Just arguing for the sake of arguing and taking a side he knows will get push back.

I'd also note your entire first paragraph is what these draft analysts are doing.

Well, I did give you an answer... wait for the predictive technology (e.g. AI) to get better. Just like it did for the weather.

[Kagemusha]

Atlanta traded Luka for Trae because they didn't think they could market a white boy in Atlanta. It was straight up that stupid. They wanted Trae because they felt he would put more butts in seats, the fact they could get their guy and an extra pick was just gravy. Atlanta is probably the worst drafting franchise of all time, and their blunders are all when they ignored the expert consensus.

Trae is mixed, bro.
The argument that Luka is Euro makes more sense.
No matter how dumb that is.

Also, Hawks GM confirmed he was using the baseball strategy -
'The more swings you get, the more chances you have to get a hit'
https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nba/...l1nqehdne58jol

[golden]

Trae is mixed, bro.
The argument that Luka is Euro makes more sense.
No matter how dumb that is.

Also, Hawks GM confirmed he was using the baseball strategy -
'The more swings you get, the more chances you have to get a hit'
https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nba/...l1nqehdne58jol

And there it is. Baseball is another perfect analogy for NBA front office draft futility.

You 'only' miss 7 out of 10 times, and you can make it to the Hall of Fame.

[Kagemusha]

And there it is. Baseball is another perfect analogy for NBA front office draft futility.

You 'only' miss 7 out of 10 times, and you can make it to the Hall of Fame.

NFL does that a lot too.
It makes sense for them coz college footballers are mostly NFL ready,
and teams need as many fresh bodies as they can grab given the usual high turnover from injuries.