Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Ranking of GM's draft picks

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Ranking of GM's draft picks

    The link is to another message board. If this is not appropiate then delete thread. It is interesting even if we do not agree with assessment. Converstation piece beyond JO....

    http://sonicscentral.com/apbrmetrics...pic.php?t=1456
    The table is messed up someone can work their magic do so.
    Here is a system I have developed from evaluating the drafting of 17 GM's. Please give me some feedback.

    Here's my GM rating (best to worst):
    +4.1 - Rod Thorn of New Jersey
    +4.0 - Geoff Petrie of Sacramento
    +3.9 - Randy Pfund of Miami
    +3.8 - John Paxson of Chicago
    +3.1 - Bryan Colangelo of Phoenix
    +3.0 - Don and Donnie Nelson of Dallas
    +2.6 - Mitch Kupchak of the LA Lakers
    +1.6 - Indiana
    +1.1 - Rick Sund of Seattle
    -0.4 - Kevin McHale of Minnesota
    -0.7 - RC Buford of San Antonio
    -1.4 - Joe Dumar of Detroit
    -2.1 - Carroll Dawson of Houston
    -3.6 - Jerry West of Memphis
    -5.2 - Kevin O'Connor of Utah
    -8.3 - Elgin Baylor of LA Clippers

    I expect for each pick in the draft order to net a certain level of talent. If a GM drafts better talent with lottery picks than another GM does with late first round picks, that GM isn't necessarily doing a better job. So, I defined what level of talent I expect with each pick, then I will give GM credit (positive points) or blame (negative points) if he the player he drafts turns out better or worse than I expected. Here is the scoring chart:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    | | | | | | Deep | Never | never
    Pick |All-Star| Star |Starter |Rotation| Bench | Bench | in NBA |
    ======|========|========|========|========|======= =|========|========|
    1-2 | 1 | 0 | -1 | -2 | -3 | -4 | -5 |
    3-4 | 1.5 | 0.5 | -0.5 | -1.5 | -2.5 | -3.5 | -4.5 |
    5-8 | 2 | 1 | 0 | -1 | -2 | -3 | -4 |
    9-12 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 0.5 | -0.5 | -1.5 | -2.5 | -3.5 |
    13-16 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | -1 | -2 | -3 |
    17-20 | 3.5 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 0.5 | -0.5 | -1.5 | -2.5 |
    21-24 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | -1 | -2 |
    25-28 | 4.5 | 3.5 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 0.5 | -0.5 | -1.5 |
    29-32 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | -0.6 |
    33-40 | 5.5 | 4.5 | 3.5 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 0.5 | -0.2 |
    41+ | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    • All-Star - Selected as an All-Star
    • Star - Not an All-Star, but one of the team's two best players
    • Starter - Not a star, but starts when not injured
    • Rotation - Plays when not injured, gets 15 - 24 mpg
    • Bench - Plays 10 - 15 mpg, occasionally has a DNP-CD
    • Deep Bench - Gets erratic minutes, will generally play in the NBA three seasons or less
    • Never in NBA - Not made it on to to his team's roster or played just a handful of games
    My assessment is based upon the player's current year unless he has played more than 4 seasons in the NBA, in which case it is based upon his fourth year. What matters is how the player did on the team that drafted him. The fact that George Lynch went on to be a starter on other teams doesn't change the fact that he didn't do well as a Laker draft pick. If a team trades a player, I assess his value in the trade (which will be based mostly on his performance to date) and then don't evaluate him further. If a team lets a draft pick walk, the draft pick gets a "Deep Bench" rating for the rest of his career. If a player who walked made the rotation for a season for his team before walking, I am going to give the GM a +0.5 bonus. The fourth year cut off is because most players are what they are after their fourth season and the chance of trade, career-ending injury, being beat out by a newer draft pick, etc. greatly increases after that.

    Second round picks that make the bench for a year or two don't really matter for a team's fortunes. Also, a second round pick can get playing time one season because of injuries, shortness of bench, etc. and that shouldn't inflate a GM's score. To reflect that, here are some special rules for players picked 33 or later:
    1. If the player plays only one season and then is waived, the GM gets a 0.1
    2. If the player never played more than 500 minutes, then the GM gets a 0.1
    3. If the player is at least a Bench player during his fourth season, the GM gets the full score
    4. If the player is at least a Rotation player for two seasons, then GM gets the full score
    5. If the player is at least a Starter player, then GM gets the full score
    6. If the player doesn't meet #3, #4 or #5, then the GM gets 0.3 if the player is a Bench player and 0.5 if the player is a Rotation player

    Alternatives considered
    Assessing players for years 2-4 of their career
    I tried this but realized it didn't work after I did Atlanta to Indiana. This alternative is considering the years 2-4 of a draft picks career, giving more weight to the most recent years. A draft pick's second year would have a weight of 1, third year a weight of 2, and fourth year a weight of 3. Then, the GM would be credited the weighted rating for the player. For most players, this didn't move the rating that much. For some players, this alternative didn't work. What to do about Eddie Griffin, the #7 pick who was a rotation player his second season, and then released after the season? What to do about Mehmet Okur, who was a rotation player his second season and then left Detroit through free agency? Isn't Orien Greene, who played 15.4 mpg in 80 games his rookie year before being cut a better late second round pick than someone who never played a game for the team?

    Rating players how they did regardless of their team
    Mehmet Okur was an absolute steal at #38. However, Detroit didn't recognize that and let him go as a free agent. Does his stellar play in Utah redeem the pick? Some think yes, but I don't

    Adjusting scores for C's, PF' and PG's
    Centers are extremely hard to draft. SG's and SF's are relatively easily. I played with the idea of adding a point for Centers that earn at least a Bench rating and 0.5 points for PF's and PG's that make at least a Bench rating. However, I don't know the positions of all NBA players and didn't know what to do with PF/C's and combo guards.

    Seeing how each pick rated out of the available talent
    For each draft pick, assess all of the players taken after that pick and how well the player ranked relative to the other players. For example, Chris Duhon would have better a pick that Sasha, but Sasha was the second best option. To do this would require evaluate and rank every player drafted for 4 years, which is more work than I want to do.

    Known Flaws to This System
    No adjustment for depth in draft
    The 2003 draft has produced 5 All-Stars so far, so drafting one then was much than in the 1997 draft, which produced 2.

    GM's of bad, young teams are overrated
    Philidelphia, Boston and Atlanta score very high in these rankings because those teams have gotten rid of most of their veteran players and are playing most of their draft picks regardless if their are NBA quality or not. For example, of the 12 players who played the most minutes for Boston last season, 7 were drafted in the last 3 years and one more was drafted the year before. As a consequnce, players like Salim Stoudamire, Ryan Gomes Green and Willie Green get large positive ratings when they aren't NBA quality players. I have moved the rankings for those three teams out of the overall rankings.

    Tenures to short to evaluate
    Bernie Bickerstaff of Charlotte (3 seasons)
    Danny Ferry of Cleveland (2 seasons)
    Mark Warkentien of Denver (1 season)
    Chris Mullin of Golden State (3 seasons)
    Larry Harris of Milwaukee (3 seasons)
    Jeff Bower of New Orleans (2 seasons)
    Isiah Thomas of New York (3 seasons)
    Otis Smith of Orlando (2 seasons)
    Kevin Pritchard of Portland (New)
    Bryan Colangelo of Toronto (1 season)
    Ernie Grunfeld of Washington (3 seasons)

    Ratings pulled because they are for bad, young teams
    +12.0 - Billy King of Philadephia
    +10.8 - Danny Ainge of Boston
    +3.7 - Billy Knight of Atlanta

    Billy Knight's picks (Atlanta) and my scoring of them:
    2001
    Wasn't GM yet
    2002
    Wasn't GM yet
    2003
    Boris Diaw (21) - Rotation then traded => 1
    Travis Hansen (37) - Never in NBA (-0.2)
    2004
    Josh Childress (6) - Rotation (-1)
    Josh Smith (17) - Star (2.5)
    Donta Smith (34) - Deep Bench (0.1)
    Royal Ivey (37) - Bench (0.3)
    Viktor Sanikidze (42) - Never in NBA (0)
    2005
    Marvin Williams (2) - Starter (-1)
    Salim Stoudamire (31) - Rotation (2)
    Cenk Ayol (59) - Never in NBA (0)
    Overall Score
    +3.7

    Danny Ainge's picks (Boston) and my scoring of them:
    2001
    Wasn't GM yet
    2002
    Wasn't GM yet
    2003
    Marcus Banks (13) - Bench then traded => -1
    Kendrick Perkins (27) - Rotation (1.5)
    Brandon Hunter (56) - Deep Bench (0.1)
    2004
    Al Jefferson (15) - Star (2)
    Delonte West (24) - Starter then traded => 2
    Tony Allen (25) - Rotation (1.5)
    Justin Reed (40) - Deep Bench then traded => 0.1
    2005
    Gerald Green (18) - Rotation (0.5)
    Ryan Gomes (50) - Starter (4)
    Orien Greene (53) - Deep Bench => 0.1
    Overall Score
    +10.8

    John Paxson's picks (Chicago) and my scoring of them:
    2001
    Wasn't GM yet
    2002
    Wasn't GM yet
    2003
    Kirk Hinrich (7) - Starter (0)
    Mario Austin (36) - Never played in NBA (-0.2)
    Tommy Smith (53) - Never played in NBA (0)
    2004
    Ben Gordon (3) - Star (0.5)
    Luol Deng (7) - Star (1)
    Chris Duhon (39) - Rotation (2.5)
    2005
    No picks
    Overall Score
    +3.8

    Don and Donnie Nelson's picks (Dallas) and my scoring of them:
    2001
    Kyle Hill (43) - Never in NBA (0)
    2002
    Mladen Sekularac (54) - Never in NBA (0)
    2003
    Josh Howard (29) - All-Star (5)
    2004
    Pavel Podkolzin (21) - Never in NBA (-2) Note: Played 1 game
    2005
    No picks
    Overall Score
    +3.0

    Joe Dumar's picks (Detroit) and my scoring of them:
    2001
    Rodney White (9) - Bench then traded => -1.5
    Mehmet Okur (38) - Rotation then lost to FA => 1.0
    2002
    Tayshaun Prince (23) - Starter (2)
    2003
    Darko Milicic (2) - Deep Bench then traded => -4
    Carlos Delfino (25) - Not signed for a year, Rotation (0.5)
    Andreas Glyniadakis (58) - Never in NBA (0)
    2004
    Rickey Paulding (54) - Never in NBA (0)
    2005
    Jason Maxiell (26) - Bench (0.5)
    Amir Johnson (56) - Deep Bench (0.1)
    Alex Acker (60) - Deep Bench (0)
    Overall Score
    -1.4

    Carroll Dawson's picks (Houston) and my scoring of them:
    Note: Daryl Morey is now GM for Houston
    2001
    Eddie Griffin (7) - Rotation then released => -2.5
    2002
    Yao Ming (1) - All-Star (0.5)
    Bostjan Nachbar (15) - Bench then traded => -1
    Tito Maddox (38) - Deep Bench (-0.1)
    2003
    Malick Badiane (44) - Never in NBA (0) => 0
    2004
    Vassilis Spanoulis (50) - Took until '06-'07 to sign
    2005
    Luther Head (24) - Rotation (1)
    Overall Score
    -2.1

    Indiana Pacer's picks and my scoring of them:
    2001
    Jamison Brewer (40) - Deep Bench (0.1)
    2002
    Fred Jones (14) - Rotation (0)
    2003
    James Jones (49) - Rotation then traded for 2nd round pick => 1.5
    2004
    David Harrison (29) - Deep Bench (0)
    Rashad Wright (59) - Never in NBA (0)
    Overall Score
    +1.6

    Elgin Baylor's picks (Clippers) and my scoring of them:
    2001
    Traded away draft rights to Tyson Chandler
    2002
    Chris Wilcox (8) - Bench then traded for Vladimir Radmanovic => -2
    Melvin Ely (12) - Deep Bench then traded => -2.5
    Traded away rights to Mario Kasun (41)
    2003
    Chris Kaman (6) - Starter (0)
    Sofoklis Schortsanitis (34) - Never in NBA (-0.2)
    2004
    Shaun Livingston (4) - Injury prone all career. Estimate: Rotation (-1.5)
    Lionel Chalmers (33) - Deep Bench (0.1)
    2005
    Yaroslav Korolev (12) - Deep Bench (-2.5)
    Daniel Ewing (32) - Bench (0.3)
    Overall Score
    -8.3

    Mitch Kupchak's picks (Lakers) and my scoring of them:
    2001
    No picks
    2002
    Kareem Rush (20) - Traded for 2 high second round picks => -1
    2003
    Brian Cook (24) - Bench (0)
    Luke Walton (32) - Starter (3)
    2004
    Sasha Vujacic (27) - Bench (0.5)
    Marcus Douthit (56) - Never in NBA (0)
    2005
    Andrew Bynum (10) - Rotation (-0.5)
    Ronny Turiaf (37) - Rotation (0.5)
    Von Wafer (39) - Deep Bench (0.1)
    Overall Score
    +2.6

    Jerry West's picks (Memphis) and my scoring of them:
    Note: Chris Wallace is now the GM of Memphis
    2001
    Wasn't GM yet
    2002
    Drew Gooden (4) - Difficult to evaluate because traded mid-rookie season in a multi-player deal. Estimate: Starter (-0.5)
    Robert Archibald (32) - Deep Bench (0)
    2003
    Troy Bell (16) - Deep Bench (-2) Note: Acquired draft day trade
    Dahntay Jones (20) - Deep Bench (-1.5) Note: Acquired draft day trade
    2004
    Andre Emmett (35) - Never in NBA (-0.2) Note: Acquired draft day trade and played 8 games
    Antonio Burks (36) - Deep Bench (0.1) Note: Acquired draft day trade
    Segei Lishouk (49) - Never in NBA (0)
    2005
    Hakim Warrick (19) - Rotation (0.5)
    Overall Score
    -3.6

    Randy Pfund's picks (Miami) and my scoring of them:
    2001
    Ken Johnson (49) - Deep Bench (0.1)
    2002
    Caron Butler (10) - Difficult to evaluate because traded twice. Estimate: Starter (0.5)
    Rasual Butler (53) - Bench then traded => 2
    2003
    Dwayne Wade (5) - All-Star (2)
    Jerome Beasley (33) - Never in NBA (-0.2) Note: Actually played 2 games
    2004
    Dorell Wright (19) - Bench (-0.5)
    Albert Miralles (39) - Never in NBA (0) Note: Acquired draft day trade and rights were later traded
    Matt Freije (53) - Never in NBA (0) Note: Was waived by Heat before playing
    2005
    Wayne Simien (29) - Deep Bench (0)
    Overall Score
    +3.9

    Kevin McHale's picks (Minnesota) and my scoring of them:
    2001
    No draft picks
    2002
    Marcus Taylor (52) - Never in NBA (0)
    2003
    Ndudi Ebi (26) - Deep Bench (-0.5)
    Rick Rickert (55) - Never in NBA (0)
    2004
    Blake Stepp (58) - Never in NBA (0)
    2005
    Rashad McCants (14) - Rotation, had microfracture knee surgery => 0
    Bracey Wright (47) - Deep Bench (0.1)
    Overall Score
    -0.4

    Rod Thorn's picks (New Jersey) and my scoring of them:
    2001
    Richard Jefferson (13) - Star (2)
    Jason Collins (18) - Starter (1.5)
    Brandon Armstrong (23) - Deep Bench (-1)
    Brian Scalabrine (35) - Bench (1.5)
    2002
    Nenad Krstic (24) - Starter (2)
    Tamar Slay (54) - Deep Bench (0.1)
    2003
    Zoran Planinic (22) - Deep Bench (-1)
    Traded rights to Kyle Korver (51)
    2004
    Traded rights to Viktor Khryapa (22)
    Christian Drejer (51) - Never in NBA (0)
    2005
    Antoine Wright (15) - Bench (-1)
    Mile Ilic (43) - Not signed until '06-'07 season
    Overall Score
    +4.1

    Billy King's picks (Philadephia) and my scoring of them:
    2001
    Samuel Dalembert (26) - Starter (2.5)
    Damone Brown (37) - Deep Bench (0.1)
    Alvin Jones (57) - Deep Bench (0.1)
    2002
    Traded rights to Jiri Welsch
    John Salmons (26) - Rotation (1.5)
    Sam Clancy (44) - Never in NBA (0)
    Randy Holcomb (56) - Never in NBA (0)
    2003
    Willie Green (41) - Rotation (3)
    Traded rights to Paccelis Morlende (50)
    Kyle Korver (51) - Rotation (3)
    2004
    Andre Iguodala (9) - Star (1.5)
    2005
    Louis Williams (45) - Bench (0.3)
    Overall Score
    +12.0

    Bryan Colangelo's picks (Phoenix) and my scoring of them:
    Note: Colangelo is now the GM of Toronto
    2001
    Alton Ford (51) - Deep Bench (0.1)
    2002
    Amare Stoudemire (9) - All-Star (2.5)
    Casey Jacobsen (22) - Rotation then traded => 1
    2003
    Zarko Cabarkapa (17) - Deep Bench then traded for 2 second round picks => -1
    Leandrinho Barbosa (28) - Rotation (1.5) Note: Acquired draft day trade
    2004
    Jackson Vroman (31) - Deep Bench then traded => 0
    2005
    Dijon Thompson (24) - Deep Bench (-1)
    Overall Score
    +3.1

    Geoff Petrie's picks (Sacramento) and my scoring of them:
    2001
    Gerald Wallace (25) - Deep Bench then selected in expansion draft => -0.5
    Maurice Jeffers (55) - Never in NBA (0)
    2002
    Corsley Edwards (58) - Never in NBA (0) Note: played 10 games for Hornets in '04-'05 season
    2003
    None
    2004
    Kevin Martin (26) - Star (3.5)
    Ricky Minard (47) - Never in NBA (0)
    2005
    Francisco Garcia (23) - Rotation (1)
    Overall Score
    +4.0

    RC Buford's picks (San Antonio) and my scoring of them:
    2001
    Wasn't GM yet
    2002
    Wasn't GM yet
    2003
    No Draft Picks
    2004
    Beno Udrih (28) - Bench (0.5)
    Romain Sato (52) - Never in NBA (0)
    Sergei Karaulov (57) - Never in NBA (0)
    2005
    Ian Mahinmi (28) - Never in NBA (-1.2)
    Overall Score
    -0.7

    Rick Sund's picks (Seattle) and my scoring of them:
    2001
    Vladimir Radmanovic (12) - Rotation (-0.5)
    Earl Watson (40) - Bench then let go as FA => 0.1
    2002
    Peter Fehse (49) - Never in NBA (0)
    2003
    Nick Collison (12) - Starter (0.5)
    Luke Ridnour (14) - Starter (1)
    Paccelis Morlende (50) - Never in NBA (0) Note: Acquired draft day trade
    2004
    Robert Swift (12) - Bench (-1.5)
    David Young (41) - Never in NBA (0)
    [2005]
    Johan Petro (25) - Rotation (1.5)
    Mickael Gelabale (48) - Didn't play until '06-'07 season
    Overall Score
    +1.1

    Kevin O'Connor's picks (Utah) and my scoring of them:
    2001
    Raul Lopez (24) - Two years to sign, Deep Bench, then traded => -1
    Jarron Collins (53) - Rotation (3)
    2002
    Curtis Borchardt (18) - Deep Bench then traded => -1.5 Note: Acquired draft day trade
    2003
    Aleksandar Pavlovic (19) - Bench then taken in expansion draft => -1.5
    Maurice Williams (47) - Bench then lost to FA => 0.1
    2004
    Kris Humphries (14) - Deep Bench then traded => -2
    Kirk Snyder (16) - Deep Bench then traded => -2
    2005
    Deron Williams (3) - Starter (-0.5)
    CJ Miles (34) - Deep Bench (0.1)
    Robert Whaley (51) - Deep Bench then traded => 0.1
    Overall Score
    -5.2
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Ranking of GM's draft picks

    If that guy gave 0.1 on Deep Bench for Jamison Brewer, how couldn't he give at least 2.0 on Fred Jones. I always thought Freddy was better then James Jones.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Ranking of GM's draft picks

      Originally posted by GrangerRanger View Post
      If that guy gave 0.1 on Deep Bench for Jamison Brewer, how couldn't he give at least 2.0 on Fred Jones. I always thought Freddy was better then James Jones.
      Fred was 14th overall, a place where this guy considers getting a "rotation" level talent a non-achievement.

      Jamison was 40th overall, a Second Round pick where just getting a "deep bench" level guy is somewhat of a positive.


      All in all, this is a good analysis. Of course there is gonna be some debate on which players fall into which category (for example, someone brought up on the APBR site that Leandro Barbosa is clearly better than Ryan Gomes, but Ainge gets more points because Gomes is a starter and Leandro only fits the "Rotation" category here). And I also think you'd have to do a historic statistical analysis of what the mean category would be at each pick rather than just arbitrarilly assigning the point values.

      But the whole undertaking is great in theory and I would love to see someone develop it more fully/mathmatically and go back a lot further in years.
      Read my Pacers blog:
      8points9seconds.com

      Follow my twitter:
      @8pts9secs

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Ranking of GM's draft picks

        This has already been done, but not applied to individual GMs. A couple of studies (which I've linked to here when we discussed the draft...check the "tank" thread(s)) used an EXPECTED vs BECAME analysis to discuss risk/reward of different points in the draft or by player position.

        In those cases they typically use something like the Hollinger player rater rather than just a subjective "AS/starter/rotation/deep bench" thing.

        And while he does attempt to correct some odd results for bad teams, the fault to me seems to lie more in something like not weighting "starter/rotation" for a GOOD TEAM as higher than for a BAD TEAM. See Salim vs Josh Smith vs Marvin Williams. Of course Salim is playing, Atlanta has nothing. Why do they have nothing? Because Knight used his #2 pick on Williams.

        So giving more reward for drafting a rotation player at 31 than the penalty for ONLY drafting a starter at #2, thus helping to make room for a late first/early 2nd pick in your rotation makes no sense. You do better than Childress and Williams at 6 and 2 and you aren't using your #31 pick quite as much.


        Better to perhaps assemble teams in groups of 10, like first team all-NBA (with rotation of 10), 2nd team, etc. Still lets you be subjective in your evaluation, but helps offset the errors that pure stats induce by not discounting stats compiled on a bad team. But it forces the rankings to be more comparitive, hopefully leveling some of the good team vs bad team stuff.

        Did Knight draft a rotation player for the 30th best all-NBA team, the 15th or the 5th with pick 31. Plus, what caliber player did other GMs get in that range of picks, take the average over several years and for a window of about 2-3 picks either direction.


        These things will never be perfect because we haven't defined explict, quantifiable traits or outcomes that establish what a "good" player is. Does he pass a lot, do assists = smart/great passing on a 1 to 1 ratio, is scoring more important than shooting efficiency, do you measure impact by how well his teammates shoot with and without him on the floor....it goes on forever.



        And when people say "I don't like stats, I just use my opinion and awareness of the game", all they are doing is the exact same thing I just described but hide their formula in their head, perhaps even from themselves. Your mind is processing stats (because these are just outcome based facts compiled together) when you decide a player is better than another.

        "Tougher rebounder" is just you remembering moments when you defined something as a tough rebound due to the circumstances and then saw that player come out with the ball. That stuff could be spelled out and compiled as a stat if only you thought about it and verbalized what makes it "tough" to you, but people cringe at doing so. Maybe it's the effort, the difficulty of defining it in words, maybe its a hidden fear of accountability.



        What this means is that I actually have no problem with these kinds of studies, of personally comparing players "subjectively". I just also support the effort to bring out the explicit definitions and objectivity that lie behind that subjectivity, also known as "looking at stats and formulas".
        Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 08-12-2007, 01:59 PM.

        Comment

        Previous template Next
        Working...
        X