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

ESPN's take on value of a draft pick...

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 4
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
  • #1

    ESPN's take on value of a draft pick...

    I really enjoyed this article, and found it a different take on Count55's work, as it focused on the growing popularity of "win averages".


    Many of you might not have access to insider, so here goes:


    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft...ory?id=4222914



    When the NBA draft started more than 50 years ago, it was like a bare-knuckles fight -- there was no limit on the number of rounds, allowing teams to draft players for as long as they could stand, including a record 21 rounds in 1960.
    Times change. Since then, the draft has been shrunk (to 10 rounds by the mid-1970s) and downsized (to seven in 1985) and desiccated (to the current two rounds in 1989). Obviously, drafts can change the course of league history (see: Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan), and every year on draft night, we like to point and stare at the big suits and the Big Suit.
    But Insider's D.R.A.F.T. Initiative (Data-Related Analysis For Truth) crew has been poring over draft data for months, analyzing draft picks and their subsequent careers, and we've arrived at a surprising conclusion: The NBA draft isn't that big a deal. That's because, in any given year, there isn't enough talent to give many teams any hope of landing a star, let alone a reliable backup.
    To get deeper into the ideas of the D.R.A.F.T Initiative (educating yourself on value and methodology in the process), please sign up for ESPN Insider. There isn't a Mike Piazza or a Tom Brady lurking in the late rounds, because there are no late rounds. Crunch some numbers, as ESPN researcher Tom Haberstroh did, and the draft could easily do with more downsizing. Beyond the first five picks, the quality falls off rapidly. Beyond the first 10, the selection process is a proverbial crapshoot. Actually, it's not that proverbial; teams drafting after the fifth pick are quite likely to pick a crap player and look back on it while using closely related linguistic variants of the word "shoot."
    Check out this graph from our pick-based analysis page:
    The squiggly blue line plots EWA, John Hollinger's estimated wins added stat, for each draft slot, averaged over the past 20 years of draft picks. EWA is a VORP-like metric that measures a player's contributions to his team compared to those of a baseline replacement player. Built off Hollinger's player efficiency rating, EWA considers not only the player's efficiency but also how many minutes that player spends on the court. The red line is the best-fit curve that predicts a given slot's value based on the downward-trending distribution of the data.
    So what does the picture show? Draft early, and don't draft often. Maybe, if you're the Clippers, don't draft at all.
    And yet ...
    There are exceptions, anomalies, funky trends. The draft is cruel to most GMs, but it's been kind to a few smart clubs. The Spurs have mined diamonds both early (Tim Duncan) and late (Tony Parker). In general, picks six through eight have been awful, yet No. 9 has been revolutionary. While there's a strong case to eliminate the second round altogether -- hey, it would be in keeping with the NBA's history -- there's also the lure of a Rashard Lewis or a Gilbert Arenas still on the board while the janitors are vacuuming Cheez Doodles off the green room floor.
    In other words, since the draft as a whole isn't the talent show it's made out to be, it's even more important for teams to match up their roster needs with the players who are available -- and to realize when those needs simply can't be met. Or, they need to recalibrate their expectations. Instead of hoping the supposed "best player available" will max out all his skills, when a team is drafting at a point likely to generate a role player, it would be wise to target a prospect with one clear, NBA-ready ability.
    Rocky Widner/NBAE/Getty ImagesIt's more likely that your team will wind up drafting someone like Cabarkapa than you'd realize.


    How to do that? Glad you asked. Over the next month, we'll explain our method in more detail and analyze expected value in a potential draftee. We'll comb through our research to identify and explain trends in the draft, show the difference between teams that succeeded and those that failed, and the success rates of players taken in different draft slots.
    We'll also analyze players who worked out well for their teams, well beyond their predraft workouts, compare them with players who went bust, and compare both groups with the current crop of draft candidates. We'll talk about high-school players versus internationals versus collegians, and show that while a little knowledge (a year of college) may be a dangerous thing, it's a lot more dangerous to draft a guy with more knowledge (three or more years in school).
    We'll explore the past two decades' sleepers and busts, and why some clubs wind up with Darkos (Milicic), Zarkos (Cabarkapa) and Markos (Jaric), while others manufacture Manus (Ginobili).
    We fervently hope, too, to explain the statistical insignificance of first-round draft choices whose last names end in "I."
    Mostly, we'll give you an idea of what to expect from the draft, given your team's slot. More important, we'll let you know when, and why, you shouldn't expect too much.
    Luke Cyphers is a senior writer for ESPN The Magazine and ESPN Insider.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: ESPN's take on value of a draft pick...

    Focusing more specifically towards the Pacers:

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft...ory?id=4221335

    Which teams have drafted best over the past 20 years? And which are the worst draft-day franchises? To figure that out, you can't just compile a list of names. Even the Warriors can trot out some gems, which is what happens when you end up in the lottery almost every season. But just because they've nabbed Antawn Jamison, Chris Webber, Jason Richardson and Andris Biedrins, it doesn't mean they're excellent at evaluating talent.
    Instead, to measure a team's success in the draft, you have to rate its picks against the expected value of a given slot. For instance, Andrew Bogut is a fine player with a career EWA of 5.4. That's a lottery-worthy number. But it's not good enough to be worthy of the No. 1 pick (expected EWA of 7.8), which means the Bucks cost themselves some wins.
    With that in mind, we studied every pick over the past 20 years for each franchise and came up with a total number of wins above or below expectations. We've also presented that information on a per-pick basis, since the Clippers obviously have had more opportunities to draft than the Bobcats.
    How does that relate to the ultimate letter grades? On average, teams actually draft exceptionally close to expected levels. The average team over the past 20 years has picked a player with an EWA that is just 0.1 below the expected rating at a given spot. The average grade, then, becomes a "C" which is where the Rockets landed in the chart. Every tenth of a point (plus or minus) away from 0.1 resulted in a grade change (from C to C+, B+ to A-, C- to D+, etc.). The Spurs, whose rating is off the charts, get their A+ with a special gold star. And the Clippers? Even a perfect draft this year wouldn't give them a passing grade.
    For each team's detailed draft history, just click on the linked name.
    [NOTE: For a draft-day swap (such as Dirk Nowitzki for Robert Traylor), the team ending up with the player is credited with the selection. So, in that case, Dallas gets Nowitzki and Milwaukee gets Traylor.]
    Team-by-team analysis

    Rank Team Grade Wins above expected Wins per pick 2009 Draft Pick
    1 Spurs A+ 22.1 0.85 25
    2 Lakers A+ 27.2 0.76 29
    3 Suns A+ 28.8 0.67 14
    4 Raptors A 15.3 0.44 9
    5 Cavaliers A- 15.3 0.44 30
    6 Celtics B+ 13.5 0.33 28
    7 Thunder B- 11.1 0.24 3
    8 Hornets B- 5.7 0.18 21
    9 76ers B- 6.3 0.14 17
    10 Jazz C+ 2.5 0.07 20
    11 Warriors C+ 2.9 0.06 7
    12 Heat C+ 0.2 0.01 18
    13 Pistons C -0.6 -0.2 15
    14 Blazers C -3.2 -0.07 24
    15 Grizzlies C -2.5 -0.07 2
    16 Rockets C -3.8 -0.08 23
    17 Bucks C- -4.3 -0.11 10
    18 Magic C- -4.7 -0.12 27
    19 Timberwolves C- -5.3 -0.13 6
    20 Mavericks D+ -9.5 -0.22 22
    21 Kings D -13.0 -0.32 4
    22 Pacers D -11.9 -0.35 13
    23 Bulls D- -24.4 -0.49 16
    24 Knicks F -16.8 -0.53 8
    25 Nuggets F -22.6 -0.54 26
    26 Nets F -21.6 -0.62 11
    27 Wizards F -22.8 -0.63 5
    28 Hawks F -30.2 -0.66 19
    29 Bobcats F -11.8 -1.18 12
    30 Clippers F -52.0 -1.18 1

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: ESPN's take on value of a draft pick...

      ...and most specifically... an analysis of all Pacer draft picks. I think the flaws of the EWA model of analysis begin to make themselves apparent.

      For example, it makes poor assumptions based on limited data (ie, Brandon Rush).

      http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft...ory?id=4223657

      See the chart below for a detailed, pick-by-pick analysis of the Pacers' drafts over the last 20 years. The EWA column shows the player's actual production, while the eEWA column shows the expected value of that draft slot. The "net" column is the difference between the two. For more analysis of their picks, click here.
      Draft YearPickPlayerEWAeEWANET
      200817Roy Hibbert2.562.000.56
      200813Brandon Rush-1.792.60-4.39
      200739Stanko Barac0.000.40-0.40
      200631James White0.030.80-0.77
      200617Shawne Williams0.072.00-1.93
      200546Erazem Lorbek0.000.000.00
      200517Danny Granger7.112.005.11
      200459Rashad Wright0.00-0.500.50
      200429David Harrison-0.021.00-1.02
      200349James Jones0.37-0.100.47
      200214Fred Jones0.242.40-2.16
      200140Jamison Brewer-0.120.30-0.42
      200027Primoz Brezec0.931.10-0.17
      200056Jaquay Walls0.00-0.400.40
      199926Vonteego Cummings0.141.20-1.06
      19995Jonathan Bender-0.014.50-4.51
      199825Al Harrington3.151.301.85
      199712Austin Croshere1.582.80-1.22
      199652Mark Pope-0.29-0.20-0.09
      199610Erick Dampier2.913.10-0.19
      199552Fred Hoiberg0.96-0.201.16
      199523Travis Best1.501.400.10
      199441William Njoku0.000.30-0.30
      199444Damon Bailey0.000.10-0.10
      199415Eric Piatkowski1.452.30-0.85
      199339Thomas Hill0.000.40-0.40
      199351Spencer Dunkley0.00-0.200.20
      199314Scott Haskin0.002.40-2.40
      199214Malik Sealy1.002.40-1.40
      199113Dale Davis4.172.601.57
      199141Sean Green-0.030.30-0.33
      199045Antonio Davis2.660.102.56
      199046Kenny Williams0.500.000.50
      19897George McCloud1.013.80-2.79

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: ESPN's take on value of a draft pick...

        The only thing I really got out of that is the following quote from the article above.

        "Instead of hoping the supposed "best player available" will max out all his skills, when a team is drafting at a point likely to generate a role player, it would be wise to target a prospect with one clear, NBA-ready ability."

        I believe that should really be an important component of the Pacers at 13.
        {o,o}
        |)__)
        -"-"-

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: ESPN's take on value of a draft pick...

          Yeah, it's a good read.

          On the Pacers: This Page has the breakdown:

          http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft...ory?id=4223657

          We're being dragged down by Bender, Fred Jones, Scott Haskin, and George McCloud...all of which make sense. However, our second worse pick...according to this...is Brandon Rush at -4.39. I'd be curious to see what his numbers looked like, Pre and Post All-Star break.

          Our best pick (since 1989) was...duh...Danny Granger at +5.11. Rounding out the top 5 were Antonio, Baby Al, Dale, and Fred Hoiberg. (It's important to keep in mind that they're comparing against the expectation for the pick.)

          Some notes:

          Roy Hibbert was our 6th best pick, at +0.56.

          21 of the 34 picks were below average for the slot, 12 were above average, and one (Lorbek, believe it or not) was exactly on average.

          I'd love to have access to the type and volume of data they have.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: ESPN's take on value of a draft pick...

            The thing I do like about this is that it shows you how little to expect from a pick anywhere below about #15 in a bad year to may #18 in a good draft. As in: nearly nothing.
            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
            And life itself, rushing over me
            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: ESPN's take on value of a draft pick...

              I don't know - I don't think this is a particular useful metric. A lot of things seem off - like Croshere being a worse pick than Brezec - and adjustments need to be made.

              For example, shouldn't the eEWA change every year based on the average EWA of the class? Or the average EWA of the picks made afterwards or the players eligible. Since the 2005 draft was stronger than the 2006 draft (even after 17), I think Danny's eEWA should be higher than Williams's. Also, player pools have changed (now we have more international players but no high school players) which changes the eEWA considerably based on each year.
              Last edited by rexnom; 06-03-2009, 05:19 PM.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: ESPN's take on value of a draft pick...

                Originally posted by docpaul View Post
                ...and most specifically... an analysis of all Pacer draft picks. I think the flaws of the EWA model of analysis begin to make themselves apparent.

                For example, it makes poor assumptions based on limited data (ie, Brandon Rush).

                http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft...ory?id=4223657

                See the chart below for a detailed, pick-by-pick analysis of the Pacers' drafts over the last 20 years. The EWA column shows the player's actual production, while the eEWA column shows the expected value of that draft slot. The "net" column is the difference between the two. For more analysis of their picks, click here.
                Draft YearPickPlayerEWAeEWANET
                200817Roy Hibbert2.562.000.56
                200813Brandon Rush-1.792.60-4.39
                200739Stanko Barac0.000.40-0.40
                200631James White0.030.80-0.77
                200617Shawne Williams0.072.00-1.93
                200546Erazem Lorbek0.000.000.00
                200517Danny Granger7.112.005.11
                200459Rashad Wright0.00-0.500.50
                200429David Harrison-0.021.00-1.02
                200349James Jones0.37-0.100.47
                200214Fred Jones0.242.40-2.16
                200140Jamison Brewer-0.120.30-0.42
                200027Primoz Brezec0.931.10-0.17
                200056Jaquay Walls0.00-0.400.40
                199926Vonteego Cummings0.141.20-1.06
                19995Jonathan Bender-0.014.50-4.51
                199825Al Harrington3.151.301.85
                199712Austin Croshere1.582.80-1.22
                199652Mark Pope-0.29-0.20-0.09
                199610Erick Dampier2.913.10-0.19
                199552Fred Hoiberg0.96-0.201.16
                199523Travis Best1.501.400.10
                199441William Njoku0.000.30-0.30
                199444Damon Bailey0.000.10-0.10
                199415Eric Piatkowski1.452.30-0.85
                199339Thomas Hill0.000.40-0.40
                199351Spencer Dunkley0.00-0.200.20
                199314Scott Haskin0.002.40-2.40
                199214Malik Sealy1.002.40-1.40
                199113Dale Davis4.172.601.57
                199141Sean Green-0.030.30-0.33
                199045Antonio Davis2.660.102.56
                199046Kenny Williams0.500.000.50
                19897George McCloud1.013.80-2.79
                So Rush is almost as bad of a pick as Bender?

                Something doesn't quite smell right here.
                “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: ESPN's take on value of a draft pick...

                  Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                  I don't know - I don't think this is a particular useful metric. A lot of things seem off - like Croshere being a worse pick than Brezec, for example. Shouldn't the eEWA change every year based on the average EWA of the class?
                  Maybe, maybe not.

                  The purpose is first to identify what the value of each individual draft position is, then measure the player/team against the others taken at that spot.

                  The thing to look at is whether it's directionally correct or not. As with the analysis I did, there will always be outliers. It's also important to remember what they're saying.

                  In my analysis, Austin Croshere ended up ranking 14th out of 27 #12 picks, while Brezec ended up, coincidentally, 14th out of 27 #27 picks. Both were slightly below average produced for the slot they were picked. Therefore, I could argue that, as a pick, Brezec was just as good as Austin.

                  However, that's different than saying that Brezec was as good or better than Croshere, which I don't even consider arguable. For all of the disappointment surrounding Austin, there's no question in my mind that he was a much better player than Primos.

                  That's demonstrated in this analysis as well, with Austin showing a 1.58 vs. Primos' 0.93.

                  (BTW...one statistical oddity is that they show guys like Piatkowski and Vonteego Cummings as draftees, despite the fact that we drafted them for other teams. I also wonder how Bayless got a better rating than Rush, despite having a lower PER...I've got to read up on EWA.)

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: ESPN's take on value of a draft pick...

                    Originally posted by count55 View Post
                    I also wonder how Bayless got a better rating than Rush, despite having a lower PER...I've got to read up on EWA.)
                    I don't know the full of it, but EWA has something to do with how many wins a particular player "added" to a team.

                    Though Bayless didn't do anything to help win any games for Portland, the fact is that Portland improved greatly in the win column last season (and Bayless was on the roster), while the Pacers didn't improve at all. It's probably reflected in that stat.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: ESPN's take on value of a draft pick...

                      Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                      So Rush is almost as bad of a pick as Bender?

                      Something doesn't quite smell right here.
                      Limited data on Rush.

                      Also...look at the graph...Kobe was taken at 13...so were productive players like Dale Davis, Richard Jefferson, Jalen Rose, and Corey Maggette.

                      Bizarrely, the #13 pick peaks up and above the #5 pick on the EWA...I really have to understand the EWA...does it factor in the team wins? If so, was Bayless (my earlier question) helped by the fact that Portland went up by 13 wins (and won 54 games) while the Pacers stayed flat (at only 36 games)?

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: ESPN's take on value of a draft pick...

                        I think that the ESPN Insiders stole the idea of this article from count55.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: ESPN's take on value of a draft pick...

                          Originally posted by count55 View Post
                          Maybe, maybe not.

                          The purpose is first to identify what the value of each individual draft position is, then measure the player/team against the others taken at that spot.

                          The thing to look at is whether it's directionally correct or not. As with the analysis I did, there will always be outliers. It's also important to remember what they're saying.

                          In my analysis, Austin Croshere ended up ranking 14th out of 27 #12 picks, while Brezec ended up, coincidentally, 14th out of 27 #27 picks. Both were slightly below average produced for the slot they were picked. Therefore, I could argue that, as a pick, Brezec was just as good as Austin.

                          However, that's different than saying that Brezec was as good or better than Croshere, which I don't even consider arguable. For all of the disappointment surrounding Austin, there's no question in my mind that he was a much better player than Primos.

                          That's demonstrated in this analysis as well, with Austin showing a 1.58 vs. Primos' 0.93.

                          (BTW...one statistical oddity is that they show guys like Piatkowski and Vonteego Cummings as draftees, despite the fact that we drafted them for other teams. I also wonder how Bayless got a better rating than Rush, despite having a lower PER...I've got to read up on EWA.)
                          Well, forgetting the Austin thing for a second, my main problem with it is that you cannot say that pick x was a bad pick based on other years is fallacious. How can they say that Andrew Bogut was a poor choice in 2005 based on other years? What if there had been some sort of strike with college players and no one else declared and only international players were available (including Bogut). Would he still be a below average pick? They need to have some sort of variable to account for draft strength. Judging by their explanation, it seems that eEWA are simply points on a best fit line, which precludes the variable I mentioned.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: ESPN's take on value of a draft pick...

                            If the idea is that the only difference in a team's record is the attributed to the rookie, that is a major flaw.

                            Corey Benjamin must be one of the worst draft picks ever. After all, he single-handedly dropped the Bulls from being a 62-20 team all the way to a 13-37 (lockout year) team. It was clearly all his fault. It couldn't have a thing to do with Jordan retiring and Pippen getting traded, could it?
                            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                            And life itself, rushing over me
                            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: ESPN's take on value of a draft pick...

                              Originally posted by d_c View Post
                              I don't know the full of it, but EWA has something to do with how many wins a particular player "added" to a team.

                              Though Bayless didn't do anything to help win any games for Portland, the fact is that Portland improved greatly in the win column last season (and Bayless was on the roster), while the Pacers didn't improve at all. It's probably reflected in that stat.
                              Well, that's another wrinkle that's awful. What if the Pacers traded their best player for draft picks and expiring contracts? How do they control for other variables?

                              EDIT: Jay said it better.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
                              Working...
                              X