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 draft prospects by tiers, by Chad Ford

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

  • Ranking draft prospects by tiers, by Chad Ford

    It's article's like this that make Chad Ford one of my favorite reads. I love this way of drafting!
    -----------------------------
    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft...e=Tiers-090617

    Originally Published: June 17, 2009
    Ranking draft prospects by tiers


    By Chad Ford
    ESPN.com
    Archive


    Every time I put up a new mock draft (Mock Draft 5.0 came out Tuesday), I get a lot of feedback from readers who wonder how I put it together and how it differs from the Top 100.

    This is how it works: Both pieces are reported pieces. In other words, I talk with NBA scouts and executives to get a sense of:

    A. Which teams like which players (mock draft).

    B. What the consensus is among all 30 NBA teams about who the best players in the draft are (Top 100).

    I use the word "consensus" lightly. Often, even GMs and scouts employed by the same team can't agree on rankings of players.

    "I fight with my scouts constantly," one prominent GM told me last year. "Everyone has their own ideas, their own preferences, their own methodology. There really is no consensus, and, I hate to say it, I'm not sure there's even any real right or wrong."

    Obviously, both pieces are imperfect because the draft is an inexact science. NBA teams do more than watch prospects play games. They work out players, give them psychological tests, do background checks and conduct personal interviews. All of this factors into the process and can change opinions.

    Factor in the ranking wars with another age-old debate -- do you draft for need or for the best player available? -- and it's no surprise the draft can be so volatile. Many teams take into account holes at certain positions (i.e., the team has no small forward) or coaching/system preferences (i.e., the Jazz draft players who can fit into coach Jerry Sloan's system) when making their decisions.

    To make sense of disparate rankings and debates over team needs, last year I chronicled a draft ranking system employed by several teams that have been very successful in the draft, what I call a tier system. Instead of developing an exact order from one to 60 of the best players in the draft, these teams group players, based on overall talent, into tiers. Then, the teams rank the players in each tier based on team need.

    This system allows teams to draft not only the best player available, but also the player who best fits a team's individual needs.

    So what do the tiers look like this year? After talking to several GMs and scouts whose teams employ this system, I put together these tiers. (Because the teams do not want to divulge their draft rankings publicly, the teams will remain anonymous.)

    Players are listed alphabetically in each tier.

    Tier 1

    Blake Griffin
    Note: Not only is Griffin the consensus No. 1 pick in the draft, but he seems to be a mile ahead of the next prospect in the draft. This is the first time we've had just one person in this, or any, tier.

    Tier 2

    James Harden
    Ricky Rubio
    Hasheem Thabeet Note: Virtually every team I spoke with has these three players in the top five, regardless of team needs. A few teams argued Rubio should have this tier all to himself and Thabeet and Harden should be in Tier 3, but the majority saw all three in this tier.


    Tier 3

    Stephen Curry
    DeMar DeRozan
    Tyreke Evans
    Jonny Flynn
    Jordan Hill
    Jrue Holiday Note: It was pretty easy to get consensus for Tier 3. Virtually every team I spoke with had all these players here. A few teams had Hill in Tier 2, and two teams had Brandon Jennings in this tier. But for the most part, this is pretty set and why a number of GMs say this draft really goes 10 deep. The Nets' Rod Thorn obviously is hoping someone from Tier 4 will creep up and push someone from Tier 3 down.

    Tier 4

    DeJuan Blair
    Earl Clark
    Austin Daye
    Tyler Hansbrough
    Gerald Henderson
    Brandon Jennings
    James Johnson
    Ty Lawson
    Eric Maynor
    B.J. Mullens
    DaJuan Summers
    Jeff Teague
    Terrence Williams
    Sam Young Note: This is a huge tier and shows the parity in the draft. Theoretically, teams are saying you can get the same quality of player at 11 that you will get at 24. This is where the real depth of the draft is. A few players like Blair, Clark, Hansbrough, Henderson, Jennings, Johnson, Teague and Williams were unanimous selections. Summers was borderline between here and Tier 5.

    Tier 5

    Derrick Brown
    Chase Budinger
    DeMarre Carroll
    Omri Casspi
    Darren Collison
    Toney Douglas
    Wayne Ellington
    Taj Gibson
    Patrick Mills
    Jeff Pendergraph Note: This is what I would call the first-round bubble group and where the consensus really started to break down. A number of teams had Budinger in Tier 4, but not quite enough for him to make the cut. Carroll, Gibson and Pendergraph were borderline picks here. Every one of these players dropped out of the top 30 on at least one NBA team's draft board.

    Tier 6

    Jon Brockman
    Victor Claver
    Nando De Colo
    Danny Green
    Jonas Jerebko
    Jermaine Taylor
    Marcus Thornton
    Note: If you do the math, 41 players are on the list. Why 41 guys for 30 slots? I included in Tier 6 every player a team told me was in its top 30. All of these guys got one vote, with the exception of Jerebko, who had two.
    So how does the tier system work?
    A team ranks players in each tier according to team need. So, in Tier 3, if swingman is the biggest need, DeMar DeRozan is ranked No. 1. If power forward is the biggest need, Jordan Hill is ranked No. 1.
    Here's an example:

    TEAM A
    Needs:
    1. PG
    2. SG
    3. PF
    4. C
    5. SF Tier 3
    1. Stephen Curry
    2. Tyreke Evans
    3. Jonny Flynn
    4. Jrue Holiday
    5. DeMar DeRozan
    6. Jordan Hill

    TEAM B
    Needs:
    1. PF
    2. SF
    3. PG
    4. C
    5. SG
    Tier 3
    1. Jordan Hill
    2. DeMar DeRozan
    3. Jonny Flynn
    4. Stephen Curry
    5. Jrue Holiday
    6. Tyreke Evans


    The rules are pretty simple. You always draft the highest-ranked player in a given tier. Also, you never take a player from a lower tier if one from a higher tier is available. So, for example, if the Bobcats are drafting No. 12 (Tier 4 territory) and Jrue Holiday (a Tier 3 player) is on the board, they take him regardless of position. If they have DeJuan Blair ranked No. 1 in Tier 4, they still take Holiday, even though power forward is a more pressing need.

    BOBCATS

    Team needs
    1. PF
    2. PG
    3. SG

    Tier 3
    5. Tyreke Evans
    6. Jrue Holiday
    Tier 4
    1. DeJuan Blair
    2. Earl Clark
    3. James Johnson
    4. Tyler Hansbrough

    This system protects teams from overreaching based on team need. The Bobcats won't pass on a clearly superior player like Holiday to fill a need with Blair.

    However, the system also protects a team from passing on a player who fits a need just because he might be ranked one or two spots lower overall. Let me give you an example from one of the the worst drafting teams over the past few years, the Atlanta Hawks.

    Former Hawks GM Billy Knight said every year that he would take the best player on the board, regardless of team need. He took Marvin Williams ahead of Chris Paul and Deron Williams in 2005, and Shelden Williams ahead of a point guard such as Rajon Rondo in 2006.

    A source formerly with Atlanta's front office told me that the Hawks had Marvin Williams ranked No. 1, Andrew Bogut ranked No. 2, Deron Williams ranked No. 3 and Paul ranked No. 4 in 2005. So on draft night, Knight took Marvin Williams with the No. 2 pick after the Bucks selected Bogut No. 1 overall.

    In a tier system, however, the source conceded that all four players, in his mind at least, would have been Tier 1 players -- in other words, the Hawks thought all four had equal long-term impact potential. If the Hawks had employed a tier system, they would have ranked inside the tier based on team need and fit, rather than just ranking the prospects from one to 30.

    In that case, the Hawks likely would have ranked either Bogut (they needed a center) or Deron Williams (they still need a point guard) No. 1. Marvin Williams actually would have been ranked No. 4 under that scenario.

    Like every draft system, the tier system isn't perfect. But the teams that run it have found success with it. It has allowed them to get help through the draft without overreaching. Compared to traditional top-30 lists or mock drafts, it seems like a much more precise tool of gauging which players a team should draft.

    Chad Ford covers the NBA for ESPN Insider.

  • #2
    Re: Ranking draft prospects by tiers, by Chad Ford

    Tier 4 is massive. So that means if we deemed PF a more pressing need than PG it would look like:

    Johnson
    Blair
    Hansbrough
    and maybe Clark or Young

    over PGs (if that was 2nd)

    Jennings
    Lawson
    Maynor
    Teague.

    I hope that we wouldn't take Hansbrough or Blair if all of those PGs were there.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Ranking draft prospects by tiers, by Chad Ford

      Originally posted by ESutt7 View Post
      Tier 4 is massive. So that means if we deemed PF a more pressing need than PG it would look like:

      Johnson
      Blair
      Hansbrough
      and maybe Clark or Young

      over PGs (if that was 2nd)

      Jennings
      Lawson
      Maynor
      Teague.

      I hope that we wouldn't take Hansbrough or Blair if all of those PGs were there.
      I think teams would still rank each player in the tier as the best availiable player. So Jennings would be ahead of Hans.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Ranking draft prospects by tiers, by Chad Ford

        Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post

        So Jennings would be ahead of Hans.

        I agree, plus I'd have Maynor over Lawson.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Ranking draft prospects by tiers, by Chad Ford

          Funny, this is how I do my fantasy football draft too.

          Jennings is a wild card in this, I think.

          I'm glad Flynn is in that upper group, it enhances the potential of players falling.

          I'd say from group 4, they'd be ranked like this.

          Brandon Jennings-too young
          James Johnson-conditioning
          DeJuan Blair-limited niche player
          Ty Lawson-low ceiling, is he a starting caliber player, replication

          Earl Clark-effort
          Gerald Henderson-limited ceiling
          Jeff Teague-2 in a 1s body
          Eric Maynor-limited ceiling

          Sam Young-at ceiling
          Tyler Hansbrough-at ceiling
          Terrence Williams-limited on offensive side of ball


          B.J. Mullens-determination? too long term
          DaJuan Summers-I don't know about him
          Austin Daye-lack of strength-too long term

          Just a quick stab at it. I think probably Jennings and Clark are the big question on whether Bird thinks the talent makes up for any potentila problems.
          Last edited by Speed; 06-17-2009, 02:58 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Ranking draft prospects by tiers, by Chad Ford

            As talented as Jennings is I still have trouble seeing us picking him because he is going to need time to develop and his brashness. Not sure if Bird would like that or if it'd just irritate him that a rookie is bringing so much attention on himself. I think he'd have some of the more proven guys above Jennings, even if Jennings has a higher ceiling.

            Of all of the guys we've drafted based on potential more than production, who has ever achieved anything close to their ceiling? Bender, Harrington, Williams, White (he counts...), etc. We've had a lot more luck going with guys that are proven at a high level and have good character.

            I'd guess they think:
            Johnson
            Lawson
            Blair
            Henderson

            Jennings
            Maynor
            Teague
            Clark

            Hansbrough
            Young

            And the rest aren't even on our radar.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Ranking draft prospects by tiers, by Chad Ford

              Originally posted by ESutt7 View Post
              As talented as Jennings is I still have trouble seeing us picking him because he is going to need time to develop and his brashness. Not sure if Bird would like that or if it'd just irritate him that a rookie is bringing so much attention on himself. I think he'd have some of the more proven guys above Jennings, even if Jennings has a higher ceiling.

              Of all of the guys we've drafted based on potential more than production, who has ever achieved anything close to their ceiling? Bender, Harrington, Williams, White (he counts...), etc. We've had a lot more luck going with guys that are proven at a high level and have good character.

              I'd guess they think:
              Johnson
              Lawson
              Blair
              Henderson

              Jennings
              Maynor
              Teague
              Clark

              Hansbrough
              Young

              And the rest aren't even on our radar.
              I like this list alot, I bet this is really close to what the Pacers have.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Ranking draft prospects by tiers, by Chad Ford

                Originally posted by Speed View Post
                Just a quick stab at it. I think probably Jennings and Clark are the big question on whether Bird thinks the talent makes up for any potentila problems.
                Nice job, Speed; I think you're right on the mark.

                I find myself revisiting Clark. Putting together comments from UncleReg, Seth, Tbird and others, as well as rereading/watching videos, reports, etc., I think his concerns/limitations are worth the risk. A year of experience, 10-15 pounds of muscle and some more aggression and dedication down low, and that's the PF we need to blend with our current team. That's the guy ... .


                "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

                - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Ranking draft prospects by tiers, by Chad Ford

                  I'm not wild about Clark. He's not nearly ready to contribute and there are questions about his work ethic. Physically he could be very, very good. He's one of those guys I am sort of on the fence about, I think I would have to interview him personally and see what he's all about before making a decision. But from a fan's perspective, we need a solid contributor in this draft who has low bust potential and good character, and Clark does not seem to be that guy.

                  If Clark was more like DeRozan, a project with a known work ethic, I would be more for him.

                  Clark is a perfect example of why the media is horrible at predicting the draft itself and how certain players will turn out. Outside of GM's and college coaches, little is known about the character of these guys, and character is more important than we could ever realize. I mean, how many kids were NBA-capable ballers but got into drugs or something else in high school and completely wasted their talent? Their lack of character/intangibles destroyed them.
                  Last edited by idioteque; 06-17-2009, 03:46 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Ranking draft prospects by tiers, by Chad Ford

                    This is a huge tier and shows the parity in the draft. Theoretically, teams are saying you can get the same quality of player at 11 that you will get at 24. This is where the real depth of the draft is.
                    In other words what I've been saying the last few weeks, there is poor value around 13th. Why? Because you can get the same player cheaper, both in pick spent and guaranteed contract, farther down the list.

                    Frankly I think this falls into typical Pacers luck, but then the flipside is that they've pulled some really talented guys outside the top 10, including Dale, Reggie, Tony and Granger.



                    I'm no huge Maynor fan but I do like him much more than Lawson. Still not getting how Flynn is so highly ranked by so many.


                    In that case, the Hawks likely would have ranked either Bogut (they needed a center) or Deron Williams (they still need a point guard) No. 1. Marvin Williams actually would have been ranked No. 4 under that scenario.
                    Yeah, because the problem there was that they didn't use a tier system, not that they had Marvin Williams #1 on their board and would have had him in that same tier.

                    Let me show you just how horribly flawed this is as justification for this system. Let's say that you flip the tables and the Hawks had a PG and had a need for Marvin Williams instead. Let's also say they correctly identified by Deron and Paul as better than Marvin but still had him in the same tier.

                    Billy Knight would have taken Deron or Paul, but the tier would have taken Marvin and failed miserably.


                    Chad has been talked into this idea of a system that's still got the SAME FUNDAMENTAL FLAW as 1 by 1 rankings - if you rank the player really wrong then you are going to fail. You can't have Marvin Williams #1 on your board or in tier 1 either. That's the problem, poor scouting in the first place.

                    Not only that, but does Chad really think this is a discovery? That if faced with Kobe or Duncan a team won't go by need first? NO TEAM DOES WHAT HE'S SAYING, not even Knight. If GMs see guys as really close to equal in talent then they go with the top talent.

                    You can always trade that talent for a better version of your need than you were going to draft.

                    Teams fail when they gamble on potential or just flat-out scout poorly. But none of them totally ignore need outright and always take #5 over #6 even if they are the same talent but #6 is a position of need.

                    Knight's issue was that he obviously thought Marvin was significantly better than Deron or Paul, or thought that PG was an easier void to fill later on, or he was just a 100% idiot.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Ranking draft prospects by tiers, by Chad Ford

                      Originally posted by DrFife View Post
                      Nice job, Speed; I think you're right on the mark.

                      I find myself revisiting Clark. Putting together comments from UncleReg, Seth, Tbird and others, as well as rereading/watching videos, reports, etc., I think his concerns/limitations are worth the risk. A year of experience, 10-15 pounds of muscle and some more aggression and dedication down low, and that's the PF we need to blend with our current team. That's the guy ... .
                      He's tempting, but I hate how dumb he plays and how he struggles to be "the man" during games. But what if his potential is to develop that awareness and leadership with the right situation and influences?

                      I won't hate it if they draft him, that's for sure. But I'll wring my hands for the first few months at least.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Ranking draft prospects by tiers, by Chad Ford

                        I like the breakdown of his reasoning....but this ( of course ) doesn't explain why he picked Daye for the Pacers in one of his past mock drafts .

                        It's obvious that many of us would think that we need either a PG or a PF....which one we rank ahead of another depends on which positional need you'd prefer over the other.

                        If we go PG 1st, then my top 4 would be:

                        Ty Lawson
                        Eric Maynor
                        Brandon Jennings
                        Jeff Teague

                        If we are to go with PF 1st, then my top 4 would be:

                        Earl Clark
                        James Johnson
                        DeJuan Blair
                        Tyler Hansbrough

                        If I were to rank them...in order:

                        1 ) Ty Lawson
                        2 ) Earl Clark
                        3 ) James Johnson
                        4 ) DeJuan Blair
                        5 ) Eric Maynor
                        6 ) Brandon Jennings
                        7 ) Tyler Hansborough
                        8 ) Jeff Teague

                        For me, it would be easier to figure out which position of need is greater given what TPTB intend to do with Jack. If we either move Ford ( which some of us are praying for ) and intend to keep Jack or keep Ford while allowing Jack to leave....then the position of need would be PG 1st. Whereas the opposite would be true where we ( for whatever reason ) decide to continue our Ford/Jack experiment.....our position of need would then change to PF 1st.

                        My assumption is that we will make a decision on either Ford or Jack...but not both....so my 1st guess is that PG will be a greater need.
                        Last edited by CableKC; 06-17-2009, 04:02 PM.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Ranking draft prospects by tiers, by Chad Ford

                          Originally posted by DrFife View Post
                          Nice job, Speed; I think you're right on the mark.

                          I find myself revisiting Clark. Putting together comments from UncleReg, Seth, Tbird and others, as well as rereading/watching videos, reports, etc., I think his concerns/limitations are worth the risk. A year of experience, 10-15 pounds of muscle and some more aggression and dedication down low, and that's the PF we need to blend with our current team. That's the guy ... .
                          Me too....I didn't want to go with him at first since I viewed him as a SF that could learn to be a PF....but given his athleticsm, wingspan and his somewhat decent shotblocking skills....I guess I can "warm up" to him.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Ranking draft prospects by tiers, by Chad Ford

                            My hope is that whoever slips to us at 13 has a GM later in the draft with a man crush on him.

                            We trade back a little, still get a good qaulity guy & maybe pick up a 2nd pick.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Ranking draft prospects by tiers, by Chad Ford

                              Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
                              My hope is that whoever slips to us at 13 has a GM later in the draft with a man crush on him.

                              We trade back a little, still get a good qaulity guy & maybe pick up a 2nd pick.
                              Or get rid of Tinsley and get that team's pick!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X