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

So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

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

  • #16
    Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    That is great, although I only skimmed through majority of it - but read every word of your final comments. Thankfully most of the analysis backs up for the most part what I thought about the draft.

    Good work - I'll read more later. I must admit my interest in the draft is very little except for the last week of June - so I hope we can keep this thread around for next summer when it will be more relevant to me at least
    Thanks. While it certainly focuses on the draft, my goal wasn't really to create a tool to be used at draft time. Actually, the genesis of this work came from the discussions on Roy Hibbert and Brandon Rush. My ultimate goal is to see if there's a way to set expectations and measure results on the picks that we have. In other words, is Roy Hibbert ahead or behind schedule?

    I'm probably pretty far away from that at the moment, and it may be impossible. However, I, like you, am not someone who loves talking about who we're going to take in the next draft all year round. I am just looking to see if there's a reasonable way to analyze the picks we have.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

      Paging croz....

      In all seriousness this is great data. I knew that you had a greater chance at landing that great player in the top 4, than any where else. But it is still just a chance.

      This needs to be published next spring some where. It is just incredibly easy to understand and puts the draft myths into perspective.

      I personally like to talk about prospects. Lets face it without recruits these numbers could be worse.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

        Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
        Actually, DK, the rights are not gone. This represents the "tangible copy" that is a very important step in ENFORCING your copyright.

        I agree that this kind of work could get ducketts.
        If you're going to sell something though most publications look to purchase publication rights - specifically 1st publication rights (sometimes exclusive) - since this has already been published, those rights are pretty much gone. It IS Count's intellectual property, and always will be, just that it has a diminished tangible value.
        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

          Originally posted by Putnam View Post
          Delightful stuff, count. Your methodology warms my heart.

          Here's what I see:

          1. Far too many players get drafted into the league who are never going to make it. Only half of the players drafted in the first round become 4s or better. The number of 5s and 6s is crazy high.
          This is a function of the number of teams vs. the size of the roster. With 30 teams, you basically have 450 roster spots. Breaking it down even further, you've got 150 starting slots and maybe another 90 bench players who get enough minutes to put up good PR numbers. (As a benchmark, of 453 players who were on rosters last season, only 226 averaged 20 minutes or more per game.)

          Therefore, when you add 30 1st rounders, you're increasing the total population by about 6.7%, and adding a group equal to 12.5% of the rotational players and 20% of the starters. It simply becomes cannibalistic.

          If first round picks were much more successful, while it could indicate more good players coming up, it would probably be more indicative of a flattening in the quality of the players. In other words, more mediocrity.

          2. There just shouldn't be a second round. Marginal players have adequate chance of getting noticed through walk-on trials, Euro ball and the D league.
          This was the reasoning behind reducing the draft from 10 rounds to 7 rounds to 3 rounds to 2 rounds. The Players Union felt players would have a better chance to make teams as undrafted free agents than as a third or fourth round pick.

          However, I would not abolish the 2nd Round. I like it for the possibility of grabbing a Euro to park, or to take a shot at a guy (like Chalmers or Rashard Lewis) who's fallen out of the first for specific, but unfair, reasons.

          That being said, I think this provides a different view on the James White trade. It was a mistake, and that can't really be argued. The 3 2nd rounders given up had a perceived value in the league, and therefore, a real value, trade-wise. However, while the Pacers may have lost one more ticket in the raffle, they (statistically) probably lost nothing in terms of real, on-the-floor value.

          3. The outcomes of the 5-7 picks overlaps the top 4 very closely. The curve of Top 4 picks is more favorable, but only marginally. The number of observations in the 5-7 group is smaller by a third (78 cases to 104 cases), too.
          Help me out with this. I have a very good practical analysis skill set, but I'm not a hardcore statistical analysis guy. It seemed to me that picking in the Top 4 was much better than the second grouping. (Also, this is picking nits, but the group is smaller by one quarter, not one third.)

          4. The probability of getting a level 4 player or worse is greater than the probability of getting a level 1 or 2 player, even in the top 4. Too many years, there just aren't any 1s or 2s to be had.
          Yes, and even a Group 3 guy should be considered a very good acquisition (in most cases).

          4. Those who would have us trade Granger for a top 4 pick are suggesting that we give up a certain level 3 player for about a 1-in-4 chance of getting a level 2 player. Even with a top 4 pick, there's a greater chance of drafting a 4, 5 or 6 level player than of getting a 1 or 2.
          Again, this is where the theory is a good starting point, but you'd be foolish to make it an absolute rule. You have to allow your basketball people to make judgments on whether an individual player is greater than the statistical odds. You have to look at the drafts. You also have to look at the specific player.

          I would've traded Danny (as he is now) for Rose, but no one else in that draft. I would've traded Danny for a top 4 pick in the 2003 Draft (and hoped we wouldn't go with Darko). I would've traded Danny for a Top 4 pick in the 2005 draft (Bogut, MWilliams, Chris Paul, Deron Williams). (This doesn't mean that other players from those drafts couldn't become better than Danny, just that the odds would be pretty long.)

          I believe the statistics are a good guide, but you cannot numerically predict greatness, and sometimes, you have to take your shot.

          Thanks again for the good work.
          You're welcome, and thanks for your kind words.
          Last edited by count55; 12-10-2008, 12:54 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

            Hey, I want to give special thanks to Anthem. He gave me some really good advice when I was starting to pull this analysis together.

            However, if there's anything that you don't like in this analysis, it's entirely my doing, not his.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

              Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
              I'll have to work my way through it again but this is pretty special.

              It should be submitted somewhere for publication. For remuneration. Of course since its here, the rights are gone. I expect it to be a Kravitz article in the Star before long though.
              Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
              Actually, DK, the rights are not gone. This represents the "tangible copy" that is a very important step in ENFORCING your copyright.

              I agree that this kind of work could get ducketts.
              Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
              If you're going to sell something though most publications look to purchase publication rights - specifically 1st publication rights (sometimes exclusive) - since this has already been published, those rights are pretty much gone. It IS Count's intellectual property, and always will be, just that it has a diminished tangible value.
              Trust me when I say that I wasn't thinking I could get money for this.

              In fact, I was hoping that people could resist throwing rotten tomatoes. I do appreciate the thoughts, though.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

                Originally posted by count55 View Post
                Trust me when I say that I wasn't thinking I could get money for this.

                In fact, I was hoping that people could resist throwing rotten tomatoes. I do appreciate the thoughts, though.
                Not to worry - the writer in me always blinks and sees $$$ signs when something really good comes up - and this is really good.
                The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

                  Originally posted by count55 View Post
                  Hey, I want to give special thanks to Anthem. He gave me some really good advice when I was starting to pull this analysis together.
                  Yeah right. You did WAY more than I envisioned. Rock the house, man.

                  EDIT: By the way, if you're really into this (and especially if you plan on trying to explain the data to others), you should by this:

                  http://www.amazon.com/Visual-Display...8931843&sr=8-1

                  It's amazing. THE definitive work on the subject.
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

                    Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                    If you're going to sell something though most publications look to purchase publication rights - specifically 1st publication rights (sometimes exclusive) - since this has already been published, those rights are pretty much gone. It IS Count's intellectual property, and always will be, just that it has a diminished tangible value.
                    Meh. It's easy enough for him to delete the post.

                    Actually, though, the bigger value is the data set and analysis behind the publication. The point is that he's already run all of the numbers and has them in Excel somewhere, and could reproduce them or make tweaks as he saw fit.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

                      As qualification, let me say that I've always been a data-oriented techie. Statistics, odds and probabilities are just an area of interest and have always come easy to me.

                      With that said, I bow to you. I've thoroughly enjoyed reading through your methodology and analysis. Although I've alway felt that if you want an opportunity at a "sure thing" you must draft in the top 5, you've certainly opened my eyes regarding other beliefs that I've had.

                      For example, I’ve believed that a team lacking in overall talent would do well to trade a single #10-#12 pick for two lower picks (like #18 and #25) and a player. Considering that the chances of getting a group 1-3 player selecting in the 10-12 range is about 30%, whereas the chances of getting a 1-3 player selecting at 18 and lower is marginal at best, I can clearly see how warped my thinking may have been.

                      So, all in all, you've given us an excellent foundation for future discussion.

                      The only thing that you have not offered that might fit in with what you have presented is the average longetivity of career for each of your groups and draft selection ranges that would only include those players whose careers have actually ended.

                      I believe that this statistic would probably further emphasize that your analysis has correctly stratified the players into the proper group. It would probably also support the notion that the higher the draft position, the longer the career.

                      In my opinion, your analysis, including the possible addition of longetivity, could certainly be used as a tool by GMs as an additional un-biased viewpoint in making trades.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

                        Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                        As qualification, let me say that I've always been a data-oriented techie. Statistics, odds and probabilities are just an area of interest and have always come easy to me.

                        With that said, I bow to you. I've thoroughly enjoyed reading through your methodology and analysis. Although I've alway felt that if you want an opportunity at a "sure thing" you must draft in the top 5, you've certainly opened my eyes regarding other beliefs that I've had.

                        For example, I’ve believed that a team lacking in overall talent would do well to trade a single #10-#12 pick for two lower picks (like #18 and #25) and a player. Considering that the chances of getting a group 1-3 player selecting in the 10-12 range is about 30%, whereas the chances of getting a 1-3 player selecting at 18 and lower is marginal at best, I can clearly see how warped my thinking may have been.

                        So, all in all, you've given us an excellent foundation for future discussion.

                        The only thing that you have not offered that might fit in with what you have presented is the average longetivity of career for each of your groups and draft selection ranges that would only include those players whose careers have actually ended.

                        I believe that this statistic would probably further emphasize that your analysis has correctly stratified the players into the proper group. It would probably also support the notion that the higher the draft position, the longer the career.

                        In my opinion, your analysis, including the possible addition of longetivity, could certainly be used as a tool by GMs as an additional un-biased viewpoint in making trades.
                        Longevity was something I struggled with, along with reliability. I tried to find a definitive number on the length the average NBA career. I found a few references, mostly two to five years old, that were between 3.7 and 4.2 years. For my complete sample (2,016 players), the statistical mean was 5.2 years, and the statistical median was 4. However, that is based on incomplete careers (those that began before the start of the period and those still continuing).

                        Therefore, I decided just to use 5 years as a benchmark. For players whose draft class was 2005 & after, they were simply benchmarked on their total team games. (For example, players from the 2007 draft class were benchmarked on 82 games, from 2005, on 246 games, etc.)

                        If, however, a player's draft class had been in the league for 5 years or more, then that was the minimum I'd use for the reliability factor. For most draft classes that met this criteria, that meant their players were measured against a minimum of 410 games. (Those draft classes that had 1999 included in their five years were benchmarked against a minimum of 378 games.) A player like Kenny Williams who only played 4 years would get dinged twice, once for reliability, once for "longevity". He played in 260 games, which was 79% of the Pacer games while he was on the roster, but only 63% of the "benchmark" five-year career.

                        As long as a player played more than five years, I did not penalize him for longevity. For example, David Robinson was not penalized for his two years in the Navy. Michael Jordan was not penalized for his hiatuses during retirement. My reasoning was that their overall career length was above the norm, and the incorporation of these years was materially misleading. David Robinson's reliability factor would've gone from 88% to 77%, and Jordan's would've gone from 89% to 72%. I simply do not believe those missed years made the Admiral 1/6 less valuable, and MJ 1/5 less valuable.

                        I recognize this is not the perfect answer, but there were limits on how precisely I wanted to get this. Very few significant players were impacted by the 5-yr benchmark.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

                          Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                          For example, I’ve believed that a team lacking in overall talent would do well to trade a single #10-#12 pick for two lower picks (like #18 and #25) and a player. Considering that the chances of getting a group 1-3 player selecting in the 10-12 range is about 30%, whereas the chances of getting a 1-3 player selecting at 18 and lower is marginal at best, I can clearly see how warped my thinking may have been.
                          Again, I'd use this as a guideline, not a rule. If, for example, your basketball people have targeted a player that will (almost certainly) be available at a later pick, then it makes sense to get the guy you want, plus.

                          From a statistical analysis, the Portland-Indiana trade was a no-brainer for the Pacers. The traded the 11th pick for the 13th pick, droping their chances for a 1-2-3 player from 30 to 15. However, their chances of getting a 1-2-3-4 player in total only dropped from 60 to 43. For that drop, along with a Group 5 player (Ike), they got back another Group 5 player (McBob) and a high Group 4 player (Jarrett Jack).

                          Now, some very astute and reasonable people can argue that Bayless was a player that would defy the statistical averages. However, the Pacers basically went from the likelihood of having one Group 3 or 4 player, to having one guaranteed Group 4 player and better than a 2 in 5 chance of having a second Group 4 or better player. Couple that with the reasonable likelihood that Brandon Rush is the player they would've taken at 11 anyway, and it becomes a no-brainer. (That doesn't mean guaranteed success, but it certainly becomes a rational move.)

                          So, all in all, you've given us an excellent foundation for future discussion.
                          I am hoping for some good discussion.
                          Last edited by count55; 12-11-2008, 12:32 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

                            Nice work count, I read it word for word.

                            It is really interesting that the number of top flight players are taken very early, which I would have expected. However, I would have thought the number of high pick busts was much greater.

                            Very interesting.

                            I saw something about Minnesota picking Randy Foye and McCants instead of Brandon Roy and Danny Granger, I think. It was either Roy or Rudy Gay, I can't remember now, but it goes to show you have to draft well, no matter where you pick, which we already knew.

                            Again, really nice job, I would bet this would get you an A+ in a 400 College level Stats course. Where were you when I needed you years ago?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

                              I'll be the jerk here only because I do get annoyed that this stuff gets overlooked, but 82Games basically did this exact same analysis with almost the same results. And Draft Express had one tabulated by player position and your odds of getting a great, good, blah or bust player.

                              I've linked it in the past when the "get us a draft pick" threads flare up.

                              This is not a knock on the separate and extensive work by Count but simply being fair to the OTHER WRITERS who I'm sure would say "hey, I did that". Just like Count would be annoyed if someone came here and posted the "new" version done by Kravitz as the report on the issue a month from now.


                              I applaud the work Count put in but I shake my head slightly at the mood of "hey, I never knew this" when these kinds of reports and analysis have been around and well presented for some time.

                              Let's take time to give props to Ryan Reed from 2006 while we are at this at the very least...
                              http://www.82games.com/nbadraft2.htm

                              And Aaron Barzilai who even shows a comparison of typical PAY per draft spot vs production (good news Pacers fans, you get more bang for buck on players around 8-12).
                              http://www.82games.com/barzilai1.htm

                              Jonathan Watters runs out a nice effort that includes the odds of success based on playing position too, as well as college class when entering the draft.

                              http://www.draftexpress.com/article/...ft-Class-1380/

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1)

                                That is easily the best bathroom reading I have had in years. For someone who thinks in numbers, this really applies solid numbers to the draft. The draft and scouting players is something I really go nuts over. Thank you Count. You have always struck a chord with me on this forum and this is further proof as to why.

                                A couple of comments. Love the Vern Fleming citation.

                                How would it skew your statistics if you made the first three sets of draft picks each contain 4 picks? You have 1-4. 5-7, 8-11 and 12-17. From a general, macro-view, what would it do to the percentages to add that 8th pick to pick set two, make pick set three include picks 9-12, and then make that fourth pick set something along the lines of 13-18 (or 20 say). I think the fact that there are only three picks in your second sample might cause a large change in your group %'s. I notice that your "Group 1" for picks 5-7 are only 2.6% while your "Group 1" for picks 8-11 are 2.9%. My thought would be that including the same number of selections over your first three pick sets would allow for your sample sizes to remain constant and possibly streamline your percentages. I am NOT by any means discounting anything you have done. I am just making an observation that you might find useful in furthering your research (being a nerdy accounting that deals with formulas and percentages all day). Much applauded and much appreciated.
                                "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X