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 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

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

    So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

    This is Part 2 of my Draft Analysis. If you want to revisit the methodology and explanation, follow this link:

    http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...38&postcount=1

    For the second installment, I'm taking a closer look at the history of the 13th pick. As with the previous, I based my analysis on the draft classes 1982 through 2007. Since one of our first round draft picks, Brandon Rush, was taken with the 13th pick, I thought I'd look a little closer at that draft position.

    First, let's look back at my synopsis on the 12-17 picks grouping:

    Originally posted by count55
    Picks 12 to 17 - (156 picks since 1982, 155 played)

    The Accolades

    Rookie Awards - There have been no Rookies of the Year during this time frame. About 15% of the players taken between 12 and 17 were named to either the 1st or 2nd rookie team.

    All Star Appearances - 16 draftees in this group, or about 10%, have been named to at least one All-Star Game. 10 (6%) have made multiple appearances.

    All NBA Teams - Only about 6% (10) of this group have been named to at least one All NBA Team (1st, 2nd, or 3rd). Eight of these (5%) have earned this honor multiple times.

    All Defense Teams - Just seven players in this group (5%) have been named to All Defense team (1st, 2nd, or 3rd), all of them earning multiple mentions.

    Individual Awards - Though this is clearly an incomplete sample, Clyde Drexler is the only player that has already been inducted into the Hall of Fame.

    Surprisingly, three players (Kobe Bryant, Steve Nash, and Karl Malone) have been named league MVP. Our beloved Ron-Ron is the lone Defensive Player of the Year. There have been three Sixth Man of the Years (Dell Curry, Aaron McKie, and Corliss Williamson), and five Most Improved Players (Dana Barros, Jalen Rose, Alan Henderson, Jermaine O'Neal, and Hedo Turkoglu). There have been no Finals MVP.

    Production Groups

    Code:
    1. Group 1	1.3%
2. Grp 2	3.2%
3. Grp 3	11.0%
4. Grp 4	27.1%
5. Grp 5	31.6%
6. Grp 6	25.8%
    Picks 13 - (26 picks since 1982, 26 played)

    The Accolades

    Rookie Awards - There have been no Rookies of the Year during this time frame. About 23% of #13's were named to either the 1st or 2nd rookie team, compared to 15% of all players taken between 12 and 17.

    All Star Appearances - 4 draftees (Kobe Bryant, Karl Malone, Dale Davis, & Sleepy Floyd) in this group, or about 15%, have been named to at least one All-Star Game. 2 (8%, Bryant & Malone) have made multiple appearances.

    All NBA Teams - Only about 8% (2, Kobe Bryant & Karl Malone) of this group have been named to at least one All NBA Team (1st, 2nd, or 3rd). Both of these have earned this honor multiple times.

    All Defense Teams - Just two players in this group (8%, Kobe Bryant & Karl Malone) have been named to All Defense team (1st, 2nd, or 3rd), all of them earning multiple mentions.

    Individual Awards - Though this is clearly an incomplete sample, no players have been inducted to the Hall of Fame from this group. Clearly, however, Karl Malone and Kobe Bryant are sure-fire HOFer's.

    Unsurprisingly, Kobe Bryant and Karl Malone have been named league MVP. There have been no Defensive Players of the Year, but Corliss Williamson earned Sixth Man of the Year, and Jalen Rose (with the Pacers) nabbed a Most Improved Player award. There have been no Finals MVP.

    Production Groups

    Code:
    1. Group 1	7.7%
2. Grp 2	0.0%
3. Grp 3	19.2%
4. Grp 4	30.8%
5. Grp 5	30.8%
6. Grp 6	11.5%
    Here are the Group 1 (the stars) and Group 5 & 6 players...(the flops):

    Group 1: Karl Malone, Kobe Bryant

    Group 5: Thabo Sefolosha, Marcus Banks, Jeff Grayer, Pearl Washington, Ennis Whatley, Joe Wolf, Julian Wright, Courtney Alexander

    Group 6: Sean May, Michael Smith, Marcus Haislip
    Conclusion on the #13

    There have been two pantheon players taken during this time frame @ 13: Karl Malone and Kobe Bryant. They certainly help the percentages, but they are most certainly outliers.

    There have been some good pros to be taken at 13 (Richard Jefferson, Sleepy Floyd, Dale Davis, Jay Humphries), but 92% of the players fell in to Group 3 or worse. Essentially, history says there's only a one in five chance of getting a Group 3 (Above Average, starting quality producer). Meanwhile, the chances of a flop are twice that.

    Brandon Rush, the #13, and Rookie Production

    The other thing I wanted to look at here is to see what kind of production this slot has given during the rookie year. While my overall sample had 26 years of draft class, I only had access to the game logs from the 1986-1987 season forward. Therefore the following analysis only has 23 in the sample.

    It should be noted that the four players that were excluded (Sleepy Floyd, Ennis Whatley, Jay Humphries, and Karl Malone) were very productive players as rookies. In fact, Karl Malone had the highest AdjPR in the sample at 15.94, while Ennis Whatley's 12.78 would've been higher than anyone else in this sample. However, I wanted to track YTD production and show trends, and that data was not available to me.

    So, with a series of Charts, I'm going to show you what the #13 looks like:

    The Top 5 Players: 1. Jalen Rose (Den95); 2. Derek Anderson (Cle98); 3. Richard Jefferson (NJN02); 4. Dale Davis (Ind92); 5. Pearl Washington (NJN87)



    The Bottom 5 Players (worst first): 1. Jeff Grayer (MIL89); 2. Marcus Haislip (MIL03); 3. Corliss Williamson (SAC96); 4. Sean May (CHA06); 5. Terry Dehere (94LAC)



    The Fizzlers (Players who started strong, but faded): Jeff Grayer (MIL89); Joe Wolf (LAC88); Loy Vaught (LAC91); Sean May (CHA06)



    Injuries played a huge role in three (Grayer, Wolf, & May), but Loy Vaught played in 73 games.

    The Hockey Sticks (Slow starts, but climbing at the end): Jalen Rose (Den95); Sebastian Telfair (Por05); Kobe Bryant (LAL97); Courtney Alexander (Dal&Was01)



    Now, obviously these are just rookie numbers. Pearl Washington had the 8th worst career among the 26 #13's sampled, while bottom five member Corliss Williamson became a Sixth MOY and a very productive player.

    After compiling this data, I rolled in Brandon Rush's production through December 15th (the Wizards game). The chart below shows Brandon's performance, along with the best and worst (for the season), as well as a couple of players of interest:



    Through last night, Brandon had played in 23 of 24 games for the Pacers, producing an AdjPR of 7.00. This is good for 9th among all #13's through 12/15 of their rookie year. If he stays at this level for his entire rookie season, he would finish right on the breaking point between Group 4 and Group 5, posting the 7th best season for #13's in the sample.

    Though Group 4 is not a dream, we should probably be pleased with this production out of the #13 slot. It is above the median for the group, and there's good reason to be optimistic about Brandon himself. Despite briefly losing his spot in the rotation, his almost 23 minutes per game is 7th among #13's. Also, in the two games since returning to his spot in the rotation, he's posted Player Rater numbers of 16 and 13 (after only getting double digits in 3 of his previous 21 games).

    This chart also shows a positive trend:



    This is definitely early, but it is something I expect to updated on a weekly or bi-weekly basis for the rest of the season. The upward trendline is a positive sign, but, as shown in the "Fizzlers" above, it proves nothing yet.

    As always, cold, hard numbers lack the ability to completely distill the qualities of a player. To this point, I've been very happy with Brandon Rush. I believe these numbers show him to be an above average #13 pick, and they cannot quantify what I consider to be one of his greatest strenghts: his on-the-ball defense.

    Within the next week, I will repeat this exercise for Roy and the #17 pick. Once this is established, I should be able to update this tracking for the two of them on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. (Assuming, of course, there's any interest in this.)
    Last edited by count55; 12-17-2008, 08:24 AM.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

    Count, this is fascinating stuff. Personally, I'd be really interested to see it on a consistent basis. Thank you very much for posting this...

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

      You may want to get a copyright on this stuff... Good freakin work count...:highhorse:
      Abba Zaba, your my only friend.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

        Keep 'em coming, great stuff.

        One interesting thing, as a sidenote, is that you can sort-of see the "rookie wall" on these graphs, between Feb./March. Probably more variables at this range of picks (i.e. playing time), but I bet a study of picks 1-4 would show a very good trend on that rookie wall. This could make for some unique research.
        Last edited by imawhat; 12-17-2008, 05:23 AM.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

          good stuff

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

            At this point, a smartly-used top-5 pick is probably the best thing that could happen to this franchise.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

              Wow, great post. really facinating stuff. Thanks for taking the time to chart this and post it.
              Haggard's Blog: Can't Buy a Basket. Covering the highs and lows of the NBL

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

                Originally posted by Quis View Post
                At this point, a smartly-used top-5 pick is probably the best thing that could happen to this franchise.
                Not just this franchise. Every franchise.

                And not just right now. Pretty much always.

                The difficulty is that well-run franchises don't get top-5 picks without trading for them.
                This space for rent.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

                  Count I swear you have come to be my favorite poster on this forum.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

                    Originally posted by Quis View Post
                    At this point, a smartly-used top-5 pick is probably the best thing that could happen to this franchise.
                    I don't disagree, but the post wasn't really about what we need so much as what we have.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

                      Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                      Not just this franchise. Every franchise.

                      And not just right now. Pretty much always.

                      The difficulty is that well-run franchises don't get top-5 picks without trading for them.

                      The problem with this statement is that it's often top-5 picks - or at least top-10 picks - that begin the process of turning poorly-ran franchises into well-ran franchises. That's where we're at now. We've proven we're bad enough to be in the top-5 pick discussions, no matter whether that's the fault of current or past decision makers. There's no point in denying it. Instead, do what I do - accept it and realize that if we play our cards right, this teams future can get a lot brighter in a hurry.

                      I'm sure I'll be badmouthed for this, probably even told I'm not a real fan - but I'd take an 07-08 record of 22-60 & O.J. Mayo over an 07-08 record of 36-46 & Brandon Rush any day of the week. And I'm starting to come around on Brandon.
                      Last edited by Quis; 12-17-2008, 11:14 AM.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

                        Here's an additional look at Brandon's numbers. In this chart, you can see both the trended YTD line and the individual game results.

                        Last edited by count55; 12-17-2008, 02:58 PM.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

                          Originally posted by Quis View Post
                          The problem with this statement is that it's often top-5 picks - or at least top-10 picks - that begin the process of turning poorly-ran franchises into well-ran franchises.
                          Statistically, I don't think that's true.
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

                            Either do I. Often times a team that finds itself picking in the top five has poor management & poor coaching to go along with lack of talent. There are some exceptions like when a injuries deplete the team for a season etc...

                            Hawks since '99-'00 season
                            1 1st round playoff exit
                            13 1st round picks
                            7 top tens
                            4 top fives
                            0 winning seasons


                            Bulls since last championship '97-'98
                            2 1st round playoff exits 1 semifinals
                            14 1st round picks
                            10 top tens
                            7 top fives
                            2 winning seasons ( one .500 season)

                            Warriors post 50 win season in '93-'94
                            1 playoff appearance
                            15 1st rounders
                            7 top tens
                            4 top fives
                            2 winning seasons

                            Clippers since the move from San Diego in '84
                            3 1st round exits 1 semifinal
                            34 1st round picks
                            19 top tens
                            10 top fives
                            2 winning season (one .500 season)
                            I'm in these bands
                            The Humans
                            Dr. Goldfoot
                            The Bar Brawlers
                            ME

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

                              Love it, Count, love it! Thank you!

                              Again, more from me soon, but for now let me thread one of my "findings" into your research.

                              Although the metrics I use are somewhat different, let's say that each year all GMs had a crystal ball to see future rookie productions. Let's also say that, pick by pick, each GM selects the best player still available.

                              I know,

                              In other words, the value of the 13th pick is set equal to the average (over at least several years' worth of rookie classes) overall value of the 13th most productive rookie.

                              My analysis suggests that the 13th pick, then, has a predicted value of 290 for the first year, 210 for the second year and 165 for the third. Dividing by 30, we see a corresponding interpretation of 9th man as a rookie, 7th (or 8th) as a second-year player, and 6th as a third-year player; i.e., a strong rotation player with the potential to become a starter. IMO, Rush fits that description nicely.

                              Perhaps a fair summary statement to capture our comments is: "Drafting is doggone difficult; it is NOT an exact science and mistakes are all too common. Nevertheless, talent remains after the top players are chosen, and a reasonable expectation for a well-chosen selection at #13 is for that player to develop quickly into a productive rotation player."

                              I, too, will be delighted to see your (biweekly?) updates on Rush and Hibbert as the season progresses. Thanks again!
                              Last edited by DrFife; 12-17-2008, 02:46 PM. Reason: Legibility


                              "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

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