Rating Danny in the Draft

[Roy Hobbs]

I'll say above average because a majority of the player hes drafted are still hanging around the league. Green, Banks, Giddens, and Walker are what keep him from being excellent.

Out of curiosity, why would you hold Walker -- I believe the 47th pick the draft -- against him?

[More Banners]

This is what's happening in the discussion that sometimes create disagreements where there are none:

I wrote that:
 "...solid starting players, stars, all-stars, and even championship starters happen at that level of the draft more regularly than some have suggested."

You responded that:
"couldn't you also argue that it's not that hard to get an all-star in the second round, citing names like Gilbert Arenas, Michael Redd, Manu Ginobili, etc.?  Sure, it happens, but it's not something that any franchise can count on, and it's not a standard that a GM should be held to."

Notice the shift?  It went from my saying it happens more often than some think, and then it is reframed to suggest that I think 1) it's not hard and 2) that GM's should be expected to pull these off regularly, both of which are pretty far from what I wrote.

  I think Roy's point may have been that it *doesn't* happen more often than people think. You looked at 13 draft slots for 8-10 years (over 100 picks) and only came up with a few players that are on Rondo's level and none that are clearly better. How is 3-4 players out of over 100 more regularly than people were suggesting?

  Rondo's in the top 3% or so for his "range". Shift that "range" down 6 spots for Perk so you get 24-36 and he'll probably be in the top 10% or so. Look at the players in Al's range and he's probably not for from that range either.

Rondo certainly is high on the list, but I don't think it's correct to say there are only a "few" players there that are better than him when the point was that comparable talent happens at that level of the draft.  It isn't the same thing.  

SO there are not a few players listed, but 18 (add Josh Howard please) 19 players in 8 drafts that look pretty good, or 15 in 7 drafts 2001-2007 if you don't count the 4 I listed in 2008 (too soon to tell).  I think that supports the point I was making that there is star-talent at that level of the draft more often than people tend to think.

  How many of those players you listed were all-stars either by their 4th year or by the time they were 23? Because that's Rondo's level. And which ones do you consider better than him? More than a few that have accomplished what he has by this point in their careers? More than a few that were better than him at the same age or number of years? I can't imagine that by any realistic criteria the list would have more than 2-3 people in it.

  And consider what you're saying. You're looking at 13 players per draft and coming up with 2 "pretty good" players per draft. That's one in 6 or 7 picks. Danny's had 6 picks in that range and had 3-4 hits including one of the top few over an 8 year period. How can you not understand how far above average that is?

Jeez...I thought that showing there were, on average, two very, very good players at 18+ most recent years proved the point that talent at that level happens more ofthen than some think, since others seemed to suggest it was exceedingly rare.  I don't undertand all of this arguing every little detail.

But without going back to check the list, Parker, Prince, and Jameer Nelson have all done what you say.  So that's an easy three.  If you really couldn't imagine Tony Parker winning 3 titles, Prince winning a title and going to 6 EC Finals, or didn't remember Jameer Nelson being in the all star game just last year before all the injuries hit, there's not much I can say, other than that we went from "I can't imagine by any realistic criteria more than 2/3" to a pretty easy first three, and someone could debate on talent the others on skills and role on their respective teams, but there is no question that there are very talented players available there.

I'm not sure what 3-4 players Danny picked at 18+ fit into this discussion.  Rondo for sure, and a case can be made for Perk, but I'm not sure who else you mean.

[dlpin]

Jeez...I thought that showing there were, on average, two very, very good players at 18+ most recent years proved the point that talent at that level happens more ofthen than some think, since others seemed to suggest it was exceedingly rare.  I don't undertand all of this arguing every little detail.

But without going back to check the list, Parker, Prince, and Jameer Nelson have all done what you say.  So that's an easy three.  If you really couldn't imagine Tony Parker winning 3 titles, Prince winning a title and going to 6 EC Finals, or didn't remember Jameer Nelson being in the all star game just last year before all the injuries hit, there's not much I can say, other than that we went from "I can't imagine by any realistic criteria more than 2/3" to a pretty easy first three, and someone could debate on talent the others on skills and role on their respective teams, but there is no question that there are very talented players available there.

I'm not sure what 3-4 players Danny picked at 18+ fit into this discussion.  Rondo for sure, and a case can be made for Perk, but I'm not sure who else you mean.

No, it doesn't prove that it is more often than people think. You are completely ignoring the huge number of people picked in that range. 2 very, very good players at 18+ is 2 out of 12 1st round picks, and 2 out of 42 remaining draft picks. In other words, by the odds alone Ainge did quite well.

Again, if he is only above average, who are the ones who are unquestionably better? I can think of a couple, but not more than that. Your criteria is so stacked against Ainge that I would love to know who you think is doing unquestionably better.

[More Banners]

FWIW, from 82games draft analysis-expected performance:

"The mid first round (11-20) is much more a crap shoot with as many busts as stars.

Late first round (21-30) only 6% of picks become stars, and less than half even make it to role player caliber stats."
---

If we count 11-21, Danny did, in fact, pick as many busts (2) as stars (2).

[BballTim]

This is what's happening in the discussion that sometimes create disagreements where there are none:

I wrote that:
 "...solid starting players, stars, all-stars, and even championship starters happen at that level of the draft more regularly than some have suggested."

You responded that:
"couldn't you also argue that it's not that hard to get an all-star in the second round, citing names like Gilbert Arenas, Michael Redd, Manu Ginobili, etc.?  Sure, it happens, but it's not something that any franchise can count on, and it's not a standard that a GM should be held to."

Notice the shift?  It went from my saying it happens more often than some think, and then it is reframed to suggest that I think 1) it's not hard and 2) that GM's should be expected to pull these off regularly, both of which are pretty far from what I wrote.

  I think Roy's point may have been that it *doesn't* happen more often than people think. You looked at 13 draft slots for 8-10 years (over 100 picks) and only came up with a few players that are on Rondo's level and none that are clearly better. How is 3-4 players out of over 100 more regularly than people were suggesting?

  Rondo's in the top 3% or so for his "range". Shift that "range" down 6 spots for Perk so you get 24-36 and he'll probably be in the top 10% or so. Look at the players in Al's range and he's probably not for from that range either.

Rondo certainly is high on the list, but I don't think it's correct to say there are only a "few" players there that are better than him when the point was that comparable talent happens at that level of the draft.  It isn't the same thing.  

SO there are not a few players listed, but 18 (add Josh Howard please) 19 players in 8 drafts that look pretty good, or 15 in 7 drafts 2001-2007 if you don't count the 4 I listed in 2008 (too soon to tell).  I think that supports the point I was making that there is star-talent at that level of the draft more often than people tend to think.

  How many of those players you listed were all-stars either by their 4th year or by the time they were 23? Because that's Rondo's level. And which ones do you consider better than him? More than a few that have accomplished what he has by this point in their careers? More than a few that were better than him at the same age or number of years? I can't imagine that by any realistic criteria the list would have more than 2-3 people in it.

  And consider what you're saying. You're looking at 13 players per draft and coming up with 2 "pretty good" players per draft. That's one in 6 or 7 picks. Danny's had 6 picks in that range and had 3-4 hits including one of the top few over an 8 year period. How can you not understand how far above average that is?

Jeez...I thought that showing there were, on average, two very, very good players at 18+ most recent years proved the point that talent at that level happens more ofthen than some think, since others seemed to suggest it was exceedingly rare.  I don't undertand all of this arguing every little detail.

But without going back to check the list, Parker, Prince, and Jameer Nelson have all done what you say.  So that's an easy three.  If you really couldn't imagine Tony Parker winning 3 titles, Prince winning a title and going to 6 EC Finals, or didn't remember Jameer Nelson being in the all star game just last year before all the injuries hit, there's not much I can say, other than that we went from "I can't imagine by any realistic criteria more than 2/3" to a pretty easy first three, and someone could debate on talent the others on skills and role on their respective teams, but there is no question that there are very talented players available there.

  Obviously I'm aware of Parker's success with the Spurs. Nelson went to his first and only all-star game when he was 26 and shot well above his career average that year. Prince has never been to an all-star game. It's (again) not as common as you think. Rondo was arguably as good as Nelson last year and he's much better now. It's not hard to see Rondo much better than Nelson is now in 3-4 year when Rondo's in his prime.

  And a lot of your "very good players" are either occasional starters or lifelong head cases. I'd say that Rondo and Perk were starters and Delonte's as good a player as many of your list. That's 3 out of 6, which is triple your average, including one of the top 3 or so players out of all of those picks.

[BballTim]

FWIW, from 82games draft analysis-expected performance:

"The mid first round (11-20) is much more a crap shoot with as many busts as stars.

Late first round (21-30) only 6% of picks become stars, and less than half even make it to role player caliber stats."
---

If we count 11-21, Danny did, in fact, pick as many busts (2) as stars (2).

  FWIW, if you go by the 82games criteria we have only 1 bust, Green. Banks is deep bench, less than a half a point from "role player". Also, fwiw, check out the odds of getting a star from 11-30. It's less than 10%. Danny's at about 25%.

  At 21-30, 6% become stars and less than half even make it to role player status. Danny has a star and 4 out of his 5 picks are role player or better. No matter how you chop things up Danny is *way* above average.

[More Banners]

  How many of those players you listed were all-stars either by their 4th year or by the time they were 23? Because that's Rondo's level. And which ones do you consider better than him? More than a few that have accomplished what he has by this point in their careers? More than a few that were better than him at the same age or number of years? I can't imagine that by any realistic criteria the list would have more than 2-3 people in it.

  And consider what you're saying. You're looking at 13 players per draft and coming up with 2 "pretty good" players per draft. That's one in 6 or 7 picks. Danny's had 6 picks in that range and had 3-4 hits including one of the top few over an 8 year period. How can you not understand how far above average that is?

Jeez...I thought that showing there were, on average, two very, very good players at 18+ most recent years proved the point that talent at that level happens more ofthen than some think, since others seemed to suggest it was exceedingly rare.  I don't undertand all of this arguing every little detail.

But without going back to check the list, Parker, Prince, and Jameer Nelson have all done what you say.  So that's an easy three.  If you really couldn't imagine Tony Parker winning 3 titles, Prince winning a title and going to 6 EC Finals, or didn't remember Jameer Nelson being in the all star game just last year before all the injuries hit, there's not much I can say, other than that we went from "I can't imagine by any realistic criteria more than 2/3" to a pretty easy first three, and someone could debate on talent the others on skills and role on their respective teams, but there is no question that there are very talented players available there.

[/quote]

  Obviously I'm aware of Parker's success with the Spurs. Nelson went to his first and only all-star game when he was 26 and shot well above his career average that year. Prince has never been to an all-star game. It's (again) not as common as you think. Rondo was arguably as good as Nelson last year and he's much better now. It's not hard to see Rondo much better than Nelson is now in 3-4 year when Rondo's in his prime.

[/quote]

Wow.  

Is it really central to the point that Jameer Nelson made the all-star team in his 5th year, instead of his 4th?  Really?

And is it really fair to compare the post-injury Jameer to the healthy Rondo?  Really?

Is it central to the point that Tayshaun Prince didn't go to the all-star game, that his 6 EC finals appearances, one NBA championship, and gold medal aren't sufficient evidence?  Seriously?  6 conference finals?  And you want to be critical of his status because he's not an "all-star"?  Really?

Can you really not accept the simple point within the larger discussion that there is high-level talent late in the draft?  What would you agree with?  Anything?

[Fafnir]

Wait are you arguing that there is talent late in the drafts? Or are you arguing that Danny hasn't drafted well still?

[BballTim]

  How many of those players you listed were all-stars either by their 4th year or by the time they were 23? Because that's Rondo's level. And which ones do you consider better than him? More than a few that have accomplished what he has by this point in their careers? More than a few that were better than him at the same age or number of years? I can't imagine that by any realistic criteria the list would have more than 2-3 people in it.

  And consider what you're saying. You're looking at 13 players per draft and coming up with 2 "pretty good" players per draft. That's one in 6 or 7 picks. Danny's had 6 picks in that range and had 3-4 hits including one of the top few over an 8 year period. How can you not understand how far above average that is?

Jeez...I thought that showing there were, on average, two very, very good players at 18+ most recent years proved the point that talent at that level happens more ofthen than some think, since others seemed to suggest it was exceedingly rare.  I don't undertand all of this arguing every little detail.

But without going back to check the list, Parker, Prince, and Jameer Nelson have all done what you say.  So that's an easy three.  If you really couldn't imagine Tony Parker winning 3 titles, Prince winning a title and going to 6 EC Finals, or didn't remember Jameer Nelson being in the all star game just last year before all the injuries hit, there's not much I can say, other than that we went from "I can't imagine by any realistic criteria more than 2/3" to a pretty easy first three, and someone could debate on talent the others on skills and role on their respective teams, but there is no question that there are very talented players available there.

  Obviously I'm aware of Parker's success with the Spurs. Nelson went to his first and only all-star game when he was 26 and shot well above his career average that year. Prince has never been to an all-star game. It's (again) not as common as you think. Rondo was arguably as good as Nelson last year and he's much better now. It's not hard to see Rondo much better than Nelson is now in 3-4 year when Rondo's in his prime.

[/quote]

Wow.  

Is it really central to the point that Jameer Nelson made the all-star team in his 5th year, instead of his 4th?  Really?

And is it really fair to compare the post-injury Jameer to the healthy Rondo?  Really?

Is it central to the point that Tayshaun Prince didn't go to the all-star game, that his 6 EC finals appearances, one NBA championship, and gold medal aren't sufficient evidence?  Seriously?  6 conference finals?  And you want to be critical of his status because he's not an "all-star"?  Really?

Can you really not accept the simple point within the larger discussion that there is high-level talent late in the draft?  What would you agree with?  Anything?
[/quote]

  I never said that there was no high level talent late in the draft. I said that there was very little, and Ainge has done a great job of finding it. At worst Rondo is one of the top 4-5 picks out of the 100+ that you looked at. This is what I've been saying consistently since the argument began. You've been trying to claim that a pick like Rondo isn't an irregular occurrence. Clearly that's not the case. If you throw in the busts, if you look at Al, Rondo and Perk, would you trade those three players for an 11, 15, 18, 21 and 27 in consecutive drafts?

  Apparently the answer is yes because you refuse to realize the kind of talent the average drafter gets from those picks, and how unlikely it is to get even 1 player like Rondo and Al with those picks let alone 2. If you can honestly say that you've looked at the draft picks chosen around those spots or the expected production of those picks and you don't realize that what Danny's gotten is well above average I'm not sure what to say. Again, try taking what you'd consider the average players at 11, 15, 18, 21 and 27 and compare what you see to Rondo and Al and Perk. Try and convince yourself that one group is about as good as the other. But you aren't going to convince anyone else.

[More Banners]

Wait are you arguing that there is talent late in the drafts? Or are you arguing that Danny hasn't drafted well still?

Never, never, nowhere, in this thread or anywhere else, at any time, have I written that Danny was not good at drafting.  If I did write that, please let me know where, because that is absolutely not what I meant, and I should correct it promptly.  Being 'not excellent' is not  same thing, not close to the same thing, as drafting not well.  Failure to make that distinction has fanned some of the arguing here, IMHO.

The connection of late-round talent to the topic of the thread is that if there fairly regularly IS very good or even star or borderline-star talent to be found late, even if only a few players, then it doesn't take an "excellent" draft guy to find it sometimes, but an above average or possibly even average GM could make some of those picks; so that getting one star out of a 21st pick does not, in itself, make a GM "excellent".

This seems to have spilled over into an evaluation of Rondo relative to draft position, relative to his own draft class, reasons he fell in the draft, and more recently Rondo in comparison to other late round picks.  There seems to be some good disagreement on that.

[Fafnir]

So he's had average drafts?

Um okay, look at how many franchises get nothing out of repeated lottery picks, or multiple varying picks like Danny had to work with. A lot of GMs don't get nearly the production that Danny has.

Basically you're arguing that since you "can" get all-star talent late, Danny doesn't deserve credit for picking Rondo. (whom you still don't think much of based on how you denigrate him due to his jumper on the first page)

You've also argued he shouldn't get credit for snagging Rondo because other people had him graded as a lower first rounder! Frankly you squirm around and around so much its hard to know what you're even arguing about anymore.

So now I have to ask, if he's so very average how could he have done better? And who has a better drafting track record?

[Roy Hobbs]

There seems to be some good disagreement on that.

I think what we have is closer to a good consensus, minus one.

[scoop]

More Banners, from your perspective, who, from the current crop of GMs, is a better drafter than Ainge?

[BballTim]

Wait are you arguing that there is talent late in the drafts? Or are you arguing that Danny hasn't drafted well still?

Never, never, nowhere, in this thread or anywhere else, at any time, have I written that Danny was not good at drafting.  If I did write that, please let me know where, because that is absolutely not what I meant, and I should correct it promptly.  Being 'not excellent' is not  same thing, not close to the same thing, as drafting not well.  Failure to make that distinction has fanned some of the arguing here, IMHO.

The connection of late-round talent to the topic of the thread is that if there fairly regularly IS very good or even star or borderline-star talent to be found late, even if only a few players, then it doesn't take an "excellent" draft guy to find it sometimes, but an above average or possibly even average GM could make some of those picks; so that getting one star out of a 21st pick does not, in itself, make a GM "excellent".

This seems to have spilled over into an evaluation of Rondo relative to draft position, relative to his own draft class, reasons he fell in the draft, and more recently Rondo in comparison to other late round picks.  There seems to be some good disagreement on that.

  We could have had similar arguments about Al and Perk, who are both much better than average for their positions, but Rondo was just a much more glaring example. Clearly you don't value his skillset. And no, just getting Rondo doesn't make Ainge great. But if you throw in Al and Perk he starts to look good.

  A lot of this comes down  to one point. "if there fairly regularly IS very good or even star or borderline-star talent to be found late, even if only a few players, then it doesn't take an "excellent" draft guy to find it". And here's where we disagree. If it's only a few  stars out of over 100 picks then it's NOT fairly regular. If you could find at least 15-20 players in that list as good as Rondo then I'd agree that finding a player like him is not a great feat. But the fact that you only found a few over an 8 year period says that the opposite is true.

  But for all the discussion about whether Perk and Rondo and Al are great picks or just slightly above average picks, I still fail to see how Ainge or anyone else could ever be seen as an excellent drafter based on your criteria, where they don't get credit for good picks if you can see why the other teams didn't choose that player. It's still a catch-22.

[TBreezy]

I think the argument more is that finding rondo in of itself can't be classified as skill or luck.  Admittedly I haven't read the entire thread - but I wonder if we considered who was drafted and how they have faired:

2003
16 Troy Bell, 20 Dantay Jones, brandon hunter
the draft in itself was terrible, but they never saw green - cs landed banks and perkins.  1 wins 1 loss - hunter is minor win

2004
15 jefferson, 24 west, 25 allen, just reed
win win win? is reed a minor win?

2005
18 g green, o greene, gomes
loss, loss, win

2006 foye
traded for rajon, powe
pass on the draft but netted win win

2007
5 j green, pruitt
pass, loss

2007
30 giddens, walker
loss (as of now), pass (as of now)

2008
lester hudson
win (as of now)

IMO he has been pretty solid on what he has netted out of the first round - with gmoney and giddens being the only obvious failure a of now.  Second round he has grabbed some players who, while borderline, have managed  stay in the league...