The Ninth and Tenth Picks

[PhoSita]

As always I think it makes far more sense to look at ranges in the draft rather than specific pick slots.

The sample size is just too small for specific slots, and really what you care about is what caliber of player tends to be available in the particular area of the draft that your team's pick falls at.

[Celtics18]

As always I think it makes far more sense to look at ranges in the draft rather than specific pick slots.

The sample size is just too small for specific slots, and really what you care about is what caliber of player tends to be available in the particular area of the draft that your team's pick falls at.

Yeah, I threw in the 8th vs. 30th example just for fun. 

The thing for me is that mostly these non-linear draft results are probably just random.

I do think it goes towards showing, though, that we probably don't know as much as we think we know  on and around draft night about given draftees and their potential (or lack of it).

The one thing we can count on in the draft is surprises. 

[PhoSita]

I do think it goes towards showing, though, that we probably don't know as much as we think we know  on and around draft night about given draftees and their potential (or lack of it).

The one thing we can count on in the draft is surprises.

Yes, which is why the recent conversation about what a "strong" or "weak" draft really is was fairly confusing to me.

I think the evidence is pretty strong that you're far better off picking in the top 10 than anywhere else, though.  It just matters less where your pick falls within the top ten, unless you're talking about one of the top three picks.

[Celtics18]

I do think it goes towards showing, though, that we probably don't know as much as we think we know  on and around draft night about given draftees and their potential (or lack of it).

The one thing we can count on in the draft is surprises.

Yes, which is why the recent conversation about what a "strong" or "weak" draft really is was fairly confusing to me.

I think the evidence is pretty strong that you're far better off picking in the top 10 than anywhere else, though.  It just matters less where your pick falls within the top ten, unless you're talking about one of the top three picks.

Yes, you're clearly better off picking in the top ten. 

However, there are always at least a few vey good to great pros picked outside the top ten.  If you end up outside the top ten, the trick is to find and develop those guys.

Luckily, the Celtics have a good shot at getting at least one top ten pick this season.  If we don't get so lucky, our chances are maximized at finding a star outside the top ten by virtue of having multiple first rounders. 

[KG Living Legend]

More evidence that we should hold on and actually make all these draft picks. Hunter or Mickey could end up being better than Frank.

[hwangjini_1]

Paul Pierce--10 All Star Games, 1 Finals MVP (Celtic)
Tracy McGrady--7 All Star Games (available when Celtics drafted Billups and Mercer)
Joe Johnson--7 All Star Games (Celtic; traded rookie season)
Shawn Marion--4 All Star Games (picked with former Celtics pick)
Eddie Jones--3 All Star Games (available when Celtics drafted Montross)
Joakim Noah--2 All Star Games (available when Celtics drafted Green, who was traded for Ray Allen)

roy, i think part of your post was cut off. i didnt see the record of all the other teams that also missed out by virtue of not having 20/20 hind sight and perfect foresight. if you were to repost with those teams it would be helpful context.

i once did a quick look at all those "could have, would have" draft misses/pass overs by the san antonio spurs. it was amazing how poorly run that franchise is based upon these obvious misses. they need to fire their top talent scouts NOW.

[86MaxwellSmart]

If you look at the data long enough, you'll see many other similar things. For example, pick #3 has been more valuable than pick #2.

It's a reflection of how much randomness there is in the draft.

If you look at the "Career PER-minutes" figure here you can get a feel for this.

http://www.82games.com/barzilai1.htm

made me think of The Lakers this year....hopefully.

[Roy H.]

Paul Pierce--10 All Star Games, 1 Finals MVP (Celtic)
Tracy McGrady--7 All Star Games (available when Celtics drafted Billups and Mercer)
Joe Johnson--7 All Star Games (Celtic; traded rookie season)
Shawn Marion--4 All Star Games (picked with former Celtics pick)
Eddie Jones--3 All Star Games (available when Celtics drafted Montross)
Joakim Noah--2 All Star Games (available when Celtics drafted Green, who was traded for Ray Allen)

roy, i think part of your post was cut off. i didnt see the record of all the other teams that also missed out by virtue of not having 20/20 hind sight and perfect foresight. if you were to repost with those teams it would be helpful context.

i once did a quick look at all those "could have, would have" draft misses/pass overs by the san antonio spurs. it was amazing how poorly run that franchise is based upon these obvious misses. they need to fire their top talent scouts NOW.

You were that big of a fan of the Pitino / Wallace years, huh?  I didn't know I needed to point out what a dumpster fire our picks were for most of the post-Bird, pre-Danny era.  And sadly, a lot of the picks / trades noted above looked poor at the time, rather than with perfect hindsight.

You didn't think the Joe Johnson trade sucked at the time? You liked trading a lottery pick for Potapenko?

[hwangjini_1]

Paul Pierce--10 All Star Games, 1 Finals MVP (Celtic)
Tracy McGrady--7 All Star Games (available when Celtics drafted Billups and Mercer)
Joe Johnson--7 All Star Games (Celtic; traded rookie season)
Shawn Marion--4 All Star Games (picked with former Celtics pick)
Eddie Jones--3 All Star Games (available when Celtics drafted Montross)
Joakim Noah--2 All Star Games (available when Celtics drafted Green, who was traded for Ray Allen)

roy, i think part of your post was cut off. i didnt see the record of all the other teams that also missed out by virtue of not having 20/20 hind sight and perfect foresight. if you were to repost with those teams it would be helpful context.

i once did a quick look at all those "could have, would have" draft misses/pass overs by the san antonio spurs. it was amazing how poorly run that franchise is based upon these obvious misses. they need to fire their top talent scouts NOW.

You were that big of a fan of the Pitino / Wallace years, huh?  I didn't know I needed to point out what a dumpster fire our picks were for most of the post-Bird, pre-Danny era.  And sadly, a lot of the picks / trades noted above looked poor at the time, rather than with perfect hindsight.

You didn't think the Joe Johnson trade sucked at the time? You liked trading a lottery pick for Potapenko?

hmmmph, mpph...whew took me a bit get your words out of my mouth.  my point was a simple one and not related to the list you provide above.

it gains us little to somehow hold any GM to a standard of draft that requires a near 20/20 hindsight when they make future draft picks. every team can be made to look foolish or incompetent using such an approach. that was it.

[Celtics4ever]

I hated the Joe Johnson and Potapenko trade.

[PhoSita]

I think the standout issues on that list are trading Billups and JJ in their rookie seasons.  Team drafted quality players but didn't wait to try and develop them.  Both of those guys had really nice careers, regardless of who was picked after them.  Imagine what a team built around Billups, Joe, and Pierce could have done (if they could share the ball enough).

I agree that it's easy to make most any GM look stupid by pointing to guys that were drafted after the team's pick in a given draft.  You can only grade these picks based on what was known at the time, though even that is hard because we don't 100% know what was or was not known at the time.

When you see a series of moves or picks that seemed stupid at the time even from the perspective of a fan with limited information, then it gets hard not to hold it against the GM responsible.

[mgent]

Paul Pierce--10 All Star Games, 1 Finals MVP (Celtic)
Tracy McGrady--7 All Star Games (available when Celtics drafted Billups and Mercer)
Joe Johnson--7 All Star Games (Celtic; traded rookie season)
Shawn Marion--4 All Star Games (picked with former Celtics pick)
Eddie Jones--3 All Star Games (available when Celtics drafted Montross)
Joakim Noah--2 All Star Games (available when Celtics drafted Green, who was traded for Ray Allen)

Thank God we got Ray instead of Noah 

[mgent]

Paul Pierce--10 All Star Games, 1 Finals MVP (Celtic)
Tracy McGrady--7 All Star Games (available when Celtics drafted Billups and Mercer)
Joe Johnson--7 All Star Games (Celtic; traded rookie season)
Shawn Marion--4 All Star Games (picked with former Celtics pick)
Eddie Jones--3 All Star Games (available when Celtics drafted Montross)
Joakim Noah--2 All Star Games (available when Celtics drafted Green, who was traded for Ray Allen)

roy, i think part of your post was cut off. i didnt see the record of all the other teams that also missed out by virtue of not having 20/20 hind sight and perfect foresight. if you were to repost with those teams it would be helpful context.

i once did a quick look at all those "could have, would have" draft misses/pass overs by the san antonio spurs. it was amazing how poorly run that franchise is based upon these obvious misses. they need to fire their top talent scouts NOW.

You were that big of a fan of the Pitino / Wallace years, huh?  I didn't know I needed to point out what a dumpster fire our picks were for most of the post-Bird, pre-Danny era.  And sadly, a lot of the picks / trades noted above looked poor at the time, rather than with perfect hindsight.

You didn't think the Joe Johnson trade sucked at the time? You liked trading a lottery pick for Potapenko?

hmmmph, mpph...whew took me a bit get your words out of my mouth.  my point was a simple one and not related to the list you provide above.

it gains us little to somehow hold any GM to a standard of draft that requires a near 20/20 hindsight when they make future draft picks. every team can be made to look foolish or incompetent using such an approach. that was it.

I missed the part where Roy was holding GMs to a standard that requires 20/20 hindsight.

It looked like he was simply showing some evidence that our team was a tad more foolish and incompetent than others.

[Moranis]

It isn't really that surprising.  A lot of the mid-top 10 picks are based on ceiling, while the latter half of the top 10 (i.e. 9 and 10) are the more solid guys with smaller ceilings that fell a bit (like Pierce). 

[PhoSita]

It isn't really that surprising.  A lot of the mid-top 10 picks are based on ceiling, while the latter half of the top 10 (i.e. 9 and 10) are the more solid guys with smaller ceilings that fell a bit (like Pierce).

For most part, sure.  But then there are guys like Drummond who fall because of questions about their skill level or work ethic (or whatever the heck it was in his case).  He was clearly a pick made because of his very high ceiling, not so much his skill level at the time.