Nylon Calculus: Who Should Boston Take With The Third Pick?

[mmmmm]

Andrew Johnson has put together an interesting article that takes an analytics approach to evaluating the top draft choices.

http://nyloncalculus.com/2016/05/23/who-should-the-celtics-take-with-the-third-pick-in-the-2016-nba-draft/

The article and links to other articles explain the model and all the data that has gone into it, but basically this incorporates not only their recent year playing data but also earlier age recruiting index info and physical metrics.   It does include combine data for those players that participated. The model has been trained against a large corpus of historical data to validate projections, fed by pre-draft data, of future NBA performance.

He starts with straight PAWS model results (which do not factor in scouting rank indices) for the top 10 players currently ranked by DraftExpress in this chart (they are listed left-to-right in order based on the current DraftExpress ranking):


To understand the chart, the important number is the number next to each green dot, as that is the actual model result for that player.  Each colored bar section indicates different contributions to their score and whether that is a positive or negative contributor to the score.  I.E. positive contributors are stacked onto that player's bar on the positive side, above zero while negative contributors are stacked onto it on the negative side, below zero.

For example, on Kris Dunn's bar, because of his age, being older hurts him in two ways:  (1) his age relative to his draft peers hurts his projected upside slightly and (2) his age relative to his competition decreases the value of his production slightly.   Dunn also gets pulled negative by poor rebounding and scoring, but has very strong defensive and playmaking which result in an overall solid positive number.

Conversely, Ingram, being so young compared to his peers and relative to his draft peers gets a large positive contribution from his age component.   Ingram has a small negative contribution due to poor playmaking numbers, but the rest of his contributors are positive.

Simmons and Bender are the only players here for whom all contributing factors are positive.

Some quick notes:

Bender's data used in the model includes most of this season at Maccabi but does not include his most recent playoff games, which might be significant because he just played 10% of his entire minutes this season in the last two playoff games (and played well).   Bender is, of course, the only one still playing and his data may not be complete until June 9th.  Also, Bender's physical data (ht, wingspan, etc.) is probably due for revision.  The model also does not include Bender's stellar FIBA tournament play.  Basically, the results are going to likely undervalue Bender.

The Jaylen Brown and Buddy Hield results are huge red flag alerts for 'Do Not Want' because results under 4.0 correlate too strongly with 'roll player or less'.   Skal is also considered a Do Not Want.

Johnson looks briefly at a 'PAWS Top-10' ranking, which brings in Valentine, Sabonis and others into the picture, but I'll let you read the article to get that.  He discusses issues with those results.

He then evolves to present his 'Scouting Informed PAWS model' results which combines the PAWS model with scouting ranking data.  This model has proven to be the best predictor of NBA performance.



This basically breaks the draft down into the tiers:

Tier 1: Simmons & Ingram -- clearly ahead of the pack.  Arguably Simmons (9.38) is well ahead of Ingram 7.80) in this but both are clearly separate of the rest.

Tier 2: Bender, Davis, Poeltl and Stone all post nearly identical scores (5.79-5.97).  Keep in mind that Bender's numbers might move if re-run after his season is finally over.

Tier 3: The rest: Dunn, Ellenson, Valentine, not separated by much. (Monte Morris, looking like a late-round sleeper PG pick, has pulled out of the draft and is going back to school).

His punch-line conclusion as to who the Celtics should pick at #3: 

"There is no clear candidate I would take against the field to become a star, but given his youth and impressive FIBA play, not included in my model, I have to lean toward Bender as marginally the best upside candidate."

I concur, especially when you factor in that the model basically works against Bender by not including his most recent data, his FIBA performance and possible improvements in his physicals.  And the fact that all of his contributing factors are positive is notable as well.

Deyonta Davis and Diamond Stone do extremely well in this model, held back only by their poor passing ratings.

Thoughts?

[guava_wrench]

Interesting read. Thanks for posting.

[alldaboston]

Great article. I'm starting to come around to Bender I think.


Side note: the comments on that article are fun to read. It seems like a Celtics fan debating with a philly fan about whether Philly has a logjam or not, and who is better set to win a title. The philly fan legit seems brainwashed lol

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Very illuminating. Thanks. TP.

I've been leaning towards Bender with the No. 3 pick. I'm tempted to go for Hield because the Celtics are in desperate need of improved outside shooting, but this analysis doesn't speak highly of him.

I know that a lot of people are concerned about Bender being a bust, but I tend to look at this opportunity (the No. 3 pick) as high risk/high reward—no one wants to end up with a bust, but I think I'd rather swing for the fences than go the "safer" route of drafting a guy who most likely will be, at best, a rotation player. The team can get rotation players at other spots in the draft or free agency. The chance to grab a guy who could be the next really-good-to-great 7-footer might be too much to pass up.

[loco_91]

TP for the nice explanation of that rather crowded figure. While I do agree with the ultimate conclusion that Bender is narrowly the best choice, a couple things are puzzling to me:
-First, it's odd that Bender gets a plus in the "scoring" category, when ostensibly his pro scoring numbers were mediocre; perhaps 3p% is heavily weighted.
-Second, it's odd that Simmons (and Bender too, but to a lesser extent) gets such a small bump in the "distributing" category. I view this as his most important skill, but clearly the model does not agree; perhaps Simmons is hurt by being such an outlier in this regard, as the model doesn't know what to do with such Simmons's astronomical assist numbers as a PF.

And a couple things stood out as interesting:
-Overall, the model cares a lot about Blks+Stls and not very much about scoring.
-The model really likes Simmons's rebounding, and I feel that this is the most underappreciated aspect of his game. He's a stud on the boards.
-The model might be underrating Poeltl, as he gets a slight negative on Stls-Blks while being clearly a plus defender. He just tends to defend straight up instead of going for blocks, especially this year as he's had to play lots of minutes without fouling.
-The model is not very impressed with Murray's scoring, and it really dislikes his lack of steals. I'm not sure how discouraging this is exactly, but it's disappointing.
-I strongly agree with the model about Deyonta Davis. He claims that he can shoot 3's now; if that's true, he's a dark horse to be taken top five.

[mmmmm]

Very illuminating. Thanks. TP.

I've been leaning towards Bender with the No. 3 pick. I'm tempted to go for Hield because the Celtics are in desperate need of improved outside shooting, but this analysis doesn't speak highly of him.

I know that a lot of people are concerned about Bender being a bust, but I tend to look at this opportunity (the No. 3 pick) as high risk/high reward—no one wants to end up with a bust, but I think I'd rather swing for the fences than go the "safer" route of drafting a guy who most likely will be, at best, a rotation player. The team can get rotation players at other spots in the draft or free agency. The chance to grab a guy who could be the next really-good-to-great 7-footer might be too much to pass up.

Yes, I very much agree with this strategy.   I want Danny to swing for the fences: Draft for upside.

No "safe" player that we pick, no matter how mature and "NBA Ready" they might be right now is likely to put us over the top to get past the ECF in the next year.   So I don't see the point in drafting for "readiness".

I'm not saying we should avoid a player because they are ready to contribute and if they are, I would consider it a plus.  But I put it way, way down on my priority list.

To me, this draft should be all about upside.  Swing for the fences on every pick until one of them is a star.

If we want to try to contend this coming year, that needs to be addressed with trades and/or FA signings.  We aren't going to address that with the draft.

[passesofftodj]

Interesting.  My ideals currently in this draft are Simmons, Dunn, Bender and Stone which corresponds pretty well.  I REALLY do not want Hield or Brown.  I think there is no point in not swinging for the fences as there is no FA or rookie to get who will help the Celtics past the East the next couple seasons.

[mmmmm]

TP for the nice explanation of that rather crowded figure. While I do agree with the ultimate conclusion that Bender is narrowly the best choice, a couple things are puzzling to me:
-First, it's odd that Bender gets a plus in the "scoring" category, when ostensibly his pro scoring numbers were mediocre; perhaps 3p% is heavily weighted.
-Second, it's odd that Simmons (and Bender too, but to a lesser extent) gets such a small bump in the "distributing" category. I view this as his most important skill, but clearly the model does not agree; perhaps Simmons is hurt by being such an outlier in this regard, as the model doesn't know what to do with such Simmons's astronomical assist numbers as a PF.

And a couple things stood out as interesting:
-Overall, the model cares a lot about Blks+Stls and not very much about scoring.
-The model really likes Simmons's rebounding, and I feel that this is the most underappreciated aspect of his game. He's a stud on the boards.
-The model might be underrating Poeltl, as he gets a slight negative on Stls-Blks while being clearly a plus defender. He just tends to defend straight up instead of going for blocks, especially this year as he's had to play lots of minutes without fouling.
-The model is not very impressed with Murray's scoring, and it really dislikes his lack of steals. I'm not sure how discouraging this is exactly, but it's disappointing.
-I strongly agree with the model about Deyonta Davis. He claims that he can shoot 3's now; if that's true, he's a dark horse to be taken top five.

To answer your questions:

1) I don't know the exact formulae in the model off the top of my head, but I suspect that the scoring contribution isn't based just on scored point production.  Even though Bender scored modestly, he actually scored very efficiently.  His per-minute rate was pretty good (around 14/36) and even more important, his scoring efficiency was excellent, as his TS% is right around 60%.

2) Again, this probably has to do with both efficiency and volume.   Both Simmons and Bender are good passers, but in the big picture, they don't pass and generate as much playmaking volume and efficiency as a point guard like Dunn or Valentine.  Simmons' efficiency here is probably hurt by the poor shooters around him late in the year after injuries took out his better shooting teammates and Bender is probably hurt by raw volume being low.  Plus, some of Bender's best passing isn't necessarily in the form of assists, but rather in outlet passes.

Blocks and steals as defensive metrics have been shown in a few studies to have very strong correlations for success in the NBA.  So that's probably why they are key parts of the model.

I concur about Simmons' rebounding.  He is so explosive and fast at going after rebounds.  He doesn't rebound like a conventional 'big', blocking for position.  He tends to go after them more the way a rebounding wing like Turner or Rondo would, attacking from the edge, but because he's 6' 9" and super-athletic, he just gobbles them all up.

I concur also about Deyonta Davis.   If he really can be expected to shoot 3s ... he could be scary good.  I may nudge him up on my own board a notch or two!

Random aside -- this may not be the best 'comp' for him, but every time I look at Davis,


I keep thinking of Sleepy Sam Perkins:

[PickNRoll]

Interesting article.  I like Nylon Calculus, even if I disagree with the conclusion.  Last year's draft according to the PAWS-RSCI model:

1. Okafor
2. Towns
3. Tyus Jones
4. Russell
5. Kevon Looney
6. Kaminsky
7. Delon Wright
8. S. Johnson
9. Turner
10. Cliff Alexander
Portis, Winslow, Vezenkov, J. Grant, B. Dawson

Our own Terry Rozier and Jordan Mickey ranked 53rd and 56th respectively. 

[Celtics18]

Interesting article.  I like Nylon Calculus, even if I disagree with the conclusion.  Last year's draft according to the PAWS-RSCI model:

1. Okafor
2. Towns
3. Tyus Jones
4. Russell
5. Kevon Looney
6. Kaminsky
7. Delon Wright
8. S. Johnson
9. Turner
10. Cliff Alexander
Portis, Winslow, Vezenkov, J. Grant, B. Dawson

Our own Terry Rozier and Jordan Mickey ranked 53rd and 56th respectively. 

No Porzingis?

[Casperian]

Here is last year's PAWS ranking



Tyus Jones 4th, Kevon Looney 5th, Porzingis 40th...

seems to me like a random dude with a random model with random results.

[mmmmm]

Interesting article.  I like Nylon Calculus, even if I disagree with the conclusion.  Last year's draft according to the PAWS-RSCI model:

1. Okafor
2. Towns
3. Tyus Jones
4. Russell
5. Kevon Looney
6. Kaminsky
7. Delon Wright
8. S. Johnson
9. Turner
10. Cliff Alexander
Portis, Winslow, Vezenkov, J. Grant, B. Dawson

Our own Terry Rozier and Jordan Mickey ranked 53rd and 56th respectively. 

Well, there is no way the model can account for some types of data, such as the impact that workouts have on GM's draft boards.

And those clearly had a huge impact on last year's draft for players like Porzingis, Rozier & a few others. 

It also is not trying to model the draft.

It is trying to model future NBA production

And one year in is way too early to say that his projections for last year's draft are wrong.   They likely will be wrong for the players who moved way up or down the draft based on work outs, but we'll just have to see.

[mmmmm]

Interesting article.  I like Nylon Calculus, even if I disagree with the conclusion.  Last year's draft according to the PAWS-RSCI model:

1. Okafor
2. Towns
3. Tyus Jones
4. Russell
5. Kevon Looney
6. Kaminsky
7. Delon Wright
8. S. Johnson
9. Turner
10. Cliff Alexander
Portis, Winslow, Vezenkov, J. Grant, B. Dawson

Our own Terry Rozier and Jordan Mickey ranked 53rd and 56th respectively. 

No Porzingis?

Porzingis' inputs into that model were probably not so compelling.   His numbers in Seville ACB were good, but not super elite or anything.  Like Bender this year, his usage was less than we would expect of such a player in the NCAA, getting just over 20 mpg and averaging 11 ppg.  And whereas those numbers on a per game basis look more impressive than Benders, his efficiency was lower, decreasing his scoring component and because he was older than Bender is now, his age-relative-to-competition component of his score was not going to be as high.

Porzingis ended up rising high on draft boards because of scouting and workouts.  The model can't account for that data.

[SHAQATTACK]

We should take Oakfor with the third pick

Trade it

[mmmmm]

Here is last year's PAWS ranking



Tyus Jones 4th, Kevon Looney 5th, Porzingis 40th...

seems to me like a random dude with a random model with random results.

1) You don't assess the quality of this sort of model based on anecdotal hits and misses. You assess it on how well it predicts overall for a large body of players.
2) The model isn't trying to predict the draft.  The model is trying to project future NBA performance.  So looking at how it did after just one year is way too premature.