You should by no means ever, ever, ever expect to use a model like this to say, "This is how player A is going to be!" and make a decision on that player based on that. That would be stupid.
I agree, except that's kinda what you claimed
2) The model isn't trying to predict the draft. The model is trying to project future NBA performance.
Except, no possible reading of the English language should take "trying to project" to mean "is going to be". Except your reading, I guess.
Phew, for a second there I thought you were an arrogant wind bag, thank God that's not the case.
So, since it's apparently my limited command of the english language that's at the core of the problem, please explain to this giant dofus here the effective difference between "trying to project" and "is going to be". Because to me, it's tomato tomato, for all intents and purposes.
Sure, one talks in absolutes and the other in hypotheticals, but only the absolutes make sense when trying to gauge the predictive accuracy of such a model, anyway.
Otherwise, why "rank" them in the first place? That fact alone should tell you that there's an intent of trying to predict how a player's NBA career "is going to be" relative to his peers.
The same is true for every model, as it is for the subjective value systems people apply when they make their own predictions for fun. Why should I pay attention to this one specifically, when there are myriads others out there who came to less questionable conclusions?
So, nothing has changed. A random dude with a random model (with questionable legitimacy).
Unless, of course, you picked this one specifically because it makes the point you want it to make.
The difference (and purpose) to attempting to build a computer model as opposed to relying on some individual human expertise is that the computer model can be tested by running it against hundreds and hundreds of players' data from the past and test it's overall quality.
And there are many different computer models. You still haven't answered my question.
The model wasn't written to produce the result that you (apparently) happen to not prefer and that I happen to concur with. It was written to produce the results of previous NBA player careers based on their previous pre-NBA data. Those results can be graded.
This isn't a matter of preference in my case, but thanks for admitting it is in yours.
How well it's projections for more recent drafts and the future work will have to wait a few years to be graded.
So, as I said, questionable legitimacy.