2018 NBA Draft

[gouki88]

There is no way he'd consider Porter over Bagley if things pan out as expected. Bagley is a step above Porter as a prospect (at this stage).

That being said, I'm not too high on Porter. See more Rashard Lewis than I do KD.

Has better footwork/handle/shot creation than Rashard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkHjwinwL88&t=221s

Yeah agreed. Rashard was basically a spot-up shooter. I see a lot more skills in Porter. But agreed, if given the choice you take Bagley over Porter..

Rashard was definitely more than just a spot-up shooter. You don't get to score ~20 points per game when only attempting 5 threes per game if you're a spot up shooter. He had a good mid-range game, was good at attacking the basket and was quite athletic.

Two can drop youtube vids
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a29dY7ppYx0&t=81s

[saltlover]

Meh.  Odds are extremely long that we end up at those two spots.

based on what?  Nets finished as worst team and Lakers finished as 3rd worst team. They both made flopped trades and signed bad players. They stayed significantly worse than the comoetition

Based on probability.  Even if the Nets and Lakers are the two worst teams in the league, the chance of getting #1 and #2 or #3 are 9%.  That's if everything works out to our wildest dreams.  Since it's not a guarantee that the Nets and Lakers will be the two worst teams, the odds are considerably lower.

where did you get the number?
While it's true that the competition for the absolute worst record got tougher, right now the Nets are still a bottom 5 team and that's all that really matters. The Lakers might be closer to the 7-10th worst team, but because they play out West, wins will be harder to come by, while most of the teams below them play in the East and will feed wins to each other by default. The East has only 5 teams (BOS/CLE/TOR/WAS/MIL) that are clearly .500 or greater, while the West has only 4 teams (LAL/PHO/DAL/SAC) that wouldn't clearly be .500 teams in the East.

If you assume weak teams go .500 against each other on average, the West teams have ~12 games against each other and 20 games against weak East teams. Meanwhile the weak East teams have ~36 games against each other and 8 games against the bad West teams. Based on that, the East teams could win up to 22 just be splitting games against bad teams, while the West teams would only get 16 wins by doing that.

Obviously it won't play out exactly like that, but it illustrates how much harder wins will be to come by out West for bad teams.

the Nets might win a few more than their talent level, but they're still really bad and should stay around the same area of the lottery, and the Lakers should win a few less than their talent level, which hopefully is enough to keep that pick in the 2-6 range.

Math? It's actually a little off because of how the Nets getting the #1 pick would impact the odds, but it's a good back of the envelope calc.  If the Nets are the worst and Lakers are 2nd worst, that's a 25% chance that the Nets are #1, 26.5% chance that the Lakers get the #2 pick and 26.5-33.5% chance of the #3 pick assuming that the Nets get #1.  So altogether it works out to 13.3%-15.0% (it's actually some number in between those, but I don't have time to do the weighted average right now) chance that we could get the #1 and either the #2 or #3 pick, and that's assuming that the Nets have the worst record and the Lakers have the 2nd worst.

And you keep saying "the 2-6 range" for the Lakers pick, but it's wrong.  We only keep it if it's 2-5, if it's #6 it goes to Philly

I was doing back of the envelope conditional probability.  If we assume there's a 100% chance the Nets have the worst record, that's a 25% chance we get #1.  If we also assume that Lakers have the second worst record 100% of the time, there's an 18.8% chance we get #2 from them, and a 17.1% chance we get #3.  So .25*(.188+.171) = .08975, or roughly 9%.  We don't care about the chances that the Nets get pick 2 or 3, because we can only get #1 from them, not Lakers. We also don't care about the Lakers getting 4 or 5.

Note, the original math was done while drying dishes last night, and I'm not going to sit down and re-do it to see if I need to account for the Lakers increased chances when the Nets get their pick, since those lottery balls are removed.  My gut says I don't, but maybe I do.  The larger point is that even if you take it as a given that the Nets and Lakers will finish bottom 2, the odds are still very against us getting #1 and #2-3.  And since those standings are far from a given, the likelihood falls ever quickly.  People are really setting themselves up for disappointment if they won't accept the very good situation we're already in, and instead want that much more.

[JHTruth]

Meh.  Odds are extremely long that we end up at those two spots.

based on what?  Nets finished as worst team and Lakers finished as 3rd worst team. They both made flopped trades and signed bad players. They stayed significantly worse than the comoetition

Based on probability.  Even if the Nets and Lakers are the two worst teams in the league, the chance of getting #1 and #2 or #3 are 9%.  That's if everything works out to our wildest dreams.  Since it's not a guarantee that the Nets and Lakers will be the two worst teams, the odds are considerably lower.

where did you get the number?
While it's true that the competition for the absolute worst record got tougher, right now the Nets are still a bottom 5 team and that's all that really matters. The Lakers might be closer to the 7-10th worst team, but because they play out West, wins will be harder to come by, while most of the teams below them play in the East and will feed wins to each other by default. The East has only 5 teams (BOS/CLE/TOR/WAS/MIL) that are clearly .500 or greater, while the West has only 4 teams (LAL/PHO/DAL/SAC) that wouldn't clearly be .500 teams in the East.

If you assume weak teams go .500 against each other on average, the West teams have ~12 games against each other and 20 games against weak East teams. Meanwhile the weak East teams have ~36 games against each other and 8 games against the bad West teams. Based on that, the East teams could win up to 22 just be splitting games against bad teams, while the West teams would only get 16 wins by doing that.

Obviously it won't play out exactly like that, but it illustrates how much harder wins will be to come by out West for bad teams.

the Nets might win a few more than their talent level, but they're still really bad and should stay around the same area of the lottery, and the Lakers should win a few less than their talent level, which hopefully is enough to keep that pick in the 2-6 range.

Math? It's actually a little off because of how the Nets getting the #1 pick would impact the odds, but it's a good back of the envelope calc.  If the Nets are the worst and Lakers are 2nd worst, that's a 25% chance that the Nets are #1, 26.5% chance that the Lakers get the #2 pick and 26.5-33.5% chance of the #3 pick assuming that the Nets get #1.  So altogether it works out to 13.3%-15.0% (it's actually some number in between those, but I don't have time to do the weighted average right now) chance that we could get the #1 and either the #2 or #3 pick, and that's assuming that the Nets have the worst record and the Lakers have the 2nd worst.

And you keep saying "the 2-6 range" for the Lakers pick, but it's wrong.  We only keep it if it's 2-5, if it's #6 it goes to Philly

I was doing back of the envelope conditional probability.  If we assume there's a 100% chance the Nets have the worst record, that's a 25% chance we get #1.  If we also assume that Lakers have the second worst record 100% of the time, there's an 18.8% chance we get #2 from them, and a 17.1% chance we get #3.  So .25*(.188+.171) = .08975, or roughly 9%.  We don't care about the chances that the Nets get pick 2 or 3, because we can only get #1 from them, not Lakers. We also don't care about the Lakers getting 4 or 5.

Note, the original math was done while drying dishes last night, and I'm not going to sit down and re-do it to see if I need to account for the Lakers increased chances when the Nets get their pick, since those lottery balls are removed.  My gut says I don't, but maybe I do.  The larger point is that even if you take it as a given that the Nets and Lakers will finish bottom 2, the odds are still very against us getting #1 and #2-3.  And since those standings are far from a given, the likelihood falls ever quickly.  People are really setting themselves up for disappointment if they won't accept the very good situation we're already in, and instead want that much more.

I am a conspiracist that thinks the draft is primarily rigged and I find it hard to believe we'll get the No 1 two years in a row. I think Doncic was born to be a Celtic and we'll draft him no matter what. I think we will end up with him and 1 of the 4 bigs as well. We'll be fine..

[boscel33]

This is pretty much an assumption based off where teams finished last year.  There's no way the Hawks are a playoff team and sit at 19.  They could be flirting with the Nets for the worst record.

[JHTruth]

This is pretty much an assumption based off where teams finished last year.  There's no way the Hawks are a playoff team and sit at 19.  They could be flirting with the Nets for the worst record.

No one will be flirting with the Nets for the worst record. Every informed projection has the Nets as the worst team in the league by a wide margin. I could see the Suns/Lakers fighting it out for 2/3 worst, like last year. If you watch the standings, they don't really swing drastically unless a superstar moves. Then you get massive swings like we did in 07/08. Otherwise the worst teams stay the worst teams without much change. Look at the Cavs/Sixers etc..

[CelticsElite]

This is pretty much an assumption based off where teams finished last year.  There's no way the Hawks are a playoff team and sit at 19.  They could be flirting with the Nets for the worst record.

the hawks are not a big threat to our picks. weak East teams have ~36 games against each other and 8 games against the bad West teams. Based on that, the East teams could win up to 22 just be splitting games against bad teams, while the West teams would only get 16 wins by doing that.  it won't play out exactly like that, but it illustrates how much harder wins will be to come by out West for bad teams.

Basically the hawks could win more games than youd think because they're in the terrible east.

[mef730]

This is pretty much an assumption based off where teams finished last year.  There's no way the Hawks are a playoff team and sit at 19.  They could be flirting with the Nets for the worst record.

the hawks are not a big threat to our picks. weak East teams have ~36 games against each other and 8 games against the bad West teams. Based on that, the East teams could win up to 22 just be splitting games against bad teams, while the West teams would only get 16 wins by doing that.  it won't play out exactly like that, but it illustrates how much harder wins will be to come by out West for bad teams.

Basically the hawks could win more games than youd think because they're in the terrible east.

Which, sadly, would hurt our Nets pick (holding everything else equal, of course), since they're also in the east. Fortunately, I'm having trouble finding a team in the west that would be in the "Big 4 (BKN, ATL, IND, CHI)" of losers in the east, although the Lakers are close. Hopefully, they'll make up for their divisional disadvantage by beating up on the east in the few games that they play.

Ok, I have to discuss this Bagley issue.

As far as I'm concerned, 2017 was an ideal year. Of course, we always want the #1 draft pick, but anything in the 1-4 range was comparable. No singular potential superstar coming out.

I was looking forward to a nice, quiet season of rooting against the Nets and Lakers, but ultimately just hoping for them to be bad. Porter, Bamba, Ayton and Doncic are all potential studs, so I could root for the top pick but not get devastated if we didn't get it.

A Bagley reclassification would change everything. We would have the First among Equals, Best of the Best, the Studliest of the Studs coming out. All of a sudden, #1 isn't just a bonus, it's essential. Now, I would have that much more stress to deal with, knowing that there's more than a little drop-off between #1 and #2. If Bagley stayed in high school, I would at least be resigned to the fact that we had virtually zero chance of getting him at #1 in 2019.

Sigh, these kids just don't think about anybody but themselves.

Mike

[JHTruth]

This is pretty much an assumption based off where teams finished last year.  There's no way the Hawks are a playoff team and sit at 19.  They could be flirting with the Nets for the worst record.

the hawks are not a big threat to our picks. weak East teams have ~36 games against each other and 8 games against the bad West teams. Based on that, the East teams could win up to 22 just be splitting games against bad teams, while the West teams would only get 16 wins by doing that.  it won't play out exactly like that, but it illustrates how much harder wins will be to come by out West for bad teams.

Basically the hawks could win more games than youd think because they're in the terrible east.

Which, sadly, would hurt our Nets pick (holding everything else equal, of course), since they're also in the east. Fortunately, I'm having trouble finding a team in the west that would be in the "Big 4 (BKN, ATL, IND, CHI)" of losers in the east, although the Lakers are close. Hopefully, they'll make up for their divisional disadvantage by beating up on the east in the few games that they play.

Ok, I have to discuss this Bagley issue.

As far as I'm concerned, 2017 was an ideal year. Of course, we always want the #1 draft pick, but anything in the 1-4 range was comparable. No singular potential superstar coming out.

I was looking forward to a nice, quiet season of rooting against the Nets and Lakers, but ultimately just hoping for them to be bad. Porter, Bamba, Ayton and Doncic are all potential studs, so I could root for the top pick but not get devastated if we didn't get it.

A Bagley reclassification would change everything. We would have the First among Equals, Best of the Best, the Studliest of the Studs coming out. All of a sudden, #1 isn't just a bonus, it's essential. Now, I would have that much more stress to deal with, knowing that there's more than a little drop-off between #1 and #2. If Bagley stayed in high school, I would at least be resigned to the fact that we had virtually zero chance of getting him at #1 in 2019.

Sigh, these kids just don't think about anybody but themselves.

Mike

Yeah I feel you. Once Bagley reclasses (which all signs point to he will) the stakes go way up. I went from meh, just get us Doncic and whatever happens, happens.

Now I've become mad with greed. LOL. I must have Bagley AND Doncic now. Nothing else will be good enough lol..

[MichaelJ]

I feel the same way.  I keep seeing a decade-long run with our current group, Bagley/Doncic/Brown/Tatum/Zizic on the bench to slowly learn and grown.  Then:

Doncic
Hayward
Tatum
Bagley
Zizic
Brown (6th)

tear up the league and we have the right vets falling all over themselves to come to Boston to ring chase.

[BitterJim]

Meh.  Odds are extremely long that we end up at those two spots.

based on what?  Nets finished as worst team and Lakers finished as 3rd worst team. They both made flopped trades and signed bad players. They stayed significantly worse than the comoetition

Based on probability.  Even if the Nets and Lakers are the two worst teams in the league, the chance of getting #1 and #2 or #3 are 9%.  That's if everything works out to our wildest dreams.  Since it's not a guarantee that the Nets and Lakers will be the two worst teams, the odds are considerably lower.

where did you get the number?
While it's true that the competition for the absolute worst record got tougher, right now the Nets are still a bottom 5 team and that's all that really matters. The Lakers might be closer to the 7-10th worst team, but because they play out West, wins will be harder to come by, while most of the teams below them play in the East and will feed wins to each other by default. The East has only 5 teams (BOS/CLE/TOR/WAS/MIL) that are clearly .500 or greater, while the West has only 4 teams (LAL/PHO/DAL/SAC) that wouldn't clearly be .500 teams in the East.

If you assume weak teams go .500 against each other on average, the West teams have ~12 games against each other and 20 games against weak East teams. Meanwhile the weak East teams have ~36 games against each other and 8 games against the bad West teams. Based on that, the East teams could win up to 22 just be splitting games against bad teams, while the West teams would only get 16 wins by doing that.

Obviously it won't play out exactly like that, but it illustrates how much harder wins will be to come by out West for bad teams.

the Nets might win a few more than their talent level, but they're still really bad and should stay around the same area of the lottery, and the Lakers should win a few less than their talent level, which hopefully is enough to keep that pick in the 2-6 range.

Math? It's actually a little off because of how the Nets getting the #1 pick would impact the odds, but it's a good back of the envelope calc.  If the Nets are the worst and Lakers are 2nd worst, that's a 25% chance that the Nets are #1, 26.5% chance that the Lakers get the #2 pick and 26.5-33.5% chance of the #3 pick assuming that the Nets get #1.  So altogether it works out to 13.3%-15.0% (it's actually some number in between those, but I don't have time to do the weighted average right now) chance that we could get the #1 and either the #2 or #3 pick, and that's assuming that the Nets have the worst record and the Lakers have the 2nd worst.

And you keep saying "the 2-6 range" for the Lakers pick, but it's wrong.  We only keep it if it's 2-5, if it's #6 it goes to Philly

I was doing back of the envelope conditional probability.  If we assume there's a 100% chance the Nets have the worst record, that's a 25% chance we get #1.  If we also assume that Lakers have the second worst record 100% of the time, there's an 18.8% chance we get #2 from them, and a 17.1% chance we get #3.  So .25*(.188+.171) = .08975, or roughly 9%.  We don't care about the chances that the Nets get pick 2 or 3, because we can only get #1 from them, not Lakers. We also don't care about the Lakers getting 4 or 5.

Note, the original math was done while drying dishes last night, and I'm not going to sit down and re-do it to see if I need to account for the Lakers increased chances when the Nets get their pick, since those lottery balls are removed.  My gut says I don't, but maybe I do.  The larger point is that even if you take it as a given that the Nets and Lakers will finish bottom 2, the odds are still very against us getting #1 and #2-3.  And since those standings are far from a given, the likelihood falls ever quickly.  People are really setting themselves up for disappointment if they won't accept the very good situation we're already in, and instead want that much more.

I did it the same way, but then thought about the weighting that's present on probabilities for #2 and #3 and changed it up.  So I used the number of lottery balls that the #2 team has (199) and figured out how many balls would be left if the team with the most balls got #1.  This was 199/750=26.5%.  Then I used that twice for the worst case (where the team with the least balls wins #2, although I assumed that would have no effect on the probability, in reality it would have a tiny effect).  For the best case I took the number of balls the #3 team has (156) and also subtracted that from the balls remaining for the 3rd slot, so 750-156=594, and 199/594=33.5%.  Edited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline., then I added them together but that's not quite right.  Should turn out to be a 48.9-54.0% chance of # 2 or 3 if the Nets get #1 overall, so 12.2-13.5% chance of getting #1 and #2 or 3.

I'm still not gonna weight it, though (although it would be a pretty simple spreadsheet...)

[clevelandceltic]

I actually think this team will be fine with just about any player in the current projected top 7 or 8 even without Bagley reclassifying. Having seen most of these guys a few times already I really dont think this draft is as important to the team as last year. Yes obviously guys will flame out but I like alot of these guys and can see fans happy with many of them.

[CelticsElite]

I actually think this team will be fine with just about any player in the current projected top 7 or 8 even without Bagley reclassifying. Having seen most of these guys a few times already I really dont think this draft is as important to the team as last year. Yes obviously guys will flame out but I like alot of these guys and can see fans happy with many of them.

very good point. tp

I honestly sometimes picture Danny laughing and throwing a dart at a board to decide who to pick  if he ended up with the 2nd and 3rd picks in next years draft.  We will be finals contenders regardless

But picturing Bagley at the 4 or coming off the bench with our other young guys can be exciting too lol

[JHTruth]

I actually think this team will be fine with just about any player in the current projected top 7 or 8 even without Bagley reclassifying. Having seen most of these guys a few times already I really dont think this draft is as important to the team as last year. Yes obviously guys will flame out but I like alot of these guys and can see fans happy with many of them.

very good point. tp

I honestly sometimes picture Danny laughing and throwing a dart at a board to decide who to pick  if he ended up with the 2nd and 3rd picks in next years draft.  We will be finals contenders regardless

But picturing Bagley at the 4 or coming off the bench with our other young guys can be exciting too lol

I think we need a youngster like Bagley, Porter, Doncic to ever really win the Ship though, which is the whole point no?

[CelticsElite]

I actually think this team will be fine with just about any player in the current projected top 7 or 8 even without Bagley reclassifying. Having seen most of these guys a few times already I really dont think this draft is as important to the team as last year. Yes obviously guys will flame out but I like alot of these guys and can see fans happy with many of them.

very good point. tp

I honestly sometimes picture Danny laughing and throwing a dart at a board to decide who to pick  if he ended up with the 2nd and 3rd picks in next years draft.  We will be finals contenders regardless

But picturing Bagley at the 4 or coming off the bench with our other young guys can be exciting too lol

I think we need a youngster like Bagley, Porter, Doncic to ever really win the Ship though, which is the whole point no?

true. It would give us a nice little boost that might just be enough

[footey]

This draft is really deep with athletic bigs. Feel confident we will draft a good one with our Nets pick.