Author Topic: Celtics draft picks this decade  (Read 9526 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Celtics draft picks this decade
« Reply #45 on: August 09, 2017, 10:54:27 AM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
Speaking of the whole revisionism thing and including the scouting reports when you go back and see whether Giannis was predicted to be drafted higher than KO....it's interesting that the NBAdraft.net scouting report has been presented here because nbadraft.net predicted Giannis to get picked before KO.

KO wasn't blowing away anyone pre draft.

But Giannis was in no way the only player picked after KO to outperform KO.

It's almost like people think drafting happens in some sort of vacuum or something.

This isn't anything like IT being drafted last like it was some sort of miracle.  It's a lot closer to Darko over D Wade and Bosh or at least Raef LaFrentz over Paul Pierce.

Re: Celtics draft picks this decade
« Reply #46 on: August 09, 2017, 11:04:46 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
Quote
I don't think KO has outperformed his draft slot at all.  I think in a redraft he goes right around the same range if not a little worse (some of it is preference of course, but that draft while lacking top end talent aside from Giannis and maybe Gobert was pretty darn deep and even had the undrafted Covington and Dellavedova in it). 

I don't think Smart goes 6 in a redraft either (Wiggins, Embiid, Jokic, Hood, Harris, Parker, Gordon, and Randle all likely go ahead of him and that doesn't account for LaVine, Capela, or Payton who all might as well). 

Sullinger isn't even in the league anymore, and while he played very well for his draft slot while on the Celtics, Ainge got nothing for him when he left so it wasn't a salvageable draft pick (like say Fab Melo was). 

It is personal preference but some of those are bogus. Choosing Hood, Parker, Gordon and Harris over Smart is simply bias. Parker has spent most of his career injured, Gordon has worse stats than Smart without any of the defense, Hood and Harris whilst competent are not the difference makers Smart is.

We got Horford using the cap space from renouncing Sullinger, that's not nothing. Just as renouncing KO to get Hayward is not nothing.

Finding 12 players to draft ahead of KO is not likely. Covington is not better than KO, nor is Delladova. You can hide behind preference if you want but stats don't back it up.
I don't think there is any team in the league that wouldn't want Gary Harris over Marcus Smart.  It isn't preference with him.  Hood got injured and hurt his play and stats last year, but he was trending as a much higher ceiling than Smart before the injury, but I'll give you preference on him. 

What stats are worse for Gordon than Smart (aside from assists and steals - which makes sense since one is a guard and one is not).  Gordon is a terrible shooter, but he is still better than Smart.  Gordon scores more points than Smart.  Gordon is a better rebounder.  Gordon turns the ball over less and commits less fouls.  That is both last year (for every one of those) and for their careers for almost everything.  Smart is a better defender, but he is so bad on offense it hurts him a lot (and it isn't just his shooting it is his decision making on offense that is also bad).  Smart is also nearly 2 years older than Gordon.  I'm pretty confident that in a redraft Gordon goes ahead of Smart again. 

Parker has been injured a lot, but he has a far higher ceiling than Smart, and thus would likely go ahead of him in a redraft.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Celtics draft picks this decade
« Reply #47 on: August 09, 2017, 11:07:56 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
The issue I always had with KO was that he was a safe pick and it was apparent that Boston was going to be "tanking", so taking the safe pick made absolutely no sense.  If this was the 2009 draft, then taking KO would have made a lot more sense than taking the flyer on Giannis, but in 2013, there was absolutely no reason for Boston to take a safe pick that could contribute right away that didn't have much of a ceiling.  That draft was the perfect time to take the risky pick because the team was going to be bad so why not shoot for the homerun.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Celtics draft picks this decade
« Reply #48 on: August 09, 2017, 11:39:21 AM »

Online BitterJim

  • NGT
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8912
  • Tommy Points: 1212
Speaking of the whole revisionism thing and including the scouting reports when you go back and see whether Giannis was predicted to be drafted higher than KO....it's interesting that the NBAdraft.net scouting report has been presented here because nbadraft.net predicted Giannis to get picked before KO.

KO wasn't blowing away anyone pre draft.

But Giannis was in no way the only player picked after KO to outperform KO.

It's almost like people think drafting happens in some sort of vacuum or something.

This isn't anything like IT being drafted last like it was some sort of miracle.  It's a lot closer to Darko over D Wade and Bosh or at least Raef LaFrentz over Paul Pierce.

Wade and Pierce are no good pre-draft comps for Giannis. It was clear with both that they would be NBA players (and likely good ones), while with Giannis he had the athleticism but was not a good basketball player by any means. There was massive risk that he never became good enough to merit a roster spot.

He's more comparable (as a draft prospect) to a guy like Deandre Jordan where it's clear he has an NBA body but not NBA skills.
I'm bitter.

Re: Celtics draft picks this decade
« Reply #49 on: August 09, 2017, 12:23:09 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
I went with Pierce over LaFrentz because mostly Pierce had been predicted to be drafted ahead of LaFrentz, just like Giannis was predicted ahead of KO.

I admit the potential was there for Kedrick Brown over Troy Murphy.  Instead we ended up with KO over Giannis. And Dennis Shroeder. And G Dieng. And Mason Plumlee. And Tim Hardaway Jr. And Rudy Gobert.

Re: Celtics draft picks this decade
« Reply #50 on: August 09, 2017, 01:02:34 PM »

Offline moiso

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7640
  • Tommy Points: 441
The issue I always had with KO was that he was a safe pick and it was apparent that Boston was going to be "tanking", so taking the safe pick made absolutely no sense.  If this was the 2009 draft, then taking KO would have made a lot more sense than taking the flyer on Giannis, but in 2013, there was absolutely no reason for Boston to take a safe pick that could contribute right away that didn't have much of a ceiling.  That draft was the perfect time to take the risky pick because the team was going to be bad so why not shoot for the homerun.
Seems to me that having something instead of nothing is always better, whether you are a championship team or a lottery team.

Re: Celtics draft picks this decade
« Reply #51 on: August 09, 2017, 01:29:55 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
But now he's gone and we don't have anything

Re: Celtics draft picks this decade
« Reply #52 on: August 09, 2017, 01:38:47 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
The issue I always had with KO was that he was a safe pick and it was apparent that Boston was going to be "tanking", so taking the safe pick made absolutely no sense.  If this was the 2009 draft, then taking KO would have made a lot more sense than taking the flyer on Giannis, but in 2013, there was absolutely no reason for Boston to take a safe pick that could contribute right away that didn't have much of a ceiling.  That draft was the perfect time to take the risky pick because the team was going to be bad so why not shoot for the homerun.
Seems to me that having something instead of nothing is always better, whether you are a championship team or a lottery team.
Not at all.  Role players are a dime a dozen.  It is very easy to find a KO, it is much more difficult to find a Giannis.  When your team isn't going to be very good and you are picking in the middle of the 1st round, that is the perfect time to take a flyer on a player rather than just add a role player that won't move the needle on a bad team at all.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Celtics draft picks this decade
« Reply #53 on: August 09, 2017, 01:46:09 PM »

Online BitterJim

  • NGT
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8912
  • Tommy Points: 1212
The issue I always had with KO was that he was a safe pick and it was apparent that Boston was going to be "tanking", so taking the safe pick made absolutely no sense.  If this was the 2009 draft, then taking KO would have made a lot more sense than taking the flyer on Giannis, but in 2013, there was absolutely no reason for Boston to take a safe pick that could contribute right away that didn't have much of a ceiling.  That draft was the perfect time to take the risky pick because the team was going to be bad so why not shoot for the homerun.
Seems to me that having something instead of nothing is always better, whether you are a championship team or a lottery team.
Not at all.  Role players are a dime a dozen.  It is very easy to find a KO, it is much more difficult to find a Giannis.  When your team isn't going to be very good and you are picking in the middle of the 1st round, that is the perfect time to take a flyer on a player rather than just add a role player that won't move the needle on a bad team at all.

Players with tons of athleticism and no basketball skills are a dime-a-dozen, too. For every super success story like Giannis there are 99 Gerald Green and Javale McGees
I'm bitter.

Re: Celtics draft picks this decade
« Reply #54 on: August 09, 2017, 01:58:47 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
The issue I always had with KO was that he was a safe pick and it was apparent that Boston was going to be "tanking", so taking the safe pick made absolutely no sense.  If this was the 2009 draft, then taking KO would have made a lot more sense than taking the flyer on Giannis, but in 2013, there was absolutely no reason for Boston to take a safe pick that could contribute right away that didn't have much of a ceiling.  That draft was the perfect time to take the risky pick because the team was going to be bad so why not shoot for the homerun.
Seems to me that having something instead of nothing is always better, whether you are a championship team or a lottery team.
Not at all.  Role players are a dime a dozen.  It is very easy to find a KO, it is much more difficult to find a Giannis.  When your team isn't going to be very good and you are picking in the middle of the 1st round, that is the perfect time to take a flyer on a player rather than just add a role player that won't move the needle on a bad team at all.

Players with tons of athleticism and no basketball skills are a dime-a-dozen, too. For every super success story like Giannis there are 99 Gerald Green and Javale McGees
So you feel the bust rate (we'll say after the lottery to try to keep this more fair, although Giannis was predicted to be a lotto pick and KO wasn't) is 99 times higher than the home run rate? I find that amazing considering there are only 60 picks in the draft. And when you subtract the 14 lotto picks you'd have only 46 more picks.

Then you'd have to subtract out all the players that are just decent players...not home runs, but not busts either. 

Drafting not to totally fail doesn't really strike me as the greatest strategy.


Re: Celtics draft picks this decade
« Reply #55 on: August 09, 2017, 02:30:26 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
The issue I always had with KO was that he was a safe pick and it was apparent that Boston was going to be "tanking", so taking the safe pick made absolutely no sense.  If this was the 2009 draft, then taking KO would have made a lot more sense than taking the flyer on Giannis, but in 2013, there was absolutely no reason for Boston to take a safe pick that could contribute right away that didn't have much of a ceiling.  That draft was the perfect time to take the risky pick because the team was going to be bad so why not shoot for the homerun.
Seems to me that having something instead of nothing is always better, whether you are a championship team or a lottery team.
Not at all.  Role players are a dime a dozen.  It is very easy to find a KO, it is much more difficult to find a Giannis.  When your team isn't going to be very good and you are picking in the middle of the 1st round, that is the perfect time to take a flyer on a player rather than just add a role player that won't move the needle on a bad team at all.

Players with tons of athleticism and no basketball skills are a dime-a-dozen, too. For every super success story like Giannis there are 99 Gerald Green and Javale McGees
So you feel the bust rate (we'll say after the lottery to try to keep this more fair, although Giannis was predicted to be a lotto pick and KO wasn't) is 99 times higher than the home run rate? I find that amazing considering there are only 60 picks in the draft. And when you subtract the 14 lotto picks you'd have only 46 more picks.

Then you'd have to subtract out all the players that are just decent players...not home runs, but not busts either. 

Drafting not to totally fail doesn't really strike me as the greatest strategy.
The thing is one could argue that Gerald Green and JaVale McGee have had higher peaks than KO will ever have anyway.  So he chose two examples, which actually counter his point, and show exactly why Giannis should have been the pick in that situation especially.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Celtics draft picks this decade
« Reply #56 on: August 09, 2017, 02:55:29 PM »

Offline moiso

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7640
  • Tommy Points: 441
Some people claim every great athlete has a higher peak than a lesser athlete.  Ainge just wasn't that impressed with Gianni's potential or else he would have drafted him.  He didn't ignore him- he scouted him.  And KO's potential peak is was much higher than he ended up, also.  If he had more of a killer mentality he could be a monster with the tools that he was drafted with.

Re: Celtics draft picks this decade
« Reply #57 on: August 09, 2017, 03:31:20 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
Some people claim every great athlete has a higher peak than a lesser athlete.  Ainge just wasn't that impressed with Gianni's potential or else he would have drafted him.  He didn't ignore him- he scouted him.  And KO's potential peak is was much higher than he ended up, also.  If he had more of a killer mentality he could be a monster with the tools that he was drafted with.
KO was a 4 year player in college (redshirt and 3 years playing).  He was pretty well established when he was drafted.  His peak, even back then, was basically what he became.  A quality role player that could be a spot starter.  KO never had surefire starter as his peak. 

nbadraft.net basically said his comparisons were Spencer Hawes and Fabricio Oberto.  You know solid role player level of players. 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Celtics draft picks this decade
« Reply #58 on: August 09, 2017, 04:05:25 PM »

Online BitterJim

  • NGT
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8912
  • Tommy Points: 1212
The issue I always had with KO was that he was a safe pick and it was apparent that Boston was going to be "tanking", so taking the safe pick made absolutely no sense.  If this was the 2009 draft, then taking KO would have made a lot more sense than taking the flyer on Giannis, but in 2013, there was absolutely no reason for Boston to take a safe pick that could contribute right away that didn't have much of a ceiling.  That draft was the perfect time to take the risky pick because the team was going to be bad so why not shoot for the homerun.
Seems to me that having something instead of nothing is always better, whether you are a championship team or a lottery team.
Not at all.  Role players are a dime a dozen.  It is very easy to find a KO, it is much more difficult to find a Giannis.  When your team isn't going to be very good and you are picking in the middle of the 1st round, that is the perfect time to take a flyer on a player rather than just add a role player that won't move the needle on a bad team at all.

Players with tons of athleticism and no basketball skills are a dime-a-dozen, too. For every super success story like Giannis there are 99 Gerald Green and Javale McGees
So you feel the bust rate (we'll say after the lottery to try to keep this more fair, although Giannis was predicted to be a lotto pick and KO wasn't) is 99 times higher than the home run rate? I find that amazing considering there are only 60 picks in the draft. And when you subtract the 14 lotto picks you'd have only 46 more picks.

Then you'd have to subtract out all the players that are just decent players...not home runs, but not busts either. 

Drafting not to totally fail doesn't really strike me as the greatest strategy.

I mean, if you consider every player that doesn't turn into a Giannis-level player to be a bust, then sure (it's not how I'd define it, but you do you).  It's extremely, extremely rare that a player drafted with athleticism and few basketball skills turns out to be that good. Turning into a end-of-bench player like Green or McGee is much more common
I'm bitter.

Re: Celtics draft picks this decade
« Reply #59 on: August 09, 2017, 04:06:55 PM »

Online BitterJim

  • NGT
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8912
  • Tommy Points: 1212
The issue I always had with KO was that he was a safe pick and it was apparent that Boston was going to be "tanking", so taking the safe pick made absolutely no sense.  If this was the 2009 draft, then taking KO would have made a lot more sense than taking the flyer on Giannis, but in 2013, there was absolutely no reason for Boston to take a safe pick that could contribute right away that didn't have much of a ceiling.  That draft was the perfect time to take the risky pick because the team was going to be bad so why not shoot for the homerun.
Seems to me that having something instead of nothing is always better, whether you are a championship team or a lottery team.
Not at all.  Role players are a dime a dozen.  It is very easy to find a KO, it is much more difficult to find a Giannis.  When your team isn't going to be very good and you are picking in the middle of the 1st round, that is the perfect time to take a flyer on a player rather than just add a role player that won't move the needle on a bad team at all.

Players with tons of athleticism and no basketball skills are a dime-a-dozen, too. For every super success story like Giannis there are 99 Gerald Green and Javale McGees
So you feel the bust rate (we'll say after the lottery to try to keep this more fair, although Giannis was predicted to be a lotto pick and KO wasn't) is 99 times higher than the home run rate? I find that amazing considering there are only 60 picks in the draft. And when you subtract the 14 lotto picks you'd have only 46 more picks.

Then you'd have to subtract out all the players that are just decent players...not home runs, but not busts either. 

Drafting not to totally fail doesn't really strike me as the greatest strategy.
The thing is one could argue that Gerald Green and JaVale McGee have had higher peaks than KO will ever have anyway.  So he chose two examples, which actually counter his point, and show exactly why Giannis should have been the pick in that situation especially.

One could also argue that KO had a higher peak than Giannis will ever have, too.  But that doesn't make it true.
I'm bitter.