This is a rule change that I've wanted for a long long time. The three second rule forces players to play away from the basket which makes it easier to evaluate them. One of the reasons people missed on Thabeet. Yeah, he was a terrific shotblocker, but all he did was stand under the basket and block shots. Something you can't do in the NBA. One of the reasons I wasn't high on him. I always believe that if you could, you would. Not always true unfortunately. Anyway, your correct in what you said.
If we are 9 or 10 do you trade out
- Thread starter sactowndog
- Start date
Some of the draft boards are consensus driven to some extent. But some aren't. Givony who started DraftExpress spent a lot of time and money traveling all over Europe and the US scouting players. I don't always agree with his analysis totally, but I certainly respect the effort he puts in, and I know that his conclusions are based on his own judgements and not something he read on a forum somewhere. I also have respect for the mock draft The Stepien puts out with people like Cole Zwicker contributing.
It's like anything else, some are worth reading and some aren't. Personally I think sometimes people's expectations are far too high. If you think that every draft pick should end up being an all star, then your in for a lot of disappointment. Then of course there are those that can only see the grass on the other side of the fence and want to trade away every young player, who may well turn out to be an all star for a player they believe will come in and be the savior. Fit and chemistry don't seem to matter to those people. They think that players are like chess pieces than can be moved around the board. They forget that their human beings with a brain of their own.
I've said this many times, but I'll say it again, and it pertains to just about any sport. 50% of a players success lies between his ears, and that's the hardest thing to judge when looking at a player.
It's like anything else, some are worth reading and some aren't. Personally I think sometimes people's expectations are far too high. If you think that every draft pick should end up being an all star, then your in for a lot of disappointment. Then of course there are those that can only see the grass on the other side of the fence and want to trade away every young player, who may well turn out to be an all star for a player they believe will come in and be the savior. Fit and chemistry don't seem to matter to those people. They think that players are like chess pieces than can be moved around the board. They forget that their human beings with a brain of their own.
I've said this many times, but I'll say it again, and it pertains to just about any sport. 50% of a players success lies between his ears, and that's the hardest thing to judge when looking at a player.
Do you think the scouting reports lead teams to go against the mocks or pre-draft assessments on a regular basis? I think, for the most part, the science is now such that pretty much everyone has access to the same information. It's not the scouting staff that makes the determination on the eventual pick, as we have learned the hard way more than a few times over the years. Remember Petrie leaving a note telling the Kings to draft "the Greek kid"?
I agree with Jerry Reynolds on this. It is luck. Portland worked hard to maximize their chances to get the first pick in the 2007 draft. They succeeded and picked the obvious selection. What happened? Luck intervened, IMHO. Nobody could have foreseen on that day in June that Greg Oden's career would end up the way it did. On the other hand, Lebron James turned out being everything he was supposed to be - and even more. There are no guarantees. That's why Jerry said it's about luck, one way or the other.
I agree with Jerry Reynolds on this. It is luck. Portland worked hard to maximize their chances to get the first pick in the 2007 draft. They succeeded and picked the obvious selection. What happened? Luck intervened, IMHO. Nobody could have foreseen on that day in June that Greg Oden's career would end up the way it did. On the other hand, Lebron James turned out being everything he was supposed to be - and even more. There are no guarantees. That's why Jerry said it's about luck, one way or the other.
Let’s also remember that Michell has just one good season under his belt. After 1 season, Tyreke Evans looked like a potentially elite player too and more well rounded than Steph Curry — who 3 seasons later and up to today is far and away the best player from that draft.
Let’s see if Mitchell keeps this up after an off-season where all teams have been able to scout his weaknesses and whether he succumbs to the dreaded sophomore slump or not.
I’ve said a couple times this season that while Mitchell has certainly impressed, I’m still leery about his long term future. Players of his size that rely upon their athleticism can see a steep decline once that athleticism wanes a bit after 4-5 years of wear and tear. I could see him being the next Steve Francis.
Let’s see if Mitchell keeps this up after an off-season where all teams have been able to scout his weaknesses and whether he succumbs to the dreaded sophomore slump or not.
I’ve said a couple times this season that while Mitchell has certainly impressed, I’m still leery about his long term future. Players of his size that rely upon their athleticism can see a steep decline once that athleticism wanes a bit after 4-5 years of wear and tear. I could see him being the next Steve Francis.
I do think there's luck involved, but on average, teams with good scouting dept's will certainly enhance your odds of getting a good player. I think it's more than just finding a good player, but finding a player that's a good fit as well. And I'm not talking about positional fit, although that certainly comes into consideration, but cultural fit. All things being equal, you want a player that can meld seamlessly with the rest of the team.
With the current state of the Kings, I would rather pass on Carter Jr and swing for the fences for a scorer like MPJ, or even Trae Young. I still think a big part of what the Kings are missing is a franchise player. A go-to scorer who can put up at least 20ppg/night. No team in recent history has won a title without a star player. The last time it happened was 14 years ago with Detroit. Right now, no one on our roster has shown that they can be that player. I think we have a bunch of players who would be perfect to compliment a franchise player. Carter Jr falls under that. I think he could become a top 10 C in the league, but I don't know that he's a guy who can emerge as your best player. Knowing that we don't have a pick in 2019, our last chance at finding a franchise player is with this 2018 pick, or praying that someone already on our roster can become that player.
Breaking the guys one by one, Fox has an "it"factor to him with his clutch shots and leadership, but he didn't really step up into the alpha role after we traded George Hill. We gave him the keys to the franchise in the 2nd half of the season, bur he didn't take advantage of it. Check out his first 36 games compared to his last 36games:
26.4mins: 10.3pts 4.3asts 2.7rebs 1.0stls 2.4tos on 40.6/30.0/69.3 with 10FGA
29.0mins: 12.8pts 4.5asts 2.9rebs 0.9stls 2.3tos on 41.6/31.2/74.8 with 11.8FGA
We saw an improved Fox all-around, but he still didn't make the most of his opportunities. That does raise some questions about being a potential franchise player and #1 scorer.
Bogdanovic is 25yearsold which puts him right in his beginning prime. Bogdan like Fox, also got better as the season progressed, but he wasn't able to take his game to the next level when he was given more opportunity. He doesn't look for his shot enough, and as a result, he's not an aggressive scorer. There were many games at the end of the year where he was satisfied with just dropping the ball off and standing off to the side. At one point we were all ready for Bogdan to pop off, but he just never did. If he wants to become a franchise player, he needs to develop that mentality.
Buddy is 24yearsold, but he's not in his prime yet. Buddy's questionmark has always been whether or not he could overcome his athletic deficiencies. Can he consistently get off his shot? That's still a TBD, but the 2nd half of the season has been really promising for him. Unlike Fox and Bogdan, he's actually made the most of his opportunities in the 2nd half. Averaged 14.5pts 4.2rebs 2.2asts 1.2stls 1.6tos on 45.6/42/87.8. He stepped up towards the end of the season. However, you just don't know if he can put up this performance in an 82 game season. His ball handling is loose. He struggles getting to the rim and always settles for mid-ranges(although very efficient). He'll need to become at least a good ball handler to make up for his lack of quickness. If he wants to become a franchise player, he needs to improve his ball handling and decision making. Ball handling just isn't the easiest thing, and he's already 24. The improvements are extremely promising, but I just don't see him becoming a legitimate #1 scorer.
Then you have Giles...who I won't even get to because we haven't seen him at all. Skal regressed this year, and he just has too many obstacles to overcome: IQ, IQ, strength, IQ, strength.
Kings need a homerunner. I don't see that being Carter Jr.
Breaking the guys one by one, Fox has an "it"factor to him with his clutch shots and leadership, but he didn't really step up into the alpha role after we traded George Hill. We gave him the keys to the franchise in the 2nd half of the season, bur he didn't take advantage of it. Check out his first 36 games compared to his last 36games:
26.4mins: 10.3pts 4.3asts 2.7rebs 1.0stls 2.4tos on 40.6/30.0/69.3 with 10FGA
29.0mins: 12.8pts 4.5asts 2.9rebs 0.9stls 2.3tos on 41.6/31.2/74.8 with 11.8FGA
We saw an improved Fox all-around, but he still didn't make the most of his opportunities. That does raise some questions about being a potential franchise player and #1 scorer.
Bogdanovic is 25yearsold which puts him right in his beginning prime. Bogdan like Fox, also got better as the season progressed, but he wasn't able to take his game to the next level when he was given more opportunity. He doesn't look for his shot enough, and as a result, he's not an aggressive scorer. There were many games at the end of the year where he was satisfied with just dropping the ball off and standing off to the side. At one point we were all ready for Bogdan to pop off, but he just never did. If he wants to become a franchise player, he needs to develop that mentality.
Buddy is 24yearsold, but he's not in his prime yet. Buddy's questionmark has always been whether or not he could overcome his athletic deficiencies. Can he consistently get off his shot? That's still a TBD, but the 2nd half of the season has been really promising for him. Unlike Fox and Bogdan, he's actually made the most of his opportunities in the 2nd half. Averaged 14.5pts 4.2rebs 2.2asts 1.2stls 1.6tos on 45.6/42/87.8. He stepped up towards the end of the season. However, you just don't know if he can put up this performance in an 82 game season. His ball handling is loose. He struggles getting to the rim and always settles for mid-ranges(although very efficient). He'll need to become at least a good ball handler to make up for his lack of quickness. If he wants to become a franchise player, he needs to improve his ball handling and decision making. Ball handling just isn't the easiest thing, and he's already 24. The improvements are extremely promising, but I just don't see him becoming a legitimate #1 scorer.
Then you have Giles...who I won't even get to because we haven't seen him at all. Skal regressed this year, and he just has too many obstacles to overcome: IQ, IQ, strength, IQ, strength.
Kings need a homerunner. I don't see that being Carter Jr.
You really are juxtaposing a lot of things together in a contradictory jumble. I agree about Petrie. He was from what I could tell a better than average player assessor who wasn't afraid to stray from consensus (e.g. Peja). According to you, the Peja pick must have been just lucky. But then you seem to give credit to Petrie for the pick. Which is it? And to equate "it is luck" with "there are no guarantees" doesn't make sense to me. Only a child would think there are "guarantees" for any judgement concerning human performance. It's not that there isn't any chance involved in the pick, it's just that those who are very good tend to pick good players with a higher percentage than those that don't. After all, what adult actually believes that everything is within his or her control and not subject to some degree to either chance or if you prefer, divine intervention? This belief that anything is guaranteed in the human arena is silly. And to your other point - obviously there has to be one guy who makes the final judgement on a draft pick. But the rest of your post I don't agree with.
Also, I really don't understand how you can say that it's a "science" and "it is luck." If it's a science I guess it's a lucky science. In my view, scouting reports are assessments - judgments. Not value neutral data - "information" with no evaluation component associated with it. It is not a science; it is an art. And just like with every art, some are much better at it than others. That doesn't mean excellent talent scouts will be right 100% of the time (the hyperbolic "guarantee" that you suppose), just that they will be right much more than the ordinary joe blow who does the job. It's not that there isn't any chance involved in the pick, it's just that those who are very good tend to pick good players a higher percentage of the time than those that don't. That's why over time they tend to be "luckier." It's because they are better at doing their job.
What I can't stand is this BS that gets put forward that it implies that it "is [all] luck," , so don't blame the GM (or ultimate draft picker), it's not his fault, he's just unlucky. And like I said, if as you say, "it is luck," then why waste the Kings' budget on a scouting staff? Just use Nba.com, espn.com or whatever and just pick accordingly? Of course, the underlying premise of consensus is that the opinions of many provides a better opportunity to do better than random chance. Or if you really do think it totally luck, buy a chimp and have him throw darts at a draft dart board to pick your player. At least it would be entertaining.
Also, I really don't understand how you can say that it's a "science" and "it is luck." If it's a science I guess it's a lucky science. In my view, scouting reports are assessments - judgments. Not value neutral data - "information" with no evaluation component associated with it. It is not a science; it is an art. And just like with every art, some are much better at it than others. That doesn't mean excellent talent scouts will be right 100% of the time (the hyperbolic "guarantee" that you suppose), just that they will be right much more than the ordinary joe blow who does the job. It's not that there isn't any chance involved in the pick, it's just that those who are very good tend to pick good players a higher percentage of the time than those that don't. That's why over time they tend to be "luckier." It's because they are better at doing their job.
What I can't stand is this BS that gets put forward that it implies that it "is [all] luck," , so don't blame the GM (or ultimate draft picker), it's not his fault, he's just unlucky. And like I said, if as you say, "it is luck," then why waste the Kings' budget on a scouting staff? Just use Nba.com, espn.com or whatever and just pick accordingly? Of course, the underlying premise of consensus is that the opinions of many provides a better opportunity to do better than random chance. Or if you really do think it totally luck, buy a chimp and have him throw darts at a draft dart board to pick your player. At least it would be entertaining.
Last edited:
In referring to science, I'm talking about the things you can measure about a player. His phsyical stats, for example, with the possible exception of the everlasting debates about "true height," are there for everyone to see. Every team has access to the same information in that regard, whether their scouts have seen the player or not. Scouting reports are exactly what you say they are - judgments/assessments. You also call them "art" - well, art is truly in the eye of the beholder, and I actually agree with you in that regard. If the person doing the assessment has a good eye, his reports are obviously more important than some random guy who doesn't look at the player with the same set of standards in regard to what is being assessed.
If I implied or said it was all luck, I misspoke. I meant, as I said in reply to sactowndog above, that at the end of the day - no matter how good your scouts or your data - there is still an element of luck (or fate, if you prefer).
You bring up good points. I don't disagree with you and the others so much as I think I understood more where Jerry was coming from. It's a more "Que sera sera" approach towards life. Maybe it comes with age. I do think the better the scouting, the better the ability to make a good selection but I also think that regardless of how good your data are, the big question cannot be answered until the player being selected actually steps onto the court as an NBA player. Some make the transition quite nicely, while sometimes they just don't. That's where iMHO the luck or fate steps in. You just don't know about a lot of these kids.
If I implied or said it was all luck, I misspoke. I meant, as I said in reply to sactowndog above, that at the end of the day - no matter how good your scouts or your data - there is still an element of luck (or fate, if you prefer).
You bring up good points. I don't disagree with you and the others so much as I think I understood more where Jerry was coming from. It's a more "Que sera sera" approach towards life. Maybe it comes with age. I do think the better the scouting, the better the ability to make a good selection but I also think that regardless of how good your data are, the big question cannot be answered until the player being selected actually steps onto the court as an NBA player. Some make the transition quite nicely, while sometimes they just don't. That's where iMHO the luck or fate steps in. You just don't know about a lot of these kids.
Nope. Freak injuries, car accidents, drug use, lack of mental discipline/drive, etc. Lots of things "outside" the normal bounds that can sink your top picks. Look at the number of top picks that wash out every year despite being lauded as the next great thing. Interviews can't always tell you what's between someone's ears, or how they will react to increased competition, or how they react when things don't go their way.
There is a lot to it, including luck, on behalf of a team with every draft pick.
There is a lot to it, including luck, on behalf of a team with every draft pick.
That's certainly a big part of it, but as VF21 pointed out, there are some things that can happen that you can't predict. Sometimes it's like trying to read the tea leaves. For instance, Donte Greene had a ton of talent, but lacked the desire to put in the work. Maybe he's a poor example because I think showed that lack of desire at Syracuse, but in some cases, a player looks like Greene in college so you pass on him. He gets into the NBA and suddenly, Wa La, he looks like a different player. Why?
Could be a number of reasons. Like with Kevin Johnson at Cal. I'll give you this. If you have a good scouting staff that does their homework, you should be batting for a high average when it comes to draft picks. But I do think you have to grade on a curve to some extent because every draft is different. This coming draft is a loaded one. However right now, the 2019 draft looks like a very weak one. I just watched the USA/World all star game, and the USA side really sucked. The World side wasn't much to write home about either. Barrett is as advertised and a couple of others showed some promise.
If there's a good year to not have a first round pick, next year is such a year.
Could be a number of reasons. Like with Kevin Johnson at Cal. I'll give you this. If you have a good scouting staff that does their homework, you should be batting for a high average when it comes to draft picks. But I do think you have to grade on a curve to some extent because every draft is different. This coming draft is a loaded one. However right now, the 2019 draft looks like a very weak one. I just watched the USA/World all star game, and the USA side really sucked. The World side wasn't much to write home about either. Barrett is as advertised and a couple of others showed some promise.
If there's a good year to not have a first round pick, next year is such a year.
If you can discern between which players have the NBA as their goal and which players have SUCCESS in the NBA as their goal. It seems sometimes they work hard to get to the NBA, only to lose some of that hunger once they're there. I don't want to point any fingers at our current roster but... 
If you can discern between which players have the NBA as their goal and which players have SUCCESS in the NBA as their goal. It seems sometimes they work hard to get to the NBA, only to lose some of that hunger once they're there. I don't want to point any fingers at our current roster but...
The hardest part of scouting to me will always be the character aspect of the individual. Not only do you have to figure out who can play basketball and who can't, but you have to figure out who can handle the NBA life. Not only do you have to figure out who works hard and who doesn't, but you have to figure what a guy's motivation really is. Figuring out how college-age guys are going to respond to getting millions of dollars is not a scientific process. Discovering what really motivates a guy can be really difficult depending on the person.
I think most GMs can spot talent fairly well, its the other stuff that sets a GM apart and I think there is a lot of luck in it.
I think most GMs can spot talent fairly well, its the other stuff that sets a GM apart and I think there is a lot of luck in it.
