Here is What "Consensus" Gets You

[funkykingston]

1) They do? Based on the consensus mock drafts I have provided you think they had a very good idea of the best prospects? I've just provided seven years of data showing the consensus is wrong more times than not and you believe they (the consensus of experts) had a very good idea of best prospects?

2) So in your view you can be wrong but still be right? Is this in the same vein as, "I was right before I was wrong"? Are you in politics by any chance?

Look, many people on this board have just said, don't overthink, just go with the consensus of 99% of the experts who believe that Ayton and Doncic should be #1 and #2 ( or maybe switched). The above data shows the opposite: Don't buy into the consensus of experts. They aren't generally correct. (And no, that doesn't mean that you should necessarily go against consensus either!)

So again, this all comes down to the idea that the draft is a crapshoot and people are wrong as often as they are right.

EXCEPT that statistics will show that all-stars are drafted in the top 10 much more often than not. #1 picks have a much better history of being HOF level players than other draft positions.

Of course it's not a given that Ayton and Doncic are the best two players in this draft. Anyone who argues that they absolutely are must be new to the NBA draft or have a very short memory. Baja thinks JJJ might be the best player in this draft. I think Bagley has a decent shot to be that guy. I could also see Michael Porter being that guy.

Those are all consensus top 10 or top 5 picks so it shouldn't be surprising that they could be great players. If Grayson Allen is the best player from this draft that would be really surprising. And definitely not the consensus. And also definitely not a player I want the Kings to draft at #2.

 

[funkykingston]

It seems to me that funky is saying that consensus is reached based on the best possible information available leading up to the moment of a player's drafting. What the hell else are you going to rely on? Blind luck? What do you propose scouts do instead? Throw a dart at their "big board" and select the guy it lands on? There will always be players who outperform expectations, and there will always be players who fail to meet expectations. Without the benefit of a crystal ball, however, you scout their physical tools, their skillset, their grasp of the game, their execution, their efficiency, their mental fortitude, their killer instinct, etc., and you hope that the variety of factors that led you to select player X in the first place will translate effectively to the NBA, and that those tools can be developed further.

Exactly.

 

[mac]

It seems to me that funky is saying that consensus is reached based on the best possible information available leading up to the moment of a player's drafting. What the hell else are you going to rely on? Blind luck? What do you propose scouts do instead? Throw a dart at their "big board" and select the guy it lands on? There will always be players who outperform expectations, and there will always be players who fail to meet expectations. Without the benefit of a crystal ball, however, you scout their physical tools, their skillset, their grasp of the game, their execution, their efficiency, their mental fortitude, their killer instinct, etc., and you hope that the variety of factors that led you to select player X in the first place will translate effectively to the NBA, and that those tools can be developed further.

And I guess what Kingster is arguing is that perhaps this goes to show that all these scouts and experts are simply wrong more often than not and so you should somehow try and find some different factors to focus on instead of some of those you listed as examples. If the "best possible information" leads you to be wrong more than right, then you might want to chuck that information out and try something else? Everyone has biases after all, perhaps it's a matter of how much weight you place on certain factors over others.

 

[funkykingston]

And I guess what Kingster is arguing is that perhaps this goes to show that all these scouts and experts are simply wrong more often than not and so you should somehow try and find some different factors to focus on instead of some of those you listed as examples. If the "best possible information" leads you to be wrong more than right, then you might want to chuck that information out and try something else? Everyone has biases after all, perhaps it's a matter of how much weight you place on certain factors over others.

There's millions of dollars at stake. Teams are willing to try anything to get this decision right. There just isn't any surefire way to say who will and won't succeed on the NBA level.

We're in an age of analytics and teams taking the most modern approach possible are still drafting guys that don't amount to anything on the next level.

And to "chuck out" information like physical tools, skill set, college stats etc would leave you with what factors to anlayze prospects by.

What I'm hearing is that teams should find a way to not draft busts and always get the best player available. They've been trying to do that for decades and nobody has cracked the code yet.

 

[mac]

There's millions of dollars at stake. Teams are willing to try anything to get this decision right. There just isn't any surefire way to say who will and won't succeed on the NBA level.

We're in an age of analytics and teams taking the most modern approach possible are still drafting guys that don't amount to anything on the next level.

And to "chuck out" information like physical tools, skill set, college stats etc would leave you with what factors to anlayze prospects by.

What I'm hearing is that teams should find a way to not draft busts and always get the best player available. They've been trying to do that for decades and nobody has cracked the code yet.

I think it's more about being aware that just because everyone else (i.e. the consensus) says X, doesn't mean you should do X. And given that consensus has quite often been wrong, you should also second guess yourself if your results point you to X. The whole point is exactly as you say, to "try anything", explore new ways of judging potential. To assume that anything that can be done has already been done or is being done by the consensus is rather lazy given that that's their only job. And if you're telling me that after all this the draft is still a crapshoot then the logical thing would be to sack the scouting department and just make our picks off of someone's blog.

 

[funkykingston]

I think it's more about being aware that just because everyone else (i.e. the consensus) says X, doesn't mean you should do X. And given that consensus has quite often been wrong, you should also second guess yourself if your results point you to X. The whole point is exactly as you say, to "try anything", explore new ways of judging potential. To assume that anything that can be done has already been done or is being done by the consensus is rather lazy given that that's their only job. And if you're telling me that after all this the draft is still a crapshoot then the logical thing would be to sack the scouting department and just make our picks off of someone's blog.

I understand what you're saying but I think it's naiive to think that NBA teams aren't already trying anything to better project players.

 

[kingsboi]

There is no doubt that just because a player is a consensus number one or two or whatever the pick is, that the team should draft him. Vlade should definitely do his homework and workout at least a handful of players before making a final decision. There is always that one player that slips through the cracks and busts out, it's hard to tell who that is considering all the factors that play a part but point is, drafting number two doesn't mean we get our franchise player. There are other variables to consider here and before its all set and done, I don't want to look back at yet another draft and say "we could of drafted him" and just keep banging our heads against the wall until the end of time.

 

[Telemachus]

I think it's more about being aware that just because everyone else (i.e. the consensus) says X, doesn't mean you should do X. And given that consensus has quite often been wrong, you should also second guess yourself if your results point you to X. The whole point is exactly as you say, to "try anything", explore new ways of judging potential. To assume that anything that can be done has already been done or is being done by the consensus is rather lazy given that that's their only job. And if you're telling me that after all this the draft is still a crapshoot then the logical thing would be to sack the scouting department and just make our picks off of someone's blog.

I highly doubt that NBA teams care very much what the consensus is when making their picks. They rely on what their scouting reports tell them. The only exception might be when they have someone much higher than everyone else and try to trade down.

 

[Telemachus]

Most scouts will tell you the most important part of scouting is doing all the background research on players. By that, I mean talking to current and former coaches & teammates. Talking to family, friends, teachers, etc. Finding out who these players really are is the most difficult part of scouting, but is the best way to determine how likely they are to work hard at improving and how coachable they will be.

 

[hrdboild]

I've never been all that concerned with consensus. There are times when I think I'm way out on a limb projecting a guy higher than everyone else is and he ends up going even higher in the draft than I expected. (Westbrook, Conley, Horford, MKG, Oladipo and Tristan Thompson are all examples of that). Other times I have a guy ranked in the top 10 and he falls to the 20s (Rondo, Hibbert, Batum, Perry Jones, DeJounte Murray, Timothe Luwawu). This year I happen to agree with the consensus top 2 but the last time I remember that happening was with Oden/Durant. I've had Ayton at #1 in this draft for the last 2 years while most mocks had Porter at the top and I moved Doncic up to #1 when most mocks still had in the 4-6 range. They're not 1-2 on my board because other people put them that way, in other words, so I don't understand why other people deciding to agree with my assessment should cause me to question myself.

The articles in the original post seem to imply that there is consensus every year but they're actually just taking an average of a subset of predictions. Most years there is no clear consensus at the top. Even Ben Simmons and KAT had their detractors. Kyrie was a small sample wonder with injury concerns. Blake had short arms (yes this actually was a thing). And then you get to compromise picks like Andrea Bargnani and Anthony Bennett because nobody in the draft is even worthy of being first overall. Those true consensus top picks are few and far between. Wall was a true consensus #1 and so was Anthony Davis. That may be it for the last 10 years. Before that you had Oden/Durant and LeBron James. Shaq of course. And barring catastrophic injury, all of those picks have held up.

When there is a true consensus its because the talent is undeniable. Everyone has the same player #1 because the available evidence points that way. It doesn't mean you got the pick right, it just means it was the smartest pick at the time given all available information. If you're looking for an algorithm to apply that accurately predicts NBA success irrespective of pre-draft hype I don't think there is one. I've been looking for 15 years. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong but based on everything I've seen I don't think such an algorithm exists. If the point of this thread is "let's throw out consensus and look at everybody" I agree. But I also think if you honestly do that this year you're just going to come to the conclusion that Doncic and Ayton are the best prospects available based on everything we know now. I can give you 15 names that I think have a chance of being the best player in the draft but we only get to pick one so how do you choose? The guy with a 2% chance of being the best player in the draft is probably not the right pick at #2. A guy with a 90% chance of being a decent to good NBA player and no realistic chance of being the best player in the draft is probably not the right choice at #2 either. You have to balance the risk with the potential reward and come up with a best guess. For actual NBA teams (not so much us fans) you also have to consider how the player is going to fit into the culture of the team. These are people after all and people don't always bring out the best in each other. You probably should make an effort to assemble compatible personalities as much as that's possible. What if the talent fit is right but the personality fit isn't? Maybe you end up with a Victor Oladipo who gets traded twice before living up to his top 2 pick expectations. That's not going to help us much either.

Enough people are against either Ayton or Doncic that I wouldn't call either of them clear consensus top picks at this point. In relation to past draft consensus levels I'd put Doncic at about Kyrie Irving level... most people have him in their top 2 but he's not entirely bust proof. Ayton is probably a step below Anthony Davis level... he's dominant but not a complete 2 way player at this point in time. The criteria I use the most now to rank these guys is "how mad would I be if I passed on them and they became a superstar" which really just means I go with what my gut tells me. If someone I'm not all that high on becomes a superstar that's unfortunate I missed on them but that's nothing compared to how furious I would be if I let other people talk me out of somebody I know is going to be a superstar and it turns out I was right after all. I find this method actually makes it pretty easy to construct a top 10.

 

[Kingster]

It seems to me that funky is saying that consensus is reached based on the best possible information available leading up to the moment of a player's drafting. What the hell else are you going to rely on? Blind luck? What do you propose scouts do instead? Throw a dart at their "big board" and select the guy it lands on? There will always be players who outperform expectations, and there will always be players who fail to meet expectations. Without the benefit of a crystal ball, however, you scout their physical tools, their skillset, their grasp of the game, their execution, their efficiency, their mental fortitude, their killer instinct, etc., and you hope that the variety of factors that led you to select player X in the first place will translate effectively to the NBA, and that those tools can be developed further.

Of course consensus is reached by the best available information leading to the draft. Dugh. But judgement is not apportioned in equal amounts to individuals. Some are better at assessing talent than others. More specifically, some are better at assessing talent than the consensus. If you don't think you can pick stocks better than the consensus, then invest in the S&P 500 index and leave it at that. Similarly, if you don't think you can draft better than the consensus of experts leading up to the draft, then why the hell do you even have a scouting staff? Just draft according to the consensus and save some money doing so. Hopefully, Divac has the ability to draft better than the consensus. Otherwise, as the data shows (from my above post), it could be a disappointing draft after all.

 

[Padrino]

Of course consensus is reached by the best available information leading to the draft. Dugh. But judgement is not apportioned in equal amounts to individuals. Some are better at assessing talent than others. More specifically, some are better at assessing talent than the consensus. If you don't think you can pick stocks better than the consensus, then invest in the S&P 500 index and leave it at that. Similarly, if you don't think you can draft better than the consensus of experts leading up to the draft, then why the hell do you even have a scouting staff? Just draft according to the consensus and save some money doing so. Hopefully, Divac has the ability to draft better than the consensus. Otherwise, as the data shows (from my above post), it could be a disappointing draft after all.

You’re imagining a world where information and judgment don’t go hand-in-hand in the establishment of consensus. You make your pick based on your judgment of the information available to you prior to a player’s drafting.

I don’t know who these hypothetical scouting swamis are that you’re expecting to divine something beyond what game tape, hard data, workouts, and interviews can tell you about an individual player, but it’s silly to believe that there’s some magical juju that will reveal a young player’s worth to a franchise. Every team scouts incoming players with the best information and judgment they can apply to the talent within reach of their draft pick.

It’s true enough that some teams value the scouting of young talent more than others, but that’s different from the scouting itself. It’s also true that some teams are better at developing young talent than others, but again, that’s different from the work of scouting.

The guy who drafts Kawhi Leonard at 15 looks like a genius, but that’s because Leonard massively outperformed expectations. Nobody could have determined what kind of player he would be prior to his drafting. And would he have developed into a star had he been drafted by the Kings? Or is the Spurs’ program simply better at fostering the development of young players? Unless you’ve got a crystal ball, there are simply limits to what a scouting team can accomplish.

That said, there are all kinds of ways that a team can convince themselves that they’ve got a secret sauce for evaluating diamonds in the rough, but you could just as easily draft an Anthony Bennett with that kind of arrogant mindset. Or a Jimmer Fredette or a Georgios Papagiannis, for that matter.

 

[bajaden]

Fans would much rather be mad on draft night than four years later. Ask Knick fans if they still wish Phil Jackson had drafted Mudiay over Porzingis.

And if you're old enough, ask yourself honestly how you reacted when Petrie bypassed John Wallace for some kid playing in Greece.

Peja who? Are you kidding me? Boo!!!!! Yeah, John didn't last long did he?

 

[pdxKingsFan]

The better what if is if we had drafted Steve Nash and Paul Pierce but I'm still delighted how it all worked out, especially since Celts are my B team.

 

[kingsfan101]

I think it's more about being aware that just because everyone else (i.e. the consensus) says X, doesn't mean you should do X. And given that consensus has quite often been wrong, you should also second guess yourself if your results point you to X. The whole point is exactly as you say, to "try anything", explore new ways of judging potential. To assume that anything that can be done has already been done or is being done by the consensus is rather lazy given that that's their only job. And if you're telling me that after all this the draft is still a crapshoot then the logical thing would be to sack the scouting department and just make our picks off of someone's blog.

Sure. But what is that "anything"?

It's easy to say that GMs should not follow the consensus, since consensus is often wrong, but be willing to "explore new ways" or "do something different" to hit the home run. There is no defined process for it of course.

And I'm pretty certain that that's often the case. Even last year, lot of folks didn't rate Tatum that highly (I remember some folks complaining that Kings had the 5th pick in a 4 deep draft), but Danny Ainge wanted to get Tatum, saw that he could snag him at 3, traded down, and got something extra. Of course, going against consensus can get you Papa as well, who is almost out of the league in 2 years.

 

[bajaden]

You’re imagining a world where information and judgment don’t go hand-in-hand in the establishment of consensus. You make your pick based on your judgment of the information available to you prior to a player’s drafting.

I don’t know who these hypothetical scouting swamis are that you’re expecting to divine something beyond what game tape, hard data, workouts, and interviews can tell you about an individual player, but it’s silly to believe that there’s some magical juju that will reveal a young player’s worth to a franchise. Every team scouts incoming players with the best information and judgment they can apply to the talent within reach of their draft pick.

It’s true enough that some teams value the scouting of young talent more than others, but that’s different from the scouting itself. It’s also true that some teams are better at developing young talent than others, but again, that’s different from the work of scouting.

The guy who drafts Kawhi Leonard at 15 looks like a genius, but that’s because Leonard massively outperformed expectations. Nobody could have determined what kind of player he would be prior to his drafting. And would he have developed into a star had he been drafted by the Kings? Or is the Spurs’ program simply better at fostering the development of young players? Unless you’ve got a crystal ball, there are simply limits to what a scouting team can accomplish.

That said, there are all kinds of ways that a team can convince themselves that they’ve got a secret sauce for evaluating diamonds in the rough, but you could just as easily draft an Anthony Bennett with that kind of arrogant mindset. Or a Jimmer Fredette or a Georgios Papagiannis, for that matter.

As I've said before, the hardest thing to judge is whats between a players ears. He can have all the tools in the tool box, and never live up to expectations. Or he can seemingly make a silk purse out of a sows ear with hard work. You never know what a player is going to do once he has that 5 or 6 mil in the bank for the first time in his life. To some it doesn't matter. They want to be great, and will work their tails off to get there. Others suddenly lose that desire to get up early and push themselves.

I loved Kawhi Leonard as a player and I knew he had all the tools to be a top defender in the NBA. But the question was, could he, would he be anything more than that? He already had a decent mid-range shot, but he had a very questionable 3 pt shot. As a result he slid down the draft boards and the Spurs got lucky. As far as consensus goes, the only consensus I see is with some of the draft boards. When it comes to talking to people that actually scout these players, you get a lot of different opinions, and very little consensus.

It's easy to sit back and criticize opinions, and at the end of the day, the decisions based on those opinions. But as someone posted earlier, what looks like a bad decision today, may look the opposite in four years. Four years later, Peja was no longer the who? The player whose name we can't remember, is the player everyone originally wanted, John Wallace.

 

[Smills91]

I’m digging the Doncic comp to Lonzo Ball. I think Doncic is going to have a strong defensive impact, like Ball. And I also think their basketball IQ is similar.

For some reason, people tend to discount basketball IQ and skill level when speaking of trends in the modern game. I worry that the analytic talk misses the forest for the trees. LeBron, Steph, Harden, Paul, KD, Iguadala, Love, Kyrie are all basketball geniuses and they inspire their teammates. Those guys use analytics to refine their game - but analytic played no role in those guys becoming instinctive, intuitive and quick reacting players.

To me, Doncic is a clear path to the Kings becoming a real team that shares the ball enthusiastically and has each others back. I can’t say the same thing for others in this draft.

Best post in this thread so far and has been some good posts overall.

Thats what I like best about Doncic. Creating a team environment where everyone is a capable and enthusiastic passer. Good passing teams win because they are hard to defend. The only reason I give any pause to Doncic is that I think rebounding is the next most critical aspect and thats where Bagley shines.

I don't think we can go wrong here at #2. Doncic, Bagley or Ayton are all solid and mostly safe picks. What I think this pick will determine is what type of team do these Sacramento Kings become. I think Doncic has the most 'infectious' potential to make this team a well rounded team and also fill the biggest positional need at SF.

Fox, Bogie, Doncic and Buddy with a BIG would be a really, really tough team to guard as they all shoot rather well and can pass the pelota. That excites me the most. But both Ayton and Bagley excite me for different reasons.

 

[Sac.1989]

Very valid points re Donic and playing off the ball. Doncic to me has to have the highest IQ of the group but how he fits in with us is to be determined. Similar to Bog; he can play the 1-3 positions.

Its pretty clear this pick will showcase what our future looks like as a blueprint.

If we pass on Doncic its clear we wanted Ayton and value a big man presence next to Giles. It also is a big vote of confidence to our current backcourt stocks in Fox, Buddy and Bog.

To me the safe pick is to add Doncic who with his age, body of work to date and IQ has a very high ceiling. If he can continue to develop off the ball then we have a highly formidable weapon. If he shows a stronger capacity to facilitate then Fox becomes expendable for future assets or to bring in a SF. If all works out your 1-3 features a very strong Fox, Bog and Doncic in the positionless basketball mold then everyone is trending towards.

That is if Doncic is available.

If PHX take him, i latch on to Ayton with both hands and feet and call it a day. Celebrations all around. A ready made big for the modern era. With our make up and supporting cast we are more or less set with the only glaring piece; continued development and ideally a SF to be sourced which wouldnt be an issue with our cap space and young developing trade chips.

Even if Doncic is available we could potentially follow this route/blueprint and add Bagley. I wouldnt personally let Doncic slip for reasons above but if Vlade has a certain vision for this team and doesnt want to move away from that, valuing the personnel we currently have then i can see him passing him up. Heaven help him when Doncic blows up but Vlade will do what Vlade does.

In summary i hope Vlade is thinking something along the lines of : Hopeful Ayton falls to us, if not take Doncic and let it work itself out, he will be a star (or take Bagley if im certain that Giles/Bagley is my long term go to and Fox, Bog, Hield are my backcourt for our run to the top).

 

[andjel]

We are good.

Consensus says Ayton or Doncic.

Baring very few views even on this board, if Suns pick Doncic, Ayton is clear cut.

If Suns pick Ayton:
Vlade has bias toward Doncic, values what he brings to the table (Europen bball culture, hi bball IQ, team oriented, safe pick).
There is no doubt in my mind if Vlade is torn between Doncic or anyone else that he would choose Doncic.
Hence if Vlade picks somebody else instead of Doncic, that person must be clearly better in Vlade's and team mind and I can live with that easily.

 

[ParniValjak]

Very valid points re Donic and playing off the ball. Doncic to me has to have the highest IQ of the group but how he fits in with us is to be determined. Similar to Bog; he can play the 1-3 positions.

Its pretty clear this pick will showcase what our future looks like as a blueprint.

If we pass on Doncic its clear we wanted Ayton and value a big man presence next to Giles. It also is a big vote of confidence to our current backcourt stocks in Fox, Buddy and Bog.

To me the safe pick is to add Doncic who with his age, body of work to date and IQ has a very high ceiling. If he can continue to develop off the ball then we have a highly formidable weapon. If he shows a stronger capacity to facilitate then Fox becomes expendable for future assets or to bring in a SF. If all works out your 1-3 features a very strong Fox, Bog and Doncic in the positionless basketball mold then everyone is trending towards.

That is if Doncic is available.

If PHX take him, i latch on to Ayton with both hands and feet and call it a day. Celebrations all around. A ready made big for the modern era. With our make up and supporting cast we are more or less set with the only glaring piece; continued development and ideally a SF to be sourced which wouldnt be an issue with our cap space and young developing trade chips.

Even if Doncic is available we could potentially follow this route/blueprint and add Bagley. I wouldnt personally let Doncic slip for reasons above but if Vlade has a certain vision for this team and doesnt want to move away from that, valuing the personnel we currently have then i can see him passing him up. Heaven help him when Doncic blows up but Vlade will do what Vlade does.

In summary i hope Vlade is thinking something along the lines of : Hopeful Ayton falls to us, if not take Doncic and let it work itself out, he will be a star (or take Bagley if im certain that Giles/Bagley is my long term go to and Fox, Bog, Hield are my backcourt for our run to the top).

I am not sure why people continue to think of Doncic as a PG. He played the PG this season out of necessity since Llull was out majority of the season with the ACL injury. Luka's off the ball game is very good. He is as comfortable off the ball as he is on it. He played mostly off the ball with the national team as Dragic was carrying most of the PG duties on the team.

Doncic will not play PG in the NBA. You are who you can guard in the NBA and there is no way in hell he can guard any of the quicker PGs in the league. IMHO, he will play as a SF who creates a lot for himself and others. He will be similar to Bogdan in the way he can play both on ball and off ball effectively. The thing that he needs to work on are his athletic attributes, defense, speed up his shot release, shooting coming off the pick and receiving a pass. His skills are very advanced so its a matter of fine tuning and mastering what he already has and adding little bits and pieces.