Race to the Bottom thread

The_Jamal said:
One caveat; the Wizards just shamelessly tanked. Took Kyshawn/Bub/Bilal all off the floor and Sarr sat with a mysterious illness. And to be somewhat fair to Doug, we literally closed the game with 2 2-way players who I can't recall really seeing the NBA floor this season.

Now the usage is incredibly stupid, absolutely. Devin also had a good rhythm going, perhaps for the first time this season and Doug pulls him... to close with Stevens and Plowden? Like what?
Click to expand...
I’m not going to be fair to Doug. My point is, as long as DDR and or Lavine are on the floor, our young players just swing the ball to these guys and watch iso ball. Like Joshy posted and you mentioned, 3 shots for Nique doesn’t really move the needle as far as evaluating. We are getting a good look at his defense but the other side? Not really
 
dude12 said:
I’m not going to be fair to Doug. My point is, as long as DDR and or Lavine are on the floor, our young players just swing the ball to these guys and watch iso ball. Like Joshy posted and you mentioned, 3 shots for Nique doesn’t really move the needle as far as evaluating. We are getting a good look at his defense but the other side? Not really
Click to expand...
That’s on Nique, he is deferring to the vets. He needs the cajones to shoot the ball.
 
Jdbraver137 said:
That’s on Nique, he is deferring to the vets. He needs the cajones to shoot the ball.
Click to expand...
Perhaps he is doing exactly what the coaching staff has instructed. Players do not act in a vacuum with 10+ staff members being paid to direct their actions. This is not playground ball...well, most of the time.
 
Insomniacal Fan said:
Here's a plot showing where the best player in the top 5 for every year was picked.

View attachment 14730

What this shows is that since 1985, the player in picks #2-#5 are about equally likely to be the best player in a class. And it's slightly more likely that the best player comes in picks 2-5 than #1.

Given how flat the curve is from 2-5, my interpretation of this is, that in the top 5 picks, once you get past the first pick; it all basically comes down to probability and noise, even for the professional front offices that hire scouts and people to work players out. If draft expertise was relevant, then you'd expect to see pick 2 have a higher count than pick 3, and so on, a downwards curve instead of a cliff and valley.
Click to expand...
Interesting data, but I read it differently. Knowing the chart doesn’t show the best player drafted just the best player of the top 5 (i.e. excluding SGA, Jokic, Giannis outliers), this tells me #1 correlates very strongly to getting the best player. It’s such a high probability, in any given draft a team would need to hold picks 2-4 to have an equal chance of selecting the best player as the team with the first pick.

We know there are exceptions like the weak drafts that had Bennett and Risacher #1. This year is a rare one where the top 3 would be selected #1 in any other draft that doesn’t include Wemby or LeBron, so there’s gonna be a lot of debate if Peterson, Dybantsa, or Boozer should be 1. These guys are seen as franchise changers. That said, the draft is so deep, a lot of players are viewed as having all-star talent
 
hrdboild said:
Which makes this all a rather pointless exercise in pedantry since the best we can guarantee ourselves is a 14% chance of the #1 pick even with the worst record in the league. We may go into the lottery with the 3rd best odds only to see the team with the 10th best odds pick #1. In which case we should have won more games, I guess? If we knew in advance what the lottery draw was going to be then we could position ourselves strategically into those spots. Instead all we're trying to do is mitigate the damage of a bad lottery draw which makes sense up to a point but not as much sense as just saying toss it all, I'm going to focus on scouting instead since that's how I actually can positively impact my draft outcome. Assuming we finish the season with one of the 5 worst records in the league we'd still have a far greater chance of picking 5-8 than we would of picking #1 so I will continue to argue that scouting is far more important than losing all of your games.

I find probability in general to be counter-productive to good decision making (no offense). I don't really want to go into detail why... but to be brief, I think probability assumes an outdated model of how the universe works that I personally disagree with. Summing up every pick ever made and showing the VORP distribution of those players strikes me as the most wrong-headed way a person could approach the draft. I suppose if basketball players were all exactly the same then there might be something to this but we're not just rolling dice here, what we're doing is closer to a logic puzzle: (Player X at 17 years old => Player X at 18 years old => Player X at 19 years old => ??) If you were to spend your time watching basketball players you could start to identify what qualities the successful NBA players have in common and what qualities the unsuccessful NBA players have in common. That would lead to a dataset which might actually be useful and more importantly it would force you to formulate a testable hypothesis and ultimately a theory which can be used to guide your decision making.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps it’s not one or the other. The best organizations use historical data and facts to inform their decisions while also having experts project success through their own scouting analysis. This year’s draft has 3 consensus franchise changers and a bunch of all-star talent. If we can get a top 3 pick, you all of a sudden can change the trajectory of your franchise like the Spurs and Pistons were able to do with Wemby and Cade. Sure, if we get a top 3, that pick may be a dud like Bagley was, but it’s a much higher likelihood of helping you get out of purgatory than not. Ideally, you also have great scouts like the Rockets do and are able to identify talents like Sengun and Eason, to offset some guys who haven’t quite translated their draft position to the success expected like Jabari Smith. But this should all be complementary.

Where you get stuck in mediocrity is when you draft an all-star talent and believe he’s a franchise changer in spite of clear flaws. We can’t fall into a trap of thinking guys like Deaaron Fox will translate to cosistent winning and playoff success unless you surround him with talent that will hide those flaws
 
The_Jamal said:
One caveat; the Wizards just shamelessly tanked. Took Kyshawn/Bub/Bilal all off the floor and Sarr sat with a mysterious illness. And to be somewhat fair to Doug, we literally closed the game with 2 2-way players who I can't recall really seeing the NBA floor this season.

Now the usage is incredibly stupid, absolutely. Devin also had a good rhythm going, perhaps for the first time this season and Doug pulls him... to close with Stevens and Plowden? Like what?
Click to expand...

I just don't think Doug pulled Devin to tank. He's been the last man on the bench all season and wasn't really cooking or anything in that game. Still played below average overall. I think Doug is really just that poor of a coach.

Fortunately/Unfortunately Zach and DDR are so bad, they can't even will their team to victory against a blatantly tanking G League team. Does not bode well for teams being interested in trading for them but it does bode well for our draft odds.
 
ESP47 said:
I just don't think Doug pulled Devin to tank. He's been the last man on the bench all season and wasn't really cooking or anything in that game. Still played below average overall. I think Doug is really just that poor of a coach.

Fortunately/Unfortunately Zach and DDR are so bad, they can't even will their team to victory against a blatantly tanking G League team. Does not bode well for teams being interested in trading for them but it does bode well for our draft odds.
Click to expand...

I think his 2nd half stint was pretty easily the best he's played all year. Finally started finding a groove, was being active on defense, had the huge breakaway dunk. It wasn't a massive breakout or anything, but it remains frustrating that the guy FINALLY gets some extended minutes, plays well... and has to watch Plowden and Stevens close over him.

His 1H was him being very tentative. Like a guy that's looking over his shoulder and afraid to make a mistake because he gets 1 or 2 stints of 3-4 minutes a month. Again, everyone's made a bunch of determinations about Carter when the org hasn't even put him in a position to say whether he's a bust or not.
 
The_Jamal said:
I think his 2nd half stint was pretty easily the best he's played all year. Finally started finding a groove, was being active on defense, had the huge breakaway dunk. It wasn't a massive breakout or anything, but it remains frustrating that the guy FINALLY gets some extended minutes, plays well... and has to watch Plowden and Stevens close over him.

His 1H was him being very tentative. Like a guy that's looking over his shoulder and afraid to make a mistake because he gets 1 or 2 stints of 3-4 minutes a month. Again, everyone's made a bunch of determinations about Carter when the org hasn't even put him in a position to say whether he's a bust or not.
Click to expand...

Yeah definitely frustrating to watch those guys get minutes over him. Also frustrating to think about how his minutes will probably go back to close to zero when Westbrook is back.

He looks like a possible bust but so does Nique and for some reason the franchise thinks Nique has a higher ceiling than DC does. Would be nice to just get these guys in a situation where they can gain experience and sink or swim instead of standing around watching DDR, Zach and Monk spam shots all game.
 
GWD said:
Perhaps he is doing exactly what the coaching staff has instructed. Players do not act in a vacuum with 10+ staff members being paid to direct their actions. This is not playground ball...well, most of the time.
Click to expand...
Come on bro. I guarantee they aren’t telling him not to shoot when you are open or drive into the paint. Russ does it all the time!
 
I think a couple of forum members are not realizing how bad Christie is. DC has created a poor environment for some of these players, namely the younger ones. I’ll go back to Mike Brown who would get on players for not shooting the ball when the shot is there……how great it was for a player to hear, shoot the ball.

Christie on the other hand does none of this. What we are seeing are the young guards just dumping the ball to the vets. Carter damn near refusing to shoot early because he’s getting jerked around. It’s a crapty environment for a young player. This is on Doug Christie
 
If the deadline passes and we still have the Bullz Bros, and Christie is still giving them 40+ shots per game, I'll break out the pitchfork. Right now I think the showcasing excuse is valid.

What we should worry about is the actual value of "showcasing" that those dweebs can put up 30+ each and still lose to the Wizards' B team. We'll be lucky for 2nd rounders at this point.
 
Joshyjosh31 said:
My statement Noor the tweet said anything about ping pong balls or the lottery
Click to expand...
Let's put this bold claim to the test...

Joshyjosh31 said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/2018168450489958666
Click to expand...
A clear (as day) indication that the Wizards need to land a top 4 pick in the draft in order to maintain their pick.

Joshyjosh31 said:
I worry about Utah I already know Washington will be bottom three
Click to expand...
If your claim that this statement said nothing about ping pong balls or the lottery, then what exactly does "bottom three" mean here???
 
QWERTYLICIOUS said:
Let's put this bold claim to the test...


A clear (as day) indication that the Wizards need to land a top 4 pick in the draft in order to maintain their pick.


If your claim that this statement said nothing about ping pong balls or the lottery, then what exactly does "bottom three" mean here???
Click to expand...

Bottom three record the tweet literally says they need to be bottom three for them to ensure they don’t lose the pick. I don’t know how you get someone predicting lottery balls from that
 
Joshyjosh31 said:
Bottom three record the tweet literally says they need to be bottom three for them to ensure they don’t lose the pick. I don’t know how you get someone predicting lottery balls from that
Click to expand...
Dude, tf are you talking about? Since when are trades involving draft picks made based on the team's overall record at the end of the regular season, and not their position in the lottery?

The Wizards need to land a top 4 pick in the draft, plain and simple. This has nothing to do with their record. If they finish with the 2nd worst record in the league, and drop all the way to 5th when the ping pong balls are drawn, they lose their pick.
 
ESP47 said:
I just don't think Doug pulled Devin to tank. He's been the last man on the bench all season and wasn't really cooking or anything in that game. Still played below average overall. I think Doug is really just that poor of a coach.

Fortunately/Unfortunately Zach and DDR are so bad, they can't even will their team to victory against a blatantly tanking G League team. Does not bode well for teams being interested in trading for them but it does bode well for our draft odds.
Click to expand...

Devin has had legit on off numbers from day 1. He was partly drafted because of the "winning plays" stuff. It's real, and it was happening. He did play a full stretch between that period but he wasn't looking tired. His rusty 1st half on both ends was gone by that late stretch. He was making plays on defense , getting into the paint, and getting his teammates good looks.
 
SacTownKid said:
Devin has had legit on off numbers from day 1. He was partly drafted because of the "winning plays" stuff. It's real, and it was happening. He did play a full stretch between that period but he wasn't looking tired. His rusty 1st half on both ends was gone by that late stretch. He was making plays on defense , getting into the paint, and getting his teammates good looks.
Click to expand...

I thought he had some momentum last year but Perry and Christie completely derailed it this year and he's obviously taken a step back from where he was.

I saw that he was playing better during his second stint last night as well but I didn't think he was playing well enough to cause Christie to have to pull him for fear of him being the difference in winning or not.

Would be nice to see what he could do with 30mpg to finish the season. I have a feeling his shooting efficiency will get better but continue to be bad. He will pack the stat sheet with rebounds, assists, steals and blocks. Question is will he be the guard version of Cardwell where his positives slightly outweigh his negatives? Won't know until we find out but I don't know if this franchise has any interest in finding out.
 
Tizzy Flip said:
Or perhaps it’s not one or the other. The best organizations use historical data and facts to inform their decisions while also having experts project success through their own scouting analysis. This year’s draft has 3 consensus franchise changers and a bunch of all-star talent. If we can get a top 3 pick, you all of a sudden can change the trajectory of your franchise like the Spurs and Pistons were able to do with Wemby and Cade. Sure, if we get a top 3, that pick may be a dud like Bagley was, but it’s a much higher likelihood of helping you get out of purgatory than not. Ideally, you also have great scouts like the Rockets do and are able to identify talents like Sengun and Eason, to offset some guys who haven’t quite translated their draft position to the success expected like Jabari Smith. But this should all be complementary.

Where you get stuck in mediocrity is when you draft an all-star talent and believe he’s a franchise changer in spite of clear flaws. We can’t fall into a trap of thinking guys like Deaaron Fox will translate to cosistent winning and playoff success unless you surround him with talent that will hide those flaws
Click to expand...

Well for instance, I'm less enamored with the top 3 consensus players than most are this year and hope we're picking #4 and take Caleb Wilson. I also think Bagley being a "dud" was entirely predictable before that draft because I predicted it. Those posts are all still there in the prospects forum somewhere. I just don't believe in this concept that the consensus is generally right, that talent evaluation is rocky at best, and that players are who they are independent of the team that selects them and how they intend to use them. Yes the process of comng to these conclusions is complicated but not to the point where it is unsolvable.
 
Insomniacal Fan said:
That may be true, perhaps front offices are systematically hiring professionals and ignoring them. Seems to me that anyone who can consistently rank #2-#5 better than random can make a good case for getting some of that talent evaluator money. (And if you're wrong, the public will blame your boss. What a sweet gig!)

Another analogy, hooray. I don't know the movie business, but it seems like even if you make the producer wear a blindfold and throw darts at the board to pick movies, the problems are still structurally different. The NBA draft is a limited number of discrete choices to fill a limited number of roster spots, compared to a near infinite continuum of possibilities for how to divide a budget amongst movie projects. What's the value of the analogy? Why can't we just talk about the thing that we're talking about? (Movie making isn't inherently more transparent than basketball roster management)


I think there is a valid criticism of my approach buried in there, in that I assume that teams are attempting to draft the "best player available", when instead they might be motivated to find the "best fit." I make no assertions on the value of expertise for the "best fit" approach, it seems like a much more complex problem, beyond the basic statistical approach I'm using.

But since I'm focusing on the top 5 draft picks, and since most of the BPAs end up in the top 5, I think it's likely that decision makers are at least trying to get BPA in that domain. I have less confidence in this assumption for later draft picks.
---
I don't think the absence of draft expertise is a new, modern phenomena either, even if you bucket picks by era, the graphs still look pretty silly.

View attachment 14735


View attachment 14737View attachment 14736

That still looks like noise to me. Perhaps in the 21st century we've narrowed it down to the top 4.

Again, it doesn't mean there's no expertise; it takes a lot of skill to be able to hit the dart board (picking the top 5). But on average, teams are not calling their shots any tighter than that. Anyone claiming otherwise can probably make some money with that knowledge somehow.
Click to expand...

In response to talent evaluators, just like anything else in life it seems to me that the standard for who gets a job is rarely who is the most qualified. We've seen a lot of Kings front offices blow a lot of draft picks. A poorly run organization may be hiring the wrong people, not listening to them, failing to provide them the resources needed for them to do their jobs effectively, etc. Probably all of the above.

You are using a statistical model to grade an end product (VORP) which makes no account of anything that happens between the draft and the sum total of a player's career. Obviously the situations are different but what is the same about the draft model you've proposed and the hypothetical production studio scenario I proposed as an analogy is what I am intending to communicate to you. If you have a statistical model which takes point A and point Z and eliminates everything in between as irrelevant, I feel personally that I cannot determine anything useful from that model. You also seem dismissive of the concept of an analogy in general. It's simply a rhetorical tool to communicate a concept without getting bogged down in trying to first agree on all of the relevant terminology involved. I'm not going to try to use the terminology of statistical analysis with you because I don't know the definitions of those words precisely enough not to bungle them.

The concept of "best player available" is itself a misleading phrase. In order to know that definitively you would have to know the future. Ah, but you say, we do know the future! At least in regard to players from past drafts, right? No we don't. We know one small slice of it -- what happens when each player is drafted to one particular team. That makes up a tiny percentage of the possible outcomes. I would call that statistically insignificant in relation to the percentages of possible outcomes which are not represented. And that's what you're basing all of your data on. We say we want the BPA but since we're talking about players who then need to be part of a team, their fit is always relevant to outcome. Tyrese Haliburton, for instance, may finish his career as the best player by VORP from the 2020 draft. Your model would credit the Kings for drafting him even though nearly all of his career will have been played somewhere else. Why would a team trade a player they deemed BPA in the draft less than 2 years into his career? Roster balance, a desire to compete sooner, maximizing the value of another player who plays the same position. In short: fit.

"But since I'm focusing on the top 5 draft picks, and since most of the BPAs end up in the top 5, I think it's likely that decision makers are at least trying to get BPA in that domain. I have less confidence in this assumption for later draft picks."
Click to expand...

This reads to me like you're just assuming your own conclusion. If I'm picking at #6 what do I care that most BPA are picked in the top 5? I'm not interested in most, I'm interested in who do I pick at #6. I get that this whole exercise is meant to point out that according to you if I'm not picking at #1-5 then I'm more or less screwed. Or at least I think that's what this was about. I think what it actually shows is that NBA teams on average are pretty good about determining who the top 5 most talented players are in a given draft year if not the precise order. And the typical talent distribution of a single draft class is such that the remaining 55 players taken are much more dependent on the fit situation in order to find success in the NBA. So if I were a front office executive, I would spend my time and energy focusing on what I can control which is: (1) the process I'm using to determine who will succeed in my team situation both in the immediate future and long-term and (2) all of the other factors which make up that team situation in the first place.
 
QWERTYLICIOUS said:
Dude, tf are you talking about? Since when are trades involving draft picks made based on the team's overall record at the end of the regular season, and not their position in the lottery?

The Wizards need to land a top 4 pick in the draft, plain and simple. This has nothing to do with their record. If they finish with the 2nd worst record in the league, and drop all the way to 5th when the ping pong balls are drawn, they lose their pick.
Click to expand...
You do know you are incorrect?

The Jazz’s pick and the Wizard’s picks are top 8 protected which means if they are in the bottom 4 seeds the worst they can end up post lottery is 8. (4 + 4). Jazz and Wiz (as we saw) are going to tank hard to get in the top 4 seeds.
 
Last edited:
sactowndog said:
You do know you are incorrect?

The Jazz’s pick and the Wizard’s picks are top 8 protected which means if they are in the bottom 4 seeds the worst they can end up post lottery is 8. (4 + 4). Jazz and Wiz (as we saw) are going to tank hard to get in the top 4 seeds.
Click to expand...
Hmmm...I could've sworn that I read somewhere that the Wizards' pick is only top 4 protected. But, after additional due diligence, I can confirm that my initial post was incorrect, and the Wizards and Jazz both have top 8 protected picks. So, thank you @sactowndog for keeping me honest...:).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top