NewArena
All-Star
lmao no wayHonestly, I think if GM's were polled, they would take Doncic over the combo of Fox + Bagley.
3 games and you're all getting carried away
lmao no wayHonestly, I think if GM's were polled, they would take Doncic over the combo of Fox + Bagley.
It's actually sixty-two games, but perhaps still premature.lmao no way
3 games and you're all getting carried away
What I am saying is that declaring a player to be a bad NBA pick, before seeing him play in the NBA, is a biased statement. The only thing that can actually tell you what a player will look like in the NBA is playing in the NBA. Any projections based on anything other than that are, at best, a semi-educated guess. Granted, there are many people in the sports business who are paid exorbitant sums of money, based on their ability to make educated guesses, but that doesn't mean that their guesses aren't rooted in biases.
More to the point, I don't subscribe to the belief that a pick is bad, just because you could have gotten a better player. The Kings passing on Kawhi Leonard to get Jimmer Fredette wasn't a bad pick because Kawhi Leonard is great, it was a bad pick because Jimmer Fredette is bad. Likewise, the Kings passing on Damian Lillard to draft Thomas Robinson wasn't a bad pick because Damian Lillard is great, it was a bad pick because Thomas Robinson is bad. Is Marvin Bagley bad? It doesn't seem so, but it's too soon to tell, either way. If Bagley turns out to be a great player, then he wasn't a bad pick, even if Doncic is better.
Now, bigs tend to have a steeper learning curve than wings (see also: Andre Drummond, Jusuf Nurkic, Nikola Jokic), so I'm not prepared to call Bagley a bad pick...
but, in the interest of full disclosure, I also don't have any "skin" in the "game," and it's not going to mean anything to me, even if he is one. I remain more interested in the macro conversation of whether someone can be retroactively declared objective, because an initially biased opinion ended up being validated by future events? I don't think that it can, but you appear to disagree.
Remember when everyone laughed at me when we went through the draft and I had Trae Young as a future superstar? hehe.. I knew it! He is a very vocal leader and will not get shy if he misses shots. He will keep shooting!. I know this is a Doncic thread, but those were the two players I was looking at. Doncic and Young (because at that time I was not impressed with Fox at all).
I was dead wrong on Young. Good call.
Draft is close so might as well try to put these prospects in order and in tiers
Tier1
1. Doncic
-Most important skill in todays Nba is shot creating for himself and others. Most important position is wing. Doncic is an elite playmaker, he will destroy traditional pick n roll coverage every time, he is actually very elite pick n roll ball handler. Pick n roll is also the most common way of creating offense. All in all its just a no brainer.
Tier2
2. Porter
-Porter being #2 would require a full go from team doctors regarding his back. All in all very risky pick, a lot of unknowns but there just isnt a lot of 6'11 wings with his skillset. Good shooter, very good off the dribble, very good shooting contested shots, good athlete, can finish at the rim some, can catch lobs, has some defensive potential as a weak side blocker. Again, very risky but the upside is just very good. Wouldnt be comfortable taking him top 2 without all the available info on his injury and potential future injury risk ect. Very hard to evaluate but since I dont have his medical records, I have to assume he is the same player as he was in high school.
3. Jackson jr.
Elite defender which is the most important skill for a center, showed some real defensive instincts in college and didnt just dominate with athletisism. Can switch about everything and thats extreamely valuable in todays Nba. Not an offensive force but can hit spot up and pick n pop threes and that increases his value over guys like Bagley. Not an elite rebounder. Almost 100% guaranteed valuable productive player in the Nba but very small chance of becoming a superstar.
4. Tre Young
Again, most important skills in todays Nba: Shot creation for himself and others. Young is good at both of those and has a chance of being elite in creating for himself. He is able to hit shots with consistency that most of the Nba players cant. He is also a great passer and assist rate usually translates very well from college to Nba (his assist rate was great).
Forcing teams to hard hedge or switch every pick n roll including him as a ball handler is extreamely valuable and will boost the team offense a lot. Defensively a big liability so he is only 4th and tier 2 on my board. Offensive upside is just so big and on top of the draft I value a potential offensive game changers a lot. A lot more superstar potential than JJJ but also much bigger bust potential so hes ranked #4 behind JJJ
5. Ayton
Hard to decide between him and Young at 4 or 5 but positional value puts Young ahead of Ayton. To me Ayton is a guy who will put up big box score numbers and will definetly boost the teams offense but defensive liability as a center havent been the recipe for succes in this league. On the top of the draft I want players that are able to contribute at the highest level of competition and I'm not seeing a probable path on Ayton being a best player or 2nd best player on a conference finals team. If he had shown even little bit more defensive instincts, I would be more confident with him but unfortunately that wasnt the case. Will probably be a little overrated for his whole career. Big (empty) stats on a bad team kind of player.
Tier3 i dont want to spend too much energy on. It would be something like Bamba, Bagley, Mikal Bridges, Miles Bridges, Carter. Bamba has a lot of upside because of his measurements and athletic testing, both Bridges are more pieces of already good team altough very valuable pieces (3&d wings so a premium position). Bagley is more of a gamble with higher upside and lower floor. Carter is a solid player but not enough upside for me to pick a center top 5-top10
There isn’t a person outside of Kings’ nation who would choose Fox over Luka. And those Kings fans who would are wearing the anti-depression blinders.
Vlade really ****ed up if the NYK rumors of offering Porzingis for Fox are true. We could’ve had a core of Luka/Buddy/Bogi/Porzingis
Or get this? We could have had Fox and Doncic.
Remember when everyone laughed at me when we went through the draft and I had Trae Young as a future superstar? hehe.. I knew it! He is a very vocal leader and will not get shy if he misses shots. He will keep shooting!. I know this is a Doncic thread, but those were the two players I was looking at. Doncic and Young (because at that time I was not impressed with Fox at all).
This seems like a spectacular misinterpretation of what I wrote. I'm just not sure whether it was a willful misinterpretation, or not?Well then its probably better to just close all these draft topics in this forum. No reason to speculate or form (educated) opinions if the official doctrine in here is that you cant know anything until they have played in the Nba.
Are you trying to misinterpret my post this hard, on purpose, because I thought that I was clear with my meaning, and what you appear to think I said is not what I said. What I said was that people can, and have, formed opinions rooted in personal biases, and that if future events validate their biased opinions, that doesn't mean that their opinions were objective, the whole time. What you appear to be getting out of that is I think that everybody who thought that Doncic was better before the draft was biased, but that's neither what I meant, nor what I actually said.So is the argument still that you cant be objective about this situation if pre draft you were saying that Luka should be the pick? If thats your argument, IMO it doesnt make any sense. If you had a strong argument for your opinion pre draft that proved to be right post draft, that doesnt make you biased or unobjective. IMO basing your opinion on facts and data available is objective.
Posters like @tyguy are exactly why I question some posters' objectivity. I consider his analysis to be a textbook example of the abuse of numerical data. Numbers, as they say, don't lie, but they can be manipulated to either prove or disprove just about anything, and I truly believe that @tyguy is someone whom staked out his position, and then worked backwards from there to find the data that supported what he'd already made up his mind to believe.Im not buying that bigs take more time than others. If I remember correctly @tyguy had some analysis on that. I would say that point guards or other ball handling creators take usually a year to be effective, for example Fox was one if the worst in advanced metrics in his rookie year.
Or get this? We could have had Fox and Doncic.
Hold your horses, Fox runs very fast and Doncic doesn't run very fast so they couldn't play together.
Not to mention you’d still have Giles too.Vlade really ****ed up if the NYK rumors of offering Porzingis for Fox are true. We could’ve had a core of Luka/Buddy/Bogi/Porzingis
29/12/9 (but an L)
Meh
“Ridiculous numbers” poor shooting and another loss? Would we really care about his numbers if we were still losing at the same time? lol
Yay, i guess.
I remain more interested in the macro conversation of whether someone can be retroactively declared objective, because an initially biased opinion ended up being validated by future events? I don't think that it can, but you appear to disagree.
He shot poorly too from the field but that's the nice thing about Luka.......even on poor shooting nights and losses he still puts up ridiculous numbers.
Dallas is still short one guy. I think in today's NBA you have to have 3 top-tier players to succeed and they only have 2 (Luka and Porzingis) and then a substantial dropoff.
I agree, objectivity does not require correctness. The question is, does "correctness" confer, with it, ex post facto objectivity?Biased opinions* are by definition not objective. Furthermore, objectivity does not require correctness.
Well, it turns out that "questions with 'trivial' answers" tend to be the ones of most interest to me.Therefore, the question posed has a trivial answer.
Remember when everyone laughed at me when we went through the draft and I had Trae Young as a future superstar? hehe.. I knew it! He is a very vocal leader and will not get shy if he misses shots. He will keep shooting!. I know this is a Doncic thread, but those were the two players I was looking at. Doncic and Young (because at that time I was not impressed with Fox at all).
I agree, objectivity does not require correctness. The question is, does "correctness" confer, with it, ex post facto objectivity?
^^^^ Well then, now that we agree on that, that brings us back to the question: was everyone who was pro-Doncic before the draft basing their opinion on objective data alone? Because I'm willing to stipulate that some were, but I'm not remotely convinced that all of them were. Or, quite frankly, even that a statistical majority of them were. I certainly don't believe that the loudest, most obnoxious ones were; I'm sure that they found the correct data to support their position, but people who are that invested in being acknowledged for being right don't make stands rooted in objectivity.
Don't forget he's unathletic.Silly me, how could I ever forget this absolute fact.
Don't forget he's unathletic.
Wow that's a team...please don't do that to me.Not to mention you’d still have Giles too.
PG - ??? / Ferrell
SG - Hield / Bogdanovic
SF - Doncic / Bogdanovic
PF - ??? / Bjelica
C - Porzingis / Giles
You’d definitely need some great defenders at PG (Brogdon, Beverley) and PF (Aminu) to help the perimeter defense but that would be a great looking team.
The shooting/spacing would be unreal though with Brogdon, Hield, Bogdanovic, Doncic, Bjelica, Aminu, and Porzingis. My lord...