With the 13th pick, the Phoenix Suns select...

[3rdside]

It's not grading posters - and it doesn't need to be an annual competition either, it would be like a power ranking developed over time, based on evidence. Part of the problem I've experienced in my career is that you come across people and bosses that sound credible...but couldn't organise a booze up in a brewery...The point of the exercise is to get around that; the sound bites, and into actual quantifiable talent assessment.

Not sure if you know but a guy was hired to manage a professional football club in Europe based solely on his ability with a computer football simulation game called Championship Manager in 2012 (and he's still doing it). The article below also talks about computer car game drivers being called in to trial for actual car racing companies:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...Manager-Vugar-Huseynzade-got-FC-Baku-job.html


These are extreme events of course but the point is, talent is what it's all about, not just sounding like you know what you're talking about. And if we can draw out the talent on this board that's surely a good thing; we'd no longer have to rely on someone's good grammar or logical arguments to determine if they have any talent when it comes to assessing a player's ability.

Of course, it may just be that those who come across as more credible do have better ability to assess potential draft picks based on their perceived intellect, but the point is, prove it. As elindholm said, he sucks at predicting draft prospects even though he's just about the smartest guy here (a national maths prodigy if I'm not mistaken) - so who on this board is 'not so credible' that we should be listening to?

If nothing else I'd like to assess how good I am for my own record matched up against others here - saying maker is worthy of the number #13 pick, that bender shouldn't be top #5 pick also...am I right or am I deluded? What do you think? If you think I'm wrong why should I believe you?

The stats - built up over years - would go some way to solving that problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Errntknght]

I like the idea... heck, I depend you guys that watch college basketball talking about and discussing the players to have any idea what they're like at all. Draft Express videos help some, but the player they're focusing on never misses a shot or never makes it in a 'weaknesses' vid. Out of character this year, I watched a Kentucky game and thought we ought to just draft the whole dang team.

If we did this, I would learn over time who to pay attention to and who to take with a grain of salt... maybe... The fly in the ointment is that it takes several years to know who was a successful pick and who wasn't and even then there'd be little unanimity as to how good the guy was. If we're ever looking for a single metric to rate the guys witn I suggest playing time per year - its not ideal but at least a person who's job depends on getting it right is making the decision to put him on the floor or not.

 

[AzStevenCal]

It's not grading posters - and it doesn't need to be an annual competition either, it would be like a power ranking developed over time, based on evidence. Part of the problem I've experienced in my career is that you come across people and bosses that sound credible...but couldn't organise a booze up in a brewery...The point of the exercise is to get around that; the sound bites, and into actual quantifiable talent assessment.

Sorry but that's grading posters, no two ways about it. It's no skin off my nose whether you do this or not but you absolutely are talking about trying to judge the quality of a poster. And I'll say again, I think you underestimate the logistics.

 

[Mainstreet]

The problem with predicting draft picks in advance, it doesn't take into account that the draft is a live ongoing process and what players are available at each slot. What teams think about certain players based upon private scouting reports, team workouts and interviews. I know mock drafts are done all the time but except for the top picks, it only shows a range where players should be selected. I think this is about the best posters can do as well so it doesn't make anyone a draft guru.

 

[sunsfan88]

The problem with predicting draft picks in advance, it doesn't take into account that the draft is a live ongoing process and what players are available at each slot. What teams think about certain players based upon private scouting reports, team workouts and interviews. I know mock drafts are done all the time but except for the top picks, it only shows a range where players should be selected. I think this is about the best posters can do as well so it doesn't make anyone a draft guru.

You have it wrong. I don't think 3rdside is trying to see who can get the most mock drafts right, he's trying to see who can predict the success that these college players will have in the NBA.

It's not for mock drafts, it's for college player success in the NBA.

 

[Mainstreet]

You have it wrong. I don't think 3rdside is trying to see who can get the most mock drafts right, he's trying to see who can predict the success that these college players will have in the NBA.

It's not for mock drafts, it's for college player success in the NBA.

When fans or anyone are doing NBA mock drafts they are trying to predict future player success in the league.

Predicting player success in the NBA is inexact at best. All one has to do is look at past NBA draft results beyond the early picks to realize how tough it is to predict player success. There are even misses on the early picks. Scouts and GMs spend countless hours of watching players and studying film. Even they get it wrong sometimes.

As for me, I come to the Suns forum to discuss the Suns and talk basketball.

 

[AzStevenCal]

When fans or anyone are doing NBA mock drafts they are trying to predict future player success in the league.

Predicting player success in the NBA is inexact at best. All one has to do is look at past NBA draft results beyond the early picks to realize how tough it is to predict player success. There are even misses on the early picks. Scouts and GMs spend countless hours of watching players and studying film. Even they get it wrong sometimes.

As for me, I come to the Suns forum to discuss the Suns and talk basketball.

Yes and it's because it's part analysis and it's part guesswork. And for some players, it's far more guesswork than analysis. You never know when a player will approach the game like a Jerome James, Tim Thomas or Rony Seikaly - where the paycheck is really all that matters. Until they get that payday, it's usually no more than a stab in the dark. Sometimes there are signs along the way but sometimes not, it's like trying to guess which 18 year olds will have a real problem with alcohol when they grow out of their youth.

 

[sunsfan88]

When fans or anyone are doing NBA mock drafts they are trying to predict future player success in the league.

Predicting player success in the NBA is inexact at best. All one has to do is look at past NBA draft results beyond the early picks to realize how tough it is to predict player success. There are even misses on the early picks. Scouts and GMs spend countless hours of watching players and studying film. Even they get it wrong sometimes.

As for me, I come to the Suns forum to discuss the Suns and talk basketball.

Of course I think most people would get it wrong than they would right. Especially fans because fans don't spend most of the their time looking at draftees film and interviewing them and not at their private workouts and such like pro scouts and GMs. However, it would be interesting to know how many of the draftees we could guess right in their success in the league.

I don't think 3rdside is suggesting it to be something mandatory for everyone to do...it's an optional thing for each and every poster to do if they want. It's the off season so not like there's all that much to discuss anyways.

 

[ColdPickleNachos]

I'll go on record. Why not?

Guys I want the Suns to take at 4:
1. Dragan Bender
2. Jamal Murray

Guys I want the Suns to take at 13:
1. Henry Ellenson
2. Domantas Sabonis
3. Denzel Valentine

Overrated:
1. Jaylen Brown
2. Wade Baldwin
3. Jakob Poeltl

Sleepers:
1. Deandre Bembry
2. Tyler Ulis
3. Ante Zizic

 

[JCSunsfan]

OK. I will bite

Players I want at #4: Bender (but scared of this one), Hield, Murray
Players at #13: Sabonis, Labissiere
Overrated, do not want: Poetl, Dunn, Luwawu
Sleepers: gp2, Ulis, Brice Johnson

 

[3rdside]

A couple points I think need mentioning:

1. Steve - it is a ranking of course, but it's not other poster's determining your rank, it's you; you pick the right players, your power ranking goes up based on the skill (in theory, more on this below) you've exhibited. Important difference.


2. Because none of us is actually getting a full view of a player i.e. we're not meeting them, seeing them play in person, don't have the time to analyse the stats etc I have my doubts whether, if any 'talent spotting' patterns do emerge, it could actually be called skill. I'm guessing for most, if not all, on this board we check out the mock drafts, check out videos, see who everyone else is talking about, read articles from professional journalists and form our opinion based on this i.e. it's secondary research - someone who starts to take the lead in the power ranking might simply be the best researcher, rather than having any primary talent spotting skills.

However:

i) The same results would still apply - the better researcher should still be listened to if he's getting the results.
ii) If someone consistently picks sleepers like Marc Gasol / Cedric Ceballos (Both of them Rd 2, #48), Manu Ginobilli (Rd 2 #58), George Gervin #48 - interesting that the Suns picked 2 of the best sleepers of all time - then that, I think, could be considered talent spotting. Good luck with these ones though as you'll have more time than me to sift through the details.


3. Further to the above, an encyclopaedic knowledge of a player still often isn't enough to predict future success because success is more often than not down to the mind e.g. no one could have predicted the greek freak's transformation from physically talented to possible MVP. This quote from Slam about his transformation says it about him best: “Whereas before it was like ‘Wow, golly gee, I’m lucky to be here.’ And now he was like, ‘I want this to be my team.’”

Read more at http://www.slamonline.com/nba/freak...re-story-milwaukee-bucks/#WkC7zwhUwto7Is2Z.99).

So you could argue that talent prediction, with or without primary research is just a crap shoot. Who here would bet any significant money on which of Murray, Dunn or Hield will turn out to be the best?

But in saying that, it also implies that the entire lottery is a crap shoot, and it most definitely isn't - if you were to rank Ellenson, Sabonis and Labissiere I think a lot more people would feel more confident in making a bet (the Murray / Dunn / Hield scenario is a slightly unusual situation I think as they could all realistically be gone by the 6th pick if you believe the mocks.


4. In terms of logistics, if everyone just selects whoever they like out of the 60 players that get drafted then yes it will be difficult. But if it we limited it to a select number of players, probably refined by position in the draft and position on the court, then that reduces the difficulty. And if we're in a non-draft year then we'll be paying less attention so would reduce the number of players to rate. Post to follow with a first attempt at how it might work.

 

[3rdside]

Trying to be both thorough, logistically manageable and easy to understand - not so easy as i've found out - this is how I envision the 'NBA Draft Power Rankings' to work (noting that everything written below open to feedback and suggestion and that input on player 'groupings' has come from DraftExpress and NBADraft.net, mainly the former):



Of the groups of players below, rank the individual players within the group in order of expected career success


Group 1 - Franchise Players
Simmons
Ingram


Group 2 - High Lottery Guards
Murray
Dunn
Hield


Group 3 - High Lottery PF's
Bender
Chriss


Group 4 - Later Lottery PF's
Ellenson
Labissiere
Sabonis


Group 5 - Lottery Busts
Pick 2 players from Draft Express's lottery who are 'busts' (i.e if the draft were redone in the future they would definitely not feature in it)


Group 6 - Non Lottery / First Round
i) Pick 1 player from Draft Express's 15 - 22 who will become a 'good' player (good meaning approximately 6th man standard or better)
ii) Pick 1 player from Draft Express's 23 - 30 who will become a 'good' player (good meaning approximately 6th man standard or better)


Group 7 - Second Round
Pick 2 players from Draft Express's 31+ who will become 'good' players (good meaning approximately 6th man standard or better)




Point scoring:

Using Group 2 as an example - Murray, Dunn, Hield

If that's the order they finish in for the period i.e. Murray is the 'best' player, Dunn the 'second best', Hield the 'third best', points would be allocated like this depending on how you picked the order:

Murray, Dunn, Hield - 5 points (all three in the correct order)
Murray, Hield, Dunn - 3 points (two players out of order, each by 1 spot only, best player correct)
Dunn, Murray, Hield - 2 points (two players out of order, each by 1 spot only, best player not correct)
Hield, Murray, Dunn - 1 points (3 players out of order, one by 2 spots, best player by one spot only)
Hield, Dunn, Murray - 1 points (2 players out of order, two of them by two spots including best player)
Dunn, Hield, Murray - 1 points (3 players out of order, one of them by 2 spots including best player)

- If all three are equal then it's 3 points.
- If two players tie then it's the same score indicated above depending on who ties and what your order is.


Using Group 1 as an example - Simmons, Ingram

3 points if you get it right or it's a tie
0 points if you don't


Lottery Busts

3 points for both right (one bonus point offered)
1 point for one right
0 points if one is not a bust or undecided


Non-Lottery / First Rounders

4 points for both right (one bonus point offered)
2 points for #23-30 right
1 point for #15-22 right
0 for points if one is not good or undecided


Second Rounders

6 points for 2 right (two bonus points offered)
2 points for one right
0 points if one is not good or undecided


Points to consider:

- Keep in mind that points offered are dynamic i.e. they change period to period e.g. Simmons may win Rookie of the year, meaning you get three points when they're allocated after one year, but if he breaks his leg in the 2nd year and never plays again, Ingram is from that point on the better player and gets the three points (unless Simmons is both the Rookie of the Year and MVP and he wins a title...This could get tricky. Let's cross those bridges when we come to them).
- If people join in subsequent years we can adopt an 'average points per draft' system.
- I'm not sure if the point weighting is correct between the 3-player and 2-player groups, nor the points (and bonus points) for the busts / sleepers. I think it's inevitable there will be some revision to the scoring system as it progresses.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I get what you're trying to do, but u think your categories are screwed up. If you want to see who has ability to determine talent don't base it in where they are drafted, but what type of career they are predicted to have.

What happens if you rate someone as a lottery pick who will become a stud, but they drop in the draft? Your ranking system is part mock drafter part talent evaluator.

Instead you should have categories like:

Perennial all-NBA player

Perennial all-star

Sometime all-star

Solid nba starter

Good role player

Bench journeyman

Bust

Then it doesn't matter where he is drafted (bc posters have no control over that), but you can determine if people are good talent evaluators.

 

[Covert Rain]

Sorry but that's grading posters, no two ways about it. It's no skin off my nose whether you do this or not but you absolutely are talking about trying to judge the quality of a poster. And I'll say again, I think you underestimate the logistics.

Agreed. It would be one thing if this was just for fun but that is not the vibe I received at the start of this discussion. The criteria still seems arbitrary to me. However, if it's for fun great. The second you start using it i debates or arguments on the forum it's no longer about that.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I say everyone below a certain ranking gets permanently banned! Elitism rules! Screw the proletariat!

 

[slinslin]

I am not sure about Ingram being any different than the rest of the top pick candidates.

I think he has gotten overrated. He is certainly closer to the likes of Murray, Chriss, Bender than to Simmons. Simmons superstar potential is a lot clearer than that of Ingram who may very well be just a better version of Otto Porter.

TLDR: I don't think this is a 2-player draft at the top. It is Simmons at the top followed by a pack of 6-8 players who are not that much different.

I would be surprised if the Lakers did not go with Ingram but it wouldn't totally shock me if they pass on Ingram or trade the pick and someone else passes on Ingram.

 

[3rdside]

Agreed. It would be one thing if this was just for fun but that is not the vibe I received at the start of this discussion. The criteria still seems arbitrary to me. However, if it's for fun great. The second you start using it i debates or arguments on the forum it's no longer about that.

It's the same principle as fantasy football - the player with the most points wins. That's the point of any game...So nor is this designed to be a chest thumping exercise, it's a bit of fun based on skill and I guarantee we'll enjoy seeing the results in a few years time.

 

[3rdside]

I get what you're trying to do, but u think your categories are screwed up. If you want to see who has ability to determine talent don't base it in where they are drafted, but what type of career they are predicted to have.

What happens if you rate someone as a lottery pick who will become a stud, but they drop in the draft? Your ranking system is part mock drafter part talent evaluator.

Instead you should have categories like:

Perennial all-NBA player

Perennial all-star

Sometime all-star

Solid nba starter

Good role player

Bench journeyman

Bust

Then it doesn't matter where he is drafted (bc posters have no control over that), but you can determine if people are good talent evaluators.

1. It's got nothing to do with where someone is drafted, it's all about career success.


e.g. Is Simmons going to be better than Ingram?


In one years time:
If Ingram wins rookie of the year by a long shot, whoever picked him gets three points and whoever picked Simmons gets 0.


In two years time (and in three years, four years etc until infinity):
If Simmons becomes the better player, then because I'm still keeping track of your original pick from the 2016 draft, the 3 points you got one year ago now reverses and becomes 0, and whoever picked Simmons and got zero points a year ago now gets 3 points. The same reverse could happen at the end of year 3, or the end of year 4 etc until infinity.

It's a dynamic rating system updated as often as we like.

Note - we will need to be careful that 'career success' isn't confused by 'season success' - let's cross that bridge when we come to it.




2. Simply predicting how good someone is, as opposed to a direct player comparisons means:

i) We will have to wait much longer (literally years) before we can start marking scores down for any Draft Power Rankings participant. With a player versus player comparison we can do it from year 1.

ii) It becomes harder to logistically manage for both i.e. less variables in the Excel spreadsheet firstly and, secondly / more importantly, there's less subjectivity:


Too many levels of player achievement (all-star / some time all-star etc) means too many options when making a decision about any individual player. By ranking players within any given draft that are of similar court position and similar draft position the heads up comparison requires a binary decision only - "better" or "not better" - and is therefore less subjective (i.e. the decision making is simplified).


e.g. "In one year's time is Simmons better than Ingram, yes or no?"


The term 'better' is variable of course but that's why I've said if it's not completely obvious then it's a tie (for that period; again the scores are dynamic so it might not be a tie in later periods).



The other - and possibly more important - reason I like the player comparison is not only because it reduces subjectivity, but it will provide some confidence as to who's right when the inevitable (inevitable) situation we face every single year draft time pops up:

"Bender's the next AK47" / "no he's not he's got bust written all over him" / "no he's the next 7ft Magic" / "no he's not he's Tskita x10" / screw you / no screw you etc..


It's the same argument that can't be proven until years down the track by which stage everyone's forgotten what they said in the first place, or deny they were ever wrong.

The point of this exercise is to therefore try to bring some accountability to people's opinions, which can be referenced at any point in the future, to give greater weight to someone's opinion at draft time when there is no better way to check that two opposing opinion givers knows better than the other (other than being perceived as 'more credible' - the term I covered earlier that doesn't mean anything when it comes to talent spotting unless it is quantified).

If people just pick players at random - as you're proposing Ouchie - then this Draft Power Ranking won't be able to assist with this, the most common draft argument of all.

 

[3rdside]

I am not sure about Ingram being any different than the rest of the top pick candidates.

I think he has gotten overrated. He is certainly closer to the likes of Murray, Chriss, Bender than to Simmons. Simmons superstar potential is a lot clearer than that of Ingram who may very well be just a better version of Otto Porter.

TLDR: I don't think this is a 2-player draft at the top. It is Simmons at the top followed by a pack of 6-8 players who are not that much different.

I would be surprised if the Lakers did not go with Ingram but it wouldn't totally shock me if they pass on Ingram or trade the pick and someone else passes on Ingram.

Valid point - I can change the groupings (even though I'm sure Ingram is going 2nd).

 

[Covert Rain]

It's the same principle as fantasy football - the player with the most points wins. That's the point of any game...So nor is this designed to be a chest thumping exercise, it's a bit of fun based on skill and I guarantee we'll enjoy seeing the results in a few years time.

That's fine if it's for fun. However, that wasn't the tone or vibe I gleaned when you first started talking about this. The purposed seemed to be about validating opinions on the board.

 

[3rdside]

If that's the way it came across then apologies, that wasn't the attention. Having thought about it some more since ouchie and slins feedback I should make some changes - will revert tomorrow hopefully


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk