Reply With Quote
OKC MIA
OKC MIA
ever since we hired wright....dude been trash at running things...he needs to be fired asap
Here is a full mathematical study of this very topic, though it only goes back to 2009: https://towardsdatascience.com/which...g-20070ccd1702
And here is the dashboard where you can filter by any criteria you like that gets updated once a year (at least): https://braydengerrard.shinyapps.io/Draft_Scores/
From 2009 - 2021, the Spurs rank 3rd.
However, since Wright took over as GM in 2019, we rank 18th and have a (barely) negative score. Not surprisingly, the 2021 draft ranks 3rd to last and Josh Primo officially ranks as a "Bad" pick (though not as bad as Lonnie or Luka and just slightly worse than picking Nikola Milutinov
In terms of scores by executive, RC Buford ranks 12th (Masai only ranks 9th). Drafting addict Sam Presti ranks 54th with baiscally an average grade, and Brian Wright ranks 37th. Unfortunately the Executive Dashboard doesn't have a time filter to look at where Wright ranks compared only to those in his active years (though he does have a slightly above average grade)
Why is the Lonnie Walker pick bad at 18?
Better than
6 Bamba
7 Wendell Carter Jr
9 Kevin Knox II
13 Jerome Robinson
15 Troy Brown Jr
16 Zhaire Smith
17 Divincenzo
Not better than
19 Huerter
21 Grayson Allen
24 Anfernee Simons
27 Rob Will III
33 Jalen Brunson
37 Gary Trent Jr
In a redraft he could probably go 17 or at around the same pick. The Spurs are not the only ones who missed out on J Brunson
Don't let TD21 see this.
I agree with this. Lonnie has made a bit of a name for himself these past two years, and honestly, in addition to doing the work himself, he has the Spurs to thank for investing in his development early and not quitting on him sooner.
The latest update was before this season, where he has seemingly done pretty well in BKY.
As for why he is a bad pick: it's because of the list of players below him. If you read the methodology in the link I provided, it outlines how is measures good picks and bad picks.
The best possible selection (1.0 rating) would be the one where any other alternative would have provided less value. For this reason, Derrick White gets a perfect pick score of 1.0.
0.0, a "Neutral Selection" is when other alternatives were equally as valuable or the selection was obvious (This is the wording of the methodology, not mine. For this reason, Wemby will eventually likely rate a 0.0).
A -1.0 rating, or the Worst Possible Selection would be where any other plausible alternative would have provided more value. You gave a list of alternatives that would have provided more value, and that's why it is a bad pick. It doesn't matter that his better than other bad picks ahead of him, because they Spurs didn't have an opportunity to draft those players. But given the choice the Spurs had, they made a "bad" pick (Lonnie rates a -0.69).
There Spurs have made several picks rated Excellent (>0.90) over the years:
Leonard (0.99)
Bertans (0.96)
DJM (0.94)
Derrick White (1.0)
Keldon (0.94)
Tre Jones (1.0)
Other picks (or UDFA signings) that rate near "Excellent":
Kyle Anderson (0.86)
Chimezie Metu (0.87)
Drew Eubanks (0.89)
As time goes on, things become more clear, so it is likely the Lonnie pick (-0.69) will improve a little while the Primo pick (-0.55) will get worse.
I like that idea behind scoring picks, but I think there should be a bonus for a pick like Number Two compared to someone like Metu. Getting an MVP candidate with the 15th pick is far more valuable than getting a rotation player in the mid second round.
In that system Jokic might be the best draft pick of all time. Manu would rate highly too.
I definitely see the point here, but I think at the end of the day it all still comes down to whether you make the best possible pick given the opportunity. Jokic, as you might imagine, rates a perfect score of 1.0. By definition then, every pick before him was suboptimal. The model does take into consideration that alternatives must be "plausible". Since no one rated Jokic as a high pick in 2014, you don't get dinged for not taking him #1 overall, you only get dinged for passing on better players in the plausible range in which you were drafting.
But to your point, yeah there is definitely a big difference in taking Jokic #41 and even in, say, taking Derrick White #29. Both rate as perfect 1.0 scores - but one has obviously been more impactful to the team than the other.
Jokic is the best draft pick of all time in any sane system tbh
I acknowledged they had a run of luck draft wise that's run out in recent years, but what does that have to do with my overarching points about them and why does it bother you so much?
I just enjoy busting balls in the interwebs, tbh.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
