Reply With Quote
Didn't say they were going to be aiming for a top pick.
I doubt the draft this year will be total trash, but its just stupid to for the Spurs to aim for a bottom record with the flattened odds. It made sense when you have someone like Wemby but now? Who the are we tanking for that a few percentage points makes a gigantic difference?
Didn't say they were going to be aiming for a top pick.
The highest lottery pick odds for position #5 is picking 7th, at 26.7%, so yeah, ing disaster. The highest pick odds for position #2 is pick 5 at 27.8%. If you study draft pick values, the trend line drops sharply right after pick 5.
Your best odds of maximizing your pick are being as close to the top of the draft as possible. Winning an extra 8-10 games is, in fact a disaster in this context.
I remember a Spurs team that completely sold out to challenge the three point line. Now we see a team that sags three guys into the paint FOR NO REASON giving up uncontested threes at a historical rate.
We were led to believe that challenging three pointers and getting back on defense were pillars of Pop's coaching philosophy. Clearly that isn't the case.
lolwut?
Just want to get on the record now how many years it is acceptable to use the excuse that we are just trying to maximize our odds of a top pick.
In 2028, when we still suck, will the Sniffers still be talking about how we just need to add that 8th lottery pick to the roster to be able to finally compete?
The “opponents shoot open 3 pointers” zone has been constantly used this year.
I’ll be off of the tank Tank next year. I’ve said in a few threads that we’re on the OKC track, 20ish, 20ish, 40ish, contender over a four year period.
Appreciate calling your shot. Hope you are right. It will take more than just a draft pick though, hopefully we are ready to make some moves for some useful vets.
Would love to see your "study draft pick values" quantified, Mr. Draft pick scholar.
Acting like a relatively small percentage point drop vs. actually providing our players with proper development is whatever, but you you're flopping around for reasoning instead what else should I expect. Its clear #2 pick odds are better, but acting like its bad worse enough a few spots less than you shouldn't take into consideration the opportunity cost associated with losing culture is pretty ridiculous.
The 3rd quarter numbers really point to a coaching problem, IMO. A team comes in, makes adjustments, and the Spurs have no answer time and time and time again. Its incredible how consistent this is through the season.
I replied to you but I was agreeing with you and addressing Ex.
before Wemby, what were the highest picks the Spurs had the past couple of years? The problem is that they waited too long to tank so ended up with a lot of mid lottery picks. Now, we have Wemby which a good start. Unfortunately, next year draft is not good but we can expect a top5 and top10 so who knows potentially two okay to good players. The Spurs need to have cap space in 2 years to go after another star. Of course, if there is disgruntled superstar (Luka ��) before, just send all the draft picks to get him.
LOL my bad. Yeah not buying the tanking excuse at all this year.
He is kind of right though. There is no amount of development that is going to turn these players into something they are not. Spurs drafted some players with deadly flaws in their games which really is a product of mediocre draft position to begin with.
If they can get a higher pick (top 3?)- they get access to better quality of talent and for cheap.
Hopefully, they can raise the value of some of these guys so that they are attractive in a trade package for a long term piece. I would love to roll the Raptors for OG Anunoby. Doubt they pick up the phone when they see Pops number though.
he won’t get fired. like i said before, it’s not even about the resume it’s about the $$$
I don’t do draft pick analysis, because I know where to find it, and I’m not as smart as the actual analysts.
So then link the analysis that supports your steep drop off so we can see and evaluate it for ourselves instead of your not as smart as the actual analysts version of it.
http://nbasense.com/draft-pick-trade...ob-goldstein-4
There's a draft value as a function of pick location. There's no big drop-off after 5 on any of the four listed there by people you admit are smarter than you, Ex. The functions area all fairly linear at that point and its not a super steep slope.
https://quantimschmitz.com/2023/04/0...ba-draft-pick/
Same .
I'm going to guess you saw the historical data showing that 5 has been much better than 6. Unless we expect that for some magic reason 6 is just a bad spot where 7, 8, and 9 are all better despite coming later (and since all the players available at those spots were also available at 6 we know that's not the case), that historical data is just variability and not an actual thing. There's a steep drop off early but after that its pretty level and the difference in picks isn't huge by any stretch. The trend line does not, in fact, drop sharply.
The gulf in that function is actually more than what it is between the 5th and the 7th record due to the flattened lotto odds as well. If you take the expected win share for a pick and then multiply it by the odds of a pick for the Xth worst record then the gap in expected win shares goes from 6 to 4. 4 win shares over an entire NBA career isn't exactly something to call a disaster (especially when Front office scouting and developmental skill are probably a larger factor).
Po tay to. Po tah to
https://thedatajocks.com/nba-draft-pick-values/
Do you have a reason for believing this model is better? Did you read the article?
I'm going to be frank. I don't think you understand any of the models or why you should believe one over any of the others and are just picking the one that is convenient. Am I wrong?
I referenced this model last year when posters were crying, like you this year, about tanking, but by all means, be an insulting about it. I thought you were above the typical ST ad hominem when you can’t rebutt. Guess not.
Ad hominin? You above stated you didn't understand the models lol. Regardless of you having posted it before, why do you think its better than the other ones? You're choosing it now for what reason other than its convenient? If you read the article, you see that the author states they are adding in arbitrary measures into the model. For some reason, they want to make this in a function that involves grouping picks into tiers. Why? What reason do we have to expect picks to cluster into these plateaus where you see steep drop off between picks. Why does this one analyst decide to make arbitrary changes to a simple statistical model that no other analyst has chosen?
You can't say you don't understand it and then get upset when someone says you're using you don't understand to make a point just because you like what it says. I don't see a reason to expect anything other than a standard exponential decay function. Thats exactly what the data shows. What would be unexpected would be some kind of a weird step at arbitrary points in the draft.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions