Draft day musing on Danny Ainge
- Thread starter bowiac
- Start date
Yes and I won money at the casino yesterday. Do you think the analytics models that factor college FT% are wrong? Or do you see something in JJ that these models miss? Because otherwise I don't see the point of your post.
And they would need to steal the Spur's shooting coach, who seems to be the most well respected one in the business.
Well, is Kawhi Leonard the poster child for improved free throw shooting, or is it Paul Pierce? Or is it just not as unusual, especially for top tier talent, as you imply?
If the question is whether Tatum or Jackson will be a better FT shooter in the NBA, then I think Tatum is a good bet. If the question is who will be a better overall player, and you're basing your answer on models like Andrew Jackson's, then I think you are a fine example of analytics gone wild. Or maybe DA should have traded the pick for past darlings like Sauce Castillo or Shabazz Napier.
Last edited:
A. This discussion isn't about NBA FT%. This discussion is about which players will become good three point shooters in the NBA. In the models, college FT% is an important variable for making this prediction.
B. On a board like SoSH it is a rare poster does not understand the general concept that while models can improve your ability to make predictions, there is still a lot of unexplained variance. But you seem dead-set on bringing back the rear guard of the 1990's Moneyball debates by pointing to player X with a low OBP that turned into a better pro than player Y with a high OBP.
No, not at all. And those weren't the pre-moneyball debates, either. Were you around then? Your problem is accepting new, generalized models as gospel, without considering variance or variables other than those spit out by the cool blogger you read.
EDIT: also, the "On a board like SoSH it is a rare poster does not understand the general concept..." bit gives not only the board, but your own self far too much credit. Write in short sentences, use fewer adverbs, adjectives, and figures of speech, and you'll be worthy of an associates degree before you know it.
Last edited:
I'm open to the idea that there are other models which show Jackson projecting into a better player than Tatum. Why don't you try pointing to them instead of holding up the odd counterexample? Right now the best information we have available is that Tatum is the better prospect.
No, you can't definitively say that the best information we have available says that Tatum is the better prospect, unless literally the only thing you care about is shooting.
If, for instance, someone else put heavy weight on athleticism and defense projecting, then they could make exactly the same statement you just made about Jackson > Tatum.
If, for instance, someone else put heavy weight on athleticism and defense projecting, then they could make exactly the same statement you just made about Jackson > Tatum.
That weighting would also put Jackson ahead of Fultz and Ball. My point is not that shooting is the only thing that matters, but that Jackson's poor shooting puts him behind Tatum. I like Jackson's motor, but I wouldn't want to gamble on his shooting and Ainge didn't either.
I don't see how one can derive a pattern from Ainge drafts, and that's not a bad thing. Certainly coachability and ethic seem to be important. But it's not like he suddenly realized that shooting is important. He has made both high upside and high floor picks in the past. It seems that there were lots of guys he liked in this draft, but he liked Tatum the most. Not sure that there's more to it than that.
I actually wasn’t holding up the odd counterexample. I was directly responding to your drive-by comparison with Kawhi Leonard with what I think are particularly relevant comps, one being the player I hear most often cited as Tatum’s upside, and the other being Celtics’ current best player, either of whom would seem to be better “poster children” for the limitations of the free throw model.
As to what models I think would project Jackson to being a better NBA shooter (you keep using shooter and player interchangeably), I think their college 3pt percentage and FG percentage are a good place to start. Which is to say, I think you are placing far too much faith in models which even their developer admits are only “modestly successful” at predicting NBA 3-pt shooting. In many instances, of course, college percentage turns out to be a more accurate predictor. I happen to wonder if there is a pattern to those instances. For example, and most relevant to Tatum, I would like to know Johnson’s model’s track record when it comes to players it projects to be better 3-pt shooters in the NBA than they were in college.
Reviewing Johnson’s initial description and application of his model, it appears that track record is pretty bad. Of the 21 players he discusses in his year one post, there were five players whom he projected to improve their FG3% in the pros, and who have subsequently taken at least 100 3PA: Marcus Smart, James Young, Elfrid Payton, Andrew Wiggins, TJ Warren.[1] All five of them have NBA FG3% closer to their college percentage than their Johnson projection.
Player NCAA3% AJModel NBAFG3%
Smart 29.5% 34.8% 29.1%
Young 34.9% 35.7% 27.6%
Payton 27.2% 31.2% 28.9%
Wiggins 34.1% 35% 32.9%
Warren 31.4% 32.4% 31.2%
So, while I will trust Johnson that the overall data suggests that on average his model is a slightly better predictor than college percentage, I am far from ready to accept the model’s accuracy when it comes to projecting players to improve, as it does Tatum.
[1] Bogdanovich would also fit here, but according to the Johnson model, he shot 31.9% from 3 pre-NBA. Stats I’ve seen actually have him at 35.9%. Using this number, it again would likely have been more accurate than the Johnson model.
I’d also love to know how it performs when projecting, as it does with Jackson, a differential of 5 percentage points or more,[2] based on free throws.
Finally, I should say that I am bullish on Jackson, and one of the reasons is development and utilization throughout his one college season. Freshmen are by definition new to the team, system and coach, and the Johnson model ignores improvement as the player, team and coaching staff assess and use the talent. In his first 18 games at Kansas, Jackson was not being used in any significant way as an outside threat - he averaged 2.1 attempts per game, those attempts were usually breakdowns, and he shot only 23.7% from behind the arc. Over the final 17 games, the team and Jackson used his 3-pt shooting as a weapon far more frequently, averaging nearly 50% more attempts per game, to 3.1. He shot 48.1% over that second half of the season. I tend to weight those games more than the first 18.
[2] Another data concern here. Johnson’s model has JJ shooting 36%, while his actual KU 3FG% is 37.8%.
Last edited:
I am curious if it would be more useful to that model if the shots were broken down by where they were taken. As corner threes are higher percentage than the wings, with straightaway threes in the middle, you can theoretically have a situation where a shooter's percentage goes down, although his ability to shoot from every spot on the floor improves, simply because the distribution of the types of threes he takes changes over time.
Relatedly, team context matters a lot. Its why Steph Curry hitting 40 + percent on threes off the bounce is way way way more impressive than Steve Novak sitting in the corner waiting for a pass and hitting 50 percent or something. And while it is possible to divine those things somewhat from the numbers its a situation where you gotta watch the games to have the whole picture.
Relatedly, team context matters a lot. Its why Steph Curry hitting 40 + percent on threes off the bounce is way way way more impressive than Steve Novak sitting in the corner waiting for a pass and hitting 50 percent or something. And while it is possible to divine those things somewhat from the numbers its a situation where you gotta watch the games to have the whole picture.
It's probably best to let Johnson explain his model:
Not mentioned is a coefficient of determination, but I imagine it's not terribly high. Moreover, there should be a confidence value that depends on the sample size for each individual player. What I draw from the model is that if you want to consider how a college guy will shoot (from range) in the pros, you learn as much from their FT% and 3PA as from their 3P%.
Just to speak to one point in The Needler's comprehensive post, Tatum also showed significant improvement over the season, as did the team. Tatum was of course a monster in the ACC tourney. Doesn't negate or detract from the point about Jackson; might be a plus for both of them over the 1&2 picks.
Intuitively that would make sense, but in practice it probably would weaken the model. That's because the sample sizes for college basketball players are so small to begin with (shorter seasons, deeper rotations, and fewer possessions per game mean that players are just not going to accumulate that many shots).
Yes, this. I've been wondering whether its time to call Liar Liar Pants on Fire on the top of Danny Ainge's draft. What exactly was that ill fated, last minute late night/early morning flight out to the West Coast all about? Just an excuse for some In and Out? He has been saying all along that post trade he expected to be able to draft the best player even after swapping, and for some reason I'm willing to suspend disbelief with this claim as it explains the behavior. We also know, or at least I'm willing to strongly assert, that Ainge's Senior Draft Phrenologist places hyper competitiveness as first among equals when making roster decisions...and there is no way that isn't JJ even before you account for his electric combination of size and athleticism.
I'm not 100% there but coming around to the idea he wanted to draft JJ and didn't because of the flight saga. And yes I believe he has drafted player(s) who didn't work out for him, though I'm unable to find a reference to link at this moment. He would have had to be willing to accept Tatum at three when he made the trade, in case LA took JJ in an upset, so its not like he is devastated, but I think the JJ/Phoenix workout play may actually have achieved its result.
I don't believe it was last minute. Reports posted somewhere on this board said that the workout was "earlier this month" (that would be June) or "last week" (as of the time the story broke, which was 4 days ago, so it would be at least a week before the draft.
Note that Jackson was in Sacramento to work out for the Lakers prior to June 13.
I am not sure the Tatum over Jackson decision tells us any of this. Following the trade Ainge said in a live interview that he had a tough decision to make and that he liked the players who would be available at 3. Since then he flew across country to meet and workout Jackson which we now know never occurred and then drafted Tatum. I feel Ainge places a ton of value on fit and in one corner you have Tatum who tells him all the right things about desired playing time and wanting to be a Celtic while in the other corner (of the country) you have BJ Armstrong working behind the scenes with McDonough in Phoenix to assure him that the Suns would select his client 4th then not allow a Celtics workout or meeting.
The talent gap or lack thereof likely wasn't enough (or at all in Ainge's mind) to offset the intangibles of Tatum being a better fit for the Celtics moving forward.
Plus even if Ainge was dead-set on taking Tatum, there might be some gamesmanship in showing a willingness to work out Jackson to get Phoenix nervous of the Celtics taking him and getting them to give up some asset to move up to 3. Of course, if that was the plan, Armstrong and McDonough called Danny's bluff.
It would be insanity not to do your due diligence on such a big decision. Holding up a workout as a sign that Ainge meant to pick Jackson seems crazy to me. I'd be mad if he wasn't working out as many players as possible for both current and future reasons. Who knows when you might be given the chance to trade for or sign this guy in a couple of years. He flew out to LA to see Tatum when we still had the #1 pick, so it's not like traveling cross country is all that unusual. Hell, he also called T&R while driving (not flying) down to NYC to watch Harry Giles and other borderline lottery players.
Giles and other borderline lottery guys had nothing to do with the 1 or the 3 pick though. Ainge himself said no decision was made and his actions confirmed this just as he never said Fultz was his guy and his actions, including working out Tatum when we still held the 1, confirmed that.
After all the work done if Ainge is working out as many people as possible for the 3 pick something is seriously wrong. It is pretty clear the only two candidates at 3 were Tatum and Jackson judging by both his actions and really, common sense.
I agree with this, I only meant to point out Giles as an example of Danny traveling all over the place (ie not unusual in the lead up to the draft). I think the top four were all close in his mind, I just disagree with the assertion (not by you) that JJ hurting Danny's feelings impacted his decision. I don't think that much stock should be put into DA traveling to work out JJ. If Danny thought JJ was the clear cut best player available, then a cancelled workout wouldn't move the needle.
of course thouse were the candidates. Is anyone arguing otherwise?
What if a trade opportunity arose that resulted in the # 3 pick being shipped out for an all-star plus a later pick in the draft?
How do the last 2 drafts change people's view on Danny's drafting ability? He was often criticized for playing it to safe and not gambling on high upside players. He was also one of the last GMs to draft foreign players. People like to point out KO over Giannis as the big blunder.
Brown and Tatum are looking like future all stars. Semi is already a rotation player. There were a few players picked after Yabusele and Zizic but no one you really regret missing out on. Brogdon would be nice, but given the Celtics roster last year, they needed to stash guys. Going even further back, Rozier is developing nicely and there was no big miss after him in the draft. Smart at 6 in 2014 is looking like a good pick too. Outside of Jokic, there's no one that is clearly better that was taken after him. Of course, Gary Harris, Rodney Hood, and Clint Capela came right after James Young that same year.
This is all with the caveat that it's too early to tell how it all plays out but early results are good. If it weren't for Ben Simmons, Tatum would be battling it out with Markkanen for ROY.
Brown and Tatum are looking like future all stars. Semi is already a rotation player. There were a few players picked after Yabusele and Zizic but no one you really regret missing out on. Brogdon would be nice, but given the Celtics roster last year, they needed to stash guys. Going even further back, Rozier is developing nicely and there was no big miss after him in the draft. Smart at 6 in 2014 is looking like a good pick too. Outside of Jokic, there's no one that is clearly better that was taken after him. Of course, Gary Harris, Rodney Hood, and Clint Capela came right after James Young that same year.
This is all with the caveat that it's too early to tell how it all plays out but early results are good. If it weren't for Ben Simmons, Tatum would be battling it out with Markkanen for ROY.
Judging last year is hard because of the draft and stash element, but Yabu at #16 looks way too high. Siakam and Skal are on track to be much better players, and were picked near the end of the first round (if Yabu is the best stash player Ainge can get at #16, maybe he should have tried harder to trade the pick?). Semi is looking good so far, but will Jordan Bell (taken one spot later) turn out to be the better player? Still, Brown and Tatum look like perfect picks. I've even been impressed by some of what I've seen from Jabari Bird. So Ainge did pretty well, especially where it counted (near the top of the draft).
Way too early to opine on Yabusele. Sure, he could easily end up a bust, but he's clearly a project in a way that those other guys (neither of whom was a stash) aren't. I'll be nervous about him if he can't begin to carve out a role for himself next year, but until then it is too early to judge.
I’d agree the early returns on Yabu are underwhelming and he was probably picked too high but the standard of “get the best remaining available player” at every pick is an impossible standard for any executive to live up to. It will vary draft to draft based on talent level, but in general I think you need to be happy with something like the following:
Top 3-5 (depending on draft depth): All-star level player
Mid-lottery: above average starter
Late-lottery: Decent starter/solid rotation player
Non-lottery 1st rounder: rotation caliber player
2nd round: useful role player
In general, I think Ainge has achieved that. Of course there are some notable whiffs especially in the mid/late first round (KO over Giannis, James Young, Fab Melo), but you have to balance that against some of his notable hits in the same range (Big Al, Bradley, Rozier trending that direction).
As for Bell, he could be up being better than Semi, but if I recall there were injury concerns around Bell heading into the draft that contributed to him dropping a bit. Also, like several people have been discussing in some of the other basketball threads, system fit I so incredibly important when you’re talking about all but the most transcendent talents. From my limited knowledge, it looks like Bell just fits perfectly into that GS system as a (very) poor man’s Draymond Green - move him to Boston or anywhere else and he may not look nearly as good. And, for where he was picked, Semi looks like he will end up being a great value regardless.
The other thing about Bell is that he's, unfortunately, not a guy you can trust in crunch time.
He had two chances to get a simple, routine defensive rebound on a free throw to give Oregon a spot in the National Championship game. Two chances! And both times the shorter, less skilled, Kennedy Meeks just swooped in and got two offensive rebounds on free throws in the waning seconds of the Final Four with a trip to the National Championship on the line.
He had two chances to get a simple, routine defensive rebound on a free throw to give Oregon a spot in the National Championship game. Two chances! And both times the shorter, less skilled, Kennedy Meeks just swooped in and got two offensive rebounds on free throws in the waning seconds of the Final Four with a trip to the National Championship on the line.
Aside from the blatant silliness of extrapolating two plays into "can't be trusted in crunch time," Jordan Bell is listed at 6-9 227. Meeks is listed at 6-10, 277.
Danny had to go stash with that pick otherwise he would have to end up cutting someone. The NBA isn't like the NFL - I doubt DA would have gotten much from anyone who wanted to move up to 16. I'm sure he tried.
I also wonder if Danny hoped to stash Yabu for two years but Yabu's development short-circuited that.
As for DA's draft prowess, I think he is really good at identifying NBA level players. In addition to players who have already been listed here, he's picked multi-year NBA players like Dahnty Jones (1/20); Tony Allen (1/25); Delonte West (1/24); Ryan Gomes (2/50); Gerald Green (1/18); and E'Twuan Moore (2/55). Lester Hudson spent a couple of years in the NBA before tearing up China. I know Danny didn't draft Dwight Powell but he did trade for him. And Jordan Mickey is still on a NBA roster (although logging more DNPs than minutes).
Without doing a comparison, that seems like a good hit % for how late these guys have been drafted.
I don't think this has anything to do with Bell not being "clutch" or "choking".......but his terrible fundamentals which reared its ugly head at the worst possible time for Oregon. Bell reminds me of Leon Powe when he was here in that his defensive rotations and understanding of them are horrific but as a weakside shot blocker and offensive rebounder when he is an afterthought due to the attention being put on the scorers can be effective. Bell is a limited type player until he grasps an understanding of the game. I don't recall the specifics of the red flag injury that at least one team placed on him for the draft I'm only referring to his limitations on the defensive end of the floor which can affect the entire team in their defensive set.
Bell is a rookie so this is expected but we saw it at Oregon as well......he is a very poor fundamental player. In this league that is a killer for playing time.....it's the difference between being David West in his prime and Marreese Speights.
Jones was drafted for another team, though. Otherwise the point stands.
Jones was part of that 16 and 19 (or something like that) to move up into the high teens for Marcus Banks while also grabbing a late 1st for the Kendrick Perkins flyer to try and turn a fat 6-10 kid high schooler into an NBA big.
Rajon Rondo was pretty good too.
The heavy criticism of Ainges' drafting has always been odd to me. Until the last two years, he'd chosen inside the lottery twice. It shouldn't be surprising he hasn't pulled a bunch of stars with later first round picks.
Last edited:
We went through this in an exhaustive fashion a couple of years ago and concluded that Danny was an average drafter and a better-than-average trader (maybe much better than average). Just catching up in the last two years, it would seem that he did OK in 2016 (given what he had to work with) and possibly better or much better than OK in 2017, although the jury is still out of course.
I'd say 2016 is above average, given that Jaylen was far from a consensus #3, and nailing top picks is a lot more important than nailing mid 1st rounders. Ante was also a part of the Kyrie trade which looks pretty solid currently.
But he did blow two big ones: Olynyk over Antetokounmpo and Giddens over DeAndre Jordan and some other good players (e.g. Goran Dragic) in 2008. The Marcus Banks thing (picks 16 and 20 for 13 and 28) netted the Celtics Perkins at 28 but they could have stayed where they were and taken David West. So I think it's fair to give Ainge mixed reviews.
Since every GM has hits and misses, its hard to compare Ainge's successes and failures in a vacuum.
Yep. I was bothered by the Giannis thing, too, but more because Ainge opted to go very safe (Olynyk) instead of drafting for upside. Of course, there were 2 high upside guys in that draft, one of whom (Giannis) has turned out a lot better than the other (Schroder).
You can say this about every GM in every sport.
It's impossible to pick the exact best player at every spot.
Good grief your two examples of blown big ones are at #13, where he got a good player, and #30 where it's very unlikely to find a good player and he didn't.
While what you wrote is absolutely true, the Giddens pick was just dumb for a team that had Tony Allen on the roster - I'll never understand what Ainge saw there. I wanted either Chalmers or Jordan, which is an opinion that I think a lot of people shared. Chalmers was the "safe" pick for me and Jordan was the swing-for-the-fences pick. Either way, if you've been a GM for 15 years and all people can do is nitpick on picks at the end of the first round, you've done pretty well.