2014 NBA Draft Thread (No Spoilers You Clowns)

[nighthob]

APM is black boxish in that doesn't tell what exactly a player is doing right/wrong. It just spits out a number telling you his contribution, but it doesn't tell if you a guy is taking too many long 2s, or is turning the ball over too much. It just gives you an end result on each end of the court.

 
But that's exactly what it isn't designed to do, and was meant to augment the micronumbers, especially the situational ones that Synergy has been generating for years. 

 

[bowiac]

Berri himself claims that adjusted +/- formula don't have predictability (and I don't know any advocate of them that maintains that any given player's adjusted +/- will transfer from year to year or team to team) and that that's the reason his magic number is so much better than anyone else's, because it moves with them from team to team.

Why are you citing Dave Berri to me?

 

[bowiac]

 
But that's exactly what it isn't designed to do, and was meant to augment the micronumbers, especially the situational ones that Synergy has been generating for years. 

Yes, and that's what makes it a black box. What's confusing you here?

 

[nighthob]

Why are you citing Dave Berri to me?

 
Because he's the creator of wp/48. 

 

[bowiac]

 
Because he's the creator of wp/48. 

Which I have not cited a single time. I think Berri is more of a hack than Hollinger.

 

[nighthob]

Yes, and that's what makes it a black box. What's confusing you here?

 
Which would make OBP "black box" because it doesn't tell you how much power a player has or how often he gets on base via hit or how many runs he generates in so doing?

 

[Cellar-Door]

Can a mod split out the metrics discussion? It probably deserves a thread but is pretty far off topic in the draft thread.

 

[DJnVa]

Thoughts:  http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/86940/the-nbas-possible-solution-for-tanking-good-bye-to-the-lottery-hello-to-the-wheel
 

Grantland obtained a copy of the proposal, which would eliminate the draft lottery entirely and replace it with a system in which each of the 30 teams would pick in a specific first-round draft slot once — and exactly once — every 30 years. Each team would simply cycle through the 30 draft slots, year by year, in a predetermined order designed so that teams pick in different areas of the draft each year. Teams would know with 100 percent certainty in which draft slots they would pick every year, up to 30 years out from the start of every 30-year cycle. The practice of protecting picks would disappear; there would never be a Harrison Barnes–Golden State situation again, and it wouldn’t require a law degree to track ownership of every traded pick leaguewide.
 

 
 
 

 

[nighthob]

Ugh. If the idea is competitive balance that proposal could lead to teams being bad for an entire generation.

 

[bowiac]

I think that is an especially bad solution to the tanking issue.
 
I'm in the "why have a draft" camp myself. The % of revenues going to the players is already fixed, so imposing a rookie wage scale isn't saving the teams any money. The good teams are also almost all over the cap, so they won't be able to win any bidding wars for Andrew Wiggins, meaning we'd still be pushing new stars to the bad teams.
 
The draft makes sense if it either saves teams money, or you don't have a salary cap. When you have both, I'm not sure what purpose it serves.

 

[The Social Chair]

I like the outside the box thinking but the proposal is too flawed. One problem would players staying in college until the right team/year comes up. Why would a potential top pick want to go to the Bucks in 2022 when they can stay in college one more year and go to the Lakers in 2023?

 

[TheRooster]

why not wait? because it is hard to get $20MM - $40MM injury insurance

 

[Apisith]

You could protect against that situation by saying a player is eligible to be drafted after one year in college. If he chooses to stay then the team that drafted him has his draft rights, like what currently happens with Europeans. I like the idea in that it'll promote competitiveness but it won't promote parity because there are many badly run teams.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

I don't think tanking is really that much of a problem and, to the extent its a problem, its a result of the league being so superstar driven. Part of that is the nature of basketball but a huge part is also the result of the maximum salary rules plus a little talent dilution from expansion.

Contract four teams and get rid of the maximum salary for individual players and you'd eventually have a much more competitive league in which any of 8-10 teams could plausibly win any given year and there were very few teams that were so dysfunctional that it seemed only drafting a superstar could ever save them. IE, you'd have a league that looked a lot more like the NFL, to the extent that basketball permits such a thing.

 

[Devizier]

Eliminate the player max. Eliminate the player max. Eliminate the player max.

 

[DJnVa]

Yeah, I really don't see tanking as a real problem for the league. A guy worth tanking for (Duncan, LeBron, etc.) only comes around every 5-10 years and a team that actively engages in tanking (assuming it does happen), is risking corporate sponsorship dollars, fan goodwill, season ticket money, etc. by doing so. Before the season started, everyone assumed there would be a race for Wiggins but now the draft situation is far more complex. The bigger problem is that there are simply too many shitty teams in this league. I don't see a bunch of teams trying to lose this season, I see a bunch of teams who just fucking suck.

 
I get what you're saying, but it sure seems that the NBA sees it as a problem...which is really all that matters.

 

[bowiac]

Eliminate the player max. Eliminate the player max. Eliminate the player max.

Quoted for truth. No player max, and salary cap, and there's absolute zero need for a draft. Whoever has LeBron is paying him $40M/year anyway. All the best rookies will end up on all the worst teams anyway.

 

[Fishercat]

If the NBA really wanted to contact a bunch of teams while minimizing fan outburst, instituting the wheel system would be a great start to that. May as well eliminate all hope. Sure, this probably eliminates tanking, but I suspect removing the semblance of hope many smaller market/unappealing market teams had would have substantially worse results than teams trying to lose in March.

 

[bowiac]

Of course. The NBA would never acknowledge that the real reason for the shitty quality of play is because over half the teams aren't coached and/or managed worth a shit. As we've seen, tanking doesn't even guarantee anything. Seems like the team with the best statistical chance at getting the top pick never wins.

It's been a while to be sure, since LeBron and Dwight Howard went to the worst team in consecutive years.

 

[Tangled Up In Red]

What is the Harrison Barnes - Golden State circumstance they reference?

 

[nighthob]

Barnes (and Sullinger for that matter) pulled out of drafts in which they were surefire top 10 picks to enter in a year where they knew they'd be going lower. Part of that had to do with the fact that the draft they pulled out of was right in front of a pending lockout and they didn't want to be taking a year off from the game.

 

[Jed Zeppelin]

What is the Harrison Barnes - Golden State circumstance they reference?

 
Golden State was owed a top 7 protected pick in the 2012 draft by the Jazz and lost 22 of their last 27 games, which turned out to be just enough to put them in a tie with Toronto for 7th worst record. They won the tiebreaker and thus kept the pick that was used to select Barnes.

 

[Brickowski]

The NBA draft is entertainment. Both the lottery show and the draft itself get excellent TV ratings. IMHO that's why it will be retained. Same thing with the NFL draft.

Why not eliminate the draft in all pro sports? In baseball, half the good players (e.g. the ones from the DR, Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela etc.) aren't subject to the draft, and after the first 10-15 picks it's a crapshoot anyway. As to football, just say that the number of rookies a team can add in a single year is "x"and the maximum aggregate amount you can play those players is "y." The playing field would be level: rich franchises couldn't outspend the poor ones. Teams would have to make judgment calls as to whether or not to spend most of "y" on that star quarterback and the rest on lesser players, or to go with good but not potentially great players. Meanwhile, the players would have choices. If a guy always wanted to play for franchise "z" or a particular coach he might be willing to sign for a discount.

I'm sure I've overlooked some potential flaws, but why wouldn't something like that work in all professional sports?

 

[moondog80]

 
Golden State was owed a top 7 protected pick in the 2012 draft by the Jazz and lost 22 of their last 27 games, which turned out to be just enough to put them in a tie with Toronto for 7th worst record. They won the tiebreaker and thus kept the pick that was used to select Barnes.

 
I think you mean that GS owed a protected pick to Utah, right?  And that they closed the season 5-22 so they could keep the pick?  Either way, it would be a better story if Harrison Barnes was actually good.

 

[The Social Chair]

I think that is an especially bad solution to the tanking issue.
 
I'm in the "why have a draft" camp myself. The % of revenues going to the players is already fixed, so imposing a rookie wage scale isn't saving the teams any money. The good teams are also almost all over the cap, so they won't be able to win any bidding wars for Andrew Wiggins, meaning we'd still be pushing new stars to the bad teams.
 
The draft makes sense if it either saves teams money, or you don't have a salary cap. When you have both, I'm not sure what purpose it serves.

 
 
Giving a large cap eating contract to an unproven rookie could cripple an already lousy team if the player is a bust. Good teams also have expiring contracts that are up almost every year. Under this plan Miami could swap out Wade/Bosh for Parker/Randel.

 

[Kliq]

The problem with the wheel is that a big part of the reason shitty teams are shitty are because they have a lot of holes. No matter how good a rookie can be, the chances are that a team that drafts #1 overall is still going to be a lottery team the next season. Part of re-building is have several crappy years that allow you to stockpile lottery picks over those years. Picking number one and then picking 30th the next year and then a draftining in the 20s the following year is not going to get you very far for rebuilding.
 
Tanking is a minor problem, and for that you need a minor solution. Keep the lottery, but tweak the percentages slightly so that worse records do not have such a great impact on lottery chances.

 

[Jed Zeppelin]

 
I think you mean that GS owed a protected pick to Utah, right?  And that they closed the season 5-22 so they could keep the pick?  Either way, it would be a better story if Harrison Barnes was actually good.

 
Correct, my bad. Got lost trying to trace the history of the pick, which was originally sent to NJ for Marcus Williams (!!!) in 2008 and later forwarded to Utah as part of the Deron Williams trade.
 
It was a tough break for Utah as the pick fell all the way to #21 last year, though they were able to package it with #14 to get Burke, so we'll see how that works out.

 

[bowiac]

Giving a large cap eating contract to an unproven rookie could cripple an already lousy team if the player is a bust. Good teams also have expiring contracts that are up almost every year. Under this plan Miami could swap out Wade/Bosh for Parker/Randel.

Okay, but then if Parker or Randle are busts (like in the first scenario), then the Heat have sabotaged their chances.

 

[swingin val]

 
I think you mean that GS owed a protected pick to Utah, right?  And that they closed the season 5-22 so they could keep the pick?  Either way, it would be a better story if Harrison Barnes was actually good.

Tough crowd. Barnes may have performed under expectations but he is still a pretty damn good basketball player playing some pretty good ball on a very good Golden State team

 

[moondog80]

Tough crowd. Barnes may have performed under expectations but he is still a pretty damn good basketball player playing some pretty good ball on a very good Golden State team


He might end up a solid rotation guy on a good team and that's actually decent value from the 7th pick. But Tim Duncan is worth tanking over. Harrison Barnes is just another guy.

 

[Smokey Joe]

According to Steve Bulpett, that Draft wheel is a Boston Celtic proposal.
 
http://bostonherald.com/sports/celtics_nba/boston_celtics/2013/12/c_s_danny_ainge_no_fan_of_losing
 
Spin the wheel Vanna!

 

[nighthob]

He might end up a solid rotation guy on a good team and that's actually decent value from the 7th pick. But Tim Duncan is worth tanking over. Harrison Barnes is just another guy.

 
He's already a decent rotation guy on a good team. I'm just not sure he gets any better, though.

 

[radsoxfan]

Oops... wrong thread post.
 
To stay on topic, I don't like the draft wheel idea, though it would probably help teams like the Celtics.  

 

[Kliq]

Has there been a lot of talk about Jabari Parker and the Jazz? If the Jazz get a chance to pick Parker, do they draft him no matter what? I personally think that you can't go wrong with drafting Parker, but I think it could be an interesting story if they pass on Wiggins and nab Parker instead.
 
I did some digging and found the SI article about Parker and how serious he is about his Morman faith: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-basketball/news/20131112/jabari-parker/
 
Jabari as a Jazz player would be the best media story for the NBA.

 

[Kliq]

I think that it would be a nice, soft news story, that will get a lot of coverage outside of the sporting realm.
 
Utah has had success this year using Marvin Williams as a stretch 4, imagine what they could do with Parker.

 

[Fred not Lynn]

There hasn't been too much overplay of the LDS card in the Utah media re: Parker yet.

And the way the Jazz are playing now that Trey Burke is healthy, it might become a non-issue.

Wiggins to Toronto, however, could be a different story altogether...

 

[Cellar-Door]

I doubt that the Jazz care. They ignored local legend and Mormon Jimmer Fredette in 2011. They'll take whoever they think is the best player even if Parker is available.

 

[The X Man Cometh]

Jabari Parker, Gordon Hayward, Trey Burke would be disaster defensively unless you have a really top notch glue guy in there who can defend a bunch of positions.
 
Utah isn't really a great situation in terms of existing talent as far as I'm concerned.
 
Favors is very good, but still behind where he "should" be for them still. Kanter is a deer in the headlights on the floor and barely a rotation caliber player right now. Nowhere to go but up, but the odds of him ever fulfilling his draft position are slim. Burke is an out-of-the-box offensive sparkplug but can't be expected to ever be one of the best players on a top team. Alec Burks is athletic I guess, not that impressive. The best of the bunch outside of Favors is Hayward and now they have to pay him. A lot of lottery picks and not a lot to show for it.

 

[Fred not Lynn]

Plus, the hardest core Mormons would resent that Parker didn't come to BYU this year...

No, check that, they'd be pissed he isn't on a mission right now.

 

[Kliq]

I give you Sim Bhullar: http://www.nmstatesports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=1900&ATCLID=205311976
 
I have no idea if he is going to come out early, or stick in college for a couple more seasons, but I find his story and his potential impact very interesting. He has shown some real flashes of ability playing for the Aggies, and I can't imagine an NBA team not giving him an oppurtunity just because his potential is through the roof if he ever puts it all together. He obviously needs to work more on his conditioning and his ability to run the floor, but if he made it, he would be the biggest NBA player that I can think of.

 

[Devizier]

I give you Sim Bhullar: http://www.nmstatesports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=1900&ATCLID=205311976
 
I have no idea if he is going to come out early, or stick in college for a couple more seasons, but I find his story and his potential impact very interesting. He has shown some real flashes of ability playing for the Aggies, and I can't imagine an NBA team not giving him an oppurtunity just because his potential is through the roof if he ever puts it all together. He obviously needs to work more on his conditioning and his ability to run the floor, but if he made it, he would be the biggest NBA player that I can think of.

 
Priest Lauderdale questions your assertion.
 

 

[Brickowski]

Sad about Kenny George from UNV Ashville 7-7, 365. He could dunk without jumping. But he lost a leg to infection, so no career for him.

Then there's Mamadou Ndiaye, the 7-5 kid from UC Irvine.

 

[Kliq]

I remember reading about the Bhullar brothers a couple years ago. I think the younger brother is now at New Mexico State with Sim Bhullar. He'd be the first Indian in the NBA if he made it that far but I really don't see much here. The NBA is getting more and more athletic and these guys can barely run up and down the floor. And it seems like everyone that size eventually develops foot or knee problems so the long-term potential is a bit limited. Given his size, he may be able to latch on to a D-League team but I don't see an NBA player here.

 
Your probably right. I think it would be really cool if he were able to to make it just as a end-of the rotation-six-fouls-to-give guy. Unlike Priest, Bhullar is a quality player at a significant university. Bhullar was the MVP of the WAC Tournament in 2013 and got them to the NCAA Tournament as a freshmen. He was also the WAC freshmen of the year. I know there are plenty of giant players in college hoops, but this is a guy that has shown actual potential at a moderatly high college level.
 
Kenny George actually ended up getting part of his leg amptuated, which is sad as he was playing in Europe at the time and doing alright. Not to get to off-topic, but to add to the list of giants there is this guy: Paul Sturgess
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTnC0RBXwws
 
He's in the D-league right now.

 

[Brickowski]

Unless they go completely into the tank, the Celtics will likely have two picks in the 10-22 range. It might be useful to have a discussion about players projected to be available in that range. One guy who looks good to me is Adriean Payne. Yes, I realize he's already 22, but he can play.

 

[Kliq]

I like Payne too. Everyone loves potential, but there is something to be said for drafting a guy and knowing that he can play right away. He has the size to play Center, and has a really soft touch, shooting 55-44-82. He is far from a softie though, he has a TRB% of 17.4, and advanced metrics say that he is an above average defender. Love to see Boston make a run at him.

 

[Cellar-Door]

I actually think the Celtics end up in the top 10. The Knicks and Nets both have no picks and an incentive to try and make moves to go for the playoffs, and I think 1 or both will pass the Celtics. I also think CHI could pass them, and that CLE might make a win now trade.
 
As a side note: What are the nbadraft.net guys smoking? They have Gordon going 19th? I haven't seen anyone rate him lower than 7.

 

[nighthob]

NBAdraft.net posts "controversial" mocks in order to drum up hits.

 

[Cellar-Door]

Well, assuming the loss to CHI holds up Celtics move up from the 15th pick to the 9th.

 

[nighthob]

They're stuck in Chicago thanks to the blizzard and have a game tomorrow night here in Boston against the Pelicants, and then finish out this finish this seven game in ten night stretch with a western swing against OKC, Denver, the Clippers, Golden State and Portland. And when they get home it's to open a homestand against the Rockets and the Citnalta Division leading Raptors. In two weeks time they could be looking at a top 6 pick.

 

[thehitcat]

If the Celts end up with say the 6th pick and Wiggins, Parker, Randle, Exum and Smart are off the board do you go raw 7 footer Embiid or athletic 3/4 Gordon or someone else?
 
I guess I see the Nets, Knicks and Cavs all passing the Celtics which puts us in 6-7 with the Lakers.  So I'm starting to hone in on that spot (and yes I know it's a lottery.)  I'm just curious what other draft watchers think. 
 
Piggybacking on an earlier idea I like the idea of Embiid at 6 and Payne at 16 even if it means less time for Sully, his back issues scare me, and KO only being a second unit stretch 4.