2015 Celtics Draft Picks

[In my lifetime]

He gives the Celtics (along with the Grizzlies and the Jazz) an "F" grade for their draft.

 
On the bright side, well okay just downright depressing side they had a great day compared to the Bruins yesterday.

 

[bowiac]

This piece wasn't super comforting, but did include something interesting at end which perhaps sheds light on where Ainge was coming from:
 
https://twitter.com/CountingBaskets/status/615853288987058176
 

Lastly, Rozier wasn't evaluated poorly by all of the analytic models. New Hampshire Math Professor Steven Shea's CPR rating had Rozier as the thirteenth best prospect. That in and of itself is not necessarily that interesting, any NBA worthy prospect can come out as well rated in one public draft model given how many there are now. 
 
But, it does get more interesting for two reasons. First, Shea's model rated all of the Celtics' first three picks well; rating R.J. Hunter as 11th and Jordan Mickey as 14th overall. Second, Shea's methodology focuses on the ten max performances by a prospect using game log data, then adjusted for class, suggesting those max performances may be more indicative than average performance of potential. What makes that interesting is that the Celtic's Director of Analytics, David Sparks, developed a game log metric back when he was a writer for Hardwood Paroxysm, so there's reason to believe the Celtics might be looking more at peak game performance as part of their analytic evaluation. I think there are pluses and minuses to that approach, especially if only a subset of games is used, however, I feel more confident in the Celtics selections thinking there was more than Danny's gut involved in the process.
 

 
I see the appeal of such an approach, although the studies I've seen which look at this method haven't been especially positive towards it.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

I wonder if they address quality of competition in some way.

 

[bowiac]

Shea does not address quality of competition, no. That said, while I would hope the Celtics do adjust for competition, there have been a couple studies showing that schedule plays a surprisingly small role in a prospect's pro potential. (i.e., it matters, but its less overwhelming so long as you played D1 ball than you might think).

 

[HomeRunBaker]

But, it does get more interesting for two reasons. First, Shea's model rated all of the Celtics' first three picks well; rating R.J. Hunter as 11th and Jordan Mickey as 14th overall.

Why is it interesting that Shea's model rated the players we selected well? Wouldn't that be expected? I'd be more surprised if one of our key evaluators had the guys we selected rated 38th, 46th, and 53rd overall.

 

[Cellar-Door]

Why is it interesting that Shea's model rated the players we selected well? Wouldn't that be expected? I'd be more surprised if one of our key evaluators had the guys we selected rated 38th, 46th, and 53rd overall.

Shea doesn't work for the team, and isn't associated with them in any way. Johnson just noted that his model was very high on all the Celtics' picks. He then pulled from what Shea's model uses and the hiring of David Sparks from HP, to guess that game log and peak performance were a bigger part of the Celtics' process than other teams.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Shea does not address quality of competition, no. That said, while I would hope the Celtics do adjust for competition, there have been a couple studies showing that schedule plays a surprisingly small role in a prospect's pro potential. (i.e., it matters, but its less overwhelming so long as you played D1 ball than you might think).

I think it would be more of a factor in a "best games" type of approach.

 

[ALiveH]

i'm starting to talk myself into this more, which is always a bad sign...
 
Rozier had excellent Stl & Reb rates for his position which are supposedly two of the more projectable college stats.  He also was a good shooter as a freshman and a good shooter in certain situations last year, but was forced into a role that made him look bad.  Just in terms of the eye test, even against high level college competition & even when he was not making good plays, he looked like the clear-cut best athlete on the court & has great size / length / strength for PG (undersized for SG though) - these are the sort of qualities that caused Ainge to fall in love with other small guards with great physical attributes like Marcus Banks & Rondo & it also fits some of his previous picks where college players are forced into roles that make them look worse (like Bradley & Rondo) so I can sort of see why he made this pick.  Still looks like a reach, but the NBA draft doesn't really lend itself to trading around for value like the NFL draft.

 

[nighthob]

I never really had a problem with it because once Oubre came off the board my list of guys that would still be in the NBA in ten years was gone.

 

[Cellar-Door]

I never really had a problem with it because once Oubre came off the board my list of guys that would still be in the NBA in ten years was gone.

I definitely don't agree on that. Some of the players after Oubre are more likely to be in the league in 10 years than Oubre and some of the players before him. The problem is they will be there as bench guys, trusty bench PG, Bench shooter, backup big etc. and most don't have the upside of being a starter at any point.

 

[nighthob]

I'm not arguing that the guys drafted after don't have careers in front of them. I was referring to guys I had in the first three tiers (Cornerstone/All Star/Starter) of the draft. Some of the roleplayers picked after will undoubtedly make NBA starter level eventually. But we went from tier 3 ending at #15 to tier 5 (lotto land) starting at #16. I just don't have strong feelings about any of them. Heck, they could have picked Upshaw at #16 and I probably would have found a way to talk myself into being OK with it.

 

[bowiac]

It's wrong/stupid of me, but I would have felt much better about the draft if the Celtics had taken Hunter 16, and Rozier 28th. I kind of suspect I'm not alone.

 

[ALiveH]

I'm sure you looked at way more mocks than me, but the ones i looked at were all over the place on Rozier & Hunter as both being anywhere from late 1st to 2nd.  The highest I've seen either of them is Hunter @ 22, and he seemed to be ranked higher more often than not, so maybe you're right, but he still would've been a significant "reach" at 16.
 
Hunter seems like a very marginal NBA athlete, but he's got a sick quick release.  To borrow a Simmonsism, all I could think was that he's a bigger homeless man's Steph Curry.

 

[Cellar-Door]

I'm sure you looked at way more mocks than me, but the ones i looked at were all over the place on Rozier & Hunter as both being anywhere from late 1st to 2nd.  The highest I've seen either of them is Hunter @ 22, and he seemed to be ranked higher more often than not, so maybe you're right, but he still would've been a significant "reach" at 16.
 
Hunter seems like a very marginal NBA athlete, but he's got a sick quick release.  To borrow a Simmonsism, all I could think was that he's a bigger homeless man's Steph Curry.

Whoa now. Shitty Kyle Korver is the better comp to me.

 

[bowiac]

I didn't read many mocks, but Hunter graded well on most analytics models, and I remember this article with Chad Ford talking about him going between 13 and 20. 
 
Basically, I'm optimistic about his ability to shoot given he's not a Jimmer-level athlete. The defense then determines if he's a rotation guy, or a possible starter. Probably closer to a rotation guy given size and athleticism, but a good mix/match piece all the same, and a fun player to watch.