Is Ainge too concerned with a high floor when drafting

[footey]

John Hollinger made a very interesting point on measuring the value of a draft pick.

If you compare who you pick with the "field" (i.e., all the guys still available), you are likely not to do well.  He feels that is not the correct way to analyze whether or not you screwed up on making a pick.

Too often, we look at who Danny could have gotten (Draymond Green, Giannis, for example), and criticize him for this miss. It is not that simple.

[BitterJim]

What percentage of players would be considered an outright bust, and is there really "percentiles" once you get below a certain level? Like if, say, 30% end up never rising above the level of playing in garbage time, do we really care where in that 30% they ended up? Is, for example, James Young actually any more valuable than a guy like Yabu or Royce White?

[mmmmm]

I think his point is more that Ainge quite simply hasn't been winning since Rondo was selected when looking at picks in that range.  It would be one thing if he had those 7 awful picks but also had 7 of the better picks or even just 1 of the super-elite All NBA type players.  But Ainge doesn't have those.  He is missing or getting a single.  His best selection was Avery Bradley, who is a fine player and very good value for his draft spot, but he isn't moving the needle much.

I think you have a different definition of "not winning".

Rondo was one of the greatest value picks of all time so isn't really a fair threshold to hold every pick since against.

But when talking about picks 'in that range', he's picked Avery, Sully, Fab, and Zizic all within 2 slots of Rondo's pick.   Fab is a bust and the jury is still out on Zizic but Rondo, Avery and Sully were all clearly 'wins' in that range.  I'd call that hitting at least 3 of 5, including a home run, a double and a single.  And maybe count Zizic as a walk.

What percentage of players at that range ever become 'home runs'?   What is your actual threshold by which you are judging?

If we use the 82games.com study of drafts from 1989-2008, only about 5% of players picked in the 19-23 range are going to be a 'star' and almost 60% are going to be no better than deep bench players.

The percentages drop off to abysmal quickly after that as you go deeper in the draft.  By the time you start the 2nd round, you should expect 70-80% of all players picked to be no better than deep bench players.   By the time you get to the middle of the 2nd round, forget it.

I get the feeling from reading comments that folks just don't really just how stacked the odds are against most of these players being even average NBA players, let alone 'home runs'.

well if you look at the screenshots i posted Danny compares very unfavorably against Pop/Bufford and Morey .. 2 guys that kind of beat the field consistently.
I think DA / PB and DM are the only three GMs held their positions since the start of the data experience so it is fair to be compared and how have they done....
Also Danny's average draft position has been higher than the other two so where he is picking is not an excuse...

I share the same disagreements with your methodology as others have posted.   If we restrict the comparison to just three GMs who have held their positions that long, then you've already down-selected to a set of GMs who have held those jobs (compared to the field) for a reason.   And you've also shrunk the sample sizes of players to a ridiculously small set.

[tazzmaniac]

John Hollinger made a very interesting point on measuring the value of a draft pick.

If you compare who you pick with the "field" (i.e., all the guys still available), you are likely not to do well.  He feels that is not the correct way to analyze whether or not you screwed up on making a pick.

Too often, we look at who Danny could have gotten (Draymond Green, Giannis, for example), and criticize him for this miss. It is not that simple.

A rather obvious point.  The simplicity of most people's assessments can also work in the other direction.  Is Draymond Green a very successful pick?  Yes.  Is he an example of great draft picking by GSW?  Not so much.   They passed on him with the 30th pick and took Festus Ezeli instead.  Green could have easily been gone by the 35th pick when they did pick him. 

Taking Olynyk over Giannis is the really the only pick that I take issue with especially with Ainge trading up to do so.  Right after the pick, Ainge said that Olynyk would be a good complimentary role player.  You just shouldn't pass on a player with star potential (assuming no significant red flags) for a complimentary role player.  Complimentary role players are easy enough to get via trade or free agency once you have your star(s) to build around. 

[NKY fan]

John Hollinger made a very interesting point on measuring the value of a draft pick.

If you compare who you pick with the "field" (i.e., all the guys still available), you are likely not to do well.  He feels that is not the correct way to analyze whether or not you screwed up on making a pick.

Too often, we look at who Danny could have gotten (Draymond Green, Giannis, for example), and criticize him for this miss. It is not that simple.

A rather obvious point.  The simplicity of most people's assessments can also work in the other direction.  Is Draymond Green a very successful pick?  Yes.  Is he an example of great draft picking by GSW?  Not so much.   They passed on him with the 30th pick and took Festus Ezeli instead.  Green could have easily been gone by the 35th pick when they did pick him. 

Taking Olynyk over Giannis is the really the only pick that I take issue with especially with Ainge trading up to do so.  Right after the pick, Ainge said that Olynyk would be a good complimentary role player.  You just shouldn't pass on a player with star potential (assuming no significant red flags) for a complimentary role player.  Complimentary role players are easy enough to get via trade or free agency once you have your star(s) to build around.

TP!! Danny was inconsistent with the Olynic pick.
One of the problems that some fans display on here is that they often times get attached to whoever Danny picks and are convinced they were a high value pick and have a hard time letting go of.  they also keep pointing to decent (for a couple seasons) / however average or below average players drafted outside the 07-18 years.

[NKY fan]

Pat Riley, Donnie Nelson (Mavs), and Chris Wallace (Grizzlies) would be on that list, too. Sam Presti as well if you're counting Morey (that both started in the 07-08 season). RealGM has a good list of current GMs (but doesn't include the Grizzlies for some reason, I had to look that up separately)

thank  you for pointing these 4 names. I will try to look them up and see who they drafted actually on draft night with intention to keep on their teams.
I thought Riley is one that believes trading middle picks for good veterans is the way to go so he wouldn't have many picks made...

[mmmmm]

John Hollinger made a very interesting point on measuring the value of a draft pick.

If you compare who you pick with the "field" (i.e., all the guys still available), you are likely not to do well.  He feels that is not the correct way to analyze whether or not you screwed up on making a pick.

Too often, we look at who Danny could have gotten (Draymond Green, Giannis, for example), and criticize him for this miss. It is not that simple.

A rather obvious point.  The simplicity of most people's assessments can also work in the other direction.  Is Draymond Green a very successful pick?  Yes.  Is he an example of great draft picking by GSW?  Not so much.   They passed on him with the 30th pick and took Festus Ezeli instead.  Green could have easily been gone by the 35th pick when they did pick him. 

Taking Olynyk over Giannis is the really the only pick that I take issue with especially with Ainge trading up to do so.  Right after the pick, Ainge said that Olynyk would be a good complimentary role player.  You just shouldn't pass on a player with star potential (assuming no significant red flags) for a complimentary role player.  Complimentary role players are easy enough to get via trade or free agency once you have your star(s) to build around.

This smells like hindsight mixed with a little revisionism.   There were definitely legitimate concerns with Giannis.  He was super, super skinny when he entered the draft and also had played only against rather modest competition.    I liked him and would have been happy if Danny had taken a flyer on his upside, but it would most definitely been a flyer.   No one at the time could know how well he'd fill out and develop.   Heck, he didn't even ''break out" until his fourth season.

Go look at his per-36, per-100 and advanced numbers in his 3rd season and compare them to Olynyk's.   

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=Kelly+Olynyk&player_id1_select=Kelly+Olynyk&player_id1=olynyke01&y1=2016&player_id2_hint=Giannis+Antetokounmpo&player_id2_select=Giannis+Antetokounmpo&player_id2=antetgi01&y2=2016

If you just stopped at the 'per game' or 'totals' tables, then sure, they look different.  Giannis was on a crappy 33-win Bucks team getting lots of minutes while Olynyk was on a 48 win Celtics team fighting a stronger roster for minutes.

If you look at the per-36, per-100 and 'advanced' tables, they look like almost the same player.

If you look at their cumulative rates for their first three season, Olynyks actually looked slightly better.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=1&player_id1_hint=Kelly+Olynyk&player_id1_select=Kelly+Olynyk&player_id1=olynyke01&y1=2016&player_id2_hint=Giannis+Antetokounmpo&player_id2_select=Giannis+Antetokounmpo&player_id2=antetgi01&y2=2016

To that point, Olynyk had higher scoring and rebounding rates (per minute and per possession) and slightly better scoring efficiency.  He also had, to that point a higher career WS/48 rate.

Giannis didn't really start to become *Giannis*, and start separating himself from the field until the following season.   At that point he put on a lot of muscle mass and his shot profile became more aggressive.  He started getting to the FT line at a much higher rate, jumping from ~7 per 100 possessions up to just over ~10.   

That's all great.  And it's very clear now that Giannis is a super star player.  But that was 4 years after being drafted.   Any claims that one really could know that potential was going to be realized back at the draft have to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

And we can't know how his career would have played out if he had been drafted by the Celtics.  He was not PF sized when he was drafted and would have been in competition for minutes at the 3, behind guys like Jeff Green, Gerald Wallace, Jae Crowder, Evan Turner, and a few other veterans during those years.   He wouldn't have been just handed 2000+ minutes each year.    A lot of what happens in the NBA comes down to opportunity.

[tazzmaniac]

John Hollinger made a very interesting point on measuring the value of a draft pick.

If you compare who you pick with the "field" (i.e., all the guys still available), you are likely not to do well.  He feels that is not the correct way to analyze whether or not you screwed up on making a pick.

Too often, we look at who Danny could have gotten (Draymond Green, Giannis, for example), and criticize him for this miss. It is not that simple.

A rather obvious point.  The simplicity of most people's assessments can also work in the other direction.  Is Draymond Green a very successful pick?  Yes.  Is he an example of great draft picking by GSW?  Not so much.   They passed on him with the 30th pick and took Festus Ezeli instead.  Green could have easily been gone by the 35th pick when they did pick him. 

Taking Olynyk over Giannis is the really the only pick that I take issue with especially with Ainge trading up to do so.  Right after the pick, Ainge said that Olynyk would be a good complimentary role player.  You just shouldn't pass on a player with star potential (assuming no significant red flags) for a complimentary role player.  Complimentary role players are easy enough to get via trade or free agency once you have your star(s) to build around.

This smells like hindsight mixed with a little revisionism.   There were definitely legitimate concerns with Giannis.  He was super, super skinny when he entered the draft and also had played only against rather modest competition.    I liked him and would have been happy if Danny had taken a flyer on his upside, but it would most definitely been a flyer.   No one at the time could know how well he'd fill out and develop.   Heck, he didn't even ''break out" until his fourth season.

Go look at his per-36, per-100 and advanced numbers in his 3rd season and compare them to Olynyk's.   

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=Kelly+Olynyk&player_id1_select=Kelly+Olynyk&player_id1=olynyke01&y1=2016&player_id2_hint=Giannis+Antetokounmpo&player_id2_select=Giannis+Antetokounmpo&player_id2=antetgi01&y2=2016

If you just stopped at the 'per game' or 'totals' tables, then sure, they look different.  Giannis was on a crappy 33-win Bucks team getting lots of minutes while Olynyk was on a 48 win Celtics team fighting a stronger roster for minutes.

If you look at the per-36, per-100 and 'advanced' tables, they look like almost the same player.

If you look at their cumulative rates for their first three season, Olynyks actually looked slightly better.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=1&player_id1_hint=Kelly+Olynyk&player_id1_select=Kelly+Olynyk&player_id1=olynyke01&y1=2016&player_id2_hint=Giannis+Antetokounmpo&player_id2_select=Giannis+Antetokounmpo&player_id2=antetgi01&y2=2016

To that point, Olynyk had higher scoring and rebounding rates (per minute and per possession) and slightly better scoring efficiency.  He also had, to that point a higher career WS/48 rate.

Giannis didn't really start to become *Giannis*, and start separating himself from the field until the following season.   At that point he put on a lot of muscle mass and his shot profile became more aggressive.  He started getting to the FT line at a much higher rate, jumping from ~7 per 100 possessions up to just over ~10.   

That's all great.  And it's very clear now that Giannis is a super star player.  But that was 4 years after being drafted.   Any claims that one really could know that potential was going to be realized back at the draft have to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

And we can't know how his career would have played out if he had been drafted by the Celtics.  He was not PF sized when he was drafted and would have been in competition for minutes at the 3, behind guys like Jeff Green, Gerald Wallace, Jae Crowder, Evan Turner, and a few other veterans during those years.   He wouldn't have been just handed 2000+ minutes each year.    A lot of what happens in the NBA comes down to opportunity.

You need to re-read.  I made no claims that I knew that Giannis would become a superstar on draft night.  He did have star potential on draft night whereas Olynyk didn't.  Regardless of the actual result even if he busted, Giannis was the correct choice to make on draft night.  BTW to show I'm not being anti-Ainge, Hinkie, whose process I agreed with, also blew it by taking MCW over Giannis. 

Olynyk was nearly 4 years older coming out as a junior at a major college program.  Giannis was playing in a lesser Euro league.  A raw young talent that some thought would have to spend a year or two overseas before coming over.  Instead he came over immediately and played credibly from the start.  Giannis played over 24 minutes per game his 1st season something Olynyk has never done.  Giannis played over 31 minutes per game and started 71 games in his 2nd season.  The most Olynyk has ever started is 36 games in a season.  His 3rd season Giannis was clearly becoming a star.   Giannis' 1st 3 seasons were better than Jimmy Butler and Kawhi.