Danny Ainge excuses and lack of trades(merged threads)

[NKY fan]

Here's a more objective approach: rank each player by win shares in their draft class. It's not perfect but it's better than opinions, which is all we've gotten so far.


I'll throw out top 10 picks to be consistent with the post above. You'll see the player's name, their draft position, and their WS rank in the class, followed by "OVER" or "UNDER" perform. I'll call it "EVEN if the rank is +/- 1 slot.

Also looking at 10 years of history.

2017: Rob Williams, 27 (21), OVER
2017: Semi Ojeleye, 37 (25), OVER
2017: Kadeem Allen, 53 (36), OVER
2017: Jabari Bird, 56 (46), OVER
2016: Ante Zizic, 23 (24), EVEN
2016: Abdel Nader, 58 (30), OVER
2016: Guerschon Yabusele, 31 (16), UNDER
2016: Demetrius Jackson, 45 (38), OVER
2016: Ben Bentil, 51 (50), EVEN
2015: Terry Rozier, 16 (12), OVER
2015: Jordan Mickey, 33 (36), UNDER
2015: RJ Hunter, 28 (38), UNDER
2015: Marcus Thornton, EVEN (never played but drafted in a slot where never playing is the norm for that year)
2014: James Young, 17 (37), UNDER
2013: Kelly Olynyk, 13 (8 ), OVER
2012: Jared Sullinger 21 (19), OVER
2012: Fab Melo, 22 (48), UNDER
2012: Kris Joseph, 50 (51), EVEN
2011: ETwuan Moore, 55 (22), OVER
2011: JaJuan Johnson, 27 (45), UNDER
2010: Avery Bradley 19 (15), OVER
2010: Luke Harangody, 52 (31), OVER
2009: Lester Hudson 58 (45), OVER
2008: Semih Erden 60 (37), OVER
2008: JR Giddens, 30 (45), UNDER

So what does this leave us with?

UNDER: 7
OVER: 14
EVEN: 4

These are great numbers: Ainge drafts guys that outperform their draft slot twice as often as he drafts guys that underperforms.

You could do these using different metrics, but I doubt you'll see too much difference in the overall conclusion. The claim that Ainge is a terrible drafter is just 100% wrong. Because this is a zero-sum method, for every pick he makes that outperforms, there must be a GM out there who's underperforming.

For what it's worth I had done another one of these several years back, going all the way back to Ainge's beginning with the organization, and you see the same thing. There are just a handful of guys who are arguably better than him. (Rondo is the best #21 pick EVER, unless you want to put Michael Finley above him, and Al Jefferson is one of the 5 best picks at his slot as well.)

I can't see into other people's heads, but I suspect that a lot of the knee-jerk thinking about this comes from one thing: not understanding exactly how few players at any draft slot end up being legit NBA players, much less stars. That's probably a salience effect: we remember Giannis as a 15 pick, but forget that the typical player in that range is someone like Adriean Payne, or Kelly Oubre, or Royce White, or Lucas Noguiera, or Shabazz Mohammad...

I think the only way to really get a sense for that is by spending time looking at the drafts, going back years.

This is very flawed methodology. I have gone in more depth of what Danny has done in the middle of the draft and came away with him being behind all his peers like morey and Buford .
I am not sure why the over of his picks in the 40-60 should count as anything as those guys didn’t really do much and their WS have more to do with them getting spot minutes on a good team.
You also fail to recognize how bad the unders are. The 7 under that you identified are historically bad in their draft range by almost all metrics.

You haven't presented a single hard fact to back up your statements. You don't like my method? Fine, you pick one. Gather some data, justify the method and show us the results. Otherwise you'll continue to come off as someone spouting unfounded nonsense.

And by the way my analysis above is hardly a "very flawed methodology." It's a logically founded, simple method. You can do it other ways, sure. There are drawbacks to any one method, sure. But until you present an alternative, you've brought nothing of value to the discussion.

PS There are plenty of other analyses out there too, using different methods and covering different periods, and nearly all of them rate Danny as above average. You can find them on your own if you want to.

I sent you a PM. Well here is the problem with your methodology:
Marcus Thornton selected at 46 or whatever is even... I understand that ranking on WS but:
You included a few players selected after 46 ... they are basically guaranteed to be over and I agree ( Nader and etawn Moore have been good value for their draft slot)... all those late picks guaranteed to be over is because there are plenty of horrible picks in the middle of the draft and unfortunately Danny accounts for quite a few of those.

Can you present a better methodology?

Also lol at the emboldened. How?

Everyone at the bottom is either bad or outperforming their draft slot (since there's a floor on how badly you can do). So if you discount all picks who play poorly as just living up to their draft spot, and players that outperform the same as other players that outperform, you'll introduce bias.

I don't think it's more bias than basing you methodology on 1. starting the year after Ainge's best pick (Rondo), 2. only counting picks better than Ainge's best in that period (Avery Bradley) as good picks (actually "borderline all stars"), and 3. removing the sections of the draft (lottery and 2nd round) where Ainge did best, but it's bias nonetheless.

I will make the methodology more intuitive and presentable. I do believe Danny’s analytics team is missing something in their drafting predictive models. Obviously I can’t tell what the issue is but something is partly to blame for the bad picks since 2007 or since big tech like apple Facebook and google changed the way we live.
Other teams started drafting better while Celtics regressed.

What other teams?? Name more than 3

Rockets , spurs , nuggets with and without Ujiri, I would add Miami  and maybe thunder and blazers

So four and two maybes out of 29 other clubs and somehow Danny is bad compared to his peers?
 
You can see how this is not adding up right?

His peers are GMs that have the same longevity as him in the field not the suns or knicks GMs etc. I know what I’m talking about and I am almost always right 

Just wrong on this.

Obviously it was a joke just forgot to put the LOL..

[NKY fan]

Here's a more objective approach: rank each player by win shares in their draft class. It's not perfect but it's better than opinions, which is all we've gotten so far.


I'll throw out top 10 picks to be consistent with the post above. You'll see the player's name, their draft position, and their WS rank in the class, followed by "OVER" or "UNDER" perform. I'll call it "EVEN if the rank is +/- 1 slot.

Also looking at 10 years of history.

2017: Rob Williams, 27 (21), OVER
2017: Semi Ojeleye, 37 (25), OVER
2017: Kadeem Allen, 53 (36), OVER
2017: Jabari Bird, 56 (46), OVER
2016: Ante Zizic, 23 (24), EVEN
2016: Abdel Nader, 58 (30), OVER
2016: Guerschon Yabusele, 31 (16), UNDER
2016: Demetrius Jackson, 45 (38), OVER
2016: Ben Bentil, 51 (50), EVEN
2015: Terry Rozier, 16 (12), OVER
2015: Jordan Mickey, 33 (36), UNDER
2015: RJ Hunter, 28 (38), UNDER
2015: Marcus Thornton, EVEN (never played but drafted in a slot where never playing is the norm for that year)
2014: James Young, 17 (37), UNDER
2013: Kelly Olynyk, 13 (8 ), OVER
2012: Jared Sullinger 21 (19), OVER
2012: Fab Melo, 22 (48), UNDER
2012: Kris Joseph, 50 (51), EVEN
2011: ETwuan Moore, 55 (22), OVER
2011: JaJuan Johnson, 27 (45), UNDER
2010: Avery Bradley 19 (15), OVER
2010: Luke Harangody, 52 (31), OVER
2009: Lester Hudson 58 (45), OVER
2008: Semih Erden 60 (37), OVER
2008: JR Giddens, 30 (45), UNDER

So what does this leave us with?

UNDER: 7
OVER: 14
EVEN: 4

These are great numbers: Ainge drafts guys that outperform their draft slot twice as often as he drafts guys that underperforms.

You could do these using different metrics, but I doubt you'll see too much difference in the overall conclusion. The claim that Ainge is a terrible drafter is just 100% wrong. Because this is a zero-sum method, for every pick he makes that outperforms, there must be a GM out there who's underperforming.

For what it's worth I had done another one of these several years back, going all the way back to Ainge's beginning with the organization, and you see the same thing. There are just a handful of guys who are arguably better than him. (Rondo is the best #21 pick EVER, unless you want to put Michael Finley above him, and Al Jefferson is one of the 5 best picks at his slot as well.)

I can't see into other people's heads, but I suspect that a lot of the knee-jerk thinking about this comes from one thing: not understanding exactly how few players at any draft slot end up being legit NBA players, much less stars. That's probably a salience effect: we remember Giannis as a 15 pick, but forget that the typical player in that range is someone like Adriean Payne, or Kelly Oubre, or Royce White, or Lucas Noguiera, or Shabazz Mohammad...

I think the only way to really get a sense for that is by spending time looking at the drafts, going back years.

This is very flawed methodology. I have gone in more depth of what Danny has done in the middle of the draft and came away with him being behind all his peers like morey and Buford .
I am not sure why the over of his picks in the 40-60 should count as anything as those guys didn’t really do much and their WS have more to do with them getting spot minutes on a good team.
You also fail to recognize how bad the unders are. The 7 under that you identified are historically bad in their draft range by almost all metrics.

You haven't presented a single hard fact to back up your statements. You don't like my method? Fine, you pick one. Gather some data, justify the method and show us the results. Otherwise you'll continue to come off as someone spouting unfounded nonsense.

And by the way my analysis above is hardly a "very flawed methodology." It's a logically founded, simple method. You can do it other ways, sure. There are drawbacks to any one method, sure. But until you present an alternative, you've brought nothing of value to the discussion.

PS There are plenty of other analyses out there too, using different methods and covering different periods, and nearly all of them rate Danny as above average. You can find them on your own if you want to.

I sent you a PM. Well here is the problem with your methodology:
Marcus Thornton selected at 46 or whatever is even... I understand that ranking on WS but:
You included a few players selected after 46 ... they are basically guaranteed to be over and I agree ( Nader and etawn Moore have been good value for their draft slot)... all those late picks guaranteed to be over is because there are plenty of horrible picks in the middle of the draft and unfortunately Danny accounts for quite a few of those.

Can you present a better methodology?

Also lol at the emboldened. How?

Everyone at the bottom is either bad or outperforming their draft slot (since there's a floor on how badly you can do). So if you discount all picks who play poorly as just living up to their draft spot, and players that outperform the same as other players that outperform, you'll introduce bias.

I don't think it's more bias than basing you methodology on 1. starting the year after Ainge's best pick (Rondo), 2. only counting picks better than Ainge's best in that period (Avery Bradley) as good picks (actually "borderline all stars"), and 3. removing the sections of the draft (lottery and 2nd round) where Ainge did best, but it's bias nonetheless.

I will make the methodology more intuitive and presentable. I do believe Danny’s analytics team is missing something in their drafting predictive models. Obviously I can’t tell what the issue is but something is partly to blame for the bad picks since 2007 or since big tech like apple Facebook and google changed the way we live.
Other teams started drafting better while Celtics regressed.

What other teams?? Name more than 3

Rockets , spurs , nuggets with and without Ujiri, I would add Miami  and maybe thunder and blazers

So four and two maybes out of 29 other clubs and somehow Danny is bad compared to his peers?
 
You can see how this is not adding up right?

His peers are GMs that have the same longevity as him in the field not the suns or knicks GMs etc. I know what I’m talking about and I am almost always right 

If you select only the GMs who've been running teams for 10+ years, you are comparing him to the most successful ones in the league. It's selection bias. Even if he's average in that group he's way above average in the league.

And even there, ok, you mention the Nuggets, who've made one great 2nd round pick in Jokic. Since then they have drafted these guys in the 2nd round:

Thomas Welsh
Vlatko Cancar
Monte Morris
Petr Cornelie
Nikola Radicevic

Lot of home runs there...if you want to contend in the Greek B league.

And on their 1st rounders, they have one recent solid hit (Murray). They have one huge bust (Mudiay). McDermott for Harris was a good trade.

But they also have made two of the worst draft day trades in recent NBA history: trading away Donovan Mitchell for Trey Lyles and a pick in 2017, and also trading away Rudy Gobert in 2013 for a 2nd rounder.

Seriously now...you rank that as great? Trading away draft rights to a DPOY and a perennial 25/4/4 guy for basically nothing?

TP from me. A huge element of ranking a GM's drafting is definitely their draft-day trading, and Denver is one of the worst for that, whereas Danny is one of the best. The Rondo & Tatum trades are examples of this.

I would say more draft day trading means that GMs are very confident in their rankings and think they know which are the targets of of other  GMs picking around where they pick.
I was going to comment on his draft day trading :
Can’t remember if rondo was draft day or not but that’s a good one.
JaJuan plus etawn for brooks - good because somehow he got the best player out of it.. he could have bought the 55 pick for $200K... also he let Moore go for some reason
16 pick plus a second rounder to draft KO??? I know giannis was unknown but he scouted him and he has drafted for upside so many times... why didn’t he do it this one time is beyond me ..
It is probably the reason we are not top 3 contenders.
He made the draft day trade with philly in 2019 and so far it seems like he lost that trade. I can’t comment on the suns trade and what the motivations were... did he know he needed cap space ??
Overall his draft day trading has been mixed bag..it just tells me he’s over confident in his drafting strategies.

As long as majority of fans are happy with 4 rookies every year and with picks like JJJ and James young he will not try to get better or improve his models and strategies.

[jambr380]

Here's a more objective approach: rank each player by win shares in their draft class. It's not perfect but it's better than opinions, which is all we've gotten so far.


I'll throw out top 10 picks to be consistent with the post above. You'll see the player's name, their draft position, and their WS rank in the class, followed by "OVER" or "UNDER" perform. I'll call it "EVEN if the rank is +/- 1 slot.

Also looking at 10 years of history.

2017: Rob Williams, 27 (21), OVER
2017: Semi Ojeleye, 37 (25), OVER
2017: Kadeem Allen, 53 (36), OVER
2017: Jabari Bird, 56 (46), OVER
2016: Ante Zizic, 23 (24), EVEN
2016: Abdel Nader, 58 (30), OVER
2016: Guerschon Yabusele, 31 (16), UNDER
2016: Demetrius Jackson, 45 (38), OVER
2016: Ben Bentil, 51 (50), EVEN
2015: Terry Rozier, 16 (12), OVER
2015: Jordan Mickey, 33 (36), UNDER
2015: RJ Hunter, 28 (38), UNDER
2015: Marcus Thornton, EVEN (never played but drafted in a slot where never playing is the norm for that year)
2014: James Young, 17 (37), UNDER
2013: Kelly Olynyk, 13 (8 ), OVER
2012: Jared Sullinger 21 (19), OVER
2012: Fab Melo, 22 (48), UNDER
2012: Kris Joseph, 50 (51), EVEN
2011: ETwuan Moore, 55 (22), OVER
2011: JaJuan Johnson, 27 (45), UNDER
2010: Avery Bradley 19 (15), OVER
2010: Luke Harangody, 52 (31), OVER
2009: Lester Hudson 58 (45), OVER
2008: Semih Erden 60 (37), OVER
2008: JR Giddens, 30 (45), UNDER

So what does this leave us with?

UNDER: 7
OVER: 14
EVEN: 4

These are great numbers: Ainge drafts guys that outperform their draft slot twice as often as he drafts guys that underperforms.

You could do these using different metrics, but I doubt you'll see too much difference in the overall conclusion. The claim that Ainge is a terrible drafter is just 100% wrong. Because this is a zero-sum method, for every pick he makes that outperforms, there must be a GM out there who's underperforming.

For what it's worth I had done another one of these several years back, going all the way back to Ainge's beginning with the organization, and you see the same thing. There are just a handful of guys who are arguably better than him. (Rondo is the best #21 pick EVER, unless you want to put Michael Finley above him, and Al Jefferson is one of the 5 best picks at his slot as well.)

I can't see into other people's heads, but I suspect that a lot of the knee-jerk thinking about this comes from one thing: not understanding exactly how few players at any draft slot end up being legit NBA players, much less stars. That's probably a salience effect: we remember Giannis as a 15 pick, but forget that the typical player in that range is someone like Adriean Payne, or Kelly Oubre, or Royce White, or Lucas Noguiera, or Shabazz Mohammad...

I think the only way to really get a sense for that is by spending time looking at the drafts, going back years.

This is very flawed methodology. I have gone in more depth of what Danny has done in the middle of the draft and came away with him being behind all his peers like morey and Buford .
I am not sure why the over of his picks in the 40-60 should count as anything as those guys didn’t really do much and their WS have more to do with them getting spot minutes on a good team.
You also fail to recognize how bad the unders are. The 7 under that you identified are historically bad in their draft range by almost all metrics.

You haven't presented a single hard fact to back up your statements. You don't like my method? Fine, you pick one. Gather some data, justify the method and show us the results. Otherwise you'll continue to come off as someone spouting unfounded nonsense.

And by the way my analysis above is hardly a "very flawed methodology." It's a logically founded, simple method. You can do it other ways, sure. There are drawbacks to any one method, sure. But until you present an alternative, you've brought nothing of value to the discussion.

PS There are plenty of other analyses out there too, using different methods and covering different periods, and nearly all of them rate Danny as above average. You can find them on your own if you want to.

I sent you a PM. Well here is the problem with your methodology:
Marcus Thornton selected at 46 or whatever is even... I understand that ranking on WS but:
You included a few players selected after 46 ... they are basically guaranteed to be over and I agree ( Nader and etawn Moore have been good value for their draft slot)... all those late picks guaranteed to be over is because there are plenty of horrible picks in the middle of the draft and unfortunately Danny accounts for quite a few of those.

Can you present a better methodology?

Also lol at the emboldened. How?

Everyone at the bottom is either bad or outperforming their draft slot (since there's a floor on how badly you can do). So if you discount all picks who play poorly as just living up to their draft spot, and players that outperform the same as other players that outperform, you'll introduce bias.

I don't think it's more bias than basing you methodology on 1. starting the year after Ainge's best pick (Rondo), 2. only counting picks better than Ainge's best in that period (Avery Bradley) as good picks (actually "borderline all stars"), and 3. removing the sections of the draft (lottery and 2nd round) where Ainge did best, but it's bias nonetheless.

I will make the methodology more intuitive and presentable. I do believe Danny’s analytics team is missing something in their drafting predictive models. Obviously I can’t tell what the issue is but something is partly to blame for the bad picks since 2007 or since big tech like apple Facebook and google changed the way we live.
Other teams started drafting better while Celtics regressed.

What other teams?? Name more than 3

Rockets , spurs , nuggets with and without Ujiri, I would add Miami  and maybe thunder and blazers

So four and two maybes out of 29 other clubs and somehow Danny is bad compared to his peers?
 
You can see how this is not adding up right?

His peers are GMs that have the same longevity as him in the field not the suns or knicks GMs etc. I know what I’m talking about and I am almost always right 

If you select only the GMs who've been running teams for 10+ years, you are comparing him to the most successful ones in the league. It's selection bias. Even if he's average in that group he's way above average in the league.

And even there, ok, you mention the Nuggets, who've made one great 2nd round pick in Jokic. Since then they have drafted these guys in the 2nd round:

Thomas Welsh
Vlatko Cancar
Monte Morris
Petr Cornelie
Nikola Radicevic

Lot of home runs there...if you want to contend in the Greek B league.

And on their 1st rounders, they have one recent solid hit (Murray). They have one huge bust (Mudiay). McDermott for Harris was a good trade.

But they also hav9e made two of the worst draft day trades in recent NBA history: trading away Donovan Mitchell for Trey Lyles and a pick in 2017, and also trading away Rudy Gobert in 2013 for a 2nd rounder.

Seriously now...you rank that as great? Trading away draft rights to a DPOY and a perennial 25/4/4 guy for basically nothing?

TP from me. A huge element of ranking a GM's drafting is definitely their draft-day trading, and Denver is one of the worst for that, whereas Danny is one of the best. The Rondo & Tatum trades are examples of this.

Tatum is not a draft day trade.

The trade happened on a Monday, the draft was Thursday.

Lol - are people really not counting Tatum as a 'draft day trade' since he was dealt earlier in the week? Since it was the top of the draft, the order was essentially set at that time (since Ball was def going #2). The only real decision was for Danny, which was Tatum or Jackson.

It's asinine not to give 'draft credit' here to Danny just because it doesn't fit the narrative.

[flybono]

The bench has been an enigma since the later Garnett years

The roster as constituted is soft

At some point you have to quit waiting for so called “superstars” to become available and “build a contender “ much like Detroit did back in 04 5 and 6

To do that, you must be willing to take chances on impending free agents available via trade, veteran players and players you target as possible Roster upgrades at the trade deadline

Something Ainge has not done which makes each season predictable

[Fierce1]

The bench has been an enigma since the later Garnett years

The roster as constituted is soft

At some point you have to quit waiting for so called “superstars” to become available and “build a contender “ much like Detroit did back in 04 5 and 6

To do that, you must be willing to take chances on impending free agents available via trade, veteran players and players you target as possible Roster upgrades at the trade deadline

Something Ainge has not done which makes each season predictable

That might change this season.

Trade deadline in 2 weeks and 1 day.

[Fierce1]

Here's a more objective approach: rank each player by win shares in their draft class. It's not perfect but it's better than opinions, which is all we've gotten so far.


I'll throw out top 10 picks to be consistent with the post above. You'll see the player's name, their draft position, and their WS rank in the class, followed by "OVER" or "UNDER" perform. I'll call it "EVEN if the rank is +/- 1 slot.

Also looking at 10 years of history.

2017: Rob Williams, 27 (21), OVER
2017: Semi Ojeleye, 37 (25), OVER
2017: Kadeem Allen, 53 (36), OVER
2017: Jabari Bird, 56 (46), OVER
2016: Ante Zizic, 23 (24), EVEN
2016: Abdel Nader, 58 (30), OVER
2016: Guerschon Yabusele, 31 (16), UNDER
2016: Demetrius Jackson, 45 (38), OVER
2016: Ben Bentil, 51 (50), EVEN
2015: Terry Rozier, 16 (12), OVER
2015: Jordan Mickey, 33 (36), UNDER
2015: RJ Hunter, 28 (38), UNDER
2015: Marcus Thornton, EVEN (never played but drafted in a slot where never playing is the norm for that year)
2014: James Young, 17 (37), UNDER
2013: Kelly Olynyk, 13 (8 ), OVER
2012: Jared Sullinger 21 (19), OVER
2012: Fab Melo, 22 (48), UNDER
2012: Kris Joseph, 50 (51), EVEN
2011: ETwuan Moore, 55 (22), OVER
2011: JaJuan Johnson, 27 (45), UNDER
2010: Avery Bradley 19 (15), OVER
2010: Luke Harangody, 52 (31), OVER
2009: Lester Hudson 58 (45), OVER
2008: Semih Erden 60 (37), OVER
2008: JR Giddens, 30 (45), UNDER

So what does this leave us with?

UNDER: 7
OVER: 14
EVEN: 4

These are great numbers: Ainge drafts guys that outperform their draft slot twice as often as he drafts guys that underperforms.

You could do these using different metrics, but I doubt you'll see too much difference in the overall conclusion. The claim that Ainge is a terrible drafter is just 100% wrong. Because this is a zero-sum method, for every pick he makes that outperforms, there must be a GM out there who's underperforming.

For what it's worth I had done another one of these several years back, going all the way back to Ainge's beginning with the organization, and you see the same thing. There are just a handful of guys who are arguably better than him. (Rondo is the best #21 pick EVER, unless you want to put Michael Finley above him, and Al Jefferson is one of the 5 best picks at his slot as well.)

I can't see into other people's heads, but I suspect that a lot of the knee-jerk thinking about this comes from one thing: not understanding exactly how few players at any draft slot end up being legit NBA players, much less stars. That's probably a salience effect: we remember Giannis as a 15 pick, but forget that the typical player in that range is someone like Adriean Payne, or Kelly Oubre, or Royce White, or Lucas Noguiera, or Shabazz Mohammad...

I think the only way to really get a sense for that is by spending time looking at the drafts, going back years.

This is very flawed methodology. I have gone in more depth of what Danny has done in the middle of the draft and came away with him being behind all his peers like morey and Buford .
I am not sure why the over of his picks in the 40-60 should count as anything as those guys didn’t really do much and their WS have more to do with them getting spot minutes on a good team.
You also fail to recognize how bad the unders are. The 7 under that you identified are historically bad in their draft range by almost all metrics.

You haven't presented a single hard fact to back up your statements. You don't like my method? Fine, you pick one. Gather some data, justify the method and show us the results. Otherwise you'll continue to come off as someone spouting unfounded nonsense.

And by the way my analysis above is hardly a "very flawed methodology." It's a logically founded, simple method. You can do it other ways, sure. There are drawbacks to any one method, sure. But until you present an alternative, you've brought nothing of value to the discussion.

PS There are plenty of other analyses out there too, using different methods and covering different periods, and nearly all of them rate Danny as above average. You can find them on your own if you want to.

I sent you a PM. Well here is the problem with your methodology:
Marcus Thornton selected at 46 or whatever is even... I understand that ranking on WS but:
You included a few players selected after 46 ... they are basically guaranteed to be over and I agree ( Nader and etawn Moore have been good value for their draft slot)... all those late picks guaranteed to be over is because there are plenty of horrible picks in the middle of the draft and unfortunately Danny accounts for quite a few of those.

Can you present a better methodology?

Also lol at the emboldened. How?

Everyone at the bottom is either bad or outperforming their draft slot (since there's a floor on how badly you can do). So if you discount all picks who play poorly as just living up to their draft spot, and players that outperform the same as other players that outperform, you'll introduce bias.

I don't think it's more bias than basing you methodology on 1. starting the year after Ainge's best pick (Rondo), 2. only counting picks better than Ainge's best in that period (Avery Bradley) as good picks (actually "borderline all stars"), and 3. removing the sections of the draft (lottery and 2nd round) where Ainge did best, but it's bias nonetheless.

I will make the methodology more intuitive and presentable. I do believe Danny’s analytics team is missing something in their drafting predictive models. Obviously I can’t tell what the issue is but something is partly to blame for the bad picks since 2007 or since big tech like apple Facebook and google changed the way we live.
Other teams started drafting better while Celtics regressed.

What other teams?? Name more than 3

Rockets , spurs , nuggets with and without Ujiri, I would add Miami  and maybe thunder and blazers

So four and two maybes out of 29 other clubs and somehow Danny is bad compared to his peers?
 
You can see how this is not adding up right?

His peers are GMs that have the same longevity as him in the field not the suns or knicks GMs etc. I know what I’m talking about and I am almost always right 

If you select only the GMs who've been running teams for 10+ years, you are comparing him to the most successful ones in the league. It's selection bias. Even if he's average in that group he's way above average in the league.

And even there, ok, you mention the Nuggets, who've made one great 2nd round pick in Jokic. Since then they have drafted these guys in the 2nd round:

Thomas Welsh
Vlatko Cancar
Monte Morris
Petr Cornelie
Nikola Radicevic

Lot of home runs there...if you want to contend in the Greek B league.

And on their 1st rounders, they have one recent solid hit (Murray). They have one huge bust (Mudiay). McDermott for Harris was a good trade.

But they also hav9e made two of the worst draft day trades in recent NBA history: trading away Donovan Mitchell for Trey Lyles and a pick in 2017, and also trading away Rudy Gobert in 2013 for a 2nd rounder.

Seriously now...you rank that as great? Trading away draft rights to a DPOY and a perennial 25/4/4 guy for basically nothing?

TP from me. A huge element of ranking a GM's drafting is definitely their draft-day trading, and Denver is one of the worst for that, whereas Danny is one of the best. The Rondo & Tatum trades are examples of this.

Tatum is not a draft day trade.

The trade happened on a Monday, the draft was Thursday.

Lol - are people really not counting Tatum as a 'draft day trade' since he was dealt earlier in the week? Since it was the top of the draft, the order was essentially set at that time (since Ball was def going #2). The only real decision was for Danny, which was Tatum or Jackson.

It's asinine not to give 'draft credit' here to Danny just because it doesn't fit the narrative.

Then call it a pre-draft trade.

Rondo was definitely a draft day trade because Suns drafted him then traded him to Boston on draft night.

[tenn_smoothie]

Ainge was blindsided by LeBron and Clutch getting to Davis before they could trade for him and Irving's craziness then on the offseason by Horford being tapped up by 76ers so I think he has done well all things considered, but I am very critical of the Celtics making the biggest drafting mistake by falling in love with a NBA player because of a great draft workout (Carson Edwards) and because of wanting him they had to trade away their pick which would have been Thybulle or my favourite Brandon Clarke.

No doubt Ainge blew this years draft from start to finish... We literally didn't get one player out of it who looks to be an NBA contributor.  No doubt daddy Wyc will be taking the keys away at some point soon.

Once you get outside top 10 Danny’s drafting is a disaster year in and out. It’s like you shouldn’t be hoping for much. If his draftees hit a three here and there and make a defensive stop here and there that’s as much as you can expect

​

This is simply not true, and even the slightest bit of research will show that. Likewise, who do you think does have a good track record of drafting after the tenth pick? The first sixteen picks are lottery picks in more ways than one. The picks beyond that are even less likely to be consistently good (with the benefit of hindsight).

Seems this current snide is making people lash out with a lot of irrational statements, mostly indicative of their own frustration rather than a genuine issue.

Gotta agree. My gripe with Ainge is his aversion to post players and his obsession with perimeter players. I understand the game is perimeter oriented now, but starting with the Perk trade back in 2011, Danny's philosophy has limited our ability to contend for titles. Having said that, I view the Tatum and Brown picks as superb evaluation. I also believe that, when I can step away for a minute from individual game performances, we need to be patient. We are still two years away from winning a title and if Danny can add the right pieces, I see this group as being annual contenders for a good 5-7 years after Brown and Tatum hit their prime. Look at the Warriors as a model for a group of young stars developing into a championship team.

[Bobshot]

I'll put my 2 cents in here, FWIW.

Judging from Ainge's attempt to lengthen the front court in the off season, I think he realizes the Celtics can't win a championship without a decent big who can dominate the paint--at least defensively. They never have. He knows that. He played with McHale and Parish. And then there was KG and Perk.

The problem may be Stevens--and his style of play. Seems like with the Celtics, it's the Stevens way--or no way. He's basically a perimeter guy off his Butler days, and he isn't about to get off that. Which means Danny's efforts to inject some length seem futile. Though Kanter is doing some good things off the bench (which he hated to do for the Knicks), and Robert Williams had a very high productivity/min ratio when he played--which wasn't enough.

I've been watching the Celtics since the days of Russell and Cousy. They have had a formula to win which never really changed through the years. Right now, I see them as an incomplete team. Like a chicken with 4 wings and no legs. I think they need more balance to beat the best teams.

[RPGenerate]

I'll put my 2 cents in here, FWIW.

Judging from Ainge's attempt to lengthen the front court in the off season, I think he realizes the Celtics can't win a championship without a decent big who can dominate the paint--at least defensively. They never have. He knows that. He played with McHale and Parish. And then there was KG and Perk.

The problem may be Stevens--and his style of play. Seems like with the Celtics, it's the Stevens way--or no way. He's basically a perimeter guy off his Butler days, and he isn't about to get off that. Which means Danny's efforts to inject some length seem futile. Though Kanter is doing some good things off the bench (which he hated to do for the Knicks), and Robert Williams had a very high productivity/min ratio when he played--which wasn't enough.

I've been watching the Celtics since the days of Russell and Cousy. They have had a formula to win which never really changed through the years. Right now, I see them as an incomplete team. Like a chicken with 4 wings and no legs. I think they need more balance to beat the best teams.

Tell me what bigs that Brad has ever underplayed that deserved minute. Just a couple. This whole "Brad doesn't play big" narrative is stupid. He can't play what he doesn't have on the roster.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

I'll put my 2 cents in here, FWIW.

Judging from Ainge's attempt to lengthen the front court in the off season, I think he realizes the Celtics can't win a championship without a decent big who can dominate the paint--at least defensively. They never have. He knows that. He played with McHale and Parish. And then there was KG and Perk.

The problem may be Stevens--and his style of play. Seems like with the Celtics, it's the Stevens way--or no way. He's basically a perimeter guy off his Butler days, and he isn't about to get off that. Which means Danny's efforts to inject some length seem futile. Though Kanter is doing some good things off the bench (which he hated to do for the Knicks), and Robert Williams had a very high productivity/min ratio when he played--which wasn't enough.

I've been watching the Celtics since the days of Russell and Cousy. They have had a formula to win which never really changed through the years. Right now, I see them as an incomplete team. Like a chicken with 4 wings and no legs. I think they need more balance to beat the best teams.

Tell me what bigs that Brad has ever underplayed that deserved minute. Just a couple. This whole "Brad doesn't play big" narrative is stupid. He can't play what he doesn't have on the roster.

Yep. He has, however, almost always developed and helped bigs outperform their talent. Zeller, Olynyk, Sullinger, Johnson, Theis, etc. Even Kanter is having a career year on a per-minute basis on both sides of the court.

[RPGenerate]

I'll put my 2 cents in here, FWIW.

Judging from Ainge's attempt to lengthen the front court in the off season, I think he realizes the Celtics can't win a championship without a decent big who can dominate the paint--at least defensively. They never have. He knows that. He played with McHale and Parish. And then there was KG and Perk.

The problem may be Stevens--and his style of play. Seems like with the Celtics, it's the Stevens way--or no way. He's basically a perimeter guy off his Butler days, and he isn't about to get off that. Which means Danny's efforts to inject some length seem futile. Though Kanter is doing some good things off the bench (which he hated to do for the Knicks), and Robert Williams had a very high productivity/min ratio when he played--which wasn't enough.

I've been watching the Celtics since the days of Russell and Cousy. They have had a formula to win which never really changed through the years. Right now, I see them as an incomplete team. Like a chicken with 4 wings and no legs. I think they need more balance to beat the best teams.

Tell me what bigs that Brad has ever underplayed that deserved minute. Just a couple. This whole "Brad doesn't play big" narrative is stupid. He can't play what he doesn't have on the roster.

Yep. He has, however, almost always developed and helped bigs outperform their talent. Zeller, Olynyk, Sullinger, Johnson, Theis, etc. Even Kanter is having a career year on a per-minute basis on both sides of the court.

Tyler Zeller led a playoff team in wins shares, for god's sake! I love Danny, but any qualms about a lack of big man production needs to be centered on him, not Brad.

[Celtics4ever]

Tell me what bigs that Brad has ever underplayed that deserved minute. Just a couple. This whole "Brad doesn't play big" narrative is stupid. He can't play what he doesn't have on the roster.

Greg Monroe perhaps?

Brad has the opposite problem, he plays under size line-ups too much giving away mismatches he and loves doing this in the late third quarter.

[RPGenerate]

Tell me what bigs that Brad has ever underplayed that deserved minute. Just a couple. This whole "Brad doesn't play big" narrative is stupid. He can't play what he doesn't have on the roster.

Greg Monroe perhaps?

Brad has the opposite problem, he plays under size line-ups too much giving away mismatches he and loves doing this in the late third quarter.

Greg Monroe? You mean the guy that dropped out of the league no less than a year after his stint with us? Dude moved like he was in quicksand. He has no place in the NBA anymore. And again, he's never had the big men to consistently play bigger without having a massive talent deficit on the floor. The only time I can think of is Baynes and Horford, and guess what? He played those two together alot.

[OldSchoolDude]

Tell me what bigs that Brad has ever underplayed that deserved minute. Just a couple. This whole "Brad doesn't play big" narrative is stupid. He can't play what he doesn't have on the roster.

Greg Monroe perhaps?

Brad has the opposite problem, he plays under size line-ups too much giving away mismatches he and loves doing this in the late third quarter.

Greg Monroe played really bad here when he was on the court.  I really thought he would have been better.  I was excited at the signing but then really disappointed in his play.  He seemed done when he got here and maybe that's why we were able to get him.  I remember he turned it over a lot.  I would get so p---ed watching him fumble good passes in the paint that should have been dunks.  His defense was even worse than his offense.  He played for Philly and Toronto after he left here and was pretty bad in both places.  So its not like Brad benched a good player because he wanted to run a small lineup.   Monroe only made it one season after leaving here, and that was on two teams, now he is playing in Europe.   

[OldSchoolDude]

Tell me what bigs that Brad has ever underplayed that deserved minute. Just a couple. This whole "Brad doesn't play big" narrative is stupid. He can't play what he doesn't have on the roster.

Greg Monroe perhaps?

Brad has the opposite problem, he plays under size line-ups too much giving away mismatches he and loves doing this in the late third quarter.

Greg Monroe? You mean the guy that dropped out of the league no less than a year after his stint with us? Dude moved like he was in quicksand. He has no place in the NBA anymore. And again, he's never had the big men to consistently play bigger without having a massive talent deficit on the floor. The only time I can think of is Baynes and Horford, and guess what? He played those two together alot.

LOL I posted basically the same thing at the same time.