Did we make the wrong choice between Robert Williams and Mitchell Robinson?

[Atzar]

At that point in the draft, I don't care.  I don't really go in on the hindsight judgment of draft picks.  "We drafted Olynyk when Giannis was available!"  It's not like we passed up present-day Giannis for present-day Olynyk.  We drafted an NBA-ready big who, from my seat, gave us exactly what we expected for a few years before getting paid.  Giannis, meanwhile, was a coin flip that landed on its edge.  Nobody, Bucks included, saw that coming. 

Same thing here:  you don't get to see guys four years down the road when you draft them.  When Williams was drafted, he was an athletic freak who showed defensive potential, but lacked offensive skill and had some questions about whether his heart was really in the game.  When Robinson was draft, his profile was similar:  an athletic freak with defensive potential, no skill on offense, and several character questions.  Both had - and still have - a ton of work to do to become quality, winning NBA players.  We picked the one we believed in.  What he ultimately becomes doesn't change what we saw when we drafted him. 

[CFAN38]

I see Robinson as a very traditional rim running / rim protecting bag man. Williams is very similar however I think he has more potential as a perimeter defender and passer.

[obnoxiousmime]

At that point in the draft, I don't care.  I don't really go in on the hindsight judgment of draft picks.  "We drafted Olynyk when Giannis was available!"  It's not like we passed up present-day Giannis for present-day Olynyk.  We drafted an NBA-ready big who, from my seat, gave us exactly what we expected for a few years before getting paid.  Giannis, meanwhile, was a coin flip that landed on its edge.  Nobody, Bucks included, saw that coming. 

Same thing here:  you don't get to see guys four years down the road when you draft them.  When Williams was drafted, he was an athletic freak who showed defensive potential, but lacked offensive skill and had some questions about whether his heart was really in the game.  When Robinson was draft, his profile was similar:  an athletic freak with defensive potential, no skill on offense, and several character questions.  Both had - and still have - a ton of work to do to become quality, winning NBA players.  We picked the one we believed in.  What he ultimately becomes doesn't change what we saw when we drafted him. 

But under this rationale nobody could be criticized for any pick ever. Of course they are picking based on what they see at the time, how else can you do it? Some are better at taking that information and predicting future performance, some are worse.

I think the Celts are probably above average to good at drafting, but maybe not among the best. Everybody drafts a bust sometimes, but some teams hit a little more often than others, and sometimes that is what makes all the difference.

That being said, I do like this year's class, though I'm not sure about Langford. I wish we had won the coin flip and had a shot at Herro.

[diconzo]

At that point in the draft, I don't care.  I don't really go in on the hindsight judgment of draft picks.  "We drafted Olynyk when Giannis was available!"  It's not like we passed up present-day Giannis for present-day Olynyk.  We drafted an NBA-ready big who, from my seat, gave us exactly what we expected for a few years before getting paid.  Giannis, meanwhile, was a coin flip that landed on its edge.  Nobody, Bucks included, saw that coming. 

Same thing here:  you don't get to see guys four years down the road when you draft them.  When Williams was drafted, he was an athletic freak who showed defensive potential, but lacked offensive skill and had some questions about whether his heart was really in the game.  When Robinson was draft, his profile was similar:  an athletic freak with defensive potential, no skill on offense, and several character questions.  Both had - and still have - a ton of work to do to become quality, winning NBA players.  We picked the one we believed in.  What he ultimately becomes doesn't change what we saw when we drafted him. 

But under this rationale nobody could be criticized for any pick ever. Of course they are picking based on what they see at the time, how else can you do it? Some are better at taking that information and predicting future performance, some are worse.

I think the Celts are probably above average to good at drafting, but maybe not among the best. Everybody drafts a bust sometimes, but some teams hit a little more often than others, and sometimes that is what makes all the difference.

That being said, I do like this year's class, though I'm not sure about Langford. I wish we had won the coin flip and had a shot at Herro.

I believe this is the exact point that is trying to be conveyed. The draft is nothing more than a crapshoot and while there are definitely teams (and talent scouts) that are better at this then others, for the most part it is just what you see at the time of the draft. OBVIOUSLY anyone with a brain in 2019 would’ve drafted Giannis over Olynyk; this was not a foregone conclusion in 2015.

[tonydelk]

At that point in the draft, I don't care.  I don't really go in on the hindsight judgment of draft picks.  "We drafted Olynyk when Giannis was available!"  It's not like we passed up present-day Giannis for present-day Olynyk.  We drafted an NBA-ready big who, from my seat, gave us exactly what we expected for a few years before getting paid.  Giannis, meanwhile, was a coin flip that landed on its edge.  Nobody, Bucks included, saw that coming. 

Same thing here:  you don't get to see guys four years down the road when you draft them.  When Williams was drafted, he was an athletic freak who showed defensive potential, but lacked offensive skill and had some questions about whether his heart was really in the game.  When Robinson was draft, his profile was similar:  an athletic freak with defensive potential, no skill on offense, and several character questions.  Both had - and still have - a ton of work to do to become quality, winning NBA players.  We picked the one we believed in.  What he ultimately becomes doesn't change what we saw when we drafted him. 

But under this rationale nobody could be criticized for any pick ever. Of course they are picking based on what they see at the time, how else can you do it? Some are better at taking that information and predicting future performance, some are worse.

I think the Celts are probably above average to good at drafting, but maybe not among the best. Everybody drafts a bust sometimes, but some teams hit a little more often than others, and sometimes that is what makes all the difference.

That being said, I do like this year's class, though I'm not sure about Langford. I wish we had won the coin flip and had a shot at Herro.

hindsight makes is so easy to judge.  There was a lot more film on Williams then Robinson.  Robinson didn't play college ball.  He had some sketchy decision making along with zero film after high school that forced every team to pass on him in the 1st round.  It's easy to spend the 36th round pick on him versus guaranteed money as a 1st round pick.  All teams passed on him.  Now the other difference between the two is that Robinson played for a bad team who force fed him minutes early letting him learn on the job.  Williams got barley any PT and is behind in development because of those minutes.  Hindsight.  If every team knew how a player would develop the drafts would look a lot different. 

[Atzar]

At that point in the draft, I don't care.  I don't really go in on the hindsight judgment of draft picks.  "We drafted Olynyk when Giannis was available!"  It's not like we passed up present-day Giannis for present-day Olynyk.  We drafted an NBA-ready big who, from my seat, gave us exactly what we expected for a few years before getting paid.  Giannis, meanwhile, was a coin flip that landed on its edge.  Nobody, Bucks included, saw that coming. 

Same thing here:  you don't get to see guys four years down the road when you draft them.  When Williams was drafted, he was an athletic freak who showed defensive potential, but lacked offensive skill and had some questions about whether his heart was really in the game.  When Robinson was draft, his profile was similar:  an athletic freak with defensive potential, no skill on offense, and several character questions.  Both had - and still have - a ton of work to do to become quality, winning NBA players.  We picked the one we believed in.  What he ultimately becomes doesn't change what we saw when we drafted him. 

But under this rationale nobody could be criticized for any pick ever. Of course they are picking based on what they see at the time, how else can you do it? Some are better at taking that information and predicting future performance, some are worse.

I think the Celts are probably above average to good at drafting, but maybe not among the best. Everybody drafts a bust sometimes, but some teams hit a little more often than others, and sometimes that is what makes all the difference.

That being said, I do like this year's class, though I'm not sure about Langford. I wish we had won the coin flip and had a shot at Herro.

I'm not saying to never criticize picks.  I think it's fair to criticize bad selections in the lottery, especially as you get closer to the top.  Expected value is higher, bust rate drops, and in many cases players are scouted and interviewed more thoroughly which provides a clearer picture.  So it hurts more when you miss.  But yes, when you get deep into the draft, I stop caring about individual pick results and pay more attention to trends.  If Danny never got anything out of non-lottery picks, that would be an issue.  But on an individual basis?  Meh.  Sometimes the dice come up snake eyes.

[td450]

My primary criticism is that we have drafted a number of guys who didn't seem to have the necessary focus/work ethic/competitiveness traits to succeed.

Williams
Yabusele
Young
Sullinger
Melo

[saltlover]

My primary criticism is that we have drafted a number of guys who didn't seem to have the necessary focus/work ethic/competitiveness traits to succeed.

Williams
Yabusele
Young
Sullinger
Melo

Welcome to picking in the teens and 20s, where you get to choose between talents that have dropped because of other concerns or hard-workers that have risen above.  Sometimes you pick the talent and hope that being a professional surrounded by other pros and coaches will help develop the work ethic.  Other times you pick the hard worker.  RJ Hunter was the hard-worker — he couldn’t get past that his talent want NBA-level.  Some work out, some don’t. 

Although I’ll say, this narrative that Yabu wasn’t a hard worker seems new in the last two days.  Never heard that about him before.  Sure, he has fitness concerns, but that could be as much of his body and genetics not being up to the task of being an NBA player as it is bad work ethic.  I think he just wasn’t good enough.  When he was picked, he was raw because he was new to basketball and the Celtics thought he could grow.  That he didn’t grow might not mean he didn’t work, it might rather mean that the Celtics misjudged his ceiling.

[obnoxiousmime]

At that point in the draft, I don't care.  I don't really go in on the hindsight judgment of draft picks.  "We drafted Olynyk when Giannis was available!"  It's not like we passed up present-day Giannis for present-day Olynyk.  We drafted an NBA-ready big who, from my seat, gave us exactly what we expected for a few years before getting paid.  Giannis, meanwhile, was a coin flip that landed on its edge.  Nobody, Bucks included, saw that coming. 

Same thing here:  you don't get to see guys four years down the road when you draft them.  When Williams was drafted, he was an athletic freak who showed defensive potential, but lacked offensive skill and had some questions about whether his heart was really in the game.  When Robinson was draft, his profile was similar:  an athletic freak with defensive potential, no skill on offense, and several character questions.  Both had - and still have - a ton of work to do to become quality, winning NBA players.  We picked the one we believed in.  What he ultimately becomes doesn't change what we saw when we drafted him. 

But under this rationale nobody could be criticized for any pick ever. Of course they are picking based on what they see at the time, how else can you do it? Some are better at taking that information and predicting future performance, some are worse.

I think the Celts are probably above average to good at drafting, but maybe not among the best. Everybody drafts a bust sometimes, but some teams hit a little more often than others, and sometimes that is what makes all the difference.

That being said, I do like this year's class, though I'm not sure about Langford. I wish we had won the coin flip and had a shot at Herro.

I'm not saying to never criticize picks.  I think it's fair to criticize bad selections in the lottery, especially as you get closer to the top.  Expected value is higher, bust rate drops, and in many cases players are scouted and interviewed more thoroughly which provides a clearer picture.  So it hurts more when you miss.  But yes, when you get deep into the draft, I stop caring about individual pick results and pay more attention to trends.  If Danny never got anything out of non-lottery picks, that would be an issue.  But on an individual basis?  Meh.  Sometimes the dice come up snake eyes.

I agree that it's annoying for posters to harp on this or that pick because draft ability should be judged on an average. Everybody misses, even the better teams. It's not even clear how large of a difference there is between the good teams and the bad ones, because there's so much GM turnover and it's hard to establish a track record. Development matters as well. It's definitely an inexact science.

Still, sometimes message boards are about venting, or at least lamenting a missed pick. I've definitely been guilty of that, though when doing so I'm not trying to "bash" anyone. It's just about expressing frustration.

Not to re-litigate Giannis, but I've said before I suspect Ainge thought Olynyk was a little better than a role player. I don't have any evidence for this, it's just a guess. Probably, it's because Ainge doesn't usually draft guys who have clear defensive limitations.

[hwangjini_1]

let me pummel an expired equine....

not drafting antetokounmpo early in the draft was not unreasonable in the minds of a number of NBA GMs. he wasnt a sure thing at all. given the scouting reports, he has great potential to be a good nba player, and, great potential to be a bust. lots of people raved about him, and in the same report raised questions concerning the level of competition, translation of skills to nba, and so on.

here are few quotes from scouting report prior to the draft that raised questions.

"From what I saw during Filathlitikos' last game, Antetokounmpo isn't comfortable playing off the ball as a wing. He seemed unaware of how to get involved or how to put himself in scoring position.
...
Creating his own shot from the wing, catching and shooting as a spot-up threat and slashing off the ball are skills that Antetokounmpo will likely have to learn during his transition to the NBA game."


"Giannis Adetokunbo is an 18-year old from Greece (his family is originally from Nigeria) on a second-division team. He hasn't competed for his national team and he didn't go to the Hoop Summit or the Combine. There isn't all that much to evaluate him on..."

"Realistically, he's at least two years away from coming over. He will play in Spain next season. If Greece is A or AA ball, Spain is AAA. ... He may top out as a secondary ball-handler and an extremely long 3+D wing, but that's still worth a high pick for a team that can wait."

"Scouts are impressed by his speed and his ability to seemingly play every position on the floor. Whether or not Adetokunbo is able to still perform like that against the top talent in the world is the big question in taking a gamble on him."

" With youth and potential, Adetokunbo could be a part of the Nets future, with his skillset, but is he worth the risk when roles need to be filled now? That is the burning question with him."

and, from CELTICSBLOG:
""The Greek Freak" doesn't exactly have freakish athletic ability to go along with his nickname. Compared to some ‘freaks' in the NBA, Giannis Antetokounmpo might appear relatively normal. Giannis doesn't 'explode' out of the gym with his leaps and he won't blow past anyone with his speed either."

and...

"It's very difficult to gauge Giannis Antetokounmpo's potential considering the level of competition he faced. The Greek A2 league is better than some other European leagues, but it still isn't nearly as talented as Greek's first tier. Antetokounmpo will have to play against better players in order to prove that he truly has the potential he showed this past season."

[CelticsElite]

Our euro scouts seem to focus on power forwards and centers

[SHAQATTACK]

let me pummel an expired equine....

not drafting antetokounmpo early in the draft was not unreasonable in the minds of a number of NBA GMs. he wasnt a sure thing at all. given the scouting reports, he has great potential to be a good nba player, and, great potential to be a bust. lots of people raved about him, and in the same report raised questions concerning the level of competition, translation of skills to nba, and so on.

here are few quotes from scouting report prior to the draft that raised questions.

"From what I saw during Filathlitikos' last game, Antetokounmpo isn't comfortable playing off the ball as a wing. He seemed unaware of how to get involved or how to put himself in scoring position.
...
Creating his own shot from the wing, catching and shooting as a spot-up threat and slashing off the ball are skills that Antetokounmpo will likely have to learn during his transition to the NBA game."


"Giannis Adetokunbo is an 18-year old from Greece (his family is originally from Nigeria) on a second-division team. He hasn't competed for his national team and he didn't go to the Hoop Summit or the Combine. There isn't all that much to evaluate him on..."

"Realistically, he's at least two years away from coming over. He will play in Spain next season. If Greece is A or AA ball, Spain is AAA. ... He may top out as a secondary ball-handler and an extremely long 3+D wing, but that's still worth a high pick for a team that can wait."

"Scouts are impressed by his speed and his ability to seemingly play every position on the floor. Whether or not Adetokunbo is able to still perform like that against the top talent in the world is the big question in taking a gamble on him."

" With youth and potential, Adetokunbo could be a part of the Nets future, with his skillset, but is he worth the risk when roles need to be filled now? That is the burning question with him."

and, from CELTICSBLOG:
""The Greek Freak" doesn't exactly have freakish athletic ability to go along with his nickname. Compared to some ‘freaks' in the NBA, Giannis Antetokounmpo might appear relatively normal. Giannis doesn't 'explode' out of the gym with his leaps and he won't blow past anyone with his speed either."

and...

"It's very difficult to gauge Giannis Antetokounmpo's potential considering the level of competition he faced. The Greek A2 league is better than some other European leagues, but it still isn't nearly as talented as Greek's first tier. Antetokounmpo will have to play against better players in order to prove that he truly has the potential he showed this past season."

these people were banned forever from the blog right?   

[knuckleballer]

Yes, but not a bad choice... so I hope.  There will almost always be better players taken after your team's pick.   Numbers.  That doesn't mean Ainge failed.  If Time Lord becomes a rotation player within the next couple of seasons, then he was a good pick.

[td450]

My primary criticism is that we have drafted a number of guys who didn't seem to have the necessary focus/work ethic/competitiveness traits to succeed.

Williams
Yabusele
Young
Sullinger
Melo

Welcome to picking in the teens and 20s, where you get to choose between talents that have dropped because of other concerns or hard-workers that have risen above.  Sometimes you pick the talent and hope that being a professional surrounded by other pros and coaches will help develop the work ethic.  Other times you pick the hard worker.  RJ Hunter was the hard-worker — he couldn’t get past that his talent want NBA-level.  Some work out, some don’t. 

Although I’ll say, this narrative that Yabu wasn’t a hard worker seems new in the last two days.  Never heard that about him before.  Sure, he has fitness concerns, but that could be as much of his body and genetics not being up to the task of being an NBA player as it is bad work ethic.  I think he just wasn’t good enough.  When he was picked, he was raw because he was new to basketball and the Celtics thought he could grow.  That he didn’t grow might not mean he didn’t work, it might rather mean that the Celtics misjudged his ceiling.

It isn't just the work ethic. It is also a competitive nature. And players that have that get better between being 19 and being 23.

Yabu never added anything during his time here. He didn't lose 10 pounds, much less 20 pounds. He didn't become a better shooter, or add a jump hook, or a left hand, or learn how to bully inside or any of the other things that players do when they want it bad enough. None of the guys I listed did much. James Young got somewhat stronger, but he never had the competitive fire you need to see.

I have no idea how hard RJ Hunter worked. He didn't improve much over several years. I know that.

[Csfan1984]

TBD