Danny Ainge excuses and lack of trades(merged threads)

[nickagneta]

I think another way to look at things is which players were still as good or better that you would take at the pick

2015 - Smart - he was chosen 6th and the Celtics had the 17th pick thereafter the choices between the two picks were

Smart
Randle
Staukas
Vonleh
Elfrid Payton
Doug McDermott
Saric
LaVine
TJ Warren
Adrien Payne
Jusuf Nurkic
James Young

I take Smart before any of those players. I guess a argument could be made you take LaVine because of his offense but his defense is terrible. He is kinda an opposite world Smart. I would take Smart.

2016 - Rozier - take a look at every single other player chosen in that draft after Rozier was taken 16th. The only other players worth talking about are Larry Nance, Jr, Bobby Portis, Rondae Hollis-Jefferson and Montrelz Harrell. That's it. 44 players left, 16 of which never made the NBA, and only 4 were worth picking with only Harrell being a clearly better player, IMO.

2016 - Brown - who chosen anywhere after Brown is clearly better than he is?
Hield? Being a two way player, I take Brown.
Murray? Nope
Sabonis? Nope
LaVert? Nope
Siakim Yes, but he could have been taken with either the Yabu or Zizic picks which were bad picks.
Brogdon? Nope but again, could have been chosen at the Yabu pick,  Zizic pick or the 31st and 35th picks Danny owned and traded away.

And with Siakim, he was chosen after Zizic but do you know who Celtic fans on the internet wanted and we're clamouring for at the Zizic pick? It wasn't Siakim. It was the guy taken after Siakim, Skal Labissieri, a massive bust.

Maybe you should look at who actually was available that was better. The Rozier pick for instance. That draft sucked after Rozier was taken. 30 of those people taken didn't make the league or barely stayed in the league because they were not NBA players. So that Rozier pick is actually I really good get.

[jambr380]

Your a .500 club the last twenty games with zero bench depth
Your under .500 vs 500 or better Teams
Zero size on the Defensive boards
Did I mention, as usual zero veteran bench depth

Memphis pick should have been traded before it lost value the last few months for a Veteran who can play

Is Danny waiting for Davis again this off-season? Or maybe he’s waiting for Durant once again in few years

Pistons under GM Dumars in 04 traded for a Veteran presence in RW mid season and it took them to a championship and a finals appearance the next season with ZERO Hall of Famers


Any of you kool-aid drinkers make sense of it? Or do most only see Green?

Danny had the Celtics set up to make the trade of all trades to exactly mirror what youre laying out in bold on a much higher scale, the problem is Lebron and his buddy ruined all of this.

Do you put Joe Dumars job in jeopardy if Rasheed Wallace refuses to go to Detroit?

So many teams around the league are in salary cap/trade asset hell, theyre fringe contendors but because of bonehead moves by their GM they cant take the next step forward.  The Wizards two years ago comes to mind as a great example.

Im at least thankful at the moment we have a GM thats put us in a position that we have more options even though plan A didnt work out.

AD was the ultimate grand prize - I can't believe how that worked out. I imagine AD would have been more amenable to coming here if we had a Hayward who never got hurt, a happier Kyrie (the 2018-19 season would have gone much better with a healthy Hayward), along with Horford who would obviously have chosen to stay here.

That Hayward injury essentially ruined all of Danny's championship aspirations. Luckily he had a back-up plan with Tatum, Brown, and Kemba (and how many GMs have a back-up plan as good as that one?) which should help make us more and more competitive in the coming years.

[Boris Badenov]

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.

[Moranis]

This take on Brown I really strongly disagree with. In his 4th season he is averaging 20 points on basically 50% from the field, 40% from 3 and adding in 7 rebounds and a steal while playing good defense. The guys that were around his draft position and were debated by GM's for that slot include Bender, Dunn, Hield, Murray and Chriss.  (https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2643426-2016-nba-mock-draft-predicting-every-pick-in-early-june#slide7) Murray is comparable to him, but he is better than Hield because of his defense and size (not to mention he is 4 years younger). The other guys are basically fringe NBA players. You calling Brown as a slight underperform is so ridiculous it honestly makes the rest of your list difficult to take seriously. I would suggest you at worse call that an average pick or people are just going to laugh at it. (I think most would call him a slight overperform, but man underperform wow.)

I understand his reasoning of basing his ranks on draft position, but disagree with how it was done. You make a good point of how players should be compared to those around them, not just where they would go in a re-draft. Guys like Siakam and Jokic are such outliers that they shouldn't be considered. I get why Brown and Smart aren't in the 'overperform' category, but they were absolutely the right picks based on the grouping of players we were projected to take.

Moranis' list actually makes Danny look good because of his ability to pick guys that aren't total failures late in the draft, but I think we all agree that hitting on a #3 pick is so much important than finding an end of the bench rotation player at #40. While Danny has had some great draft choices in the mid-draft earlier in his career, I am also just as satisfied with his ability to choose in the upper lottery in recent years.

I get the idea that taking Siakam or Jokic that high, as examples, wouldn't have been practically possible, but when you look at the value of the draft pick, you have to account for every player that was available in that draft or you do a disservice to the actual value.  And for the record, I think a lot of teams would take Murray over Brown depending on roster makeup, though Brown has jumped up into the same basic tier as Murray this year (while Murray hasn't taken a leap this year).  I think Hield is also in that same general range, though he is a good deal older than Murray and Brown so I think he is probably slightly behind them overall.  Sabonis would have been a big reach at 3, but I do think he is a guy that could go ahead of Brown in a redraft and he was at least a lottery pick (unlike someone like Siakam).

I still do wonder what Boston might have looked like had Ainge actually made the trade with the Sixers on draft day.  It would have been very interesting to see how that all shook out.

[dannyboy35]

Your a .500 club the last twenty games with zero bench depth
Your under .500 vs 500 or better Teams
Zero size on the Defensive boards
Did I mention, as usual zero veteran bench depth

Memphis pick should have been traded before it lost value the last few months for a Veteran who can play

Is Danny waiting for Davis again this off-season? Or maybe he’s waiting for Durant once again in few years

Pistons under GM Dumars in 04 traded for a Veteran presence in RW mid season and it took them to a championship and a finals appearance the next season with ZERO Hall of Famers


Any of you kool-aid drinkers make sense of it? Or do most only see Green?

     We’ve played a bunch of games in a short span. I don’t see a RW type that can help us in any Hayward trade. It’s losing too much. For example getting Drummond, Adams back I think in such a deal makes us worse. I am of the opinion there are ways to improve the team through a Smart trade and then trade 1st rounders for rentals but I don’t think most people agree with me there.
  For example can the Celts pry away Myles Turner in a smart deal? I would. Indy probably not. But ask most Bostonians they won’t part with Smart in a no brainer upgrade even if the other team WOULD agree.
   But people have different opinions. That’s what these boards are for and it’s fun to talk about. I DO think it’s disengenous of people to criticize Ainge in standing pat last year with a chance at Davis. He had to do it. The play would have been trade Kyrie for one year of Kawai but this is all hindsight. Nobody knew. There are so many people criticizing Ainge last year but any move where Kyrie is still on the team is a move that likely ends without a title. He is that toxic.
  It’s Danny’s job to fill out the bench and he can. But again these are likely giving late 1sts for rentals of players where the end result is at best a finals appearance. That IS good enough for many people in Boston. Usually from fans who’s favorite team is the Pats or Sox or Bruins. I don’t see a title move. Especially when the Lakers especially will not look like they do right now.
 I wish it was a different scenario but even trading Smart takes a key player away. It’s hard to tell if his subtraction in a deal for a big makes us good enough to beat one of the LA teams in a series. I think Danny wants more than a shooter’s chance.
  My honest prediction is pressure from Bostonians will result in Wyc forcing the issue. We improve our bench and end the year without a title and less assets for future deals.
 

[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.

[pp34isthe1]

Honestly with what he had to work with, he did good but we do need a move. Just wish he would pull the trigger eventually. Smart + Langford + Kanter + picks for Aldridge. Something

If Jaylens salary could be aggregated in a trade without the poison pill, I think he would already been traded for Bradley Beal.

I think next year Danny will finally make a deal.

[Boris Badenov]

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.

[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.

[gouki88]

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?

[Phantom255x]

Hey Danny, you seeing this team tonight? Now imagine if you got a bench scorer + depth big to go along with this team. Get it done (1 trade + 1 buyout signing)

[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?

I have a post on evaluating drafting GMs a few weeks back. I am trying to make it more presentable and easier to interpret by the general public.
On the bolded : picks after 46-50 slot are almost guaranteed to be over in WS because there are horrible draft picks in the middle like fab melo and James young

[Boris Badenov]

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?

Agreed. This seems to be a twisted version of the logic you'd see for top picks--a #1 pick can only under-perform, for example.

But for a pick in the 40s, it doesn't apply.

The PM by the way only compares Ainge to Morey and Buford. But no one, including me, is claiming Ainge beats those two.

This is the comment being addressed:

Once you get outside top 10 Danny’s drafting is a disaster year in and out.

[greg683x]

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 continue to say he’s behind all of his peers but only ever list Buford and Morey.  Can you use your methodology and show us how Danny ranks in the bottom third of the league in drafting.

You don’t need to name the GMs just rattle off 15 or so teams that have drafted better than the Celtics over the past 10-15 years

[BitterJim]

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.