CB Draft exits interviews: What did you like, what could be better?

[mgent]

I don't really understand the huge push for outside voters.  They're not as familiar with the teams, and they typically don't know the gameplans and strategies.  There's also that chance of getting people that don't know too much about basketball.  A few outside opinions are nice, especially from guys like Roy H and Fafnir who put time into the threads, but it's good to have participants making up the majority of the vote.

[nickagneta]

I think a push for outside voters is great. It gives a better perspective on the teams that have been assembled and leads to biases for or against players from within the GMs to be put in a more subjective light.

As for whether those people know basketball enough or not, who's to say whether the all GMs participating know so much about the game.

I thought it a breath of fresh air to hear from DL and Redz after hearing the prowess of some of the players being pushed and some being criticized beyond belief and thinking, are some of these voters for real in what they are voting for/against.

[indeedproceed]

One reason not to cut down on the press conferences:  they're a ton of fun to go back and reminisce with.  I was just reading IP's 2009 edition (Link).  Fun stuff, especially comparing IP's "anticipated stats" to the real ones in hindsight.

That team would've had a 8 man rotation of Rondo, Mason jr, howard, al Jeff, serge ibaka, Ersan, Josh mcroberts, and a lot of regrets.

(pats self on back after correctly calling ibaka, mcroberts and illy as rotation worthy players, but pretends to tak a phone call when you wanna start talking about biedrins, Howard, and mason jr)

[Lucky17]

Roy, I don't think Lucky or Mr. Wiggle is saying that the panel be the ONLY voters in the process but for there to be a panel to give unbiased, non-self motivated observations and opinions of the draft process and participate in the voting along with the GMs.

What's the purpose of a designated panel, then, rather than just having non-GMs participate in the process?  Isn't this exactly what myself, Fafnir, and later dark_lord all did?

I think its to encourage outside of the regular members participation in voting. You and Faf gave your opinions but you are regular CB Draft members. If we get a panel of outside the box participants, maybe we grow the draft and keep participation deeper into the draft voting.

Maybe those panelist like it so much they want to become GMs the next year.

Maybe the year after that we invite 5 other people to be those panelists and we start getting voting in the 30-35 area.

What you and Faf did was great but you are regulars with very definitive opinions about players and their value in this game. Hearing from 5 new voices would give a new perspective to people, I think.

I don't like the idea of a triumvirate (or "Pentavirate," LOL) presiding over the draft and deciding which teams make the playoffs and which don't--largely because of the reason SO brought up (playing/pandering to the panel).

I do like the idea of a panel of knowledgeable non-GMs weighing in, and providing dispassionate, less biased opinions on teams, as a counterbalance to the GM pool. This could be a great way for those who wanted to serve as GMs but couldn't (for whatever reason) to put their names on a list for the following draft.

As nick said, I think getting a total voting pool of 30+ would be fantastic. The more, the merrier, IMO.

[wdleehi]

Not a fan of the panelists.  I like the open voting. 



And let's stay away from %.  Next thing you know, we will be including the computer models to the voting %.






As for outsiders, creating more invitations threads.

"come see out teams and tells us what you think"


But most outsiders are not going to care.  If they did, they likely would have tried to join or make a comment. 

[Edgar]

I vote for Pandacracy

I decide and only my oppinion counts



I swear I sooo want to use this as my signature but it have copyrights.... SAD!!

[Roy H.]

I don't like the idea of a triumvirate (or "Pentavirate," LOL) presiding over the draft and deciding which teams make the playoffs and which don't--largely because of the reason SO brought up (playing/pandering to the panel).

I do like the idea of a panel of knowledgeable non-GMs weighing in, and providing dispassionate, less biased opinions on teams, as a counterbalance to the GM pool. This could be a great way for those who wanted to serve as GMs but couldn't (for whatever reason) to put their names on a list for the following draft.

As nick said, I think getting a total voting pool of 30+ would be fantastic. The more, the merrier, IMO

I think maybe I'm getting hung up on the word "panel", especially regarding how it's been used previously in nick's draft.

What's the difference between a "panel", and just reaching out to members to see if they'd be interested in weighing in informally? 

I mean, if there's a designated panel, wouldn't that actually discourage non-panel members from weighing in?  The goal is just to increase participation, right?

[Edgar]

If not broke...

[KCattheStripe]

I don't like the idea of a triumvirate (or "Pentavirate," LOL) presiding over the draft and deciding which teams make the playoffs and which don't--largely because of the reason SO brought up (playing/pandering to the panel).

I do like the idea of a panel of knowledgeable non-GMs weighing in, and providing dispassionate, less biased opinions on teams, as a counterbalance to the GM pool. This could be a great way for those who wanted to serve as GMs but couldn't (for whatever reason) to put their names on a list for the following draft.

As nick said, I think getting a total voting pool of 30+ would be fantastic. The more, the merrier, IMO

I think maybe I'm getting hung up on the word "panel", especially regarding how it's been used previously in nick's draft.

What's the difference between a "panel", and just reaching out to members to see if they'd be interested in weighing in informally? 

I mean, if there's a designated panel, wouldn't that actually discourage non-panel members from weighing in?  The goal is just to increase participation, right?

[mgent]

I think a push for outside voters is great. It gives a better perspective on the teams that have been assembled and leads to biases for or against players from within the GMs to be put in a more subjective light.

As for whether those people know basketball enough or not, who's to say whether the all GMs participating know so much about the game.

I thought it a breath of fresh air to hear from DL and Redz after hearing the prowess of some of the players being pushed and some being criticized beyond belief and thinking, are some of these voters for real in what they are voting for/against.

I think a few different perspectives is nice, but I don't think it's necessarily a "better" perspective than the GMs who know relatively where each player was drafted, and have read most of the gameplans, strategies, and reasons why certain players will or won't work together.  I'd be opposed to a panel or anything that takes power away from the people that invest the most time.

[nickagneta]

I think a push for outside voters is great. It gives a better perspective on the teams that have been assembled and leads to biases for or against players from within the GMs to be put in a more subjective light.

As for whether those people know basketball enough or not, who's to say whether the all GMs participating know so much about the game.

I thought it a breath of fresh air to hear from DL and Redz after hearing the prowess of some of the players being pushed and some being criticized beyond belief and thinking, are some of these voters for real in what they are voting for/against.

I think a few different perspectives is nice, but I don't think it's necessarily a "better" perspective than the GMs who know relatively where each player was drafted, and have read most of the gameplans, strategies, and reasons why certain players will or won't work together.  I'd be opposed to a panel or anything that takes power away from the people that invest the most time.

Once the teams have been assembled, does it really matter where the players were selected? Does it really matter how much a GM thinks it will work or the 5000-10000 words the GM may have written about how it will work?

Subjective outside perspectives are great because they see the players as they are and not what a GM has made them into over a three week period. Sometimes players are talked about so much GMs start believing in the rhetoric. Suddenly people are believing that Wes Matthews or Kyle Lowry or Jodie Meeks or Serge Ibaka are players of a much much higher quality than they actually have shown to be and players like David West or Lebron James or Andre Iguodala or Pau Gasol or Rudy Gay are much worse players than they have shown to be.

I thought it refreshing for Redz to come in and say what he did about some of the players on the Trailblazers that had been marketed ad nauseum for 3 weeks. Not trying to pick on IP and know that Redz and IP are extremely friendly so the comment was eye opening. I think more voices like that would be great.

Regarding calling them panelists, then don't. Call them specially invited guests. Call them Draft Observers. Call them something. Just asking people to come watch and put in their two cents may not make them feel a part of the process. Give them a title and they will feel more important and invest themselves more. Its like in business. Some people give out titles instead of raises. People like having titles. It gives them self importance and worth. So call them what you will but call them something so they want to be a part of the entire process and hold their attention to the draft.

And the reason for calling them a panel or whatever is at the very least it keeps 5 people's attention who weren't a part of the draft involved. Will it discourage non panelist, non participants from coming to voice their opinion? Who cares because the front page advertising, the thread advertising and everything else that has been tried to bring outside people in hasn't work one single iota. If this brings 5 people in that 5 people more than what's being brought in recently(I'm not count DL because he has attempted to vote in this Draft for three straight years).

[mgent]

Well, I too was thinking of a panel as the only voters like in the Historical Draft.  I guess I'm just confused about how changing what they're called will bring in more outside voters.  If somebody wants to follow the draft and vote for a winner, most likely they're just going to sign up to play.  If somebody doesn't have the time to give the teams the attention they deserve but wants to vote anyway, that's perfectly fine, but we already encourage that.  I just don't understand the big push for it, especially when the amount of people interested is going to be small no matter what.

[KCattheStripe]

Everyone gets assigned a wrestling persona with which to debate other GMs:

Dibs:

[wdleehi]

If not broke...

agreed.


Outsiders are always welcomed to comment, but we don't need a new extra special group.

[Roy H.]

Once the teams have been assembled, does it really matter where the players were selected? Does it really matter how much a GM thinks it will work or the 5000-10000 words the GM may have written about how it will work?

Subjective outside perspectives are great because they see the players as they are and not what a GM has made them into over a three week period. Sometimes players are talked about so much GMs start believing in the rhetoric. Suddenly people are believing that Wes Matthews or Kyle Lowry or Jodie Meeks or Serge Ibaka are players of a much much higher quality than they actually have shown to be and players like David West or Lebron James or Andre Iguodala or Pau Gasol or Rudy Gay are much worse players than they have shown to be.

I thought it refreshing for Redz to come in and say what he did about some of the players on the Trailblazers that had been marketed ad nauseum for 3 weeks. Not trying to pick on IP and know that Redz and IP are extremely friendly so the comment was eye opening. I think more voices like that would be great.

Wait...  isn't the goal of these "panelists" to observe and give feedback during the draft process?  If so, don't they become equally as invested in the arguments as anybody else?  

And, alternatively, if the goal is for panelists to swoop in at the last minute to render judgment without having participated in the process, isn't there at least an argument that all the debate, etc., of the draft is worthless?  I mean, if this all comes down to people deciding a winner by reputation and their own personal biases, while disregarding all the argument, stats, etc., does that really improve anything?  

I'm not sure which system you're advocating for, but I agree that more outside opinion can be interesting.  I'm not as sure about bestowing them with a title, and I definitely don't like any idea that anticipates that they wouldn't be involved in the draft during the drafting process.  If people want to do that, that's cool.  However, I'm not sure that I'd encourage it, and I'm not sure everyone would be a fan of the idea (for instance, see the Commish's comment here.)