James Young Summer League

[Boris Badenov]

This is how Ainge drafts though and why he's a good drafter.  Some work out and some players have to develop.

Before you go claiming Ainge is a good drafter, take a good look at all the Celtics draft picks beginning in 2006, including the obvious drafted-to-trade picks (In other words, Olynyk counts as a Celtics draft pick, but Marshon Brooks doesn't).  That's a 10 year stretch.

2006: rondo at 21 = great pick
2007: turns #5 into Ray Allen --> great work
2008: jr giddens (garbage but pick #30)
2009: no first
2010: AB at 19 = very good pick
2011: Jajuan Johnson = awful but at 27
2012: Sully at 19 = good ; melo at 20 = awful
2013: Olynyk at 13 = decent
2014: I think smarts good jury's out on young but really to early to judge.

So in the range you suggest it's only fair to grade
06,07,08,10,11,12,13
A 7 year span.

Despite picking nearly exclusively in the back half of the first he's managed to pick up a lot of cery nice players. I'd say he had a good track record since '06

Let's take 2011 as an example of how good a drafter Danny is??

JaJuan awful but at 27 you say so don't blame Danny--you know who was drafted after JaJuan??---Jimmy Butler, Cory Joseph, Chandler Parson, Lavoy Allen, Isaiah Thomas, Norris Cole---I guess Danny just had a bad year!

Question is, who was drafted before DA drafted JaJuan?  My guess is the guys you mentioned are better than many of those guys too. 

Every year guys will fall through the cracks.  Missing out on them isn't a crime.  If the teams that drafted the guys you mentioned also had a first round pick, I am betting that in most cases their second pick was better than their first.  Are they geniuses or did they simply get lucky?

Many of those you mention were solid picks, look it up, all were better than Jajuan.  Chandler Parsons for one has gone on record as saying he was shocked the C's passed on him.  He had his best workout for the C's and he grew up a neighbor of Doc's.  Wouldn't it be nice to have Chandler Parsons or Jimmy Butler about now, but Danny picked Jajuan Johnson?? One of the stupidest draft picks ever.  I'm sorry James Young where he was drafted may rival Jajuan for an awful pick.

If you're curious I posted a pretty detailed assessment of Ainge's draft performance a while back.

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=65996.msg1502948#msg1502948

In the event that you don't feel like reading, I'll quote the general approach from that post here, because it has some humor value given the argument you're making:

My approach here is pretty simple. Because Danny's draft position has varied over time, I think the best benchmark of his performance is how the guys he's chosen have done vs. the guys who were chosen right after the guys he picked.

I've argued this out before, but this is a more reasonable thing to do than to ask whether *any* player drafted after Danny's pick turned out to be better. (I call this the "Chandler Parsons Fallacy"). If you evaluate any GM this way he will look awful, because hindsight is 20/20.

Ok after reading your analysis it seems Danny has on average made good picks--but it by no means shows him to be great at picking nor does it dispute just how plain awful some of his picks have been.

I think it's fair to say that his recent history has been worse than his early history. But we're talking about small samples of small samples.

I think the simple facts that often get lost when thinking about Danny's performance are that (a) he's drafted low for the most part in recent years, and (b) most players drafted that low are garbage.

Danny hits a lot of singles and doubles when others whiff. It's not sexy, but then we've had exactly one top 10 pick in his entire tenure. You have to look at things in perspective.

[D.o.s.]

If you're curious I posted a pretty detailed assessment of Ainge's draft performance a while back.

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=65996.msg1502948#msg1502948

In the event that you don't feel like reading, I'll quote the general approach from that post here, because it has some humor value given the argument you're making:

My approach here is pretty simple. Because Danny's draft position has varied over time, I think the best benchmark of his performance is how the guys he's chosen have done vs. the guys who were chosen right after the guys he picked.

I've argued this out before, but this is a more reasonable thing to do than to ask whether *any* player drafted after Danny's pick turned out to be better. (I call this the "Chandler Parsons Fallacy"). If you evaluate any GM this way he will look awful, because hindsight is 20/20.

Your evaluation method is poor, which makes your analysis useless.

Well now, that is one convincing logical argument. Talk about backing up your position with facts and analysis. How ever could I have been so misguided?

It's ok Boris. One day you'll get it.

[Ilikesports17]

You confuse me

Then let me try to clarify. 

It's useless for you to jump into the discussion if you aren't going to be objective with your posts, and you clearly were not being objective with your post.

1st off it's not useless at all. Less valuable perhaps, but you are doing the same.

You say 2006 to today is 10 years. It's not. It's 9. You take a 9 year period where really we can only evaluate 7 of the years and in 2 of those years Danny didn't make selections in the 1st round and in just 1 of those years did he make a selection higher than pick 19.

You make it out like Danny's been whiffing for 10 years but really, he's had 7 1sts.
30 terrible
27 terrible
21 brilliant
20 terrible
19 very good
19 very good
13 ok

That seems like a pretty good record to me.

I am a believer that ainge is a good drafter and that will undoubtedly spill into my posts. However you are the one who asked everyone to look at his draft performance. I did that. 

[Scintan]

If you're curious I posted a pretty detailed assessment of Ainge's draft performance a while back.

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=65996.msg1502948#msg1502948

In the event that you don't feel like reading, I'll quote the general approach from that post here, because it has some humor value given the argument you're making:

My approach here is pretty simple. Because Danny's draft position has varied over time, I think the best benchmark of his performance is how the guys he's chosen have done vs. the guys who were chosen right after the guys he picked.

I've argued this out before, but this is a more reasonable thing to do than to ask whether *any* player drafted after Danny's pick turned out to be better. (I call this the "Chandler Parsons Fallacy"). If you evaluate any GM this way he will look awful, because hindsight is 20/20.

Your evaluation method is poor, which makes your analysis useless.

Well now, that is one convincing logical argument. Talk about backing up your position with facts and analysis. How ever could I have been so misguided?

The facts/analysis are obvious.  By restricting yourself the way you do, you ignore a host of issues (bad GMs surrounding Ainge, different needs, etc...

For example, teams A,C, and D all need a point guard in a deep year for point guards.  Team B needs a center in a bad year for centers, and reaches for a guy who fails.  Using your method, Teams A and C will get rewarded for even middling players, because B missed.  So, under your method, A's pick could be a borderline NBA player, B's could be a bust, C's could be another borderline NBA player, and D's could be an all star, and your system would miss all of that for A and half of that for C.

[86MaxwellSmart]

I think he needs to go to the basket at the start of games--he's always taking a 3 as his first shot--if it doesn't go down, he loses confidence.....But at least he was taking it to the basket later in the game.

[Scintan]

You confuse me

Then let me try to clarify. 

It's useless for you to jump into the discussion if you aren't going to be objective with your posts, and you clearly were not being objective with your post.

1st off it's not useless at all. Less valuable perhaps, but you are doing the same.

Yes, it's useless, and I was doing nothing of the sort.  All I did was suggest someone take a look at the last 10 years of drafting for evaluation purposes.

[feckless]

This is how Ainge drafts though and why he's a good drafter.  Some work out and some players have to develop.

Before you go claiming Ainge is a good drafter, take a good look at all the Celtics draft picks beginning in 2006, including the obvious drafted-to-trade picks (In other words, Olynyk counts as a Celtics draft pick, but Marshon Brooks doesn't).  That's a 10 year stretch.

2006: rondo at 21 = great pick
2007: turns #5 into Ray Allen --> great work
2008: jr giddens (garbage but pick #30)
2009: no first
2010: AB at 19 = very good pick
2011: Jajuan Johnson = awful but at 27
2012: Sully at 19 = good ; melo at 20 = awful
2013: Olynyk at 13 = decent
2014: I think smarts good jury's out on young but really to early to judge.

So in the range you suggest it's only fair to grade
06,07,08,10,11,12,13
A 7 year span.

Despite picking nearly exclusively in the back half of the first he's managed to pick up a lot of cery nice players. I'd say he had a good track record since '06

Let's take 2011 as an example of how good a drafter Danny is??

JaJuan awful but at 27 you say so don't blame Danny--you know who was drafted after JaJuan??---Jimmy Butler, Cory Joseph, Chandler Parson, Lavoy Allen, Isaiah Thomas, Norris Cole---I guess Danny just had a bad year!

Question is, who was drafted before DA drafted JaJuan?  My guess is the guys you mentioned are better than many of those guys too. 

Every year guys will fall through the cracks.  Missing out on them isn't a crime.  If the teams that drafted the guys you mentioned also had a first round pick, I am betting that in most cases their second pick was better than their first.  Are they geniuses or did they simply get lucky?

Many of those you mention were solid picks, look it up, all were better than Jajuan.  Chandler Parsons for one has gone on record as saying he was shocked the C's passed on him.  He had his best workout for the C's and he grew up a neighbor of Doc's.  Wouldn't it be nice to have Chandler Parsons or Jimmy Butler about now, but Danny picked Jajuan Johnson?? One of the stupidest draft picks ever.  I'm sorry James Young where he was drafted may rival Jajuan for an awful pick.

If you're curious I posted a pretty detailed assessment of Ainge's draft performance a while back.

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=65996.msg1502948#msg1502948

In the event that you don't feel like reading, I'll quote the general approach from that post here, because it has some humor value given the argument you're making:

My approach here is pretty simple. Because Danny's draft position has varied over time, I think the best benchmark of his performance is how the guys he's chosen have done vs. the guys who were chosen right after the guys he picked.

I've argued this out before, but this is a more reasonable thing to do than to ask whether *any* player drafted after Danny's pick turned out to be better. (I call this the "Chandler Parsons Fallacy"). If you evaluate any GM this way he will look awful, because hindsight is 20/20.

Ok after reading your analysis it seems Danny has on average made good picks--but it by no means shows him to be great at picking nor does it dispute just how plain awful some of his picks have been.

I think it's fair to say that his recent history has been worse than his early history. But we're talking about small samples of small samples.

I think the simple facts that often get lost when thinking about Danny's performance are that (a) he's drafted low for the most part in recent years, and (b) most players drafted that low are garbage.

Danny hits a lot of singles and doubles when other whiff. It's not sexy, but then we've had exactly one top 10 pick in his entire tenure. You have to look at things in perspective.

I think that is a fair position you are taking.  Tommy point. 

Now if you want to talk about where we would be if we had KG, PP and Doc trying to bring Lamarcus, and DWest into the fold--I have a different beef with Danny.

[Boris Badenov]

If you're curious I posted a pretty detailed assessment of Ainge's draft performance a while back.

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=65996.msg1502948#msg1502948

In the event that you don't feel like reading, I'll quote the general approach from that post here, because it has some humor value given the argument you're making:

My approach here is pretty simple. Because Danny's draft position has varied over time, I think the best benchmark of his performance is how the guys he's chosen have done vs. the guys who were chosen right after the guys he picked.

I've argued this out before, but this is a more reasonable thing to do than to ask whether *any* player drafted after Danny's pick turned out to be better. (I call this the "Chandler Parsons Fallacy"). If you evaluate any GM this way he will look awful, because hindsight is 20/20.

Your evaluation method is poor, which makes your analysis useless.

Well now, that is one convincing logical argument. Talk about backing up your position with facts and analysis. How ever could I have been so misguided?

The facts/analysis are obvious.  By restricting yourself the way you do, you ignore a host of issues (bad GMs surrounding Ainge, different needs, etc...

For example, teams A,C, and D all need a point guard in a deep year for point guards.  Team B needs a center in a bad year for centers, and reaches for a guy who fails.  Using your method, Teams A and C will get rewarded for even middling players, because B missed.  So, under your method, A's pick could be a borderline NBA player, B's could be a bust, C's could be another borderline NBA player, and D's could be an all star, and your system would miss all of that for A and half of that for C.

OK. I'm just going to point out that you follow "The facts and analysis are obvious" with a convoluted piece of speculative fiction that shows...nothing. There isn't a single actual fact in that post!

I'm laughing. And I'm out.

[Boris Badenov]

This is how Ainge drafts though and why he's a good drafter.  Some work out and some players have to develop.

Before you go claiming Ainge is a good drafter, take a good look at all the Celtics draft picks beginning in 2006, including the obvious drafted-to-trade picks (In other words, Olynyk counts as a Celtics draft pick, but Marshon Brooks doesn't).  That's a 10 year stretch.

2006: rondo at 21 = great pick
2007: turns #5 into Ray Allen --> great work
2008: jr giddens (garbage but pick #30)
2009: no first
2010: AB at 19 = very good pick
2011: Jajuan Johnson = awful but at 27
2012: Sully at 19 = good ; melo at 20 = awful
2013: Olynyk at 13 = decent
2014: I think smarts good jury's out on young but really to early to judge.

So in the range you suggest it's only fair to grade
06,07,08,10,11,12,13
A 7 year span.

Despite picking nearly exclusively in the back half of the first he's managed to pick up a lot of cery nice players. I'd say he had a good track record since '06

Let's take 2011 as an example of how good a drafter Danny is??

JaJuan awful but at 27 you say so don't blame Danny--you know who was drafted after JaJuan??---Jimmy Butler, Cory Joseph, Chandler Parson, Lavoy Allen, Isaiah Thomas, Norris Cole---I guess Danny just had a bad year!

Question is, who was drafted before DA drafted JaJuan?  My guess is the guys you mentioned are better than many of those guys too. 

Every year guys will fall through the cracks.  Missing out on them isn't a crime.  If the teams that drafted the guys you mentioned also had a first round pick, I am betting that in most cases their second pick was better than their first.  Are they geniuses or did they simply get lucky?

Many of those you mention were solid picks, look it up, all were better than Jajuan.  Chandler Parsons for one has gone on record as saying he was shocked the C's passed on him.  He had his best workout for the C's and he grew up a neighbor of Doc's.  Wouldn't it be nice to have Chandler Parsons or Jimmy Butler about now, but Danny picked Jajuan Johnson?? One of the stupidest draft picks ever.  I'm sorry James Young where he was drafted may rival Jajuan for an awful pick.

If you're curious I posted a pretty detailed assessment of Ainge's draft performance a while back.

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=65996.msg1502948#msg1502948

In the event that you don't feel like reading, I'll quote the general approach from that post here, because it has some humor value given the argument you're making:

My approach here is pretty simple. Because Danny's draft position has varied over time, I think the best benchmark of his performance is how the guys he's chosen have done vs. the guys who were chosen right after the guys he picked.

I've argued this out before, but this is a more reasonable thing to do than to ask whether *any* player drafted after Danny's pick turned out to be better. (I call this the "Chandler Parsons Fallacy"). If you evaluate any GM this way he will look awful, because hindsight is 20/20.

Ok after reading your analysis it seems Danny has on average made good picks--but it by no means shows him to be great at picking nor does it dispute just how plain awful some of his picks have been.

I think it's fair to say that his recent history has been worse than his early history. But we're talking about small samples of small samples.

I think the simple facts that often get lost when thinking about Danny's performance are that (a) he's drafted low for the most part in recent years, and (b) most players drafted that low are garbage.

Danny hits a lot of singles and doubles when other whiff. It's not sexy, but then we've had exactly one top 10 pick in his entire tenure. You have to look at things in perspective.

I think that is a fair position you are taking.  Tommy point. 

Now if you want to talk about where we would be if we had KG, PP and Doc trying to bring Lamarcus, and DWest into the fold--I have a different beef with Danny.

TP to you as well.

I actually do have problems with Danny as a GM but mostly having to do with his free agent choices back when we were good. But that's ancient history. I'm just waiting for the regular season to start so we can watch a Celtics game where someone hits an open jumper or makes the right pass.

[Ilikesports17]

You confuse me

Then let me try to clarify. 

It's useless for you to jump into the discussion if you aren't going to be objective with your posts, and you clearly were not being objective with your post.

1st off it's not useless at all. Less valuable perhaps, but you are doing the same.

Yes, it's useless, and I was doing nothing of the sort.  All I did was suggest someone take a look at the last 10 years of drafting for evaluation purposes.

Now you are just entertaining.

You just dismiss posts left and right without ever offering substance.

Let me try.

Your opinion is useless because you refuse to engage in any discussion and instead sit there and just pout like a toddler and say everyone else is wrong.

[BigDogPitbull]

He stinks!  Rodney Hood would look way better on this team.

[Scintan]

If you're curious I posted a pretty detailed assessment of Ainge's draft performance a while back.

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=65996.msg1502948#msg1502948

In the event that you don't feel like reading, I'll quote the general approach from that post here, because it has some humor value given the argument you're making:

My approach here is pretty simple. Because Danny's draft position has varied over time, I think the best benchmark of his performance is how the guys he's chosen have done vs. the guys who were chosen right after the guys he picked.

I've argued this out before, but this is a more reasonable thing to do than to ask whether *any* player drafted after Danny's pick turned out to be better. (I call this the "Chandler Parsons Fallacy"). If you evaluate any GM this way he will look awful, because hindsight is 20/20.

Your evaluation method is poor, which makes your analysis useless.

Well now, that is one convincing logical argument. Talk about backing up your position with facts and analysis. How ever could I have been so misguided?

The facts/analysis are obvious.  By restricting yourself the way you do, you ignore a host of issues (bad GMs surrounding Ainge, different needs, etc...

For example, teams A,C, and D all need a point guard in a deep year for point guards.  Team B needs a center in a bad year for centers, and reaches for a guy who fails.  Using your method, Teams A and C will get rewarded for even middling players, because B missed.  So, under your method, A's pick could be a borderline NBA player, B's could be a bust, C's could be another borderline NBA player, and D's could be an all star, and your system would miss all of that for A and half of that for C.

OK. I'm just going to point out that you follow "The facts and analysis are obvious" with a convoluted piece of speculative fiction that shows...nothing. There isn't a single actual fact in that post!

I'm laughing. And I'm out.

Actually, I gave a pretty straighforward example. 

[Scintan]

You confuse me

Then let me try to clarify. 

It's useless for you to jump into the discussion if you aren't going to be objective with your posts, and you clearly were not being objective with your post.

1st off it's not useless at all. Less valuable perhaps, but you are doing the same.

Yes, it's useless, and I was doing nothing of the sort.  All I did was suggest someone take a look at the last 10 years of drafting for evaluation purposes.

Now you are just entertaining.

You just dismiss posts left and right without ever offering substance.

Let me try.

Your opinion is useless because you refuse to engage in any discussion and instead sit there and just pout like a toddler and say everyone else is wrong.

I dismissed your post because it ignored the 'question', and was useless as a result.  Furthermore, your post was a deliberate attempt to offer a biased and dishonest answer, as we can see by the fact that you ignore the Celtics drafting MarShon Brooks for a trade, but emphasize the trade of the #5 for Allen.

You also altered your grade for Sullinger in your two responses changing him from 'good' to 'very good', but that's a more minor detail.

[Jon]

I think people are reading too much into this.  If this was a question of whether he could dominate inferior competition, we already know that answer since he did so last year at the D-League level. 

At this point, I'd just chalk this up to a bad couple of games and wouldn't go off the deep end yet. 

[Boris Badenov]

If you're curious I posted a pretty detailed assessment of Ainge's draft performance a while back.

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=65996.msg1502948#msg1502948

In the event that you don't feel like reading, I'll quote the general approach from that post here, because it has some humor value given the argument you're making:

My approach here is pretty simple. Because Danny's draft position has varied over time, I think the best benchmark of his performance is how the guys he's chosen have done vs. the guys who were chosen right after the guys he picked.

I've argued this out before, but this is a more reasonable thing to do than to ask whether *any* player drafted after Danny's pick turned out to be better. (I call this the "Chandler Parsons Fallacy"). If you evaluate any GM this way he will look awful, because hindsight is 20/20.

Your evaluation method is poor, which makes your analysis useless.

Well now, that is one convincing logical argument. Talk about backing up your position with facts and analysis. How ever could I have been so misguided?

The facts/analysis are obvious.  By restricting yourself the way you do, you ignore a host of issues (bad GMs surrounding Ainge, different needs, etc...

For example, teams A,C, and D all need a point guard in a deep year for point guards.  Team B needs a center in a bad year for centers, and reaches for a guy who fails.  Using your method, Teams A and C will get rewarded for even middling players, because B missed.  So, under your method, A's pick could be a borderline NBA player, B's could be a bust, C's could be another borderline NBA player, and D's could be an all star, and your system would miss all of that for A and half of that for C.

OK. I'm just going to point out that you follow "The facts and analysis are obvious" with a convoluted piece of speculative fiction that shows...nothing. There isn't a single actual fact in that post!

I'm laughing. And I'm out.

Actually, I gave a pretty straighforward example.

Of what? How your perspective is 100% correct when viewed through the lens of your own imagination?