KO lack of progress - body

[D.o.s.]

No, it's more of an understanding about what the experts mean when they use the words they use.

Like I said:

Being a weak draft class doesn't mean having no one that can contribute to an NBA team -- typically it means that it lacks players of the caliber of a Kyrie Irving, an Anthony Davis, or a John Wall (or a DeMarcus Cousins).

If you look at the 2013 Draft class*, there are no players that fall under the "their team would be stupid not to give him a max extension" umbrella. That is why it is a weak draft class.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_NBA_draft

Look at what's being said by posters in this thread:

it's looking better than expected.  no real studs so far but a number players that serviceable.

none of these guys are so good that from the moment they came into the league it was clear they were going to make tens of millions of dollars.

It's a draft class without any superstars.

This is not the little draft class that shocked the world. This is the draft class that didn't have any clear cut superstars: i.e. a weak draft class. Assuming Gobert and The Greek turn out to be All-Stars, it still won't change the strength of the draft class -- particularly because both of them were so overlooked.

[PhoSita]

... which would make it a weak draft, I think?

Eh, sure, it's weak in one respect in comparison to, say, the 2012 draft, which was strong with superstar types.

But it's strong in the depth of quality NBA players it provided.  Some drafts have a few superstars but relatively few useful NBA players of any kind.

Occasionally, a draft yields no superstars and very few NBA players at all.  Now that's a weak draft.

[D.o.s.]

And that was the projection for 2013. I mean, look at the list. Not a lot of even starter-level players there, boner for Kelly Olynyk or not.

Erm, excuse me, I mean "ARE YOU KIDDING THIS DRAFT HAD ALEX LEN. THAT GUY IS SO GOOD. THIS DRAFT WAS SOOOOOO UNDERRATED BY THOSE SO-CALLED "EXPERTS" WE ALL KNOW THOSE GUYS ARE JUST TRYING TO AVOID BEING WRONG." 

again:
http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/results/rounds/_/year/2013/round/1

Those are the players we are talking about. By and large, they are not going to be great. Or even good. I would wager on that.

[PhoSita]

The presence of players who are "absolutely supposed to be the face of the franchise" is what separates strong drafts from weak ones. That is exactly the point -- and a fairly uncontroversial one at that. This is part of the reason why the "it's too early to tell" card doesn't work here: we're discussing things that have already happened. It is in the past. 2013 was a weak draft. If anyone from the 2013 draft class winds up becoming a superstar, it will be because he exceeded expectations placed on him by being drafted in a weak draft class.

To use your example: there is a reason why Parker was drafted as Milwaukee's franchise player and Giannis was not. There is a reason why no one thought that Anthony Bennett was really going to be the face of Cleveland's team, even after he was drafted first overall. I honestly have no idea why you would desire to think otherwise about this.

What's the point of talking about how strong a draft class was on draft night?  That seems strange to me.

The hype was strong with the 2014 class, and it was weak with the 2013 class.

NBA players don't tend to get paid in hype after their rookie contract, though.  That's probably the greatest measure of how strong a draft class was.  Take a look 20 years later at how much money all of the players in that class made over their careers.

[D.o.s.]

Go pick by pick down the two draft classes and tell me which player is more likely to have a better NBA career.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/results/rounds/_/year/2013/round/1

http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/results/rounds/_/year/2014/round/1

Excepting injury (Embiid is the big one here), its pretty heavily in favor of 2014 unless you're trying to prove a point.


And, sure, you could say Anthony Bennett will have a better NBA career than Andrew Wiggins, but that's wrong -- even if Bennett does end up having a better career than Wiggins (which could happen, the same way I could wind up in bed with all the Victoria's Secret Angels at the same time): does that make sense? The sense from fans, players, franchises, etc. of a draft's worth is entirely what makes something strong or weak. Otherwise you're falling into hindsight bias.

[Celtics18]

No, it's more of an understanding about what the experts mean when they use the words they use.

Like I said:

Being a weak draft class doesn't mean having no one that can contribute to an NBA team -- typically it means that it lacks players of the caliber of a Kyrie Irving, an Anthony Davis, or a John Wall (or a DeMarcus Cousins).

If you look at the 2013 Draft class*, there are no players that fall under the "their team would be stupid not to give him a max extension" umbrella. That is why it is a weak draft class.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_NBA_draft

Look at what's being said by posters in this thread:

it's looking better than expected.  no real studs so far but a number players that serviceable.

none of these guys are so good that from the moment they came into the league it was clear they were going to make tens of millions of dollars.

It's a draft class without any superstars.

This is not the little draft class that shocked the world. This is the draft class that didn't have any clear cut superstars: i.e. a weak draft class. Assuming Gobert and The Greek turn out to be All-Stars, it still won't change the strength of the draft class -- particularly because both of them were so overlooked.

It will change the strength of the draft if they turn out to be perennial all-stars and all NBA first teamers; i.e., bona fide superstars.

Of course it will.  Whether or not that happens remains to be seen. 

It remains to be seen with Wiggins and Parker, as well, despite the hype of their draft class. 

[PhoSita]

Go pick by pick down the two draft classes and tell me which player is more likely to have a better NBA career.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/results/rounds/_/year/2013/round/1

http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/results/rounds/_/year/2014/round/1

Excepting injury (Embiid is the big one here), its pretty heavily in favor of 2014 unless you're trying to prove a point.


And, sure, you could say Anthony Bennett will have a better NBA career than Andrew Wiggins, but that's wrong -- even if Bennett does end up having a better career than Wiggins: does that make sense? The sense from fans, players, franchises, etc. of a draft's worth is entirely what makes something strong or weak. Otherwise you're falling into hindsight bias.

I tend to agree that the 2014 class will be stronger when all is said and done.  Still, regardless of what people thought on draft night about the 2013 class, it's now looking like it may be a pretty good class.  I recall the 2009 class was regarded as weak in advance of the "loaded" 2010 class and it ended up being pretty darn great.

[D.o.s.]

C18 Like I said, if you're changing the meaning of what a "weak draft class means", since it is pretty explicitly a draft-night phenomenon and phrase, then sure. You can say whatever you want about it, but you can't legitimately rage against the prior definition when you're holding it to a different standard.


Pho, where do you think the hype comes from? I assure you it's not a manufactured thing, otherwise every single draft would be BIGGER AND BETTER than the draft before, because that would lead to more money for the league which would allow them to angle for better TV deals, etc. Clearly this is not what happens.

Also 2013 is still looking kind of crappy.  The class's 'best' player to this point is GA, a guy who is basically the ultimate question mark. Hardly a strong draft class.

[PhoSita]

The sense from fans, players, franchises, etc. of a draft's worth is entirely what makes something strong or weak. Otherwise you're falling into hindsight bias.

Only if for our purposes "draft class" is confined to the players as they exist on draft night and perhaps in Summer League, and only if for our purposes "strength" in this context is how high or low expectations are for the draft class in the eyes of fans, players, and franchises.

I guess my question is, what's the purpose of confining your terms in that way?  Doesn't it make more sense to judge a group of players selected in the same year by how successful they are in their careers, at least in the time they spent with the teams that drafted them?

[Celtics18]

Go pick by pick down the two draft classes and tell me which player is more likely to have a better NBA career.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/results/rounds/_/year/2013/round/1

http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/results/rounds/_/year/2014/round/1

Excepting injury (Embiid is the big one here), its pretty heavily in favor of 2014 unless you're trying to prove a point.


And, sure, you could say Anthony Bennett will have a better NBA career than Andrew Wiggins, but that's wrong -- even if Bennett does end up having a better career than Wiggins (which could happen, the same way I could wind up in bed with all the Victoria's Secret Angels at the same time): does that make sense? The sense from fans, players, franchises, etc. of a draft's worth is entirely what makes something strong or weak. Otherwise you're falling into hindsight bias.

I'm just going to strongly disagree on that one.  How the players drafted in a certain class end up performing as pros is entirely what determines whether that class is strong or weak.  Not the perception of that class on draft night. 

[Celtics18]

Where's the confetti?!!

I'm Ainge!!

[PhoSita]

Pho, where do you think the hype comes from?

College performance, guys like Chad Ford and Jay Bilas, and inconsequential factors like how "exciting" a player's game is.  You could say hype comes from the franchises in the league evaluating the talent, but it seems like every class gets hyped up by team officials in the weeks leading up to the draft regardless of what's been said about the strength of the class before that.

[D.o.s.]

^Sure, if you want to have an axe to grind about everyone who underappreciated them. But, again, the 2013 draft class is still pretty Edited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline.e, so whatever.

The sense from fans, players, franchises, etc. of a draft's worth is entirely what makes something strong or weak. Otherwise you're falling into hindsight bias.

Only if for our purposes "draft class" is confined to the players as they exist on draft night and perhaps in Summer League, and only if for our purposes "strength" in this context is how high or low expectations are for the draft class in the eyes of fans, players, and franchises.

I guess my question is, what's the purpose of confining your terms in that way?  Doesn't it make more sense to judge a group of players selected in the same year by how successful they are in their careers, at least in the time they spent with the teams that drafted them?

Because it doesn't make sense to hold static assessments against how the professional developments play out. The same way you wouldn't penalize someone's projection of Brady's 2008 season because he tweaked his knee in the first week of September, you know?

[PhoSita]

Also 2013 is still looking kind of crappy.  The class's 'best' player to this point is GA, a guy who is basically the ultimate question mark. Hardly a strong draft class.

As of now, I'd probably point to Gobert or Oladipo as the best players that were drafted in 2013.

I think the fact that a guy taken late in the 1st round might be the most valuable player in the class to do is indicative of a breakdown in evaluation of talent in the class, probably because of a lack of obvious high end talent and a wide selection of potential role players.

If you're talking about the "strength" of a class from that perspective -- how easy it is to identify the right player to take with a high pick -- then yes, absolutely 2013 was a weak class.

Edit:

It seems that IS the sense of "strength" you're talking about.  The stronger a draft class is, the easier it is to identify the best talent to take at the top of the draft. 

A weak draft is one that makes life very hard for GMs in the lottery because the average quality of player you're likely to get high in the 1st round is not that different from what you'd get with a pick in the 20s.  It's a crap shoot.

Am I understanding you now?

[D.o.s.]

I thought I made the presence of 'obvious high end talent' criteria pretty explicit already when I was talking about Irving, Davis and Wall, etc. Maybe not, my bad.