Blazers lose both coin flips

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
In a sense the GS flip could be worse to lose than ours, only a 25% chance both us and Charlotte are outside top4 where that flip matters.

But GS is dead last unless they move into the top4. Think I'm rooting for them to get 4th.
 
Why do the Blazers have such bad luck
 
AmirIcon said:
The GS pick is actually affected more so than our own. The coin flip lost us .1 to Charlotte which is pretty irrelevant, where as the GS pick dropped a spot.
Click to expand...

It's relevant if both Charlotte and Portland fall out of the top 4, in which case our pick slots one spot lower.
 
Moving down from a coin flip from 3-4 cost them a tenth of one percent. 13.3 % chance instead of 13.4%.
No real difference.
 
kjironman1 said:
Moving down from a coin flip from 3-4 cost them a tenth of one percent. 13.3 % chance instead of 13.4%.
No real difference.
Click to expand...
It's only one of a thousand ping pong ball.... But if neither team gets a top4 pick Charlotte picks first.
 
Technically it's 1/1000 combination of ping pong ball numbers as they don't actually have a thousand ping pong balls.
 
Imagine how bad it would be, if we were actually losing out on something.
 
THE HCP said:
Imagine how bad it would be, if we were actually losing out on something.
Click to expand...
The 1st and 2nd pick in this draft are worthy. Actually the first 4 players taken might be pretty good. Are they Wenby? No, But then how many players have been that good over the last 30 years?
Basketball is still a team sport. Last I checked the best teams win games and compete for rings.
 
kjironman1 said:
The 1st and 2nd pick in this draft are worthy. Actually the first 4 players taken might be pretty good. Are they Wenby? No, But then how many players have been that good over the last 30 years?
Basketball is still a team sport. Last I checked the best teams win games and compete for rings.
Click to expand...

Why do people forget that the draft is always wrong? Every year we think "the draft evaluators know who are the best players and now we won't get one of them!!!" How often are the first 4 picks in order the best four players in the draft? Exactly never.

If we hadn't got the #1 pick and basically had to pick Oden we would've been in position to pick Joakim Noah and the Blazers would have been much better off.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Why do people forget that the draft is always wrong? Every year we think "the draft evaluators know who are the best players and now we won't get one of them!!!" How often are the first 4 picks in order the best four players in the draft? Exactly never.

If we hadn't got the #1 pick and basically had to pick Oden we would've been in position to pick Joakim Noah and the Blazers would have been much better off.
Click to expand...
That's why I said "Actually the first 4 players MIGHT be pretty good". Draft is usually a crap shoot. On the other hand everyone was pretty much saying Wemby was going to be very good and he is. If you remember back when Ayton was being drafted he was pretty well sought after. Zion brought a consensus number one pick as I remember.
 
Just thinking of the Dwight Howard vs Okafor and D Rose vs the nutjob from Kansas State!
 
Obviously if you look at just a few examples there's a ton of statistical noise, top players picked high worth much less and other lower picked players worth much more.

But if you look at many, many picks then it becomes crystal clear that a higher draft position is a massive predictor of the player being worth more.

upload_2024-4-23_15-10-3.png

upload_2024-4-23_15-9-47.png

https://repository.arizona.edu/handle/10150/651330
 
I don't understand that chart at all. All I know is that there is a certain type of player that teams feel they have to take with a high pick and it's a high risk player. Meanwhile "boring" but great players like Draymond Green and Jalen Brunson slip in the draft because they (supposedly) haven't got "upside".
 
Rastapopoulos said:
I don't understand that chart at all. All I know is that there is a certain type of player that teams feel they have to take with a high pick and it's a high risk player. Meanwhile "boring" but great players like Draymond Green and Jalen Brunson slip in the draft because they (supposedly) haven't got "upside".
Click to expand...

So teams are making dumb decisions but you know how to easily do a better job drafting?

I think its just that the best player to draft is very hard to exactly predict - so there is a lot of variance in the player worth vs draft position. But its very clear NBA teams do make a lot of good judgements on whom to draft - otherwise the observed value of players would be much more random with less correlation to draft position throughout the draft.
 
2 of the best bigs in the playoffs, Jokic and Giannis, were not taken with top draft picks.

There are gems outside of the top picks in every draft, you just have to dig for them.
 
SharpesTriumph said:
Obviously if you look at just a few examples there's a ton of statistical noise, top players picked high worth much less and other lower picked players worth much more.

But if you look at many, many picks then it becomes crystal clear that a higher draft position is a massive predictor of the player being worth more.

View attachment 64492
So I wonder what criteria is used to assign these values. Aren't rookie salaries assigned based on their draft position?
View attachment 64491

https://repository.arizona.edu/handle/10150/651330
Click to expand...
 
SlyPokerDog said:
2 of the best bigs in the playoffs, Jokic and Giannis, were not taken with top draft picks.

There are gems outside of the top picks in every draft, you just have to dig for them.
Click to expand...

This place would come unhinged If Cronin took a player that had this kind of report out.

"Jokic's upside isn't too spectacular because he's a below-average athlete,"
"The big downside, though, is his athleticism. He doesn't get much lift off the floor at all, and he doesn't have the speed burst to drive past opponents or stay in front of them laterally."
"It's going to give him major problems on defense and limit him to being a role player on offense."
"As a second-tier prospect, he may not be expected to produce much, but you can't underestimate a player with good instincts and intelligence."
"Jokic had shown some glimpses of outside shooting during his Adriatic League season, but he shot just 22 percent from behind the international line in 2013-14."
"Jokic's weaknesses revolve around his bottom-tier athleticism. While he moves his feet pretty well from point A to point B, he lacks the quickness and vertical agility that the rest of the league owns."
"These deficiencies will be most glaring on the defensive side, where he'll struggle to keep up with NBA-caliber speed. Whether he's guarding power forwards or centers, he'll have trouble staying in front of them or consistently protecting the rim. He also won't be as effective on the boards as he is in the Adriatic League."

Ha Dude just put up 27-20-10 triple double against Anthony Davis and Lebron James.

"The slow-footed tendencies will also hurt his chances to create offense. Even on closeout drives, his slashing will get corralled pretty easily by help defenders, and he won't be able to elevate over upper-echelon defenders."
"In addition, he should speed up his shooting delivery in order to maximize his spot-up chances."

"A high IQ and great length might be enough to earn Jokic some minutes early in his career, but he won't provide enough defense or scoring firepower to gain a substantial role."

This one is hilarious!!!
"he could be a poor-man's Diaw and a long-range threat like Antic. Jokic would probably be the fourth or fifth scoring option when he's in the game"

"Unfortunately, his defense will likely prevent him from ever playing 30-plus minutes or starting. However, there's no shame in being a respectable reserve on a winning team in the future."


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top