Dumpy examines the draft!

[pegs]

http://www.netsdaily.com/blog/?p=496

Dumpy breaks down the Nets' draft tendencies: Who they have picked in the past - the positions they played, their height, skills, weaknesses, strengths; Who's in control of the Nets, and what effect they have on selecting who to draft; Who the Nets are most likely to take, and who they're least likely to take. He also gives his opinion of Brook Lopez (which I agree with, 100%).

Check it out, it's a great read, as always.

 

[ak30]

Great article.

One thing that confused me is the fact that the article mentioned Gallinari is not tall for his position. He is a 6'10 SF. Even if you consider him a PF, he is still on the taller side.

Yes, I'm a Gallinari groupie.

Other than that, very informative.

 

[Dumpy]

thanks--yeah, I erred on DG's height. For some reason I was thinking that he was 6'7" or so.

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

I really dont see how you can compare Lopez to a few of those guys.

Ajinca?Mcgee?

We have Sean Williams already.


.............. I do like Speights though, if hes motivated

 

[Universe]

Lovely read.

 

[gambitnut]

It appears to me that the Marcus Williams pick violated all of their normal "rules" for picking players in the draft. What was the reasoning behind picking him? Too good to pass up?

 

[JCB]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gambitnut @ Jun 24 2008, 02:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It appears to me that the Marcus Williams pick violated all of their normal "rules" for picking players in the draft. What was the reasoning behind picking him? Too good to pass up?</div>

I would think so: believed to be a top flight PG in that class and we desperately needed someone to back-up Kidd at the time. Seemed like a no-brainer.

 

[gambitnut]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JCB @ Jun 23 2008, 11:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gambitnut @ Jun 24 2008, 02:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It appears to me that the Marcus Williams pick violated all of their normal "rules" for picking players in the draft. What was the reasoning behind picking him? Too good to pass up?</div>

I would think so: believed to be a top flight PG in that class and we desperately needed someone to back-up Kidd at the time. Seemed like a no-brainer.
</div>

Seems like it was.

 

[ToddMacCulloch11]

a very nice read...interesting to see all the trends broken down like that.

 

[Petey]

Fun read, but I think it's too small a sample size to assume the Nets won't draft 2 bigs, or select another PF after taking Sean last year.

-Petey

 

[Dumpy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Jun 24 2008, 09:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Fun read, but I think it's too small a sample size to assume the Nets won't draft 2 bigs, or select another PF after taking Sean last year.

-Petey</div>

I strongly believe that everyone--you, me, my brother Jake-I mean EVERYONE--has very disticnt tendencies and preferences with regard to everything they do, whether it is shopping, picking out clothes, friends we choose, whatever. NBA GMs are no different. Even though they may not be able to articulate their preferences, I believe that when push comes to shove, they will always prefer one type of player over another. When you get down to it, at this level of player, it is very hard to say that one guy has a better chance of success than another. Does one player have slightly more range? Is one a slightly better shot blocker? Does one have broader shoulders? Which is more imprtant? It comes down to individual preferences, which are like a fingerprint. You can't go against your essence.

For Rod Thorn, it comes down to selecting players that can contribute now, and can contribute in ways that he wants his team to perform. He does NOT, for instance, want a shoot-first PG. He will never draft another Marbury. Marcus was the rare team-first, share-the-ball PG, and for that his defensive deficiencies could be overlooked.

What kind of keyed me in to this was an article I read about the 2001 draft years after it happened. Apparently the Nets did NOT have a deal in place when they drafted Griffin. Another GM was quoted as saying that "Everyone knew that there was no way Eddie Griffin would ever play for Rod Thorn." Why? How did they know that? What was it about Eddie Griffin that was so contrary to what Rod Thorn was looking for? This year, I see Eric Gordon in the same light. If he is the player that falls to #10--that is, Bayless, Brook, Westbrook, and DG are all gone--they I envision them drafting and dealing him.

As for taking two bigs: You need to put your young players in an environment where they can develop and be successful. Rod has indicated quite clearly that he knows this and agrees with it. Forcing two young players to compete with each other for playing time when they should be spending their energy learning what the team expects from them would be counterproductive and stunt their growth. I think there is NO QUESTION about that. If the nets select two bigs, I'd expect a trade to follow shortly.

 

[Denny Crane]

Petey would draft 2 bigs and have them compete for PG, like he did with his GM draft team.

Tendencies are interesting and Dumpy did a good job of it. The thing is, if he has a more-than-one-year plan for a change, then the picks would be made with a purpose in mind that defies the tendencies. Part of having a longer term plan is riding out big contracts to underachieving star players, while looking for a guy in the draft who can be a star in his own right.

 

[SportsTicker]

I endorse Dumpy..and anxiously awaity his post-draft analysis.

As for Marcus Williams, it was Dumpy who days before the draft predicted one of the kids in the Green Room would drop all the way down to #22 (he thought it might be Brewer as I recall), forcing the Nets to make a decision. Indeed, that is just what happened.

What is interesting and forgotten is that within weeks of the Marcus draft, Jacque Vaughn and Zoran Planinic decided against staying with the Nets. Too bad.

 

[Dumpy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ Jun 24 2008, 10:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I endorse Dumpy..and anxiously awaity his post-draft analysis.

As for Marcus Williams, it was Dumpy who days before the draft predicted one of the kids in the Green Room would drop all the way down to #22 (he thought it might be Brewer as I recall), forcing the Nets to make a decision. Indeed, that is just what happened.

What is interesting and forgotten is that within weeks of the Marcus draft, Jacque Vaughn and Zoran Planinic decided against staying with the Nets. Too bad.</div>

yes, I thought it would be one of the older wings, Brewer or Carney. Both fell from where the mocks had them, but not far enough.

Normally, bigs rise, as you know, and older players fall, especially wings. Keeping with that pattern, last year I predicted that Nick Young and possibly Al Thornton could fall. I just missed on Young.

If that happens this year, then Rush could be around in the 20s. There are so few well-regarded wings this year, though, that some team will probably draft for need and take him higher than that. There are just too many decent-but-not great centers available. Not all of them can be overpicked.

I saw on NetsDaily that today's papers are denigrating the depth of the draft. Here's a news release: It's no worse than the past two years. That's one reason why the Nets won't shy away from someone like Westbrook, even though they don't have "room" for him. He'd play 10 minutes a game this year (if he can handle it), and 20 minutes next year, and then eventually, if he develops, become the Nets' sixth man.

Anyway, I'll be rooting for Eric Gordon, Arthur, Randolph and Augustin to be selected in the top nine picks . . . even if that doesn't happen, the Nets should still get one of the players they like, even though they may not have a choice about it.

Also, one thing I can't emphasize enough is that everyone MUST pay attention to Portland and Seattle--they have TEN picks between them. They will have to make some moves, and that will do a lot to determine the outcome of the night.

 

[JRon]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>NBA GMs are no different. Even though they may not be able to articulate their preferences, I believe that when push comes to shove, they will always prefer one type of player over another. When you get down to it, at this level of player, it is very hard to say that one guy has a better chance of success than another.</div>

I remember Dumpy! Hey man, great write on the article and great breakdown, really.
The only thing I would suggest or add to this 'all GMs might have tendencies,' is that the drafting business has become much more complicated and pressured. So, it has become extraordinarily difficult to trace tendencies, partly because of the newer complexity, but also because the nature of the draft precludes tendency in so many ways. There are finite picks and finite choices, so positioning and availability might restrict certain or any tendencies. It's another credit to Thorn that we can even see tendencies displayed. Not to take anything away from Dumps, because that was no small task, but there are probably few GM's who have traceable tendencies for two reasons: 1) the aforementioned complexity and nature of drafting and 2) Many of them are IDIOTS. I'm being serious. The joy of draft is watching the Lucky, The Architects, The Gamblers, The Cocky, The Conservative and the flat out Dumb." So, I tend to see the GM's in archetypes. Dumpy's is more technical, smarter and specific, but either way, I love the DRAFT!

 

[o.iatlhawksfan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>similarly capable center at #21</div>

no way in hell

 

[Dumpy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JRon @ Jun 24 2008, 10:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>NBA GMs are no different. Even though they may not be able to articulate their preferences, I believe that when push comes to shove, they will always prefer one type of player over another. When you get down to it, at this level of player, it is very hard to say that one guy has a better chance of success than another.</div>

I remember Dumpy! Hey man, great write on the article and great breakdown, really.
The only thing I would suggest or add to this 'all GMs might have tendencies,' is that the drafting business has become much more complicated and pressured. So, it has become extraordinarily difficult to trace tendencies, partly because of the newer complexity, but also because the nature of the draft precludes tendency in so many ways. There are finite picks and finite choices, so positioning and availability might restrict certain or any tendencies. It's another credit to Thorn that we can even see tendencies displayed. Not to take anything away from Dumps, because that was no small task, but there are probably few GM's who have traceable tendencies for two reasons: 1) the aforementioned complexity and nature of drafting and 2) Many of them are IDIOTS. I'm being serious. The joy of draft is watching the Lucky, The Architects, The Gamblers, The Cocky, The Conservative and the flat out Dumb." So, I tend to see the GM's in archetypes. Dumpy's is more technical, smarter and specific, but either way, I love the DRAFT!
</div>

Thanks! But couldn't you say that the archetypes help define the tendencies? Instead of prefering a player that, say, is a good passer, some GMs may just go with the young athletic guy with the most upside. That's just as valid and predictable to me.

I think some of them ARE idiots, especially when it comes to foreign big men that have averaged 1.8 points in 7 minutes a game for a B-league team. Ajinca could actually fall into this group; I could see him being overpicked and taken in the early teens--or even earlier, who knows.

We're lucky in the sense that the Nets have had the same GM for a long time now, which is a bit unusual, so we can make these sorts of sweeping statements.

 

[Dumpy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (o.iatlhawksfan @ Jun 24 2008, 10:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>similarly capable center at #21</div>

no way in hell
</div>

Did you want the Nets to trade up for Patrick O'Bryant, Hilton Armstrong or Cedric Simmons instead of drafting Josh Boone?

 

[o.iatlhawksfan]

Patrick o'Bryant and Cedric Simmons were drafted on upside, and Armstrong is irrelevant. He's just as good a big man as Boone( most likely better), just happens to be playing on a much better team.

 

[Dumpy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (o.iatlhawksfan @ Jun 24 2008, 11:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Patrick o'Bryant and Cedric Simmons were drafted on upside, and Armstrong is irrelevant. He's just as good a big man as Boone( most likely better), just happens to be playing on a much better team.</div>

It's not irrelevant. The probability of finding an impact big man at #10 is very low. This year, there are a huge number of capable backup centers who will be around after the lottery. So I say wait and take the one you like the most. For me, that is Hibbert, but reasonable minds could disagree. The nets have two picks, they should take the holistic view when deciding who to draft.

 

[o.iatlhawksfan]

I waz actually talking about the Armstrong-boone comparison