sidsanders wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

mreinman wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:TT

You have done the homework and realize that67% of players picked between 1-4 the last 15 years have either been all star or franchise caliber.

source please??

I don't think this is Briggs' source but data is similar to what he posted.
http://82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm

ouch ... that was very lazy work by that guy.

I want to see the source that states the All Star PCT and Franchise Player ...

It's easy to criticize but even with this crude sampling it's yet another thing that goes against the naysayers arguments. Combined with the points I posted above it's showing a very compelling argument in the Knicks favor this summer rather than a low % chance at success.

Average Career Stats by draft pick number
Pick
#       Gms     Min     Pts     Reb     Ast     Rtg     Star    Solid   RoleP   DeepB   Bust    DNP
1	20	555	32.9	16.6	7.8	2.7	27.0	70%	25%	5%			
2	20	583	29.6	12.9	5.9	2.8	21.6	60%	25%	15%			
3	20	535	31.9	15.2	5.1	3.5	23.8	85%	10%	5%			
4	20	585	30.5	13.7	5.5	3.1	22.2	60%	30%	10%			
5	20	552	28.7	13.4	4.9	2.7	21.1	60%	15%	10%	15%		
6	20	406	25.4	10.2	4.6	1.7	16.5	25%	30%	30%	15%		
7	20	483	26.8	10.9	4.3	2.6	17.8	30%	40%	25%	5%		
8	20	397	22.9	9.3	3.9	1.9	15.2	35%	15%	15%	35%		
9	20	460	23.1	10.2	4.9	1.6	16.6	30%	10%	35%	20%	5%	
10	20	497	24.6	10.2	4.4	2.2	16.7	35%	25%	25%	10%	5%	

where is that from?

the number one pick averages 33/16/8??

I'm sold!!

why only a 27% chance to be a star?

Do you think that we actually have a better chance at being a good team then a bad team next year?

you probably noticed, the column headers are not lining up correctly. its 16.6/7.8/2.7 per game.

that makes more sense ...

and how are we defining star? PER?

mreinman wrote:

sidsanders wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

mreinman wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:TT

You have done the homework and realize that67% of players picked between 1-4 the last 15 years have either been all star or franchise caliber.

source please??

I don't think this is Briggs' source but data is similar to what he posted.
http://82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm

ouch ... that was very lazy work by that guy.

I want to see the source that states the All Star PCT and Franchise Player ...

It's easy to criticize but even with this crude sampling it's yet another thing that goes against the naysayers arguments. Combined with the points I posted above it's showing a very compelling argument in the Knicks favor this summer rather than a low % chance at success.

Average Career Stats by draft pick number
Pick
#       Gms     Min     Pts     Reb     Ast     Rtg     Star    Solid   RoleP   DeepB   Bust    DNP
1	20	555	32.9	16.6	7.8	2.7	27.0	70%	25%	5%			
2	20	583	29.6	12.9	5.9	2.8	21.6	60%	25%	15%			
3	20	535	31.9	15.2	5.1	3.5	23.8	85%	10%	5%			
4	20	585	30.5	13.7	5.5	3.1	22.2	60%	30%	10%			
5	20	552	28.7	13.4	4.9	2.7	21.1	60%	15%	10%	15%		
6	20	406	25.4	10.2	4.6	1.7	16.5	25%	30%	30%	15%		
7	20	483	26.8	10.9	4.3	2.6	17.8	30%	40%	25%	5%		
8	20	397	22.9	9.3	3.9	1.9	15.2	35%	15%	15%	35%		
9	20	460	23.1	10.2	4.9	1.6	16.6	30%	10%	35%	20%	5%	
10	20	497	24.6	10.2	4.4	2.2	16.7	35%	25%	25%	10%	5%	

where is that from?

the number one pick averages 33/16/8??

I'm sold!!

why only a 27% chance to be a star?

Do you think that we actually have a better chance at being a good team then a bad team next year?

you probably noticed, the column headers are not lining up correctly. its 16.6/7.8/2.7 per game.

that makes more sense ...

and how are we defining star? PER?

the link uses a combo of pts/rbs/assts averages over the length of a career. so star to this guy is any player whos career pts+rbs+ast avg is > 20.

found this on another fan site. this one is probably more relevant, though still not conclusive since its just 1 or more all star appearances
http://www.chartgo.com/link.do?id=42a36b34aa

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

mreinman wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:TT

You have done the homework and realize that67% of players picked between 1-4 the last 15 years have either been all star or franchise caliber.

source please??

I don't think this is Briggs' source but data is similar to what he posted.
http://82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm

ouch ... that was very lazy work by that guy.

I want to see the source that states the All Star PCT and Franchise Player ...

It's easy to criticize but even with this crude sampling it's yet another thing that goes against the naysayers arguments. Combined with the points I posted above it's showing a very compelling argument in the Knicks favor this summer rather than a low % chance at success.

Average Career Stats by draft pick number
Pick
#       Gms     Min     Pts     Reb     Ast     Rtg     Star    Solid   RoleP   DeepB   Bust    DNP
1	20	555	32.9	16.6	7.8	2.7	27.0	70%	25%	5%			
2	20	583	29.6	12.9	5.9	2.8	21.6	60%	25%	15%			
3	20	535	31.9	15.2	5.1	3.5	23.8	85%	10%	5%			
4	20	585	30.5	13.7	5.5	3.1	22.2	60%	30%	10%			
5	20	552	28.7	13.4	4.9	2.7	21.1	60%	15%	10%	15%		
6	20	406	25.4	10.2	4.6	1.7	16.5	25%	30%	30%	15%		
7	20	483	26.8	10.9	4.3	2.6	17.8	30%	40%	25%	5%		
8	20	397	22.9	9.3	3.9	1.9	15.2	35%	15%	15%	35%		
9	20	460	23.1	10.2	4.9	1.6	16.6	30%	10%	35%	20%	5%	
10	20	497	24.6	10.2	4.4	2.2	16.7	35%	25%	25%	10%	5%	

where is that from?

the number one pick averages 33/16/8??

I'm sold!!

why only a 27% chance to be a star?

Do you think that we actually have a better chance at being a good team then a bad team next year?

Not sure what you are after. I thought you wanted a source for success of top 4 picks.

It doesn't matter what evidence we provide there is a group of guys who refuse to accept that there is in fact a chance that this team can improve next year. We can't provide enough proof for these guys. They want to be miserable and angry about the team's situation and don't want to try and look for ways this team could realistically improve.

Bonn actually laid it out quite clearly for you yet you refuse to comprehend.

I ask again, do you think that the knicks have a better chance to be good next year or not good?

Even if the pick ends up being an all star down the line, you do realize how many things that we need to go right to be good and the probabilities / statistics that go along with that?

You provided evidence? Really? Of course the team "has a chance" to improve next year. Statistically, its almost impossible for that not to happen.

Bonn1997 wrote:I'd be really curious to see what you think the odds are of each of these happening, Nixluva. I'm also certain you're not appreciating that the overall odds of a plan working are product of each individual decision. I've out a blank line so you can put a number in each spot. If someone held a gun to your head and required you to give a number, what percentage odds would you give to
A) ______ Melo returning healthy as an all-star?
B) ______ Free agent signing #1 being a solid NBA starter next year (Let's for simplicity assume Phil makes 3 significant signings and we'll randomly call them #1, #2, and #3)
C) _____ Free agent signing #2 being a solid NBA starter next year
D) _____ Free agent signing #3 being a solid NBA starter next year
E) _____ Our first round pick being a solid NBA starter next year
F) _____ Phil having a reasonably strong bench next year

The catch is that even if you say each of these has a 90% chance of happening (which is absurdly optimistic), you're still at a roughly 50/50 overall probability.

Why are we talking like Free Agents are a crapshoot? Splat, Bonn and TripleThreat are throwing around the idea that probability is not on our side and I say that this is being overly pessimistic and not based on any facts or proof. Sure there are some guys that are risky, like Lance Stephenson, but I don't think most trusted he would be a reliable player. He was mostly a lot of promise and speculation of what he could become and not really a proven commodity. There are plenty of solid and proven Free Agents that we can be fairly certain will produce as they have during their careers so far.

The fact remains that we'd be adding Free Agents who are better than the guys we have now. That's the entire point of Free Agency. We're not paying good money for someone who isn't proven to be a better player than the guys we have now. Think about how silly this point is. Teams are all trying to sign these players because they can produce. Now of course there's always a chance that a player flops but it's not a very high chance that these players will suddenly be less than they've been in their careers.

We just addressed the Draft pick and the chances that our pick will be a contributor. IF we do in fact land a top 4 pick we should get a pretty good player. Albeit a young player who needs to develop but they won't be like Cleanthony Early. These aren't marginal picks we're talking about. These are players who are already on a higher level from they fellow college draft mates.

mreinman wrote:
I don't think you can judge players on points. Its an empty stat.

Looks like we may have about a 50% chance that our draftee makes at least 1 all star appearance in his career. Thats promising :-(

When I have some time, I would like to see how many top 4 picks had a WS48 > .150 for their careers.

A few more articles on the subject of Draft Pick Success.

The next thing to observe is where the best players from the NBA draft come from. If we assume that about 20 players have a meaningful career per draft class,
here is where those players are drafted from. The twenty best players from each draft class is based on career win shares on basketball-reference.com.
Draft Class	Top 14 picks	1st Round	2nd Round
2012	        8	        7	        5
2011	        10	        7	        3
2010	        11	        6	        3
2009	        7	        6	        7
2008	        6	        9	        5
2007	        8	        9	        3
2006	        10	        5	        5
2005	        9	        5	        6
2004	        8	        9	        3
2003	        7	        6	        7
2002	        8	        5	        7
2001	        10	        6	        4
2000	        7	        8	        5

Another one:

The NBA draft lottery was instituted in 1985. I looked up how many wins (as measured by Basketball-Reference.com’s win shares)5 each player chosen in the first
round since then produced during his first five NBA seasons,6 based on the slot where he was selected.7 The analysis accounts for the fact that the most recent selections,
such as the New Orleans Pelicans’ Anthony Davis, have not yet seen five seasons.8

The average number of wins produced by draft selections Nos. 1 through 309 appears in the graphic below. The pattern is fairly nonlinear: No. 1 overall picks have produced
an average of 33.9 wins in the five seasons following their pick, as compared to 22.3 for No. 2 overall selections. It takes a logarithmic curve, with a fairly sharp uptick
for the No. 1 overall pick, to do an adequate job of fitting past years’ results.

First, look at the downhill trend of the graph. That can be expected, of course, but it shows that if you don't have a top three or at least top five pick, you really do
need to get lucky. In most drafts there is somewhat of a consensus on the top five picks before the draft even starts, and those picks are always the safest. In fact,
51 out of 100 total top five picks made an All-Star appearance, which is a great rate.

mreinman wrote:

sidsanders wrote:to add to that chart is this:
Only 79 of the 280 lottery picks made one All-Star appearance (1989-2008, draft picks 1-14)
that is 28.2%

something to consider as well is how long does it take to achieve any of these levels: all star, franchise changer, role player, bust, etc...

yeah ... I did not see any valuable data in this thread in regards to assessing the outcome of previous picks. It look very weak at best.

I put a few more in the post just above this. Perhaps you need to open your eyes a bit and realize that this negative crap is being shot to hello in this thread. It's just not supported by facts. There are never any guarantees in sports, but the Knicks do have a good chance to improve next year, more than it is likely that they won't improve significantly. None of the negative factors have been born out by any proof.

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

sidsanders wrote:to add to that chart is this:
Only 79 of the 280 lottery picks made one All-Star appearance (1989-2008, draft picks 1-14)
that is 28.2%

something to consider as well is how long does it take to achieve any of these levels: all star, franchise changer, role player, bust, etc...

yeah ... I did not see any valuable data in this thread in regards to assessing the outcome of previous picks. It look very weak at best.

I put a few more in the post just above this. Perhaps you need to open your eyes a bit and realize that this negative crap is being shot to hello in this thread. It's just not supported by facts. There are never any guarantees in sports, but the Knicks do have a good chance to improve next year, more than it is likely that they won't improve significantly. None of the negative factors have been born out by any proof.

No sh1t they have a chance to improve.

What you seem to have a difficult time grasping is the odds for all your fantasies to come together.

From Bonn:

A) ______ Melo returning healthy as an all-star?
B) ______ Free agent signing #1 being a solid NBA starter next year (Let's for simplicity assume Phil makes 3 significant signings and we'll randomly call them #1, #2, and #3)
C) _____ Free agent signing #2 being a solid NBA starter next year
D) _____ Free agent signing #3 being a solid NBA starter next year
E) _____ Our first round pick being a solid NBA starter next year
F) _____ Phil having a reasonably strong bench next year

The catch is that even if you say each of these has a 90% chance of happening (which is absurdly optimistic), you're still at a roughly 50/50 overall probability.

Earlier we had to read this:

TripleThreat wrote:For 40 percent of Phil Jackson's contract timeline, the Knicks don't own a draft pick. There's a good chance, in a future year, there will be a lockout. When you only have 1 first round draft pick in a three year period, albeit hopefully a high one, it does put immense pressure on that pick panning out.

Phil actually was able to get 3 picks last draft. He has 1 pick this draft and the only year with no picks is 2016. He has picks in 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020. Not only that but he was able to develop Galloway who is effectively a 1st rd pick in terms of his talent and how he's developed for us. Phil has done a decent job of adding prospects despite not really having much when he came in. He might've done even more if he had played things a bit differently, but that's water under the bridge now. We still have to see if he can do something about 2016.

As for Free Agency, the whole idea is to target impact players. Not sketchy players but players who have good records of production. So this argument about the free agents we sign not panning out is overstated. That's not really a very high risk and you guys know it. Sure it could happen that one player has a down year, but all 3??? Come on now. This is just fishing for something negative to point out.

The Melo health issue is of course the most precarious. There's no way to know how he'll respond to this surgery. We can only hope that the doctors are right and that he makes a full recovery and can continue his career at a reasonably high level. Wade was able to go for a few years before he needed more work on the knee so maybe Melo will have the same kind of good fortune. We'll see.

This entire argument is being presented as 2 extremes and really that's not what I and others are saying. We're not saying that everything will work perfectly and to those who are suggesting that pretty much everything does have to work just for the Knicks to be decent that is going way overboard. We have to take this step by step. Finish this season and see who has earned consideration for bringing back. See which slot we'll be drafting from and then make that pick count. Go into Free Agency knowing what we have and who we need. Make good signings.

sidsanders wrote:

mreinman wrote:

sidsanders wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

mreinman wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:TT

You have done the homework and realize that67% of players picked between 1-4 the last 15 years have either been all star or franchise caliber.

source please??

I don't think this is Briggs' source but data is similar to what he posted.
http://82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm

ouch ... that was very lazy work by that guy.

I want to see the source that states the All Star PCT and Franchise Player ...

It's easy to criticize but even with this crude sampling it's yet another thing that goes against the naysayers arguments. Combined with the points I posted above it's showing a very compelling argument in the Knicks favor this summer rather than a low % chance at success.

Average Career Stats by draft pick number
Pick
#       Gms     Min     Pts     Reb     Ast     Rtg     Star    Solid   RoleP   DeepB   Bust    DNP
1	20	555	32.9	16.6	7.8	2.7	27.0	70%	25%	5%			
2	20	583	29.6	12.9	5.9	2.8	21.6	60%	25%	15%			
3	20	535	31.9	15.2	5.1	3.5	23.8	85%	10%	5%			
4	20	585	30.5	13.7	5.5	3.1	22.2	60%	30%	10%			
5	20	552	28.7	13.4	4.9	2.7	21.1	60%	15%	10%	15%		
6	20	406	25.4	10.2	4.6	1.7	16.5	25%	30%	30%	15%		
7	20	483	26.8	10.9	4.3	2.6	17.8	30%	40%	25%	5%		
8	20	397	22.9	9.3	3.9	1.9	15.2	35%	15%	15%	35%		
9	20	460	23.1	10.2	4.9	1.6	16.6	30%	10%	35%	20%	5%	
10	20	497	24.6	10.2	4.4	2.2	16.7	35%	25%	25%	10%	5%	

where is that from?

the number one pick averages 33/16/8??

I'm sold!!

why only a 27% chance to be a star?

Do you think that we actually have a better chance at being a good team then a bad team next year?

you probably noticed, the column headers are not lining up correctly. its 16.6/7.8/2.7 per game.

that makes more sense ...

and how are we defining star? PER?

the link uses a combo of pts/rbs/assts averages over the length of a career. so star to this guy is any player whos career pts+rbs+ast avg is > 20.

found this on another fan site. this one is probably more relevant, though still not conclusive since its just 1 or more all star appearances
http://www.chartgo.com/link.do?id=42a36b34aa

Bonn1997 wrote:

sidsanders wrote:

mreinman wrote:

sidsanders wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

mreinman wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:TT

You have done the homework and realize that67% of players picked between 1-4 the last 15 years have either been all star or franchise caliber.

source please??

I don't think this is Briggs' source but data is similar to what he posted.
http://82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm

ouch ... that was very lazy work by that guy.

I want to see the source that states the All Star PCT and Franchise Player ...

It's easy to criticize but even with this crude sampling it's yet another thing that goes against the naysayers arguments. Combined with the points I posted above it's showing a very compelling argument in the Knicks favor this summer rather than a low % chance at success.

Average Career Stats by draft pick number
Pick
#       Gms     Min     Pts     Reb     Ast     Rtg     Star    Solid   RoleP   DeepB   Bust    DNP
1	20	555	32.9	16.6	7.8	2.7	27.0	70%	25%	5%			
2	20	583	29.6	12.9	5.9	2.8	21.6	60%	25%	15%			
3	20	535	31.9	15.2	5.1	3.5	23.8	85%	10%	5%			
4	20	585	30.5	13.7	5.5	3.1	22.2	60%	30%	10%			
5	20	552	28.7	13.4	4.9	2.7	21.1	60%	15%	10%	15%		
6	20	406	25.4	10.2	4.6	1.7	16.5	25%	30%	30%	15%		
7	20	483	26.8	10.9	4.3	2.6	17.8	30%	40%	25%	5%		
8	20	397	22.9	9.3	3.9	1.9	15.2	35%	15%	15%	35%		
9	20	460	23.1	10.2	4.9	1.6	16.6	30%	10%	35%	20%	5%	
10	20	497	24.6	10.2	4.4	2.2	16.7	35%	25%	25%	10%	5%	

where is that from?

the number one pick averages 33/16/8??

I'm sold!!

why only a 27% chance to be a star?

Do you think that we actually have a better chance at being a good team then a bad team next year?

you probably noticed, the column headers are not lining up correctly. its 16.6/7.8/2.7 per game.

that makes more sense ...

and how are we defining star? PER?

the link uses a combo of pts/rbs/assts averages over the length of a career. so star to this guy is any player whos career pts+rbs+ast avg is > 20.

found this on another fan site. this one is probably more relevant, though still not conclusive since its just 1 or more all star appearances
http://www.chartgo.com/link.do?id=42a36b34aa

You know that Bargnani is considered a "star" based on that stat?!

he's not a star?

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

mreinman wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:TT

You have done the homework and realize that67% of players picked between 1-4 the last 15 years have either been all star or franchise caliber.

source please??

I don't think this is Briggs' source but data is similar to what he posted.
http://82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm

ouch ... that was very lazy work by that guy.

I want to see the source that states the All Star PCT and Franchise Player ...

It's easy to criticize but even with this crude sampling it's yet another thing that goes against the naysayers arguments. Combined with the points I posted above it's showing a very compelling argument in the Knicks favor this summer rather than a low % chance at success.

Average Career Stats by draft pick number
Pick
#       Gms     Min     Pts     Reb     Ast     Rtg     Star    Solid   RoleP   DeepB   Bust    DNP
1	20	555	32.9	16.6	7.8	2.7	27.0	70%	25%	5%			
2	20	583	29.6	12.9	5.9	2.8	21.6	60%	25%	15%			
3	20	535	31.9	15.2	5.1	3.5	23.8	85%	10%	5%			
4	20	585	30.5	13.7	5.5	3.1	22.2	60%	30%	10%			
5	20	552	28.7	13.4	4.9	2.7	21.1	60%	15%	10%	15%		
6	20	406	25.4	10.2	4.6	1.7	16.5	25%	30%	30%	15%		
7	20	483	26.8	10.9	4.3	2.6	17.8	30%	40%	25%	5%		
8	20	397	22.9	9.3	3.9	1.9	15.2	35%	15%	15%	35%		
9	20	460	23.1	10.2	4.9	1.6	16.6	30%	10%	35%	20%	5%	
10	20	497	24.6	10.2	4.4	2.2	16.7	35%	25%	25%	10%	5%	

where is that from?

the number one pick averages 33/16/8??

I'm sold!!

why only a 27% chance to be a star?

Do you think that we actually have a better chance at being a good team then a bad team next year?

Not sure what you are after. I thought you wanted a source for success of top 4 picks.

It doesn't matter what evidence we provide there is a group of guys who refuse to accept that there is in fact a chance that this team can improve next year. We can't provide enough proof for these guys. They want to be miserable and angry about the team's situation and don't want to try and look for ways this team could realistically improve.

Bonn actually laid it out quite clearly for you yet you refuse to comprehend.

I ask again, do you think that the knicks have a better chance to be good next year or not good?

Even if the pick ends up being an all star down the line, you do realize how many things that we need to go right to be good and the probabilities / statistics that go along with that?

You provided evidence? Really? Of course the team "has a chance" to improve next year. Statistically, its almost impossible for that not to happen.

What did Bonn lay out clearly?

Bonn1997 wrote:I'd be really curious to see what you think the odds are of each of these happening, Nixluva. I'm also certain you're not appreciating that the overall odds of a plan working are product of each individual decision. I've out a blank line so you can put a number in each spot. If someone held a gun to your head and required you to give a number, what percentage odds would you give to
A) ______ Melo returning healthy as an all-star?
B) ______ Free agent signing #1 being a solid NBA starter next year (Let's for simplicity assume Phil makes 3 significant signings and we'll randomly call them #1, #2, and #3)
C) _____ Free agent signing #2 being a solid NBA starter next year
D) _____ Free agent signing #3 being a solid NBA starter next year
E) _____ Our first round pick being a solid NBA starter next year
F) _____ Phil having a reasonably strong bench next year

The catch is that even if you say each of these has a 90% chance of happening (which is absurdly optimistic), you're still at a roughly 50/50 overall probability.

Why are we talking like Free Agents are a crapshoot? Splat, Bonn and TripleThreat are throwing around the idea that probability is not on our side and I say that this is being overly pessimistic and not based on any facts or proof. Sure there are some guys that are risky, like Lance Stephenson, but I don't think most trusted he would be a reliable player. He was mostly a lot of promise and speculation of what he could become and not really a proven commodity. There are plenty of solid and proven Free Agents that we can be fairly certain will produce as they have during their careers so far.

The fact remains that we'd be adding Free Agents who are better than the guys we have now. That's the entire point of Free Agency. We're not paying good money for someone who isn't proven to be a better player than the guys we have now. Think about how silly this point is. Teams are all trying to sign these players because they can produce. Now of course there's always a chance that a player flops but it's not a very high chance that these players will suddenly be less than they've been in their careers.

We just addressed the Draft pick and the chances that our pick will be a contributor. IF we do in fact land a top 4 pick we should get a pretty good player. Albeit a young player who needs to develop but they won't be like Cleanthony Early. These aren't marginal picks we're talking about. These are players who are already on a higher level from they fellow college draft mates.

You have to consider that (a) we're such a bad team and (b) we don't have many rotation players now and (c) half the cap is taken up by the remainders of this sub .200 team. You put all that together and Phil has to hit a much higher batting average than most if not all other GMs in the league. All else being equal, that means a lower probability of success than a GM with more room for error. (And you could say all else is not equal given Phil's performance over the first twelve months.)

Its seems so simple yet some have such a hard time grasping this?

Bonn1997 wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:Any blogger out there who thinks that a pro NBA organization is not going to invest in analytics whether automated or manual (scouts/spreadsheets/databases) in today's day and age is being unrealistic.

trust me... the software is too damn cheap to not have any investment in that space, hardware.... even cheaper!

and then for someone to think that it's not being factored into the equation... its even more unrealistic.

There are a couple of teams without analytics departments. The question is how intelligently are you using the analytics, not whether you're using them, though.

BRIGGS wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

mreinman wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:TT

You have done the homework and realize that67% of players picked between 1-4 the last 15 years have either been all star or franchise caliber.

source please??

I don't think this is Briggs' source but data is similar to what he posted.
http://82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm

Reinman go do your own homework Every time I say something and you doubt it you end up with pie in your face.

Every time? Pie? Example?

Your face is full of pie daily. The new UK mascot who is not that intelligent and can't answer questions.

why is it that the smart guys on this board all come after your posts and think that you are a bit of a tool?