Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Thu May 03, 2018 8:58 pm Post subject:
Omar Little wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
Quote:
I’m saying it is not all a predictable science.
Agreed. If it was a predictable science, regardless of how much time a person puts into it, then so many scouts and GMs should be fired right now for repeatedly missing so much.
There’s an inability to correctly figure all the future variables out. And there is also context, where gm’s go after the rawer talent with more upside (but also more bust risk). Especially higher in the draft where the superstars go. Chasing the hidden gem often means missing the hidden gem.
Agreed. Scouts and executives value variables (e.g. athletic attributes, skill sets, intangibles) differently. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Agreed. If it was a predictable science, regardless of how much time a person puts into it, then so many scouts and GMs should be fired right now for repeatedly missing so much.
There’s an inability to correctly figure all the future variables out. And there is also context, where gm’s go after the rawer talent with more upside (but also more bust risk). Especially higher in the draft where the superstars go. Chasing the hidden gem often means missing the hidden gem.
Yes. I mean, people are saying that the reason there are misses in the draft is because scouts aren't putting in enough thought or evaluating the right things. And yet, even after players' careers are all said and done, we still cannot gain consensus on which player is better than another.
But somehow, if you just put enough "thoughtfulness" into it, we'll be able to figure out which player is better than another before they've stepped foot on to an NBA court?
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 7:41 am Post subject:
Some guys are bigger finds than misses _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
At least the Lakers didn't draft a Darko Milicic or Greg Oden.
I still blame Portland's training staff for what happened to Oden.
You can't blame Portland's training staff for Oden messing his knee up standing up off of the couch.
You mean forcing him to gain 20-30lbs within one summer?
Yeah, I can.
His knee injury from standing up off the couch occurred after his first knee injury and had nothing to do with the weight gain. That's a freak accident. I could understand if he had been involved in on court activities, but he hadn't even resumed anything on-court yet.
Looking back though Tatum was a bigger miss than both Mitchell and Porzingis.
Disagree. LAL would ask more out of him in terms of responsibility.
Exactly, much easier to look that good and efficient on both ends when you have the responsibility of a 4th option on the second best team in the East.
Looking back though Tatum was a bigger miss than both Mitchell and Porzingis.
Disagree. LAL would ask more out of him in terms of responsibility.
Exactly, much easier to look that good and efficient on both ends when you have the responsibility of a 4th option on the second best team in the East.
Wait...thats somehow easier than being the 4th option (Lonzo) on one of the non playoff teams in the west?
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 10:49 am Post subject:
LakersPimp wrote:
Luminous8 wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
The Juggernaut wrote:
Looking back though Tatum was a bigger miss than both Mitchell and Porzingis.
Disagree. LAL would ask more out of him in terms of responsibility.
Exactly, much easier to look that good and efficient on both ends when you have the responsibility of a 4th option on the second best team in the East.
Wait...thats somehow easier than being the 4th option (Lonzo) on one of the non playoff teams in the west?
Tatum is playing off of and being fed by others. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 12:30 pm Post subject:
ringfinger wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
Quote:
I’m saying it is not all a predictable science.
Agreed. If it was a predictable science, regardless of how much time a person puts into it, then so many scouts and GMs should be fired right now for repeatedly missing so much.
There’s an inability to correctly figure all the future variables out. And there is also context, where gm’s go after the rawer talent with more upside (but also more bust risk). Especially higher in the draft where the superstars go. Chasing the hidden gem often means missing the hidden gem.
Yes. I mean, people are saying that the reason there are misses in the draft is because scouts aren't putting in enough thought or evaluating the right things. And yet, even after players' careers are all said and done, we still cannot gain consensus on which player is better than another.
But somehow, if you just put enough "thoughtfulness" into it, we'll be able to figure out which player is better than another before they've stepped foot on to an NBA court?
That's not even possible. Scouts themselves value different things differently; intangibles, skills, upside, athleticism, etc. It seems every year, I read conflicting opinions about specific prospects. There's not enough "thoughtfulness" into that, even with the proper use of analytics. I think they're going to stick to what they've seen on the floor and what they're comfortable with projecting based on their own knowledge and experience. But just because Wesley Iwundu was a 6'7" point forward with a 7'1" wingspan doesn't mean I think he can suddenly become some great PG with a semblance of a jumpshot better than Ben Simmons.
I mean, if Iwundu ends up that guy and was drafted in the lottery, then that scout is awesome, right? But if he doesn't end up that guy and was just a 2nd round pick (which he was), said scout isn't exactly going to lose his job over it either. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 12:35 pm Post subject:
Luminous8 wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
Luminous8 wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
noahp45 wrote:
At least the Lakers didn't draft a Darko Milicic or Greg Oden.
I still blame Portland's training staff for what happened to Oden.
You can't blame Portland's training staff for Oden messing his knee up standing up off of the couch.
You mean forcing him to gain 20-30lbs within one summer?
Yeah, I can.
His knee injury from standing up off the couch occurred after his first knee injury and had nothing to do with the weight gain. That's a freak accident. I could understand if he had been involved in on court activities, but he hadn't even resumed anything on-court yet.
I don't know man, sudden increases in body weight + knee issues prior to the season starting, and you've already got one side of the body compensating for the other. Weight gain affects that, and not that have done any research into it, but it seems that a lot of prospects that gain the 10-15lbs. of muscle in the pre-draft process or go through sudden surprise workouts that are vastly different from their NCAA routine, end up injured when playing heavy minutes.
Kuzma? Mature body by age. Took the changes well.
Lonzo? Skipped... 20-30 games. Out of shape during Vegas. Out of shape beginning of the season.
Hart? Didn't even really play until January, and was mostly a 20mpg player. Mature body by age, took the changes well.
Ingram? Badly cramped during the 1st game of Vegas Pro League, missed 10-20 games at the end of the season. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 12:36 pm Post subject:
LakersPimp wrote:
Luminous8 wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
The Juggernaut wrote:
Looking back though Tatum was a bigger miss than both Mitchell and Porzingis.
Disagree. LAL would ask more out of him in terms of responsibility.
Exactly, much easier to look that good and efficient on both ends when you have the responsibility of a 4th option on the second best team in the East.
Wait...thats somehow easier than being the 4th option (Lonzo) on one of the non playoff teams in the west?
Tatum doesn't run the offense.
Zo does, and got the team to #1 pace until they dropped to #2 in his absence. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Looking back though Tatum was a bigger miss than both Mitchell and Porzingis.
Disagree. LAL would ask more out of him in terms of responsibility.
Exactly, much easier to look that good and efficient on both ends when you have the responsibility of a 4th option on the second best team in the East.
Wait...thats somehow easier than being the 4th option (Lonzo) on one of the non playoff teams in the west?
Tatum is playing off of and being fed by others.
Lonzo usually makes a quick pass...and stands around.. .The lakers run almost an equal opportunity initiation offense. He makes quick passes...but rarely creates off the dribble...hence the low usage rate.
Looking back though Tatum was a bigger miss than both Mitchell and Porzingis.
Disagree. LAL would ask more out of him in terms of responsibility.
Exactly, much easier to look that good and efficient on both ends when you have the responsibility of a 4th option on the second best team in the East.
Wait...thats somehow easier than being the 4th option (Lonzo) on one of the non playoff teams in the west?
Tatum doesn't run the offense.
Zo does, and got the team to #1 pace until they dropped to #2 in his absence.
I’m hanging my hat on this and hoping Lonzo is committed enough to the “easier to acquire” skills (shooting, finishing at rim, floater, etc.).
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 12:44 pm Post subject:
LakersPimp wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
LakersPimp wrote:
Luminous8 wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
The Juggernaut wrote:
Looking back though Tatum was a bigger miss than both Mitchell and Porzingis.
Disagree. LAL would ask more out of him in terms of responsibility.
Exactly, much easier to look that good and efficient on both ends when you have the responsibility of a 4th option on the second best team in the East.
Wait...thats somehow easier than being the 4th option (Lonzo) on one of the non playoff teams in the west?
Tatum is playing off of and being fed by others.
Lonzo usually makes a quick pass...and stands around.. .The lakers run almost an equal opportunity initiation offense. He makes quick passes...but rarely creates off the dribble...hence the low usage rate.
Oh, it would be so true if he didn't spend so much time playing off ball at UCLA.
Even the Laker squad can't throw him enough lob passes when he cuts backdoor AND he's open. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Looking back though Tatum was a bigger miss than both Mitchell and Porzingis.
Disagree. LAL would ask more out of him in terms of responsibility.
Exactly, much easier to look that good and efficient on both ends when you have the responsibility of a 4th option on the second best team in the East.
Wait...thats somehow easier than being the 4th option (Lonzo) on one of the non playoff teams in the west?
Tatum doesn't run the offense.
Zo does, and got the team to #1 pace until they dropped to #2 in his absence.
It was Zo...along with Ingram gone...btw. The Lakers had no PG for the last month....Ennis...GP3....Caruso...KCP...They will not provide any decent PG play
Looking back though Tatum was a bigger miss than both Mitchell and Porzingis.
Disagree. LAL would ask more out of him in terms of responsibility.
Exactly, much easier to look that good and efficient on both ends when you have the responsibility of a 4th option on the second best team in the East.
Wait...thats somehow easier than being the 4th option (Lonzo) on one of the non playoff teams in the west?
Tatum is playing off of and being fed by others.
Lonzo usually makes a quick pass...and stands around.. .The lakers run almost an equal opportunity initiation offense. He makes quick passes...but rarely creates off the dribble...hence the low usage rate.
Oh, it would be so true if he didn't spend so much time playing off ball at UCLA.
Even the Laker squad can't throw him enough lob passes when he cuts backdoor AND he's open.
He is a good cutter off the ball...they don't utilize that enough...
Agreed. If it was a predictable science, regardless of how much time a person puts into it, then so many scouts and GMs should be fired right now for repeatedly missing so much.
There’s an inability to correctly figure all the future variables out. And there is also context, where gm’s go after the rawer talent with more upside (but also more bust risk). Especially higher in the draft where the superstars go. Chasing the hidden gem often means missing the hidden gem.
Yes. I mean, people are saying that the reason there are misses in the draft is because scouts aren't putting in enough thought or evaluating the right things. And yet, even after players' careers are all said and done, we still cannot gain consensus on which player is better than another.
But somehow, if you just put enough "thoughtfulness" into it, we'll be able to figure out which player is better than another before they've stepped foot on to an NBA court?
That's not even possible. Scouts themselves value different things differently; intangibles, skills, upside, athleticism, etc. It seems every year, I read conflicting opinions about specific prospects. There's not enough "thoughtfulness" into that, even with the proper use of analytics. I think they're going to stick to what they've seen on the floor and what they're comfortable with projecting based on their own knowledge and experience. But just because Wesley Iwundu was a 6'7" point forward with a 7'1" wingspan doesn't mean I think he can suddenly become some great PG with a semblance of a jumpshot better than Ben Simmons.
I mean, if Iwundu ends up that guy and was drafted in the lottery, then that scout is awesome, right? But if he doesn't end up that guy and was just a 2nd round pick (which he was), said scout isn't exactly going to lose his job over it either.
i'm absolutely baffled at the line of thinking in this thread that there's no predictive science to the draft. if that were the case, how is a consensus even formed in the first place? why is there a predictive relationship between a player's draft position and NBA performance? if it were all a crapshoot of opinions there wouldn't be that relationship - there IS a science to it, but the fact that prospects get missed big time every single year without fail suggests that the science has a long way to go.
so what is the process by which we can improve the science of draft evaluation year over year? thoughtfulness. how do we identify the diamonds in the rough who are being overlooked? thoughtfulness. applying the lessons learned in years past to identify what traits actually lead to success in the NBA, and ignoring the traits that have led to players being overrated in the draft.
take the example of jeremy lin - clearly he should have been at least a second round pick, but because of the collective blind spot to ivy league, asian talent, he was ignored. can this be learned from by a thoughtful front office? yes. will it be learned from by all front offices? no. there are similar lessons that can be learned from missing on mitchell. period. if you don't think so then consider my mind blown.
Obviously, we'll never get to a point where it's clearly predictive because of many of the uncontrollable variables like quality of training staff, injuries, off the court circumstances, etc (nor do I ever hope to get there). but we should be able to get to a point where players aren't being overlooked so heavily to the point of being undrafted, ignored completely, or drafted 10-15 spots later than they should have been.
i am merely arguing that given what we know about what it takes to be a successful wing in the NBA today, players with broke ass shots and/or no offensive impact like deaaron fox, josh jackson, frank ntilikina, jonathan isaac should be looked at incredibly skeptically, and they better be absolutely game changing in other ways to compensate for that. the argument for josh jackson was that he was able to guard 1-4 and was an elite athlete. well all you had to do was watch him trying to keep up with jawun evans to see that that's not true. or all you had to do was watch fox's end to end speed and compare it to other elite players in the past to see that his speed was good, but not otherworldly. so do your homework in a thoughtful way, and you can eliminate costly mistakes. _________________ substance over style
Maybe instead of these players as misses, perhaps the real misses from the front office was not hiring a Brad Stevens or Quin Snyder type of coach instead. Not that I think Walton is a bad coach, but he's still learning a lot on the job whereas these guys are more experienced and have shown to be very good NBA coaches. The old regime looked too closely at just retreads before they hired Walton.
Last edited by LAkers 4 Life on Fri May 04, 2018 3:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
The guy went 13th. He was never realistically in play. It's just not worth thinking about. Porzingis, in theory, could've been in play, since we apparently didn't want to take Okafor (the correct decision), so Porzingis may have been our second choice.
The misnomer "was not in play" is misleading, a cloaking device for what's more accurate, that talent evaluators did their jobs poorly.
Did they?
Pretty sure it was well known how KP killed his workout with the Lakers.
But if the FO drafts Mitchell and they miss on the #2 pick, people are getting fired.
It's not fair to assume Mitchell develops into this exact guy as a Laker player vs Utah player either.
I'll jump in. Are you saying there's no second-guessing draft results permitted ? That's the direction you're headed, that life is not fair and so there's no going back to replay what might have been in some alternate world, so we must assume that whoever plucked Mitchell was just lucky, not more gifted as a talent scout. I don't buy it. If Jerry West was just lucky to have been proven sharp having obtained the pick for Kobe Bryant, I might feel otherwise, but that was not just good fortune IMO.
Maybe instead of these players as misses, perhaps the real misses from the front office was not hiring a Brad Stevens or Quin Snyder type of coach instead. Not that I think Walton is a bad coach, but he's still learning a lot on the job whereas these guys are more experienced and have shown to be very good NBA coaches. The old regime looked too closely at just retreads before they hired Walton.
Quinn Synder was let go by the great Mitch and Jim
The guy went 13th. He was never realistically in play. It's just not worth thinking about. Porzingis, in theory, could've been in play, since we apparently didn't want to take Okafor (the correct decision), so Porzingis may have been our second choice.
The misnomer "was not in play" is misleading, a cloaking device for what's more accurate, that talent evaluators did their jobs poorly.
Did they?
Pretty sure it was well known how KP killed his workout with the Lakers.
But if the FO drafts Mitchell and they miss on the #2 pick, people are getting fired.
It's not fair to assume Mitchell develops into this exact guy as a Laker player vs Utah player either.
I'll jump in. Are you saying there's no second-guessing draft results permitted ? That's the direction you're headed, that life is not fair and so there's no going back to replay what might have been in some alternate world, so we must assume that whoever plucked Mitchell was just lucky, not more gifted as a talent scout. I don't buy it. If Jerry West was just lucky to have been proven sharp having obtained the pick for Kobe Bryant, I might feel otherwise, but that was not just good fortune IMO.
thank you. i feel like i'm going crazy here trying to make this point.
i think we got lucky in the sense that we kept our pick, but unlucky in the sense that we kept getting the #2. the history of the #2 pick in the NBA draft is extraordinarily up and down, so it's a very hard place to pick (in fact, I remember seeing data analysis that has shown on average, it is always better by win shares to pick higher than lower, except for #2 - it's actually shown to have been better by WS to pick at #3). _________________ substance over style
Maybe instead of these players as misses, perhaps the real misses from the front office was not hiring a Brad Stevens or Quin Snyder type of coach instead. Not that I think Walton is a bad coach, but he's still learning a lot on the job whereas these guys are more experienced and have shown to be very good NBA coaches. The old regime looked too closely at just retreads before they hired Walton.
Quinn Synder was let go by the great Mitch and Jim
Both Snyder & GM Lindsey worked for the Spurs, so they share something in common. Maybe Snyder would have had success as the head coach of the Lakers and maybe he wouldn't. I am guessing that it was easier to get up to speed as a NBA head coach when the GM had a shared background with him.
Mike Brown worked for the Spurs, but has disappointed as a coach for Cleveland and the Lakers. Neither Cleveland or the Lakers resembled the Spurs in a cultural sense. Maybe he would have done better if he was the coach of a team that had some things in common with the Spurs.
Mike Brown recently interviewed with the Knicks which again is a team much different than the Spurs. Perhaps Brown doesn't realize he needs to be the head coach for a team organized and ran a certain way. It is also possible that he does realize it and the desire to be a head coach overrides good judgement.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
