Phx-Suns.Net

wpmiller42 wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:55 am

It will be interesting to read the 2-minute report when the NBA issues it.

Most of the stuff I saw was not in the last 2 minutes. There were 2 or 3 calls that I thought were bad throughout the game, with several missed calls on both sides, too.

Indy wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:57 am

wpmiller42 wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:55 am

It will be interesting to read the 2-minute report when the NBA issues it.

Most of the stuff I saw was not in the last 2 minutes. There were 2 or 3 calls that I thought were bad throughout the game, with several missed calls on both sides, too.

What will it matter anyway. The NBA is the least accountable league when it comes to officiating. They release these transparency reports and the same partial refs continue to officiate games, making the same mistakes and catering to certain teams and players. It's a joke.

iLLmatic wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 18, 2019 4:10 am

Ring_Wanted wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:14 am

Siakam (probably MIP this season) scores the game winner. Bridges didn't do a perfect job but the problem is that after funneling him towards the center, Ayton went incredibly soft at the driver. Ayton better learn how to use his gifts (and the org better provide him with somebody able to teach).

He's too laid back.

I thought he did a good job on the help. Siakam just hit a tough shot.

(side note: crazy that Siakam has become a top-5 player from that draft)

AmareIsGod wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:18 am

Indy wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:57 am

wpmiller42 wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:55 am

It will be interesting to read the 2-minute report when the NBA issues it.

Most of the stuff I saw was not in the last 2 minutes. There were 2 or 3 calls that I thought were bad throughout the game, with several missed calls on both sides, too.

What will it matter anyway. The NBA is the least accountable league when it comes to officiating. They release these transparency reports and the same partial refs continue to officiate games, making the same mistakes and catering to certain teams and players. It's a joke.

um, no. an oldie but a goodie.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fo ... youre-out/

that was a really solid second half for Mikal
I mentioned earlier this month that I saw him compared to Middleton which I had never thought about before but even watching Bucks highlights recently I'm beginning to think it is not far fetched at all. their 3pt shooting motion isn't much different and from a style of play Middleton is not flashy and doesn't use any wasted movement, just simple game working to his spots and being efficient which is ideally what Mikal can be with a lil more strength imo

mikal has some games where you just think, oh yeah, this guy has never played in the NBA before this year and he has a lot to learn. And then other times you see him do things on defense that only top defenders can do. I can't say I know he was worth two first round picks, but if he ever gets a second offensive skill, he will be (especially with the way we have drafted).

ShelC wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:47 pm

Jackson's been affected the most by Booker's return. So clearly, we must move Booker.

say no to point booker, say yes to point jackson.

jackson, booker, bridges, warren, ayton.

ShelC wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:02 am

Ayton, as physically talented as he is, plays soft.

And that has a debilitating effect on the team.

ShelC wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:02 am

And let's keep perspective here too...we responded pretty well off a blow out to the Pacers. Took the Raps' best shot and still played until the end. The Raps are a top team on both ends this year and we hung tough.

How many players were the Raptors missing?

INFORMER wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:52 pm

ShelC wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:02 am

And let's keep perspective here too...we responded pretty well off a blow out to the Pacers. Took the Raps' best shot and still played until the end. The Raps are a top team on both ends this year and we hung tough.

How many players were the Raptors missing?

Only the good ones.

Indy wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:40 pm

mikal has some games where you just think, oh yeah, this guy has never played in the NBA before this year and he has a lot to learn. And then other times you see him do things on defense that only top defenders can do. I can't say I know he was worth two first round picks, but if he ever gets a second offensive skill, he will be (especially with the way we have drafted).

I don't think he'll ever justify investing two 1st rounders in him. He should develop into a solid role player, but giving up two 1st rounders for a solid role player is GM malpractice.

INFORMER wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:52 pm

Indy wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:40 pm

mikal has some games where you just think, oh yeah, this guy has never played in the NBA before this year and he has a lot to learn. And then other times you see him do things on defense that only top defenders can do. I can't say I know he was worth two first round picks, but if he ever gets a second offensive skill, he will be (especially with the way we have drafted).

I don't think he'll ever justify investing two 1st rounders in him. He should develop into a solid role player, but giving up two 1st rounders for a solid role player is GM malpractice.

Hello and welcome to Ryan McDonough's tenure as GM.

INFORMER wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:52 pm

Indy wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:40 pm

mikal has some games where you just think, oh yeah, this guy has never played in the NBA before this year and he has a lot to learn. And then other times you see him do things on defense that only top defenders can do. I can't say I know he was worth two first round picks, but if he ever gets a second offensive skill, he will be (especially with the way we have drafted).

I don't think he'll ever justify investing two 1st rounders in him. He should develop into a solid role player, but giving up two 1st rounders for a solid role player is GM malpractice.

We aren't talking about top picks. We traded #16 and "yet to be determined" pick 3 years away. Miami knows they don't have that pick, so they are going to do everything they can to be decent. Even with the flattened odds.

So assuming that pick isn't worse than 10, what to players taken 10 and later typically get you? I am not a fan of GM Ryan either, but I think it is misleading to say that you are a shitty GM if you use two picks in that range and only get 1 solid role player. What percentage of players taken in that range end up as more than solid role players in the league? 25-33%? That is probably the high end.

OK, so I had to look it up. I limited it to twenty years worth of drafting, and excluded the last several to give guys plenty of time to establish themselves as players and get a good number of games played. So that is the 1991 draft through 2010. And I expanded it to picks 10-30 so we have a nice round number of 400 guys drafted (until I remembered there weren't always 30 teams )

I am not sure how to objectively rank guys as "solid role player or better" so I took the most conservative route and said that if they can stick in the league and actually play in games, they must have a solid role. So if a guy can survive at least 7 years in the league, he probably has a role. Even accounting for injuries/missing 20% of his team's games, and assuming he never gets extra games for playoffs, that puts the number of total career games at: 7 yrs @ 65 games/yr = 455 games in their career.

Of the 391 guys drafted between #10 and 30 from 1991 to 2010, the number of guys to play in at least 455 games is 191, or 49%.

So the average GM picks a guy in the late lottery/rest of first round (top 9 excluded) that makes it to 455 games in the league half the time.

By the way, even if you include all first round picks in that time frame (575 guys), only 333 (58%) make it 7 years/455 games played.

Maybe I am way off and that isn't the best single attribute to see if a guy found a solid role in the league... time for bed.

So I had to check 2nd rounders...

579 selections taken in same time frame (1991-2010).

96 made it to 455 games, or 17%. 1st rounders are 3.5x more likely to make it that long versus 2nd, and picks 10-30 are 3x more likely.

Super interesting analysis, Indy. I might have chosen fewer games, like, 5-6 years rather than 7. But I like the thrust of the analysis and the data/results are very interesting. Since mid-late 1st rounders are around 49% to stick in the league that long, that essentially makes each one a coin flip. The fact that we struck out on both Bender and Chriss is unlikely and telling.

It makes it a coin flip, if everything is averaged out. You would hope your GM is better than average.

If you cut 82 games off of that number and go with 373 games, 178 guys drop out, leaving 213 (54.5%) in. Still not much better.

Indy wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:14 pm

INFORMER wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:52 pm

Indy wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:40 pm

mikal has some games where you just think, oh yeah, this guy has never played in the NBA before this year and he has a lot to learn. And then other times you see him do things on defense that only top defenders can do. I can't say I know he was worth two first round picks, but if he ever gets a second offensive skill, he will be (especially with the way we have drafted).

I don't think he'll ever justify investing two 1st rounders in him. He should develop into a solid role player, but giving up two 1st rounders for a solid role player is GM malpractice.

We aren't talking about top picks. We traded #16 and "yet to be determined" pick 3 years away. Miami knows they don't have that pick, so they are going to do everything they can to be decent. Even with the flattened odds.

So assuming that pick isn't worse than 10, what to players taken 10 and later typically get you? I am not a fan of GM Ryan either, but I think it is misleading to say that you are a s*** GM if you use two picks in that range and only get 1 solid role player. What percentage of players taken in that range end up as more than solid role players in the league? 25-33%? That is probably the high end.

That's true, but I don't think looking at the average outcome is the right thing to do here. Because in an average outcome, you don't build a contender. Nobody wins the championship without a serious dose of luck. Arguably a better question for NBA teams is, what gives me a better chance of building a contender. And smarter people than me concluded that as unreliable as it is, getting lucky and picking a star in the draft is the most reliable way to go.

Hermen wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:09 am

Indy wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:14 pm

INFORMER wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:52 pm

Indy wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:40 pm

mikal has some games where you just think, oh yeah, this guy has never played in the NBA before this year and he has a lot to learn. And then other times you see him do things on defense that only top defenders can do. I can't say I know he was worth two first round picks, but if he ever gets a second offensive skill, he will be (especially with the way we have drafted).

I don't think he'll ever justify investing two 1st rounders in him. He should develop into a solid role player, but giving up two 1st rounders for a solid role player is GM malpractice.

We aren't talking about top picks. We traded #16 and "yet to be determined" pick 3 years away. Miami knows they don't have that pick, so they are going to do everything they can to be decent. Even with the flattened odds.

So assuming that pick isn't worse than 10, what to players taken 10 and later typically get you? I am not a fan of GM Ryan either, but I think it is misleading to say that you are a s*** GM if you use two picks in that range and only get 1 solid role player. What percentage of players taken in that range end up as more than solid role players in the league? 25-33%? That is probably the high end.

That's true, but I don't think looking at the average outcome is the right thing to do here. Because in an average outcome, you don't build a contender. Nobody wins the championship without a serious dose of luck. Arguably a better question for NBA teams is, what gives me a better chance of building a contender. And smarter people than me concluded that as unreliable as it is, getting lucky and picking a star in the draft is the most reliable way to go.

I agree. You can't sign your Finals MVP to your team as a FA if you are not in a huge market and already a winner. But that is also an argument for getting the guy you want by gambling. That is what Ryan did with those two picks. I don't know if it will pay off, but I hope it does.