I can agree with that. Y'all just gave a lot of hell for a Giannis/Simmons/Ingles/Brown team in the auction draft last year.

The answer to why is you gotta take value sometimes.

Just for simplicity sake since Oladipo got taken after Simmons in this draft, you'd probably just rather have Oladipo on that team is all.

*not auction, salary cap, hence $6m to like $22. anyways... i don't feel enough to argue this, except to point out the groupthink last year vs now

Its not binary. Its not "can they make it, yes or no?".


Like, did Bosh/Wade/Lebron "make it"? The public narrative seems to be that they did because Bosh adapted his skillset and they won some titles. But when they were initially put together they were considered the #1, ~#5, and ~#10 best players in the league and the expectation was a massive dynasty.


The point is that yes you can justify poor fit due to value. However there is a MASSIVE human tendency to overrate our own brain's ability to discern value better than the market. There are very few, if any, of us who should feel as if our own opinion outweighs the 2p2 consensus by such a degree that we can find values that outweigh fit in these NBA drafts. Our market is quite sharp. When you have a sharp market it allows you to delegate analysis to the market, allowing you to focus on bigger picture(i.e. fit) concerns.

This is not a valid counter-point. Yes it is possible to draft a team with bad fit, have many of the players vastly outperform draft slot/expectations, and the team will look good.

This again illustrates the error in viewing these things in binary terms. Because the guy who made that team happened to bink guys who outperformed draft slot we look at it in the binary terms of "he was right." In reality, unless he has a reputable history of being able to outperform the market(2p2 consensus) then it was more of "he was lucky."

every hand looks good when it wins.

i dont think any of the teams that have what i would consider a clearly sub-optimal fit can justify it by saying they picked the overwhelming BPA at any juncture.

charder could have had ingles, mirotic or richardson.
dodger could have had mirotic, richardson, kcp, etc
heels / kan (who just have a really bad age fit) could have taken a high risk player with at least some development like ingram or aaron gordon,

etc.

anyway i just drafted someone who, as far as we know, literally is mentally incapable of playing basketball, so who am i to say

I underrate my brain tyvm

Yeah I agree. I was only horsing around.

I remember before the Heatles first game of the season JVG adamantly predicted that they would break the 95-96 Bulls' 72 wins game record.

Donovan Mitchell
Gordon Hayward
Aaron Gordon
Jarrett Allen

Was going to go in an entirely different direction, but his upside is on a whole different level & he might also actually be able to space the floor within the next couple years, to go with 7'5 wingspan, good block rate, good free throws & 70% shooting from 0-3 feet, all in his age 19 season with a bad team.

He has the same height & length as Capela, & was far better in his age 19 season than Capela was in his age 20 & 21 seasons.

He was also better than Gobert was in his age 21 season.

His UNDRAFTED coach had this to say about Allen:

What's the difference between Allen's potential & Capela/Gobert? Shooting. Capbert are a combined 0 for 5 on 3s in their careers. Allen hit 5 of 15 as a rookie & has room to make that a big part of his game going forward. He was a 77.6% free throw shooter as compared to Capbert who each hit under half their free throws their rookie years.

& Allen isn't resting on his laurels. He wants to get better at everything:

There are so many things to say to this.

On being binary: I'm with you completely on this. When I said, 'I'm confused, does this work', that was in the tone that everyone said that it wouldn't work, due to 'poor fit', which is what binary thinking is. That is to say that people wrote it off immediately, without thinking about whether the talent could compensate, that it might work beyond our limited way of thinking about the game. Giannis/Simmons is an dynamic combo, at least worthy of some analysis, just as Lonzo/Kemba is.

On over-rating oneself: Yes, I agree but when that team was drafted, the person made it clear that it was a tricky and untested experiment, to have these two very unique players on the same team. He never said 'this is going to work!' The point wasn't bink or no bink. The point is that 2p2 loses itself sometimes.

On the guy who made the team: OK, it was me.

On a sharp market: From what I understand you make your living off this, so maybe you're sharp. But if you go back into all the drafts that we've done, I think more often than not they turn out pretty ugly, pretty quickly. This pervasive idea that 2p2 as a whole is such a sharp board is defs circle-jerky. I'm pretty sure a few select people lead the charge, and the rest follow.

My point is that I'm not disagreeing with you on the importance of fit. I'm just saying, considering what we are doing is one grand thought experiment, there is opportunity here to expand our understanding of the game. What I mean is that we're in the era of transition, 3+D. That's going to end at some point. What's next? Maybe it's Lonzo Ball and a world of one-touch basketball. Maybe it's Embiid and Aldridge revival of twin towers and big men.

I should add that my team right now fit quite well, but tbh, it's hella boring. Complete lack of creativity.

As well, I'm pretty much arguing against last year's views, as I agree with this year and what you said about having to look at everything from a case-by-case basis.

Id back up the truck on betting on Pop or Brad or whoever taking LMA over these scrubs in the next 5 years if salary didn’t matter (even having Embiid)

It will never end. There are definitely some trends in the NBA that'll change. Pace, in theory, could be one-- but probably not. Pace is fast because defense gets tired, because a 5 on 4 advantage, even for a split second, is deadly to offensive efficiency. It's not inconceivable that this could change based on a rule change or something? But I don't see it. Playing faster is more fun for the players and the viewers. I can't envision a slow down era.

3+D is here to stay as well. Why? The geometry of the floor. Right now we have a lot of PNR, but I could see that changing to post ups if they change the rules and teams start getting smaller. But what'll never change is the need to stop helpside from iso ball, from PNR play, from post play. You stop it by making it so that your offensive players can have an efficient possession by making a catch and shoot 3 off a pass. Then you stop that kind of offense by having enough good individual defenders that the PNR play, post play, or iso play can't take advantage of any weak link. Thus, 3+D is here to stay. (Another way 3+D might leave is if they start playing with a second ball, but that's another topic)

One way to potentially change O is a push back maybe 2-3 feet of the 3 point line. Which would mean we'd have to widen the court. I don't quite see that changing, but I honestly might even be a proponent of them pushing the 3 point line back 18 inches or whatever. Again, would make the corners too flat, you'd have to widen the court a few feet.

There are GTO strats and there are exploitative strats. Without a doubt 3+D is GTO. Pace is probably GTO, I'm failing to see reasons to play slow except to keep your best players on the court and not have them get tired. Some of the iso ball might be temporarily exploitive to switching defenses. PNR play might be a little exploitative since we're attacking big bigs-- but maybe Hassan Whiteside is not even an NBA player in 5 years. Who knows.

I agree that people shouldn't think in terms that are too binary

LMA will start the season at age 33 next year. You're awesome, until one day you're not as awesome (though the Spurs will still give you 3/$48m at age 36 because they do not understand aging curves because Timmay and Manu defied them for so long, and it's already cost them Kawhi by sticking with old guys like Tony and Pau well, well past their prime)

I feel confident Brad would take Ingles or Richardson over LMA. Look at the Celtics draft and free agent moves under Brad. He understands positional value incredibly well and has made versatile wings a priority. He understands spacing and brings in players who shoot 3s(or have the potential to do so). He understands aging curves and hasn't overpaid anyone like the Spurs have made a habit of doing.

Pop and Brad aren't really comparable in this regard. Brad is tier 1 elite at understanding this stuff. Pop gains a lot of his value from other areas.

If this next generation is going to be >>> than the last in 3P's, which it will be because of the Curry Effect, then there's going to be an influx of short bois with deadly shots like UNDRAFTED in this years draft.

Imagine a couple of them in the lottery every year. The landscape of the NBA will change, and it'll change drastically. Somebody might decide to run a 3 guard lineup and super small ball takes over. The slow bigs, not just HW, but Gobert too, become obsolete. In that world, I can really imagine someone like 6'6" Lonzo to be a mega-elite role player.

Obviously this is all hypothetical. I'm just saying that it's worth a creative, intellectual discussion -- expanding beyond the game as it is -- on whether a Devin Booker/Donovan Mitchell/Lonzo lineup could be a possible winning formula.

Or else we're just drafting fit and getting into the best 'mold' which will always be a step beyond innovation and the future. Maybe it's more realistic... I guess.

I’ll take Thad Young. Need a body to put on the KDs/LeBron/Giannis etc. can atleast spread the floor somewhat while taking the elite wings and atleast making them defend a little bit.

Bigs:
Boogie

Off ball:
Thad

On ball:
DDR
Lowry

It isn't the Curry effect so much as it's the Morey effect. Though I guess certain not very good front office people who are mega biased by the outlier players that they had with the Warriors when they were there may just continually try to recreate Steph until they realize we haven't found the second coming yet.

Also the 3 guard lineup (or specifically the two PG lineup) has already started creeping through the landscape. Teams have realized that no one gives a **** about your 6'5 shooting guard who is a mediocre 3 point shooter, they'd rather just roll the dice with a skilled 6'1 guard who can create and shoot a bit, and they aren't giving up much on the other end. There will be a shot to take advantage of said lineups, perhaps, with big wings (scarce), postups (have to be used selectively) and rebounding (offensive rebounding will change drastically in the coming years).

I think getting creative in these drafts is pretty sweet. It'd be creative to draft 5 wings with your first 5 picks. It'd be creative to pair Horford with JJJ, or Lonzo and KD, or any number of interesting combinations (that mostly all have enough shooting, because it's damn near impossible to win without 3.5 three point shooters on the floor). Certain things pretty clearly are less likely to work than others tho.

Some great discussion going on itt.

Keep up the good work!

RebeccaTwigley is up. Have they been PM'd?

.

next few guys i think are at WSOP or in vegas so they shouldn't be on for a while.

I'll take Gallinari


Team:

Wall
Oladipo
Gallo
Horford

I'll take Julius Randle.

Team:
Simmons
Booker
Ingram
Randle