Concise Draft Analogy
One last reiteration about the draft, as people all over the net seem flung fairly wide on their opinions, usually based on their opinions of Jerryd Bayless.
The brilliance of this draft doesn't hinge on how good Bayless will turn out, though obviously it looks better if he becomes a quality player.
Kevin Pritchard compared the process to poker. Well here you go. The Blazers made the correct move at the correct time, got their money in with the best hand, and got real value for their cards. Inexperienced poker players evaluate play using outcomes. If the right card flips then it must have been the right move. Professionals know that over the long haul the right move isn't governed by the chance of the cards. You might get lucky in a hand or two by filling that inside straight at the river but over time you'll only make money if you make the percentage plays regardless of what comes after.
Kevin Pritchard made the right moves.
If Bayless turns out to be less than spectacular then KP hit a cooler. So be it. He still made the right moves.
Also...even if we end up losing this hand you have to give the guy credit for amassing enough chips that it's not going to dent our stack too much. KP can afford to make these kind of plays because of the work he's put in so far and the assets he's acquired. This hallmark also distinguishes the pros from the also-rans.
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
0 recs |
32
comments
Comments
Correct
Crazy, rash decisions based on passion often don’t pay off. Crazy, rash decisions like … BARON DAVIS OPTS OUT of a nearly $18 MILLION one-year deal!
wh-wh-wha-what?!
RipCity -- now, now ...
by Y5k on Jul 1, 2008 6:27 AM PDT 0 recs
Agreed
I would say that the Cavs are a pretty good example of your principle. They lucked into Boozer and King James and have been floundering ever since. They went all in on Larry Hughes, trusted the dealer (or, as I like to call him, Boozer’s agent) and continue to rack up more and more Casino debt.
by da34shadow on Jul 1, 2008 6:36 AM PDT 0 recs
Oh god, more boring poker talk ;-)
Though there seem to be some similarities, TrueHoop had an interesting interview with a guy who is both a professional poker player and a professional basketball better. Don’t have the link on me right now.
Coach, I promise I wasn't running hard ...
by Norsktroll on Jul 1, 2008 7:19 AM PDT 1 recs
Nice Poker Analogy
This draft is simply the third leg of the successful trilogy that completes the baseline for our next run at the ring.
Long last our pyramid.
I’m all in.
The Oden Era, Day 370
by Heymoe on Jul 1, 2008 7:40 AM PDT 0 recs
Good analogy
that fits better with a larger sample size. In poker, you have dozens of hands a night and probabilities tend to hold true (by definition). In the draft you have one hand a year. Man, that’s a lot of pressure to get it right. That said, when you already have a core and back up plans to boot, it’s easier to play the odds. If nothing else it gives you more options going forward. I’ll continue to be nervous about the pick though until Rudy actually signs a contract.
by underhill on Jul 1, 2008 8:23 AM PDT 0 recs
I loved this draft
I can’t say it enough. KP is the man.
by kickbrass on Jul 1, 2008 9:06 AM PDT 0 recs
The Best Part
Is that KP pretty much listened to me. Losing Jack and McBob was sort of needed and Jones left on his own. I’m so glad he didn’t go trade crazy.
<-;-)
by tominhawaii on Jul 1, 2008 9:10 AM PDT 0 recs
I love you man
"Man I want to rec it again." - pualo talking about jscot's long comment
by tominhawaii on
Jul 2, 2008 3:32 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Continuing with the analogy...
It looks like KP made a few bluffs as well.
by shralpster on Jul 1, 2008 9:40 AM PDT 0 recs
hey dave
you need some evidence to back up your argument.
I see the logic in your analogy, as I am a fairly serious poker player, but just saying “KP made the right move” means nothing if you cant tell me why he made the right move.
It is a gamble, but so isd any draft pick. Why was this move the right move?
.... and getting rid of Jack was a correct move, I hated that un-clutch-one-game-wonder-turnover machine.
by PippenAintEasy on Jul 1, 2008 10:21 AM PDT 0 recs
OK
Saying “you need evidence” in the light of this analogy-at least if evidence is defined as knowing how Bayless will turn out-is like saying you need to see the cards in order to judge the play. Often that’s true. Sometimes you don’t have to. Sometimes the betting or the opponent mandates a certain move no matter what the cards are.
In this case Pritchard spent minimally to get value for his mediocre-or-worse picks. He moved to the exact spots he needed to in order to get Bayless and Batum and not a spot higher. He gave up no players who were going to impact the future of this team. He acquired players that not only have a chance to play, but should retain flexibility as potential trade pieces in the next couple of years. (Try THAT with Roy Hibbert.) If reports are true about the Blazers looking to acquire Ben Gordon or Leandro Barbosa then he got a young version for free in Bayless instead of gutting the team in a trade. If you believe KP’s post-draft quotes (and he’s generally been pretty straightforward about this kind of stuff) he got the fourth guy on his draft board from the 13th slot in the draft.
All of that points to the right move, regardless of how the pick actually turns out. It’s hard to see how he could have done any better. Given the assets KP had you pretty much have to say he maximized them.
Another way to put it would be that it feels like people are expecting a draft like this to be the all-in move which will win the tournament. The truth is, it probably wasn’t. The truth is, we’re unlikely to have a draft like that again for a long time. But it doesn’t have to be that kind of move to be great. This was a hand where a guy with a K-7 suited read his opponents right and stole the blinds and a raise with a nice bet pre-flop. Whether or not the Blazers win the tournament anytime soon, that doesn’t change the fact that this hand was played really well.
—Dave
by Dave on
Jul 1, 2008 10:44 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I think he means
You need some evidence that Bayless is likely to end up more valuable to us than, say Rush+Jack. You don’t need to actually know how good Bayless is going to turn out to be, but you need to see something that shows he has a high probability of being good.
In poker, if you know how to do the math, then the probabilities are absolute, and you can say with 100% confidence that one move has a higher chance of success than another. In basketball, there is no absolute way to define how likely a particular player is to be good, so you need some evidence to show that, say, the potential of Bayless is greater than the potential of Rush.
I would submit that our evidence for this is that most experts say that Bayless is a high value, high potential player, with even a pretty high floor. That’s about all the evidence there is, since it’s subjective, but it’s still pretty good evidence.
by pualo on
Jul 1, 2008 11:16 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I would say the fact Prichard had Bayless ranked 4th
on his list is sufficient evidence.
If the strategic objectives were the acquisition of one of the best players available, of drafting for need at PG and SF and of getting more athletic in the back court and on the perimeter, then Pritchard managed to accomplish all three with just one 1st round pick.
If it turns out Bayless is run of the mill, that only means Pritchard’s evaluation system (i.e. strategic intelligence) may have failed, but not his tactical moves within the draft.
by timg56 on
Jul 1, 2008 12:36 PM PDT
up
0 recs
That would be my argument as well
You can’t see into the future absolutely. All you can do is prosecute your goals. There was a very good chance that KP wasn’t going to be able to get what he wanted out of this draft. At least to some extent he managed it. You don’t get to be the best by having the best opportunities every year. You get to be the best by maximizing the opportunities you do have. The number of GM’s who can’t manage to do that is surprising. KP seems to have the knack.
I would absolutely submit that there may turn out to be a dozen, or even two dozen, players better than Bayless in this draft. That wouldn’t change my assertion that KP made the right moves given the information available. In the long run that will carry us places.
—Dave
by Dave on
Jul 1, 2008 1:01 PM PDT
up
0 recs
After a few podcasts
I can read your posts and hear your voice in my head. It is like reading the Harry Potter books after watching the movies.
"Man I want to rec it again." - pualo talking about jscot's long comment
by tominhawaii on
Jul 1, 2008 4:01 PM PDT
up
0 recs
no
saying “you need evidence” is not saying you need to see into the future, it is saying that you need to know what cards you hold in your hand.
blindly claiming that this was the right move can be nothing more than speculation (k7 suited sounds like it was pulled from your …) Atleast in poker, there is clear evidence whether or not it was the right move because of the mathematical odds.
I am not saying this was the right or wrong move, I am saying that you can not claim that right now. So dont claim that right now.
by PippenAintEasy on
Jul 1, 2008 1:07 PM PDT
up
0 recs
By those criteria
how can you claim any move is any better than another? GM’s might as well roll dice to determine their picks.
—Dave
by Dave on
Jul 1, 2008 4:11 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Evidence
Pritchard uses scout assessments, workout reports, game footage, and proprietary mathematical calculations to create his draft board. What kind of evidence to do you expect Dave to provide when a simple “he’s 4th on our draft board” from KP should suffice? KP had draft picks, Paul Allen’s money, and players that he could trade, yet he barely spent any of these assets to get the 4th guy on the draft board with his 13th pick. He did this by reading what others were doing and getting them to move in a way that benefited him.
by bocious on
Jul 1, 2008 9:01 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Let me try
We, the PTBs, wanted to upgrade at point. Also, the wisest move was to keep this team mostly intact. Rose was untouchable in that we would have to trade so much of this team and would include at least on of the big three or Rudy. So he’s out. Bayless seemed untouchable because he was 4th in 90# of the mock drafts and was listed as the forth most desirable player in the draft. I think KP was eying any of the top non Rose point guards in Westbrook, DJ, and Bayless and had his move to skip Sacramento, who was sure to take the best point at that point, all ready planned out. When Bayless fell, in part because of KP and the Blazers talking nothing but the other two, KP was ready to strike. He didn’t have to break up the core or weaken the bench to do it. Now we have a probable epic talent coming in for the lowest imaginable price. Trading up to get the forth pick itself would have cost an arm and leg.
by Blazersaurus on
Jul 1, 2008 10:50 AM PDT
up
0 recs
?
yeah thats pretty much irrelevant to what myself or dave was saying, but it is true
by PippenAintEasy on
Jul 1, 2008 1:09 PM PDT
up
0 recs
How is that irrelavent?
That’s “the move” that KP played. It’s what makes KP a pro and what makes this a great draft. It was the point of the whole story.
by bocious on
Jul 1, 2008 9:04 PM PDT
up
0 recs
What is this poker jibber jabber?
I have no clue what you are talking about.
by Jumbo on Jul 1, 2008 10:50 AM PDT 0 recs
Tominhawaii
Did you put that message in a bottle?
by Blaze of Glory on Jul 1, 2008 10:50 AM PDT 0 recs
I'm not sure what going on
I think you’re talking about what Jumbo is talking about, because that’s what I’m talking about. I don’t know what the other guys are talking about. I read each comment and I think I agree. I don’t think they’re discussing the same issues.
"Man I want to rec it again." - pualo talking about jscot's long comment
by tominhawaii on
Jul 1, 2008 4:05 PM PDT
up
0 recs
we can only see 'our cards'
KP got exactly what he wanted by only moving up two spots twice. Bypassing S.A. to get Batum and bypassing Sactown to get Bayless were well thought out moves that required the least amount of effort. From our perspective, it currently looks brilliant.
But we can only see “our cards”. Who is to say that the “Sactown is drafting a PG” rumor wasn’t generated by Larry Bird just to get us to give him JJ1? Maybe S.A. never wanted Batum and Houston spread that rumor to convert their 1 pick into 2 or ours? I love KP as our GM, just don’t be fooled into thinking that he is the only smart player at the table.
by ItsMrHarris2u on Jul 1, 2008 11:17 AM PDT 0 recs
Total Rudy
Rudy in only 8 minutes of a game
The Midnight Rambler
by amlmart1 on Jul 1, 2008 12:46 PM PDT 0 recs
Smart guy, he hides his face under his hair.
The Midnight Rambler
by amlmart1 on
Jul 1, 2008 3:08 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Not an Argument
There was never any question that Sac wanted a good guard – if they could get one. Certainly, their fans thought so, and their management made little secret of this fact as well.
In any case, at the end of the day, Bayless was a concensus 4th best player by most draft rating organizations. Further, many of these same organization believe that Bayless is a perfect fit for the system the Blazers have since Roy is the team leader. Portland did not need a classic point guard. Pritchard said exactly the same thing.
At the end of the day, KP and the Blazers targetted and got the player they wanted, and they, and the draft rating organizations (ESPN-Chad Ford, DraftNet, Hoopsworld, RealGM, etc) all had him rated as the 4th best player. We can argue about strategy all day, but in the end, the Blazers converted Jack and a # 13 pick into the 4th best player and Diogu.
This is simply a continuation of KP’s ongoing reputation of targetting players to fill a need, and then getting them. Two years ago it was Aldridge and Roy, last year it was Fernandez – given Oden was the luck of the draw. However, if there had been no Oden, we still would’ve drafted high and gotten a solid player. This year, it became Bayless and Batum. Batum, in turn, was projected between 15 and 25. KP took him because he feels that he has the ability to be a first rate defender, given his athleticism and his 7’6” wingspan. And he rated him more highly than any of the other SF’s for that reason that were available in that group.
by Eben Calder on Jul 2, 2008 5:35 AM PDT 0 recs











