Mom Joke. +2
Official Draft Thread
- Thread starter Jerry Lundegaard
- Start date
Mom Joke. +2
Sorry if this is a bit off-topic.
Does anyone else out there feel like the entire NBA Draft talent evaluation process is a good case study of "groupthink"? From wikipedia:
Sure, there are 30 different teams making picks, but everyone knows everyone else in the NBA. And the reporters and writers creating mock drafts are buddies with the teams as well. It seems like a pretty "cohesive" group to me.
Teams that make picks "outside the comfort zone" (like the Wolves picking three point guards last year) are often portrayed as "foolish" by the media, pundits, and fans (yeah, so it was deserved in that case; someone come up with a better example).
Looking back on past drafts, it is clear how difficult it is to accurately predict how successful a potential NBA player's career will be. And yet, the team draft boards and the various mocks out there are quite similar. Yes, there are a few differences here and there, but considering how hard it is to pick well and avoid busts, the differences don't seem to be significant.
Discuss (or not).
Does anyone else out there feel like the entire NBA Draft talent evaluation process is a good case study of "groupthink"? From wikipedia:
Sure, there are 30 different teams making picks, but everyone knows everyone else in the NBA. And the reporters and writers creating mock drafts are buddies with the teams as well. It seems like a pretty "cohesive" group to me.
Teams that make picks "outside the comfort zone" (like the Wolves picking three point guards last year) are often portrayed as "foolish" by the media, pundits, and fans (yeah, so it was deserved in that case; someone come up with a better example).
Looking back on past drafts, it is clear how difficult it is to accurately predict how successful a potential NBA player's career will be. And yet, the team draft boards and the various mocks out there are quite similar. Yes, there are a few differences here and there, but considering how hard it is to pick well and avoid busts, the differences don't seem to be significant.
Discuss (or not).
BENTLEY
Well-Known Member
Love this stuff Rustbucket. And I think a lot of people cannot help but be swayed by the groupthink mentality. People tend to be insecure and don't want to look appear the fool so they just go along with whatever they perceive the popular opinion is. I think Dostoevsky said "Fear of appearances is the first symptom of impotence."
Not off topic at all.
I think it's definitely plausible. That said, I think most of the players are a known quantity for the most part. I mean, they are so thoroughly dissected, both physically and mentally, there really isn't much else to discover...until they get into the game and then all bets are off. I don't know how much teams share with each other, but I'm sure it's a lot.
I think it's hard to predict who is or is not going to be a bust because in the end the teams are dealing with human beings who are, if anything, completely dynamic.
I think it's definitely plausible. That said, I think most of the players are a known quantity for the most part. I mean, they are so thoroughly dissected, both physically and mentally, there really isn't much else to discover...until they get into the game and then all bets are off. I don't know how much teams share with each other, but I'm sure it's a lot.
I think it's hard to predict who is or is not going to be a bust because in the end the teams are dealing with human beings who are, if anything, completely dynamic.
Right, and because of the "completely dynamic" nature of the problem, it seems to me like the predictions, boards, and picks themselves should be all over the place. Instead we get a bunch of copycat mocks and boards, Kwame Brown getting picked first overall, and the Jazz fielding a team full of nothing but 2nd round picks.
mellow
Well-Known Member
Interesting discussion. There are many interesting dynamics that go on leading up to the draft. For me it is just as fun to figure out why teams make decisions as it is to learn what they've decided.
I was a bit suprised to hear Walt Perrin confess that the Jazz FO were watching the mock drafts and made the connection between mock drafts and invitees to workouts. I could see how such behaviour would lend credibility to the media's mocks and they in turn would lend credibilty to the Jazz's decision to bring a particular player in for a workout. I believe that this exchange would be a considereed 'group think', and some teams or owners could fall into the trap and fail to critically evaluate a player for themselves.
The Jazz may have fallen into group think when Borchart fell to them, and probably again with Kofus. They couldn't pass on a projected lottery pick even though they had not performed the full investigation and criticall analysis.
But can it be considered truly group think if the cohesive in-group of teams is made of a variety of personalities all acting for thier own self interest, and all with different concepts of "success" ? Or does the possibility of members of the in-group being heavliy influenced by fans create a larger in-group? Now I'm pretty sure that the fans suffer from group think because they have very little factual information or the skills to evaluate, but they all have opinions.
I was a bit suprised to hear Walt Perrin confess that the Jazz FO were watching the mock drafts and made the connection between mock drafts and invitees to workouts. I could see how such behaviour would lend credibility to the media's mocks and they in turn would lend credibilty to the Jazz's decision to bring a particular player in for a workout. I believe that this exchange would be a considereed 'group think', and some teams or owners could fall into the trap and fail to critically evaluate a player for themselves.
The Jazz may have fallen into group think when Borchart fell to them, and probably again with Kofus. They couldn't pass on a projected lottery pick even though they had not performed the full investigation and criticall analysis.
But can it be considered truly group think if the cohesive in-group of teams is made of a variety of personalities all acting for thier own self interest, and all with different concepts of "success" ? Or does the possibility of members of the in-group being heavliy influenced by fans create a larger in-group? Now I'm pretty sure that the fans suffer from group think because they have very little factual information or the skills to evaluate, but they all have opinions.
i think this is covered in the definition of groupthink that i quoted from wikipedia: "the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action”
i am skeptical of the teams' abilities to both gather "factual information" about the players, and to then critically evaluate that information. i suspect that after looking at all the tape, doing the interviews, and whatever else... they just roll with their own subjective hunches, just like the fans do. i could be wrong, but the "success" rate of NBA teams and their picks seem to make me look right.
i appreciate all the opinions here about different players, since i know even less about those players than most of the fans that post here. but, i put more weight on anything out there that at least attempts to make some kind of objective analysis, like Hollinger's Draft Rater crap (sorry cheapskates, it is "Insider" at espn).
mellow
Well-Known Member
Check out this article about the chaos that is the Memphis Grizzilies and how they attempt to reach a consensus within thier own organization on draft picks, especially note how after the scouts, coaches and GM all do thier homework collecting information--the owner has the final say and usually goes with his gut. https://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/jun/20/owners-manual/
This might be more common than we know, I imagine those billionare owners have gotta have some big egos. And maybe within that group there is the possibilty of groupthink because no-body wants to stick out for a mistake amongst the peer group.
This might be more common than we know, I imagine those billionare owners have gotta have some big egos. And maybe within that group there is the possibilty of groupthink because no-body wants to stick out for a mistake amongst the peer group.
Chad Ford apparently persuaded an NBA GM (according to Ford, one of the best drafting GM's in the NBA) to divulge his own team's mock draft (first 20 picks):
1. Wizards: John Wall
2. Sixers: Evan Turner
3. Nets: Derrick Favors
4. Timberwolves: Wesley Johnson
5. Kings: DeMarcus Cousins
Note: Monroe had a terrific workout over the weekend. Sounds like Monroe and Cousins are neck and neck here.
6. Warriors: Greg Monroe
Note: Interestingly, after the positive workout, Monroe had a shaky one in Golden State on Sunday. You don't want to be outplayed by Omar Samhan when you're trying to talk a team into drafting you at No. 6. This may change.
7. Pistons: Al-Farouq Aminu
8. Clippers: Gordon Hayward
Note: If you're comparing to our Mock Draft 5.0, we have the first eight in the exact same order. From here, it changes significantly.
9. Jazz: Ed Davis
Note: I think you'll see Mock Draft 6.0 take up this suggestion. I've been hearing all week that Davis doesn't get past No. 9 if Monroe is off the board. Sorry, Luke Babbitt.
10. Pacers: Ekpe Udoh
Note: This also seems like a good bet. We've had Davis falling here for the past two weeks. But Udoh was the guy we had in Indy for our first two mock drafts.
11. Hornets: Cole Aldrich
12. Grizzlies: Luke Babbitt
13. Raptors: Eric Bledsoe
Note: That's the first major surprise I've heard so far. I've had them higher on Avery Bradley for months ... but maybe he knows something I don't.
14. Rockets: Patrick Patterson
15. Bucks: Xavier Henry
16. Timberwolves: Paul George
Note: I think this is probably too low for George. I put him here in my last mock draft but continue to hear he's strongly in the mix for the Clips, Indy and Memphis. Hard to see him sliding past all three.
17. Bulls: Damion James
18. Heat: Avery Bradley
19. Celtics: Solomon Alabi
20. Spurs: Daniel Orton
1. Wizards: John Wall
2. Sixers: Evan Turner
3. Nets: Derrick Favors
4. Timberwolves: Wesley Johnson
5. Kings: DeMarcus Cousins
Note: Monroe had a terrific workout over the weekend. Sounds like Monroe and Cousins are neck and neck here.
6. Warriors: Greg Monroe
Note: Interestingly, after the positive workout, Monroe had a shaky one in Golden State on Sunday. You don't want to be outplayed by Omar Samhan when you're trying to talk a team into drafting you at No. 6. This may change.
7. Pistons: Al-Farouq Aminu
8. Clippers: Gordon Hayward
Note: If you're comparing to our Mock Draft 5.0, we have the first eight in the exact same order. From here, it changes significantly.
9. Jazz: Ed Davis
Note: I think you'll see Mock Draft 6.0 take up this suggestion. I've been hearing all week that Davis doesn't get past No. 9 if Monroe is off the board. Sorry, Luke Babbitt.
10. Pacers: Ekpe Udoh
Note: This also seems like a good bet. We've had Davis falling here for the past two weeks. But Udoh was the guy we had in Indy for our first two mock drafts.
11. Hornets: Cole Aldrich
12. Grizzlies: Luke Babbitt
13. Raptors: Eric Bledsoe
Note: That's the first major surprise I've heard so far. I've had them higher on Avery Bradley for months ... but maybe he knows something I don't.
14. Rockets: Patrick Patterson
15. Bucks: Xavier Henry
16. Timberwolves: Paul George
Note: I think this is probably too low for George. I put him here in my last mock draft but continue to hear he's strongly in the mix for the Clips, Indy and Memphis. Hard to see him sliding past all three.
17. Bulls: Damion James
18. Heat: Avery Bradley
19. Celtics: Solomon Alabi
20. Spurs: Daniel Orton
You could say that about 5 - 10 players in this draft.
So ESPN is predicting the Jazz take Davis if he's there and likely Babbit if Davis isn't there and no one else of note really slips down.
Last edited:
vslice02
Well-Known Member
This is one of the few times in my 14 years of being of Jazz fan that I really don't have a clear preference who we draft. After the consensus top-5, there's about 7-8 players in the mix and not one of the stands out to me as someone who can significantly help us or fill a need. Unlike previous drafts when it was clear we needed a PG ('05-DWill/CP3/Felton) or a SG ('06-Redick/Brewer) or a post presence ('04 Araujo/Jefferson/Humphries obvi didn't work out but these guys were at the top of the wish list) there's not someone in our range who I'd be stoked if we drafted (Monroe included), and the only player who would legitimately send me up a wall would be Cole Aldrich.