Chris Grant - Cavaliers GM

[gourimoko]

The "first order" approximation suggests that the Cavs are a .500 team without Bynum. If you want to dispute that by making a "second order" approximation that takes into account the nonuniform distribution of Bynum's minutes, go right ahead. But until you do so, there's no reason to believe that the Cavs without Bynum are worse than my approximation would suggest, let alone so much worse that they would contend for a top-5 pick.

Nate, you aren't paying attention to what's being said.. This was already addressed in my last post by declaring the system as nonuniform and therefore having the properties of a nonlinear stochastic system. Your retort that you have demonstrated a first order approximation either shows an ignorance that no such approximation can be made without defining a linear abstraction first, which you have not done, or negligence by not proving a linear composite model to preface your argument, which you have not done. Therefore, by definition, your projection model is invalid, as again you cannot project with exact confidence levels against a nonlinear model with interdependent variables.

I know very well what my argument is and what your argument is, and I know very well that the best we can hope to do is approximate how the Cavs will perform without Bynum. That said, I hold that the best approximation we have right now for how the Cavs would fare without Bynum is the one I gave in my previous post. The onus is on you to do a more precise approximation if you want to argue that your argument is more plausible than mine.

No it isn't as I have not argued that I have a predictive model to calculate wins and losses. Quite honestly, I think it's odd that you think you have by measuring an individual players production. It's just not that simple. So to answer your point, if you know exactly what my argument is, how can you then declare that the onus is on me to provide a predictive model better than yours when I clearly state no such model has been offered by either of us?

Come on gour, you're better than this. Don't tell me how many reasons you have; tell me what the reasons are!

To be clear, what I said was this: "While I do think we play better without him, for a multitude of reasons that I think are out of his control, I don't see us as a .500 team prior to the Deng trade."

I'm referring to why the team could be better without Bynum, and a lot of that includes the locker room and his attitude. Those factors are not quantitative, and I don't see any reason to detail them in this conversation. It's nothing to do with my argument at all, so why should I break down Bynum's game? Makes no sense.

With wins and losses you're looking at one binary piece of data per game. Looking at margin of victory (and other related stats) inherently gives more data, and accordingly makes it possible to make more confident claims.

This doesn't describe what you are doing. You are hoping to extrapolate play-by-play events at the granular level to fit a model that has no basis. Your "data" is insufficient to make your prediction.

Rather than going over this again.. Perhaps it's just easier to demonstrate: what's the confidence of your prediction? Once you go down that rabbit hole, you'll realize why you don't have a valid model..

Of course, I have done nothing to prove just how confident my claims are, bt it should be obvious from a mathematical standpoint that they are more precise than anything one could glean from the win/loss records you cite.

This is the only reason I'm bothering to post. It's not obvious from a mathematical standpoint. We can end all the dialogue and you can just show your proof and demonstrate the confidence level and we can be done with it. But since that's not possible, I don't know why you are claiming it is.. You realize you're trying to predict an 82 game season using one player's +/-, right? A player who played in a minority of minutes played...

You acknowledge the model is nonlinear, and you acknowledge parameter interdependence, and surely you acknowledge the system is stochastic -- so how can you claim a first order approximation using linear methods??

Perhaps "correct" was the wrong word. I can predict that I'll get 5 heads in 10 tosses of a coin and be "incorrect" when there are only 3 heads, but my initial prediction of 5 heads was certainly the best I could have done with the information I had. Similarly, I can only claim that based on the information that has been presented thus far, the most likely outcome if the Cavs had continued without acquiring Deng would have been roughly a .500 record for the remainder of the season.

From a "mathematical standpoint," it is "obvious" that you cannot make this prediction with the data you've provided.. Not at all. It's asinine to say you can, given only the data you have provided.

Agreed. If the Cavs had made the decision to lose games and get a top-5 pick, they certainly could have done it.

Then WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT?!? That was my whole point!!!

Again, is there a statistical basis to claiming that if you toss 10 coins you will (most likely) get 5 heads? Yes, of course there is.

Now you are describing a discrete binomial distribution, this is not comparable to a basketball game which is stochastic, nonlinear, and having multiple interdependent parameters. It's a different form of mathematics altogether.

It is impossible to find a certain answer to many problems, but that doesn't mean it becomes a matter of opinion. You can argue about how strong the statistical basis I presented is, but the statistical basis is certainly there nonetheless.

That's my point Nathan.. In this instance, it is not. I keep seeing this on the board, repeated, over and over. Lot's of times people making statistical or "mathematical" claims that are simply unfounded. I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade here, but you asked and I'm telling you, this does not fly. You cannot use the data you provided to create any form approximation let alone a meaningful prediction.

alluded :licker:

Damn you..

Anyway, I don't think most of the posters appreciate this conversation, or want to see it.. I thought your reply had merit and thus warranted a response, but where this has to do with Chris Grant it appears we are in agreement. As you aid "if Grant wanted to tank, we could have had a top 5 pick." That's my point. I also agree with the larger point that we are better without Bynum, but not solely mathematical reasons; but because we simply don't know how to use him, and he was an intolerable cancer on the team from my understanding. From what I know, it was simply impossible to continue moving on with him, so turning him into Deng is a good haul; If and only if the team continues to progress sans the lottery. And that is a big if.

But if you want to discuss the mathematics of your prediction further, you know you can PM me..

 

[gourimoko]

Agreed.. it's a waste of breath.. Time to move on..

Ok.. Now I'm really done...

 

[mr4rthqrtr]

can't believe chris pulled off another trade like this, hope they keep him around. lol @ the people complaining about his drafting, these past few drafts have been some of the worst all time that's not grants fault. this team has cap space is loaded with picks and has trade pieces grant couldn't have set the cavs up any better.

 

[flashyshalo]

I'm not saying Waiters will never be an allstar, far too early to tell. However, if every top 4 pick was an allstar... well we would need two or three all star games every year.

Dion might have a similar style but the thing that makes wade a superstar is his size. He has an extra .75 height / 4 inch wingspan when compared to Dion. Dion is without a doubt a better shooter at this point in his career in comparison. Wade didn't even attempt to shoot 3 pointers for years.

Drummond was passed on by so many teams he was crying during the draft, can't blame Grant for that.

This is such a dumb ignorant statement.
Just because teams passed on him doesn't make it right or justified. Most of the teams that passed on him suck, hence why they are even in the lottery. What about all those teams that passed on Paul George? He went 10th in the draft? Steph Curry was the 7th pick, Paul Pierce was the 10th pick.....years later it is shown that those GM's didnt do their scouting analysis very well as those players i mentioned all ended up or are superstars/all stars.

A lot of GM's suck and are horrible talent evaluators, full stop.

 

[Fuggles]

This is such a dumb ignorant statement.
Just because teams passed on him doesn't make it right or justified. Most of the teams that passed on him suck, hence why they are even in the lottery. What about all those teams that passed on Paul George? He went 10th in the draft? Steph Curry was the 7th pick, Paul Pierce was the 10th pick.....years later it is shown that those GM's didnt do their scouting analysis very well as those players i mentioned all ended up or are superstars/all stars.

A lot of GM's suck and are horrible talent evaluators, full stop.

or the simpler explanation is that drafts are a crapshoot there captain hindsight

 

[Tornicade]

This is such a dumb ignorant statement.
Just because teams passed on him doesn't make it right or justified. Most of the teams that passed on him suck, hence why they are even in the lottery. What about all those teams that passed on Paul George? He went 10th in the draft? Steph Curry was the 7th pick, Paul Pierce was the 10th pick.....years later it is shown that those GM's didnt do their scouting analysis very well as those players i mentioned all ended up or are superstars/all stars.

A lot of GM's suck and are horrible talent evaluators, full stop.

Steph Curry going tenth means the other gm's sucked as talent evaluators
LAC Blake Griffin
OKC James Harden
Mem despite drafting hasheem thabeet... seemed to do okay.
Minnesota drafted johnny flynn and rubio. rubio seems to be working out butdidnt minnesota draft kevin love with the same gm?
Sacremento. would sacremento be better offf drafting steph curry...
i doubt it. those GSW guys also drafted ekpe udoh and anthony randolph.

Speaking of ekpe Udoh GS drafted him before paul gm.

so im confused . is GSW gm suddenly a horrible talent evaluator because he missed George ? is that the same NBA talent evaluator who picked Stephen curry?

Isnt the Boston GM who drafted Paul pierce the same one who took Ron mercer over Tracy Mcgrady?

doesnt that by your definition make the same guys who took chauncey billups and Paul pierce sucky talent evaluators.

The draft is 40% scouting and 60% luck

 

[flashyshalo]

Steph Curry going tenth means the other gm's sucked as talent evaluators
LAC Blake Griffin
OKC James Harden
Mem despite drafting hasheem thabeet... seemed to do okay.
Minnesota drafted johnny flynn and rubio. rubio seems to be working out butdidnt minnesota draft kevin love with the same gm?
Sacremento. would sacremento be better offf drafting steph curry...
i doubt it. those GSW guys also drafted ekpe udoh and anthony randolph.

Speaking of ekpe Udoh GS drafted him before paul gm.

so im confused . is GSW gm suddenly a horrible talent evaluator because he missed George ? is that the same NBA talent evaluator who picked Stephen curry?

Isnt the Boston GM who drafted Paul pierce the same one who took Ron mercer over Tracy Mcgrady?

doesnt that by your definition make the same guys who took chauncey billups and Paul pierce sucky talent evaluators.

The draft is 40% scouting and 60% luck

I don't think you understand what i am trying to say

The poster was basically saying it was okay that we passed on Drummond because 7 o 8 other teams passed on him so it was justified to be one of those teams that didnt take him. Well my point was that it is a silly comment. If the 2012 draft was to be re-done, Drummond would be in the top 3.....I think it would be A.D., Drummond and then Lilllard (big men are harder to find than PG's)....so basically a lot of scouts got it wrong and where a player is drafted doesn't reflect their ability. Is Anthony Bennett the best player in the 2013 draft? Was Adam Morrisson better than Brandon Roy? No, but the Wizards still took him.

Some teams punch above their weight like Spurs and OKC and draft very well...I recall Westbrook wasn't even projected to go in the top 10, yet OKC took him at number 4.

 

[Green Lantern]

This is such a dumb ignorant statement.
Just because teams passed on him doesn't make it right or justified. Most of the teams that passed on him suck, hence why they are even in the lottery. What about all those teams that passed on Paul George? He went 10th in the draft? Steph Curry was the 7th pick, Paul Pierce was the 10th pick.....years later it is shown that those GM's didnt do their scouting analysis very well as those players i mentioned all ended up or are superstars/all stars.

A lot of GM's suck and are horrible talent evaluators, full stop.

Oh welll....

 

[Cavatt]

I don't think you understand what i am trying to say

The poster was basically saying it was okay that we passed on Drummond because 7 o 8 other teams passed on him so it was justified to be one of those teams that didnt take him. Well my point was that it is a silly comment. If the 2012 draft was to be re-done, Drummond would be in the top 3.....I think it would be A.D., Drummond and then Lilllard (big men are harder to find than PG's)....so basically a lot of scouts got it wrong and where a player is drafted doesn't reflect their ability. Is Anthony Bennett the best player in the 2013 draft? Was Adam Morrisson better than Brandon Roy? No, but the Wizards still took him.

Some teams punch above their weight like Spurs and OKC and draft very well...I recall Westbrook wasn't even projected to go in the top 10, yet OKC took him at number 4.

So in a hindsight draft, he goes top 3 and we miss out and still take Waiters?

 

[Derek]

So in a hindsight draft, he goes top 3 and we miss out and still take Waiters?

How would that hindsight draft go? Davis and Drummond go 1-2, and Lillard probably goes 5 unless the Cavs or Wizards take an unorthodox approach.

So... Beal-Waiters-Henson-Barnes-Plumlee-MKG-Lamb-Jones-Sullinger-Nicholson?

 

[Cavatt]

How would that hindsight draft go? Davis and Drummond go 1-2, and Lillard probably goes 5 unless the Cavs or Wizards take an unorthodox approach.

So... Beal-Waiters-Henson-Barnes-Plumlee-MKG-Lamb-Jones-Sullinger-Nicholson?

Yeah that's the way I see it. I mean you could pick Beal over Waiters, but personally I think it is a harder choice now than then. Back then I would take Beal in a heartbeat, but Waiters has grown a lot and shown he is probably more dynamic than Beal. Beal is still solid as hell, so I think it would be a coinflip on those 2.

People need to get over the fact that Drummond wasn't drafted. I don't think he fell because no one noticed how big strong and athletic he was. While he was in Highschool he was projected as #1. A year later #9. GM 1-8 forgot about him, overlooked him? No, he sucked in college and they thought he may never develop.

 

[Toph]

Yeah that's the way I see it. I mean you could pick Beal over Waiters, but personally I think it is a harder choice now than then. Back then I would take Beal in a heartbeat, but Waiters has grown a lot and shown he is probably more dynamic than Beal. Beal is still solid as hell, so I think it would be a coinflip on those 2.

People need to get over the fact that Drummond wasn't drafted. I don't think he fell because no one noticed how big strong and athletic he was. While he was in Highschool he was projected as #1. A year later #9. GM 1-8 forgot about him, overlooked him? No, he sucked in college and they thought he may never develop.

THANK YOU. Tried to make this point so many times but people just don't get it. At the time, Drummond was a huge risk to draft for multiple reasons.

 

[SteelSmack]

So even in the hindsight draft, Dion Waiters is probably the right pick for the Cavs. Got it.

 

[KeyzerSozee]

The draft is 40% scouting and 60% luck

This. What does it say about no one drafting Delly and he is outplaying the what, top ten picks? No GM knows what they are doing?

Otherwise Generally speaking GM's don't suck.

I said before the draft and stand by, it was so weak, unless we wanted to take a chance on Noel that we had to swing for the highest ceiling. And I am pretty surprised anyone is complaining about Waiters, the guy is finally clicking that losing sucks and he is getting better every week.

Historically, it'd work out.

Rating = points/game + rebounds/game + assists/game

Why use this definition? It's the data I have easily on hand, which while not a good player rating system is a decent wag for these purposes. Then I group players as follows:

Star -- 20+ rating
Solid -- 15 to 19.9
Role Player -- 10 to14.9
Deep Bench -- 5 to 9.9
Complete Bust -- less than 5
DNP -- (never played in the NBA)

Keep in mind the stats are career per game averages so lower than the peak performance years of a player. Moreover, there is also some bias in that using recent years some of the current players may well spike up their career 'standing' with more years under the belt.

Sometimes . . . it doesn't. The sky is not always falling. But, GM's do pretty well at the top. It's a bit unfair to project a guy way back as such a reach. I remember Otto Porter, that's about it. Derrick Williams, Knight. Give them some time, they clearly have a plan. And I like what I see personally.

Average Career Stats by draft pick number


So far KI is in the 70%, I'd say Waiters is at least Solid and has shown flashes of "getting it", if we are judging Bennett well I don't think anyone else on the radar was close to "Star" or knowing "Solid", and I refuse to believe that he is not still injured, and even if cleared he isn't going to take about a year to be comfortable.

Waiters? I think if they redrafted it still goes about the Same 1. Davis 2. Drummond 3. Beal 4. Waiters

Over twenty years the scouting usually at least gets close, but yes Luck is a big part. But I am guessing most people will see things different, you can miss on crap drafts and it's like some people don't get that's when to take a chance.


Pick No. GMS Min Pts Reb Asst Rtg Star Solid Role Deep B Bust DNP
1 20 555 32.9 16.6 7.8 2.7 27.0 70% 25% 5%
2 20 583 29.6 12.9 5.9 2.8 21.6 60% 25% 15%
3 20 535 31.9 15.2 5.1 3.5 23.8 85% 10% 5%
4 20 585 30.5 13.7 5.5 3.1 22.2 60% 30% 10%
5 20 552 28.7 13.4 4.9 2.7 21.1 60% 15% 10% 15%
6 20 406 25.4 10.2 4.6 1.7 16.5 25% 30% 30% 15%
7 20 483 26.8 10.9 4.3 2.6 17.8 30% 40% 25% 5%
8 20 397 22.9 9.3 3.9 1.9 15.2 35% 15% 15% 35%
9 20 460 23.1 10.2 4.9 1.6 16.6 30% 10% 35% 20% 5%
10 20 497 24.6 10.2 4.4 2.2 16.7 35% 25% 25% 10% 5%
11 20 389 19.4 7.5 3.5 1.4 12.4 15% 15% 30% 35% 5%
12 20 372 18.8 6.6 3.7 1.3 11.6 5% 15% 40% 30% 10%
13 20 447 22.7 9.8 3.7 1.9 15.4 20% 35% 15% 30%
14 20 312 21.1 8.8 3.0 1.9 13.7 25% 20% 25% 10% 20%
15 20 348 17.4 6.6 2.9 1.4 10.8 10% 15% 30% 20% 20% 5%
16 20 364 18.2 7.2 2.8 1.6 11.7 5% 25% 30% 25% 15%
17 20 397 20.3 8.1 3.9 1.4 13.4 20% 15% 20% 45%
18 20 317 17.4 6.6 3.1 0.9 10.7 5% 15% 25% 40% 15%
19 20 280 16.5 6.5 2.9 1.0 10.4 5% 15% 20% 50% 10%
20 20 253 16.8 6.2 2.7 1.3 10.2 5% 10% 35% 30% 20%
21 20 384 20.8 7.8 3.3 1.9 13.1 10% 40% 20% 15% 15%
22 20 225 16.9 5.6 3.0 1.2 9.8 20% 15% 65%
23 20 368 19.4 6.8 3.1 1.4 11.4 20% 50% 15% 15%
24 20 350 20.6 7.9 3.0 2.1 13.0 15% 25% 20% 35% 5%
25 20 218 14.6 5.2 2.7 0.9 8.8 5% 5% 25% 50% 10% 5%
26 20 248 15.8 6.0 2.8 1.3 10.1 10% 5% 40% 15% 30%
27 20 293 15.5 5.3 2.9 1.2 9.4 5% 5% 25% 60% 5%
28 20 250 13.3 5.1 1.9 1.4 8.4 5% 10% 15% 45% 15% 10%
29 20 260 12.1 4.1 2.3 0.8 7.3 5% 10% 10% 30% 20% 25%
30 20 250 14.1 5.2 2.6 1.1 8.9 5% 10% 25% 25% 15% 20%
31 20 146 12.1 4.1 1.9 0.8 6.8 5% 25% 25% 30% 15%
32 20 152 11.7 4.0 1.6 1.0 6.6 5% 15% 40% 35% 5%
33 20 144 10.6 3.3 2.1 0.7 6.0 10% 55% 35%
34 20 137 12.7 4.3 2.1 1.2 7.6 5% 5% 5% 55% 20% 10%
35 20 110 9.3 2.8 1.7 0.7 5.3 5% 5% 35% 35% 20%
36 20 140 8.8 3.4 1.5 0.7 5.5 5% 10% 30% 25% 30%
37 20 239 15.0 5.7 2.5 1.4 9.6 10% 10% 30% 25% 25%
38 20 161 10.3 3.2 1.4 1.1 5.7 5% 15% 35% 20% 25%
39 20 146 9.4 3.2 1.2 1.0 5.4 10% 10% 25% 30% 25%
40 20 134 11.5 4.3 1.7 1.0 7.0 10% 10% 40% 15% 25%
41 20 149 10.1 3.6 1.8 0.7 6.0 5% 10% 10% 20% 20% 35%
42 20 116 8.7 3.1 1.5 0.7 5.3 5% 5% 15% 10% 25% 40%
43 20 228 12.8 4.9 2.1 0.8 7.8 5% 5% 30% 20% 20% 20%
44 20 89 4.4 1.5 0.8 0.3 2.6 10% 20% 5% 65%
45 20 197 14.0 4.7 2.1 1.0 7.8 10% 25% 50% 15%
46 20 69 8.0 2.9 1.4 0.5 4.8 10% 5% 30% 20% 35%
47 20 145 12.2 4.6 2.0 1.2 7.8 5% 10% 20% 45% 20%
48 20 103 9.0 3.2 2.0 0.4 5.6 10% 15% 10% 25% 40%
49 20 117 8.8 2.8 1.5 0.8 5.1 25% 25% 15% 35%
50 20 49 5.5 2.0 1.0 0.3 3.2 5% 20% 30% 45%
51 20 86 6.0 2.1 0.9 0.5 3.5 10% 20% 20% 50%
52 20 116 7.1 2.0 1.1 0.6 3.8 10% 25% 30% 35%
53 20 56 5.1 1.5 0.8 0.4 2.6 30% 15% 55%
54 20 97 5.1 1.8 0.9 0.2 2.9 10% 15% 10% 65%
55 14 57 6.8 2.3 1.3 0.4 4.0 7% 7% 21% 14% 50%
56 14 51 6.9 2.3 1.3 0.6 4.3 7% 29% 29% 36%
57 14 43 5.1 1.9 1.0 0.5 3.3 7% 21% 14% 57%
58 11 46 2.2 0.7 0.5 0.1 1.3 9% 18% 73%
59 5 13 2.8 0.8 0.4 0.2 1.4 40% 60%
60 4 7 4.1 0.8 0.4 0.4 1.7 50% 50%

 

[KeyzerSozee]

So even in the hindsight draft, Dion Waiters is probably the right pick for the Cavs. Got it.

I would say so. Drummond goes 2. Are we taking Barnes? Lillard then (if Davis, Drummond, Beal are gone?). Henson? Leonard?