Bust Rule 101, Shelden qualifies

[Johnnybravo4]

Quote:

---

Our GM took a kid that not ONE other top 5 team considered for a second. Some lightweights here wonder why the Hawks get drilled constantly in the national media for sucking so bad...and for being a crap organization. Hello????

Funny thing is many national media rip BK because he does crazy stuff like promising a player who nobody else wanted...one month in advance. Did we need a defensive big? Not that dang bad. Making the argument to take an totally inferior player because of position is garbage. We also needed defense on the perimeter to stop dribble penetration. Shelden will STAY in fould trouble. He isn't athletic enough to stay in good position. Getting beat leads to recovery fouls.

Marvin had upside so the pick can be justified. The Shelden pick is just a disaster. And, don't worry, I'm patient enough to wait out the BK defenders. You'll be running from Shelden faster than Enron stock about December.

---

So what no GM even considered Gilbert Arenas for the entire 1st round. Ben Wallace for any round. It doesn't mean sht

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

So what no GM even considered Gilbert Arenas for the entire 1st round. Ben Wallace for any round. It doesn't mean sht

---

You don't draft for the rare exception (a 6'7" center), you draft for the rule or rather you play the odds.

How many 6'7" "centers" have been drafted (or not because most GMs know the potential for a dud when they see it) and never made the NBA or done worth a damn to Ben Wallace. 10000 to 1? Higher. Don't know but the odds aren't good and you shouldn't be so egotistical to think you're the GM that can beat the odds.

W

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Don't know but the odds aren't good and you shouldn't be so egotistical to think you're the GM that can beat the odds.

W

---

Odds are against any big man taken after the first pick in the lottery. Yet, GMs should take that risk in many cases. It is a matter of risk and reward.

Incidently, the odds of a 6'7'' player making a good center are greater than 10,000 to 1 and much better for the PF position. Given that there haven't been nearly 10,000 draft picks and that Wes Unseld is a hall of fame center at 6'7'', your odds already seem to be much higher.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Incidently, the odds of a 6'7'' player making a good center are greater than 10,000 to 1 and much better for the PF position. Given that there haven't been nearly 10,000 draft picks and that Wes Unseld is a hall of fame center at 6'7'', your odds already seem to be much higher.

---

I'm sorry I didn't carefully examine every pick to come up with the exact number of 555:2 the ratio of failed 6'7" centers to successful ones, compared to 5:1 the number of failed 6'11" or taller centers to successful ones. Sigh.

W

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Incidently, the odds of a 6'7'' player making a good center are greater than 10,000 to 1 and much better for the PF position. Given that there haven't been nearly 10,000 draft picks and that Wes Unseld is a hall of fame center at 6'7'', your odds already seem to be much higher.

---

I'm sorry I didn't carefully examine every pick to come up with the exact number of 555:2 the ratio of failed 6'7" centers to successful ones, compared to 5:1 the number of failed 6'11" or taller centers to successful ones. Sigh.

W

---

10,000 to 1 makes something seem utterly ridiculous. Passing on Wes Unseld for Randy Foye would be ridiculous. It doesn't come down to gross statistics as much as individual players. Otherwise you would pass on Yao since no Chinese player has ever made an impact in the NBA, etc.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

10,000 to 1 makes something seem utterly ridiculous. Passing on Wes Unseld for Randy Foye would be ridiculous. It doesn't come down to gross statistics as much as individual players. Otherwise you would pass on Yao since no Chinese player has ever made an impact in the NBA, etc.

---

It's called hyperbole. Next time I'll add more zeros to convey that with overwhelming clarity.

W

[Johnnybravo4]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So what no GM even considered Gilbert Arenas for the entire 1st round. Ben Wallace for any round. It doesn't mean sht

---

You don't draft for the rare exception (a 6'7" center), you draft for the rule or rather you play the odds.

How many 6'7" "centers" have been drafted (or not because most GMs know the potential for a dud when they see it) and never made the NBA or done worth a damn to Ben Wallace. 10000 to 1? Higher. Don't know but the odds aren't good and you shouldn't be so egotistical to think you're the GM that can beat the odds.

W

---

You are playing pretty good odds when you pick a big man who was a two time all american and is the All time leader in blocked shots in the best college program in the best conference in the NCAA.

Playing bad Odds are drafting guys like Sene and Patrick O'bryant or SG posings as PG from bad programs.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

10,000 to 1 makes something seem utterly ridiculous. Passing on Wes Unseld for Randy Foye would be ridiculous. It doesn't come down to gross statistics as much as individual players. Otherwise you would pass on Yao since no Chinese player has ever made an impact in the NBA, etc.

---

It's called hyperbole. Next time I'll add more zeros to convey that with overwhelming clarity.

W

---

Your point has 0.0000000000000000% credibility when you are comparing straight numbers instead of evaluating specific prospects.

Hmmm...hyperbole is fun.

[BusBoyIsBack]

Quote:

---

You are playing pretty good odds when you pick a big man who was a two time all american and is the All time leader in blocked shots in the best college program in the best conference in the NCAA.

Playing bad Odds are drafting guys like Sene and Patrick O'bryant or SG posings as PG from bad programs.

---

Somebody has a clue. If Shelden was just some 6'8 kid off the street maybe he'd have a point. But the man was a top 5 recruit in his HS Class and went on to have one of the most successful careers in NCAA history. I think that means he deserves a fair chance before declaring that he will never amount to anything.

[Traceman]

Shelden might not fit the "prototype" but his credentials are impeccable. I think it is more likely that a guy like Shelden becomes a very good NBA player than a guy like Patrick O'Bryant. O'Bryant may have more upside but he has a heck of a lot more DOWNSIDE that Shelden does too.

[Traceman]

Boozer fell to the 2nd round. He accomplished a lot more in college than a lot of "guys who fit the protoype" yet he was passed over because the "book" said he wasn't tall enough or athletic enough. Instead, teams went for guys like Tskitishvili, Borchardt, Jefferies and Wilcox and passed on the guy they should have taken all along.

I don't know if Shelden will pan out or not but his resume certainly indicates that he has a much greater chance of success than any other big man we could have taken at #5.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Boozer fell to the 2nd round.

---

While Boozer should not have fallen to the 2nd rd, he shouldn't have been a top 5 pick even in hindsight. We'll be fortunate if SW pans out Boozer-well.

W