Everts is spot on here. Any look at the Draft over the past 15 years or so demonstrates what a crapshoot it is and how quickly it dilutes after the first handful of picks even in a good year. So, I guess we shouldn't be surprised after spending an entire evening where I wished I started out with a drinking game where every time someone at ESPN said "length" or "rim protector" you had to take a shot of your favorite alcohol. I wouldn't have made it through the first 10 picks.
Usually, this sort of lingo is used to justify a high pick who has zero offensive upside along the lines of "yeah, this guy can't shoot at all or distribute the ball, but he's athletic with great length and is only 20, as well as a good rim protector"...and that somehow merits a high pick. That is of course, unless you are even moderately observant of history.
The double shot moment came when Stephen A. Smith checkmated Bob Myers after he raised a concern about a pick having limited offensive skills - "well don't use them on offense then - just defense." As if the offensive side of the equation is overrated and having to go 5 on 4 on offense because a guy can't score is somehow irrelevant to the whole winning thing. Maybe he was thinking of the NFL, but I digress.
In any event, as I watched the proceedings move forward completely sober, I noted 5 repeated and overused fallacies/corollaries associated with the NBA Draft. They are:
(1) "The Redemption by Brand" Fallacy"- where fans get excited when a trade is made for a "haul" of late first round picks (that will amount to nothing) just because they carry the label "first round pick." Usually expressed as "dude we just got 3 late first round picks for [fill in the blank of very good and improving player on a team friendly contract]. I'm so stoked."
(2) "The Panning for Gold Corollary" to the above Fallacy - where fans get excited when a team trades a valuable asset to a winning team in exchange for very low future first round picks - that will likely be lower in the future - after the addition of your very solid player. Usually expressed as "dude we just got Cleveland's first round pick in 2027. Yeah, we gave up [emerging all star player] but he was due an expensive extension in two years anyway. Let's go!!"
(3) "The Velvet Rope Fallacy" - where fans get excited solely by a player's birth date as if the front office is only checking IDs at a club. Usually expressed as "yeah, I read all the negatives about his offense, defense and work ethic, but come on man, the dude is only 19. What were you doing at 19? He's got so much time to develop."
(4) "The Coaching Up Corollary" to the above Fallacy - where fans expect a player to improve from the coaching at a higher level of competition despite that not happening anywhere else in the world. How often do you hear a neighbor tell you, "My son is going to try physics at Stanford. Yes, he got a C- in physics in high school, but I hear the professors there are really good." Or "Jennie is now trying out for the Boston Pops violin section after not making the cut at the community orchestra in town, because the Maestro there is supposedly a super good teacher." Life rule - the higher up you go, the more the ecosystem presumes you are closer to a finished product - not less. Picking players with more collegiate and developmental league experience reduces risk, even if they are a year or two older.
(5) "The We Have to Destroy the Village to Save it Fallacy" - this one will be familiar to those who recall the Vietnam War. It didn't work there, and it's still doesn't today but used repeatedly. This is where a new front office steams into town and publicly announces (in the purported interest of "transparency") that the team is in full rebuild mode. This takes the pressure off and provides the front office with space to make confounding and irresponsible moves for 2-3 years before their seats - and paychecks - grow warm. Usually expressed as, "dude the front office has said we are rebuilding this thing from the studs up for the future, so don't worry about all their boneheaded trades now because we got a ton of picks that we won't know if they work out for three years."
The team that most epitomizes these fallacies is the Washington Wizards. The new front office shrewdly and immediately announced that they were rebuilding, so now we are told we should ignore the obvious bad judgment in trading Deni Avdija to Portland for picks and an old declining and expensive player. Patience people. Avdija represents the rare double double for a front office - a young players who makes a sizeable performance leap right after signing a team friendly extension. Just ask the Trailblazers.
But Avdija is just the latest. Consider that Washington has dealt in the name of rebuilding, Bradley Beal (for nothing), Rui Hachimura, Kristaps Porzingis, and Daniel Gafford. That's not a bad young team to build around when you include Deni Avdija and some high Draft picks. Instead, the Wizards are left with Kyle Kuzma on a bad contract, Jordan Poole on a worse contract and Bilal Coulibaly coming off an unimpressive rookie campaign where the Wizards applauded him finishing 14th in All Rookie voting - while ignoring that they selected him 7th overall. Can't wait for the redraft in a few years.
But hey, they've got a ton of picks that we'll just have to wait to see if the front office is really any good. Surprisingly, the Wizards' fans see this whole thing as super exciting and encouraging because Will and Michael are "making lots of moves." Oh, I just realized I left one fallacy out...
Everts is spot on here. Any look at the Draft over the past 15 years or so demonstrates what a crapshoot it is and how quickly it dilutes after the first handful of picks even in a good year. So, I guess we shouldn't be surprised after spending an entire evening where I wished I started out with a drinking game where every time someone at ESPN said "length" or "rim protector" you had to take a shot of your favorite alcohol. I wouldn't have made it through the first 10 picks.
Usually, this sort of lingo is used to justify a high pick who has zero offensive upside along the lines of "yeah, this guy can't shoot at all or distribute the ball, but he's athletic with great length and is only 20, as well as a good rim protector"...and that somehow merits a high pick. That is of course, unless you are even moderately observant of history.
The double shot moment came when Stephen A. Smith checkmated Bob Myers after he raised a concern about a pick having limited offensive skills - "well don't use them on offense then - just defense." As if the offensive side of the equation is overrated and having to go 5 on 4 on offense because a guy can't score is somehow irrelevant to the whole winning thing. Maybe he was thinking of the NFL, but I digress.
In any event, as I watched the proceedings move forward completely sober, I noted 5 repeated and overused fallacies/corollaries associated with the NBA Draft. They are:
(1) "The Redemption by Brand" Fallacy"- where fans get excited when a trade is made for a "haul" of late first round picks (that will amount to nothing) just because they carry the label "first round pick." Usually expressed as "dude we just got 3 late first round picks for [fill in the blank of very good and improving player on a team friendly contract]. I'm so stoked."
(2) "The Panning for Gold Corollary" to the above Fallacy - where fans get excited when a team trades a valuable asset to a winning team in exchange for very low future first round picks - that will likely be lower in the future - after the addition of your very solid player. Usually expressed as "dude we just got Cleveland's first round pick in 2027. Yeah, we gave up [emerging all star player] but he was due an expensive extension in two years anyway. Let's go!!"
(3) "The Velvet Rope Fallacy" - where fans get excited solely by a player's birth date as if the front office is only checking IDs at a club. Usually expressed as "yeah, I read all the negatives about his offense, defense and work ethic, but come on man, the dude is only 19. What were you doing at 19? He's got so much time to develop."
(4) "The Coaching Up Corollary" to the above Fallacy - where fans expect a player to improve from the coaching at a higher level of competition despite that not happening anywhere else in the world. How often do you hear a neighbor tell you, "My son is going to try physics at Stanford. Yes, he got a C- in physics in high school, but I hear the professors there are really good." Or "Jennie is now trying out for the Boston Pops violin section after not making the cut at the community orchestra in town, because the Maestro there is supposedly a super good teacher." Life rule - the higher up you go, the more the ecosystem presumes you are closer to a finished product - not less. Picking players with more collegiate and developmental league experience reduces risk, even if they are a year or two older.
(5) "The We Have to Destroy the Village to Save it Fallacy" - this one will be familiar to those who recall the Vietnam War. It didn't work there, and it's still doesn't today but used repeatedly. This is where a new front office steams into town and publicly announces (in the purported interest of "transparency") that the team is in full rebuild mode. This takes the pressure off and provides the front office with space to make confounding and irresponsible moves for 2-3 years before their seats - and paychecks - grow warm. Usually expressed as, "dude the front office has said we are rebuilding this thing from the studs up for the future, so don't worry about all their boneheaded trades now because we got a ton of picks that we won't know if they work out for three years."
The team that most epitomizes these fallacies is the Washington Wizards. The new front office shrewdly and immediately announced that they were rebuilding, so now we are told we should ignore the obvious bad judgment in trading Deni Avdija to Portland for picks and an old declining and expensive player. Patience people. Avdija represents the rare double double for a front office - a young players who makes a sizeable performance leap right after signing a team friendly extension. Just ask the Trailblazers.
But Avdija is just the latest. Consider that Washington has dealt in the name of rebuilding, Bradley Beal (for nothing), Rui Hachimura, Kristaps Porzingis, and Daniel Gafford. That's not a bad young team to build around when you include Deni Avdija and some high Draft picks. Instead, the Wizards are left with Kyle Kuzma on a bad contract, Jordan Poole on a worse contract and Bilal Coulibaly coming off an unimpressive rookie campaign where the Wizards applauded him finishing 14th in All Rookie voting - while ignoring that they selected him 7th overall. Can't wait for the redraft in a few years.
But hey, they've got a ton of picks that we'll just have to wait to see if the front office is really any good. Surprisingly, the Wizards' fans see this whole thing as super exciting and encouraging because Will and Michael are "making lots of moves." Oh, I just realized I left one fallacy out...
...never confuse movement with progress.
Rob Rob Dillingham. Who is paying the second apron fees? The cheap old owner or the broke new owners?