Anyway, Mills/Perry have made exactly two picks. We probably won’t know if our new dynamic duo are at good at drafting till they’ve got several drafts under their belt and and we’ve had a few years on top of that to evaluate. By the time we know, they’ll probably be gone.

Ahhh, don’t forget 2015; Willie Cauley-Stein

WCS could still end up having the better career than Porzingis, too early to tell.

And I didn’t assemble that list to prove Jowles a charlatan. Just to objectively compare the Knicks picks vs the “advanced stat bot” picks during those years. It doesn’t appear there is a sliding doors parallel story where the advanced stat bot guides the Knicks to a future via the draft. Lawson, Blair, Bullock, or Speights wouldn’t have been much different from what we got out of Gallinari, Hill, or Hardaway. But Faried was a lot better than Shumpert during that small window where the Knicks fielded a decently competitive team, so who knows what may have happened differently in 2012…

But to me, the problem the Knicks have had, it seems, isn’t that they draft poorly relative to other teams. It’s that they simply don’t draft enough, relative to other teams.

I mean, an argument about what they did with those players after they picked them? Sure. I’m on record as hating the Willy trade. And the fact they rarely had a high pick to begin with? Definitely. I’m not a”winning culture” believer (mostly), since players you get at 3 or 4 contribute a lot more to a winning culture than players you get at 8 or 9. I wish we had tanked hard and drafted higher. But actually drafting? The Knicks do OK.

And GianaDani, I have been laying off of your commentary since it’s generally so lame it doesn’t even merit discussion.

BRAVO. Good night, folks. Be sure to tip your waitress.

Wait, I found a table of VORP by pick!

https://public.tableau.com/views/NBADraftTradeValuebyPick/Dashboard1?:embed=y&:loadOrderID=0&:display_count=yes&:showTabs=y

These numbers are the average two-year max VORP of each draft position since 1984. I’m going to use his “pick trade value” because it smooths the curve of draft pick value, trying to fix the imbalances of a few strong (or weak) players in a given draft position (and suggesting that an earlier pick, as we know, is always better).

#4 6.3 vs. Porzingis 1.2 VORP
#8 4.8 vs. Ntilikina -0.8 VORP
#24 1.7 vs. Hardaway 0.9 VORP
#39 0.7 vs. Fields 1.5 VORP (lmaooooooo)
#17 2.4 vs. Shumpert 0.9 VORP

Now go to bed.

“Yes, THCJ, the franchise would be in a better position if you had randomly selected from the players with the best advanced stats still available on the DraftExpress big board when the Knicks were selecting.”

But my point was qualified with “relative to other teams.” So the question is not whether there is a more reliable method to draft players than the Knicks used, but whether other teams are using better methods. The Spurs clearly are. Who else? Please name them.

Nah, you won’t do that. You’d rather smugly cite Jokic (and his amazing defense) as an example of proficiency in draft decision-making, even though in 2013 the same team (with Masai at the helm) drafted and then immediately traded Rudy Gobert for the great Erick Green, and the guy who drafted Jokic also drafted McDermott 30 picks earlier and then drafted Mudiay at #7 the following year.

Z-man, #1 Endowment Effect Sufferer: ignoring the stats to suit his narrative since 2010.

Even this thread demonstrates how asinine your comment is. see: @75

Again, please humor me with a critique of @59, O Mr. “Porzingis is hot garbage, I would have picked WCS with our only top-5 pick since Ewing.”