Great job! Just one question.... So that first list that puts the Rockets second to last is saying that since 2004 we've drafted second worst based on the players success? Or that we've had the second worst draft positions overall based on the success of players taken at those positions? Or none of the above? lol Pugs
it means that based on the historical success rate of players drafted at each position in the first round, the rockets have had the second to worst likelihood of drafting successful players (in this case I used "making an all-star team at least once" as my definition of success) from 2004 to present. which wouldnt be a problem if we had a winner on the court over that timeperiod as most of the other teams in that part of the list have. problem is, we havent.
Your data means nothing because nobody cares about "average success at draft position x", they care about how well we actually drafted...
I understand it just fine, your first set of data is basically saying the Rockets have had low draft picks. Assigning a certain probability of success to each pick doesn't mean much even if it proves the relationship to not be linear like the OP suggests. And your second set is saying that we've been the 10th most successful team. I'm just saying that your first set is completely irrelevant.
again, i suggest that you dont understand it. this being my analysis, i get to define success however i want. and my definition of success includes both "putting your team in the best position to draft successful players" and "achieving playoff success". i dont see how i could accomplish this, according to my definition of success, if i follow your recommendation. so no, its not irrelevant. maybe you dont consider it important, maybe you'd weight it differently, omit it entirely, or replace it with something else. if so, feel free to do your own analysis with your own definitions, and use what you want. but for my analysis, as i mentioned before, it's defined as being relevant.
The main chink in Morey's armor as far as drafting is that he weighs so heavily on production he often doesn't take into account size and strength. Most GM's do the opposite and look for the "NBA body" and potential first and present production second. But I don't think its a coincidence that our team (while very productive offesnsively) is undersized and weak defensively.
We happen to have 18 mil locked into the biggest player in the NBA who's also an elite defender. So yes, it is a complete coincidence. Now that we are in need of a new center of the future, we've seen him acquire Thabeet and we'll see where he goes from here. Btw how is Patterson not an NBA body or weak defensively?
Knicks is mismanagement. Timberwolves is mismanagement. Cavaliers is mismanagement. Raptors is mismanagement. Clippers is mismanagement. Pistons (recently) is mismanagement. Bobcats is mismanagement. Hornets is mismanagement. The Rockets is definitely NOT mismanagement.
