USSoccer

Oh well. Hopefully Murton will prove he's an ideal #2 as time goes by.

Other than Andre Miller, who was I hard on? Marbury has averaged 20 ppg consistently in the NBA. Kurt Thomas has been very successful. Bonzi Wells is at least decent. Tim Thomas, Mercer, Jason Williams, Barry, Odom, Maggette, Gooden are all solid players. Again, would you draft Marbury if you could do it all over again? Would you want him on your team? Ditto for Wells. That next group you mentioned are not successful relative to their draft position.

Kurt Thomas, Brent Barry, Stephon Marbury, Lorenzen Wright, Erick Dampier, Austin Croshere, Michael Olowokandi, Jason Williams, Bonzi Wells, Lamar Odom, Andre Miller, Corey Maggette, Darius Miles, Kwame Brown, Tyson Chandler, Eddie Curry I´d say all of those count as ¨regular¨NBA players...all played important roles for their team at some time or another (and many still do). Now, if you want to talk about ¨star¨players, thats a different story. If you'll note the range of critera I used was "star" to "decent". Admittedly I am being hard on Miller and Maggette, but the rest of that group is pretty poor. Chanlder is a very good one dimensional player, but was he worth the Brand pick? Bonzi Wells and Marbury may score, but they're both team-killers. Would you draft the,/take them on the Bulls? Jason Williams is not a good point guard. His flaws are seriously masked by being on a team with Shaq and Wade. Croshere is a borderline rotation guy. Thomas, Barry, Wright, Dampier, Olowokandi, Miles, Brown and Curry are all busts based on where they were drafted. If you look at the top 15, picks 1-5 should be starters and all-star caliber players. 5-10 should be 6th men/starters on other teams/role starters. Picks 10-15 should be regular rotation contributers. The place to draft project players is not in the Top 15.

Other than Andre Miller, who was I hard on? Marbury? I'd hardly call him bad. You'd draft Marbury if you could go back in time?

Other than Andre Miller, who was I hard on?

How do you measure correctness in drafting? How often are you correct in your assessment of how college basketball players will develop in the NBA? No doubt it's an inexact science, but it strikes me as hubris to dismiss scouts' opinions of a player in favor of your own. That's just my opinion, and I think it's fun to argue about who's likely to do what from the upcoming draft class. I think it's fun, too. I'm just wondering aloud if some of the same inefficiencies that pop up in baseball scouting pop up in basketball scouting. If you take the number of top 15 picks in the last 10 years, out of those 150 players I wonder how many end up being regular NBA players. EDIT: Not including the 2005 class: 1995-Stackhouse, Wallace, Garnett, and Damon Stoudamire all had nice careers. Joe Smith and Antonio McDyess were ok. The rest of that top 15 featured Shawn Respert, Bryant Reeves, Ed O'Bannon, Kurt Thomas, Gary Trent, Cherokee Parks, Corliss Williamson, Eric Williams and Brent Barry. 1996-Iverson, Allen, Nash, Kobe, Peja all are good. Camby, Abdur Rahim and Antoine Walker are also decent. Then you have Marbury, Lorenzen Wright, Kittles, Samaki Walker, Erick Dampier, Todd Fuller, and Potepenko all being bad. 1997-Duncan, Billups, McGrady, and that's about it. Van Horn was servicable, and then you have Antonio Daniels, Tony Battie, Ron Mercer, Tim Thomas, Adonal Foyle, Danny Fortson, Olivier Saint Jean, Austin Croshere, Derek Anderson, Maurice Taylor and Kelvin Cato. That's a bad draft if you didn't get a top 3 pick. 1998-Bibby, Pierce, Carter, Jamison, the Diggler are all good. Larry Hughes and Harpring are pretty good, and then you have Olowokandi (#1 overall), LaFrentz, Traylor, Jason Williams, Bonzi Wells, Doleac, Keon Clark, and Michael Dickerson. BTW, how does Bryce Drew get drafted 16th? 1999-Brand, Hamilton, Marion, Terry and that's about it. Baron Davis and Steve Francis are there, and then you have Odom, Johnathan Bender, Andre Miller, Langdon, Alek Redojevic, Maggette, Avery and Frederick Weis. Artest goes 16th. 2000-Mike Miller and maybe K-Mart are it. This is the Swift, Miles, Fizer, DeMarr Johnson, Mihm, Crawford, Pryzbilla, Dooling, Moiso, Etan Thomas, Courtney Alexander, Cleaves, and Collier mess of a top 15. 2001-Gasol, Richardson, Battier, Joe Johnson, Radmanovic and Richard Jefferson. The rest was Kwame Brown, Chandler, Curry, Eddie Griffin, Diop, Rodney White, Kedrick Brown, Troy Murphy and Steven Hunter. 2002-Yao, Nene, Amare, Caron Butler and that's about it. Jay Williams, Dunleavy, Drew Gooden, Tsikitzvilli, Dajuan Wagner, Chris Wilcox, Haslip, Freddy Jones , Jefferiesand Bostjan Nachbar round out the top 15. 2003-James, Anthony, Bosh, Wade, Hinrich, Ridinour, TJ Ford, and Collison were contributors. Darko, Kaman, Sweetney, Jarvis Hayes, Pietrus, Banks and Reece Gaines were not. 2004-Howard, Okafor, Gordon, Livingston, Harris, Deng, and Iguodala look to be good. Childress, Araujo, Luke Jackson, Biedrins, Swift, Telfair, Humphries and Al Jefferson do not. If you stretch your criterea to say that you'd take players based on a range from great to decent, you have 63 players that fit that bill out of 150. I'd like to think you should do better than 42% of your top 15 picks being good.

Again, I don't agree with your assessment of Noah or Thomas, and not many NBA scouts and execs do either if you put any stock in Chad Ford's draft ranking. In any event, Paxson hasn't had a bad draft yet, so I'll give the benefit of the doubt with whomever he takes. I'll be ecstatic if the Bulls end up with Thomas. Williams is not a small PG, and the Jazz are reportedly enamored with Redick. How often are basketball scouts correct in a player's pre-draft evaluation? How many of them are enamored with measurables and physical gifts, and look less at performance on the court? How many of them are picturing what a guy might be rather than what he is? Unless a player is a "Can't Miss", I'd venture a guess that scouts are wrong in basketball about 90% of the time.

I don't buy it. I'd love for someone to prove to me that the Cubs wouldn't have scored many more runs last year if Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez had better hitters hitting 1/2 in the order all season long. No guy with as many or more XBH's had less RBI's than Derrek Lee last year. And it wasn't even close. I'd be interested to see how far back Derrek Lee finished in the RBI race among 3rd place hitters who have had as high of a batting average or higher as he did in 2005. 1 game. Not that much impact, but could potentially have an impact. Over the couse of a season, like last year, huge impact. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/sports/basketball/19score.html?ex=1144296000&en=0e477b7af2710697&ei=5070 This article goes into detail about how batting order has a negligible effect over the course of a season. This guy has a bunch of stuff on it, too: http://www.pankin.com/baseball.htm

Isn't there a new book that contradicts that notion? I believe its called "The Book" but i'm drawing a blank. I remember the gist of it is, your best batters should be placed first, second, and fourth, then next best batters third and fifth. I think BP and other outlets have done some studies that the net effect of batting order on runs over a season is +/- 3 runs total.

That's suprising. Why? Because I recall more hard line drives than ground balls last season. That and Z has a much "heavier" 2 seamer. Z must strike more guys out, thus skewing his ratio :D

That's suprising.

Both Noah and Thomas might not develop into stars, but I can't understand how you could watch them play and come away so dismissive of their potential. I'm more inclined to agree with Draft Express' profiles. Thomas Noah Crazy talk. I'm intrigued by Bargnani, but he's not going to be a low post presence. Redick most likely won't get past the Jazz at 13 or so. Every year there some player who gets hot during the NCAA tournament and everyone raves about them, and they get to the league and don't really have much of an impact. With a top 4 pick, you have to try and get an impact player. I think Noah has more of a shot at that than Thomas does, simply because Noah has more size, a more polished offensive game, and is probably a more mature individual than Thomas is. I think a Brian Grant celing is about right for Noah, maybe a little better, but Thomas has a real chance to be a fringe rotation guy after 3 years. I don't see how you want a project like that with the team you have right now. I'd rank them Aldridge/Roy/Noah, and wouldn't consider Thomas unless we don't make the playoffs and luck into a top10 pick with our other 1st rounder. Also, I don't know wy the Jazz would take Redick. They just took Deron Williams last season, and I'd be shocked if they went with another small guard like that, unless they plan on eventually having a small Williams/Redick backcourt.

I could be completely wrong, but I thought I read in a thread the other day that Maddux gives up the most ground balls of all our starters. I remember being suprised because I thought for sure it would be Z. My prevailing memory of the 2004-5 version of Maddux is that he gives up a lot of balls that end up hitting a drunk in the head in left field, or slamming up against the ivy. You may be right, but I'd be shocked if it were the case.

I think the Cubs would be starting Rusch with or without Prior. They like Glendon. They like paying Glendon and they like playing Glendon. Why? I do not know, maybe Hendry and Baker's brains are as fragile as Prior. Hendry's long been in love with having a token lefty in the rotation. Rusch just happens to be the token vet lefty du jour.

I think Noah and Thomas both end up as spectacular busts in the NBA. There are plenty of 6-8, 6-9 guys in the league with good verticals and unpolished offensive skills, except they can't actually contribute meaningful minutes to a contender. The Bulls are in a point with their roster that they need a difference maker, or at least need to add some scoring in the low post. I think Aldridge, Roy, or Bargnani would be good 1st picks. After that, you're looking at something likely in the 12-15 pick range. I'd bet Thomas would still be there at that point, and if not, fine. I'd even be comfortable with them replacing Janniero Pargo with JJ Redick if they have that mid 1st round pick and there isn't anyone better, since one is just a streaky gunner and the other is a very good long range specialist. Keep in mind they need an offensive 4 or 5, a big guard, and improvements in the bench and back end of the 9 man rotation. Harrington, Pargo, and Sweetney are all good candidates to be replaced, and they need players to go with the rest of the pieces they have. They are not going to get a difference mkaer with that 2nd 2st round pick, so why not take a guy that improves your rotation but isn't necessarily an "upside" player?

A choice between Jacque and JuanE is like asking it you want to be kicked in the junk or hit with a hammer in the head. Either way you're going to be uncomfortable with the outcome.

I think it's one thing for guys like Lee and Ramirez to see a good pitch early and swing-they have the ability to hit HR's and consistently hit for extra bases. I'm pretty comfortable with their plate discipline. It's quite another thing for everyone else in the lineup to hack away. Guys like Cedeno, Barrett and Pierre have no reason not to be selective.

If Baker thinks that the weather is so bad that we need Neifi and his black hole of a bat in the 2 hole because he has the ability to bunt, we're in for a long day. I don't really buy the defensive excuse for his being the 2B today, since Maddux isn't a strict groundball pitcher. He's a line drive pitcher at this point, so unless Neifi has a ladder and a net he can take with him to the IF, his defense isn't going to help a bit. Maybe Bruce can pop in and provide us some insight.

Yes because those 3 deals are the reason the Cubs aren't expected to win. Real franchise cornerstones there. That's over 10% of the payroll that's sunk into mediocrity, though. You can't gripe about the cheapness of the TribCo if they give a GM $95m and he uses up a 10% chunk of it on bad players.

I'd rather keep Dusty than have Piniella managing the team. seconded 3rd. 4th'd

I'd describe myself as cautiously optimistic about 2006. I think the overall 25 man roster is better than the 2005 installment, and the fact that Pierre is here prevents Dusty from trotting out sub ..300 OBP leadoff people in front of two guys that should just mash the ball all year. The rotation isn't as terrible as it looks at first glance. Z is a #1. Maddux and Rusch should be able to hold their own in April, when the weather is crap and the wind tends to blow in. That especially helps Rusch. Marshall and Williams are acceptable stop gaps, and I fully anticipate Wood being back before April ends. The key question will be wether or not the team can survive the first 4 weeks without Wood. If they can, I think they'll be right there all season.

My God....gotta love this board. At least nobody here criticizes too much or jumps to conclusions. He (gasp) might actually miss a start or TWO!! The horror.... I have Jermaine Dye on my team. I think he's going to hit 1.000 all year long....that should really help the overall average. Chill out. There's no reason to get on people for assuming an overweight pitcher who leaves a game that early with a muscle strain is going to cost him a few starts.

I might drop Jones to 6th or 7th if he struggles and Murton stays hot, but that's a pretty good lineup. It'd be nice to start out the season with a nice winning streak. Maybe 5 of 6 or something like that.

If you want to deal Prior, ok, fine. I wouldn't, but if you do deal him, you could do light years better than Cano... And for the record, I agree with Goony that Wood comes back in April and makes at least 25 starts, and I agree with whoever said Prior would be out until June. I think Miller comes back before Prior.

Someone made a comment earlier in the tread that I thought was pretty good, and it was along the lines of "The most revealing thing is that Dusty is staying with Ronny despite a bad spring." That's noteworthy in and of itself. Murton earned his spot outright by having a great spring to back up his status going into camp, and we all were skeptical to see Baker go with 2 rookis everyday. Ronny's spring gave Baker every excuse to platoon him at the least, or bench him for Neifi, but he isn't doing that. Yet. Even though I don't like defending Baker, I think he's suprised me by sticking by a struggling young player. We'll see how long it lasts if Ronny struggles through April.