Comments on: Detroit Pistons #DraftDreams: Andrew Nicholson http://www.pistonpowered.com/2012/05/detroit-pistons-draftdreams-andrew-nicholson/ Your Go-To Source For Pistons Coverage Wed, 22 May 2013 13:45:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: Debroah Alperin http://www.pistonpowered.com/2012/05/detroit-pistons-draftdreams-andrew-nicholson/comment-page-1/#comment-140413 Debroah Alperin Wed, 10 Apr 2013 04:06:10 +0000 http://www.pistonpowered.com/?p=9980#comment-140413 Watch Sports Live On Your PC And Never Miss Another Game Again. No Contacts,No Hassles Just A One Off Payment For 24/7 Access To Your Favorite Sports. http://bit.ly/watch-sports-live Watch Sports Live On Your PC And Never Miss Another Game Again. No Contacts,No Hassles Just A One Off Payment For 24/7 Access To Your Favorite Sports. http://bit.ly/watch-sports-live

]]> By: frankie d http://www.pistonpowered.com/2012/05/detroit-pistons-draftdreams-andrew-nicholson/comment-page-1/#comment-66610 frankie d Sun, 13 May 2012 19:25:23 +0000 http://www.pistonpowered.com/?p=9980#comment-66610 "I was very clearly saying the argument sucked, not you. A criticism of an argument is not a criticism of a person. Snide condescension is insulting to the person and not just to that person’s idea. " where do the rules of the universe so dictate this conclusion? you state a bunch of conclusions that you've conveniently brought forward to  justify your conduct, without any evidence supporting those conclusions, other than your own conclusions.  i guess one is supposed to take judicial notice and simply move forward. you have no idea what my tone was supposed to address.  i could have reacted with that tone, in response to your argument.  assuming that i was being condescending to you as a person is simply not supported by anything i've stated.   in fact, i repeatedly stated that you were more than welcome to maintain any ideas you liked.  that it was your prerogative.  i simply stated that i had a different view.  because of what i do for a living, i am very accumstomed to having knock-down, drag-out arguments with others, while still maintaining good relations.    arguing ideas is just that, arguing about ideas.   while i clearly understand the "rules" which state that a person's argument and not their person can be attacked, often that is a distinction without a difference and fairly useless.  saying that someone's argument "sucked" and then hiding behind the facade that you referred to the "argument and not person" is not in keeping with the spirit of the rule. thanks for the apology.  i do appreciate it.  and i am more than willing to engage, sometimes with great passion, on any subject pertaining to BB.  as anyone who reads my posts knows, i have an opinion on just about anything.  all i ask is that anyone who wishes to engage, do so with a modicum of respect.  i certainly didn't find that in your initial response to my comments. “I was very clearly saying the argument sucked, not you. A criticism of an argument is not a criticism of a person. Snide condescension is insulting to the person and not just to that person’s idea. ”
where do the rules of the universe so dictate this conclusion?
you state a bunch of conclusions that you’ve conveniently brought forward to  justify your conduct, without any evidence supporting those conclusions, other than your own conclusions.  i guess one is supposed to take judicial notice and simply move forward.

you have no idea what my tone was supposed to address.  i could have reacted with that tone, in response to your argument.  assuming that i was being condescending to you as a person is simply not supported by anything i’ve stated.   in fact, i repeatedly stated that you were more than welcome to maintain any ideas you liked.  that it was your prerogative.  i simply stated that i had a different view.  because of what i do for a living, i am very accumstomed to having knock-down, drag-out arguments with others, while still maintaining good relations.    arguing ideas is just that, arguing about ideas.  
while i clearly understand the “rules” which state that a person’s argument and not their person can be attacked, often that is a distinction without a difference and fairly useless.  saying that someone’s argument “sucked” and then hiding behind the facade that you referred to the “argument and not person” is not in keeping with the spirit of the rule.
thanks for the apology.  i do appreciate it.  and i am more than willing to engage, sometimes with great passion, on any subject pertaining to BB.  as anyone who reads my posts knows, i have an opinion on just about anything.  all i ask is that anyone who wishes to engage, do so with a modicum of respect.  i certainly didn’t find that in your initial response to my comments.

]]> By: Josh http://www.pistonpowered.com/2012/05/detroit-pistons-draftdreams-andrew-nicholson/comment-page-1/#comment-66473 Josh Fri, 11 May 2012 18:02:22 +0000 http://www.pistonpowered.com/?p=9980#comment-66473 I was very clearly saying the argument sucked, not you. A criticism of an argument is not a criticism of a person. Snide condescension is insulting to the person and not just to that person's idea. There is a clear difference there. Still, I do apologize for poor word choice. I should have said your argument was terrible. To me there is not much difference between the two comments since they were clearly directed at the quality of the argument and not being assigned to you as a person. Still, you have no way of knowing the idiosyncrasies of my speech, and if I offended you with that comment it was completely unintentional. I'm sorry for that. I'll try to be more circumspect in my word choice going forward. I was very clearly saying the argument sucked, not you. A criticism of an argument is not a criticism of a person. Snide condescension is insulting to the person and not just to that person’s idea. There is a clear difference there. Still, I do apologize for poor word choice. I should have said your argument was terrible. To me there is not much difference between the two comments since they were clearly directed at the quality of the argument and not being assigned to you as a person. Still, you have no way of knowing the idiosyncrasies of my speech, and if I offended you with that comment it was completely unintentional. I’m sorry for that. I’ll try to be more circumspect in my word choice going forward.

]]> By: frankie d http://www.pistonpowered.com/2012/05/detroit-pistons-draftdreams-andrew-nicholson/comment-page-1/#comment-66442 frankie d Fri, 11 May 2012 02:22:42 +0000 http://www.pistonpowered.com/?p=9980#comment-66442 uhhh... let's deal with the actual record, and not your characterization of the record. I'm being insulting? seriously? well, before i responnded to anything you had posted, this is what you stated: "By the way, your conclusion was sound, I just thought your argument sucked. " describing what another poster has  written as having "sucked" does not appear to me to be "friendly" and not insulting.  imho, saying that someone - who has not even adfdressed you - "sucked" is about as insulting and as condescending and as unfriendly as it gets. so let's deal with what actually happened.  if you want someone to respond in a certain way, saying that they "sucked" is probably not the way to initiate a discussion. my tone? you can characterize it in any way you wish.  but there is nothing in anything i've written that describes you as having "sucked". uhhh…
let’s deal with the actual record, and not your characterization of the record.
I’m being insulting?
seriously?
well, before i responnded to anything you had posted, this is what you stated:
“By the way, your conclusion was sound, I just thought your argument sucked. ”
describing what another poster has  written as having “sucked” does not appear to me to be “friendly” and not insulting.  imho, saying that someone – who has not even adfdressed you – “sucked” is about as insulting and as condescending and as unfriendly as it gets.
so let’s deal with what actually happened.  if you want someone to respond in a certain way, saying that they “sucked” is probably not the way to initiate a discussion.
my tone? you can characterize it in any way you wish.  but there is nothing in anything i’ve written that describes you as having “sucked”.

]]> By: Josh http://www.pistonpowered.com/2012/05/detroit-pistons-draftdreams-andrew-nicholson/comment-page-1/#comment-66436 Josh Thu, 10 May 2012 21:55:41 +0000 http://www.pistonpowered.com/?p=9980#comment-66436 Wow, you totally gave me the basis for what may have been an erroneous inference. Yes, the simple point I started commenting on didn't imply that, and that wasn't what got me started. I started by a desire to point out how weak the argument was, even if I didn't disagree with the argument in it's entirety. It was later that the basis for the implication was made. In my second post, I say that I agree that teams shouldn't reach for size. I had other things to say based on what you wrote, but I did agree with that part. Then you sarcastically call Pritchard a liar. You then finish with "teams reach on guards and forwards just as often as they reach for big, stiff seven footers. good to know." I'd say when you consider the combination of your condescending tone with the words spoken after I already agreed that teams reach for big guys to be sufficient basis to think you were implying that the facts suggest 7 footers were reached for way more often than all other players.   It seems obvious that this is a simple example of the medium being used for the conversation not being great at relaying the information. That said, it really doesn't help that you've been so condescending in this thread already. Now I see your calling my inferences as baseless and combine it with the other stuff you've said and it seems like you are calling me dumb. Again, you might not be saying that. Considering the fact that you already came off as such a jerk and already talked down to me like I was an idiot, it makes it seem like you are trying to be insulting with that line too. This is what human beings do, they read into what is being said, and sometimes they find things that aren't there. When doing so, we use context clues to help us figure out what people mean, and in a setting like this we look at everything that was said in the thread. I say, "Teams shouldn’t reach just to get size. That’s because they shouldn’t reach at all." You talk down to me, so I assume you have a problem with the totality of my comment, including that part I just quoted. Maybe I should have realized that those sentences were buried by the weight of what else I had to say, but it's still logical to come to the conclusions I did.   I feel the need to add that that whole sarcastic response you gave to me was insulting, even if you weren't using insults. I don't appreciate snide comments like that one. This is generally a friendly forum, and I don't think that comment was warranted. It's not appropriate to just belittle everyone who says something you disagree with. I'd ask that you try to show a little more respect in the future instead of treating me like an imbecilic child that needs to put in his place. Wow, you totally gave me the basis for what may have been an erroneous inference. Yes, the simple point I started commenting on didn’t imply that, and that wasn’t what got me started. I started by a desire to point out how weak the argument was, even if I didn’t disagree with the argument in it’s entirety. It was later that the basis for the implication was made. In my second post, I say that I agree that teams shouldn’t reach for size. I had other things to say based on what you wrote, but I did agree with that part. Then you sarcastically call Pritchard a liar. You then finish with “teams reach on guards and forwards just as often as they reach for big, stiff seven footers. good to know.” I’d say when you consider the combination of your condescending tone with the words spoken after I already agreed that teams reach for big guys to be sufficient basis to think you were implying that the facts suggest 7 footers were reached for way more often than all other players.
 
It seems obvious that this is a simple example of the medium being used for the conversation not being great at relaying the information. That said, it really doesn’t help that you’ve been so condescending in this thread already. Now I see your calling my inferences as baseless and combine it with the other stuff you’ve said and it seems like you are calling me dumb. Again, you might not be saying that. Considering the fact that you already came off as such a jerk and already talked down to me like I was an idiot, it makes it seem like you are trying to be insulting with that line too. This is what human beings do, they read into what is being said, and sometimes they find things that aren’t there. When doing so, we use context clues to help us figure out what people mean, and in a setting like this we look at everything that was said in the thread. I say, “Teams shouldn’t reach just to get size. That’s because they shouldn’t reach at all.” You talk down to me, so I assume you have a problem with the totality of my comment, including that part I just quoted. Maybe I should have realized that those sentences were buried by the weight of what else I had to say, but it’s still logical to come to the conclusions I did.
 
I feel the need to add that that whole sarcastic response you gave to me was insulting, even if you weren’t using insults. I don’t appreciate snide comments like that one. This is generally a friendly forum, and I don’t think that comment was warranted. It’s not appropriate to just belittle everyone who says something you disagree with. I’d ask that you try to show a little more respect in the future instead of treating me like an imbecilic child that needs to put in his place.

]]> By: frankie d http://www.pistonpowered.com/2012/05/detroit-pistons-draftdreams-andrew-nicholson/comment-page-1/#comment-66399 frankie d Wed, 09 May 2012 20:28:18 +0000 http://www.pistonpowered.com/?p=9980#comment-66399 " the implications of your statement was that it was extremely rare for teams to reach for smaller guys in order to fill a need. It’s just not accurate to say teams reach for 7 footers way more than everyone else combined. " wow...i said nothing of the sort.  and my simple point implied nothing of that sort. i could get into a discussion of that issue, but that is certainly not what i was discussing.  i was discussing teams reaching for big men, not some sort of relative comparison between how often teams reached for big men as opposed to non-big men. my statements were my statements.  while it is reasonable to infer certain matters from any statement made, there has to be a basis for it.  i was thinking and writing strictly about big men. now, i do have an opinion about such matters, though i've not discussed them yet. imho, when teams reach for need - drafting say a SF because they need him, as opposed to drafting the SG who may have a higher rating - the differential is not that great.  the SF may have been  rated 3 or 4 spots down.   often, you could make a reasonable argument for taking a guy like that a bit higher than he should have been taken. what often happens with big guys is that they get taken far above where they should be taken, sometimes even landing in the lottery when they may have been rated from 15-30.  Fortunately, it appears that most teams have learned their lessons and you see fewer examples of that kind of reach, but for years it was something that happened on a fairly regular basis.  teams drafting guys who were essentially back up centers in the top 5.  i actually agree that the bigger issue is drafting for need.  i just think that the most egregious form of that problem arises when teams do it for size. “ the implications of your statement was that it was extremely rare for teams to reach for smaller guys in order to fill a need. It’s just not accurate to say teams reach for 7 footers way more than everyone else combined. ”
wow…i said nothing of the sort.  and my simple point implied nothing of that sort.
i could get into a discussion of that issue, but that is certainly not what i was discussing.  i was discussing teams reaching for big men, not some sort of relative comparison between how often teams reached for big men as opposed to non-big men.
my statements were my statements.  while it is reasonable to infer certain matters from any statement made, there has to be a basis for it.  i was thinking and writing strictly about big men.
now, i do have an opinion about such matters, though i’ve not discussed them yet.
imho, when teams reach for need – drafting say a SF because they need him, as opposed to drafting the SG who may have a higher rating – the differential is not that great.  the SF may have been  rated 3 or 4 spots down.   often, you could make a reasonable argument for taking a guy like that a bit higher than he should have been taken.
what often happens with big guys is that they get taken far above where they should be taken, sometimes even landing in the lottery when they may have been rated from 15-30.  Fortunately, it appears that most teams have learned their lessons and you see fewer examples of that kind of reach, but for years it was something that happened on a fairly regular basis.  teams drafting guys who were essentially back up centers in the top 5. 
i actually agree that the bigger issue is drafting for need.  i just think that the most egregious form of that problem arises when teams do it for size.

]]> By: Josh http://www.pistonpowered.com/2012/05/detroit-pistons-draftdreams-andrew-nicholson/comment-page-1/#comment-66395 Josh Wed, 09 May 2012 19:14:45 +0000 http://www.pistonpowered.com/?p=9980#comment-66395 Right. Big men are always an area of need, so someone always reaches for them. My point is the problem is they are reaching to fill a need instead of getting a good player. I do think the difference between teams reach for size and teams reach for need is a significant point of departure though. Reaching for big men is just a symptom of the team drafting on need and not on talent. I also didn't really like my anecdotal evidence used to make my point, but the implications of your statement was that it was extremely rare for teams to reach for smaller guys in order to fill a need. It's just not accurate to say teams reach for 7 footers way more than everyone else combined. Teams reach for PFs and shooters in just about every draft, not just for the elusive giant to man the middle. Admittedly there is some overlap when the power forward or shooter is right around 7 feet tall. Jan Vessely and Austin Daye respectively are recent examples of guys that fit both criteria. To be honest, Dumars seems quite fond of reaching for small forwards, which is why they were what I initially chose. Rodney White, Austin Daye, Walter Sharpe, DaJuan Summers... The point is that I feel just saying the problem is reaching for size is needlessly exclusionary. Right. Big men are always an area of need, so someone always reaches for them. My point is the problem is they are reaching to fill a need instead of getting a good player. I do think the difference between teams reach for size and teams reach for need is a significant point of departure though. Reaching for big men is just a symptom of the team drafting on need and not on talent. I also didn’t really like my anecdotal evidence used to make my point, but the implications of your statement was that it was extremely rare for teams to reach for smaller guys in order to fill a need. It’s just not accurate to say teams reach for 7 footers way more than everyone else combined. Teams reach for PFs and shooters in just about every draft, not just for the elusive giant to man the middle. Admittedly there is some overlap when the power forward or shooter is right around 7 feet tall. Jan Vessely and Austin Daye respectively are recent examples of guys that fit both criteria. To be honest, Dumars seems quite fond of reaching for small forwards, which is why they were what I initially chose. Rodney White, Austin Daye, Walter Sharpe, DaJuan Summers… The point is that I feel just saying the problem is reaching for size is needlessly exclusionary.

]]> By: frankie d http://www.pistonpowered.com/2012/05/detroit-pistons-draftdreams-andrew-nicholson/comment-page-1/#comment-66389 frankie d Wed, 09 May 2012 17:05:36 +0000 http://www.pistonpowered.com/?p=9980#comment-66389 not really sure what you are arguing about.  it seems as though you are simply arguing to argue. you make my point for me, but curiously dismiss it. you state:  "The fact that 7 footers are what is more commonly reached for is besides the point." well, you are welcome to believe that, but that is exactly the point i was making and whether you believe that it is beside the point is irrelevant to me.   do teams reach for need?  but i never said that teams did not reach for other types of players and that is not the issue. the most common need that teams reach for, anecdoctal evidence to the contrary, is a seven footer who typically doesn't justify being picked so high, other than the fact that teams are desperate for size.   again, that view is so commonly held, it is curious that anyone would argue against it.   most gms  admits that they do it. as to your contention that my argument "sucks", well, you are welcome to that view also.  it is your opinion, and i really don't give a hoot if you think my argument sucks.  that view, is after all, totally subjective, without any real reference to objective criteria, so...what the hey.  you're welcome to think whatever you think. i suppose i could have gone through the history of the draft and come up with 40 years worth of specific examples, but again, imho, it is so non-controversial that it doesn't warrant that kind of effort. for instance, this is what a guy like chad ford, who is obviously plugged into most nba gm thought, stated: "what will be the effect on the lack of success for Oden and Thabeet for future center draft picks? Chad Ford (1:57 PM) None. <strong>Teams will always reach for big guys.</strong> That's why guys like Cole Aldrich and Solomon Alabi are so high on the board. It isn't that they're the most talented players on the Board, but e<strong>very year teams reach hoping to hit a home run. In most cases, they strike out.</strong> " <a href="http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/30208/nba-insider-chad-ford" rel="nofollow">http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/30208/nba-insider-chad-ford</a> this was stated a couple of years ago, during one of his chats.  again, this is what happens.  everyone knows about it.  i don't care if you don't like my examples.  you even  stated that what i said was correct.   its a commonly held truism that often distorts drafts.   why you'd want to argue about such an obvious syndrome is curious. not really sure what you are arguing about. 
it seems as though you are simply arguing to argue.
you make my point for me, but curiously dismiss it.
you state: 
“The fact that 7 footers are what is more commonly reached for is besides the point.”
well, you are welcome to believe that, but that is exactly the point i was making and whether you believe that it is beside the point is irrelevant to me.  
do teams reach for need?  but i never said that teams did not reach for other types of players and that is not the issue.
the most common need that teams reach for, anecdoctal evidence to the contrary, is a seven footer who typically doesn’t justify being picked so high, other than the fact that teams are desperate for size.  
again, that view is so commonly held, it is curious that anyone would argue against it.   most gms  admits that they do it.
as to your contention that my argument “sucks”, well, you are welcome to that view also.  it is your opinion, and i really don’t give a hoot if you think my argument sucks.  that view, is after all, totally subjective, without any real reference to objective criteria, so…what the hey.  you’re welcome to think whatever you think.
i suppose i could have gone through the history of the draft and come up with 40 years worth of specific examples, but again, imho, it is so non-controversial that it doesn’t warrant that kind of effort.
for instance, this is what a guy like chad ford, who is obviously plugged into most nba gm thought, stated:

“what will be the effect on the lack of success for Oden and Thabeet for future center draft picks?
Chad Ford
(1:57 PM)

None. Teams will always reach for big guys. That’s why guys like Cole Aldrich and Solomon Alabi are so high on the board. It isn’t that they’re the most talented players on the Board, but every year teams reach hoping to hit a home run. In most cases, they strike out. ”
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/30208/nba-insider-chad-ford

this was stated a couple of years ago, during one of his chats.  again, this is what happens.  everyone knows about it.  i don’t care if you don’t like my examples.  you even  stated that what i said was correct.   its a commonly held truism that often distorts drafts.   why you’d want to argue about such an obvious syndrome is curious.

]]> By: Josh http://www.pistonpowered.com/2012/05/detroit-pistons-draftdreams-andrew-nicholson/comment-page-1/#comment-66379 Josh Wed, 09 May 2012 13:12:45 +0000 http://www.pistonpowered.com/?p=9980#comment-66379 I don't see how that is remotely relevant to my point. My point is twofold. 1: Your argument sucks. You list a bunch of big guys that teams reached for and ignored the fact that teams reach in other areas and get burned there too. You are also cherry picking cases like crazy, which leaves your argument open to attack. I'm showing why that is an inherently crappy way to make an argument. 2: I think the problem is reaching to fill a need, and I mean any need. Your argument is far too narrow. Minny had Love and Darko and felt they really needed to fill a need at SF so they took Wes Johnson over Cousins and Monroe. That was dumb. Maybe not Sam Perkins over Jordan dumb, but as dumb as the rest of your list. There are plenty of similar examples of small guys being who was reached for. Atlanta reached for Marvin Williams (over Paul and Williams), Shelden Williams, and Acie Law in back to back to back drafts. I know they are the Hawks, but still. To be fair, they also correctly took Al Horford in that Acie Law daft. The fact that 7 footers are what is more commonly reached for is besides the point. Teams reach for inferior prospects all the time, and it's always the wrong way to go. When they have similar grades, find the guy who fits the best. If there is a real drop off you take the better player. I don’t see how that is remotely relevant to my point. My point is twofold. 1: Your argument sucks. You list a bunch of big guys that teams reached for and ignored the fact that teams reach in other areas and get burned there too. You are also cherry picking cases like crazy, which leaves your argument open to attack. I’m showing why that is an inherently crappy way to make an argument. 2: I think the problem is reaching to fill a need, and I mean any need. Your argument is far too narrow. Minny had Love and Darko and felt they really needed to fill a need at SF so they took Wes Johnson over Cousins and Monroe. That was dumb. Maybe not Sam Perkins over Jordan dumb, but as dumb as the rest of your list. There are plenty of similar examples of small guys being who was reached for. Atlanta reached for Marvin Williams (over Paul and Williams), Shelden Williams, and Acie Law in back to back to back drafts. I know they are the Hawks, but still. To be fair, they also correctly took Al Horford in that Acie Law daft. The fact that 7 footers are what is more commonly reached for is besides the point. Teams reach for inferior prospects all the time, and it’s always the wrong way to go. When they have similar grades, find the guy who fits the best. If there is a real drop off you take the better player.

]]> By: Anthony http://www.pistonpowered.com/2012/05/detroit-pistons-draftdreams-andrew-nicholson/comment-page-1/#comment-66358 Anthony Wed, 09 May 2012 02:50:52 +0000 http://www.pistonpowered.com/?p=9980#comment-66358 If the Celtics brake up the big 3 next season can we trade the #9 pick and Daye to them for Garnett and one of their first, 1st round picks and hope for one of those "questionable" bigs in the lower end of the draft and let Garnett and Big Ben (i think he'll come back one more year) tutor him a couple years? Then we still have 2 more pics in the second round to play with. With free agency and a couple moves were back to contender status in 2 years! Not to mention we can stop talking about Charlie V and BG... In a more perfect world we let Ben call Bullips and convince him to do another year here with him and get rid of bynum and let mr. bigshot teach Knight a thing or 2 and this year we can see ourselves back in the playoffs this year! Once again, wishful thinking lol If the Celtics brake up the big 3 next season can we trade the #9 pick and Daye to them for Garnett and one of their first, 1st round picks and hope for one of those “questionable” bigs in the lower end of the draft and let Garnett and Big Ben (i think he’ll come back one more year) tutor him a couple years? Then we still have 2 more pics in the second round to play with. With free agency and a couple moves were back to contender status in 2 years! Not to mention we can stop talking about Charlie V and BG… In a more perfect world we let Ben call Bullips and convince him to do another year here with him and get rid of bynum and let mr. bigshot teach Knight a thing or 2 and this year we can see ourselves back in the playoffs this year! Once again, wishful thinking lol

]]>