2016 and 2017 most desired by GMs to start a team. Guess the player.

[tpols]

OPs post kinda highlights the whole appeal to authority logical fallacy. So basically the majority of GMs are really really bad evaluators of talent if they'd take KAT over guys like Lebron, Curry, Kawhi, Durant, Butler, shit... even Giannis. A random fan could've gave better answers.

[Wardell Curry]

OPs post kinda highlights the whole appeal to authority logical fallacy. So basically the majority of GMs are really really bad evaluators of talent if they'd take KAT over guys like Lebron, Curry, Kawhi, Durant, Butler, shit... even Giannis. A random fan could've gave better answers.

"These are serious people with serious jobs" is probably all you'll get out of OP even though yes this is a prime example of the fact that most nba executives are bad at their jobs despite getting hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to do said jobs.

This was posted on reddit within the last few days but...

https://www.sportskeeda.com/basketba...yer-ivan-renko

Bobby Knight created a fake recruit out of thin air and you still had "expert scouts" giving detailed profiles of a guy that doesn't even exist.

The simple fact of the matter is an alarming number of people skirt through life on confidence aka fraud despite their overwhelming ignorance.

[Kblaze8855]

OPs post kinda highlights the whole appeal to authority logical fallacy. So basically the majority of GMs are really really bad evaluators of talent if they'd take KAT over guys like Lebron, Curry, Kawhi, Durant, Butler, shit... even Giannis. A random fan could've gave better answers.

it does nothing even close to that. The absolute fact that some groups of people know more about a subject than other groups does not mean those people know the future. Nor does it mean there is agreement amongst themselves. So many parts of this issue are so misunderstood I feel it borders on intentional just for the sake of arguing. I know dude who posted above me has been repeating the same shit in multiple topics apparently trying to get my attention so I will talk to him about it for a few months. I suppose he thinks if he keeps mentioning me I’ll have the same long debate over that was boring the first time. He’s gonna be disappointed.

As I told you recently, I eventually just disregard people I can tell aren’t even trying to understand what’s being said to them and why. Especially when the points made are already addressed before they even get involved.

Im not explaining why “So Horry>Jordan?” is stupid in an argument about why id value being a winner and I’m not explaining why having additional information on a subject doesn’t make one clairvoyant or infallible.

The answer to some questions are so obvious I feel that to address them seriously is just wasting words. And coming from me that’s saying something. Because I will waste the **** out of a word if I’m bored.

I’m very comfortable admitting that somebody who coaches a team knows more about that team than I do from watching it occasionally on TV. Some people are apparently opposed to that idea if they feel it threatens the credibility of some argument, but I’ve grown out of caring if anybody here thinks I know what I’m talking about. I would just like more information about subjects that interest me. At the beginning of that search is acknowledging that there is information you lack in the first place.

Some groups of people know more about subjects than I do. Maybe some of you consider yourselves the ultimate authority on basketball, and are offended by the idea a higher level of knowledge could even exist, but that just isn’t me. If somebody has something to teach me I’m going to sit here and listen to it.

Its my pleasure in fact.

My knowledge is incomplete and I’d like to work on it. Hard to do if I can’t acknowledge there are people who know things I don’t.

[1987_Lakers]

When Jerry West drafted Vlade Divac I remember him saying the Lakers didn't even do much scouting on him, of course teams do more homework now, but even now there isn't an exact science to how good a player will become.

[Kblaze8855]

When Jerry West drafted Vlade Divac I remember him saying the Lakers didn't even do much scouting on him, of course teams do more homework now, but even now there isn't an exact science to how good a player will become.

never will be. Drafting and projections will always be a crapshoot not a matter of if you fundamentally understand your sport. You look at a guy like Steph Curry. The Warriors drafted him, but that doesn’t mean they really understood how good he could become either. When they traded for Bogut, they offered the Bucks Curry in the deal and it ended up being Ellis instead. Different people will give you different reasons why curry was removed from the deal, but the fact is even the Warriors after having him in their building, didn’t see him as untouchable in a trade for a middling starter big.

some years, the way it shakes out you could throw darts at a draft board and do as well as people who live the game. Between injury and hitting attitude issues and coaching changes and league changes and 1000 other factors? It’s virtually impossible to know who is going to be great in five or 10 years. You just do your best.

[Wardell Curry]

That's fine. You go ahead and let half of the league executives "teach you" why KAT is the top centerpiece to build a team around and I'll go ahead and sit over here and use my own brain and believe that's wrong.

Don't get me wrong, there's no doubt they have access to far more information than me or you or anyone else here.

That doesn't mean that they're evaluating it properly or that they understand what they're seeing because most of them clearly do not most of the time.

This argument has always boiled down to the fact that their word shouldn't be taken as gospel simply because of the positions they hold. This is what it's really all about and it's a point you likely will never move off of. And you're wrong, and that's fine.



This isn't applied mathematics. This isn't plumbing. This isn't electrical work.

This is something that gets broadcast on TV throughout the year for thousands upon thousands of hours and a dedicated enough fan absolutely can pick up on stuff that a substantial number of league executives who are not dedicated that are frauds can not pick up on. Doesn't mean that a higher percentage of dedicated fans are more often correct than most NBA GMs. The whole point is that their word should not be taken as gospel nor should it ever really be used as an argument for supporting or discounting a stance. That's it. A lot of them are bad at their jobs. A lot of former all time great players have horrible opinions that are bordering on factually incorrect. Point blank period.

I would have thought MJ, probably the best player ever, dumpster firing multiple league offices for over 20 years would have taught you that, guess not.

[FultzNationRISE]

In fairness to the GM’s, a lot of people at that time assumed Lebron was on his last legs, and probably that Curry wouldnt be too far behind. Conventional wisdom has been that stars dont stay stars past their early 30s, unless they take a two year sabbatical in their prime.

So it wouldnt be unreasonable at the time not to start a franchise with 32 year old Lebron or 30 year old Curry (or whatever age they were). Of course you still DO take Lebron no matter what, even right now today you start a franchise around him, if for no other reason to say Lebron played for your franchise, and you can hang his jersey from the rafters even if he was only there for 1 season at 39 years old.

But I can also see the decision to go with someone younger. Altho it is surprising how much consensus there was that “KAT” was that someone.

[ILLsmak]

It's just people out-thinking themselves. Plus it has to be a young guy, so it probably turned some gears. The funny thing is the assumption is that if you get a young guy that he's gonna stay. Really, a smart GM would want a guy you could get for sure like 4-5 years out of haha. Then go from there.

-Smak

[Jasper]

I remember the Bucks front office , saying not only we want good representation , but also solid character , and desire.

MN never looked into KAt's DNA.
That or Minny' s DNA is we want to continue losing , or we really don't care, and our players will learn that.

Front office picks the players ... so Minny's research did not go deep enough IMO.