A Breakdown of the Caliper Profile

[Clay Davis]

A thread from 14 years ago: Why?

Because we are heading into what some believe is the worst NBA draft ever. And Andrea Bargnani was drafted #1 in 2006.... also considered one of the worst drafts ever. Apparently Bargnani was drafted over Aldridge because of his "off the charts" Caliper Profile psychological test scores. Bargnani was literally oblivious to what people though about him and Colangelo thought that would be a huge advantage. This personality trait was indeed accurate and I don't think it really helped him in his career, the way they envisioned. Oblivious is kind of a perfect word to describe Bhim.

After 14 years, do we have any new tools that can predict the successful outcome of potential draftees? NBA front offices are still getting it wrong.

Has any GM had less rizz than Colangelo? Two of the worst #1 picks of all time were made by the same guy: Fultz and Bargnani. He arguably fumbled Simmons by coddling him the same way he coddled the other two.

I think on dumping him for Bargs is pretty fair, but Fultz was mental and physical issues. He was pretty highly touted out of college, and the mock drat write ups were pretty high on him.

Is Fultz "can't-miss"? He's as close as there is to can't-miss as there is in this draft, which is loaded with great talents but devoid of a Karl-Anthony Towns-like, Kyrie Irving-like, LeBron James-like transcendent and surefire superstar. It remains to be seen how Fultz and Ben Simmons, both players who flourish with the ball in their hands, will mesh on the court. But whatever. The Sixers are going with the player with the highest ceiling, and building a team that could be a juggernaut in the future. Fultz does it all: He has phenomenal size for an NBA guard, a diverse set of offensive weapons and elite athleticism. Yes, I wonder about his decision to play his one-and-done season at a floundering collegiate program like Washington, and winning only nine games there. But the talent? Yeah, it's undeniable.

You're right about Fultz... perhaps Colangelo just has some sort of curse, and Fultz's sorrows are not indicative of low rizz on his part.

[libertyYYZ]

This is an interesting concept. It's a bit questionable since teams can sit on their "credits" indefinitely. If for example a championship team realizes it's in their interest to choose UDFA's and FA's instead of drafting and developing - they can hoard "credits", stay winning and cash in disproportionately in good drafts. There need to be checks and balances implemented. I like the draft system as it is because of the uncertainty.

The real issue wasn't the #1 in a crappy draft, it was the way that the expansion process took place when we arrived. We could've had AI instead of Camby, for example.

Furthermore, it was ignorant Americans who took too long to realize that Toronto (and Canada!) was a basketball town (country) way earlier than it was given credit for. That had all sorts of ramifications on Free Agency and the calibre of front office personnel we could attract and retain.

The hording of credits is the whole point. Don't waste your credits in a bad draft. Now, regarding top teams not picking players in the draft, they still would. All teams, bidding zero credits, would draft in reverse order of the RS standings after all teams that bid at least 1 credit. In creating the system one might decide that the teams that make the finals get 0 credits that year. That doesn't mean they don't get their draft picks.

There still needs to be limitations on hoarding. Whether it's a time frame or what - who knows. I like this as an intellectual exercise, but I'm quite comfortable with the current reality. It's far simpler.

So what happens if a team submits a bid of 100 credits and another team submits 99. Does the first team get the first pick and the second team gets the second pick? Do we bid separately for different picks - say 100 credits for the first pick and 66 for the second pick?

Tie-breakers done by coin-flip or by the ghost of David Stern?

[Yallbecrazy]

This is an interesting concept. It's a bit questionable since teams can sit on their "credits" indefinitely. If for example a championship team realizes it's in their interest to choose UDFA's and FA's instead of drafting and developing - they can hoard "credits", stay winning and cash in disproportionately in good drafts. There need to be checks and balances implemented. I like the draft system as it is because of the uncertainty.

The real issue wasn't the #1 in a crappy draft, it was the way that the expansion process took place when we arrived. We could've had AI instead of Camby, for example.

Furthermore, it was ignorant Americans who took too long to realize that Toronto (and Canada!) was a basketball town (country) way earlier than it was given credit for. That had all sorts of ramifications on Free Agency and the calibre of front office personnel we could attract and retain.

The hording of credits is the whole point. Don't waste your credits in a bad draft. Now, regarding top teams not picking players in the draft, they still would. All teams, bidding zero credits, would draft in reverse order of the RS standings after all teams that bid at least 1 credit. In creating the system one might decide that the teams that make the finals get 0 credits that year. That doesn't mean they don't get their draft picks.

There still needs to be limitations on hoarding. Whether it's a time frame or what - who knows. I like this as an intellectual exercise, but I'm quite comfortable with the current reality. It's far simpler.

[(credits going into draft - credits spent in current draft) / 2] - 1 and then rounded down = credits retained for future drafts?

example
5 credits retained + 30 given for worst record and 15 spent = 20. Then divided by 2 and minus 1 = 9 credits retained for the next year?

Most # of credits that could be carried over is 27 in this case where the worst record gets 30. (30+27)/2 = 28.5 then rounded down to 28 and minus 1 = 27.

[Merit]

The hording of credits is the whole point. Don't waste your credits in a bad draft. Now, regarding top teams not picking players in the draft, they still would. All teams, bidding zero credits, would draft in reverse order of the RS standings after all teams that bid at least 1 credit. In creating the system one might decide that the teams that make the finals get 0 credits that year. That doesn't mean they don't get their draft picks.

There still needs to be limitations on hoarding. Whether it's a time frame or what - who knows. I like this as an intellectual exercise, but I'm quite comfortable with the current reality. It's far simpler.

[(credits going into draft - credits spent in current draft) / 2] - 1 and then rounded down = credits retained for future drafts?

example
5 credits retained + 30 given for worst record and 15 spent = 20. Then divided by 2 and minus 1 = 9 credits retained for the next year?

Most # of credits that could be carried over is 27 in this case where the worst record gets 30. (30+27)/2 = 28.5 then rounded down to 28 and minus 1 = 27.

Like I said, lottery is far simpler. How long do retained credits last? Is it 3 years? 5 years? What does that do for indefinite tanking? How does it impact the teams who trade for the ability to block others? There are huge ramifications of this system.

[Yallbecrazy]

There still needs to be limitations on hoarding. Whether it's a time frame or what - who knows. I like this as an intellectual exercise, but I'm quite comfortable with the current reality. It's far simpler.

[(credits going into draft - credits spent in current draft) / 2] - 1 and then rounded down = credits retained for future drafts?

example
5 credits retained + 30 given for worst record and 15 spent = 20. Then divided by 2 and minus 1 = 9 credits retained for the next year?

Most # of credits that could be carried over is 27 in this case where the worst record gets 30. (30+27)/2 = 28.5 then rounded down to 28 and minus 1 = 27.

Like I said, lottery is far simpler. How long do retained credits last? Is it 3 years? 5 years? What does that do for indefinite tanking? How does it impact the teams who trade for the ability to block others? There are huge ramifications of this system.

I never heard of this potential system before yesterday in this thread, but in 10 minutes of thinking I created something where credits can be technically retained forever, but they lost a lot of value when not spent as they are more than halved each year resulting in a system where finishing dead last and never spending anything maxes out your credits retained by year 5 and you only have 1 more credit than you did in year 4.

[Dennis 37]

The hording of credits is the whole point. Don't waste your credits in a bad draft. Now, regarding top teams not picking players in the draft, they still would. All teams, bidding zero credits, would draft in reverse order of the RS standings after all teams that bid at least 1 credit. In creating the system one might decide that the teams that make the finals get 0 credits that year. That doesn't mean they don't get their draft picks.

There still needs to be limitations on hoarding. Whether it's a time frame or what - who knows. I like this as an intellectual exercise, but I'm quite comfortable with the current reality. It's far simpler.

So what happens if a team submits a bid of 100 credits and another team submits 99. Does the first team get the first pick and the second team gets the second pick? Do we bid separately for different picks - say 100 credits for the first pick and 66 for the second pick?

Tie-breakers done by coin-flip or by the ghost of David Stern?

The highest bid gets first overall. Tiebreaker is reverse order of RS standings.

[Dennis 37]

[(credits going into draft - credits spent in current draft) / 2] - 1 and then rounded down = credits retained for future drafts?

example
5 credits retained + 30 given for worst record and 15 spent = 20. Then divided by 2 and minus 1 = 9 credits retained for the next year?

Most # of credits that could be carried over is 27 in this case where the worst record gets 30. (30+27)/2 = 28.5 then rounded down to 28 and minus 1 = 27.

Like I said, lottery is far simpler. How long do retained credits last? Is it 3 years? 5 years? What does that do for indefinite tanking? How does it impact the teams who trade for the ability to block others? There are huge ramifications of this system.

I never heard of this potential system before yesterday in this thread, but in 10 minutes of thinking I created something where credits can be technically retained forever, but they lost a lot of value when not spent as they are more than halved each year resulting in a system where finishing dead last and never spending anything maxes out your credits retained by year 5 and you only have 1 more credit than you did in year 4.

I first discussed it about 4 years ago on the general board, but I am not the only one, so I can't say I originated the idea.

A maximum number of years of unspent credits could be included. Keep in mind the successful teams who might pick up 1 to 5 credits a year would take 5 years to accumulate enough credits to equal what a lower seed collects in one year. So the hording rule might only apply to a credit/year ratio.

[Yallbecrazy]

Like I said, lottery is far simpler. How long do retained credits last? Is it 3 years? 5 years? What does that do for indefinite tanking? How does it impact the teams who trade for the ability to block others? There are huge ramifications of this system.

I never heard of this potential system before yesterday in this thread, but in 10 minutes of thinking I created something where credits can be technically retained forever, but they lost a lot of value when not spent as they are more than halved each year resulting in a system where finishing dead last and never spending anything maxes out your credits retained by year 5 and you only have 1 more credit than you did in year 4.

I first discussed it about 4 years ago on the general board, but I am not the only one, so I can't say I originated the idea.

A maximum number of years of unspent credits could be included. Keep in mind the successful teams who might pick up 1 to 5 credits a year would take 5 years to accumulate enough credits to equal what a lower seed collects in one year. So the hording rule might only apply to a credit/year ratio.

I think reducing the number of unspent credits you can carry over to future seasons by half or so works well to prevent hoarding. Trades are kind of messed up though in this scenario.

[Merit]

[(credits going into draft - credits spent in current draft) / 2] - 1 and then rounded down = credits retained for future drafts?

example
5 credits retained + 30 given for worst record and 15 spent = 20. Then divided by 2 and minus 1 = 9 credits retained for the next year?

Most # of credits that could be carried over is 27 in this case where the worst record gets 30. (30+27)/2 = 28.5 then rounded down to 28 and minus 1 = 27.

Like I said, lottery is far simpler. How long do retained credits last? Is it 3 years? 5 years? What does that do for indefinite tanking? How does it impact the teams who trade for the ability to block others? There are huge ramifications of this system.

I never heard of this potential system before yesterday in this thread, but in 10 minutes of thinking I created something where credits can be technically retained forever, but they lost a lot of value when not spent as they are more than halved each year resulting in a system where finishing dead last and never spending anything maxes out your credits retained by year 5 and you only have 1 more credit than you did in year 4.

Interesting! Maybe something to try in a fantasy keeper league context.

[Merit]

I never heard of this potential system before yesterday in this thread, but in 10 minutes of thinking I created something where credits can be technically retained forever, but they lost a lot of value when not spent as they are more than halved each year resulting in a system where finishing dead last and never spending anything maxes out your credits retained by year 5 and you only have 1 more credit than you did in year 4.

I first discussed it about 4 years ago on the general board, but I am not the only one, so I can't say I originated the idea.

A maximum number of years of unspent credits could be included. Keep in mind the successful teams who might pick up 1 to 5 credits a year would take 5 years to accumulate enough credits to equal what a lower seed collects in one year. So the hording rule might only apply to a credit/year ratio.

I think reducing the number of unspent credits you can carry over to future seasons by half or so works well to prevent hoarding. Trades are kind of messed up though in this scenario.

Yeah there’s that as well. Do the hoarded credits retain their value 1:1 when traded?

[Yallbecrazy]

I first discussed it about 4 years ago on the general board, but I am not the only one, so I can't say I originated the idea.

A maximum number of years of unspent credits could be included. Keep in mind the successful teams who might pick up 1 to 5 credits a year would take 5 years to accumulate enough credits to equal what a lower seed collects in one year. So the hording rule might only apply to a credit/year ratio.

I think reducing the number of unspent credits you can carry over to future seasons by half or so works well to prevent hoarding. Trades are kind of messed up though in this scenario.

Yeah there’s that as well. Do the hoarded credits retain their value 1:1 when traded?

Maybe you trade the pick and the credits it will attain from how the team finishes in the upcoming year...but then pick swaps I guess are just credit swaps? It could facilitate more trades if you could give up credits along with a pick.
The only messed up thing would be a team could then spend divy up their credits across two picks which could lead to some weird angleshooting.

For example a team is carrying over 5, will get 20 from where they finish and get a 1st rounder which will be worth 7 credits. They can then put all 32 on 1 pick...there would need to be rules about not being able to add credits from one pick to another.

However other teams could then know your going to put in five credits with that 2nd pick and bid 6 or 7 to make sure they are ahead of it and then the other teams ahead of that and so on.

[Merit]

I think reducing the number of unspent credits you can carry over to future seasons by half or so works well to prevent hoarding. Trades are kind of messed up though in this scenario.

Yeah there’s that as well. Do the hoarded credits retain their value 1:1 when traded?

Maybe you trade the pick and the credits it will attain from how the team finishes in the upcoming year...but then pick swaps I guess are just credit swaps? It could facilitate more trades if you could give up credits along with a pick.
The only messed up thing would be a team could then spend divy up their credits across two picks which could lead to some weird angleshooting.

For example a team is carrying over 5, will get 20 from where they finish and get a 1st rounder which will be worth 7 credits. They can then put all 32 on 1 pick...there would need to be rules about not being able to add credits from one pick to another.

However other teams could then know your going to put in five credits with that 2nd pick and bid 6 or 7 to make sure they are ahead of it and then the other teams ahead of that and so on.

Another reason why I like the simplicity of the current system.