Save your “Perfect Hindsight” Brandon Jennings arguments
by tcw1 on November 15, 2009
Like clockwork, here they come...
I went to Camp Randall yesterday to watch the Badgers muck Fichigan (did I misspell that?), so I don't have any statistical analysis prepared yet on last night's 129-125 victory over the Golden State Warriors, except this. The Bucks defense played 21.7 points
below the NBA road average against the Warriors, while the Bucks offense played 17.1 points above the NBA road average against the Warriors, so overall a poor game for the Antlers (-4.6), but Brandon Jennings incredible double nickel saved the team's bacon. Which brings me to my main topic...
...
Hindsight drafting is still reckless drafting
...
Suddenly I'm catching all sorts of flak for allegedly "whining" about the Brandon Jennings draft selection. This is akin to someone winning big on a roulette wheel spin and then teasing his friend all night for not participating because the friend rightly believed the wheel to be a sucker's investment. I knew such criticism was coming though, because it is the most common and annoying logical fallacy argument in existence... the "Perfect Hindsight" argument: "
Because it worked, therefore it was right".
...
I stand by my original analysis, and will do so until the end of time. The Brandon Jennings selection -- at the time it was made -- was reckless. Just because it appears to have succeeded retrospectively does not make it less so, unless those arguing the point own flux capacitors that allowed them to travel forward in time and view Jennings' first half month of NBA action way back in June. I highly doubt that. A sound drafting strategy should be based upon the best evidence available and historical precedent, not outliers.
...
So let's take a look at what was in front of the Bucks when the Jennings pick was made last summer. The evidence was all negative.
...
In June, where was the evidence to suggest Jennings had the capacity to make 21 out of 34 shots in an NBA game? His high school stats? You must have some kind of "adjustment model". His European field goal percentage (38.7%)? Not unless you operate on the premise that European defenses are more stringent than NBA defenses (although you might be able to sell me on that point when it comes to the Golden State Warriors).
...
In June, where was the precedent suggesting point guards with scant experience could competently run an NBA team? Sebastian Telfair? Stephon Marbury?
...
And if you argue "what about Jennings athleticism?". I would answer that the streets and YMCAs of this country are full of NBA busts who could run and jump but could not play productive basketball. Where is Marcus Haislip anyway?
...
And if you insist I should have put blind trust in the Bucks brass's ability to identify players with "upside", I would simply point out the lottery pick track record (prior to Jennings) of the current regime, a record, I would note, that is comprised
entirely of players alleged to possess massive "upside" potential: Rodney White, Darko Milicic, and Joe Alexander. How did upper management's "upside" radars fail them so clearly when they made, or were part of making, those disastrous picks, while seemingly succeeding with the Jennings pick? Answer: it didn't. All four picks were guesses. They hit on one of four.
...
I don't mind being called out when I'm wrong... and I'm frequently wrong... but if you're going to make "I told you so" arguments based entirely on your perfect hindsight, I don't want to hear them. Such arguments are based on complete logical fallacies. Not only that, if said logic is your guide post, it undoubtedly leads back to a continuation of the reckless drafting practices that have practically destroyed the Bucks franchise over the last decade.
...
Footnote: BTW, if you criticize me for being overly pessimistic about Jennings' potential, as Blake often does, that criticism I'll happily take, because its fair and correct. But that's a fundamentally different argument altogether.
...
Tagged as:
Brandon Jennings,
Milwaukee Bucks,
NBA
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Aha! And that is why my “gut” trumps your “stats”. Well, sometimes…
Ever have a feeling that a certain player coming into the NBA is gonna be great? That’s what I felt with Jennings, I knew that all his stats in Italy didn’t mean a thing because of how different it was there, he isn’t as cocky as most people assume either.
And that is why Jennings should be added to your list of miscalculations. (A list that includes Anthony Randolph and to some extent, OJ Mayo).
Dude, the Bucks have a guy taking the league by storm… just broke the 7′2″ physically dominant all-time scoring leader’s rookie record – at 6′1″, scoring 61.7% in a win… don’t tell me some flak is really the 1000 words on your mind right now.
I didn’t even get to turn on the game until Skiles’ press conference and that didn’t even matter as it sunk in what had happened. How exciting, and surreal. Bucks fans are not conditioned to handle this, so it’s not surprising if we all have to learn how to process it at times haha. I know I did as I sat there.
my gut was just hoping he wouldn’t suck, while scared shitless at the likelihood that he’d be another Telfair.
Maybe John Hammond was simply telling the truth when he said the draft is a crapshoot. And for all these statistical matrices that are now abounding, the best way to build your team is the “Waiting for Kareem” method. The current teams of Cleveland, Boston, Orlando, and Lakers seemed to have all used this method. But for the grace of God, Dwight Howard turned out not to be the next Kwami Brown.
Define reckless for a team that has gotten past the first round of the playoffs just once in the last 18 years? Fact is the Bucks have needed a major shot in the arm so taking a “safe” player didn’t seem to make much sense. Unless of course, management/players/fans have some sort of lower expectations than the rest of the league. W/o a doubt, many predicted around draft time that Jennings had the most boom/bust potential.