It's A Number Game But Shit Don't Add Up Somehow

From the time I got on the bus yesterday morning until when he stopped texting me back seven hours later, Smallz and I exchanged mini-diatribes about the NBA Draft ranging from which player the Wolves should take with the fourth pick to the proper way to evaluate talent and construct a team to the other person's deficiencies at evaluating talent and those of their chosen method to constructing a team. Basically our arguments were this.

Smallz loves efficient players. Thus Kevin Love is his one shining beacon on our entire roster. As such Al Jefferson inspires much hatred in Smallz's gut. Not only does Jefferson play the same position as Love but inefficiently uses the ball in offensive situations Love would efficiently use them. His evidence is statistics and his team-building philosophy is to find other efficient players to pair with Love.

I, on the other hand, believe Jefferson is inefficient because he needs to be. Love is a good player and a compliment to Jefferson. But efficiency statistics don't tell the whole story. As the most offensively-skilled player on the Wolves, a less-than-efficient attempt from Jefferson is still better than passing the ball to a less talented teammate. Being the focus of the offense and the volume of his shots he can't cherry-pick only the best attempts. Basketball is scored as a quantitative game, not an efficiency game, and to remove Jefferson without a suitable replacement will only focus the defense on another lesser player.

(Further reading found HERE.)

This is especially important with the NBA draft coming up. Since the Wolves didn't get one of the surefire guys at the very top of the draft, their path forward is a lot less clear. Smallz wants to trade Jefferson to free playing time for Love and draft Kentucky's DeMarcus Cousins, a freakishly large center who may have character issues. I want to keep both Jefferson and Love while drafting Syracuse small forward Wesley Johnson, a lower risk lower reward player who plays a position of need. We could argue back and forth for hours (and did) about which one would be a better fit for Minnesota. I wanted to model the problem and get some results now.

How I Used Math To "Solve" the Problem

So let's assume three things. First that either Cousins or Johnson could boom or bust with equal likelihood. Let's just say Cousins wider range of possible outcomes averages out to Johnson's thinner range to make things easier. Second, let's assume the pick is an independent outcome. Let's say if Minnesota picked Cousins they wouldn't keep Jefferson and his minutes would go to DeMarcus. Third, the actual outcome will be one of many possible outcomes. When a weatherman says 55% chance of rain and it doesn't, he was right. It just fell in the 45% he didn't mention.

Here's the "game" I developed. Imagine every possible outcome for DeMarcus Cousins' and Wesley Johnson's careers is represented by a playing card. Since they are top draft picks they are more likely to succeed than fail so all face cards represent complete success (being a cornerstone), ten through six represent qualified success (being an NBA starter) and five through two mean they bust. I could look up the real success rate but let's keep it simple. Now draw two cards, one representing Cousins and the other representing Johnson. Reset the deck, reshuffle the cards and repeat the process 100 times.

(Or do like I did and use a random card generator like THIS ONE.)

What I found is Cousins is a cornerstone 37% of the time, a starter 38% of the time and a bust 25% of the time. Likewise Johnson is a cornerstone 38% of the time, a starter 33% of the time and a bust 29% of the time. In 48% of the cases Cousins is the better player while Johnson is the better player 45% of the time. (The remaining 7% is when they're even.) It's also worth noting Cousins is significantly better 27% of the time while Johnson is significantly better 26% of the time.

So what do the results tell us about who the Wolves should take? Nothing. This is a simplified model of an enormously complex system. But within the context of the system it says we should expect any result to be possible. In that way both experience and this simulation align. In the NBA Draft eventually you have to play the odds and hope for the best.

P.S. This is the raw data from my simulation. Cousins is on the left and Johnson on the right. Ignore the symbols. That's just me coding the data.

CJ

A4**
A3**
A9**
88-
610++

610++
Q8**
QK*
63*
32*

5J++
10Q+
9J+
87*
410++

56*
3Q++
34+
5A++
67+

109*
QJ*
4K++
82**
109*

63*
56+
7Q++
86*
J8**

3A++
910+
5K++
J9*
Q4**

103**
KJ*
JQ+
A2**
9Q+

25+
K5**
9Q+
4A++
63*

44-
6K++
6Q++
9K++
K3**

KJ*
8A++
5J++
8Q++
A5**

25++
7Q++
KA+
K8**
A3**

J3**
22-
J3**
37++
24+

76*
9J+
A4**
3K++
QJ*

KA+
88-
53*
A8**
82**

36+
J8*
8Q++
J7**
Q9*

6J++
AA-
6A++
A5**
310++

92**
QQ-
JK+
56+
8Q++

8J+
Q9*
Q6**
Q5**
810+

J2**
33-
104**
A7**
QA+

The Oscars

Since the Oscars are on tonight, I thought I'd throw up some quick predictions before the show and then update with some reactions later.

I have a pretty simple lithmus test for the Oscars. I believe that Oscars should stick out. Either because it was a touchstone role or because that actor's oeuvre stands out amongst their piers. Basically the Oscars should be celebrating the best movies have to offer. My updated notes are in italics.

Best Picture - No Country For Old Men

This was the best reviewed movie of the year hands down and the consensus seemed to settle on this being the best picture of the year. "There Will Be Blood" was the sort of movie a lot of people felt very strongly about (including me) and that probably pushed its profile up a bit. "Juno" had a dark horse chance in the same way "Little Miss Sunshine" did last year. But ultimately it was No Country for Old Men's award to lose and it didn't.

Best Actor - Daniel Day-Lewis

I read an article recently that Daniel Day Lewis has done only 9 movies since winning his first Oscar in 1989 and has garnered Best Actor noms for three of them. That means he is Academy nominated in 40% of his movies and has won an Oscar 1 in 5 times he's appeared onscreen in the last ten years.

So I'm sorry for Johnny Depp and that years from now he'll be "can you believe he's never won?" discussions. He ran into (successively) Sean Penn in "Mystic River", Jamie Foxx in "Ray" and Daniel Day Lewis in "There Will Be Blood."

Best Actress - Laura Linney

I like Laura Linney and I was hoping for a "lifetime achievement" award for her. I mean, since 1996, she's only been in "Primal Fear", "The Truman Show", "You Can Count On Me", "Mystic River", "Love Actually", "Kinsey", "The Squid and the Whale" and "Breach". I'm not mad Oscars. (Unlike last year when Jennifer Hudson won.) I'm just disappointed.

Best Supporting Actor - Javier Bardem

I can't really argue with this one. I think Phillip Seymour Hoffman was awesome in "Charlie Wilson's War." But Bardem has been excellent in movies like "Before Night Falls" so I can't argue this win will stick out years from now. He really does deserve the award.

Best Supporting Actress - Cate Blanchett

I wanted Cate Blanchett to win for the first of the two criteria I listed above. Her role as "Don't Look Back"-era Dylan was exactly the kind of boundary-stretching which actors should aspire to and recognized for instead of the typical Oscar-bait. That said Tilda Swinton has an Oscar-worthy oeuvre and "Michael Clayton" was one of my favorite movies of the last year (which is another post entirely).

Best Director - The Coen Brothers

My heart does swell with a little civic pride when Minnesota-born directors Joel and Ethan Coen take home the gold. I want Paul Thomas Anderson to win an Oscar one day since I've pretty much enjoyed every movie the guy has made. Then again, considering he keeps getting nominations, he either will eventually or become his generation's Scorsese. And even Marty won eventually.

Best Adapted Screenplay - The Coen Brothers

Okay, a rehash of what I said about best reviewed movie and civic pride before now. Can I let you in on a secret? I still haven't seen this movie. Since my regular movie viewing partner is squemish when it comes to violence, I never got out to this one. I'll see it eventually and I'm sure I'll really like it. I just haven't yet.

Best Original Screenplay - Diablo Cody

Again, more civic pride eventhough Ms. Cody is really from Chicago. She lives in Minneapolis and I've read her book and in CityPages for years. I even remember the posts on her blog about the movie coming together. So, in a way, it's kind of like following the rise of someone from your high school into stardom.

See you after the show... Any predictions for next year? Best Picture to "Semi-Pro"?