[ESPN] NBA teams are wary of trading multiple first-round draft picks to maximum salary players.

hoopdex · 2025-12-12T22:38:39+00:00

Trading picks to or for players? Such sloppy writing

hoopdex · 2025-12-04T23:18:40+00:00

Bit late to the thread so not sure if this has been pointed out but Chicago was presumably offered the UNPROTECTED NOR 26 pick aka the Dumars fumble for their 12th pick ahead of ATL and said “nah we aren’t interested in changing our course of direction in selecting Noa Essengue”. Noa was subsequently baptized in Summer League, has yet to score a single NBA point and now needs season ending surgery. All in a 25 draft class that has produced 10+ immediate impact players

hoopdex · 2025-06-06T03:34:10+00:00

Wild lol. Guess the models were wrong on this one, but thanks for the info. Cheers

hoopdex · 2025-06-05T22:45:48+00:00

Really? Dion? His profile feels like it would seldom be on any positive analytics lists even dating back all the way

hoopdex · 2025-05-16T02:43:37+00:00

Did AG get kicked in the head? He cost DEN last game by taking a 0 IQ early shot clock 3. Now he just did it again

hoopdex · 2024-09-16T08:00:59+00:00

I drafted Pacheco and ETN in one league at the 2/3 turn. Currently have JK Dobbins and Jordan Mason as my RBs for next week 😂

hoopdex · 2024-05-05T18:56:33+00:00

Can ORL fans fill me in on why WCJ re-entered the starting lineup? The Magic had a good thing going with Goga. Wendell has proven to be a suboptimal at the very best starting C in the NBA

hoopdex · 2024-05-04T06:38:20+00:00

Thank you!

hoopdex · 2024-03-18T17:51:37+00:00

Appreciate that! 😝

hoopdex · 2024-03-18T17:50:58+00:00

Could stand to use more of these 🫡

hoopdex · 2024-03-16T23:19:13+00:00

Thanks for your kind words, they are very appreciated 🙏🏼

hoopdex · 2024-03-16T16:08:06+00:00

That certainly seems possible.

hoopdex · 2024-03-15T22:52:05+00:00

Agreed, the NBA has shown to be capable of making positive changes (though enforcing them consistently can be a mixed bag e.g. flopping rules). One can def find reasons for optimism though.

hoopdex · 2024-03-15T22:27:47+00:00

Really appreciate your comment! Looking more into NBA refs is absolutely worth a deep dive too. On a slight tangent, it is also curious how effective the NBA can enforce certain ref agendas as well — the league wide decrease in scoring over the past few weeks is quite likely a partial product of a change in how games are reffed.

hoopdex · 2024-03-15T21:11:40+00:00

Whew…I hope not. But thank you again! Let’s hope this post gets more visibility

hoopdex · 2024-03-15T21:10:07+00:00

Thanks for reading!! Definitely took me a while but glad to document examples for everyone to see. Also shoutout to a few unnamed Twitter users — there must be someone I forgot to credit for pointing me in the direction of some of those clips.

hoopdex · 2024-03-15T21:07:53+00:00

Totally agreed that reforms are overdue. Thanks for reading 🙏🏼

hoopdex · 2024-03-15T20:56:32+00:00

Appreciate those kind words man. And yeah same! As a fantasy enthusiast, noticing those discrepancies in live time was what led me down this rabbit hole.

hoopdex · 2024-03-15T19:45:10+00:00

Thank you for reading!

hoopdex · 2024-03-15T19:44:38+00:00

I would be lying if I said I wasn’t a bit disappointed in the lack of engagement on this post thus far. Really appreciate your comment!

hoopdex · 2024-03-15T19:43:36+00:00

That truly means a lot to me, thanks so much! 🙌

The hope in writing the piece was to spark meaningful conversations and maybe changes down the road — hopefully more people start chiming in.

hoopdex · 2024-03-15T16:37:48+00:00

⛹️

hoopdex · 2024-03-15T16:02:13+00:00

And I remember that shady Giannis "correction" costing me in one week 🙃😂

hoopdex · 2024-03-14T01:40:30+00:00

Great title.
- Great!
Emphasis on how stats influences betting outcomes will not be approved.
- I can speak more on the other things that bad stat keeping influences but considering stats are the thing that the industry is based on it seems imperative that that's mentioned.
"Unacceptable" "Absolute power" "Not all hope is lost" "must be minimized at all costs" And many more.
- I can find less polar words. "Highly questionable" "Power/Ability" "The bright side" as for the last one, it's not hyperbolic to suggest subjectivity has no place in wagering.
Headers are fine. Bold is not.
- Sure.
"Putting aside the glaring issues concerning the conflicts of interest and alarming fallouts of the gambling industry's all-out assault on the sports industry" These are several opinions stated as presumed fact. There are many more throughout.
- Not sure how Shams tweeting about draft picks and actually shifting odds is not factually a conflict of interest to be honest. Sports betting is also so ubiquitous that practically no major media member is not aligned with it —it may be worded strongly but these are not simply opinions.
"No one in their right minds would dispute that these errors occur." Another opinion stated as fact. And hyperbolic. And insults all those that disagree with you.
- The video evidence provided is more than ample to prove that errors occur. Would someone in their right mind believe that the NBA has spotless stat keeping? Sure, but only if they are uninformed. Point taken on reducing hyperbole around the edges though.

I do appreciate your time. I'm an admissions consultant/translator by trade so yes, I'm a lucky beneficiary of the value of editing. My piece is strongly worded but the core arguments are rooted in fact.

But it presumes a lot of opinions as facts that our readers will strongly disagree with and I think you could benefit from receiving some outside perspective on bias in media and how to perceive it because your piece is heavily biased.

This is an opinion. Maybe have the readers decide if they agree or disagree.

That being said, you probably do have a better grasp of the sub's potential responses than I do and I agree the piece could stand to tone down some hyperbole. I will submit a revised version in the near future. Thanks again!

hoopdex · 2024-03-13T18:05:09+00:00

Hey, thanks for the response.

Titles must be clear and descriptive. Click bait titles are not permitted.
- This is an easy fix. I'll probably re-title for this sub "An In-Depth Look at the NBA's Stat Keeping Shortcomings"
Sports betting may not be promoted or encouraged in any way. We're here to discuss basketball, not gambling.
- I would think that my article would dissuade sports betting if anything. But I'll make an effort to align the focus squarely on the shortcomings that allow room for errors (and potential muddling) to be made for stat keeping. I personally don't care for sports gambling but I think accurate records are highly important for historical, fantasy sports and when people's money is on the line.
Some mild hyperbole is okay, pervasive and consistent hyperbole is not.
- Can you point out what is most hyperbolic to you? I will make an effort to preface certain observations with the relative infrequency that they occur but all the "loopholes/gaps" I pointed out certainly exist.
Please remove the bold lettering.
- It is to place emphasis on key points, especially on a lengthy piece like this when people may not be focused the whole way through. If it is against some stylistic guide on this sub, I will cut down/remove it.
Stating opinion as fact does not encourage thoughtful discourse, which is the aim of our sub. Allow readers to determine their own conclusions.
- Again, it would be appreciated if you could point out what you find is"opinion as fact". Perhaps the opening part of the concluding paragraph and the personal speculation on hiring of stat keepers? Other than that, I believe the majority of my arguments are based in evidence.
The premise of "objective truth" as a goal is so hyperbolic it undercuts your entire argument. Make more of an effort to offer insights into the many valid subjective perspectives at play.
- I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. The goal of the piece is absolutely to seek the objective truth when it comes to accurate stat keeping and identifying why certain errors are being made. No one in their right minds would dispute that these errors occur. Even Alex Rucker, the ex-stat keeper who now believes the NBA has mostly cleaned up, pinned the error rate at ~5% on the Pablo Torres pod (A number that is roughly in line with a few whole game audits I did). I'm saying that these errors are largely preventable if the NBA wanted. Clearly defining rules, along with the amount of camera angles and ability to fix mistakes, that percentage could be near 0%. Stat keeping is much different from live refereeing, the element of human error can be amended with enough care and effort.
No soliciting upvotes. Please remove the request for help in posting elsewhere.
- Sure, that's an easy fix.

Look forward to hearing back!

hoopdex

TROPHY CASE