A Breakdown of the Caliper Profile

[hype_2004]

Bargnani never love playing basketball it was a job to him, he didn't care about anyone or anything aside from getting paid and left to Italy once his bag is secured. Caliper test is only applicable is that individual has passion for the game.

[no dice]

Anything barg related makes me chuckle. I can still see his blank stares and half opened mouth.

[wolfv]

Crazy that it's nearly been 20 years since Bargs was drafted

Sent from my NE2213 using RealGM mobile app

[Jabroni Lames]

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.

Colangelo had a LOT of rizz. Problem was, Mr. Big Collars didn't have the smarts to back up all that rizz.

"It's a normal collar.... find a new slant."

[Boselecta]

This is a stupid test and scoring high can be considered a red flag imo. Bargnani was oblivious to everything and that's the issue he truly did not care if we won or if he was a all time great. The great ones care and are able to take the criticisms as motivation to become better.

[Jakay]

Bargs was pretty oblivious. Don't need a test to see that.

[agkagk]

Great post op

He was obtuse and lacked self awareness as a player- dude simply didnt work hard enough on his fitness, but literally didnt care lol

Fascinating how accurate the test proved to be in his post nba life.

Went looking for a recent video, but cant find. Long story short, hes invested heavily in agriculture businesses in italy, plus all this:

https://www.bardown.com/andrea-bargnani-s-instagram-bio-since-retiring-from-basketball-is-absolutely-wild-1.1354413

[Johnny Bball]

There’s a number of versions of this test and they are surprisingly accurate or helpful. Employers will use these tests for management positions, To benefit you have to understand that everybody can act and respond a certain way, or have a certain trait, but some people are going to at a greater frequency.

It can help you weed out certain traits that people score high on, that you might not want, for example, highly passive aggressive. I would always cut those candidates immediately.

These results can definitely change over time so you should never reference stuff from a decade ago and wonder why it’s not applicable.

[Thaddy]

There's an alternative universe where Bargs led us to multiple championships and there's a statue of him at the ACC.

[Scase]

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.

[Merit]

I think being oblivious to outside noise is helpful, provided you’re taking the steps with the right mentors to support the goals you’re looking to achieve. Being oblivious to outside noise and being on the “wrong” path for you is brutal. I think Bargs would’ve been way better in this current NBA and wouldn’t have had to put on weight. Alas, we’ll never know.

[OakleyDokely]

The biggest problem with Bargs was that his supposed strength, shooting, wasn't even a strength. In his career, he only averaged 35% from 3, and he only had 1 elite season when he shot 40% in his 3rd year. Otherwise, he was a low to mid 30s shooter for the most part. That wouldn't work in this era either, especially given his issues everywhere else on the court.

[Merit]

The biggest problem with Bargs was that his supposed strength, shooting, wasn't even a strength. In his career, he only averaged 35% from 3, and he only had 1 elite season when he shot 40% in his 3rd year. Otherwise, he was a low to mid 30s shooter for the most part. That wouldn't work in this era either, especially given his issues everywhere else on the court.

The focus for him was always on rebounding and building strength instead of playing to his strengths. His player development was focused on the right things for the era but imo the wrong things for him. He wasn’t developed into the next Dirk; the attempt was made to make him into the next JV.

[2019nbachamps]

What sucked for us is this was a truly horrible draft at the time and was clearly horrible shortly after. There was no one we could’ve drafted in that spot that could’ve turned our fortunes around. Aldridge would’ve been a better pick but he wasn’t good enough to go #1. Brandon Roy was the best player in hindsight but had a super short career. Trading down or out of the draft wouldn’t have gotten much in return. People talk about this year’s draft being bad, that one was awful.

[C_Money]

The biggest problem with Bargs was that his supposed strength, shooting, wasn't even a strength. In his career, he only averaged 35% from 3, and he only had 1 elite season when he shot 40% in his 3rd year. Otherwise, he was a low to mid 30s shooter for the most part. That wouldn't work in this era either, especially given his issues everywhere else on the court.

The focus for him was always on rebounding and building strength instead of playing to his strengths. His player development was focused on the right things for the era but imo the wrong things for him. He wasn’t developed into the next Dirk; the attempt was made to make him into the next JV.

Even JV used to be super thin and mobile and we made him bulk up way too much.

[Dennis 37]

What sucked for us is this was a truly horrible draft at the time and was clearly horrible shortly after. There was no one we could’ve drafted in that spot that could’ve turned our fortunes around. Aldridge would’ve been a better pick but he wasn’t good enough to go #1. Brandon Roy was the best player in hindsight but had a super short career. Trading down or out of the draft wouldn’t have gotten much in return. People talk about this year’s draft being bad, that one was awful.

This is why a draft credit system is better. Teams would be awarded draft credits based on standings. Then teams would submit a bid, choosing to bid their entire allotment of credits, or saving some or all to a future draft.

In the Bargnani draft, no way would there be competition for that number 1. Teams would save for part or all for a future draft.

Instead of a draft lottery, teams' bids would be revealed determining the draft order.

Instead if trading draft picks, teams would trade draft credits. The advantage is both sides would know the exact value of the credits at the time of any trade. We, and SA, wouldn't be in this situation where we still don't know the value of the pick we have to provide.

[Merit]

What sucked for us is this was a truly horrible draft at the time and was clearly horrible shortly after. There was no one we could’ve drafted in that spot that could’ve turned our fortunes around. Aldridge would’ve been a better pick but he wasn’t good enough to go #1. Brandon Roy was the best player in hindsight but had a super short career. Trading down or out of the draft wouldn’t have gotten much in return. People talk about this year’s draft being bad, that one was awful.

This is why a draft credit system is better. Teams would be awarded draft credits based on standings. Then teams would submit a bid, choosing to bid their entire allotment of credits, or saving some or all to a future draft.

In the Bargnani draft, no way would there be competition for that number 1. Teams would save for part or all for a future draft.

Instead of a draft lottery, teams' bids would be revealed determining the draft order.

Instead if trading draft picks, teams would trade draft credits. The advantage is both sides would know the exact value of the credits at the time of any trade. We, and SA, wouldn't be in this situation where we still don't know the value of the pick we have to provide.

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.

[Dennis 37]

What sucked for us is this was a truly horrible draft at the time and was clearly horrible shortly after. There was no one we could’ve drafted in that spot that could’ve turned our fortunes around. Aldridge would’ve been a better pick but he wasn’t good enough to go #1. Brandon Roy was the best player in hindsight but had a super short career. Trading down or out of the draft wouldn’t have gotten much in return. People talk about this year’s draft being bad, that one was awful.

This is why a draft credit system is better. Teams would be awarded draft credits based on standings. Then teams would submit a bid, choosing to bid their entire allotment of credits, or saving some or all to a future draft.

In the Bargnani draft, no way would there be competition for that number 1. Teams would save for part or all for a future draft.

Instead of a draft lottery, teams' bids would be revealed determining the draft order.

Instead if trading draft picks, teams would trade draft credits. The advantage is both sides would know the exact value of the credits at the time of any trade. We, and SA, wouldn't be in this situation where we still don't know the value of the pick we have to provide.

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.

[LoveMyRaps]

im too lazy to read all of this
someone summarize this huge post

this guy was living in 2024

[Merit]

This is why a draft credit system is better. Teams would be awarded draft credits based on standings. Then teams would submit a bid, choosing to bid their entire allotment of credits, or saving some or all to a future draft.

In the Bargnani draft, no way would there be competition for that number 1. Teams would save for part or all for a future draft.

Instead of a draft lottery, teams' bids would be revealed determining the draft order.

Instead if trading draft picks, teams would trade draft credits. The advantage is both sides would know the exact value of the credits at the time of any trade. We, and SA, wouldn't be in this situation where we still don't know the value of the pick we have to provide.

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.