The access to inside information, especially in the hands of those who can convey it clearly, is very useful and appreciated for those of us who have to get it third hand.

[And I also shouldn't expect the majority of those publishing for a nation-wide audience to know as much about our team as the dedicated fans.  Still, it's frustrating to read a Pete Vescey hype rumors that are demonstrably false within the limits of the cap and make no sense for the Warriors.]

Your definition of expert witness is a bit abridged and the part you left out is significant.   It certainly doesn't match my own experience or my own research, neither of which are insignificant. An important clause pertaining to expertise is that their knowledge beyond that which is considered common must be sufficient for others (in this case the court) to rely on their expertise.  

In practice, this means that the standard is more rigorous than just knowing more than the average person.  In practice it means that an expert must be properly qualified through training and must demonstrate this to the court such that this is true. At least in federal court, there is no clear defining standard as to what 'qualified means' and it's up to the court to determine the level of competency of the 'expert' and to define the limits of their testimony.  And yes, "experts", even those who clearly know more than those in the jury pool, are sometimes not permitted to testify to matters because the court is not impressed that they are sufficiently qualified to do so.

I would never propose that I'd serve as an expert on sports for a court.  However, this misses two important things, Iggy.  The first is that this isn't a court, Iggy.  It's a blog.  It's up to you and anyone else reading this (and other things I've posted) to determine if they think my opinion means anything.  The second is that I can demonstrate empirically what I am stating.  I suspect, but do not know conclusively, that there are readers and posters here who would consider my opinions are as valid as Kawakami's, if not more valuable.  Part of this is because relatively few of my 'opinions' are left mere opinions and since most of them are rather carefully explained, and backed with evidence when applicable.  And readers here know this to be true.  They may not agree with me, but they can't deny that I present my evidence and it's usually rather thorough.  It's thorough because I do conduct my own research.  I have systematically looked at player productivity.  I have systematically compared draft position with success in the pros.  Have I talked with players, coaches?  No. Nor do I have a press credential.  But I am certain that I understand statistics better than the majority of sports journalists and I am certain that I can conduct a systematic study of a system like the NBA draft better than most sports journalists and there is absolutely nothing in a conversation with a coach or player or a press credential that changes this.

You take issue with my statement that odds don't favor Love dropping into the 20s and being a productive player?  I take this to mean that you think there's favorable odds that he'll be drafted there and be a good player.  I'm actually flabbergasted that you can assert this.  Are you capable of precognition?  You know both of these things are more than likely to happen and co-occur?  Seriously, why aren't you out buying the winning lottery tickets with a power like that!

Clearly, the draft 'experts' don't get things right much of the time, else there wouldn't be busts high in the draft or surprises late in the draft.  This is true of the guys drafting and the guys 'rating' draftees ahead of the draft.  There's not certainty, but there's still a trend.  You stand a better chance of landing a star with a top 5 pick than with a pick in the bottom 5.  The higher you draft, IN GENERAL the better your odds of landing a good player. If you take the players drafted in the 20s, you'll notice that MOST do not wind up being stars.  I am not putting this out as an assertion. I went and looked at all the players taken in the draft for a number of years.  Most guys taken in the 20s don't wind up being players considered even average contributors.  If you (or Kawakami or anyone) got on the stand and simply asserted this to be false, you'd look like a total moron on cross when presented with the list of draftees taken in the 20s who weren't even average players, sat there on the stand while an attorney had you count, had you do simple division and watched you drool and hem and haw when it was clear that odds did not favor players taken in those positions from being any good.  The expert opinion would get hit hard over the head with a big old heavy bag of data and analysis that even a judge who switched from pre-med to pre-law because he didn't like the math in the chem classes couldn't dispute.  The credentials go out the window when dealing with an empirical matter.  Opinion has a difficult time disputing numbers.

And the numbers aren't supporting your position.  Most guys drafted in the 20s are not average or better NBA players.  You doubt this?  Really?  Take a look at the guys drafted 20-29 over the last decade.  The number of "busts" exceeds the number of players.  This is an empirical exercise.  It doesn't rely on 'qualifications' or expertise, requires no credentials, and doesn't get any better by talking to a player or coach or GM.  All the evidence is there to show that the probability of a pick in the 20s being a very good player is not very good.  Dispute this if you wish, but realize that you are the one making the decision to be wrong.

Look at the Sonics - they kept taking centers (Swift, Petro, Sene) because they needed one. Hawes was a need fot the Kings.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but the draft is far too much of a crapshoot to make sweeping statements like that.

Neither you nor I know where Love will be drafted.  We can speculate, but that's speculation.  Your argument that teams tend to draft on upside and 'ceiling' is sometimes correct, but it's certainly not an absolute rule.  My counter that some questionable big men (I could extend this to questionable players in general) have been drafted in the lottery (I actually confined my examples to top 10 picks) indicates that this is not a hard and fast rule.  

Right now there's no consensus on what people think about Love and his potential.  Mock draft sites (which are reflections of someone's opinion, though, especially this far  before the draft give some idea) offer some suggestion.  The first three I checked have him at 14 (NBADraft.net), 8 (DraftExpress), and 13 (Hoopshype).  Do these sites have special knowledge?  I doubt it, but it suggests that more than a few people out there think that he'll declare and he'll wind up in in the lottery.  [These sites at least seem to understand how to capitalize the beginning of a sentence.] I don't know, and frankly, I don't care.  Your certainty and your rather amateurish attempts to validate your certainty will be met with skepticism so long as you present yourself as you do.