[League Overview] The number of seasons (as a lottery team) it will take to find a franchise player through the draft...

[Dejounte]

Post update, 4/7/21 @ 11:10AM CST:

https://i.ibb.co/Yf143QT/years.png


RE: timvp (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=8) , tbdog (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=49638) , Maddog (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=3936)

Teams spent an average of 10 years before they were able to find another Franchise/Borderline Franchise player. Half that time (5 years), they were in the lottery.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disregard the original post below:




https://i.ibb.co/TtkJDxB/franchise-playerv2.png

Out of 29 teams, 11 teams have a franchise player.

Out of those 11 teams, nine of them attained their franchise player through the draft. It took an average closer to one lottery season (sum of 12 divided by nine) for these teams to find their franchise player.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Out of 29 teams, 19 teams have a borderline franchise player.

Out of those 19 teams, 15 teams attained their borderline franchise player through the draft. It took an average of three lottery seasons. Though it is more seasons, these types of players were more abundant as more teams have them. Honestly, this would be a lot lower without the T-Wolves and the Kings screwing it up.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Serious tanking (top 3 pick) gives you a 61.5% chance to attain a True Franchise Player.
Sub-par tanking (#5 to #10 range) gives you a 15.4% chance to attain a True Franchise Player.
Competitive tanking (#11 to #15 range) gives you a 15.4% chance to attain a True Franchise Player.
Not tanking at all (#16 and onwards) gives you a 7.7% chance to attain a True Franchise Player.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Serious tanking (top 3 pick) gives you a 34.8% chance to attain a Borderline Franchise Player.
Sub-par tanking (#5 to #10 range) gives you a 17.3% chance to attain a Borderline Franchise Player.
Competitive tanking (#11 to #15 range) gives you a 30.4% chance to attain a Borderline Franchise Player.
Not tanking at all (#16 and onwards) gives you a 21.7% chance to attain a Borderline Franchise Player.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Combining both odds...

Serious tanking (top 3 pick) gives you a 69.6% chance to attain a Franchise Player OR Borderline Franchise Player.
Sub-par tanking (#5 to #10 range) gives you a 16.7% chance to attain a Franchise Player OR Borderline Franchise Player.
Competitive tanking (#11 to #15 range) gives you a 22.2% chance to attain a Franchise Player OR Borderline Franchise Player.
Not tanking at all (#16 and onwards) gives you a 16.7% chance to attain a Franchise Player OR Borderline Franchise Player.


Bottom-line:

Expect one to three seasons of being in the lottery for the Spurs to find their Franchise Player (or Borderline Franchise Player*).

Not a long wait, if you ask me.

*Assuming one is not on the roster already.

The T-Wolves, Wizards, Kings, Knicks, and the Suns (well, they're better now) are the league's worst franchises by far.

[mo7888]

https://i.ibb.co/TtkJDxB/franchise-playerv2.png

Out of 29 teams, 11 teams have a franchise player.

Out of those 11 teams, nine of them attained their franchise player through the draft. It took an average closer to one lottery season (sum of 12 divided by nine) for these teams to find their franchise player.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Out of 29 teams, 19 teams have a borderline franchise player.

Out of those 19 teams, 15 teams attained their borderline franchise player through the draft. It took an average of three lottery seasons. Though it is more seasons, these types of players were more abundant as more teams have them. Honestly, this would be a lot lower without the T-Wolves and the Kings screwing it up.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Serious tanking (top 3 pick) gives you a 61.5% chance to attain a True Franchise Player.
Sub-par tanking (#5 to #10 range) gives you a 15.4% chance to attain a True Franchise Player.
Competitive tanking (#11 to #15 range) gives you a 15.4% chance to attain a True Franchise Player.
Not tanking at all (#16 and onwards) gives you a 7.7% chance to attain a True Franchise Player.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Serious tanking (top 3 pick) gives you a 34.8% chance to attain a Borderline Franchise Player.
Sub-par tanking (#5 to #10 range) gives you a 17.3% chance to attain a Borderline Franchise Player.
Competitive tanking (#11 to #15 range) gives you a 30.4% chance to attain a Borderline Franchise Player.
Not tanking at all (#16 and onwards) gives you a 21.7% chance to attain a Borderline Franchise Player.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Combining both odds...

Serious tanking (top 3 pick) gives you a 69.6% chance to attain a Franchise Player OR Borderline Franchise Player.
Sub-par tanking (#5 to #10 range) gives you a 16.7% chance to attain a Franchise Player OR Borderline Franchise Player.
Competitive tanking (#11 to #15 range) gives you a 22.2% chance to attain a Franchise Player OR Borderline Franchise Player.
Not tanking at all (#16 and onwards) gives you a 16.7% chance to attain a Franchise Player OR Borderline Franchise Player.


Bottom-line:

Expect one to three seasons of being in the lottery for the Spurs to find their Franchise Player (or Borderline Franchise Player*).

Not a long wait, if you ask me.

*Assuming one is not on the roster already.

The T-Wolves, Wizards, Kings, Knicks, and the Suns (well, they're better now) are the league's worst franchises by far.

I gotta give it to you...you put in the work on this research stuff...

:bobo

[timvp]

Good stuff, although I think your conclusion is super optimistic, tbh. Considering more than half the league makes the playoffs, using playoffs as a reset to the timer isn't the way to go. The more accurate count would be how long teams have been rebuilding until they get a real franchise player. You can still be rebuilding and be an 7th or 8th seed pretty easily, especially in the East.

A good example is the Warriors. Between Run TMC's peak and the ascension of Curry, you're talking about a rebuilding process that took about ~20 years. By your chart, the We Believe Warriors of 2007 reset the timer ... but that was an 8th seed without anything resembling a franchise player. That was the only time in an 18-year stretch where the Warriors made the playoffs.

I think if you went back and counted the average years between franchise players, the truth would be a team has to wait at least 7-10 years before they transition from one franchise player to another ... unless they are in a big market (Lakers) or get extremely lucky with ping pong balls.

[Sugus]

I gotta give it to you...you put in the work on this research stuff...

:bobo

My guy D always puts in the work, which is why it's so funny to me when people accuse him or me of being each other's alts. I wouldn't bother putting half the effort he does on this rotten-to-the-core corner of the Internet.

Having said that, great work my guy Dejounte! Though I definitely agree with timvp that your view of only 1-3 seasons of being in the lottery is optimistic. As much as every troll on this board likes to think, despite the Spurs' ability to draft well given their drafting place most years, it's really fucking hard to find a true franchise player. Not only because of tanking teams' drafting departments (which definitely play a role), but because of the simple fact that there is no guarantee that any given draft will hold a future franchise player. There could be more than one in a single draft (the Hakeem-MJ draft comes to mind), or none at all for consecutive years - literally nobody knows. And worst of all, you could draft a quasi franchise player, good enough to take your team off the lottery, but never good enough to be the true #1 option on a championship team... Setting your team back years as they try to build around someone who will never be able to fill that role.

My personal prediction is of a two years' tank, but it's definitely bullish and overly optimistic. The reality could be quite different, and grimmer.

[Dejounte]

Good stuff, although I think your conclusion is super optimistic, tbh. Considering more than half the league makes the playoffs, using playoffs as a reset to the timer isn't the way to go. The more accurate count would be how long teams have been rebuilding until they get a real franchise player. You can still be rebuilding and be an 7th or 8th seed pretty easily, especially in the East.

A good example is the Warriors. Between Run TMC's peak and the ascension of Curry, you're talking about a rebuilding process that took about ~20 years. By your chart, the We Believe Warriors of 2007 reset the timer ... but that was an 8th seed without anything resembling a franchise player. That was the only time in an 18-year stretch where the Warriors made the playoffs.

I think if you went back and counted the average years between franchise players, the truth would be a team has to wait at least 7-10 years before they transition from one franchise player to another ... unless they are in a big market (Lakers) or get extremely lucky with ping pong balls.

Good point, I'll see if I can add another column for that tomorrow.

Edit: There's also another flaw I noticed within this study. I'll post about it tomorrow.

[tbdog]

Thanks for a good post. Unfortunately as I was reading it, it felt something was wrong. 3 years seems way to optimistic. If my recollection is correct, I think the Thunder took about 3 years from drafting Durant. And they drafted Westbrook, Harden and Ibaka. That's some serious good fortune to draft so many studs consequently.

[Dejounte]

Thanks for a good post. Unfortunately as I was reading it, it felt something was wrong. 3 years seems way to optimistic. If my recollection is correct, I think the Thunder took about 3 years from drafting Durant. And they drafted Westbrook, Harden and Ibaka. That's some serious good fortune to draft so many studs consequently.

Yup, my next draft will include the last era to the next, i.e. for the Lakers, the gap between the Kobe era (his last year) to the LeBron era.

[TD 21]

Unlike virtually everyone else, seeing as how the Spurs were screwed out of receiving commensurate value for their superstar, the league owes them.

The were determined to help the Cavaliers after James left (3 1st overalls in 4 years) and every time the Pelicans have looked dire, either financially or when Paul or Davis left, conveniently they won the sweepstakes to arguably the two most hyped prospects since James.

[mudyez]

Thanks for a good post. Unfortunately as I was reading it, it felt something was wrong. 3 years seems way to optimistic. If my recollection is correct, I think the Thunder took about 3 years from drafting Durant. And they drafted Westbrook, Harden and Ibaka. That's some serious good fortune to draft so many studs consequently.

Und funnily they presumely would have taken Oden over Durant, Beasley over Westbrook and and Thabeet over Harden, if they just would have been drafting higher.

Well, maybe not Thabeet, but surely OKC native Griffin.

[poopbox]

Don't understand how guys like Towns, Fox, and Lavine, are considered "borderline" franchise players when they routinely play for 3 out of the bottom 8 teams in the league every year...

There has to be some sort of sustained level of winning to even qualify as a franchise player...

[daslicer]

I would say the Hornets have not had a franchise player in close to 20 years since the original Hornets team that had Baron Davis in '02. The expansion team that came out in '04 has never had a franchise player granted it looks like Melo could be that guy. Prior to Melo they have gone on several playoff runs where they were the 7th or 8th seed and then gone back to the lottery. The Kemba Walker Hornets are the mediocrity the Spurs should avoid.

[mo7888]

My guy D always puts in the work, which is why it's so funny to me when people accuse him or me of being each other's alts. I wouldn't bother putting half the effort he does on this rotten-to-the-core corner of the Internet.

Having said that, great work my guy Dejounte! Though I definitely agree with timvp that your view of only 1-3 seasons of being in the lottery is optimistic. As much as every troll on this board likes to think, despite the Spurs' ability to draft well given their drafting place most years, it's really fucking hard to find a true franchise player. Not only because of tanking teams' drafting departments (which definitely play a role), but because of the simple fact that there is no guarantee that any given draft will hold a future franchise player. There could be more than one in a single draft (the Hakeem-MJ draft comes to mind), or none at all for consecutive years - literally nobody knows. And worst of all, you could draft a quasi franchise player, good enough to take your team off the lottery, but never good enough to be the true #1 option on a championship team... Setting your team back years as they try to build around someone who will never be able to fill that role.

My personal prediction is of a two years' tank, but it's definitely bullish and overly optimistic. The reality could be quite different, and grimmer.

You two agree alot but your personalities are to different to be each other's alt's.

[exstatic]

Don't understand how guys like Towns, Fox, and Lavine, are considered "borderline" franchise players when they routinely play for 3 out of the bottom 8 teams in the league every year...

There has to be some sort of sustained level of winning to even qualify as a franchise player...

This. Bradley Beale is the poster child.

[Dejounte]

Don't understand how guys like Towns, Fox, and Lavine, are considered "borderline" franchise players when they routinely play for 3 out of the bottom 8 teams in the league every year...

There has to be some sort of sustained level of winning to even qualify as a franchise player...


This. Bradley Beale is the poster child.

My criteria was basically if you've been an all-star in your career, you have to make it in as one of these two categories. Then, if it's clear that if a team tries to build around you it will turn into a disaster... you're a borderline franchise player.

The reason they earn any type of merit is because let's face it, folks here would love to have a Towns, Fox, or LaVine on this team.

[Maddog]

Good stuff, although I think your conclusion is super optimistic, tbh. Considering more than half the league makes the playoffs, using playoffs as a reset to the timer isn't the way to go. The more accurate count would be how long teams have been rebuilding until they get a real franchise player. You can still be rebuilding and be an 7th or 8th seed pretty easily, especially in the East.

A good example is the Warriors. Between Run TMC's peak and the ascension of Curry, you're talking about a rebuilding process that took about ~20 years. By your chart, the We Believe Warriors of 2007 reset the timer ... but that was an 8th seed without anything resembling a franchise player. That was the only time in an 18-year stretch where the Warriors made the playoffs.

I think if you went back and counted the average years between franchise players, the truth would be a team has to wait at least 7-10 years before they transition from one franchise player to another ... unless they are in a big market (Lakers) or get extremely lucky with ping pong balls.


Don't understand how guys like Towns, Fox, and Lavine, are considered "borderline" franchise players when they routinely play for 3 out of the bottom 8 teams in the league every year...

There has to be some sort of sustained level of winning to even qualify as a franchise player...

Great job
I think some of this hard to quantify As timvp pointed out the Warriors. The Warriors had 11 lottery picks from 2001 through 2012

The Bucks are another example
From 91/92 season till 2013 when they got GA they had only two seasons that was more than 2 games above .500
During this time they had 14 lottery picks

Also as pointed out what is a franchise player....

[exstatic]

It’s my contention that there aren’t really more than 5-6 true franchise players in the NBA at any time. My definition is a guy who can put a team on his back, take them to a top 4 conference seed, and win two playoff series multiple times.

In any year, there are 24 All Stars, 15 All NBA players. Most of those guys aren’t franchise guys.

[Dejounte]

Great job
I think some of this hard to quantify As timvp pointed out the Warriors. The Warriors had 11 lottery picks from 2001 through 2012

The Bucks are another example
From 91/92 season till 2013 when they got GA they had only two seasons that was more than 2 games above .500
During this time they had 14 lottery picks

Also as pointed out what is a franchise player....


It’s my contention that there aren’t really more than 5-6 true franchise players in the NBA at any time. My definition is a guy who can put a team on his back, take them to a top 4 conference seed, and win two playoff series multiple times.

In any year, there are 24 All Stars, 15 All NBA players. Most of those guys aren’t franchise guys.

Franchise player = household name. First name when you think of when you think of the team. Advertisements galore. A couple of these players (Williamson, Morant) may be unproven still, and that's fine.
Borderline franchise player = Clearly head and shoulders above his teammates performance-wise. If a team is built around him, the team turns into a shit show.

I think it's going to be difficult to be in total agreement on each player, we may need to hold a 3 hour Zoom meeting for that. However, if there's a player that the majority feels should switch places or moved off the board, then I will move that player. Hold on tight... the next version of this table is coming to include the era by era gap.

[exstatic]

Franchise player = household name. First name when you think of when you think of the team. Advertisements galore. A couple of these players (Williamson, Morant) may be unproven still, and that's fine.
Borderline franchise player = Clearly head and shoulders above his teammates performance-wise. If a team is built around him, the team turns into a shit show.

I think it's going to be difficult to be in total agreement on each player, we may need to hold a 3 hour Zoom meeting for that. However, if there's a player that the majority feels should switch places or moved off the board, then I will move that player. Hold on tight... the next version of this table is coming to include the era by era gap.

So we have different definitions then.

[Dejounte]

So we have different definitions then.

Yes. Feel free to name a player you highly disagree with their placement, and if a large number of posters agree with you, then I will move the player.

[exstatic]

Yes. Feel free to name a player you highly disagree with their placement, and if a large number of posters agree with you, then I will move the player.

Well, it would be a lot of them, since your definition is more broad than mine. Just wanted to chime in with my two bits.

[MultiTroll]

If only we all knew......

When will the next Generational Franchise Player arrive?
Shaq, Timmy Duncan, Lebron.

[KobesAchilles]

My guy D always puts in the work, which is why it's so funny to me when people accuse him or me of being each other's alts. I wouldn't bother putting half the effort he does on this rotten-to-the-core corner of the Internet.

Having said that, great work my guy Dejounte (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=51342)! Though I definitely agree with timvp that your view of only 1-3 seasons of being in the lottery is optimistic. As much as every troll on this board likes to think, despite the Spurs' ability to draft well given their drafting place most years, it's really fucking hard to find a true franchise player. Not only because of tanking teams' drafting departments (which definitely play a role), but because of the simple fact that there is no guarantee that any given draft will hold a future franchise player. There could be more than one in a single draft (the Hakeem-MJ draft comes to mind), or none at all for consecutive years - literally nobody knows. And worst of all, you could draft a quasi franchise player, good enough to take your team off the lottery, but never good enough to be the true #1 option on a championship team... Setting your team back years as they try to build around someone who will never be able to fill that role.

My personal prediction is of a two years' tank, but it's definitely bullish and overly optimistic. The reality could be quite different, and grimmer.
This guy, giving alt credit and then bragging about it :lol

[Dejounte]

https://i.ibb.co/jbc9s5x/last-fp.png

The next version of the table will build upon these last era franchise player/ borderline franchise players. Criteria used here was a team that consistently made the playoffs no matter the result, led by a single player. I will choose a year during this era before they dropped off to mediocrity and count the number of years until they had their next/ current franchise player.

[look_at_g_shred]

To me, the only current franchise players are:

Lebron
Kawhi
Jokic
Curry
Embiid
Lillard
Harden
Durant
Doncic
Healthy Anthony Davis
Freak

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Nice work.

I think another metric might be to look at how many of those "franchise" players brought a championship, and/or deep playoff success to the team that actually drafted them.

And for someone like Kawhi, he wasn't the franchise in 2014, so he would be excluded from that.

Drafting a franchise player is only the first part of the equation. Then it's keeping him, and making deep playoff runs with him.

The "success" metric gets a lot smaller looking at it that way. We tank, and we could suck for a very, very long time.

[Spursfanfromafar]

Interesting analysis.

But for me, the question to ask is not, how long does it take a team to acquire a franchise player/ All-NBA player, but how long does it take for them to get into contention once they are out of playoffs. Most teams in the league have been subject to boom-bust cycles because of the nature of the small/big markets, the lottery system and the limited number of superstar players in every cohort. There is also the question of whether a team that goes through a bust cycle in order to reach a boom one has the financial heft to do that.

My hypothesis is this - only those teams that are in relatively larger markets or have an owner who belongs to a sector in the economy that is inured to boom-bust cycles in itself - can afford to tank badly before getting into contention. Smaller markets, especially those with owners from traditional industry, have to be much more creative, shrewd and have the ability to work on the weaknesses in this skewed market in order to be in a position to contend for rings.

So, the next question is this - will tanking badly increasing the chances of a franchise player help the Spurs to contend after a short downturn? The answer to that in my view is that it makes sense to tank badly only if there is enough talent already in the mix and the Spurs are short of one or two pieces and are unable to get that in the FA market.

I think the Spurs are in a position to do so now. They have secondary playmakers, the defenders, the hustle players and the high IQ youngsters as part of their core. They need a fillip in the form of a talent who can be a superstar who can lift them to the top while the others maintain a winning mentality around him. I think the Spurs must play less of Derozan, Mills and Gay going forward this season and let the chips fall in place. A Cunningham/ Mobley / Suggs / Green in that order can help the Spurs breach the contention mark in a season or two provided they play the FA market well too.

[Dejounte]

Post update, 4/7/21 @ 11:10AM CST - See original post.

[duncan2150]

I think franchise player " level" could be the good name for what dejounte is pointed out. Because you have a lot of factors after the talent that can make a really good player looking "bad" : Mentality, enviornment, coachs, teammates ....

I agree with most of the first post, for me we are talking about a player who can be the centerpiece of a franchise not a true FP.

Imo Towns, Fox and others who interrogates us, are totally that but they need a few things to pan out.

[Dejounte]

Observations:

The Hawks have had 31 years and 10 lottery seasons. Using trades/ FA/ draft at their disposal, they only have Trae to show for it.

The Pacers have the largest ratio of playoff seasons to lottery seasons. They have had only five seasons in the lottery in 23 years, if they had a better scouting department they could have had their franchise player (Kawhi Leonard) by now along with their competitive team.

The Warriors were a horrific organization for a long time.

It's important to note here that some of the teams who attained a FP/BFP was not solely through the draft: Nets, Lakers, Clippers, Rockets. They changed their destiny through trades/ FA. What do most of these teams have in common? They are big market teams.

If we ignore all the shit teams (who had / have a bad GM) : Hawks, Knicks, Pacers, Warriors , Nets, Kings, Bucks, Pistons, 76ers, T-Wolves, Magic - the number of lottery seasons needed to find that player goes down to a lot less = 2 lottery seasons.

[timvp]

Post update, 4/7/21 @ 11:10AM CST:

https://i.ibb.co/Yf143QT/years.png


RE: timvp (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=8) , tbdog (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=49638) , Maddog (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=3936)

Teams spent an average of 10 years before they were able to find another Franchise/Borderline Franchise player. Half that time (5 years), they were in the lottery. [/SIZE]

Great stuff :tu

That's a more realistic picture.

Obviously, no one is going to agree 100% on what is/isn't a franchise player. My top disagreements with your selections:

-Arenas wasn't a franchise player. Beal isn't either. I don't think the Wizards/Bullets have had a legit franchise player since Elvin Hayes 40+ years ago.
-Brandon Roy wasn't a franchise player. You have to go back and pick someone from the Jail Blazers (a la Billups and the Pistons) or go back to Clyde.
-Of the current players, LaVine, Morant, Siakam and LaMelo are highly questionable. Even players like Booker, Fox and SGA could easily look like non-franchise players in retrospect depending on what happens in the coming years. But, yeah, that's a difficult cut-off to make. If I had to pick one of those, I'd say LaVine is the most difficult to swallow. No way he's been the Bulls franchise player since 2014, especially because he wasn't on the team then :)

Good work. Anecdotally, it seems like teams get a franchise player candidate about once a decade ... so that's in line with what you found.

[Dejounte]

Great stuff :tu

That's a more realistic picture.

Obviously, no one is going to agree 100% on what is/isn't a franchise player. My top disagreements with your selections:

-Arenas wasn't a franchise player. Beal isn't either. I don't think the Wizards/Bullets have had a legit franchise player since Elvin Hayes 40+ years ago.
-Brandon Roy wasn't a franchise player. You have to go back and pick someone from the Jail Blazers (a la Billups and the Pistons) or go back to Clyde.
-Of the current players, LaVine, Morant, Siakam and LaMelo are highly questionable. Even players like Booker, Fox and SGA could easily look like non-franchise players in retrospect depending on what happens in the coming years. But, yeah, that's a difficult cut-off to make. If I had to pick one of those, I'd say LaVine is the most difficult to swallow. No way he's been the Bulls franchise player since 2014, especially because he wasn't on the team then :)

Good work. Anecdotally, it seems like teams get a franchise player candidate about once a decade ... so that's in line with what you found.

Good catch on LaVine :lmao :lmao

Yes, there are some controversial calls I had to make here, including the year a team peaked with their previous FP/ BFP. I chose the year before it was clear said team needed to find a new BF/ BFP to compete & build around.

[daslicer]

The Jazz among small market teams are the best at transitioning from era to era. They went from Stockton-Malone to Deron-Boozer and now Donovan-Gobert.

[cool cat]

Clippers didn't get Kawhi through the draft?

[look_at_g_shred]

The Jazz among small market teams are the best at transitioning from era to era. They went from Stockton-Malone to Deron-Boozer and now Donovan-Gobert.
You are missing Hayward-Millsap

[daslicer]

You are missing Hayward-Millsap

You can throw that one in there also.

[Maddog]

Nice work.

I think another metric might be to look at how many of those "franchise" players brought a championship, and/or deep playoff success to the team that actually drafted them.

And for someone like Kawhi, he wasn't the franchise in 2014, so he would be excluded from that.

Drafting a franchise player is only the first part of the equation. Then it's keeping him, and making deep playoff runs with him.

The "success" metric gets a lot smaller looking at it that way. We tank, and we could suck for a very, very long time.


To me, the only current franchise players are:

Lebron
Kawhi
Jokic
Curry
Embiid
Lillard
Harden
Durant
Doncic
Healthy Anthony Davis
Freak

Well looking at that list- I could quibble but reasonable-5 of the 10 have left their original team either in straight up free agency or forced a trade

[look_at_g_shred]

Well looking at that list- I could quibble but reasonable-5 of the 10 have left their original team either in straight up free agency or forced a trade
So a 50% chance the franchise player you drafted will leave.

[Maddog]

So a 50% chance the franchise player you drafted will leave.

If you where drafted by a small market the percentage goes up
Curry, Embid and Doncic where all drafted by teams in major metro areas.