Is tonight the first test of this thread? Spurs win, thread closed? Or is this like the gambit 1990 thread where even if the spurs win, they'd win bigger if they tanked.
But at the same time, how many top 5 picks turn into those guys? The odds are better but only incrementally.
In fact, since you mentioned #13 Mitc , what about #15 Kawhi, an actual Spurs' pick.
Even forgetting about Kawhi, what about Manu? He was a late 2d round pick, I think we have to include late 1st round or later when we talk about what's available without tanking.
And if we expand it outside Spurs world (as we already did with Donovan Mitc and Gobert), then we have to include soon-to-be MVP Nikola Jokic.
So to recap, you can get Gobert, Parker, Manu, or Jokic without tanking . . .
Hmmmm, what do those guys have in common?
Is tonight the first test of this thread? Spurs win, thread closed? Or is this like the gambit 1990 thread where even if the spurs win, they'd win bigger if they tanked.
Again, you can list the exceptions to the rule all you want. But I can come with a list 3x longer with the picks that didn't work out. Is it possible to draft a player that becomes great at the end of the first round or in the second round? Yes. How often does it happen? Rarely. I can name a lot more picks in the 1-5 range that are superstars and MVP winners and le winners as the main star on their team as players drafted at the end of the lottery and at the end of the first round or second round. The exceptions are exceptions to the rule, the exceptions are not the rule. How many other HOF players were drafted with the last pick of the 2nd round besides Manu? Are you going to build a team banking on those odds?
Per NBA.com, the best player in the draft was listed for each of the drafts in the last 20 years. Of the last twenty years, 12 of the best players were taken in the first five picks of the draft. Only 3 were in the 10-15 range. Only two were late first round picks. And only one was a second round pick.
https://www.nba.com/news/best-player...-20-nba-drafts
What? Of course you can. There are 10 players in the top 10, and there's 50 players after the top 10. This was a stupid statement
A better way to do it is to compare picks [1-10] to picks [11-20]. That's an equal number of players and obviously the percentage of stars is higher in the top 10, but likely much lower than you think. In any given draft, only 3 (if that) of the 10 players in the top 10 become anything worthwhile. While the players selected between 11-20 is from 1-2. Is that such a great difference? You tell me.
yes, but game changers could have been picked later in the draft in several of these years so it's not as if you had to have a top three in those years to have found an impact player. for instance, in 2000, jamaal crawford was selected at #8, in 2002, tayshaun prince at # 23, iguadola at #9 in 2004, marc gasol in the 2nd round in 2007, draymond in the 2nd in 2012, siakam at #27 in 2016, mitc at 13 and adabayo at 14 in 2017, and herro and clarke in 2019 at #13 at 21 respectively. you don't have to necessarily get the "best" player in a year when there is no james or durant.
This topic is not going to be over this season... TBH until the Spurs draft a steal it will keep coming up. I am yawning already.
Interesting and useful FACT. Thanks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In short:
2011 had 2 stars in the top 10 to 3 stars between #11 to #20
2012 had 4 stars in the top 10 to 0 stars between #11 to #20
2013 had 2 stars in the top 10 to 1 stars between #11 to #20
2014 had 2 stars in the top 10 to 1 stars between #11 to #20
2015 had 2 stars in the top 10 to 1 stars between #11 to #20
2016 had 4 stars in the top 10 to 1 stars between #11 to #20
2017 had 2 stars in the top 10 to 2 stars between #11 to #20
In seven years,
an average of 2-3 stars came out from the top 10
and
an average of 1-2 stars came out of the #11-#20 selections
Wow, such a drastic difference
This is not even accounting for the players who became stars after the 20th selection... If your team has a good scouting department, it's possible you can increase your odds of finding a star after the 10th pick to gain an equal to or greater than odds of getting one in the top 10.
BTW...
Which team would win?
Team Top 10:
PG: Kyrie/ Lillard/ Jamal Murray
SG: Beal/ McCollum
SF: Jayson Tatum/ Ben Simmons
PF: J.Randle/ Brandon Ingram
C: A.Davis/ Embiid
against
Team #11-#20:
PG: Zach LaVine/ Donavon Mitc
SG: Klay/ Devin Booker/
SF: Kawhi
PF: Giannis/ Bam Adebayo
C: Vucevic/ Domantas Sabonis
^doing this exercise made me realize star point guards barely come from the #11-20 selections. There were literally 0 of them between 2011-2017. Amazing. Meanwhile, star SG's and forwards were more abundant in that range. Further proof the Spurs should draft a wing/ forward this upcoming draft.
This certainly shows that finding stars is just plain hard. Obviously easier at the top of the draft, but having a FO with a good eye for talent/character/team-building is more important than draft position. Just look at the Hornets. Of course those two things are not mutually exclusive, I just think that too many ignore the negative effects of deliberate tanking. Culture and ownership do matter.
Now that's interesting stuff...
It's not that it's a stupid statement. It's that it's obvious. And it's also obvious that citing that because one player that was drafted in the second round became an MVP candidate is ridiculous to defend the notion that somehow banking on that happening again in the next 20 years is a solid strategy for rebuilding a team. I don't think you've read all my arguments or maybe you haven't understood them. I have said that the best percentage chance of getting a difference maker or a star is by drafting 1-5 in the lottery. That is a fact. Is it a guarantee that you will draft a star? No. And some drafts are weaker than others. But this draft is, by all the draft experts, a top heavy draft of potential difference makers and that's why it makes sense to play your young players, lose games, let them get experience, and get into the top 5. Yes, you might draft the next franchise superstar at 11 or 12 or wherever they pick, but the chances are lesser that that will be the case.
OP is the original gutless worm
That's true that you can draft an impact player and that is good to have. But to win a le, you got to get a superstar and the Spurs are unlikely to get one through free agency, so they need to find someone at 11 that is better than Crawford, Iguadala, Prince, Green, Siakam, Mitc , and Adabayo, or Herro or Clarke. That's hard to do at 1-5, but it's even harder to do at 11-15, and even harder yet to do it 16-30.
I didn't cite this and I'm telling you what's stupid is believing that drafting in the top 5 or top 10 has as great of a chance you think it is at landing a star (if you read my other posts). That's ignoring the fact that it will cost the Spurs more than just a tanked season since you think that's all it will cost.
When you say "best percentage chance" it really is no greater than a 20% chance, and likely much less if you factor in that there's a chance you drop out of the top 5 due to the lottery. The odds are not great. People think tanking, getting a star, and then becoming a successful team is simple math when it's actually calculus.
Last edited by Dejounte; 05-19-2021 at 03:44 PM.
That's not the totality of the analysis. It's not just "get to the top 5 picks." It's considering what is the talent in the draft. It's considering what is the current roster make-up. And it is considering what is the benefit of making the playin, playing one game, and then getting eliminated. In years where the draft doesn't look good, then sure, try and make the playoffs. But this is a top heavy draft. The Spurs are not going to get their next superstar through free agency. It's going to be through the draft. And their best chance of doing it was landing a 1-5 pick in a good draft. That would be this year, a year where they had a really hard schedule, no fans in the chairs, and a product where the best selling point to watch was to see the young players.
I'm not advocating taking DDR sit and exaggerate an injury like David Robinson did to ensure the Spurs could draft Tim Duncan. The Spurs started sitting their whole roster back then. I'm saying play the young players. All of them. Prioritize them over aging vets. Send Rudy Gay to a team that has a chance to win with him instead of wasting his precious years on a team that weighs success as getting to the 10th seed and a playin. In the totality of the cir stances, I see playing the young players and seeing where it takes the Spurs as a better option than leaning on vets and trying to make the 10th seed so you can draft 11 or 12. I just don't see the point in that. If the Spurs were spending 11 years in the lottery like Sacramento, then I would see things differently. But they can spend one year in the lottery and hope that they get one of the top 3 picks, who are all projected to have star careers and then couple them with the young players that we already have and see what happens. That makes more sense to me than trying to win a play in spot in a short season.
Intentionally being obtuse about my and others position and supporting a decision to actively have math/odds against them on multiple counts, both in terms of style of play and overall direction.
TD21 If math was the answer we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Luckily / sadly, it is not, but there is a certain level of truth to your posts, however morose they might be.
Russ!
You still have that ASTERISK .GIF file of you at Staples in 2003?
Thanks,
Man In Black
Oh and I agree...NO NEED FOR A FULL SCALE CLEANOUT OR TANK. They were compe ive in a game where they were down 21 points and ended up losing by 4. People want to blame DeRozan for an off-shooting night but he got to the line and remained aggressive. What about the YOUNG guys? Had Derrick White been healthy, there would be no Dillon Brooks scoring 24 Points.
That's pretty eye-opening.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)