The Gutter

[AHF]

2 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

Plus a fella by the name of Jordan was drafted after Hakeem in the same draft and accomplished a tad bit more

And if you look at the history of the #3 pick, it is worse than the #1 but a #$*#& ton better than the #7 pick or #10 pick or whatever you want to do.  

It is simple.  You can find individual examples of MVPs taken later in the top 15 (like #15 Steve Nash) or who were the best players or finals MVPs on championship teams (like #10 PP or #13 Kobe Bryant) but the odds drop slot by slot and pick by pick as you move down.

[Peoriabird]

1 minute ago, AHF said:

The point is how to win a ring.  You better have an MVP caliber player as the best guy on your team.  You've got a handful of #1 picks that won basically half the championships over the last 30 years.  You've got other #1 picks who were MVPSs or the best player on teams that made the finals but lost (Dwight, AI, Rose, etc.).

It isn't a question of whether your odds are great.  No pick has great odds.  The question is how to maximize your odds of getting impact players.  The #1 pick is heads and shoulders above the #10.

But the number one pick isn't head and shoulders above the non #1 picks which should be the point.  I don't understand the relevance of the 10th pick as it relates to the Hawks

[Peoriabird]

1 minute ago, AHF said:

And if you look at the history of the #3 pick, it is worse than the #1 but a #$*#& ton better than the #7 pick or #10 pick or whatever you want to do.  

 

Where did this come from??? You introduced the #10 not me

[AHF]

1 hour ago, Peoriabird said:

Where did this come from??? You introduced the #10 not me

I've said repeatedly that the probability of an impact player declines with every pick.  Do you not see the relevance?  I am starting to feel like we are talking past each other.

1 hour ago, Peoriabird said:

But the number one pick isn't head and shoulders above the non #1 picks which should be the point.  I don't understand the relevance of the 10th pick as it relates to the Hawks

It is heads and shoulders above the other picks.  It isn't head and shoulders above the field.  The #1 pick was the best player on 14 of champions over the last 30 years meaning the best players on championship teams for a combined 47%.

Picks 2-60 represent 53% of the best players on championship teams over the last 30 years.

That is heads and shoulders above any other pick.

[Peoriabird]

6 minutes ago, AHF said:

I've said repeatedly that the probability of an impact player declines with every pick.  Do you not see the relevance?  I am starting to feel like we are talking past each other.

It is heads and shoulders above the other picks.  It isn't head and shoulders above the field.  The #1 pick was the best player on 14 of champions over the last 30 years meaning the best players on championship teams for a combined 47%.

Picks 2-60 represent 53% of the best players on championship teams over the last 30 years.

That is heads and shoulders above any other pick.

Do you think things have changed recently? Cause those numbers don't hold up over the last 10 drafts

[AHF]

8 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

Do tyou think things have changed recently? Cause those numbers dont hold up over the last 10 drafts

Hakeem won his first ring in his 10th season.  Dirk won his in his 13th year.  Jordan won his in his 7th season.  So I don't buy into an artificial time frame like that.  Have Embiid or Towns won rings?  Check back later in their career.

In the last 10 years, the best player on a champion was a #1 overall pick 40% of the time (50% if you think Duncan was the best player when he led the team in both PER and WS in the playoffs and PER and almost WS in the regular season).

[Peoriabird]

2 minutes ago, AHF said:

Hakeem won his first ring in his 10th season.  Dirk won his in his 13th year.  Jordan won his in his 7th season.

In the last 10 years, the best player on a champion was a #1 overall pick 40% of the time (50% if you think Duncan was the best player when he led the team in both PER and WS in the playoffs and PER and almost WS in the regular season).

Last 10 drafts...when were Durant and Curry drafted?

[AHF]

2 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

Last 10 drafts...when were Durant and Curry drafted?

It can happen that fast but doesn't necessarily.  You get known distortions in the numbers if you artificially limit the window.  We continue to see #1 overall picks carry teams to rings.

Durant was the #2 pick.  #2 is the next best position in the draft so I can't imagine why you would bring that up unless you just want to focus on the #1 overall by itself instead of the downward slope of slot value.  As I keep repeating, your odds of getting a star decline pick by pick over a statistically significant sample size.

[Peoriabird]

1 minute ago, AHF said:

It can happen that fast but doesn't necessarily.  You get known distortions in the numbers if you artificially limit the window.  We continue to see #1 overall picks carry teams to rings.

Durant was the #2 pick.  #2 is the next best position in the draft so I can't imagine why you would bring that up unless you just want to focus on the #1 overall by itself instead of the downward slope of slot value.  As I keep repeating, your odds of getting a star decline pick by pick over a statistically significant sample size.

Also Leonard was the best player on San Antonio's last championship team

[StephenHawking]

I feel like Doncic and Ayton are the two players who have the biggest chances of becoming stars in this draft hence why I want to secure a top 2 pick in this years draft. Everyone else afterwards seems like more of a gamble. Maybe  there will be a player who does just as good as them but in the end as AHF said the odds are the highest. 

I mean just think of how in most years draft position materializes. A guy is set at position number one because most managers see him there. Why do they see him there? Because he seems to be the bpa. 

Its just common sense that players who are categorised as possible superstars are more of a sure thing than a less valued player whose ranked 14th or whatever

[AHF]

3 hours ago, Peoriabird said:

Also Leonard was the best player on San Antonio's last championship team

Duncan led them in the playoffs in win shares, PER and had the single biggest moment of the post season when he took over to win the most pivotal game of their run.  Leonard was very good but it is no coincidence they won all their rings with Duncan.

I didn't count Duncan in that 40% number despite my personal opinion, though.

[Diesel]

The truth is that you have #1 picks that have won rings and MVPs.. but then you also have your Kwame Brown's, Olowakhandi, Anthony Bennetts and Andrew Wiggins.  Everybody says... it won't happen to us.. until it happens to you.   In the long run, team building is better than tanking. 

[nathan2331]

 

 

 

 

 

The truth is that you have #1 picks that have won rings and MVPs.. but then you also have your Kwame Brown's, Olowakhandi, Anthony Bennetts and Andrew Wiggins.  Everybody says... it won't happen to us.. until it happens to you.   In the long run, team building is better than tanking. 

 

 

 

 

Why are you talking like prospects can't be evaluated? That isn't to say the Hawks or any other team will always get it right, but we can look at what players are doing and project their development for the future. Maybe Ayton isn't the next great big in the NBA, but it's not a crapshoot. Hype is a real thing, but there are quality players to be had this year. Even into the second round, there are players who in the right situation can become quality contributors.

 

 

[StephenHawking]

vor 2 Stunden, Diesel sagte:

The truth is that you have #1 picks that have won rings and MVPs.. but then you also have your Kwame Brown's, Olowakhandi, Anthony Bennetts and Andrew Wiggins.  Everybody says... it won't happen to us.. until it happens to you.   In the long run, team building is better than tanking. 

No you need one exceptional player on the roster to get anywhere. There's really no way around that. 

To be successful you need to draft a superstar or get him through FA. We have no chance through FA. We only have the draft as option and the highest odds of getting that superstar were craving for is at the top. Its that simple. 

[bleachkit]

Superstars are rare. But at least with a top 2 selection we get our pick of the litter.

[AHF]

3 hours ago, Diesel said:

The truth is that you have #1 picks that have won rings and MVPs.. but then you also have your Kwame Brown's, Olowakhandi, Anthony Bennetts and Andrew Wiggins.  Everybody says... it won't happen to us.. until it happens to you.   In the long run, team building is better than tanking. 

You are saying that while you can draft superstars you can also bust.  Totally true.  That is true for every pick in the draft.  The important thing is that the bust rate drops and the star right rises as you move from the bottom of the draft to the top of the draft.  So the #1 pick is meaningfully better in a statistically significant sample size than the #2 pick, which is better than #3, which is better than #4, etc.  The drop off is the steepest in basketball of any sport.  In baseball, you see MVP candidates come from the 30th round of the draft.  In the NFL, you see undrafted players and 7th round picks in the MVP conversation.  In basketball, the numbers drop like a rock after the 15th pick in the draft.  I'm not sure there has ever been an MVP from a lower spot.  Maximizing your odds is importent and you should be intellectually honest enough with yourself to do it knowing that there is a very real chance of busting your pick whether due to bad scouting (Bennett) or health (Oden) or some other reason.

[NBASupes]

Bazemore is no longer tank commandering so he needs to leave the platoon 

[Peoriabird]

I don't think anyone will be traded except maybe Belinelli or Ilyasova.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

If people are talking "championships", just remember what normally the recipe for one is:

• At least 1 Hall of Fame caliber player playing at or near their peak
• At least 1 All-Star caliber player who is also All-NBA or even a borderline Hall of Famer
• A 3rd player who is at least a borderline All-Star caliber player
• A top 10 offensive team . . ( preferably top 5 )
• A top 10 defensive team

* it is slightly more important to be great OFFENSIVELY than DEFENSIVELY . . but you have to be very good in both areas.

 

Just based off of the last two criteria, what NBA teams today fit that bill?

• Golden State:  ( #1 offense rating - #7 defensive rating )
• Toronto: ( #4 offense - #4 defense )

That's it folks.  In a normal year, you'd at least have 4 teams that would fit that criteria of having at least a top 10 offense and defense.  But this season, you have a lot of "good" teams that are top 10 in one area, but bottom 15 on the other side: 

( see New Orleans, Philadelphia, Indiana, LA Clippers, Milwaukee, Minnesota, Miami, San Antonio, Cleveland, and Boston )

 

Oklahoma City is one of 2 teams on the verge that can say they're top 10 in both categories ( 12th offensively - 3rd defensively )

Houston is the other team:  ( 2nd offensively - 12th defensively ).

 

 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

7 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

If people are talking "championships", just remember what normally the recipe for one is:

• At least 1 Hall of Fame caliber player playing at or near their peak
• At least 1 All-Star caliber player who is also All-NBA or even a borderline Hall of Famer
• A 3rd player who is at least a borderline All-Star caliber player
• A top 10 offensive team . . ( preferably top 5 )
• A top 10 defensive team

* it is slightly more important to be great OFFENSIVELY than DEFENSIVELY . . but you have to be very good in both areas.

 

Just based off of the last two criteria, what NBA teams today fit that bill?

• Golden State:  ( #1 offense rating - #7 defensive rating )
• Toronto: ( #4 offense - #4 defense )

That's it folks.  In a normal year, you'd at least have 4 teams that would fit that criteria of having at least a top 10 offense and defense.  But this season, you have a lot of "good" teams that are top 10 in one area, but bottom 15 on the other side: 

( see New Orleans, Philadelphia, Indiana, LA Clippers, Milwaukee, Minnesota, Miami, San Antonio, Cleveland, and Boston )

 

Oklahoma City is one of 2 teams on the verge that can say they're top 10 in both categories ( 12th offensively - 3rd defensively )

Houston is the other team:  ( 2nd offensively - 12th defensively ).

 

 

148 points by Oklahoma City vs Cleveland today.  They're the DANGER TEAM to Golden State.  They essentially have all of the elements.

 

- 3 Future Hall of Famers . . . with at least one of them ( Westbrook ) playing at peak level

- A guy who is an All-Star ( or should be ), and is a borderline All-NBA and future Hall of Famer ( George )

- A 3rd guy who is at least borderline All-Star caliber ( Anthony  . . . who will be in the Hall of Fame )

- Almost on the verge of becoming a top 10 offensive team ( today's game will help immensely in that department )

- Top 5 defensive team