Top 5 picks over the last decade: an analysis
- Thread starter RookieOfTheDay
- Start date
Agreed. Some GMs reach, some are a little too conservative and some nail it all the time. I think ours is in between the latter two camps which means we'll likely get a very good to great player with such a pick.
It's also worth noting that frequently the biggest busts are the project bigs drafted over NBA ready smaller players and I don't think that would be a concern with our GM either.
It's also worth noting that frequently the biggest busts are the project bigs drafted over NBA ready smaller players and I don't think that would be a concern with our GM either.
I don't agree with your point on injuries. If you can assure me that nobody drafted with a top 5 pick will get injured, then yeah, I'll buy it. But that's not realistic. If Tyreke would end with perpetual foot problems and becomes an also-ran, he's a "bust", pure and simple. Injuries are a part of basketball and life; you can't exclude them from the bust category.
Also, there isn't such thing as an obvious reach. Everybody has an opinion on what an "obvious" reach is, but there is no consensus when you get down to specifics. Some thought Sheldon Williams was an "obvious" reach. Some didn't. Just the fact that these "obvious" reaches are picked by large budget scouting departments and teams spending hundreds, if not thousands on man-hours on scouting belies the fact that these players you mentioned were "obvious" reaches.
Well, I didn't actually throw out the injury related busts. Other people made that comment but I didn't. I just said that the bust percentage is closer to 16% than 35% to me for the reasons I listed and a lot of that 16% is made up of players who had career ending or crippling injuries. There was some warning with Oden but not with Livingston or Jay Williams. Some risk is always there, I don't deny that. I was mainly saying that getting a solid starter or a good but not great player with a top 5 pick is a disappointment, but not the same thing as a total bust.
And we'll just have to agree to disagree on the second point. I follow the draft pretty closely every year and I stand by my statement that the four guys I listed should not have been top 5 picks and wouldn't have been for most GMs in the league. Darko is a maybe. Everyone seemed to want him that year but that was mostly because of size, position, international player fetish, upside. He was a bigger gamble than most picks and everyone knew that.
And we'll just have to agree to disagree on the second point. I follow the draft pretty closely every year and I stand by my statement that the four guys I listed should not have been top 5 picks and wouldn't have been for most GMs in the league. Darko is a maybe. Everyone seemed to want him that year but that was mostly because of size, position, international player fetish, upside. He was a bigger gamble than most picks and everyone knew that.
2 of those came Stromile Swift and Marcus Fizer came from the worst draft ever 2000. I would also put the other 5 as WTF or Chad Ford picks at the time. Darko vs. Carmelo, Thabeet vs. Evans, Tskitishvili vs. anyone? Notice they were all gambles on big men. With all the success teams have had shorter power fowards I don't see that ever happening again.
Also the 2000 draft, ouch:
Michael Redd - Career 0.020 (237)
Kenyon Martin - Career 0.003 (354)
Jamal Crawford - Career 0.002 (399)
Mike Miller - Career 0.001 (445)
Quentin Richardson - Career 0.000 (586)
Desmond Mason - Career 0.000 (572)
Hedo - Career 0.000 (600)
Eddie House - Career 0.000 (699)
Jamaal Magloire - Career 0.000 (751)
Mark Madsen - Career 0.000 (978)
Joel Przybilla - Career 0.000 (995)
Jake Voskuhl - Career 0.000 (1027)
Jason Hart - Career 0.000 (Infinity)
Also the 2000 draft, ouch:
Michael Redd - Career 0.020 (237)
Kenyon Martin - Career 0.003 (354)
Jamal Crawford - Career 0.002 (399)
Mike Miller - Career 0.001 (445)
Quentin Richardson - Career 0.000 (586)
Desmond Mason - Career 0.000 (572)
Hedo - Career 0.000 (600)
Eddie House - Career 0.000 (699)
Jamaal Magloire - Career 0.000 (751)
Mark Madsen - Career 0.000 (978)
Joel Przybilla - Career 0.000 (995)
Jake Voskuhl - Career 0.000 (1027)
Jason Hart - Career 0.000 (Infinity)
Once again very subjective. Especially in the placements. You have Conley as a bust to disappointment, but he really hasn't been in the league long enough to make that judgement. I think this is especially true of two positions. Center, and PG. But thats another story. If were basing this purely on the likelyhood of picking a HOF player, then the odds are against you. But if were talking about good to very good players, then I think the odds go up dramaticly. I have no idea what equation I would put on that, because there are too many variables. Some players take longer than others. Some players are in the wrong system, or on a very bad team. There's no doubt that a HOF player will probably stand out no matter where you put him. But put a young PG on a team with players that can't score, and he's not going to look very good. Put a good low post center on a team that won't pass him the ball, and he appears to be just an average center.
I understand what your trying to do, but its really hard when you start pigeon holeing players. When you add in the equation that every draft isn't equal, and sometimes you don't really know the results until 3 to 4 years later, it makes it that much harder to judge.
I notice that you left Steve Nash off your list. He by the way, was the 15th pick in the 1996 draft. But it took Nash 5 years to start to show what kind of player he was. Until his 5th year, he was just another average PG in the NBA. You want to know who was number 14? Peja, and Kobe was number 13, and Jermanin O' Neal was number 17. He was another player that didn't do diddley squat until his 4th or 5th year in the league and after a trade. The top five in that draft were 1. Iverson, 2. Camby, 3. AbdulRahim, 4. Stephen Marbury, 5. Ray Allen. I'd say the odds of getting a very good player in the top five of that draft were pretty good. Even if a couple of them didn't quite have their heads screwed on straight. Antoine Walker was the 6th pick.
Now hindsight is a 100% as they say. When people looked at that draft originally, I doubt they saw that many good players there. Iverson was a slamdunk. But after that, your hoping you've made the right decision. This next draft could be just as good as that draft. We just don't know yet, and probably won't know until 4 years later. But I'll take my chances with a top 5 pick over trading it for a player that by no means is a slamdunk proven player. By the way, the Knicks took the great John Wallace with their pick. It does help to have a GM thats a good judge of talent.
I understand what your trying to do, but its really hard when you start pigeon holeing players. When you add in the equation that every draft isn't equal, and sometimes you don't really know the results until 3 to 4 years later, it makes it that much harder to judge.
I notice that you left Steve Nash off your list. He by the way, was the 15th pick in the 1996 draft. But it took Nash 5 years to start to show what kind of player he was. Until his 5th year, he was just another average PG in the NBA. You want to know who was number 14? Peja, and Kobe was number 13, and Jermanin O' Neal was number 17. He was another player that didn't do diddley squat until his 4th or 5th year in the league and after a trade. The top five in that draft were 1. Iverson, 2. Camby, 3. AbdulRahim, 4. Stephen Marbury, 5. Ray Allen. I'd say the odds of getting a very good player in the top five of that draft were pretty good. Even if a couple of them didn't quite have their heads screwed on straight. Antoine Walker was the 6th pick.
Now hindsight is a 100% as they say. When people looked at that draft originally, I doubt they saw that many good players there. Iverson was a slamdunk. But after that, your hoping you've made the right decision. This next draft could be just as good as that draft. We just don't know yet, and probably won't know until 4 years later. But I'll take my chances with a top 5 pick over trading it for a player that by no means is a slamdunk proven player. By the way, the Knicks took the great John Wallace with their pick. It does help to have a GM thats a good judge of talent.
Last edited:
I guess we can all have our definition of the word bust. But to me a bust is a player that simply doesn't live up the the expectations everyone had prior to his being drafted. In other words, his actual talent was a hell of lot less than people thought. In my opinion, most so called busts are merely GM's, or owners, who are making a reach, many times against the advice of their own scouting dept. Someone like Morrison had obvious limitations. You draft him at 25, and its no big deal. You take him in the top five and your an idiot. The thing is, its not the players fault, and its really a disservice to the player because of the expectations that come with being picked that high.
But I don't think its fair to call a player that can't compete because of injuries a bust. Unless, once again, its Adam Morrison and he's already proven to be said bust. But is Brandon Roy a bust, if his career is over because of his current knee problems? Is Yao Ming a bust? Now if you draft a player out of college, or the european league and he already has a history of injuries, then maybe you could call it a bad pick if that player has a limited career because of the same injuries. But I don't think its fair to call him a bust. Oden may never live up to his press clippings because of injuries. But its not for lack of talent or effort. To me a bust is either an underaccheiver, or didn't have the talent in the first place.
But I don't think its fair to call a player that can't compete because of injuries a bust. Unless, once again, its Adam Morrison and he's already proven to be said bust. But is Brandon Roy a bust, if his career is over because of his current knee problems? Is Yao Ming a bust? Now if you draft a player out of college, or the european league and he already has a history of injuries, then maybe you could call it a bad pick if that player has a limited career because of the same injuries. But I don't think its fair to call him a bust. Oden may never live up to his press clippings because of injuries. But its not for lack of talent or effort. To me a bust is either an underaccheiver, or didn't have the talent in the first place.
Actually they took John Wallace, "I Love" Walter McCarthy and Dontae Jones. More misses in one draft than Petrie has had since (Douby and Hawes, anyone I missed)?
Have to agree, with the exception for someone who perhaps was injury prone coming in to the league and a GM ignored it. But not for someone who actually achieved success in a small time and then suffered an unexpected injury.
Have to agree, with the exception for someone who perhaps was injury prone coming in to the league and a GM ignored it. But not for someone who actually achieved success in a small time and then suffered an unexpected injury.
Also, it is innacurate to consider Mike Conley, Jr. and Michael Beasley 'busts' or 'disappointments', especially at this point in their careers. Conley got a huge contract because of his play, and Beasley is now doing well in Minnesota. They are easily more 'good' than 'disappointment'.
Now that I've looked it up, Michael Beasley is averaging 21.8 ppg and 47.8% shooting this year. Tell me how that is disappointing.....
Now that I've looked it up, Michael Beasley is averaging 21.8 ppg and 47.8% shooting this year. Tell me how that is disappointing.....
Last edited:
As of today, I keep this year's pick. I think Petrie drafts well and I think we have a shot at getting a player as good or even better than Felton and for a longer period of time. Of course, we made need the longer time to evaluate how that draftee will pan out, but maybe not. Plus, I'm not sure how much Felton's play is affected by the system he plays in and might not fair as well with the Kings.
We will have considerable cap space after this year, the Maloofs have said they are willing to spend it. Cap space also gives you a lot more flexibility for trades after the new CBA comes out. (Hopefully sooner rather than later.)
Yes, Brick had a very good post about top 10, I think, draftees compared to lower draft picks.
We will have considerable cap space after this year, the Maloofs have said they are willing to spend it. Cap space also gives you a lot more flexibility for trades after the new CBA comes out. (Hopefully sooner rather than later.)
Yes, Brick had a very good post about top 10, I think, draftees compared to lower draft picks.
BTW, trades can be just as much of a gamble than a draft pick, if not more, unless you are trading for a superstar. When trading for a middle of the pack player, there is a huge risk of him not fitting the system and falling off a cliff. Landry was the leading candidate for 6th man of the year, we got him in a trade, and he doesn't fit into our non-system and everyone wants to get rid of him. Nocioni was considered a valuable role player before he came here and was chased out of town. Hedo was lost in Toronto and Pheonix, Nate Robinson was a laughing stock in NY and now he is doing great in Boston. Beasley was a bust in Miami and is putting up allstar numbers in Minny.
So you can never know how it works out. Theoretically, we can get Felton and he can be a total misfit here, and we can get some scrub who suddenly becomes an allstar because he is the only person in the world who can understand Westphal's system...
What I'm saying is, just like you made a list of draft picks that didn't pan out, you can make a list of players who were traded and performed well below their expected level. I suspect the list of busts in the trade category will be much longer.
So you can never know how it works out. Theoretically, we can get Felton and he can be a total misfit here, and we can get some scrub who suddenly becomes an allstar because he is the only person in the world who can understand Westphal's system...
What I'm saying is, just like you made a list of draft picks that didn't pan out, you can make a list of players who were traded and performed well below their expected level. I suspect the list of busts in the trade category will be much longer.