That doesn't make Boozer any less of a prick...
Sorry, I just wanted to put that out there...
Sorry, I just wanted to put that out there...
[GS/UTA] Western Semifinals
- Thread starter nebs
- Start date
kupman
Starter
Clean measure of talent???
Uh...maybe clean measure of projected talent when these guys were all 18-20.
Any measuring scale where Carlos Boozer pulls you down is ratehr inherently flawed. Under that scale if the Jazz trade for Arenas next month to play OG, our talent gap over them will actually widen.
Hmmm.......so you are saying that draft position does not have that much to do with talent? Are you saying that projected talent does not translate well into actual talent? Are you saying that draft position does not have that much to do with NBA success?
If you believe that the 'draft position- NBA success relationship,' is all so tenuous, it is hard to understand why you would advocate purposely 'tanking' a season - or even 2-3 seasons in a row - for higher draft picks.
It is hard to believe that you would make GP and the Maloofs out to be gutless cowards if the relationship is so weak. After all, 'tanking' and going into a losing mode to secure higher draft picks is going to result in countless millions of dollars in lost revenue for the Maloofs as people stop paying for tickets, stop paying for souvenirs, no income from playoff games etc.
In fact, you should be extremely confident that securing higher draft picks through losing is going to translate into more talent and then more wins if your owners have millions and millions at stake.
Actually, what I'm saying (since I won't presume to speak for Superman and Brickalyer) is that it's specious to try to say that what pick that respective players were taken in their draft year has to do with the quality of a team in general. How good a player is has nothing to do with how good a team thought that player was going to be when he got drafted; absolutely nothing.
If that were the most important criteria, then the Bobcats (whom I love to watch) would be the best team in the NBA.
If that were the most important criteria, then the Bobcats (whom I love to watch) would be the best team in the NBA.
sloter
Starter
No doubt about that... Especially because during the time when high school players were drafted they were usually relatively lower picks.
Kobe, McGrady, Garnett were all much lower because it was risky to tell that at such a young age. Then you also have people like Darko who were drafted much higher than they should have because of the wave of talented young/international players right before him...
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Sorry buddy, saw you angling for this a mile away.
Because I see absolutely no reason to waste my time proving the sky is blue to somebody who has his eyes closed and has given no indication he ever intends to open them, I will make an absolute guarantee without bothering to do the serious research that would 100% confirm it: your odds of landing major players goes up EXPONENTIALLY the higher you draft. EXPONENTIALLY. Your chances of landing a star with the #1 pick might be 50%. Your chances of landing one with the 30th pick might be 1%. Only an idiot would attempt to claim every #1 is a star, and every #30 a bust. Only a bigger idiot would attempt to claim that because there is a % chance of getting a star with either pick that it does not matter where you draft.
Utah didn't say, "well we have some really dumb fans so they'll buy it when we tell them we're going to just draft our way back to the top with second round draft picks", they waited until of ALL the hundreds of second round picks around the league in the last decade shook out, untile they had all played and the soltiary gems amongst all the garbage were obvious and 2 of the Top 10 or so became available as free agents, which they could purchase through having cleared out all their salareis and accepted some sucky years. Then they went out and got a #3 pick, which probably has at least a 33% chance of landing a star, and did just that. Voila, instant rebuild.
Last edited:
Well, that's exactly what I'm saying.
Let's live in the real world here. To say that because someone was a higher draft pick than someone else five years ago they have more talent than that person is ridiculous. Let's be reasonable and logical here.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
You are missing the point -- it was just a primitive trap. A setup to try to get everyone to say "that's not right" so it could then be spun around to ridiculous lengths the other way. It was never a real argument, just fishing.
kupman
Starter
Yeah, of course you saw the angling a mile away. That's why you decided to contradict yourself in your arguments anyway. Which is it? I am confused now. Is there a strong relationship between level of talent and draft position or not?
And just an FYI, there was no angling on my part. You walked into the contradiction yourself. My stance has stayed the same. So, whatever buddy - feel free to insult me and my 'closed eyes.'
No, there is not. What there is is a strong relationship between projected level of talent and draft position. That's the key word. Real talent level and projected talent level are unfortunately too often, mutually exclusive. And not only that, but your misguided stance fails to take into account that many GMs often waste picks by picking players that don't work out.
Projected talent level leads to players like Nikoloz Tskitishvili, Dajuan Wagner and Chris Wilcox to be taken over Amare Stoudemire. It's what leads to Reece Gaines, Troy Bell, Zarko Cabarkapa and Travis Outlaw to be taken over Josh Howard...
If you're not good enough to make the playoffs, then you want the best draft pick possible, but no one ever said that high draft picks are a guarantee of talent, and to think that it would reflects a fundamental lack of understanding.
sloter
Starter
It's not either or. It's a risk, chances are that a higher pick will end up being a better player, but it doesn't have to turn out that way.
I saw it, but I couldn't believe it.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
No, you may continue to play the remainder of this room and make them dance, but you are just being an *** at a certain point. And I feel perfectly comfortable in that statement because you are intentionally attempting to start an argument by playing stupid to muddy the issue. There is no contradiction, no confusion, no difficult to understand issue here. Most gradeschoolers would quickly catch the distinction. No draft position has ever magcially determined somebody's talent, they have however VERY consistently determined the liklihood of somebody having talent before you put the issue to test on the court.
I will dance this last set, playing along with the game that you really are a blithering idiot and need everything explained to you from 100 different angles, in triplicate. But we both know better, and hereafter its really got to stop. You're just being aggravating to be aggravating. That serves no purpose but your own.
So here it is, variations on an idiot's guide to talent vis a vis draft position:
1) There is an immensely stong correlation between draft position, AS A GROUP, and talent. Within any particular group, however, there will of course be a variety of talent levels. However, the total talent of the higher draft pick groups will far exceed the total talent of the lower draft pick groups, and the average talent of the individuals in the higher draft pick groups will far exceed the average talent in the lower draft pick groups.
2) each draft position can be described as a bell curve, with the curves overlapping, but the highest draft picks having the curves centered over a much hiogher level of talent than the lower draft picks. Thus the ultra-exceptional 35th pick could still have a very high talent level if he was on the far extreme upper side of his curve, but 99% of his compatriots would be well back, and the upper extreme of his curve might only be right in the middle of the curve for #1 picks.
3) #1 picks, last 20 years: Andrea Bargnani, Andrew Bogut, Dwight Howard, LeBron James, Yao Ming, Kwame Brown, Kenyon Martin, Elton Brand, Michael Olowakandi, Tim Duncan, Allen Iverson, Joe Smith, Glenn Robinson, Chris Webber, Shaquille O'Neal, Larry Johnson, Derrick Coleman, Pervis Ellison, Danny Manning, David Robinson, Brad Daugherty
#7 picks, last 20 years: Randy Foye, Charlie Villanueva, Luol Deng, Kirk Hinrich, Nene Hilario, Eddie Griffin, Chris Mihm, Richard Hamilton, Jason Williams, Tim Thomas, Lorenzen Wright, Damon Stoudamire, Lamond Murray, Bobby Hurley, Walt Williams, Luc Longley, Lionel Simmons, George McCloud, Tim Perry, Kevin Johnson, Roy Tarpley
#14 picks, last 20 years: Ronnie Brewer, Rashard McCants, Kris Humphries, Luke Ridnour, Fred Jones, Troy Murphy, Mateen Cleaves, William Avery, Michael Dickerson, Maurice Taylor, Peja Stojakovic, Eric Williams, Yinka Dare, Scott Haskin, Malik Sealy, Rich King, Travis Mays, Tim Hardaway , Dan Majerle, Tellis Frank, Walter Berry
#21 picks, last 20 years: Rajon Rondo, Nate Robinson, Pavel Podkolzine, Boris Diaw, Quentel Woods, Joseph Forte, Morris Petersen, Jeff Foster, Ricky Davis, Anthony Parker, Dontae Jones, Michael Finley, Dickey Simpkins, James Robinson, Jon Barry, Eric Murdock, Jayson Williams, Blue Edwards, Mark Bryant, Dallas Comegys, Anthony Jones
#28 picks, last 20 years: Maurice Ager, Ian Mahinmi, Beno Udrih, Leandro Barbossa, Dan Dickau, Tony Parker, Erick Barkley, Scott Padgett, Corey Benjamin, Keith Booth, Priest Lauderdale, Greg Ostertag, Deon Thomas, Luscious Harris, Marlon Maxey, Kevin Lynch, Les Jepsen, Sherman Douglas, Andrew Lang, Rickie Winslow, Larry Krystkowiak
So now, skipping right past the inevitable baiting "so you are admitting we can get Tony Parker even with the 28th pick", out of which grouping would you go shopping for a star? How about even for a starter?
Last edited:
No bold for Maybyrner?
kupman
Starter
I pretty much agree with you here. I would say that draft position is a relatively strong predictor of raw basketball talent, but the talent will get "muddied" once the players enter in the league and then a large host of other factors begin to determine NBA success for each player.
This is the reason that I think that 'tanking' a season, or a few seasons to get higher draft picks can be criticized and trying to win every season can be supported.
Brick - I am not being an ***. I am just disagreeing with you. I am just taking the side of GP and the Maloofs. I believe that while you may be able to draft better talent with higher picks, there is a fragile relationship between draft pick position and future success and this fragile relationship does not justify losing games and hundreds of millions of dollars in the process. This can been seen with the Jazz on one side and the Nuggets on the other.
However, your response to my disagreement is insulting. I don't really need you to insult my open mindedness, my education level or anything else for that matter.
I'm outta this.
RaY Z
Starter
don't think he likes to be corrected... or i don't think he likes being wrong too... he wants to be always right... hehehe...
dw brick is just like this...
nbrans
All-Star
This argument is kind of silly because you're both right. Bricklayer is correct that there is a correlation between talent and draft position. 82games.com has tackled it (don't really feel like sifting through the archives), and the data is pretty clear -- on average the higher the pick the more success in the NBA. There are exceptions at every spot, but on average that's the case.
At the same time, as Bill Simmons demonstrated (in a rare moment of lucidity), having a bunch of high draft picks doesn't really correlate with success on the court. Sure, there are examples where it does work (Cleveland, Miami, etc.), but there are just as many if not more counterexamples where it doesn't (Atlanta, Milwaukee, etc.). This is essentially, as I understand it, kupman's point -- that a high draft pick does not necessarily correlate with sparking a successful franchise.
Now, part of the problem with analyzing the success of lottery teams is that lotto teams tend to be the most ineptly managed, and thus there are plenty of stupid draft picks. At the same time, even well-run franchises like Detroit have whiffed with a high pick in an incredibly strong draft. So, if you want to average it out, the correlation between a high pick and franchise success is weak at best.
Tanking really doesn't work on average (Hollinger had an article on this, but it's Insider so I won't fish out), and this is probably what the franchise was thinking when they didn't join Tankapalooza -- there's no guarantee you're going to get a high pick, there's no guarantee that high pick is going to pan out, and even if that high pick does pan out there's no guarantee your team is going to be good. Any franchise that has drafted a really good player late in the draft knows that the opportunity afforded by a high pick can be overblown.
At the same time, it's called the lottery for a reason -- there's a jackpot, and although the odds aren't with you, sometimes it's the time to gamble. At least in my opinion, this season was that time since there wasn't anything to lose. The play on the court was uninspiring so it's not like the fans would have noticed, there are two franchise-changing talents in the draft instead of the usual none or one, and, like I said, there was nothing to lose.
So I still think the Kings should have tanked even if kupman's right that it wouldn't have been a guarantor of success -- heck, the odds were still that it would have backfired. But this is one time when I think it was worth rolling the dice.
At the same time, as Bill Simmons demonstrated (in a rare moment of lucidity), having a bunch of high draft picks doesn't really correlate with success on the court. Sure, there are examples where it does work (Cleveland, Miami, etc.), but there are just as many if not more counterexamples where it doesn't (Atlanta, Milwaukee, etc.). This is essentially, as I understand it, kupman's point -- that a high draft pick does not necessarily correlate with sparking a successful franchise.
Now, part of the problem with analyzing the success of lottery teams is that lotto teams tend to be the most ineptly managed, and thus there are plenty of stupid draft picks. At the same time, even well-run franchises like Detroit have whiffed with a high pick in an incredibly strong draft. So, if you want to average it out, the correlation between a high pick and franchise success is weak at best.
Tanking really doesn't work on average (Hollinger had an article on this, but it's Insider so I won't fish out), and this is probably what the franchise was thinking when they didn't join Tankapalooza -- there's no guarantee you're going to get a high pick, there's no guarantee that high pick is going to pan out, and even if that high pick does pan out there's no guarantee your team is going to be good. Any franchise that has drafted a really good player late in the draft knows that the opportunity afforded by a high pick can be overblown.
At the same time, it's called the lottery for a reason -- there's a jackpot, and although the odds aren't with you, sometimes it's the time to gamble. At least in my opinion, this season was that time since there wasn't anything to lose. The play on the court was uninspiring so it's not like the fans would have noticed, there are two franchise-changing talents in the draft instead of the usual none or one, and, like I said, there was nothing to lose.
So I still think the Kings should have tanked even if kupman's right that it wouldn't have been a guarantor of success -- heck, the odds were still that it would have backfired. But this is one time when I think it was worth rolling the dice.
Last edited:
Similar threads
