Uh, The Glove got a ring last year....
How we rebuilt the last time
- Thread starter joejoe
- Start date
Uh, The Glove got a ring last year....
kupman
Starter
My bad, take him off my list.......but, I think we could agree that he was not a major player for the Heat last year.
So I guess you really wouldn't want a young Ming, Webber, Brand, Gasol, SAR, Chandler, or Camby for this team to develop with Martin?
'Cause that's what we are talking about - a bunch of nice-looking bigs to choose from as a consolation prize for a 1-year dip because, frankly, we suck this year, especially at finishing games.
HighFlyingMonkey
Starter
I narrowed down your list to those who truly were busts. These are the only guys picked top 3 from 1990-2002 who didn't pan out. There are 16 names on that list. Now, from 2003-2004, the top three from each included Lebron, Darko, Melo, Howard, Okafor, Gordon, so 17 total busts in the last 14 years out of 42 players.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Given that we have to go 27-20 at this point just to reach 41-41 for the season, the idiocy we are talking about is preferring to grab the #12 seed or whatever ratehr than the #3 seed ro whatever. Silly.
1990-1998: Jordan (#3 pick) gets 6 rings
1994-1995: Olajuwon (#1 pick) gets 2 rings
1999-2006: Shaq (#1 pick) gets 4 rings
1998-2005: David Robinson (#1 pick) gets 2 rings, Tim Duncan (#1 pick) gets 3.
2003-2004: Wallace (#2 pick) and Billups (#3 pick) get rings.
That's 19 rings for top 3 picks in 13 years. 19/39 = .49: there are half as many rings awarded to top 3 picks as there are guys who are top 3 picks. A 49% chance is pretty dang good. In those same 13 years, there have been around 1300 guys who played in the NBA that were not top 3 picks. Between them they won around 110 rings. That's a little under eight and a half percent chance at a ring for guys who are picked 4-60.
The Pistons' '03-'04 title is the only example of a team which won without at least one #1 draft pick in the post-Jordan era. And they had a #2 and a #3.
I'm definitely good with our getting a top 3 pick.
1994-1995: Olajuwon (#1 pick) gets 2 rings
1999-2006: Shaq (#1 pick) gets 4 rings
1998-2005: David Robinson (#1 pick) gets 2 rings, Tim Duncan (#1 pick) gets 3.
2003-2004: Wallace (#2 pick) and Billups (#3 pick) get rings.
That's 19 rings for top 3 picks in 13 years. 19/39 = .49: there are half as many rings awarded to top 3 picks as there are guys who are top 3 picks. A 49% chance is pretty dang good. In those same 13 years, there have been around 1300 guys who played in the NBA that were not top 3 picks. Between them they won around 110 rings. That's a little under eight and a half percent chance at a ring for guys who are picked 4-60.
The Pistons' '03-'04 title is the only example of a team which won without at least one #1 draft pick in the post-Jordan era. And they had a #2 and a #3.
I'm definitely good with our getting a top 3 pick.
Last edited:
kupman
Starter
Hey what do you know, we agree upon something. This has become silly as we are not a very good team that will likely end up with a good pick come June.
It is just my philosophy that you try to win every game, every year and you do whatever you can to win as many games as possible. That goes from owner-GM to ballboys. I think this way because I believe the 'rebuild mode' is a myth.
Vlade4GM
All-Star
the goal should always be a championship. this core has a zero shot at a championship, the only realistic way we can is to build around a young core and a superstar player. the only likely way that's going to happen is through the draft since teams hold on to their young superstars. why aim for a first round exit? there is no point. being in the middle is the worst spot to be in, in the nba. you just don't want to admit that losing would be good for this team's future. you just want patchwork because you don't have the patience for rebuilding. rebuilding is a necessary step for all teams in transition, rebuilding on the fly is the myth!!!
uolj
Starter
I disagree to an extent, but it doesn't matter. Change superstars to Top 3 draft picks and the point stands.
I can respect the opinion that you try to win every game every year, even if I disagree. It is similar to not wanting the Kings to trade for Shaq or Kobe to put them over the top a few years ago, even if you knew it would guarantee a championship.
What I don't understand is why you believe that the idea behind rebuild mode is a myth. You have been given evidence and arguments that you have not been able to refute. I don't see any arguments to the contrary that make any sense.
Alacron
Bench
I expect the players and coaches to try to win every game. But savvy GMs and owners should be focused on long-term success. Part of that is acquiring the best young players possible. Thus making moves that enhance long-term success may necessisarily mean moves that hurt short-term success.
Reading through the lines, that means they should sabotage the team for a year so we can get a high draft pick. Swapping Adelman for Musselman was a good start.
~~
Reading through the lines, that means they should sabotage the team for a year so we can get a high draft pick. Swapping Adelman for Musselman was a good start.
~~
migibizzle
G-League
Chim Richulds
Prospect
I loved Oden's facial expression when he made that last block...can't see it in the highlight unfortunately...
Laettner averaged 17/8/3/1.5/1 through the first half of his career, before he got injured. Now, those might not be superstar numbers but, except for his first two years in Minnesota, he was never the number-one guy on any team. If you tell me that my second option is going to put up those numbers, I'll take it with a smile on my face; he might not have been as good as hyped, but that's not a bust no matter how you spell it.
LJ is a bust? Career 20/9/4 before he broke his back is a bust? Or did you forget about that part?
LPKingsFan
All-Star
Grandmama may have been busty, but he was no bust.
Derrick Coleman's 20 and 10 for the first 5 years of his career weren't so shabby, either. He played quite respectably until '00-'01, by which time he'd been in the NBA for a decade, was out with a major injury for the second time, and was 33 years old. He was a couple of months short of 38 by the time nobody wanted him on the roster anymore.
I'd settle for a draft pick like that.
I'd settle for a draft pick like that.
Gargamel
Starter
Mahmoud Jackson wasn't a bust either, at least not until he left Denver and the whole Natl Anthem controversy. The 90 Draft was very weak past the 5th pick, Jackson was one of the better players of that draft.
Kenny Anderson wasn't a stat bust by any measure, but he was a personality bust. Then again, he did play for the 90s Nets -- that would test anyone's patience.
Kenny Anderson wasn't a stat bust by any measure, but he was a personality bust. Then again, he did play for the 90s Nets -- that would test anyone's patience.
Last edited:
kupman
Starter
Please note that I was not making a list of 'busts.' That was not the original intent of the lists. The original intent of the list was to show which top 3 picks during a 13 year span have not obtained a ring.
This was done as it was being postulated that drafting in the Top 3 would help us win a title. I was using the list to show the counter point that the vast majority of Top 3 picks never win a title.
The 'bust' or 'not a bust' is just too ripe with subjectivity for my taste.
This was done as it was being postulated that drafting in the Top 3 would help us win a title. I was using the list to show the counter point that the vast majority of Top 3 picks never win a title.
The 'bust' or 'not a bust' is just too ripe with subjectivity for my taste.
And yet, as I pointed out, there were (during the time period you looked at) 19 rings given out to to guys who were top 3 picks -- .49 rings per top 3 player drafted -- which is a rate of winning championships almost 5 times higher than for guys who were not top 3 picks.
You showed that it was mainly the same handful of top 3 picks who were winning rings repeatedly, that they were not evenly distributed among guys who were top 3 picks, due to a few teams winning the championship over and over. So instead of having a 49% chance of getting one championship, we'd have an 18% chance of winning 1-6 championships.
That's just how the NBA's been lately, so you either put up with it or you watch college ball. And the possibility of winning multiple championships doesn't seem all that unbearable, does it?
---
In all figures up to this point, I was forgetting Gary Payton's ring with Miami, so the figures should really be 51.3% instead of 49%, and 20.5% instead of 18%.
Last edited:
