My Superficial Assessment of the #12 Pick

[bench_blob]

There is an overriding fundamental in play as Petrie and staff prepare for Wednesday: The Kings need a star. Forget about "1" or power forward or center, the Kings need a star. With Artest future being dubious, the Kings have one star. (K-Mart) You need three stars on your team to go deep into the playoffs:

Spurs (Ginobli, Parker, Duncan)
Celts (Allen, KG, Pierce)
Lakers (Kobe, Bryant, Odom)
Pistons (Billups, Rip, Wallace)

I don't much about these players other than superficial impressions from their You Tube highlights, but I do know Petrie is going to draft a guy he thinks can be a star, and bring a skill set to our roster we are lacking.

The big guys on the board at #12 cannot be seriously considered if they are forecasted as role players, with less distinguished careers than Sheldon Williams. Do we actually want to waste our pick on a guy who can't keep up with Mr. 3-and-2?

I think our guy is Joe Alexander.

YOUR NEWEST SACRAMENTO KING
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_FdP4T_nME

Someone please tell me why cannot this guy be our version of David Lee, or David West? Explosive around the hoop. Tireless energy, intense gym rat who has shown consistent improvement each year. Ready to contribute from Day 1. 'Tweener 3/4 type with an excellent turnaround post shot, athletic enough to run the wings with Cisco and K-Mart and Beno. No reason he won't develop 3 point range with his work ethic.

Jumpin' Joe makes Artest and ball-hog Salmons that much more expendable. From the highlights I have seen, Jumpin' Joe looks to have skills to play 3 positions. That's impressive.

Fans will bemoaning the fact we picked another 'swingman', but swingman is a secondary tag. The primary tag is 'star'. The Kings are a team on the upswing. We need to keep the momentum going by not drafting a 3 year project. I will take the next Mike Miller over the next Brandon Wright (Who? Exactly.) any day.

 

[sactownfan]

the more i hear him talk the more i worry that he is arrogant to the point that its getting real annoying... i understand during interviews they need to be positive and confident but this guys borderline outa control. I wonder what kind of teammate he would be... and if hes selfish...

 

[GeraldWallace#3]

He did only average 2.4 assists his senior year. But I think your talking about locker room status. Right?

 

[nbrans]

I still just really don't understand why so many people are so obsessed with Joe Alexander. It would be one thing if we actually needed a small forward (and this is a bizarrely weak draft for SF), but we have already three! Ok, so we trade Artest in the offseason. Still have two! Unless we unload two out of three, this guy is never going to see the floor. And he's not a power forward. He's way too small for that.

But aside from needing someone at the 3 less than any other position, I guess I can see drafting someone like Alexander somewhere down in the first round based on his potential, sort of like what we did with Gerald Wallace. But with a lottery pick?? To review: he has no midrange game, he shot 27% from 3, he can't pass, can't dribble, and yes, is a great athlete and decent rebounder from the 3 spot (but not actually that great). So tell me again what the appeal is?

I think he's fitting all the stereotypes that old-school GM and coaching types love mixed with a novelty factor, and he's helping himself out with his Ron Artest-esque interviews, which, as sactownfan points out, are extremely annoying but make the old-school types salivate. He's "tough-nosed" and he "works out a lot" and blah blah blah. Spread some rumors about him sleeping in the gym and all that, and people start thinking anything's possible. And I'm sorry, I think being white is a factor.

I also love how people are talking about how he picked up the game late as if that's a benefit. Uh... he's 21. He's got about two or three years left of real improvement. At 24-25 guys are pretty much are how they are. And he's got a long way to go.

 

[Emma]

I also love how people are talking about how he picked up the game late as if that's a benefit. Uh... he's 21. He's got about two or three years left of real improvement. At 24-25 guys are pretty much are how they are. And he's got a long way to go.

They say that's a benefit because Tim Duncan also picked up the game late. I assume that's their premise.

Concerning arrogance, I think the guy is more hyped and confident than anything. He hasn't come out to say he is the greatest of all time yet has he? Is he the baddest man on the planet yet? When he does, he'll qualify for being arrogant to a fault.

 

[LoungeLizard]

I still just really don't understand why so many people are so obsessed with Joe Alexander. It would be one thing if we actually needed a small forward (and this is a bizarrely weak draft for SF), but we have already three! Ok, so we trade Artest in the offseason. Still have two! Unless we unload two out of three, this guy is never going to see the floor. And he's not a power forward. He's way too small for that.

But aside from needing someone at the 3 less than any other position, I guess I can see drafting someone like Alexander somewhere down in the first round based on his potential, sort of like what we did with Gerald Wallace. But with a lottery pick?? To review: he has no midrange game, he shot 27% from 3, he can't pass, can't dribble, and yes, is a great athlete and decent rebounder from the 3 spot (but not actually that great). So tell me again what the appeal is?

I think he's fitting all the stereotypes that old-school GM and coaching types love mixed with a novelty factor, and he's helping himself out with his Ron Artest-esque interviews, which, as sactownfan points out, are extremely annoying but make the old-school types salivate. He's "tough-nosed" and he "works out a lot" and blah blah blah. Spread some rumors about him sleeping in the gym and all that, and people start thinking anything's possible. And I'm sorry, I think being white is a factor.

I also love how people are talking about how he picked up the game late as if that's a benefit. Uh... he's 21. He's got about two or three years left of real improvement. At 24-25 guys are pretty much are how they are. And he's got a long way to go.

I'm with you on this one. I wrote about this in another Joe A thread. I think you are seeing the tourney factor. There is always a guy every year that has an outstanding NCAA tournament that was off the radar as far as NBA draft goes and then boom he shoots right on up due to 2-4 games of outstanding tournament play when all eyes are on him. I'm not trying to say that Alexander did not have a great year. He plays in arguably one of the toughest NCAA conferences in the Big East. The fact is, he was not considered lottery talent before the season or even before the tourney. Yes he has worked out well for teams and thus he continues to move up. I watched several WVU games this year (living in Morgantown) and I just didn't think of Alexander as a lottery pick or even NBA ready for that matter. In the NCAA you can rely on your athleticism to cover up other deficiencies in your game, in the NBA your talking about the top .1% of athletes in the world. Your weaknesses are exploited and your strengths diminished. Up till the start of the tournament there was no talk of him around here even declaring for the draft.

In my honest opinion, I see Joe Alexander coming into the league and being a Luke Walton type, except Walton is a better passer and Alexander is little more athletic. Nothing wrong with that, he'll have a place in the league but if your team is looking for him to be your "star", well, your team is in trouble.

 

[Emma]

Also: at this point I say go ahead and draft him. Maybe it will expediate a decision on Artest or Salmons. He could be trade filler for a deal involving the Matrix or he could well work out. Who knows?

 

[LoungeLizard]

As far as getting a "star" with our #12 pick:

Vitaly Potapenko 1996
Austin Croshere 1997
Michael Doleac 1998
Etan Thomas 2000
Vladimir Radmanovich 2001
Melvin Ely 2002
Nick Collison 2003
Robert Swift 2004
Yarolav Korolev 2005
Hilton Armstrong 2006
Thaddeus Young 2007

Those are the types of guys you get with a #12 pick. Any stars in that group? We need to stop kidding ourselves. The player we get at #12 will likely be a role player at best. I guess this is why all those people were wanting to lose to get a higher pick. I have seen the light.

 

[SacKings7]

As far as getting a "star" with our #12 pick:

Vitaly Potapenko 1996
Austin Croshere 1997
Michael Doleac 1998
Etan Thomas 2000
Vladimir Radmanovich 2001
Melvin Ely 2002
Nick Collison 2003
Robert Swift 2004
Yarolav Korolev 2005
Hilton Armstrong 2006
Thaddeus Young 2007

Those are the types of guys you get with a #12 pick. Any stars in that group? We need to stop kidding ourselves. The player we get at #12 will likely be a role player at best. I guess this is why all those people were wanting to lose to get a higher pick. I have seen the light.

That is an awful, awful list. But that's fine because imo stats don't prove anything when it comes to the draft. The draft is different every year, with different GM's picking in different positions every year. I'm sure we'll find a quality player with this pick

 

[CruzDude]

However, I side with the bench_blob thread on this particular subject. Of all the bigs that could be down around 12 (see my summary on just that at thread #17 under "Jordan, McGee and the other big....") only Speights might be able to help off the bench his first year but he would become a good, high quality PF but doubtful ever an all-star. The other BIGS similar but more likely a year or so away from same level of contribution.

Joe Alexander however, could well have that All-Star ability and also help off the bench his first year plus adding scoring, overall skills and running the floor. So he is a "tweener" 3-4. RonRon is a tweener 3-4 too. But none of our other 3's can be. In fact, Mikki should be a 3 IMHO.

 

[bajaden]

I still just really don't understand why so many people are so obsessed with Joe Alexander. It would be one thing if we actually needed a small forward (and this is a bizarrely weak draft for SF), but we have already three! Ok, so we trade Artest in the offseason. Still have two! Unless we unload two out of three, this guy is never going to see the floor. And he's not a power forward. He's way too small for that.

But aside from needing someone at the 3 less than any other position, I guess I can see drafting someone like Alexander somewhere down in the first round based on his potential, sort of like what we did with Gerald Wallace. But with a lottery pick?? To review: he has no midrange game, he shot 27% from 3, he can't pass, can't dribble, and yes, is a great athlete and decent rebounder from the 3 spot (but not actually that great). So tell me again what the appeal is?

I think he's fitting all the stereotypes that old-school GM and coaching types love mixed with a novelty factor, and he's helping himself out with his Ron Artest-esque interviews, which, as sactownfan points out, are extremely annoying but make the old-school types salivate. He's "tough-nosed" and he "works out a lot" and blah blah blah. Spread some rumors about him sleeping in the gym and all that, and people start thinking anything's possible. And I'm sorry, I think being white is a factor.

I also love how people are talking about how he picked up the game late as if that's a benefit. Uh... he's 21. He's got about two or three years left of real improvement. At 24-25 guys are pretty much are how they are. And he's got a long way to go.

I spend a lot of my time watching players play. I know, I should get a life. However, I don't care whether a player is black, white, pink or blue. If I see talent, then I see talent. I like this kid and I like his confidence in the same way I don't like the lack of confidence that I see in Arthur when he speaks. People say he can't dribble. Well, he can dribble. Is he Pistol Pete? NO. But he does just fine. People say he can't shoot, well I just spent two days watching five games of him and I'm telling you he can shoot. Can he shoot the three? NO, not that I saw in any of the games he played. But he has a very good turn around jumpshot from 15 ft in. People say he's not quick to the basket. All I've got to say to that, is that they have never seen him play. People say he can't play PF. Well his last year in college, thats the position he played. You can call him anything you want, but he played in the low post most of the time. As far as his being too small. Here are some stats from the pre-draft camp.

Height w/o - Height w - standin R - Weight - Bench press/185

Beasley- 6'7"- 6'8 3/4"- 8'11"- 239- 19 times

Arthur- 6'7 1/2"- 6'8 1/2"- 8'11"- 216- 12 times

Hendrix- 6'6 3/4"- 6'7 3/4"- 9'0"- 250- 13 times

Jackson- 6'7"- 6'7 3/4"- 8'10 1/2"- 241- 11 times

Love- 6'7 3/4"- 6'9 1/2"- 8'10"- 255- 18 times

Alexander-6'7 1/4"- 6'8 1/4"- 8'10"- 220- 24 times

As anyone can see, he matches up just fine size wise with these guys who are all projected as PF's. He also has a 40" vertical jump. Now if you don't like him, fine. If you have someone else you like better, as I do, fine. But just don't hammer the kid with stuff thats made up as a foundation for your decision.

By the way, most players hit their peak years between the years of 27 and 32. Steve Nash wasn't near the player at 25 yrs of age that he was at age 29 or 30.

 

[sactownfan]

As far as getting a "star" with our #12 pick:

Vitaly Potapenko 1996
Austin Croshere 1997
Michael Doleac 1998
Etan Thomas 2000
Vladimir Radmanovich 2001
Melvin Ely 2002
Nick Collison 2003
Robert Swift 2004
Yarolav Korolev 2005
Hilton Armstrong 2006
Thaddeus Young 2007

Those are the types of guys you get with a #12 pick. Any stars in that group? We need to stop kidding ourselves. The player we get at #12 will likely be a role player at best. I guess this is why all those people were wanting to lose to get a higher pick. I have seen the light.

this means nothing.... Petrie didnt draft these guys... you gotta look at his draft record to make a REAL point... Petrie has had excellent drafts regardless of position... and history will show that there are plenty of quality players drafted at or below the 12th spot...

as far as just that list... i would argue that only 2 of the players on that list were good for nothing... Korolv, and Potato Head

 

[LoungeLizard]

That is an awful, awful list. But that's fine because imo stats don't prove anything when it comes to the draft. The draft is different every year, with different GM's picking in different positions every year. I'm sure we'll find a quality player with this pick

That's all fine and dandy and I agree with that to an extent but,

Cherokee Parks, Khalid Reeves, George Lynch, Harold Miner, Greg Anthony, Alec Kessler, Mookie Blaylock, Harvey Grant, Muggsy Bogues, John Williams, Kenny Green, Tim McCormick, Darrell Walker, John Bagley, Kelly Tripucka, and 1980 our very own Mike Woodson.

The rest of the #12 picks back until 1980. that is over 27 years of #12 picks and not one even one all star IIRC.

 

[sactownfan]

this means nothing.... Petrie didnt draft these guys... you gotta look at his draft record to make a REAL point... Petrie has had excellent drafts regardless of position... and history will show that there are plenty of quality players drafted at or below the 12th spot...

as far as just that list... i would argue that only 2 of the players on that list were good for nothing... Korolv, and Potato Head

agreed! LOL!

 

[LoungeLizard]

this means nothing.... Petrie didnt draft these guys... you gotta look at his draft record to make a REAL point... Petrie has had excellent drafts regardless of position... and history will show that there are plenty of quality players drafted at or below the 12th spot...

as far as just that list... i would argue that only 2 of the players on that list were good for nothing... Korolv, and Potato Head

I have to disagree, it does mean something. It shows you what types of players are available and drafted at #12. I have given you the #12 pick for almost the last 30 years. History is on my side. I can't imagine every GM picking at the #12 spot over the last 30 years was imcompetent. Chances are this pick will be a role player at best. Is there a chance the guy we take is a star? Sure. I hope he turns out to be a star, but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[SacKings7]

I have to disagree, it does mean something. It shows you what types of players are available and drafted at #12. I have given you the #12 pick for almost the last 30 years. History is on my side. I can't imagine every GM picking at the #12 spot over the last 30 years was imcompetent. Chances are this pick will be a role player at best. Is there a chance the guy we take is a star? Sure. I hope he turns out to be a star, but I wouldn't bet on it.

But who's to say Petrie will pick the 12th best prospect?? I agree with sactownfan. To be accurate, you should look at both Petrie's draft history AND players picked at and after 12. Who knows, Petrie could reach at a guy projected in the 20's and end up being an excellent pick. But like I said, the draft is different every year so stats don't really prove anything.

 

[SacKings7]

Just as a reference, here are some notable players picked at #13 and #14 since 1980: Clyde Drexler, Karl Malone, Dan Majerle, Tim Hardaway, Dale Davis, Kobe Bryant, Peja Stojakovic, Corey Maggette, Richard Jefferson, Rashad McCants, Ronnie Brewer, Julian Wright, Al Thorton.

Quite a few all-stars taken there, so...you never know

 

[CruzDude]

And this is one of the deepest drafts in 20 years for BIGS and some very nice role players, even through the 2nd round. And I see that 13/14 draft slots have done very nicely, thank you, and even second rounders such as Arenas, and..... and.... there are a couple there. Anthony Johnson, a very good journeyman the Kings drafted 2nd round is still contributing 10 years later.

 

[rhythmless]

I have to disagree, it does mean something. It shows you what types of players are available and drafted at #12. I have given you the #12 pick for almost the last 30 years. History is on my side. I can't imagine every GM picking at the #12 spot over the last 30 years was imcompetent. Chances are this pick will be a role player at best. Is there a chance the guy we take is a star? Sure. I hope he turns out to be a star, but I wouldn't bet on it.

no, that list does NOT show what types of players are available. What is available are players not drafted 1-11. That is all. Why don't you go show the star players drafted after 11? History is not on your side, only myopia.

Players drafted at 13:
Karl Malone: 1985
Dale Davis: 1991
Jalen Rose: 1994
Corliss: 1995
Kobe: 1996
Corey Maggette: 1999
Richard Jefferson: 2001

If you say that history shows that drafting 12 sucks, then this would show that drafting 13 is better. So if 13>12, then that means you would trade our 12th pick for a 13th pick straight up, because "history is on your side." See how your logic is fatally flawed? Historically, the 13th pick is way better than the 12th pick.

 

[PurpleHaze]

It does seem like a fairly deep draft for bigs and some nice role players. I think however that it's deep only through the first round and maybe 8-10 picks into the second round. I just wish the Kings could make a trade to jump up from where they are buried the 2nd round. They might be able to snag say a solid Richard Hendrix type big if they could get higher in that 2nd round. Where the Kings are picking in the 2nd they can only be lucky (and that's no fun) since so few players even make the league past first 40 overall picks.

 

[SacKings7]

And this is one of the deepest drafts in 20 years for BIGS and some very nice role players, even through the 2nd round. And I see that 13/14 draft slots have done very nicely, thank you, and even second rounders such as Arenas, and..... and.... there are a couple there. Anthony Johnson, a very good journeyman the Kings drafted 2nd round is still contributing 10 years later.

Manu Ginobili, Rashard Lewis, Michael Redd, Carlos Boozer, Toni Kukoc, Jeff Hornacek, Anthony Mason, Dennis Rodman....

And Ramon Sessions from last years draft looks like a keeper too

 

[LoungeLizard]

For those that keep piling it on me. Let me just start by saying that I never said an all star player is impossible to find at #12, just not likely. I hope that Petrie is able to "pull the rabbit out of the hat" so to speak. I am a Petrie fan and think he is in the top 25 % of GM's. At times he has made some very good draft picks and seems to have a good eye for hidden talent.

However, the numbers do not lie. Since 1990 there have been 420+ players drafted 12-the end of the second round. Of those 420+ only 29 players have gone on to make the all star team atleast once.

Jayson Williams
Antonio Davis
Cedric Ceballos
Dale Davis
Chris Gatling
Latrell Sprewell
Sam Cassell
Nick Van Exel
Theo Ratliff
Michael Finley
Kobe Bryant
Peja
Steve Nash
Jermaine Oneal
Zydrunas Ilgauskas
Dirk Nowitzski
Paul Pierce
Rashard Lewis
Ron Artest
Andrei Kirilenko
Manu Ginobli
Jamaal Magloire
Michael Redd
Tony Parker
Gilbert Arenas
Carlos Boozer
David West
Josh Howard

The OP said it was time to pick a "star," my point was that your "star" is not likely to come from a #12 pick or a later pick for that matter.

 

[bajaden]

For those that keep piling it on me. Let me just start by saying that I never said an all star player is impossible to find at #12, just not likely. I hope that Petrie is able to "pull the rabbit out of the hat" so to speak. I am a Petrie fan and think he is in the top 25 % of GM's. At times he has made some very good draft picks and seems to have a good eye for hidden talent.

However, the numbers do not lie. Since 1990 there have been 420+ players drafted 12-the end of the second round. Of those 420+ only 29 players have gone on to make the all star team atleast once.

Jayson Williams
Antonio Davis
Cedric Ceballos
Dale Davis
Chris Gatling
Latrell Sprewell
Sam Cassell
Nick Van Exel
Theo Ratliff
Michael Finley
Kobe Bryant
Peja
Steve Nash
Jermaine Oneal
Zydrunas Ilgauskas
Dirk Nowitzski
Paul Pierce
Rashard Lewis
Ron Artest
Andrei Kirilenko
Manu Ginobli
Jamaal Magloire
Michael Redd
Tony Parker
Gilbert Arenas
Carlos Boozer
David West
Josh Howard

The OP said it was time to pick a "star," my point was that your "star" is not likely to come from a #12 pick or a later pick for that matter.

This is not meant to be piling on, but I don't think a player has to be an all star in order to be a good pick. Kevin Martin may never make it to an all star game, but he certainly fills the requirements of being a good pick. Its nice to get lucky and find a star low in the draft, but if we can just find someone who turns out to be a solid contributer thats OK too.

 

[CruzDude]

The OP said it was time to pick a "star," my point was that your "star" is not likely to come from a #12 pick or a later pick for that matter.

To me a "star" is an "All-Star" player. We have seen that there are quite a lot of All-Stars who have come out of the 12 - 20th round as well as some 2nd rounders, and all of those were is normal or weak draft years. This year is exceptional and the deepest in like 20 years so we should see some "stars" come out of it in the 12th to 30th or even in the 2nd.

So suggest we leave the star argument lie as the facts show there have been many in normal draft years at 12-14 as well as much later and this draft is rated much better than all those draft years by nearly all the sports media.

 

[Widowmaker2k]

To me a "star" is an "All-Star" player. We have seen that there are quite a lot of All-Stars who have come out of the 12 - 20th round as well as some 2nd rounders, and all of those were is normal or weak draft years. This year is exceptional and the deepest in like 20 years so we should see some "stars" come out of it in the 12th to 30th or even in the 2nd.

So suggest we leave the star argument lie as the facts show there have been many in normal draft years at 12-14 as well as much later and this draft is rated much better than all those draft years by nearly all the sports media.

If this draft is as deep as everyone says, then it'd be real nice if Petrie could parlay some of our vets for an extra pick. I'm all for taking on a 'project' and drafting on potential. Right now, this teams biggest need isn't defense, rebounding, or low-post scoring, it's a superstar. With a few exceptions, NBA championship teams don't win by committee. If DeAndre Jordan or Anthony Randolph are available when we pick (assuming that Westbrook is not), then I hope we select one of them. Chances are they'll bust, but if they don't, oh boy; a team full of 'pretty good players' is asking to for a future of first round exits.

 

[bajaden]

If this draft is as deep as everyone says, then it'd be real nice if Petrie could parlay some of our vets for an extra pick. I'm all for taking on a 'project' and drafting on potential. Right now, this teams biggest need isn't defense, rebounding, or low-post scoring, it's a superstar. With a few exceptions, NBA championship teams don't win by committee. If DeAndre Jordan or Anthony Randolph are available when we pick (assuming that Westbrook is not), then I hope we select one of them. Chances are they'll bust, but if they don't, oh boy; a team full of 'pretty good players' is asking to for a future of first round exits.

Soooo, we don't need defense, rebounding, or low post scoring. We need a superstar. Sort of like a supernova. A player so bright that the light he puts off will blind everyone on the other team that he can't rebound, play defense or score in the low post.
Chances are that they'll bust, but if they don't, Oh boy, a team of pretty good players. Ahhh, I thought they were susposed to be superstars. Your sounding like someone who might go bungy jumping with a frayed cord.

Hey, I'm just having fun with you. Nothing personal in it. The truth is, that to select a superstar at 12 means that we have to be very lucky. Its hard enough to select a superstar at 3, 4, or 5, much less at 12. But hey, Karl Malone went around 13 or 14 if memory serves. So its possible.

While I'm on Malone. People forget that when he came into the league, he was a terrible free throw shooter and really had no outside shot. He had a great body and he could run the floor and finish a play like no other PF around. Thus the name The Mailman. Michael Jordan wasn't a great outside shooter when he came into the league. We tend to remember these players, only as the finished product. Kobe didn't scare anyone his first couple of years in the league. We tend to forget to be patient.

We live in a disposable society. We tend to want instant gratification. Well, that might work for a coke machine, but it usually doesn't work for players. The players that come into the league and make an instant impact are the exception, not the rule. And believe me, they're special.

In truth, what defines a superstar? The substance or the hype? In some cases, probably both. Give me a George Gervin, aka, the ice man, anytime. He was seldom spectacular, but at the end of the night, he had his 25 points and his rebounds. He did it quietly, but he got the job done.

My point is, the draft is a crapshoot. If your lucky enough to have good evaluators on your team, you've probably reduced the chance of a bust. But beyond that, you hope for the best, and you have patience.

 

[Bricklayer]

To me a "star" is an "All-Star" player. We have seen that there are quite a lot of All-Stars who have come out of the 12 - 20th round as well as some 2nd rounders, and all of those were is normal or weak draft years. This year is exceptional and the deepest in like 20 years so we should see some "stars" come out of it in the 12th to 30th or even in the 2nd.

So suggest we leave the star argument lie as the facts show there have been many in normal draft years at 12-14 as well as much later and this draft is rated much better than all those draft years by nearly all the sports media.

In many ways I am glad people keep on ignoring this, as it gives me an excuse to repeatedly post it and therby justify all the work that went into it:

In the 20 years between 1985-2005 (the first 20 years of the lottery) 17 players picked from #12 to #20 made at least one All-Star game. So 17/180 players drafted. About 9%. Of those 17 guys, about ten were guys who only made 1 or 2 All Star games -- not established perenial all stars, but just good players who had a good season for a winning team at some point. You can get some feel for what level most of them were at by noting that only 13 of those 180 guys ever averaged 20ppg in a season, so a number of those All Stars made it without ever even hitting that plateau. If I recall correctly the majority of the All Star games were acheived by 5 players: Karl Malone (#13), Kobe Bryant (#13), Tim Hardaway (#14), Steve Nash (#15), Jermaine O'Neal (#17). And those guys had all of the All-NBA appearances.

The depth, and in particular big man depth, in this draft is intriguing. But trying to argue that history says that there are All Stars just lying around for the taking at #12 is just wrong. Its one thing to work consciously at being positive. Another to wortk so hard at it that you lose site of the facts. There might be an All Star lurking out there when we pick. Maybe. But we are going to have to root around hard to find him, and then get a little lucky. I can think of half a dozen guys picked to go 12 or lower who might, maybe, if everythign goes perfectly, end up becoming an All Star one day. But unless we get another pick, even if we nab one of them, he may not be the one who eventually blossoms.

 

[Jerichoholic]

Man Brick, that chart is a little more than depressing, so the #12 pick is historically pretty much the worst pick to have in the top 19, that figures. I guess there's a first time for everything though.