JimLes
Well-Known Member
Do you figure a lack of #1 picks winning in the past decade(or in the foreseeable future) is an outlier or a reflection that the draft and the NBA are fundamentally different now than they were 40 years ago?
Culture of winning or tank?
- Thread starter str8line
- Start date
Do you figure a lack of #1 picks winning in the past decade(or in the foreseeable future) is an outlier or a reflection that the draft and the NBA are fundamentally different now than they were 40 years ago?
JimLes
Well-Known Member
There's a difference between where MVP level players are drafted and overall draft, specifically because it is a much smaller sample. It doesn't necessarily average itself out as a larger sample would. It's much more of a crapshoot, as you're refusing to acknowledge. Yes, Nikola and Brunson our outliers, but outliers mean more when we're talking about a group of 5 players every year who are reasonably in conversation for MVP.
All I'm trying to point out is that the draft positions of those players in the past decade(which is a lot more relevant than anything in the 90s or 00s) is all over the place and that the means by which their teams obtained those players are all over the place. Not that it doesn't matter where you draft.
The difference between drafting 10th and 5th while searching for a future MVP candidate is simply not statistically significant enough for me to be willing to sit through a third consecutive season of intentional losing. I don't think I'm out of my mind here.
As I said... we just have to agree to disagree on the best way to get an MVP level talent (this is specifically for a team like us... if we were the Lakers/Knicks/etc., I'd have different thoughts).
What I'd like to comment on is that last part... we can agree on that - what we are doing is horrible... and IMO the intentional losing is not the worst part. It's the half assed approach and the misevaluation of your own team. Because this is precisely what's leading to the full on tanks half-way through the season - we misevaluate what we have, we think we can go for it... only to realize we don't and then turn to tanking. Only... it's too late to reap the benefits of a horrible losing season so we are left without anything - neither a high end pick, nor a competitive team. I know I've been advocating for tanking in this thread... but what I want more than anything is clear direction and plan rather than floating around. So if the FO thinks we can be competitive and they can make moves to make us competitive - good, make those moves. Just... don't half *** it. Don't draft a player in the top 10 and then sign/trade for a mediocre starter just so you don't have to play the rookie and half-way through the season realize you are not going anywhere this way so you trade a few starters in an attempt to tank. Pick a lane, because what we've been doing last couple of years has been horrible.
David Hume
Well-Known Member
I don’t really know for sure. It’s a small data set so the noise will be much. One hypothesis is that for a while centers were deemphasized. It’s only now that the “big man is back.” Perhaps it is easier for scouts to identify centers with MVP potential than folks who play other positions.
JimLes
Well-Known Member
It's not a binary choice, though. There are other ways. The way we've used to build every Jazz team worth anything the past 40 years, for example. Work with what you have, identify talent, obtain it by any means necessary. The Jazz have had fewer top 5 picks during their existence than I think any team in the NBA. Hasn't stopped us from building some decent teams over the years.
Gobert and Mitchell for mid and late first round picks, and neither of them were actually drafted by the Jazz. On a complete tangent, can you imagine this Denver team with Mitchell instead of Murray? The man who we can now say was easily the third best player on that team was undrafted. We picked him up as he was about to board a plane to Australia. There were a few top-5 picks on that team but they were all role players and we obtained most of them in trades. The one we drafted ourselves had no bearing on our wins and losses one way or another.
When it briefly looked like we might have a decent team led by a goofy, white kid from Indiana, the kid in question was drafted with a 9th pick we obtained a lifetime ago in a Tom Gugliotta trade.
The late 00s team was a motley crew if you've ever seen one. Our own draftee(though we traded up to secure him), 21st pick in the draft selected behind such luminaries as Frederic Weiss and currently-in-the-news Trajan Langdon, and two small-time free agents. One of whom we should never have been able to sign, but he decided to screw his original team owner. Is it still too soon to crack that Boozer and the Jazz robbed Gund blind?
I see contours of something like this right now, as well. Lauri was an amazing find for someone who was really a throw in as far as that trade was concerned. Sexton is the type of energetic, undersized guard the NBA seems to be full of, but he's shown signs of being able to make the leap to the next level of Brunson/Mitchell kind of play. I still think Kessler will develop into an All-Defensive kind of center. All 3 rookies look like they can hang in the NBA, at least. George looks like he will easily outperform his draft position. We've got the second biggest pick haul in the league over the next 5-6 years. There is zero need to tank right now, when even if you finish with the worst record(and boy, look around...it's not easy), you only get a 14% of getting the first pick. The benefits are minimal.
The benefits are not minimal. We aren't tanking for just the 1st pick but rather a top 5 pick and maybe we get lucky and get the 1st pick. Some of you want to build a decent team and are happy with that but I'm not a fan of that route. I want to build something great and sustainable long term and I think the best way to achieve that is to go with a full youth movement over the next 2 years and hopefully we can snag one of those future superstars but at worst I think we can put together one hell of a good young core that is very well rounded. If we try to focus on the win now route I think we just get stuck in no mans land again with almost no shot at competing with the thunder, spurs, griz and rockets going forward.
David Hume
Well-Known Member
One extreme thought experiment is this: for the next 40 years would you rather have:
(A) the first pick in each draft
(B) a random pick in each draft
(C) the 60th pick in each draft
The answer might be pertinent to the current discussion.
(A) the first pick in each draft
(B) a random pick in each draft
(C) the 60th pick in each draft
The answer might be pertinent to the current discussion.
JimLes
Well-Known Member
Which is exactly what I detest about tanking. Small samples suck because outliers mean more. I'd be willing to bet my house that Walker Kessler will hit at least 50 of his next 100 free throws, but I would obviously not be willing to risk my house that he will hit one out of his next two. The odds are identical, but my risk is so much higher in the second scenario on account of a small sample.
We all know, based on the last two seasons, what it would take for us to properly tank. Getting rid of Lauri and Collin, and keeping Jordan and playing him lots of minutes. It's a high price to pay for a single draft pick that may end up anywhere in the top 10.
JimLes
Well-Known Member
40 is a an okay sample, but we're not getting 40 of anything. We're talking about 1 or 2 picks. That's the heart of this issue.
David Hume
Well-Known Member
Would you rather have the first pick in every draft, but you have to draft the consensus #1 prospect as decided by the main draft sites, or a random lottery pick every year but you can choose who you pick.