enjoy your 5-6 more years of "decent" jazz team fighting for the 8th playoff spot.

[JimLes]

It's pretty well established. Here's a link: Link

From the article:

"While these estimates can be a valuable tool for general managers in evaluating trade proposals that include draft picks, like all basketball analytics it cannot establish with certainty the value of those picks."

Also, creating an average curve nicely obscures the fact that it's not a curve, and there seems to be a significant statistical difference between the success of a first pick and a second pick.

 

[8]

From the article:

"While these estimates can be a valuable tool for general managers in evaluating trade proposals that include draft picks, like all basketball analytics it cannot establish with certainty the value of those picks."

Sounds like everything else in life

 

[8]

Let's volunteer to pick 59th and 60th. Jazz will have the same opportunity to build for the future as everyone else.

 

[GVC]

"While these estimates can be a valuable tool for general managers in evaluating trade proposals that include draft picks, like all basketball analytics it cannot establish with certainty the value of those picks."

No ****. Different years, different distributions of talent and uncertainty, different teams/positions of need, etc., etc. The point is that it's not pure noise, and draft position is correlated with talent level. You're more likely to get a franchise cornerstone picking 1st than 10th. duh.

Also, creating an average curve nicely obscures the fact that it's not a curve,

He's just fitting an exponential curve to the data (with, in some cases, good results). Pretty standard.

and there seems to be a significant statistical difference between the success of a first pick and a second pick.

Why is this a problem?

 

[JimLes]

Let's volunteer to pick 59th and 60th. Jazz will have the same opportunity to build for the future as everyone else.

Way to put words in my mouth.

I'm no arguing here that having the number one pick is bad or that having the 15th pick is better. I'm arguing against the prevailing attitude that not getting the number one pick would somehow be disastrous and that all efforts must be focused on tanking, at the expense of everything else.

Yeah, I want a high draft pick this year, too, and all likelihood is that the Jazz will get it no matter what. Even if the Jazz were to play close to .500 ball the rest of the year, chances of us winning more than 30 games is rather remote. In fact, we're still only an injury away from another 10 game losing streak. If Burke caught mono right now, the Jazz would win maybe 5 games the rest of the way. We're pretty young and pretty bad. We're going to lose games. Of course, the likes of Lakers(without Kobe, Nash, or Pau) and the Bucks are worse than us, so yes, we'll beat them. We don't play them every game though. In fact, we happen to play in the West, where there's more good teams and more chance of getting crushed by them. We're going to end up with a top 5 pick one way or another, especially if the Warriors collapse and we get more ping pong balls.

Instead, we have people here having fits every time the Jazz win a game because we must have the number one pick at any cost. Even though statistics show that the difference between the first 4-5 picks is pretty minor and even though this is all mostly luck. From the chance of getting the number one pick when you have the worst record, to the chance of actually being able to pick the guy who will have the most impact in the long term. But no, number one pick is a guaranteed superstar and the number three pick is a disaster.

 

[JimLes]

No ****. Different years, different distributions of talent and uncertainty, different teams/positions of need, etc., etc. The point is that it's not pure noise, and draft position is correlated with talent level. You're more likely to get a franchise cornerstone picking 1st than 10th. duh.

Duh. I'm not arguing against that. You're also much more likely to get a dud than a franchise cornerstone picking 1st.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Way to put words in my mouth.

I'm no arguing here that having the number one pick is bad or that having the 15th pick is better. I'm arguing against the prevailing attitude that not getting the number one pick would somehow be disastrous and that all efforts must be focused on tanking, at the expense of everything else.

Agreed.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Way to put words in my mouth.

I'm no arguing here that having the number one pick is bad or that having the 15th pick is better. I'm arguing against the prevailing attitude that not getting the number one pick would somehow be disastrous and that all efforts must be focused on tanking, at the expense of everything else.

Yeah, I want a high draft pick this year, too, and all likelihood is that the Jazz will get it no matter what. Even if the Jazz were to play close to .500 ball the rest of the year, chances of us winning more than 30 games is rather remote. In fact, we're still only an injury away from another 10 game losing streak. If Burke caught mono right now, the Jazz would win maybe 5 games the rest of the way. We're pretty young and pretty bad. We're going to lose games. Of course, the likes of Lakers(without Kobe, Nash, or Pau) and the Bucks are worse than us, so yes, we'll beat them. We don't play them every game though. In fact, we happen to play in the West, where there's more good teams and more chance of getting crushed by them. We're going to end up with a top 5 pick one way or another, especially if the Warriors collapse and we get more ping pong balls.

Instead, we have people here having fits every time the Jazz win a game because we must have the number one pick at any cost. Even though statistics show that the difference between the first 4-5 picks is pretty minor and even though this is all mostly luck. From the chance of getting the number one pick when you have the worst record, to the chance of actually being able to pick the guy who will have the most impact in the long term. But no, number one pick is a guaranteed superstar and the number three pick is a disaster.

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

 

[8]

Way to put words in my mouth.

I'm no arguing here that having the number one pick is bad or that having the 15th pick is better. I'm arguing against the prevailing attitude that not getting the number one pick would somehow be disastrous and that all efforts must be focused on tanking, at the expense of everything else.

Yeah, I want a high draft pick this year, too, and all likelihood is that the Jazz will get it no matter what. Even if the Jazz were to play close to .500 ball the rest of the year, chances of us winning more than 30 games is rather remote. In fact, we're still only an injury away from another 10 game losing streak. If Burke caught mono right now, the Jazz would win maybe 5 games the rest of the way. We're pretty young and pretty bad. We're going to lose games. Of course, the likes of Lakers(without Kobe, Nash, or Pau) and the Bucks are worse than us, so yes, we'll beat them. We don't play them every game though. In fact, we happen to play in the West, where there's more good teams and more chance of getting crushed by them. We're going to end up with a top 5 pick one way or another, especially if the Warriors collapse and we get more ping pong balls.

Instead, we have people here having fits every time the Jazz win a game because we must have the number one pick at any cost. Even though statistics show that the difference between the first 4-5 picks is pretty minor and even though this is all mostly luck. From the chance of getting the number one pick when you have the worst record, to the chance of actually being able to pick the guy who will have the most impact in the long term. But no, number one pick is a guaranteed superstar and the number three pick is a disaster.

Jazz have a big board. Each pick ahead of them may take players off that board. People just want a better chance to get the player the Jazz desire most. Having the worst record gives them the best chance to get who they desire.

I understand what you are saying. There is no guarantee whoever the Jazz pick first will be a superstar, or be out of the league in three years. But realize that many posters see a team not making the playoffs this year. Naturally, they ask why a team out of the playoffs (or maybe even in the playoffs with absolutely no chance at a title) is not trying to give themselves the best chance for their most coveted prospect. There are some reasons, many intangible except attendance and $ (could be argued that there is a large monetary incentive to tank tbh). Not sure any statistical analysis, or postings about recent draft picks, is going to sway people. They simply don't care about the reasons not to tank as much as you do. Just give it up, and stop trying to say that having the worst record does not help the Jazz in the draft game, cuz it does.

 

[jazzrule]

Winning the title isn't the only thing that matters. If it was, 20+ teams in the NBA wouldn't have any fans anymore.

!

There are many fans like me Jim that winning a championship is the ultimate goal, and we are darn tired of just making the playoffs sometimes! And screw your statistics..................common logic tells you the higher the draft pick the better chance you have of getting a better player!

 

[Jeditiger]

There are many fans like me Jim that winning a championship is the ultimate goal, and we are darn tired of just making the playoffs sometimes! And screw your statistics..................common logic tells you the higher the draft pick the better chance you have of getting a better player!

Ultimate? Sure. But not the only goal. If your only goal as a fan is to have your team win a championship, you're going to spend A LOT of time being unhappy.

Also, "common logic" has built and destroyed empires. Tread carefully.

 

[JimLes]

Having the worst record gives them the best chance to get who they desire.

But the Jazz aren't the worst team in the league. People clearly don't watch enough NBA. There are weekly threads on how the Jazz should move Marvin and Richard. Sure, Marvin and Richard may have directly influenced the outcome of one or two games this year. Maybe the Jazz don't beat the Rockets without them. But to suggest that without the two of them, our young core would be the worst team in the league? That's ludicrous. These people have not seen the Bucks, or the Kings, or the Sixers, or the gimp Lakers. We could trade Marvin and Richard and we're still not the worst team in the league. We could not play Trey in the fourth, and we're still not worse than the worst teams in the league. People just went nuts because we started 1-13 and they thought we would break futility records. That start was hardly a reflection of our team when healthy. We're a .400 team. Possibly a little better. That's the reality. The problems we had, such as missing three players who play 20+ minutes a game when healthy, having 4 of our 5 top scorers from last year leave, young players getting used to roles and experiments that go with that; those all pale in comparison with the issue some of the other teams have. Our young core will probably all be parts of 6-7 man rotations for winning teams in 2-3 years time. The Bucks haven't got a player I can say that for. Maybe Adetokumbo. We'd have to shut down or trade half our team to match that. And for what? A slightly better chance at a slightly better pick for a slightly better chance to maybe, MAYBE end up with a player better than anyone else on our roster.

How far would you go?

Just give it up, and stop trying to say that having the worst record does not help the Jazz in the draft game, cuz it does.

Of course it does, but is it statistically significant? Is it worth going to insane lengths? That's the issue here.

 

[fishonjazz]

Speaking of numbers, here's a nice little set of them. I've looked at how well teams have done 5 years after having the number one pick. I've looked at the last twenty years, and used the numbers of games won. I've transposed the numbers for the lockout years to keep things even.

1989 Kings 28
1990 Nets 30
1991 Hornets 41
1992 Magic 45
1993 Magic 41
1994 Bucks 46
1995 Warriors 19
1996 76ers 56
1997 Spurs 58
1998 Clippers 27
1999 Bulls 23
2000 Nets 42
2001 Wizards 42
2002 Rockets 52
2003 Cavs 45
2004 Magic 59
2005 Bucks 46
2006 Raptors 22
2007 Blazers 35
2008 Bulls 45

Average it out, and you can see that a team picking 1st in the draft can on average look forward to winning 40 games 5 years down the road and having a losing record. The mediocre Jazz of the last 2 seasons have averaged 44 wins. Just sayin'.

Edit: That's right, I forgot. According to fishonjazz logic, Orlando did not have two number one picks in a row because they traded Webber for Hardaway after picking him. That obviously makes Webber a GS draft pick. That logic would bump the average wins down to 39, thanks to the stellar 19-63 season the Warriors had in '98....having had the increased chances of getting a ring that come with two number one picks in three years

Thank god the jazz already have a great core in place and this is one of the best drafts in nba history....... You have to look at context bro.
Cavs having number 1 pick last year is much different from jazz getting it this year.

 

[GVC]

Duh. I'm not arguing against that.

You were asking caulerpa to prove that draft position is correlated with talent level. I provided some evidence. There are obviously other variables to be considered, and different drafts have different distributions of talent, which is what the quoted portion of your post was referring to.

You're also much more likely to get a dud than a franchise cornerstone picking 1st.

I definitely wouldn't go that far, although it depends on your definition of "dud".

 

[8]

But the Jazz aren't the worst team in the league. People clearly don't watch enough NBA. There are weekly threads on how the Jazz should move Marvin and Richard. Sure, Marvin and Richard may have directly influenced the outcome of one or two games this year. Maybe the Jazz don't beat the Rockets without them. But to suggest that without the two of them, our young core would be the worst team in the league? That's ludicrous. These people have not seen the Bucks, or the Kings, or the Sixers, or the gimp Lakers. We could trade Marvin and Richard and we're still not the worst team in the league. We could not play Trey in the fourth, and we're still not worse than the worst teams in the league. People just went nuts because we started 1-13 and they thought we would break futility records. That start was hardly a reflection of our team when healthy. We're a .400 team. Possibly a little better. That's the reality. The problems we had, such as missing three players who play 20+ minutes a game when healthy, having 4 of our 5 top scorers from last year leave, young players getting used to roles and experiments that go with that; those all pale in comparison with the issue some of the other teams have. Our young core will probably all be parts of 6-7 man rotations for winning teams in 2-3 years time. The Bucks haven't got a player I can say that for. Maybe Adetokumbo. We'd have to shut down or trade half our team to match that. And for what? A slightly better chance at a slightly better pick for a slightly better chance to maybe, MAYBE end up with a player better than anyone else on our roster.
How far would you go?
Of course it does, but is it statistically significant? Is it worth going to insane lengths? That's the issue here.

I think it very well could be. Seems like it'd be more statistically significant than the anti-tank. Not sure how that would be measured, probably can't be.

Personally, I have no complaints with how the Jazz season is going. I cheer for them to win every game, and think the front office is doing a very good job.

 

[zman1527]

Ultimate? Sure. But not the only goal. If your only goal as a fan is to have your team win a championship, you're going to spend A LOT of time being unhappy.

Also, "common logic" has built and destroyed empires. Tread carefully.

I would put the goal a little differently. Yes, the ultimate goal is to win it all. As a fan, I want to be able to go into most seasons with a reasonable belief that they can compete for that goal or at least are trying to get there. Last year was the epitome of not doing that: there was no way that team was going anywhere, but that was what we had.

Now this year we see a chance to build toward that goal by playing the youngs a lot to develop and losing a lot to get a high draft pick. So why try to win a few more games by playing the vets? It blows up both goal for me: you are not full max developing players and you are getting a worse draft pick. To what purpose???

 

[jazzrule]

Ultimate? Sure. But not the only goal. If your only goal as a fan is to have your team win a championship, you're going to spend A LOT of time being unhappy.

Also, "common logic" has built and destroyed empires. Tread carefully.

You tread carefully........................if common logic is to hard for you. Sorry it is too hard for you to understand the law of averages is the getting a 1 to 5 draft pick is better than getting a 6 to 10 draft pick.

Tell me where I said my only goal is to have a championship.............duh.

 

[GVC]

Now this year we see a chance to build toward that goal by playing the youngs a lot to develop and losing a lot to get a high draft pick. So why try to win a few more games by playing the vets? It blows up both goal for me: you are not full max developing players and you are getting a worse draft pick. To what purpose???

If you believe trying to win helps develop young talent, then it's pretty obvious why the Jazz are trying to win games. It's extremely rare for players and coaching staffs to sabotage their chances and throw games. Virtually everyone on this board was pissed when Mark Jackson did just that a couple seasons ago.

 

[JimLes]

You were asking caulerpa to prove that draft position is correlated with talent level. I provided some evidence. There are obviously other variables to be considered, and different drafts have different distributions of talent, which is what the quoted portion of your post was referring to.

The draft position we're talking about is that of the Jazz this coming June. First 5-6 picks. I'm obviously not so obtuse as to suggest there's no difference between 1st and 30th. I'm asking for proof there is a significant statistical difference between picking 1st and 3rd. Or 3rd and 4th. Or 19th and 21st.

I definitely wouldn't go that far, although it depends on your definition of "dud".

We've been over this. If you want to argue further, we can, but for every LeBron or Duncan in the past 20 years, we've had a couple of Odens, Bargnanis and Kandimen.

 

[jazzrule]

I would put the goal a little differently. Yes, the ultimate goal is to win it all. As a fan, I want to be able to go into most seasons with a reasonable belief that they can compete for that goal or at least are trying to get there. Last year was the epitome of not doing that: there was no way that team was going anywhere, but that was what we had.

Now this year we see a chance to build toward that goal by playing the youngs a lot to develop and losing a lot to get a high draft pick. So why try to win a few more games by playing the vets? It blows up both goal for me: you are not full max developing players and you are getting a worse draft pick. To what purpose???

Careful logic destroys empires don't you know. LOL You are right on............ developing the young players and getting the best draft pick possible would be my goals THIS year to.