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

[franklin]

This is like the logic that when I'm single, I can sleep with any woman, including Scarlett Johansson.

If all those players were available with the number one pick, why were they simply not drafted number one?

I wanna tank to acquire the exclusive rights to bang SJ for 7 years?

 

[addictionary]

If we succeeded at all, or happen to succeed, then there will be "Hey I told you douchebags we should have drafted the other guy!" discussions anyway.

 

[GVC]

This is like the logic that when I'm single, I can sleep with any woman, including Scarlett Johansson.

No it's not. Not even close.

 

[Caulerpa]

Logic will do that. Would you also like to attempt to prove the correlation(I won't even ask for causation, so it's much easier for you) between having the number one pick and winning championships down the road?

Nobody guarantees that you will win a championship if you have a higher pick. Though, what is guaranteed is the fact that having a higher pick increases the chances of getting a better player, and better players increase the chances of getting a ring. No one thinks that we'll certainly win a championship if we get a top pick, nor that pick number 1 must be the best player on the draft, but with having a higher pick you have more options to choose from and that's always a good thing.

This team lacks a superstar/good all star player. I see it this way:
Superstar - /
2nd option - Burke
3rd option - Hayward
Defensive specialist - Favors

And Kanter and Burks as a solid addition/6th man.

 

[orangello]

I haven't read any of this thread but the title perfectly reflects my greatest fears as a Jazz fan.

 

[fishonjazz]

This is like the logic that when I'm single, I can sleep with any woman, including Scarlett Johansson.

If all those players were available with the number one pick, why were they simply not drafted number one?

So you think that when you are single that means that every woman will sleep with you and all you need to do is pick which one you want?

 

[fishonjazz]

Nobody guarantees that you will win a championship if you have a higher pick. Though, what is guaranteed is the fact that having a higher pick increases the chances of getting a better player, and better players increase the chances of getting a ring. No one thinks that we'll certainly win a championship if we get a top pick, nor that pick number 1 must be the best player on the draft, but with having a higher pick you have more options to choose from and that's always a good thing.

Very very good answer.

 

[JimLes]

Nobody guarantees that you will win a championship if you have a higher pick. Though, what is guaranteed is the fact that having a higher pick increases the chances of getting a better player, and better players increase the chances of getting a ring. No one thinks that we'll certainly win a championship if we get a top pick, nor that pick number 1 must be the best player on the draft, but with having a higher pick you have more options to choose from and that's always a good thing.

Numbers, people, numbers. It's all well and great to talk about increased chances, but how about actually proving it?

 

[JimLes]

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

 

[JimLes]

So you think that when you are single that means that every woman will sleep with you and all you need to do is pick which one you want?

Yeah, just like when you have the number one pick, you also get to see who's going to be a franchise player down the road(and of course, EVERY draft must have a player like that....it's the law) and all you need to do is pick which one you want.

 

[GVC]

Numbers, people, numbers. It's all well and great to talk about increased chances, but how about actually proving it?

Are you claiming that talent and odds of winning aren't correlated or that draft number and talent aren't correlated?

Yeah, just like when you have the number one pick, you also get to see who's going to be a franchise player down the road(and of course, EVERY draft must have a player like that....it's the law) and all you need to do is pick which one you want.

It's a terrible analogy. Move on.

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'.

This is much closer. Gotta get the counterfactual right though. If winning a title is the only thing that matters, being bad isn't any worse than being average, and the analysis falls apart. How many of those teams won titles? How many made the Conference Finals at least once? How many of those teams would have won titles or made the Conference Finals had that #1 pick been the average player picked between 5 and 10?

 

[Caulerpa]

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'.

You're missing the point. I don't want to sound cocky but those statistics in this argument are irrelevant.

I am not saying that we'll be great next year, or even good, or even have .500 in case we get the first pick but we'll CERTAINLY have better roster with 1st pick than without. Can you see my point? Which is better - this year's squad + 10th pick or this year's squad + 1st pick
And it's not like we have chances of accomplishing anything this year and that tanking is risky. It's completely the same if we finish as 29th or as 19th team in the league, we'll still be on the losing side and relatively unappealing to free agents.

With having a high pick we should draft a very good/great player, if we don't do it and we draft a scrub then it's our fault (or should I say, front office's) but if we get a pick number 11 we will have much smaller chances of drafting a great player.

 

[JimLes]

This is much closer. Gotta get the counterfactual right though. If winning a title is the only thing that matters, being bad isn't any worse than being mediocre, and the analysis falls apart. How many of those teams won titles? How many made the Conference Finals at least once? How many of those teams would have won titles or made the Conference Finals had that #1 pick been the average player picked between 5 and 10?

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

 

[JimLes]

You're missing the point. I don't want to sound cocky but those statistics in this argument are irrelevant.

Fine, give us some statistics that are relevant and disprove me.

 

[JimLes]

Also, hilariously, after crunching the numbers, the teams picking at number 2 from 1989 to 2008 had 44 wins on average 5 years later.

But yes, the draft isn't mostly luck and context.

 

[Caulerpa]

Fine, give us some statistics that are relevant and disprove me.

I don't need statistics to prove that with having a 1st pick you have higher chances of drafting a great player than with 10th pick.

 

[JimLes]

I don't need statistics to prove that with having a 1st pick you have higher chances of drafting a great player than with 10th pick.

Of course not, who needs numbers? We'll just take your word for it.

 

[GVC]

I am not saying that we'll be great next year, or even good, or even have .500 in case we get the first pick but we'll CERTAINLY have better roster with 1st pick than without. Can you see my point? Which is better - this year's squad + 10th pick or this year's squad + 1st pick
And it's not like we have chances of accomplishing anything this year and that tanking is risky. It's completely the same if we finish as 29th or as 19th team in the league, we'll still be on the losing side and relatively unappealing to free agents.

It depends on how much you think competing/winning/playing in sensible lineups affects player development and how much building relationships with players and agents affects longterm team building. If, say, losing on purpose and playing nonsensical lineups negatively affects team culture and player development a lot, and treating vets like trash keeps certain players away or drives up the cost of signing certain players, then it's possible trying to win, even with lots of youth and a stacked draft class, is the right move.

I'm enjoying watching these guys grow together and learn to compete consistently. I enjoy watching basketball played well. I think the FO did a good job jettisoning the top veteran talent in the offseason, allowing Ty to hand the team over to the young guys. Ty has followed the lead, and the team's offense runs almost entirely through Trey, Gordo, Alec, Favs and Kanter. Obviously, the first best outcome would be the Jazz's young players growing a lot, playing in close games together, but falling short every night against teams that get hot. That was never going to happen, unfortunately. This looks like the 30-win team most people expected.

 

[Stoked]

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

It is not the only thing that matters. However in professional sports it should be the only goal.

 

[GVC]

Of course not, who needs numbers? We'll just take your word for it.

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