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

[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.

 

[JimLes]

developing the young players and getting the best draft pick possible would be my goals THIS year to.

How is that not happening right now? Look who the top 4 players by minutes per game are.

 

[fishonjazz]

I'm asking for proof there is a significant statistical difference between picking 1st and 3rd. Or 3rd and 4th. Or 19th and 21st.



.

So simple bro........ 1st pick has the opportunity to pick any player in the draft...... 3rd pick don't have a chance at the first two

To use your dumbass analogy about picking any girl you want if you were single: You want scarlett johansen but since Im picking first I choose her.....now she is not available for you so you have to pick someone that you did not like as much as her.

There is your difference between 1st and 3rd....... Essentially it is the difference between getting the player (or hot chick) that you covet most, or settling for someone that you want less.

 

[8]

Fish always taking the hottest chicks tbh

 

[JimLes]

So simple bro........ 1st pick has the opportunity to pick any player in the draft...... 3rd pick don't have a chance at the first two

Once again, then why don't all number one picks turn out better than all number 3 picks?