The value of finishing in the bottom 5

[bigmike]

Oh yeah, "this time is different!"

There is simply no precedent for all top 5 draftees to turn-out into consistent high-impact players if you look at the draft history. And I am talking about top 5 drafted in June, not who was considered the top-5 in March.

Just to illustrate, here are the duds from the top-5:

2010 - Evan Turner, Derrick Favors, Wesley Johnson
2011- Derrick Williams, Enes Kanter, Tristan Thompson, Valanciunas (achieved nothing in his first 7 seasons and got traded by his original team)
2013 - Bennet, Otto Porter Jr., Cody Zeller, Alex Len
2014 - Jabari Parker, Dante Exum
2015 - Okafor, Hezonja
2016 - Bender, Dunn
2017 - Fultz, Josh Jackson, Lonzo Ball (due to injuries)
2018 - Ayton, Bagley
2019 - De'Andre Hunter
2020 - Wiseman, Patrick Williams, Okoro

You can keep telling yourself that all top 5 draftees will turn out to be impact players but the experience tells us that most likely two of them will end up being duds, i.e. unremarkable, middle-of-the road players or worse.

Congrats on spending a lot of time researching that post just to “prove somebody wrong” on a message board.

To be clear - I am not saying I would bet on all 5 turning into high-impact players in the NBA. To your point, busts are inevitable. But looking at each player individually? I’d bet on NBA success for each of them.

When I look at my own top 5 right now - (of course we don’t know who actually gets drafted top 5 in June yet) - I would be surprised if any of the below are a bust at the NBA level:

Cooper Flagg
Dylan Harper
Ace Bailey
Tre Johnson
VJ Edgecombe

IMO, this is the best tier of top talent in a CBB freshman class in at least a few years - perhaps several. And unlike a few names on your list, among this group, nobody is a “project,” relative unknown in some foreign pro league, etc. They’re all very talented players who are extremely productive as freshmen (at the highest levels of CBB) and have the physical tools / athletic profile that *should* translate to the NBA game.

This is not revisionist history (I *****ed on last year’s class relentlessly) - a top 5 pick last year vs. this year is night and day. I would have traded very little of value for the #1 pick last year. This year? #1 is untouchable, 2/3 would take a King’s random, and 4/5 (perhaps 6/7 - beauty is in the eye of the beholder with Kas and Maluach) remain quite valuable.

 

[idiot]

So what's the alternative path to winning a Championship then?

Trading for a Luka?

Maybe enticing a Durant in the offseason to sign here?

It's going to take a lot of creativity. Maybe there's no such thing as one correct path.

I don't pretend to know the answer for the Jazz's case, but when the old model (finish bottom five, grab a top draft pick and then, if lucky, have that player lead you to a championship) hasn't worked for nearly 20 years, maybe it's time to be open to more than just one model..

This is not to say that I'm denying that tanking COULD work. It probably will work at some point(s) again (maybe will with Wemby, and I really hope it does for us), but many teams in a row (some big markets, some small) have won championships without it being very directly involved.

It's probably just the idea that smart drafting, great development, good trades, and a whole lot of luck is the path that leads to the most success.

 

[The Midnight]

It's going to take a lot of creativity. Maybe there's no such thing as one correct path.

I don't pretend to know the answer for the Jazz's case, but when the old model (finish bottom five, grab a top draft pick and then, if lucky, have that player lead you to a championship) hasn't worked for nearly 20 years, maybe it's time to be open to more than just one model..

This is not to say that I'm denying that tanking COULD work. It probably will work at some point(s) again (maybe will with Wemby, and I really hope it does for us), but many teams in a row (some big markets, some small) have won championships without it being very directly involved.

It's probably just the idea that smart drafting, great development, good trades, and a whole lot of luck is the path that leads to the most success.

One flaw in your analysis in the OP is it doesn’t take into account the new CBA with the first and the second aprons acting basically like a hard cap.

You can take your analysis back 50 years and it still wouldn't apply to what we have going forward.

Maybe Championship teams in the past haven't relied too much on getting high draft picks because they can entice and fit 3-4 super stars in a team. (Durant joining GSW comes to mind).

Well they wouldn't be able to do that now.

 

[fishonjazz]

You can keep telling yourself that all top 5 draftees will turn out to be impact players

Literally the first sentence of the post you quoted was: Of course, a top 5 finish is no guarantee of getting a bona-fide #1 guy on a championship team.



Sent from my OPD2203 using Tapatalk

 

[fishonjazz]

I don't pretend to know the answer for the Jazz's case, but when the old model (finish bottom five, grab a top draft pick and then, if lucky, have that player lead you to a championship) hasn't worked for nearly 20 years, maybe it's time to be open to more than just one model.

Lol. This is the first time the jazz have tanked in their 50'ish year history.
The old model that hasn't worked is NOT tanking. The jazz are trying a different model right now to see if it will work. Basically doing exactly what you are asking them to do in this post.

Sent from my OPD2203 using Tapatalk

 

[HermanG]

It's going to take a lot of creativity. Maybe there's no such thing as one correct path.

I don't pretend to know the answer for the Jazz's case, but when the old model (finish bottom five, grab a top draft pick and then, if lucky, have that player lead you to a championship) hasn't worked for nearly 20 years, maybe it's time to be open to more than just one model..

This is not to say that I'm denying that tanking COULD work. It probably will work at some point(s) again (maybe will with Wemby, and I really hope it does for us), but many teams in a row (some big markets, some small) have won championships without it being very directly involved.

It's probably just the idea that smart drafting, great development, good trades, and a whole lot of luck is the path that leads to the most success.

How about looking at it from this perspective:

Among the last 20 champions, there are only two instances where a team won a championship WITHOUT spending any time in the bottom 5 of their conference in the preceding 10 years. Those two are 2014 Spurs and 2011 Mavs.

• Even the Celtics who uniquely cashed in big time on the picks of another team finished 12th in the East in 2013-14 with 25-57 record
• Nuggets were in the bottom 5 three years in a row from 2013-2016
• Warriors were dead last in the West in 2019-20 and before their dynasty run they finished bottom 5 three times in a row between 2009-2012
• Lakers finished bottom 5 FIVE years between 2013-2018, and they also finished bottom 5 once (2004-05) before their previous championships in '09 and '10.
• Bucks finished bottom 5 two times 2013-14 and 2015-16 seasons
• Raptors spent 3 years in bottom 5 between 2008-2012
• Cavs I probably dont need to detail
• Miami finished dead last in 2007-2008 and before the chip they won in 2006 they had spent 2 years in the bottom 5 from 2001-03
• Celtics won in 2008 with a bunch of FA's, but they still had spent 3 years in bottom 5 in the 10 years leading up to 2008.
• Pistons had spent 3 seasons in bottom 5 in the 10 years leading up to their 2004 championship
• Spurs I also dont need to detail, as their case of acquiring Duncan is rather famous. Funny part about it is that the 10 year window I set here covers 4 of their 5 championships.

So in light of those details it would seem that 90% of champions tanked or at least were in the bottom 5 for some period of time (usually 3+ years) before they built up their championship winning team. Some used their own draft picks, and some used the talent they acquired as assets (Lakers being the most blatant example of this).

 

[LogGrad98]

So what's the alternative path to winning a Championship then?

Trading for a Luka?

Maybe enticing a Durant in the offseason to sign here?

Don't worry, Durant will try to attach himself to whatever team wins this year, or the Lakers. Done and done.

 

[The Midnight]

How about looking at it from this perspective:

Among the last 20 champions, there are only two instances where a team won a championship WITHOUT spending any time in the bottom 5 of their conference in the preceding 10 years. Those two are 2014 Spurs and 2011 Mavs.

• Even the Celtics who uniquely cashed in big time on the picks of another team finished 12th in the East in 2013-14 with 25-57 record
• Nuggets were in the bottom 5 three years in a row from 2013-2016
• Warriors were dead last in the West in 2019-20 and before their dynasty run they finished bottom 5 three times in a row between 2009-2012
• Lakers finished bottom 5 FIVE years between 2013-2018, and they also finished bottom 5 once (2004-05) before their previous championships in '09 and '10.
• Bucks finished bottom 5 two times 2013-14 and 2015-16 seasons
• Raptors spent 3 years in bottom 5 between 2008-2012
• Cavs I probably dont need to detail
• Miami finished dead last in 2007-2008 and before the chip they won in 2006 they had spent 2 years in the bottom 5 from 2001-03
• Celtics won in 2008 with a bunch of FA's, but they still had spent 3 years in bottom 5 in the 10 years leading up to 2008.
• Pistons had spent 3 seasons in bottom 5 in the 10 years leading up to their 2004 championship
• Spurs I also dont need to detail, as their case of acquiring Duncan is rather famous. Funny part about it is that the 10 year window I set here covers 4 of their 5 championships.

So in light of those details it would seem that 90% of champions tanked or at least were in the bottom 5 for some period of time (usually 3+ years) before they built up their championship winning team. Some used their own draft picks, and some used the talent they acquired as assets (Lakers being the most blatant example of this).

You’ve hit it out of the park.

I think this post should at long last officially put a stop to @idiot’s drawn out ‘crusade’ against tanking.

 

[jazznik]

When I look at my own top 5 right now - (of course we don’t know who actually gets drafted top 5 in June yet) - I would be surprised if any of the below are a bust at the NBA level:

Cooper Flagg
Dylan Harper
Ace Bailey
Tre Johnson
VJ Edgecombe

IMO, this is the best tier of top talent in a CBB freshman class in at least a few years - perhaps several. And unlike a few names on your list, among this group, nobody is a “project,” relative unknown in some foreign pro league, etc. They’re all very talented players who are extremely productive as freshmen (at the highest levels of CBB) and have the physical tools / athletic profile that *should* translate to the NBA game.

That all makes total sense and I agree with you reasoning. But. It is very hard to predict the long-term development arc of 18 year-olds. GMs and fans get it reliable wrong every year. There will be players that keep getting injured and their development will be permanently wrecked (Exum, Fultz), there will be players who despite all physical tools simply lack the fire to keep improving (Ayton), there will be players who are dominant in HS/college but end up being only average player in the much tougher NBA (Jabari Parker)... Many non-project top draft prospects fail to make it big in the NBA.

In short, finishing in the top 5 this year will give the Jazz a chance to draft Cooper Flagg (who also has a non-zero chance of not making it big) but, most likely, gives an equal or greater chance to end up with an average player at best. That's why building through shameless tanking is so dicey: you can ask Philadelphia fans about it (they drafted 3, 3, 1, 1 in the span of four years).

 

[idiot]

One flaw in your analysis in the OP is it doesn’t take into account the new CBA with the first and the second aprons acting basically like a hard cap.

You can take your analysis back 50 years and it still wouldn't apply to what we have going forward.

Maybe Championship teams in the past haven't relied too much on getting high draft picks because they can entice and fit 3-4 super stars in a team. (Durant joining GSW comes to mind).

Well they wouldn't be able to do that now.

I did mention about a page back that the new CBAs are part of changed (and ever-changing NBA landscapes). But whether they mean more or less need for tanking (or more correctly, based on the point of the OP, more or less success from tanking) is something that's above my paygrade to answer.

 

[idiot]

Lol. This is the first time the jazz have tanked in their 50'ish year history.
The old model that hasn't worked is NOT tanking. The jazz are trying a different model right now to see if it will work. Basically doing exactly what you are asking them to do in this post.

Sent from my OPD2203 using Tapatalk

My comment about the different model wasn't about the Jazz. It was about whether the model works in the NBA as a whole (that's 30 times more data than the Jazz's history provides in the same time period -- a much better sample size). The model (at least at its most optimistic) hasn't worked for 20 years essentially in the NBA as a whole. Why do we think the Jazz will make it work?

 

[fishonjazz]

My comment about the different model wasn't about the Jazz. It was about whether the model works in the NBA as a whole (that's 30 times more data than the Jazz's history provides in the same time period -- a much better sample size). The model (at least at its most optimistic) hasn't worked for 20 years essentially in the NBA as a whole. Why do we think the Jazz will make it work?

On the other hand, the model the jazz have used for the past 50 years hasn't worked so why wouldn't we be supportive of the jazz trying a different model?

Also what if the jazz are doing the celtics model? The celtics won a chip last season. They drafted Tatum 3rd overall. They got that draft pick by doing what the jazz did.