Weak drafts, good drafts and the best drafts of all time?

[mieshpal]

Weak: Whatever year the ROY came down to Mike Miller and Morris Peterson.

Wow that's horrible...forgot about that. Mike Miller was a solid player and I hope Dick turns into something like him, but him being a ROY is wild

Sent from my Pixel 8 using RealGM mobile app

[KrazyP]

Pretty sure 2000 draft is heralded as one of the absolute worst. Then just glancing through the names between 1999 and 2000, your "system" seems flawed to say the least.

2000 draft:

Key contributors with >10 years of service and/or >10k mins played (14) = Jamal Crawford, Mike Miller, Hedo Turkoglu, Kenyon Martin, Quentin Richardson, Desmond Mason, Morris Peterson, DeShawn Stevenson, Jamaal Magloire, Keyon Dooling, Joel Pryzbilla, Darius Miles, Marko Jaric, Stromile Swift

Role players with >5 years of service and/or between 5k to 10k mins played (7) = Chris Mihm, Speedy Claxton, Etan Thomas, Primoz Brezec, Marcus Fizer, DeMarr Johnson, Mike Madsen

Busts with less than 5 years of service and/or fewer than 5k minutes played (9) = Jake Tsakiladis, Courtney Alexander, Donnell Harvey, Jason Collier, Mateen Cleaves, Jerome Moiso, Dalibor Bragac, Mamadou N'Diaye, Erick Barkley

SCORE = (14x3) + (7×1.5) - (9×2) = 42 + 11.5 - 18 = 34.5 points

Compared to the other drafts, it's just ahead of the 2015 draft (31.5 points), but just behind the 2009 draft (35.5 points) and is the lowest ranked "above average" draft on the list.

You should do the analysis via VORP or something equivalent. Right now, the analysis seems pretty flawed.

[lolwut]

Pretty sure 2000 draft is heralded as one of the absolute worst. Then just glancing through the names between 1999 and 2000, your "system" seems flawed to say the least.

It all depends on how you define "good" and "bad" draft years. If a draft year produces zero stars but 20 role players on the level of say, Gary Trent, then is that a good or bad draft year?

1999 produced a handful of stars, but also a whole lot of nobodies.

"strong" and "weak" are just arbitrary terms depending on what you're looking for in a draft.

It depends on nothing but feeble attempt (and utter failure) at playing devil's advocate.

2000 NBA draft had Kenyon Martin, Turkoglu, and Jamaal Crawford as its best players. Only one player you could say that was maybe a star is Kenyon Martin. And a handful of middling role players. (Mike Miller, Magloire, MoPete, Q Richardson, Desmond Mason, etc.) And a whole lot of nobodies. Mike Miller won ROY for F's sake.

1999 NBA draft had Elton Brand, Francis, Baron Davis, Lamar Odom, Rip Hamilton, Andre Miller, Shawn Marion as part of top 10. Only Jonathan Bender flopped from top 10. Then there's Artest and Kirilenko. Wally Z, Jason Terry, Corey Maggette, and several others that were decent to ok role players.

If you want to dig deep, there's Michael Redd in 2000 but Ginobili from 1999 easily tops him.

1999 draft easily trumps 2000 draft both in quality and quantity so GTFOH with your weak BS.

Wow, who pissed in your cereal? Just trying to have an open discussion here... Do you act like this in real life?

[pilkoids]

Pretty sure 2000 draft is heralded as one of the absolute worst. Then just glancing through the names between 1999 and 2000, your "system" seems flawed to say the least.

2000 draft:

Key contributors with >10 years of service and/or >10k mins played (14) = Jamal Crawford, Mike Miller, Hedo Turkoglu, Kenyon Martin, Quentin Richardson, Desmond Mason, Morris Peterson, DeShawn Stevenson, Jamaal Magloire, Keyon Dooling, Joel Pryzbilla, Darius Miles, Marko Jaric, Stromile Swift

Role players with >5 years of service and/or between 5k to 10k mins played (7) = Chris Mihm, Speedy Claxton, Etan Thomas, Primoz Brezec, Marcus Fizer, DeMarr Johnson, Mike Madsen

Busts with less than 5 years of service and/or fewer than 5k minutes played (9) = Jake Tsakiladis, Courtney Alexander, Donnell Harvey, Jason Collier, Mateen Cleaves, Jerome Moiso, Dalibor Bragac, Mamadou N'Diaye, Erick Barkley

SCORE = (14x3) + (7×1.5) - (9×2) = 42 + 11.5 - 18 = 34.5 points

Compared to the other drafts, it's just ahead of the 2015 draft (31.5 points), but just behind the 2009 draft (35.5 points) and is the lowest ranked "above average" draft on the list.

Man, I remember when Darius Miles was supposed to be the next Kevin Garnett

[ATLTimekeeper]

You should do the analysis via VORP or something equivalent. Right now, the analysis seems pretty flawed.

The catch-alls aren't good either. VORP tells you that JV and Klay Thompson are the same quality of player.

Maybe career earnings? The league knows the difference between a superstarstar (SGA) and a role player (Robert Williams). BPM tells you that they're the same. We know that any team with Robert Williams as their best player would finish last, which is why it wouldn't make sense to pay him that much.

[lolwut]

You should do the analysis via VORP or something equivalent. Right now, the analysis seems pretty flawed.

The catch-alls aren't good either. VORP tells you that JV and Klay Thompson are the same quality of player.

Maybe career earnings? The league knows the difference between a superstarstar (SGA) and a role player (Robert Williams). BPM tells you that they're the same. We know that any team with Robert Williams as their best player would finish last, which is why it wouldn't make sense to pay him that much.

You'd need to do average annual earnings instead of total career earnings, and normalize it to the salary cap of each season.

It's not perfect, but it's something.

[kalel123]

It all depends on how you define "good" and "bad" draft years. If a draft year produces zero stars but 20 role players on the level of say, Gary Trent, then is that a good or bad draft year?

1999 produced a handful of stars, but also a whole lot of nobodies.

"strong" and "weak" are just arbitrary terms depending on what you're looking for in a draft.

It depends on nothing but feeble attempt (and utter failure) at playing devil's advocate.

2000 NBA draft had Kenyon Martin, Turkoglu, and Jamaal Crawford as its best players. Only one player you could say that was maybe a star is Kenyon Martin. And a handful of middling role players. (Mike Miller, Magloire, MoPete, Q Richardson, Desmond Mason, etc.) And a whole lot of nobodies. Mike Miller won ROY for F's sake.

1999 NBA draft had Elton Brand, Francis, Baron Davis, Lamar Odom, Rip Hamilton, Andre Miller, Shawn Marion as part of top 10. Only Jonathan Bender flopped from top 10. Then there's Artest and Kirilenko. Wally Z, Jason Terry, Corey Maggette, and several others that were decent to ok role players.

If you want to dig deep, there's Michael Redd in 2000 but Ginobili from 1999 easily tops him.

1999 draft easily trumps 2000 draft both in quality and quantity so GTFOH with your weak BS.

Wow, who pissed in your cereal? Just trying to have an open discussion here... Do you act like this in real life?

Only when someone tries to force "open" discussion with BS when there isn't one to be had. This is pretty much open and shut case.

[ATLTimekeeper]

You should do the analysis via VORP or something equivalent. Right now, the analysis seems pretty flawed.

The catch-alls aren't good either. VORP tells you that JV and Klay Thompson are the same quality of player.

Maybe career earnings? The league knows the difference between a superstarstar (SGA) and a role player (Robert Williams). BPM tells you that they're the same. We know that any team with Robert Williams as their best player would finish last, which is why it wouldn't make sense to pay him that much.

You'd need to do average annual earnings instead of total career earnings, and normalize it to the salary cap of each season.

It's not perfect, but it's something.

I was thinking that if you ranked each player according to career salary from each draft, it would get around the comparative CBA problem. This is just a way to organize players from most important to least important. It won't be perfect, but you'd get a general idea of who was paid like a star and who was paid like a role player and who was paid as a good guy in the locker room.

[PerfectJab]

The catch-alls aren't good either. VORP tells you that JV and Klay Thompson are the same quality of player.

Maybe career earnings? The league knows the difference between a superstarstar (SGA) and a role player (Robert Williams). BPM tells you that they're the same. We know that any team with Robert Williams as their best player would finish last, which is why it wouldn't make sense to pay him that much.

You'd need to do average annual earnings instead of total career earnings, and normalize it to the salary cap of each season.

It's not perfect, but it's something.

I was thinking that if you ranked each player according to career salary from each draft, it would get around the comparative CBA problem. This is just a way to organize players from most important to least important. It won't be perfect, but you'd get a general idea of who was paid like a star and who was paid like a role player and who was paid as a good guy in the locker room.

How would you account for inflation and different CBA's? We're talking decades here worth of data.

I think the solution is easy. Number of HOFers perhaps worth 25% of the equation, 25% of the complete average of games played with the remaining being the total of PTS, assists and rebounds from that draft class.

[ATLTimekeeper]

You'd need to do average annual earnings instead of total career earnings, and normalize it to the salary cap of each season.

It's not perfect, but it's something.

I was thinking that if you ranked each player according to career salary from each draft, it would get around the comparative CBA problem. This is just a way to organize players from most important to least important. It won't be perfect, but you'd get a general idea of who was paid like a star and who was paid like a role player and who was paid as a good guy in the locker room.

How would you account for inflation and different CBA's? We're talking decades here worth of data.

I think the solution is easy. Number of HOFers perhaps worth 25% of the equation, 25% of the complete average of games played with the remaining being the total of PTS, assists and rebounds from that draft class.

No, I already explained it. You compare each player's salary within their own draft. That gives you a sense of how many big money earners, role player earners and journeymen earners there are in each draft. The amount of players in each range can be compared draft to draft.

[PerfectJab]

I was thinking that if you ranked each player according to career salary from each draft, it would get around the comparative CBA problem. This is just a way to organize players from most important to least important. It won't be perfect, but you'd get a general idea of who was paid like a star and who was paid like a role player and who was paid as a good guy in the locker room.

How would you account for inflation and different CBA's? We're talking decades here worth of data.

I think the solution is easy. Number of HOFers perhaps worth 25% of the equation, 25% of the complete average of games played with the remaining being the total of PTS, assists and rebounds from that draft class.

No, I already explained it. You compare each player's salary within their own draft. That gives you a sense of how many big money earners, role player earners and journeymen earners there are in each draft. The amount of players in each range can be compared draft to draft.

Still doesn't account for the many things that represent their actual play. Plenty of players are underpaid ala Pippen for most of their careers or overpaid as a result of the situation (look at FVV for example) and the CBA. These issues are not outliers either as they happen all the time.

[ATLTimekeeper]

How would you account for inflation and different CBA's? We're talking decades here worth of data.

I think the solution is easy. Number of HOFers perhaps worth 25% of the equation, 25% of the complete average of games played with the remaining being the total of PTS, assists and rebounds from that draft class.

No, I already explained it. You compare each player's salary within their own draft. That gives you a sense of how many big money earners, role player earners and journeymen earners there are in each draft. The amount of players in each range can be compared draft to draft.

Still doesn't account for the many things that represent their actual play. Plenty of players are underpaid ala Pippen for most of their careers or overpaid as a result of the situation (look at FVV for example) and the CBA. These issues are not outliers either as they happen all the time.

Pippen made 109 million dollars, which would be 2nd behind David Robinson. Next highest was Reggie Miller at 105. Then a significant drop off. FVV will be behind Pascal, Ingram, Brown, Sabonis and likely both Murray's when all is said and done. His career earnings are probably going to be very accurate. You picked two bad examples here, so I'm inclined to think some version of a career average earning to account for injury, or total career earnings has some legs.

[will]

Draft shmaft.

[PerfectJab]

No, I already explained it. You compare each player's salary within their own draft. That gives you a sense of how many big money earners, role player earners and journeymen earners there are in each draft. The amount of players in each range can be compared draft to draft.

Still doesn't account for the many things that represent their actual play. Plenty of players are underpaid ala Pippen for most of their careers or overpaid as a result of the situation (look at FVV for example) and the CBA. These issues are not outliers either as they happen all the time.

Pippen made 109 million dollars, which would be 2nd behind David Robinson. Next highest was Reggie Miller at 105. Then a significant drop off. FVV will be behind Pascal, Ingram, Brown, Sabonis and likely both Murray's when all is said and done. His career earnings are probably going to be very accurate. You picked two bad examples here, so I'm inclined to think some version of a career average earning to account for injury, or total career earnings has some legs.

Way too big of an oversimplification. For many years, Pippen was definitely underpaid and there are so many different factors that led to why they were paid the way they were whether it be years of service, what different teams were willing to do based on their situations or the actual teams they were on. Add additional drafts to this and it's a cluster ****. This weird formula does not account for players being underpaid given their abilities which doesn't make sense when the entire merit behind is based on pay reflecting their skills. You seem to believe that there this thing that automatically balances it out when players are underpaid or overpaid when there is not. You're also assuming that your assertion is already reality when it comes to FVV. So there was not much of argument there.

The reality is NBA players are paid based on potential and the available roster spots and what a team is willing or able to pay will always be different. Again it's such a bad way to measure skill imo I'll agree to disagree on you on this one as I know you could argue forever based on your post counts lol . It's like assuming expensive items are automatically going to be better in quality. It can happen, it's just not really accurate and leaves a lot to opinion.

[mdenny]

Still doesn't account for the many things that represent their actual play. Plenty of players are underpaid ala Pippen for most of their careers or overpaid as a result of the situation (look at FVV for example) and the CBA. These issues are not outliers either as they happen all the time.

Pippen made 109 million dollars, which would be 2nd behind David Robinson. Next highest was Reggie Miller at 105. Then a significant drop off. FVV will be behind Pascal, Ingram, Brown, Sabonis and likely both Murray's when all is said and done. His career earnings are probably going to be very accurate. You picked two bad examples here, so I'm inclined to think some version of a career average earning to account for injury, or total career earnings has some legs.

Way too big of an oversimplification. For many years, Pippen was definitely underpaid and there are so many different factors that led to why they were paid the way they were whether it be years of service, what different teams were willing to do based on their situations or the actual teams they were on. Add additional drafts to this and it's a cluster ****. This weird formula does not account for players being underpaid given their abilities which doesn't make sense when the entire merit behind is based on pay reflecting their skills. You seem to believe that there this thing that automatically balances it out when players are underpaid or overpaid when there is not. You're also assuming that your assertion is already reality when it comes to FVV. So there was not much of argument there.

The reality is NBA players are paid based on potential and the available roster spots and what a team is willing or able to pay will always be different. Again it's such a bad way to measure skill imo I'll agree to disagree on you on this one as I know you could argue forever based on your post counts lol . It's like assuming expensive items are automatically going to be better in quality. It can happen, it's just not really accurate and leaves a lot to opinion.

Fred got that huge contract from Houston because they don't care what they spend while developing....but want to maintain cap space for near future. 95% of players worth 40 million per year would never sign a 2 year contract. That's where Fred came in for Houston. They have no cap concerns over the span of their commitment to him. He gets to get in and get out at a figure he would never get over multiple years. Mutual benefit. Plus he is a coach's player and is great at mentoring young prospects.

It was a great move by Houston regardless of what all the trolls that overrun this board will tell you. Pensare's youtube video about the signing is comedy gold. He was so furious with Houston management. And he explicitly suggested that 'Fred had no soul' for signing it. Pensare/messiah is never going to live down his psuedo-analysis and creepy hate for fred. Those youtube videos gonna live forever.

In fact....let's revisit this content. Pensare's little wimpy voice message to Fred Vanvleet 9 months ago after he signed with the rockets:

https://youtu.be/JTq0SFrbZDw?t=2317


HAHAHAHAHAHA. This guy published this video 9 months ago lol. It's glorious how it sounds now 9 months later.

Pensare: "In another life....fred vanvleet wins no championship and no playoff series"

However, messiah, in THIS life he DID win a championship. You dark-hearted, hate-filled chump troll.

[6ixpessant]

This century..... (chronologically)

2003, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2014 were probably the top 5... 2018 can probably fit in there somewhere.

2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2010 were probably the bottom 5.

We'll have to wait and see on 2021 and 2022, but they both look solid.

[ATLTimekeeper]

Still doesn't account for the many things that represent their actual play. Plenty of players are underpaid ala Pippen for most of their careers or overpaid as a result of the situation (look at FVV for example) and the CBA. These issues are not outliers either as they happen all the time.

Pippen made 109 million dollars, which would be 2nd behind David Robinson. Next highest was Reggie Miller at 105. Then a significant drop off. FVV will be behind Pascal, Ingram, Brown, Sabonis and likely both Murray's when all is said and done. His career earnings are probably going to be very accurate. You picked two bad examples here, so I'm inclined to think some version of a career average earning to account for injury, or total career earnings has some legs.

Way too big of an oversimplification. For many years, Pippen was definitely underpaid and there are so many different factors that led to why they were paid the way they were whether it be years of service, what different teams were willing to do based on their situations or the actual teams they were on. Add additional drafts to this and it's a cluster ****. This weird formula does not account for players being underpaid given their abilities which doesn't make sense when the entire merit behind is based on pay reflecting their skills. You seem to believe that there this thing that automatically balances it out when players are underpaid or overpaid when there is not. You're also assuming that your assertion is already reality when it comes to FVV. So there was not much of argument there.

The reality is NBA players are paid based on potential and the available roster spots and what a team is willing or able to pay will always be different. Again it's such a bad way to measure skill imo I'll agree to disagree on you on this one as I know you could argue forever based on your post counts lol . It's like assuming expensive items are automatically going to be better in quality. It can happen, it's just not really accurate and leaves a lot to opinion.

It doesn't matter that Scottie Pippen was underpaid relative to his ability in my example, he was still well paid relative to his draft. That's what we're measuring. That's the point. Kevin Johnson was the better example. 3 all-star games and made half as much as Horace Grant, but had he stayed healthy he may have earned as much.

With FVV, he already has made less than most of those players listed. And several of them are already due long-term contracts that will eclipse what Fred will currently make on his own, and he's older than, iirc, all of them. It's a safe assumption. If Fred continues to make more max money after this contract, it will because he's earned it. He's not overpaid in career earnings relative to his accomplishments so far. And definitely not overpaid in his own draft.

[Anticon]

Like the approach! But I would reevaluate how 2008 is in the top 3 of drafts and 2003/2011 are in the second tier.

2008 was a very average draft year.

[ontnut]

If your metric says the 2003 draft was only "good", then I can't take the metric very seriously.

[Kevin Willis]

The best way I have seen drafts compared was to tier it up - Superstars, All-Star, Starter, rotation, bench. Count the number in each category and you get a sense. Weighting is subjective but if it makes sense sure. This draft is weak because there is 0 superstars and maybe a few allstars. Last year was strong because there is at least 1 superstar and several potential all-stars. Even more potential starters.