How does Denver draft so well with late draft picks?

[kenwood3333]

They got luck out with Jokic. The other picks are unimpressive. Those role players easily be replaced. More credits should be given to the coaching staff rather than the front office.

[zero rings]

Remove Jokic from the equation and we wouldn't be talking about any of these guys. Even Murray would be looked at as a bit of a chucker without Jokic to play off of.

There's a reason their net rating is so terrible without him on the floor, year after year.

[HotelVitale]

A nice combination of smarts, luck and system. 2016 was a poorly scouted draft. May still be a poorly assessed one, given what more lauded players have achieved compared to Murray.

Jokic is likely the greatest draft pick of all time. Someday they'll be a long set of articles with different views on scouting for him and how the Nuggets pulled that off.

But otherwise system is a part. Guys can easily slot in and look good in that system.

Don't want to make this the draft argument thread but humor me on a couple brief points.

I'm guessing you mean 2016 was 'poorly scouted' because of how varied the outcomes were, but that's not a reasonable way to measure/assess scouting. The phrasing itself should tell you that--it doens't make any sense to say that the hundreds and hundreds of draft personnel employed by NBA teams and feeder services ALL had a brain fart or collectively lost their touch at the same time, for one calendar year. It's also not like scouts didn't recognize the upside of Murray or Jaylen Brown, they just also saw things that had hamstrung many players like them before--Brown was a poor shooter and mediocre overall player in his college season, and he was actually taken more as a kind of glue-guy athlete expected to be great on defense and transition (and not as the excellent half-court guy he developed into). Sometimes you just take the great athlete and hope he can develop unexpectedly, hoping at worst he can find a smaller role that can be useful.

Murray was a sweet college player but his lack of athleticism and size meant his game relied a ton on small gaps that might not exist in the NBA. Was there any way to know that Murray's skill, IQ, and precision game would definitely be enough to overcome that and excel in the NBA? Not really, lots of smart precise star college players fizzled in the NBA. And more importantly, even if there was a general consensus that Murray's shooting and medium-volume creation would translate (which there was, hence him being a top pick), no one ever really knows to what extent a player's strengths will translate. The difference between Steph Curry and Cam Payne is pretty enormous in NBA terms, but those guys both translated as shooters to the NBA and also become very credible NBA lead ball-handlers. The difference between them is how much space they need to get off an efficent shot, the tiny angles they can exploit, the balance they can keep while being chased by enormous athletes, etc. The scale of how good a player will be, how many situations he can be effective or impose his will on, how tight the gaps he can operate in, etc--that's all just up to the weird unpredictable way bodies and minds process and execute many microscopic things as they're playing.

Scouting can give you some good tips for guessing at that, but it really is a guess at the end of the day.

Lots of interesting points here, which I won't be able to get to all. But my main view is that 2016 draft selections reflected unusually poor judgment accounting for the normal uncertainty in drafting.

The rookie of the year was drafted in the second round (which literally has never happened before or since post merger) the three most accomplished players were drafted 3, 7 and 27, and teams made a lot of bad calls in the top 10.

I think the evaluation of the players from that draft was poor at the time and more extreme than lots of other years.

Murray should never have fallen to Denver - he should have been a top 4 or 5 pick if teams had made better decisions. Certainly if you don't think he merited selection over the top three, he was a clearly better pick than Bender and Dunn, based on the information we knew at the time.

I know it's hard to accept but all of that is hindsight--what translates to the NBA and how well it'll translate is, year after year and without fail, totally unpredictable. Murray was definitely talked about as a #3 overall guy, but there was no clear reason to think he would translate really well and other guys at the top wouldn't. A guy like Kris Dunn was an elite NCAA player with special athleticism and size, a glove on defense whose shot was coming around and whose first step could roast anyone. There were still lots of concerns about his jumper and he was an older prospect (he was always seen as a 1st rd pick but had a big injury his soph year), but he definitely had transferable NBA skills and if things worked out well there was a clear path to him being very good in the NBA. It's easy to say now 'that joker can barely shoot and he's a mediocre finisher too' but he shot quite well from 3 in college and got to the rim as well as anyone in college (and killed some elite NCAA teams that year too).

It's weird because this stuff seems obvious after the fact. When you're watching old college tapes of Dunn now you can see his limitations, and you can see clearly what made Murray special as a NBA combo guard. But at the time people's trajectories just aren't clear, and the NBA is so different and so specific that nothing will really help you fill that gap between what you know at draft time and what you'll know 2 years into a player's NBA stint.

[og15]

The higher the pick, the more the team can be influenced by consensus and expectations. So, in 20-45 range, that is removed as the pressure of high pick isn't there, better decisions are made.

Except all of the picks we're taking about were taken in the consensus range, Connelly wasn't coloring far outside the lines on any of those picks.

This is another point I often come back to when thinking about this: if drafting were mostly about skill, we'd see WAY more deviation from the consensus from the teams who are good at it, and way more of that deviation being right. Especially given how wrong the consensus is at actually predicting good players. Instead what we see is that players are almost always taken within 5-8 picks of where they're expected to go, and when teams/GMs do make more surprise picks they don't tend to work out well (or at least not better than the average consensus pick).

If there was any significant substance to the idea that some GMs/teams are much better at identifying who'd succeed, you expect to see those teams actually use that skill. To give a few modest recent examples, you'd expect to see a team who had good intuition/prediction skills take Walker Kessler or Herb Jones or Desmond Bane--all guys who translated very well from day one and didn't require years of development to click--say 15 picks higher than expected.That wouldn't even make them top picks but just mid-1st rounders. We basically never see that, though, and instead every year the consensus is followed even though every year some guys are outliers and defy their draft slots. That suggest very strongly that outcomes aren't predictable, or at least that no one playing that game has any advantage that should be interpreted as them being able to predict outcomes in a meaningful way.

Clippers and Jerry West tried to do some magic and reach on Jerome Robinson, a pick which on draft night was considered a reach and graded like D or F by everyone (especially since they could have taken the chance on Porter Jr as the Clippers had two picks). We all know how that turned out.

Of course Denver didn't think Jokic had GOAT potential. If they did they would have taken him at 11th and NO DOUBT with one of the16th or 19th since they traded to have two firsts and could take the chance. If they really saw THAT much potential, there's no chance they allow him to linger for 20+ more selections.

Heck, they took Nurkic another big over him, meaning they believed Nurkic would be the better player.

Now being fair to everyone who drafted that year, Jokic made a big jump the next season before he actually came to the NBA. If he had been drafted a year later he would have gone much higher, but he wasn't and that is that.

It's hard to give special credit to teams when they pass on a guy with two picks and take him later at exactly the range he was projected.

Now if a team makes a wild reach (eg Denver taking Jokic with one of their two firsts), where everyone else is saying, "what, why would they choose that guy, what a reach", and then the player turns out to be a star, then you can get some special props. Hindsight is too powerful though and everything seems obvious when looking from a future lens.

[Chuck Everett]

Nuggets are better at player development than even drafting IMO. Guys come to Denver get better and get paid.

[HotelVitale]

The higher the pick, the more the team can be influenced by consensus and expectations. So, in 20-45 range, that is removed as the pressure of high pick isn't there, better decisions are made.

Except all of the picks we're taking about were taken in the consensus range, Connelly wasn't coloring far outside the lines on any of those picks.

This is another point I often come back to when thinking about this: if drafting were mostly about skill, we'd see WAY more deviation from the consensus from the teams who are good at it, and way more of that deviation being right. Especially given how wrong the consensus is at actually predicting good players. Instead what we see is that players are almost always taken within 5-8 picks of where they're expected to go, and when teams/GMs do make more surprise picks they don't tend to work out well (or at least not better than the average consensus pick).

If there was any significant substance to the idea that some GMs/teams are much better at identifying who'd succeed, you expect to see those teams actually use that skill. To give a few modest recent examples, you'd expect to see a team who had good intuition/prediction skills take Walker Kessler or Herb Jones or Desmond Bane--all guys who translated very well from day one and didn't require years of development to click--say 15 picks higher than expected.That wouldn't even make them top picks but just mid-1st rounders. We basically never see that, though, and instead every year the consensus is followed even though every year some guys are outliers and defy their draft slots. That suggest very strongly that outcomes aren't predictable, or at least that no one playing that game has any advantage that should be interpreted as them being able to predict outcomes in a meaningful way.

Clippers and Jerry West tried to do some magic and reach on Jerome Robinson, a pick which on draft night was considered a reach and graded like D or F by everyone (especially since they could have taken the chance on Porter Jr as the Clippers had two picks). We all know how that turned out.

Of course Denver didn't think Jokic had GOAT potential. If they did they would have taken him at 11th and NO DOUBT with one of the16th or 19th since they traded to have two firsts and could take the chance. If they really saw THAT much potential, there's no chance they allow him to linger for 20+ more selections.

Heck, they took Nurkic another big over him, meaning they believed Nurkic would be the better player.

Now being fair to everyone who drafted that year, Jokic made a big jump the next season before he actually came to the NBA. If he had been drafted a year later he would have gone much higher, but he wasn't and that is that.

It's hard to give special credit to teams when they pass on a guy with two picks and take him later at exactly the range he was projected.

Now if a team makes a wild reach (eg Denver taking Jokic with one of their two firsts), where everyone else is saying, "what, why would they choose that guy, what a reach", and then the player turns out to be a star, then you can get some special props. Hindsight is too powerful though and everything seems obvious when looking from a future lens.

The last point remains for me the biggest thing busting the idea that draft successes are mostly due to predictive skill. If there was even a modest amount of truth to that, we'd regularly see at least some evidence of teams with that skill consistently and successfully breaking from consensus. Even if just by like 5-7 picks, and even if they were just getting decent guys and not huge booms with every pick. Instead with the teams who seem to be on a major successful draft run (like the Grizz seemed 2 years ago, or OKC now), we see those picks were all or nearly all consistent with consensus; and as cupcakesnakes pointed out above, those sterling track records of success tend to fade out as the sample size gets bigger.

Given how bad draft consensus is at predicting--how bad its outcomes are generally--it's the perfect situation for someone with predictive skill to break from it and beat it. Yet the breaking rarely happens, and the beating almost never. Strongly supports the idea that the vague/general consensus is the best that teams can do prediction-wise, and that the outcomes are just very unpredictable. (That still leaves room for teams/scouting depts to be better or worse, and for some level of skill too).

[ItsDanger]

In NHL, you'll sometimes get players ranked 25-30th in consensus go 5th overall. You rarely see that in NBA.

[shrink]

I’d also mention that Tim Connelly got into the NBA by scouting. He worked as an intern in college, then as a scout when he graduated, and became director of player personnel. Even in his next jobs as an Assistant GM for Del Demps and Masai, he was in charge of scouting.

GMs need to wear a lot of hats. Connelly’s strongest attribute is his ability to identify talent.

[nomansland]

-drafted Gobert and then traded him for nothing (cash and 2nd rounder)
-drafted Donovan Mitchell and traded him for Trey Lyles (already in his 3rd/4th year by then)

It gets really old having to explain this to people, but the Gobert trade was pre-arranged with Utah. The Nuggets selected Gobert for Utah as part of the deal. Utah identified him, good for them, but this wasn't like Denver said, "hmmm we'll take this guy" and then out of sheer greed just decided to dump him for Erick Green and some cash.

Similarly with Mitchell, the Nuggets took Mitchell with the understanding they would trade him to Utah for Trey Lyles AND the 23rd pick. That 23rd pick was supposed to be OG Anunoby, but Toronto surprised everyone and swooped in and took him with the 22nd pick. The Nugs liked Lyles and thought they could get both him and OG in one deal. It backfired. Yeah, they got too cute and should have just taken OG at 13 but it wasn't like they traded Mitchell for Lyles.

[nomansland]

One factor missing from this discussion is player development. If Jokic had gone to Washington it's possible he'd turn out like another Valanciunus or worse, Jan Vessely. But under Michael Malone, the organization has done a really good job developing players (for the most part). There are a lot of ex-Nuggets who had to be traded that are thriving in the league now.

[Doctor MJ]

Jokic was just luck. After that they look for guys who fit their system and that can crack the rotation. And it's much easier for them to stay on the floor when they are playing next to Jokic. Indeed they all struggle mightly in the non Jokic minutes.

Very much agree with all of this, but want to add: I think they've hired quality GMs, and I think Kroenke's background as a college basketball player may well give him a huge advantage over many of the other owners when it comes to recognizing guys who have the skills to do the GM job well.

Not saying you'll be a great owner simply because you played some ball of course, but when you buy into something you don't have a background in, even if you're willing to give control to someone who works for you with more experience, how can you tell if someone actually has the goods? I think some owners can judge who has the goods in something they aren't experts in can do it better than others, but I'd expect having more background in the domain helps so long as you aren't overconfident in your own hunches.

Did Josh Kroenke have much if any role in hiring Masai or Connelly? (They were hired in 2010 and 2013.)

I have no inside information here, but if you go back to win they hire Masai, Kroenke's the guy getting quoted:

We are very pleased to welcome Masai back to Denver," Nuggets official Josh Kroenke said in a statement. "He brings a diverse basketball background and a unique perspective that will be valuable to our organization. He is respected in basketball circles throughout the world.

Honestly I'll own up to having this theory based on the Nuggets seeming to be cheap with their GMs...only to repeatedly get GMs who make good moves. There's certainly luck involved, but between the GMs chosen and the patience with which they built as Jokic gradually emerged as their franchise player out of nowhere makes me think they've got some organizational strength above the GMs.

And Connelly's definitely a smart and skilled GM, but he's also done the following:
-drafted Gobert and then traded him for nothing (cash and 2nd rounder)
-drafted Donovan Mitchell and traded him for Trey Lyles (already in his 3rd/4th year by then)
-picked Mudiay with the highest draft pick he ever had
As with most draft things, it's hard to make a coherent case for any person having a special knack for judging the right character or somehow seeing who's going to translate/develop well. Especially true in this case when Connelly's draft successes were taken right where they were expected to be taken by the general consensus. Just makes more sense to default to the idea that draft outcomes are mostly unpredictable and the better guys are maybe a little better at making smart gambles but still need to be more lucky than good.

I honestly am sympathetic to wanting the draft to be about 'judging who has the goods,' I like everyone else see that working and not working all the time in daily life. Which new hire is going to become a credible leader, which young person has the blend of passion and talent to make it as an artist or entrepreneur, who's kind of a screw up now but has enough ambition and pride to make something of himself, etc. But after 20 years of following prospects and the draft, I just don't think this works like that. Translating to the NBA isn't really about 'character' or even desire or anything, though, nothing predicts who'll do that well and every little trick you think might work doesn't last long. It all really comes down mostly to this weird mystery of who can process and do crazy things in the moment, and that falls on the players' bodies and brains and it's all just very very unpredictable until it's happening.

Where I'm coming from is seeing a team that gradually build an outstanding core 5+ deep without any super-high draft picks or free agency drawing power. Doesn't mean that there weren't mistakes along the way, but every team has those. It's not a question of whether they can do this every generation - you aren't going to luck into an MVP level player in the 2nd round every time - but whether I'm confident that there are some competent things about the Nuggets front office that have played out over the course of a number of years.

And I'd say I am.

[zero rings]

One factor missing from this discussion is player development. If Jokic had gone to Washington it's possible he'd turn out like another Valanciunus or worse, Jan Vessely. But under Michael Malone, the organization has done a really good job developing players (for the most part). There are a lot of ex-Nuggets who had to be traded that are thriving in the league now.

LOL

There is no alternate universe where Jokic turns out like Jan Vesely. No offense, but you’re putting way too much stock into coaching and development. The best players are the best because of their God-given talents. Jokic would be the best player in the world if he were playing for the Wizards.

[blueberrysticky]

Let’s be real. Jokic was drafted during a ESPN Taco Bell commercial. No one knew and he also wanted to play another year in Europe.

The other ones were sound picks without reaching and their one yolo gamble (Jokic) came off seeing high basketball iq from tape and hoping

[nomansland]

One factor missing from this discussion is player development. If Jokic had gone to Washington it's possible he'd turn out like another Valanciunus or worse, Jan Vessely. But under Michael Malone, the organization has done a really good job developing players (for the most part). There are a lot of ex-Nuggets who had to be traded that are thriving in the league now.

LOL

There is no alternate universe where Jokic turns out like Jan Vesely. No offense, but you’re putting way too much stock into coaching and development. The best players are the best because of their God-given talents. Jokic would be the best player in the world if he were playing for the Wizards.

Nope. Absolutely not. In isht franchises like Washington or Charlotte he'd have been buried while they tried to focus on other players, and he'd have accepted it thinking, "well at least I got to the NBA." This is a guy who volunteered to come off the bench because Nurkic had hurt feelings over being made a secondary player.

Some clown coach like Mark Jackson or Jason Kidd would have ruined his prospects, or at least minimized them. He's fortunate to have landed in Denver when he did, and vice versa.

[PushDaRock]

That doesn't really look that amazing to me. They mainly just hit on Jokic. Murray was the 7th pick. MPJ was ranked #1 in his class and fell due to injury concerns and he was still a lotto pick. The rest aren't really anything to write home about at least yet. Braun and Watson are just average role players right now.

Masai's run was more impressive in comparison. FVV undrafted (All-Star), Siakam at 27 (multiple time All-Star), OG at 23 (3&D DPOY caliber defender), Powell at 43 (very efficient scorer and 6th man of the year candidate), Wright at 20 (solid pro). His only real bust was Caboclo and that was always a lottery ticket type pick. Of course that luck has kind of dried up for a while since the championship.

[zero rings]

One factor missing from this discussion is player development. If Jokic had gone to Washington it's possible he'd turn out like another Valanciunus or worse, Jan Vessely. But under Michael Malone, the organization has done a really good job developing players (for the most part). There are a lot of ex-Nuggets who had to be traded that are thriving in the league now.

LOL

There is no alternate universe where Jokic turns out like Jan Vesely. No offense, but you’re putting way too much stock into coaching and development. The best players are the best because of their God-given talents. Jokic would be the best player in the world if he were playing for the Wizards.

Nope. Absolutely not. In isht franchises like Washington or Charlotte he'd have been buried while they tried to focus on other players, and he'd have accepted it thinking, "well at least I got to the NBA." This is a guy who volunteered to come off the bench because Nurkic had hurt feelings over being made a secondary player.

Some clown coach like Mark Jackson or Jason Kidd would have ruined his prospects, or at least minimized them. He's fortunate to have landed in Denver when he did, and vice versa.

What you’re describing is exactly what happened in Denver! He was a bench player for his first 1.5 years despite being the best player on the team. It took Malone a while to realize what he had with Jokic, but he figured it out. Even a dunce like Mark Jackson would have gotten there eventually.

Jokic’s story is not that of a scrub turned superstar because of coaching and development. He is a freak of nature talent who was overlooked due to his unorthodox game and physical appearance. Implying that he would be Jan Vesely without the Denver Nuggets is ridiculous.

[TinmanZBoy]

I can think of anything close to Denver's ability to draft outside of the top 10 since the Spurs drafting players like Manu & Parker.

Its mind blowing

Jokic drafted 41 is clearly the highlight
Murray drafted 7
Monte Morris drafted 51
Vlatko Cancar drafted 49 (injuries had major set backs this year but was looking really good prior)
Michael Porter Drafted 14 after missing his entire college year due to a back injury and knowing he would miss his entire 1st NBA year
Christian Braun drafted 21
Peyton Watson drafted 30 after a terrible college year where he scored 3 pts a game on 30% fg shooting

When you think of teams like Detroit who drafted in the lotto for over a decade with so many misses its incredible to see a team like Denver who can't seem to miss.

Without Jokic, probably none of the others would be considered good draft… people would probably not know some names in the list… Jokic makes all these work

[AleksandarN]

They got luck out with Jokic. The other picks are unimpressive. Those role players easily be replaced. More credits should be given to the coaching staff rather than the front office.

If they are so easier to replace why don’t more teams draft as well deep in the draft. Heck you see lottery teams miss on picks so much that they are out of the league before the end of their rookie contract or shortly after. You also have to give credit to their player development . That plays a role in all of this.

[AleksandarN]

Very much agree with all of this, but want to add: I think they've hired quality GMs, and I think Kroenke's background as a college basketball player may well give him a huge advantage over many of the other owners when it comes to recognizing guys who have the skills to do the GM job well.

Not saying you'll be a great owner simply because you played some ball of course, but when you buy into something you don't have a background in, even if you're willing to give control to someone who works for you with more experience, how can you tell if someone actually has the goods? I think some owners can judge who has the goods in something they aren't experts in can do it better than others, but I'd expect having more background in the domain helps so long as you aren't overconfident in your own hunches.

Did Josh Kroenke have much if any role in hiring Masai or Connelly? (They were hired in 2010 and 2013.)

I have no inside information here, but if you go back to win they hire Masai, Kroenke's the guy getting quoted:

We are very pleased to welcome Masai back to Denver," Nuggets official Josh Kroenke said in a statement. "He brings a diverse basketball background and a unique perspective that will be valuable to our organization. He is respected in basketball circles throughout the world.

Honestly I'll own up to having this theory based on the Nuggets seeming to be cheap with their GMs...only to repeatedly get GMs who make good moves. There's certainly luck involved, but between the GMs chosen and the patience with which they built as Jokic gradually emerged as their franchise player out of nowhere makes me think they've got some organizational strength above the GMs.

And Connelly's definitely a smart and skilled GM, but he's also done the following:
-drafted Gobert and then traded him for nothing (cash and 2nd rounder)
-drafted Donovan Mitchell and traded him for Trey Lyles (already in his 3rd/4th year by then)
-picked Mudiay with the highest draft pick he ever had
As with most draft things, it's hard to make a coherent case for any person having a special knack for judging the right character or somehow seeing who's going to translate/develop well. Especially true in this case when Connelly's draft successes were taken right where they were expected to be taken by the general consensus. Just makes more sense to default to the idea that draft outcomes are mostly unpredictable and the better guys are maybe a little better at making smart gambles but still need to be more lucky than good.

I honestly am sympathetic to wanting the draft to be about 'judging who has the goods,' I like everyone else see that working and not working all the time in daily life. Which new hire is going to become a credible leader, which young person has the blend of passion and talent to make it as an artist or entrepreneur, who's kind of a screw up now but has enough ambition and pride to make something of himself, etc. But after 20 years of following prospects and the draft, I just don't think this works like that. Translating to the NBA isn't really about 'character' or even desire or anything, though, nothing predicts who'll do that well and every little trick you think might work doesn't last long. It all really comes down mostly to this weird mystery of who can process and do crazy things in the moment, and that falls on the players' bodies and brains and it's all just very very unpredictable until it's happening.

Where I'm coming from is seeing a team that gradually build an outstanding core 5+ deep without any super-high draft picks or free agency drawing power. Doesn't mean that there weren't mistakes along the way, but every team has those. It's not a question of whether they can do this every generation - you aren't going to luck into an MVP level player in the 2nd round every time - but whether I'm confident that there are some competent things about the Nuggets front office that have played out over the course of a number of years.

And I'd say I am.

I also think having owners who have knowledge of the game helps in the decision making process because believe it or not Josh Kroenke has final say. He has a great basketball mind if you ever listen to him.

[AleksandarN]

LOL

There is no alternate universe where Jokic turns out like Jan Vesely. No offense, but you’re putting way too much stock into coaching and development. The best players are the best because of their God-given talents. Jokic would be the best player in the world if he were playing for the Wizards.

Nope. Absolutely not. In isht franchises like Washington or Charlotte he'd have been buried while they tried to focus on other players, and he'd have accepted it thinking, "well at least I got to the NBA." This is a guy who volunteered to come off the bench because Nurkic had hurt feelings over being made a secondary player.

Some clown coach like Mark Jackson or Jason Kidd would have ruined his prospects, or at least minimized them. He's fortunate to have landed in Denver when he did, and vice versa.

What you’re describing is exactly what happened in Denver! He was a bench player for his first 1.5 years despite being the best player on the team. It took Malone a while to realize what he had with Jokic, but he figured it out. Even a dunce like Mark Jackson would have gotten there eventually.

Jokic’s story is not that of a scrub turned superstar because of coaching and development. He is a freak of nature talent who was overlooked due to his unorthodox game and physical appearance. Implying that he would be Jan Vesely without the Denver Nuggets is ridiculous.

And I feel it was Josh Kroenke push to get him in the starting lineup and deciding who to keep Nurkic or Jokic.