Over 10 years, what % of draft picks #2-5 end up better than Butler??

[DarthDiggler69]

does anyone care if the player is better or the team is better?

[inescape]

If Chicago is a real threat next year to sign FA then what are we waiting for? $30 million in space is available if we dump Rondo, and Niko. Chris Paul is out there right now. Why wait?

[weneeda2guard]

Not possible since we have no assets. Could get Cousins next offseason, and Kyrie the year after I suppose. So much can happen between now and then though, but it is as appropriate of a dream as anything else at this point.

Bulls have assets/can begin stock piling assets. You have this year's pick, what you can get in a valentine trade, what you can get in a niko trade (sign and trade at the deadline) a kings pick our own 1st rd pick in 2018 and the ability to absorb salary to get cleveland so far out the luxury tax. That is a ton to offer to cleveland, when lebron leaves and kyrie wants out and wants to play with his boy jimmy. Considering kyrie can opt out the following season, no other team will ante up that much, and cleveland can take those assets or watch kyrie leave the following season for nothing

For the bulls if we can't land kyrie, we still have max space for 2 guys and assets to add depth. So it's a win win down that road. If lebron is leaving east is wide open. Gotta be something to consider. Would hate to be "rebuilding" and horrible in a very winnable east

The only way you can rely on this, if you are the FO, when making long term decisions isnif Butler has flat out told you that Irving and DMC have agreed to force this.

Even if they told him that (which is complete speculation), and then they don't follow through, it's enough talent that the representation makes it enough to risk it.

Otherwise, hell no.

There is no way jimmy kyrie or cousins can just come out and say they all want to play together. Management all over the league would be working night and day to prevent that from happening, plus you put the bulls under fire for tampering etc. All you can do is see the writing on the wall. Just like lebron can't come out and say he wants California. All that can happen is rumors come out and lebron remains silent and not dispell the rumors. All I know is during team usa, it is known that jimmy was recruiting, and it's known jimmy is a recruiter and his buddies after team usa were cousins, kyrie, pg13, deandre jordan and melo. So of course it's safe to assume he been recruiting them to chicago. Especially when jimmy is about the only one adamant on wanting to stay with his present team.

All I been saying, is that the kings ransom we expecting to get for jimmy, just might not be there, so instead of accepting some mediocre package for jimmy to rebuild for the sake of rebuilding, or believing we have to be a mediocre fringe playoff team, we can see that soon the landscape of the east will be changing, and It's a light at the end of the tunnel that could say we could be the next team emerging in the east with lebron in the west and out the way. I sure wouldn't want to help make boston a power team when we can add possible kyrie and cousins and be the next team going to the finals every year.

[kyrv]

I agree with Coldfish completely. Great opening post and in a lot of contexts it would be valuable.

But it's not the right analysis to employ to the Bulls situation. For exactly the reasons coldfish already stated.

I think it is a necessary analysis because there are a boatload of us with completely unrealistic expectations, both on the length of a rebuild and the chances for a title coming from said rebuild.

I agree there are absolutely reasons to trade Jimmy, because of reasons well outlined in most current threads.

[bledredwine]

I researched and spoke about this with a few friends. There is about a 30 percent chance of landing a star w any top 5 pick. Considering if we trade Jimmy, we'll be tanking.... chances are great that we can end up w a star, and some rotational players, all maturing together. Yeah It's much better than the situation we have now.

[HomoSapien]

Great post, Funk.

[kyrv]

I researched and spoke about this with a few friends. There is about a 30 percent chance of landing a star w any top 5 pick. Considering if we trade Jimmy, we'll be tanking.... chances are great that we can end up w a star, and some rotational players, all maturing together. Yeah It's much better than the situation we have now.

30% seems a little high. Can you share that research?

[bledredwine]

I researched and spoke about this with a few friends. There is about a 30 percent chance of landing a star w any top 5 pick. Considering if we trade Jimmy, we'll be tanking.... chances are great that we can end up w a star, and some rotational players, all maturing together. Yeah It's much better than the situation we have now.

30% seems a little high. Can you share that research?

I plan on it - in summer school. Also have realgm blocked on my computer. Will do soon.

[Repeat 3-peat]

If Chicago is a real threat next year to sign FA then what are we waiting for? $30 million in space is available if we dump Rondo, and Niko. Chris Paul is out there right now. Why wait?

cause it's unlikely CP3 comes here.

He'll either stay in LA to get his supermax, and recruit LBJ in 2018, or go to the Spurs with Leonard, and coach Pop.

[DanTown8587]

There's a whole lot of math but it tries to simplify a really complicated process. Really quick

- you can't TRULY evaluate a draft picks' value based on who was picked where. This logic would say the #3 pick in the 1984 draft was drastically more valuable than #2 because the Blazers took Bowie and the Bulls Jordan. That's circular reasoning: you're using the outcome of a result in one independent simulation to try and predict future results in other independent simulations that are not related. Basically, that's a no-no in statistics. You can evaluate picks based on their spot but you can't use that data to try and predict future drafts.

- by eliminating the #1 pick from the equation, you heavily devalue the value of trying to build through the draft.

- you also used the drafts of when the NBA didn't have an age limit (so selecting younger players with less data) which isn't really fair to predict the current draft picks value.

[League Circles]

I researched and spoke about this with a few friends. There is about a 30 percent chance of landing a star w any top 5 pick. Considering if we trade Jimmy, we'll be tanking.... chances are great that we can end up w a star, and some rotational players, all maturing together. Yeah It's much better than the situation we have now.

30% seems a little high. Can you share that research?

I plan on it - in summer school. Also have realgm blocked on my computer. Will do soon.

I believe this if the term star is used liberally. Very liberally. The idea in trading Jimmy is that ultimately you have a better team with better Stars than him. I think the chances of that are low. But if we can get two or three picks or players that have a notable chance of being roughly equal to or better than Jimmy then I am probably down. Just one, no thanks.

[Shill]

There's a whole lot of math but it tries to simplify a really complicated process. Really quick

- you can't TRULY evaluate a draft picks' value based on who was picked where. This logic would say the #3 pick in the 1984 draft was drastically more valuable than #2 because the Blazers took Bowie and the Bulls Jordan. That's circular reasoning: you're using the outcome of a result in one independent simulation to try and predict future results in other independent simulations that are not related. Basically, that's a no-no in statistics. You can evaluate picks based on their spot but you can't use that data to try and predict future drafts.

- by eliminating the #1 pick from the equation, you heavily devalue the value of trying to build through the draft.

- you also used the drafts of when the NBA didn't have an age limit (so selecting younger players with less data) which isn't really fair to predict the current draft picks value.

Good post, as is the OP's.

I, too, was going to point out that eliminating the #1 pick heavily skews the analysis.

In the process of bottoming out, we might land the top pick (maybe even multiple times like Cleveland).

Also, there are a few players picked AFTER 5 that should be factored into the analysis. I wouldn't say it's necessary to go all the way to the end of the draft (and use true outliers like Isaiah Thomas), but guys like Steph & Klay, Kawhi, Greek Freek etc... change the calculus a bit.


I think the fundamental question is: what's the best way to build a contender?

Get aggressively bad and stockpile picks, hoping you draft well? Or get on the treadmill of mediocrity until an unexpected break happens.

Outside of a few examples, difference-makers are found in the lottery. I think the best bet is to stockpile lottery picks and trust your evaluation skills.


Now the macro problem is our declining front office, but that's a whole other can o' worms.

[r1terrell23]

I agree with Coldfish completely. Great opening post and in a lot of contexts it would be valuable.

But it's not the right analysis to employ to the Bulls situation. For exactly the reasons coldfish already stated.

I disagree with this premise. In this league two stars can get you to the East finals. We have one now so I wouldn't trade him just yet. Our problem is GarPax and this organization can't bring in star talent. Jimmy seems to be friends with a lot of these guys now and at least having Wade put in a few kind words can go a long way. GarPax needs to get a second star here first before trying to rebuild. Other teams make it happen so they need to as well.

[r1terrell23]

There's a whole lot of math but it tries to simplify a really complicated process. Really quick

- you can't TRULY evaluate a draft picks' value based on who was picked where. This logic would say the #3 pick in the 1984 draft was drastically more valuable than #2 because the Blazers took Bowie and the Bulls Jordan. That's circular reasoning: you're using the outcome of a result in one independent simulation to try and predict future results in other independent simulations that are not related. Basically, that's a no-no in statistics. You can evaluate picks based on their spot but you can't use that data to try and predict future drafts.

- by eliminating the #1 pick from the equation, you heavily devalue the value of trying to build through the draft.

- you also used the drafts of when the NBA didn't have an age limit (so selecting younger players with less data) which isn't really fair to predict the current draft picks value.

Good post, as is the OP's.

I, too, was going to point out that eliminating the #1 pick heavily skews the analysis.

In the process of bottoming out, we might land the top pick (maybe even multiple times like Cleveland).

Also, there are a few players picked AFTER 5 that should be factored into the analysis. I wouldn't say it's necessary to go all the way to the end of the draft (and use true outliers like Isaiah Thomas), but guys like Steph & Klay, Kawhi, Greek Freek etc... change the calculus a bit.


I think the fundamental question is: what's the best way to build a contender?

Get aggressively bad and stockpile picks, hoping you draft well? Or get on the treadmill of mediocrity until an unexpected break happens.

Outside of a few examples, difference-makers are found in the lottery. I think the best bet is to stockpile lottery picks and trust your evaluation skills.


Now the macro problem is our declining front office, but that's a whole other can o' worms.

These reason the number 1 was taken away is because no one is trading us a number pick. Even the Lakers and Philly picks wont be number 1 moving forward. This organization wont let itself be bad enough to pick number 1 without a miracle.

[kyrv]

I researched and spoke about this with a few friends. There is about a 30 percent chance of landing a star w any top 5 pick. Considering if we trade Jimmy, we'll be tanking.... chances are great that we can end up w a star, and some rotational players, all maturing together. Yeah It's much better than the situation we have now.

30% seems a little high. Can you share that research?

I plan on it - in summer school. Also have realgm blocked on my computer. Will do soon.

Thanks. Quick question first, did you use just players taken or all players available?

[kodo]

This is always a bit of a straw man argument every time it comes up.

Pro tankers are not saying tanking is a likely or solid road to a championship. That doesn't exist. Pro tankers say the minute odds of tanking yielding superstars is just better than the alternative, free agency.

In ten years of #2-5 picks, around 4 or 5 players were better than Butler out of 40

In the last 10 years how many free agents have the Bulls landed that were better than Butler: 0 / 40

This is the crux of why so many teams are tanking, .01% chance > 0% chance.

[ThreeMileAllan]

There's a whole lot of math but it tries to simplify a really complicated process. Really quick

- you can't TRULY evaluate a draft picks' value based on who was picked where. This logic would say the #3 pick in the 1984 draft was drastically more valuable than #2 because the Blazers took Bowie and the Bulls Jordan. That's circular reasoning: you're using the outcome of a result in one independent simulation to try and predict future results in other independent simulations that are not related. Basically, that's a no-no in statistics. You can evaluate picks based on their spot but you can't use that data to try and predict future drafts.

- by eliminating the #1 pick from the equation, you heavily devalue the value of trying to build through the draft.

- you also used the drafts of when the NBA didn't have an age limit (so selecting younger players with less data) which isn't really fair to predict the current draft picks value.

Good point about the one and done rule. Maybe I should have stopped at 2007, one year after the one and done rule (2006 was a lousy draft for that reason)

I choose pick #2-5 for a few reasons: Boston would convey the Laker pick only if it was #2-5. And the most likely scenario for any hard tank/lottery situation is to NOT end up with the #1 pick. Also, the trade scenarios popping up have involved us taking this draft's picks anywhere from #2-5, maybe #7 in the Wolves case. But never has it recently been mentioned that the Sixers would trade us their #1 after they made their trade.

If trade discussions sounded likely that we would get this years or next years #1, I might have factored that in.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[ThreeMileAllan]

There's a whole lot of math but it tries to simplify a really complicated process. Really quick

- you can't TRULY evaluate a draft picks' value based on who was picked where. This logic would say the #3 pick in the 1984 draft was drastically more valuable than #2 because the Blazers took Bowie and the Bulls Jordan. That's circular reasoning: you're using the outcome of a result in one independent simulation to try and predict future results in other independent simulations that are not related. Basically, that's a no-no in statistics. You can evaluate picks based on their spot but you can't use that data to try and predict future drafts.

- by eliminating the #1 pick from the equation, you heavily devalue the value of trying to build through the draft.

- you also used the drafts of when the NBA didn't have an age limit (so selecting younger players with less data) which isn't really fair to predict the current draft picks value.

Dantown, I get what youre saying. Its like when gamblers look at the past history of roulette spins, see five reds in a row and think black is coming up. However, I dont believe that applies here. The goal.is to figure out the P(Butler). And also the Binomial Probability Equation already treats the events independently.

In the case of roulette though, we already know the odds. Here we're trying to figure out what the probabilities even are. Of course, (Butler) could vary on many different factors, since the sample is small, and outcomes are still subjective (but thats why I only chose CONSeNSUS bettee than Butler players).

Binomial Probability already treats each event independently.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[LordBaldric]

It's a mistake to discount player development in all this, as if anyone drafted in those spots would become the same finished product no matter their situation or tutelage. The Spurs routinely turn non-lotto picks and 2nd rounders into studs. Jimmy, under Thibs, went from #30 pick to star player over years of hard work.

Now the Bulls have Hoiberg at the controls shaping their young players. That doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

[kyrv]

This is always a bit of a straw man argument every time it comes up.

Pro tankers are not saying tanking is a likely or solid road to a championship. That doesn't exist. Pro tankers say the minute odds of tanking yielding superstars is just better than the alternative, free agency.

In ten years of #2-5 picks, around 4 or 5 players were better than Butler out of 40

In the last 10 years how many free agents have the Bulls landed that were better than Butler: 0 / 40

This is the crux of why so many teams are tanking, .01% chance > 0% chance.

From the fervor of the posting, people don't realize it's .01 v .0001. Hence unrealistic expectations and dreams of 'quick restarts'.