Redrafting the top 10 of 2016 Draft Class

Lauri_Legend · Post #21 » by **Lauri_Legend** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:25 pm

Hangtime84 wrote:
Lauri_Legend wrote:
Hangtime84 wrote:
He probably should be that draft was kinda bad.

I'd take Patrick McCaw over Valentine to be honest.

The grass is greener on the other side for you. If Valentine was on a better team like GS or Spurs we would be drooling over him.

Maybe. That might be true. But Valentine is average at best in almost every category possible. So maybe if he's on the Spurs or Warriors he doesn't even crack the rotation.

League Circles · Post #22 » by **League Circles** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:31 pm

logical_art wrote:
League Circles wrote:
logical_art wrote:
Why would top 10 hold any special significance?

I don't know. I'm not saying that there are a group of people who believe #10 has some high value and #11 doesn't, I'm saying that there are never 10 good players in a draft (maybe 2 - 4 is more typical), so you should never expect to get a good one even as "high/low" as #10.

Well not all drafts are equally talent filled but some years there certainly are ten good players.

Think of it this way. There are 450 NBA players. How many would you consider good? The top 100 players in the league? That's about 22% of the players. So the average draft must have 22% good players. Since there's 60 picks, that's about 13 good players per draft on average.

I wouldn't consider 100 players good. More like 50. If 100 were good, that would mean roughly 20 players per position are good, which to me means you're calling 5-10 guys per position "good" when they are worse than their typical nightly matchup, which doesn't make sense to me.

And no that wouldn't mean 22% of the average draft are good, because good players are good for longer than one year. I'd say at any given time, the roughly 50 good players are split roughly evenly among perhaps 10 draft classes (roughly guys aged 22-32, not many good players older or younger than that), meaning there are about 5 good players per draft class IMO. Pretty typical to me is that 2 or 3 of those guys are drafted top 5, leaving 2 or 3 guys roughly in the 6-60 range per year that are good.

League Circles · Post #23 » by **League Circles** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:33 pm

Hangtime84 wrote:
Lauri_Legend wrote:
Hangtime84 wrote:
He probably should be that draft was kinda bad.

I'd take Patrick McCaw over Valentine to be honest.

The grass is greener on the other side for you. If Valentine was on a better team like GS or Spurs we would be drooling over him.

If a guy like Valentine was on a team like those he'd either be getting zero minutes or they'd be a worse team because of it. Swap Iggy with Denzel and GS isn't the GS we know.

Kurt Heimlich · Post #24 » by **Kurt Heimlich** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:47 pm

Yeah Denzel doesn't belong in the top 10. Dejonte Murray is a clear omission from the OP list.

Dunn has claim at top 10 though. He could go anywhere from 4 to 9 value wise. It's pretty close betwenn Dunn, J. Murray, D. Murray, Hield, Sabonis and Brogdon right now.

Post #25 » by **dougthonus** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:38 pm

logical_art wrote:
League Circles wrote:
DuckIII wrote:
Nobody believes that.

I disagree. I think a lot of people treat "top ten picks" like they have some high value, whereas historically they really, really don't.

Why would top 10 hold any special significance?

It shouldn't but people like groupings. It's the same way many picks are Lotto protected. Why protect for the lottery rather than top 10 or top 16? It's just an arbitrary cut off that has meaning in people's heads due to poor statistical analysis. Much like being a 7 footer is a negative trend for draft success because GMs have historically overvalued 7 ft vs 6'11 and thus many 7 footers are drafted too high.

When people overvalue an arbitrary cut off, it is a scenario where someone else can take advantage. Granted in this case, you get so few selections and opportunities around this mistake that its really hard to get any meaningful concrete advantage, but one case might be trying to target picks in the 11-13 range instead of 10 or trading your pick when it is 9-10 back a few slots if you get good value.

JimmyJammer · Post #26 » by **JimmyJammer** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:40 pm

Denzel is definitely in the range of 10-14, depending on what you value in terms of analytics. As a Bull fan and a homer, I put him in at 10 just for the heck of it. When you think of it, the Bulls organization did well with the pick, considering all the scenarios. Just imagine how the Suns organization and their fans are feeling now with the selection of Bender with that #4 pick. Had we gone ahead and do what the Suns did, there would be riots on the streets of Chicago and this board would be up in flame. The draft is never an exact science, so we might as well enjoy it when a #5 in Dunn, a #14 pick in Valentine and a #7 pick in Markhannen are contributing and looking like real nba players.

rowseyna · Post #27 » by **rowseyna** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:42 pm

JimmyJammer wrote:1. Ben Simmons
2. Jaylen Brown
3. Brandon Ingram
4. Michael Brogdon
5. Kris Dunn
6. Sabonis
7. Buddy Hield
8. Taurean Prince
9. Jamal Murray
10. Denzel Valentine

It was not such a great group, but come to think of it, we really made lemonade out of lemons.

I'd take Dunn over Brogdon and Valentine over Murray.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=Kris+Dunn&player_id1_select=Kris+Dunn&y1=2018&player_id1=dunnkr01&idx=players&player_id2_hint=Malcolm+Brogdon&player_id2_select=Malcolm+Brogdon&y2=2018&player_id2=brogdma01&idx=players

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=Jamal+Murray&player_id1_select=Jamal+Murray&y1=2018&player_id1=murraja01&idx=players&player_id2_hint=Denzel+Valentine&player_id2_select=Denzel+Valentine&y2=2018&player_id2=valende01&idx=players

rowseyna · Post #28 » by **rowseyna** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:43 pm

ZOMG wrote:1. Simmons
2. Brown
3. Sabonis
4. Ingram
5. Brogdon
6. Murray
7. Dunn
8. Hield
9. Chriss
10. Pöltl

Dunn definitely over Murray.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=Kris+Dunn&player_id1_select=Kris+Dunn&y1=2018&player_id1=dunnkr01&idx=players&player_id2_hint=Jamal+Murray&player_id2_select=Jamal+Murray&y2=2018&player_id2=murraja01&idx=players

rowseyna · Post #29 » by **rowseyna** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:44 pm

Lauri_Legend wrote:
Hangtime84 wrote:
MC3 wrote:Denzel Valentine shouldnt be on the list. Dont disrespect top 10 of 2016 draft class.

He probably should be that draft was kinda bad.

I'd take Patrick McCaw over Valentine to be honest.

No way.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=Patrick+McCaw&player_id1_select=Patrick+McCaw&y1=2018&player_id1=mccawpa01&idx=players&player_id2_hint=Denzel+Valentine&player_id2_select=Denzel+Valentine&y2=2018&player_id2=valende01&idx=players

League Circles · Post #30 » by **League Circles** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:44 pm

I predict Denzel is going to become the Chris Duhon of this rebuild in fans' minds. A lot of verbal support for being a solid contributor or whatever, but just completely meaningless in winning NBA games and likely out of the league within a few years of whenever we give up on him.

rowseyna · Post #31 » by **rowseyna** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:47 pm

Hayesy wrote:Yeah Denzel doesn't belong in the top 10. Dejonte Murray is a clear omission from the OP list.

Dunn has claim at top 10 though. He could go anywhere from 4 to 9 value wise. It's pretty close betwenn Dunn, J. Murray, D. Murray, Hield, Sabonis and Brogdon right now.

I'd take Dunn over all/any of them.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=Malcolm+Brogdon&player_id1_select=Malcolm+Brogdon&y1=2018&player_id1=brogdma01&idx=players&player_id2_hint=Kris+Dunn&player_id2_select=Kris+Dunn&y2=2018&player_id2=dunnkr01&idx=players&player_id3_hint=Buddy+Hield&player_id3_select=Buddy+Hield&y3=2018&player_id3=hieldbu01&idx=players&player_id4_hint=Dejounte+Murray&player_id4_select=Dejounte+Murray&y4=2018&player_id4=murrade01&idx=players&player_id5_hint=Jamal+Murray&player_id5_select=Jamal+Murray&y5=2018&player_id5=murraja01&idx=players&player_id6_hint=Domantas+Sabonis&player_id6_select=Domantas+Sabonis&y6=2018&player_id6=sabondo01&idx=players

rowseyna · Post #32 » by **rowseyna** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:49 pm

League Circles wrote:I predict Denzel is going to become the Chris Duhon of this rebuild in fans' minds. A lot of verbal support for being a solid contributor or whatever, but just completely meaningless in winning NBA games and likely out of the league within a few years of whenever we give up on him.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=Chris+Duhon&player_id1_select=Chris+Duhon&y1=2006&player_id1=duhonch01&idx=players&player_id2_hint=Denzel+Valentine&player_id2_select=Denzel+Valentine&y2=2018&player_id2=valende01&idx=players

League Circles · Post #33 » by **League Circles** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:52 pm

rowseyna wrote:
League Circles wrote:I predict Denzel is going to become the Chris Duhon of this rebuild in fans' minds. A lot of verbal support for being a solid contributor or whatever, but just completely meaningless in winning NBA games and likely out of the league within a few years of whenever we give up on him.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=Chris+Duhon&player_id1_select=Chris+Duhon&y1=2006&player_id1=duhonch01&idx=players&player_id2_hint=Denzel+Valentine&player_id2_select=Denzel+Valentine&y2=2018&player_id2=valende01&idx=players

What is this supposed to imply?

rowseyna · Post #34 » by **rowseyna** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:03 pm

League Circles wrote:
rowseyna wrote:
League Circles wrote:I predict Denzel is going to become the Chris Duhon of this rebuild in fans' minds. A lot of verbal support for being a solid contributor or whatever, but just completely meaningless in winning NBA games and likely out of the league within a few years of whenever we give up on him.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=Chris+Duhon&player_id1_select=Chris+Duhon&y1=2006&player_id1=duhonch01&idx=players&player_id2_hint=Denzel+Valentine&player_id2_select=Denzel+Valentine&y2=2018&player_id2=valende01&idx=players

What is this supposed to imply?

It's not.

Chi town · Post #35 » by **Chi town** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:31 pm

DuckIII wrote:
Hangtime84 wrote:
MC3 wrote:Denzel Valentine shouldnt be on the list. Dont disrespect top 10 of 2016 draft class.

He probably should be that draft was kinda bad.

And he's showing he's got an important translatable NBA skill. He's a pretty safe bet as a solid rotational role player.

He's turning out to be reasonable value for a 14th pick in any draft, really.

He will look even better if Fred gives him Zip's mins and he can bomb away and playmake with the 2nd unit.

mj234eva · Post #36 » by **mj234eva** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:31 pm

rowseyna wrote:
Lauri_Legend wrote:
Hangtime84 wrote:
He probably should be that draft was kinda bad.

I'd take Patrick McCaw over Valentine to be honest.

No way.

Spoiler:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=Patrick+McCaw&player_id1_select=Patrick+McCaw&y1=2018&player_id1=mccawpa01&idx=players&player_id2_hint=Denzel+Valentine&player_id2_select=Denzel+Valentine&y2=2018&player_id2=valende01&idx=players

Do you understand situation and opportunity or lack thereof?

Post #37 » by **DuckIII** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 6:35 pm

League Circles wrote:I predict Denzel is going to become the Chris Duhon of this rebuild in fans' minds. A lot of verbal support for being a solid contributor or whatever, but just completely meaningless in winning NBA games and likely out of the league within a few years of whenever we give up on him.

So you have watched how many games this year by your own repeated and proud admissions? Zero? "I'll just assume everyone sucks" to paraphrase you, I think.

Also, what a player does after he leaves the Bulls isn't a measure of his value as a Bull.

Lotta Bulls fans happily declaring they don't know **** about the team while offering some really strong opinions on those players. Kinda odd.

League Circles · Post #38 » by **League Circles** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 6:47 pm

DuckIII wrote:
League Circles wrote:I predict Denzel is going to become the Chris Duhon of this rebuild in fans' minds. A lot of verbal support for being a solid contributor or whatever, but just completely meaningless in winning NBA games and likely out of the league within a few years of whenever we give up on him.

So you have watched how many games this year by your own repeated and proud admissions? Zero? "I'll just assume everyone sucks" to paraphrase you, I think.

Correct, zero (full games). Does he not suck? He looked really bad last year to me and when I've watched him play for segments this year. He's atrocious statistically. 60th among SFs in RPM, bad individual stats. Never passed the eye test for me from day 1.

My main point is that I predict people will look at him in a vacuum and think something along the lines of "oh he shoots threes really well, rebounds pretty well, and we know (from college) that he can handle the ball and create, and he's improving on defense, so he must be a solid contributor", when in reality I predict he'll be a below average backup in actual quality and impact, and such players have essentially zero value outside of whatever fit help they may have, and fit help is of no benefit on a tanking, rebuilding team.

Ultimately, players who fans can vaguely point to a positive characteristic or two about will tend to be overvalued on a terrible team. Denzel is the #4 player by mpg on the worst team in the league. He is integral to us being terrible, not an asterix with regards to us being terrible.

ZOMG · Post #39 » by **ZOMG** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 6:47 pm

rowseyna wrote:I'd take Dunn over all/any of them.

Even Sabonis? Wow.

Are you aware how he’s playing this season?

Kurt Heimlich · Post #40 » by **Kurt Heimlich** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 6:47 pm

rowseyna wrote:
Hayesy wrote:Yeah Denzel doesn't belong in the top 10. Dejonte Murray is a clear omission from the OP list.

Dunn has claim at top 10 though. He could go anywhere from 4 to 9 value wise. It's pretty close betwenn Dunn, J. Murray, D. Murray, Hield, Sabonis and Brogdon right now.

I'd take Dunn over all/any of them.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=Malcolm+Brogdon&player_id1_select=Malcolm+Brogdon&y1=2018&player_id1=brogdma01&idx=players&player_id2_hint=Kris+Dunn&player_id2_select=Kris+Dunn&y2=2018&player_id2=dunnkr01&idx=players&player_id3_hint=Buddy+Hield&player_id3_select=Buddy+Hield&y3=2018&player_id3=hieldbu01&idx=players&player_id4_hint=Dejounte+Murray&player_id4_select=Dejounte+Murray&y4=2018&player_id4=murrade01&idx=players&player_id5_hint=Jamal+Murray&player_id5_select=Jamal+Murray&y5=2018&player_id5=murraja01&idx=players&player_id6_hint=Domantas+Sabonis&player_id6_select=Domantas+Sabonis&y6=2018&player_id6=sabondo01&idx=players

And that is your right as a (Chicago Bulls) fan.

But objectively looking at that comparison, and considering they're all only in the beginning of their 2nd year, I don't think any of these guys have separated themselves from the group. The efficiency and RPM stats say Hield and Sabonis are the best of this bunch currently. Brogdon has the best, longest, body of work so far. And the Murray's have both shown the highest upside of this group, along with Dunn. But without establishing consistent track records yet.