Image ImageImage Image

Gambler's ruin--or why so many draft picks bust

Moderators: HomoSapien, Payt10, RedBulls23, coldfish, AshyLarrysDiaper, fleet, kulaz3000, Michael Jackson, Ice Man, dougthonus, Tommy Udo 6 , DASMACKDOWN, GimmeDat

chefo
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,274
And1: 2,386
Joined: Apr 29, 2009

Gambler's ruin--or why so many draft picks bust 

Post#1 » by chefo » Sat Mar 20, 2021 5:42 am

Watching our young guys lose their minds the moment things get tough made me think about what kind of players are getting drafted and why so many struggle so much to adjust to the NBA.

I'll start with an anecdote--twenty or so years ago while in college, one of my best pickup buddies (who was previously a D1 K State player) had a visit from one of his best buds while he was on the team. The guy was top 3 athletic marvel that I've ever played against. Only later my bud told me the dude was actually a pro in Italy. He had been the #2 ranked SG in the country coming out of high school, and a top 15 overall recruit, if I remember correctly. He flamed out of school, however, and word spread, so he went undrafted and moved overseas to play for a decent top-tier team in Italy.

He was about my height (probably about 6'3 barefoot), and just to give you an idea of how ridiculous of an athlete he was, in warmups he windmilled a dunk from a standstill, off two feet. I'd never seen anything like that short of a highlight reel in the NBA for somebody like Dominique. He had one of the sweetest strokes I've ever seen, and that comes from a guy who probably made 75-80% of his 3s in practice over the years and knew a bunch of dudes just as good or better.

That young man could get up and shoot it over you absolutely effortlessly. He was quick, and fast, and in great shape--and despite that, the team he was on got spanked by my team a couple of times. We had no business beating them--they had by FAR the two best players on the floor. Their big was better than our big. And yet me (a nobody) and bunch of regulars in the college pick-up games beat a team that had two D1 players, including a top 15 recruit that was projected to be a lottery pick before he went to college and another player who was probably better than anybody on our team. All three were awesome on O, but didn't take D too seriously because they thought they'd beat us with sheer talent. Well, they didn't. They just didn't take winning that seriously, because you need to play both ends with some pride and pay attention to win, even in college pickup games.

In the present day and age, that guy probably gets drafted in the 1st, on hype alone, and then proceeds to do nothing for the next 4 years. He doesn't get a chance to flame out of school because he didn't take ball, and life in general, seriously enough. So, you're stuck with a very talented yet just as useless dead weight.

What I'm getting at, is that the old college system where players got out as seniors, maybe juniors, if they were really that good, made sure to weed out all the kids that were incredibly talented, but just couldn't make it, for whatever reason. Before you drafted a player, you had a pretty good idea of their momentum as a player through time, if they got better and smarter with age, how they performed under pressure, etc. They usually had 3-4 tourneys under their belt so you could see how a big does against legit size, or how a guard does against ball pressure. You can see how they react to the big stage.

If, by year 4, the PG still throws passes into the stands and in the feet of the team's 7 footers, that guy was probably getting nowhere near an NBA team, unless he was insanely good at something else.

I look at Coby, Wendell and Lauri, for example.

Coby, 2 years in the league is EXACTLY the player he was at UNC. Same or worse shooting splits, same exact strengths and weaknesses. WCJ is EXACTLY the guy he was at Duke, 3 years in--he'd have good stretches followed by absolutely brutal ones. I put it in the other thread, but over the last several ACC games of the yea5 and the tourney, WCJ averaged LESS than 10 ppg and barely over 7 boards / game to go with almost 4 fouls per game. Lauri at Arizona was a great shooter... who shot only 10/game and only grabbed 7 boards a game in 30 min--so Lauri's strength and weaknesses are EXACTLY the same as when he was with the Wildcats.

The point I'm making is that neither of the 3 have made MATERIAL progress in becoming better NBA players--Lauri is the best of the bunch, BY FAR, IMO--but mostly because his skillset translates better in the modern NBA and he is just taller and much more talented overall than Coby and WCJ.

Lauri probably would have gotten drafted at about the same spot, if he had stayed for 3 years in college, just because he projected as a generational shooter at 7 feet tall. If Coby and Wendell did not show material improvement in their game over years 2-4 while in school, on the other hand, WCJ would have been a 2nd round pick, if picked at all, and Coby, maaaybe a late first rounder.

What this means is that scouting is a crapshoot, more often than not, and you're not just picking in the lottery, you're more likely than not getting a lottery ticket as well, because you're hoping you can fix these guys' flaws (that you've seen) and DEVELOP them into useful players... which may not happen by the time the time for their first contract extension kicks in. It's not a coincidence that crappy teams stay crappy and pick Ayton and Bagley over a kid savant that was good enough to be a starter in this league at 17.

We've gotten play worthy of a late 1st rounder and a second rounder out of 2(!) #7s. PaW is dangerously close to getting dumped in that group as well-he's shown flashes, but he's probably years away from being a rotational piece on a really good PO team.

That's why I think hoping for a re-boot through the draft is a crapshoot, unless you have generational talent devoid of holes in their game waiting for you at the top 3 or so picks. Everything else is a low effin' odds bet. You may get lucky and pick a gem or two, but almost everybody else busts out... and the expectation is to bust out, which tells you how low expectations are. These teams KNOW they're picking kids who as often as not don't know how to play yet, but would force us, the paying fans, to watch that garbage for the sake of "development".

Screw that--build an effin' winning team, and if a bunch of former high picks have to go, so be it.
WindyCityBorn
RealGM
Posts: 20,370
And1: 10,762
Joined: Jun 26, 2014
     

Re: Gambler's ruin--or why so many draft picks bust 

Post#2 » by WindyCityBorn » Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:16 am

chefo wrote:Watching our young guys lose their minds the moment things get tough made me think about what kind of players are getting drafted and why so many struggle so much to adjust to the NBA.

I'll start with an anecdote--twenty or so years ago while in college, one of my best pickup buddies (who was previously a D1 K State player) had a visit from one of his best buds while he was on the team. The guy was top 3 athletic marvel that I've ever played against. Only later my bud told me the dude was actually a pro in Italy. He had been the #2 ranked SG in the country coming out of high school, and a top 15 overall recruit, if I remember correctly. He flamed out of school, however, and word spread, so he went undrafted and moved overseas to play for a decent top-tier team in Italy.

He was about my height (probably about 6'3 barefoot), and just to give you an idea of how ridiculous of an athlete he was, in warmups he windmilled a dunk from a standstill, off two feet. I'd never seen anything like that short of a highlight reel in the NBA for somebody like Dominique. He had one of the sweetest strokes I've ever seen, and that comes from a guy who probably made 75-80% of his 3s in practice over the years and knew a bunch of dudes just as good or better.

That young man could get up and shoot it over you absolutely effortlessly. He was quick, and fast, and in great shape--and despite that, the team he was on got spanked by my team a couple of times. We had no business beating them--they had by FAR the two best players on the floor. Their big was better than our big. And yet me (a nobody) and bunch of regulars in the college pick-up games beat a team that had two D1 players, including a top 15 recruit that was projected to be a lottery pick before he went to college and another player who was probably better than anybody on our team. All three were awesome on O, but didn't take D too seriously because they thought they'd beat us with sheer talent. Well, they didn't. They just didn't take winning that seriously, because you need to play both ends with some pride and pay attention to win, even in college pickup games.

In the present day and age, that guy probably gets drafted in the 1st, on hype alone, and then proceeds to do nothing for the next 4 years. He doesn't get a chance to flame out of school because he didn't take ball, and life in general, seriously enough. So, you're stuck with a very talented yet just as useless dead weight.

What I'm getting at, is that the old college system where players got out as seniors, maybe juniors, if they were really that good, made sure to weed out all the kids that were incredibly talented, but just couldn't make it, for whatever reason. Before you drafted a player, you had a pretty good idea of their momentum as a player through time, if they got better and smarter with age, how they performed under pressure, etc. They usually had 3-4 tourneys under their belt so you could see how a big does against legit size, or how a guard does against ball pressure. You can see how they react to the big stage.

If, by year 4, the PG still throws passes into the stands and in the feet of the team's 7 footers, that guy was probably getting nowhere near an NBA team, unless he was insanely good at something else.

I look at Coby, Wendell and Lauri, for example.

Coby, 2 years in the league is EXACTLY the player he was at UNC. Same or worse shooting splits, same exact strengths and weaknesses. WCJ is EXACTLY the guy he was at Duke, 3 years in--he'd have good stretches followed by absolutely brutal ones. I put it in the other thread, but over the last several ACC games of the yea5 and the tourney, WCJ averaged LESS than 10 ppg and barely over 7 boards / game to go with almost 4 fouls per game. Lauri at Arizona was a great shooter... who shot only 10/game and only grabbed 7 boards a game in 30 min--so Lauri's strength and weaknesses are EXACTLY the same as when he was with the Wildcats.

The point I'm making is that neither of the 3 have made MATERIAL progress in becoming better NBA players--Lauri is the best of the bunch, BY FAR, IMO--but mostly because his skillset translates better in the modern NBA and he is just taller and much more talented overall than Coby and WCJ.

Lauri probably would have gotten drafted at about the same spot, if he had stayed for 3 years in college, just because he projected as a generational shooter at 7 feet tall. If Coby and Wendell did not show material improvement in their game over years 2-4 while in school, on the other hand, WCJ would have been a 2nd round pick, if picked at all, and Coby, maaaybe a late first rounder.

What this means is that scouting is a crapshoot, more often than not, and you're not just picking in the lottery, you're more likely than not getting a lottery ticket as well, because you're hoping you can fix these guys' flaws (that you've seen) and DEVELOP them into useful players... which may not happen by the time the time for their first contract extension kicks in. It's not a coincidence that crappy teams stay crappy and pick Ayton and Bagley over a kid savant that was good enough to be a starter in this league at 17.

We've gotten play worthy of a late 1st rounder and a second rounder out of 2(!) #7s. PaW is dangerously close to getting dumped in that group as well-he's shown flashes, but he's probably years away from being a rotational piece on a really good PO team.

That's why I think hoping for a re-boot through the draft is a crapshoot, unless you have generational talent devoid of holes in their game waiting for you at the top 3 or so picks. Everything else is a low effin' odds bet. You may get lucky and pick a gem or two, but almost everybody else busts out... and the expectation is to bust out, which tells you how low expectations are. These teams KNOW they're picking kids who as often as not don't know how to play yet, but would force us, the paying fans, to watch that garbage for the sake of "development".

Screw that--build an effin' winning team, and if a bunch of former high picks have to go, so be it.


I hope we dump Markkanen and use our massive cap space up sign two or three starter quality players to surround LaVine. I’m also off the playoff train. Even though the draft is a crapshoot we need another shot because the last 3 GarPax picks are busts. So we are screwed on young talent despite all this losing.
User avatar
Kurt Heimlich
Head Coach
Posts: 6,542
And1: 5,289
Joined: Jun 26, 2001

Re: Gambler's ruin--or why so many draft picks bust 

Post#3 » by Kurt Heimlich » Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:32 am

Agreed 100%. Add into it GarPax's failed run since 2012 drafting and it's hard to put a ton of hope in their remaining draft picks left on the roster turning it around.

Zach and Thad are guys Billy can obviously work with. Pwill is an enormous variable. He's very young, 2nd youngest player in the league. And he's got obvious two way potential as the prototype wing with size, something GarPax failed at identifying for years post Jimmy 2011 draft. Vets like Sato and Temple are interchangeable, but you can see their usefulness in the proper role.

If we could find a way to flip Lauri/Coby/Wendell into draft picks then that becomes much more fungible assets with which to build upon. Either via the draft (AK's record is still strong here) or via further trade.

Free Agency and the Bulls isn't a winning combo post MJ. But we do have cash to spend. Ideally AK and Co can find the right pieces that are willing to sign here. But ultimately, either we try to build a team that can win with Zach, or we have to dump Zach and start all over again. Because outside of Zach (and *hopefully* Pwill) there isn't a ton of long term upside currently on the roster. (Thad is great, and easily our 2nd best player, but he is older and he shouldn't be a high end team's 2nd best player).
MrSparkle
RealGM
Posts: 21,698
And1: 10,005
Joined: Jul 31, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: Gambler's ruin--or why so many draft picks bust 

Post#4 » by MrSparkle » Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:09 am

I agree. It takes about 4-5 years for NBA players to start winning games. IMO you just need to be patient. I think the expectations for Coby and Pat are unrealistic, when you consider COVID knocked out competitive basketball for them for about 9 months. Pat has never played a college playoff game; how about that? These guys are baby kids (as is Wendell; strikes me as very young, emotionally). Lauri too - I mean, he's almost 7' tall, but he looks like he just left calculus class.

Even then, age doesn't matter so much. Mikal Bridges was an old rookie; he won at the NCAA finals level, and it's still taken about 2-3 years for him to actually contribute as a full-time starter.

The 04-07 team didn't make the playoffs because of Paxson's great rookie cast. Tons of seasoned veterans, and the rookies had deep Final Four experience. Very different than this group. Right now, we've got kids who developed under the worst coach I've ever seen, and Hoiberg who can be spared "worst" honors, but certainly was in the same tier as Boylen, VDN and Floyd.

But really, where GarPax went wrong was they spent way too few draft picks on athletic SFs (or tweener wing PFs). That was simply crazy to me, and a recipe for a high bust/low-impact rate, because those are the most valuable players in the league since Lebron/Durant entered their primes. Strange thing is Paxson kicked off his whole revitalization of the Bulls with a great SF rotation (Noc/Deng).

The team still needs more size, athleticism and handles. It may not happen via the draft. But like I keep saying, there are options in this off-season's trade/FA markets. But the team also just needs to replace the back of the bench with a couple more Temples. This idea of trading for a bunch more FRPs (Zach) is fool's gold. Just going to perpetuate the cycle.
User avatar
DroseReturnChi
RealGM
Posts: 10,087
And1: 3,142
Joined: Feb 12, 2012
   

Re: Gambler's ruin--or why so many draft picks bust 

Post#5 » by DroseReturnChi » Sat Mar 20, 2021 8:22 am

some guys just have it like MPJ. its better betting on him even if he had a 50% chance of being jay williams rather than gambling on a project (white, carter) that are close to 2nd round talent if they dont pan out the yr after.
feel like health is very overrated esp in this modern age where every illness seems to be treatable and your dealing with 19yr old kids not a washed up 30 yr old guy.
Doncic will be goat. Lauri will be his sidekick.
User avatar
coldfish
Forum Mod - Bulls
Forum Mod - Bulls
Posts: 58,919
And1: 35,025
Joined: Jun 11, 2004
Location: Right in the middle
   

Re: Gambler's ruin--or why so many draft picks bust 

Post#6 » by coldfish » Sat Mar 20, 2021 12:17 pm

Good thread.

From 2003 to 2011 or so, the Bulls drafted one of the best players available at their position almost every time. Even their busts like James Johnson ended up working out. Their draft method drove people here nuts though. They frequently drafted low ceiling try hard players. Basically, the players like those on chefo's team. The thing about those guys is that they were winners, they were smart, they played both sides of the court and they played hard. They could just grind teams to dust and as soon as they had an elite player among them (Rose), they became a contender.

After that, the team just started drafting for shooting or I'm not even sure maybe reputation? McDermott, Val, Markannen and Coby were the shooters. I think Teague and Wendell were drafted off reputation without actually looking at film.

The Bulls really need to fix their drafting. Pat is a prospect. I'm not so sure that he has the upside that many here think. He just seems . . . .slow.
CaPiTanAK
Pro Prospect
Posts: 769
And1: 435
Joined: Dec 26, 2020

Re: Gambler's ruin--or why so many draft picks bust 

Post#7 » by CaPiTanAK » Sat Mar 20, 2021 1:14 pm

There was a time when GarPax rated Ayton and Marvin Bagley higher than Doncic. So yeah, tanking under GarPax was going to be a pointless exercise. But that doesn’t mean that it’s not going to work as an initial step just bc these prior bozos suck at their jobs.
User avatar
Michael Jackson
Forum Mod - Bulls
Forum Mod - Bulls
Posts: 27,441
And1: 10,134
Joined: Jun 15, 2001

Re: Gambler's ruin--or why so many draft picks bust 

Post#8 » by Michael Jackson » Sat Mar 20, 2021 1:38 pm

CaPiTanAK wrote:There was a time when GarPax rated Ayton and Marvin Bagley higher than Doncic. So yeah, tanking under GarPax was going to be a pointless exercise. But that doesn’t mean that it’s not going to work as an initial step just bc these prior bozos suck at their jobs.



Odds are against it working though. Look at all the swing and misses Philly had and honestly Embiid was a huge health risk, just got lucky on insane volume. Teams are forced to pick guys that are too young to play in the highest competitive level. You are forced in most cases to tell if a 19 year can compete before they are mature, if they are any older than a one and done the question is if they are too old like that ancient guy Toppin (etc). You may be better than Gar pax but it is still a blind draw when you go to the draft. Sacramento and Minny haven’t done it. Philly literally had to have such volume and has something the rules would never allow to be repeated again with any success.
chefo
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,274
And1: 2,386
Joined: Apr 29, 2009

Re: Gambler's ruin--or why so many draft picks bust 

Post#9 » by chefo » Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:39 pm

coldfish wrote:Good thread.

From 2003 to 2011 or so, the Bulls drafted one of the best players available at their position almost every time. Even their busts like James Johnson ended up working out. Their draft method drove people here nuts though. They frequently drafted low ceiling try hard players. Basically, the players like those on chefo's team. The thing about those guys is that they were winners, they were smart, they played both sides of the court and they played hard. They could just grind teams to dust and as soon as they had an elite player among them (Rose), they became a contender.

After that, the team just started drafting for shooting or I'm not even sure maybe reputation? McDermott, Val, Markannen and Coby were the shooters. I think Teague and Wendell were drafted off reputation without actually looking at film.

The Bulls really need to fix their drafting. Pat is a prospect. I'm not so sure that he has the upside that many here think. He just seems . . . .slow.


IMO, they just failed to think a couple of years into the future and got a bad case of LeBron fatigue. The only teams to beat LeBron in the East were the Celtics big three and the Dwight Magic, who had prime Dwight, Turk and Lewis. So, our geniuses thought they had the toughness component covered--Jimmy, Luol, Jo, Taj, even Ronnie and Bogans and went for complimentary "shooters" / "scorers", not realizing that we were close to taking the three amigos down precisely because we had a team full of talented junkyard dogs. We weren't a shooter away from beating LeBron--we were another high quality two-way vet away from doing it (i.e. if Joe Johnson had signed here).

The problem became that they drafted guys who, in theory, could shoot and score--Val, Dougie--to cover letting Kyle go for a bag of $ that went straight into Jerry's pocket. But, no two way players on that list above. Coby was a "great" HS scorer, who wasn't a great scorer at UNC, and kinda' sucked as a point guard in his one year there. Just like here, he played in a break-neck fast pace system so he did put up raw stats, but watching games, he wasn't all that much. WCJ was straight up mediocre to finish his sole college season, but that at least was an attempt to draft a two-way player... except, if you watched him play, he wasn't that great on EITHER end at Duke and really struggled on the big stage / big rivalries.

But, fast forward, the problem with drafting one-way "scorers" because you've got the "tough guys" under contract is that when said tough guys get older or leave in FA, you're stuck with a bunch of no-good players that get exposed nightly for their lack of ability or will to play both sides.

Ultimately, to win, as Coach D said last night, you need two things--make baskets when it gets tough and overall make plays on BOTH ends. For us to lose these games where we have teen-leads in late 3rd, early 4th means that our guys make negative plays game-in-and-out.

The best teams in any given year are +7/+8 net ratings, unless it's a dynasty-level team at +10. The bottom feeders are -10. Average teams like ours are around 0. Point being, even a dynasty-level team should not be able to consistently beat a group of modestly talented guys like ours by 15-20 points over a 15 minute stretch.

Our guys this year have often played like a top 10 team for 35 minutes a game... combined with worst of kind for the other 13 (usually to start and finish, before the lineup change). Net result is what you see in the W/L column. The problem at that point is between the ears, not with schemes or whatnot.
sco
RealGM
Posts: 23,520
And1: 7,615
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Location: Virtually Everywhere!

Re: Gambler's ruin--or why so many draft picks bust 

Post#10 » by sco » Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:51 pm

I think if/when the one-and-done rule ends, the draft will become even tougher to pick the future stars.

I think work ethic is the hardest thing to pick out when drafting. Guys like Butler and Leonard didn't come into the league looking any different that any other good athlete/hustle defenders, but they worked hard to add skills to their games. I had hope for Coby as a PG because he was supposed to have an elite work ethic, but IMO his vision and passing skills limit his upside.

I think that the right sort of physical training matters too. IMO, Lauri and Carter both lost quickness do to the way they trained.
:clap:
User avatar
coldfish
Forum Mod - Bulls
Forum Mod - Bulls
Posts: 58,919
And1: 35,025
Joined: Jun 11, 2004
Location: Right in the middle
   

Re: Gambler's ruin--or why so many draft picks bust 

Post#11 » by coldfish » Sat Mar 20, 2021 3:00 pm

chefo wrote:
coldfish wrote:Good thread.

From 2003 to 2011 or so, the Bulls drafted one of the best players available at their position almost every time. Even their busts like James Johnson ended up working out. Their draft method drove people here nuts though. They frequently drafted low ceiling try hard players. Basically, the players like those on chefo's team. The thing about those guys is that they were winners, they were smart, they played both sides of the court and they played hard. They could just grind teams to dust and as soon as they had an elite player among them (Rose), they became a contender.

After that, the team just started drafting for shooting or I'm not even sure maybe reputation? McDermott, Val, Markannen and Coby were the shooters. I think Teague and Wendell were drafted off reputation without actually looking at film.

The Bulls really need to fix their drafting. Pat is a prospect. I'm not so sure that he has the upside that many here think. He just seems . . . .slow.


IMO, they just failed to think a couple of years into the future and got a bad case of LeBron fatigue. The only teams to beat LeBron in the East were the Celtics big three and the Dwight Magic, who had prime Dwight, Turk and Lewis. So, our geniuses thought they had the toughness component covered--Jimmy, Luol, Jo, Taj, even Ronnie and Bogans and went for complimentary "shooters" / "scorers", not realizing that we were close to taking the three amigos down precisely because we had a team full of talented junkyard dogs. We weren't a shooter away from beating LeBron--we were another high quality two-way vet away from doing it (i.e. if Joe Johnson had signed here).

The problem became that they drafted guys who, in theory, could shoot and score--Val, Dougie--to cover letting Kyle go for a bag of $ that went straight into Jerry's pocket. But, no two way players on that list above. Coby was a "great" HS scorer, who wasn't a great scorer at UNC, and kinda' sucked as a point guard in his one year there. Just like here, he played in a break-neck fast pace system so he did put up raw stats, but watching games, he wasn't all that much. WCJ was straight up mediocre to finish his sole college season, but that at least was an attempt to draft a two-way player... except, if you watched him play, he wasn't that great on EITHER end at Duke and really struggled on the big stage / big rivalries.

But, fast forward, the problem with drafting one-way "scorers" because you've got the "tough guys" under contract is that when said tough guys get older or leave in FA, you're stuck with a bunch of no-good players that get exposed nightly for their lack of ability or will to play both sides.

Ultimately, to win, as Coach D said last night, you need two things--make baskets when it gets tough and overall make plays on BOTH ends. For us to lose these games where we have teen-leads in late 3rd, early 4th means that our guys make negative plays game-in-and-out.

The best teams in any given year are +7/+8 net ratings, unless it's a dynasty-level team at +10. The bottom feeders are -10. Average teams like ours are around 0. Point being, even a dynasty-level team should not be able to consistently beat a group of modestly talented guys like ours by 15-20 points over a 15 minute stretch.

Our guys this year have often played like a top 10 team for 35 minutes a game... combined with worst of kind for the other 13 (usually to start and finish, before the lineup change). Net result is what you see in the W/L column. The problem at that point is between the ears, not with schemes or whatnot.


I can't overestimate just how much I agree with you regarding the two way player thing. IMO, a group of guys who are average on both sides of the court will beat a bunch of people who are good at one thing and bad at everything else.

The Bulls in the distant past got a little too one sided on defense, with guys like Bogans, Noah, etc. Recently they tried to go the other way on offense and ended up with some players who are good on neither side.

I also agree with you about Coby and Wendell. I have been willing to give them a chance to learn and improve but I'm not even seeing flashes of it. At some point, the Bulls are just wasting time trying to develop them. When I take my homer glasses off and watch the two of them, they are pretty awful at some basic level things.

Lauri is a lightning rod for good reasons. I'm not his biggest fan but I see the potential. What is different about him is that he does seem coachable. I have seen him change the way he plays. Unfortunately, he has been the victim of really bad advice and coaching for a while so you have a lot of things that need to be fixed.
User avatar
DroseReturnChi
RealGM
Posts: 10,087
And1: 3,142
Joined: Feb 12, 2012
   

Re: Gambler's ruin--or why so many draft picks bust 

Post#12 » by DroseReturnChi » Sat Mar 20, 2021 3:09 pm

Michael Jackson wrote:
CaPiTanAK wrote:There was a time when GarPax rated Ayton and Marvin Bagley higher than Doncic. So yeah, tanking under GarPax was going to be a pointless exercise. But that doesn’t mean that it’s not going to work as an initial step just bc these prior bozos suck at their jobs.



Odds are against it working though. Look at all the swing and misses Philly had and honestly Embiid was a huge health risk, just got lucky on insane volume. Teams are forced to pick guys that are too young to play in the highest competitive level. You are forced in most cases to tell if a 19 year can compete before they are mature, if they are any older than a one and done the question is if they are too old like that ancient guy Toppin (etc). You may be better than Gar pax but it is still a blind draw when you go to the draft. Sacramento and Minny haven’t done it. Philly literally had to have such volume and has something the rules would never allow to be repeated again with any success.


Usually older prospects have little bust rates bc at worst they are role players, vets and know how to the play game.
The one and done are usually the ones who dont have skills which are white and Carter.
Expecting them to learn in a yr was greedy should have never drafted them in the first place regardless of draft position.
Even a guy like Toppin I doubt he is a bust as bad as Hayes who was ranked 1 in the Ringer with no basis.
Doncic will be goat. Lauri will be his sidekick.
Hugi Mancura
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,846
And1: 1,096
Joined: Dec 05, 2017

Re: Gambler's ruin--or why so many draft picks bust 

Post#13 » by Hugi Mancura » Sat Mar 20, 2021 3:27 pm

I do agree with people who say that drafting young players are hard. Drafting players without them really playing competitive basketball against adults is hard. That's why I never understood why people claimed Luka isn't going to be good.

One big reason I think lot of draft picks fail because in NBA there is this believe you should draft the best available player. That is true, if you plan to trade him asap. Miami's picks Adebayo and Herro look good because they were drafted on the need. Miami looked what they are needing and picked players who fit for that certain role (or has promise to fill that role). This makes it easier for player to come in and be productive. But lot of NBA teams take best player available and ignore the skill set that made him a high pick, and try to use him in a different role.

Coby is almost exact copy of Lavine, so when Bulls picked him it was quite obvious he was not going to fit next to Lavine (their strengths and weaknesses are similar). In his first year he was quite good, because he got a change to play like Lavine with second unit. This year they tried to turn him something he isn't. Coby has played basketball 10-15 years. During that time he has most likely naturally moved to a position where he is at his best and now suddenly in one year he should become something he haven't been in his previous career. If we would have been a good point guard, he would most likely in those 10-15 years moved towards playing as a point guard, but he didn't because his most natural position is a scoring SG.

Wendell was mainly used as a PF and again he has been used as a PF earlier in his career and now again he was asked to do something he isn't and like 90% of people who have been in same situation he really didn't succeed in that role.

Lauri become high pick because of his midrange iso play and by being pick&roll big. Bulls have never used Lauri on these roles, but instead they started using his his 3:rd best skill which was catch&shoot -shooting. Lauri didn't become top 10 pick because of his catch&shoot game.

You can easily add Dunn to this list. He was always defensive SG and not a PG, but Bulls pretty much two years tried to force him become PG. In his last year with Bulls he finally started to shine, because at that point Bulls had given up with him and they allowed him to play in a role where he was meant to be.

I know people will say, but you just need to learn. Well it took 15 years to these player to become excellent player on certain role, why do people believe they can learn new role in 1-2 years. So you should always draft for the need unless it is a future superstar you are drafting (Lebron, Luka type of player). When you draft those player you will move all your roster to somewhere else if they don't fit in with your new superstar.
kodo
RealGM
Posts: 18,521
And1: 13,188
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
Location: Northshore Burbs

Re: Gambler's ruin--or why so many draft picks bust 

Post#14 » by kodo » Sat Mar 20, 2021 5:43 pm

coldfish wrote:Good thread.

From 2003 to 2011 or so, the Bulls drafted one of the best players available at their position almost every time. Even their busts like James Johnson ended up working out. Their draft method drove people here nuts though. They frequently drafted low ceiling try hard players. Basically, the players like those on chefo's team. The thing about those guys is that they were winners, they were smart, they played both sides of the court and they played hard. They could just grind teams to dust and as soon as they had an elite player among them (Rose), they became a contender.

After that, the team just started drafting for shooting or I'm not even sure maybe reputation? McDermott, Val, Markannen and Coby were the shooters. I think Teague and Wendell were drafted off reputation without actually looking at film.

The Bulls really need to fix their drafting. Pat is a prospect. I'm not so sure that he has the upside that many here think. He just seems . . . .slow.


Yep. And Gar Foreman took over as GM and his first draft pick was in 2011, since we traded away 2010.

Paxson absolutely loved the hard nosed players that would battle like Lu, Kirk, Noah, etc..
Starting in 2012 we drafted very different players under Foreman like Marquis Teague, McDermott, Valentine, Lauri, etc..
Jimmy was drafted under Gar, but really fit more in the Paxson era mold of gritty defender.

Pat Williams is going to be interesting, as he's generally passive on both ends. Just more of a raw blank slate than anything else.
ChettheJet
Head Coach
Posts: 6,569
And1: 1,902
Joined: Jul 02, 2014
       

Re: Gambler's ruin--or why so many draft picks bust 

Post#15 » by ChettheJet » Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:32 pm

To me some teams draft potential with little evidence, almost like so many posters around here. I don't think enough teams do enough interview scouting to see what kind of character their potential picks have, some draft the classic best player available, and some draft athleticism which doesn't always mean basketball players, rather than the player that best fits out system. It's been easy for San Antonio to end up with great players even drafting in the late 20's almost all the time because they have the stability of Pops. Virtually all teams have a 3,4,5 year plan and then the fore the coach and restart the process so it's nearly impossible to draft guys that fit their system because the system keeps changing.

GarPax did end up with quality players and people, Deng, Noah, Hinrich Gordon, Duhon, Rose, yeah they missed on some like everybody does. If only they had been able to stick with a coach to build the system to the point where they could draft players that fit in,
dice
RealGM
Posts: 42,897
And1: 12,494
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: Gambler's ruin--or why so many draft picks bust 

Post#16 » by dice » Sun Mar 21, 2021 1:33 am

CaPiTanAK wrote:There was a time when GarPax rated Ayton and Marvin Bagley higher than Doncic. So yeah, tanking under GarPax was going to be a pointless exercise. But that doesn’t mean that it’s not going to work as an initial step just bc these prior bozos suck at their jobs.

errr...didn't ayton and bagley go 1-2 in the draft? it's not like luka was the consensus #1 a lot of people had ayton as the top prospect. and the concerns about doncic were real: lack of shooting and athleticism and poor defense
the donald, always unpopular, did worse in EVERY state in 2020. and by a greater margin in red states! 50 independently-run elections, none of them rigged
CaPiTanAK
Pro Prospect
Posts: 769
And1: 435
Joined: Dec 26, 2020

Re: Gambler's ruin--or why so many draft picks bust 

Post#17 » by CaPiTanAK » Sun Mar 21, 2021 7:28 am

dice wrote:
CaPiTanAK wrote:There was a time when GarPax rated Ayton and Marvin Bagley higher than Doncic. So yeah, tanking under GarPax was going to be a pointless exercise. But that doesn’t mean that it’s not going to work as an initial step just bc these prior bozos suck at their jobs.

errr...didn't ayton and bagley go 1-2 in the draft? it's not like luka was the consensus #1 a lot of people had ayton as the top prospect. and the concerns about doncic were real: lack of shooting and athleticism and poor defense


All points seem to be bs, which begs the question:

How the hell do people come to that conclusion?

The answer is that he doesn’t fit our presumed stereotype of prototypical superstar instead of doing an objective deep eval on players true attributes. Same dumb eval used to Bears organization who rated Trubisky over Mahomes and Watson.

Any lazy team that relies on such stereotype deserves to be the bottom of the league, and both the Bulls and Bears deserve being at their current deposition.
dice
RealGM
Posts: 42,897
And1: 12,494
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: Gambler's ruin--or why so many draft picks bust 

Post#18 » by dice » Sun Mar 21, 2021 5:47 pm

CaPiTanAK wrote:
dice wrote:
CaPiTanAK wrote:There was a time when GarPax rated Ayton and Marvin Bagley higher than Doncic. So yeah, tanking under GarPax was going to be a pointless exercise. But that doesn’t mean that it’s not going to work as an initial step just bc these prior bozos suck at their jobs.

errr...didn't ayton and bagley go 1-2 in the draft? it's not like luka was the consensus #1 a lot of people had ayton as the top prospect. and the concerns about doncic were real: lack of shooting and athleticism and poor defense


All points seem to be bs

huh?

How the hell do people come to that conclusion?

reality. luka ISN'T a great shooter, he ISN'T particularly athletic, and he ISN'T a good defender. it's impossible to guarantee that a guy that is lacking in those areas will become an all-star, let alone a franchise player. mark cuban wouldn't even make that claim. if he knew luka would be great he'd have traded up to #1 to make sure he didn't slip. 'cause phoenix didn't know whether ayton would be great either

Same dumb eval used to Bears organization who rated Trubisky over Mahomes and Watson.

and once again, you're playing monday morning QB. trubisky was the #1 prospect! NOBODY thought that mahomes or watson were substantially better prospects. and that includes the chiefs and texans! so stop pretending that you knew better. you didn't
the donald, always unpopular, did worse in EVERY state in 2020. and by a greater margin in red states! 50 independently-run elections, none of them rigged

Return to Chicago Bulls