RealGM

Last 5 top picks..

2013: #8 KCP ——-> #15 Giannis
2014: #38 Dinwiddie ——-> #41 Nikola Jokic
2015: #8 Stanley ——-> #13 Devin Booker
2016: #18 Ellenson ——-> #36 Malcom Brogdon
2017: #12 Kennard ——-> #13 Donovan Mitchell

C: Jokic
4: Giannis
3: Brogdon
2: Booker
PG: Mitchell

^ that’s a team that might actually beat the warriors.

competent gm and you can still win in the nba through the draft

You can do this with pretty much every team's draft history

competent = literally drafting perfectly 5 straight years with the benefit of hindsight?

If you draft absolutely perfectly you can construct a really good team really really fast.

If your goal was to prove this, congrats, you totally proved it.

It is something to be said that we got NONE of these players though. A good team doesn't get the best guy every time. They do, however, get the great steal sometimes. We never do, and that is a problem.

Snakebites wrote:A good team doesn't get the best guy every time. They do, however, get the great steal sometimes. We never do, and that is a problem.

You don't consider Khris Middleton at #39 or Andre Drummond at #9 steals?

Snakebites wrote:If you draft absolutely perfectly you can construct a really good team really really fast.

If your goal was to prove this, congrats, you totally proved it.

It is something to be said that we got NONE of these players though. A good team doesn't get the best guy every time. They do, however, get the great steal sometimes. We never do, and that is a problem.

Drummond was a steal, middleton was a steal, KCP was a steal compared to the rest around him, jury is still out for Kennard.

vege wrote:

Snakebites wrote:A good team doesn't get the best guy every time. They do, however, get the great steal sometimes. We never do, and that is a problem.

You don't consider Khris Middleton at #39 or Andre Drummond at #9 steals?

I always find it bizarre to the point of surreal when people mention Middleton as an example of good Piston drafting. He wasn't a steal for us. He was a steal for Milwaukee.

We as an organization did absolutely nothing with him, so why bring him up as a triumph of Piston scouting and success? We accidentally picked up someone good, had no clue what we had, gave him no playing time, and included him as a trade throw-in. In what way does that constitute a "steal" for us? The way in which we used him in a trade clearly showed we didn't value him all that much.

Drummond? That's a bit of a grey area. He was the obvious pick where we were making our selection. We were fortunate to get him, but it didn't take superior scouting or skill to land him. We were fortunate that center wasn't a priority for teams in the next few spots. The Raptors in particular passed on him because they had Jonas. The Blazers rightfully passed on him because Lillard became available. Etc.

That was a good pick though, but it's worth noting that he's the only guy drafted by us to become an all star for us in the last 30 years.

So yeah, if you want to call Drummond a "steal" then I guess I don't mind modifying my "we never get a steal" with "we virtually never get a steal and don't get the good value picks often enough to build a sustainable playoff team." It's up to the individual how significant a difference that is.

I heartily reject the notion that Middleton was a steal, and don't even get me started about KCP. Kennard will never be considered a steal given how good the player taken directly after him was, even though I don't consider Kennard to be a poor pick.

blueadams wrote:Last 5 top picks..

2013: #8 KCP ——-> #15 Giannis
2014: #38 Dinwiddie ——-> #41 Nikola Jokic
2015: #8 Stanley ——-> #13 Devin Booker
2016: #18 Ellenson ——-> #36 Malcom Brogdon
2017: #12 Kennard ——-> #13 Donovan Mitchell

C: Jokic
4: Giannis
3: Brogdon
2: Booker
PG: Mitchell

^ that’s a team that might actually beat the warriors.

competent gm and you can still win in the nba through the draft

that's an unrealistic hypothetical from the standpoint of you assuming the pistons draft in the exact same positions or have a need at that position

The_Irony wrote:

blueadams wrote:Last 5 top picks..

2013: #8 KCP ——-> #15 Giannis
2014: #38 Dinwiddie ——-> #41 Nikola Jokic
2015: #8 Stanley ——-> #13 Devin Booker
2016: #18 Ellenson ——-> #36 Malcom Brogdon
2017: #12 Kennard ——-> #13 Donovan Mitchell

C: Jokic
4: Giannis
3: Brogdon
2: Booker
PG: Mitchell

^ that’s a team that might actually beat the warriors.

competent gm and you can still win in the nba through the draft

that's an unrealistic hypothetical from the standpoint of you assuming the pistons draft in the exact same positions or have a need at that position

Just get 2/5 right and the future of this team is significantly more optimistic.
And don’t throw away draft picks for deals that kill cap.

It is easy to do as long as you are consistent with your draft strategy.

I say this as the guy who wanted to draft Kahwi Leonard and Isaiah Thomas instead of Brandon Knight.

You dont even need to hit gold every year all you have to do is have a strategy and be a little smarter than all the dumb teams.

With Stefanski i feel like the Pistons are back in good hands. I REALLY like the way he drafts. He got a starter in the 2nd round for Memphis last year, and hes got some good guys for us this year. He drafts for defense, athleticism, length, and playmaking. If he sticks with that, this team will get solid players in the draft every year.

bballnmike wrote:competent = literally drafting perfectly 5 straight years with the benefit of hindsight?

Hell just give me one of Booker, Mitchell or Giannis.

vic wrote:It is easy to do as long as you are consistent with your draft strategy.

I say this as the guy who wanted to draft Kahwi Leonard and Isaiah Thomas instead of Brandon Knight.

You dont even need to hit gold every year all you have to do is have a strategy and be a little smarter than all the dumb teams.

With Stefanski i feel like the Pistons are back in good hands. I REALLY like the way he drafts. He got a starter in the 2nd round for Memphis last year, and hes got some good guys for us this year. He drafts for defense, athleticism, length, and playmaking. If he sticks with that, this team will get solid players in the draft every year.

I read that his second round strategy is to identify players that do one thing at the NBA level already - with the idea that at worst they can be used as a deep bench tool for the coach and thus add value to the roster. Thomas and Brown defend at the NBA level.

I also think a lot of good teams get late first steals because they draft this way as well - find something that the player does at the NBA level that their team needs and plugs them in. This leads to them being used to their strength while their weaknesses are covered by the better players around them and they're only put in situations to succeed early while the develop off the bench otherwise.

It's 100% fair to criticize our drafting, but you can't just cherry pick the best guys with hindsight.

If you want to draft for upside - fine. But then you can't say Booker over Stanley because that's not how anyone had their upside ranked. Same with Ellenson over Brogdon. Giannis would have been considered a HUGE reach at #8. The only guy that was in our general range and was considered high upside that we passed on was mitchell.

yeah, i'm not really understanding the point of this thread. sure, if you're right 100% of the time, things are going to go well for you.

the real competence lies within how a GM is able to construct a roster to utilize the talent that he has. teams like boston, goldenstate, and san antonio have been successful because they have drafted well, sure, but more importantly, they have put their young guys in positions to grow, succeed, and contribute on a regular basis. THIS is how the best organizations run their teams, and this is the direction i feel gores and stefanski want to head.

it's simply too naive to say that "if we drafted all-stars, we'd be good." the best organizations develop their talent and transcend beyond apparent limitations.

The_Irony wrote:

blueadams wrote:Last 5 top picks..

2013: #8 KCP ——-> #15 Giannis
2014: #38 Dinwiddie ——-> #41 Nikola Jokic
2015: #8 Stanley ——-> #13 Devin Booker
2016: #18 Ellenson ——-> #36 Malcom Brogdon
2017: #12 Kennard ——-> #13 Donovan Mitchell

C: Jokic
4: Giannis
3: Brogdon
2: Booker
PG: Mitchell

^ that’s a team that might actually beat the warriors.

competent gm and you can still win in the nba through the draft

that's an unrealistic hypothetical from the standpoint of you assuming the pistons draft in the exact same positions or have a need at that position

Yeah I mean with each correct pick we likely move farther down in the draft and miss out on the next year's best pick... at best Giannis, Jokic, and Brogdon could be possible hypothetically, but still not realistic

Kilo wrote:

vic wrote:It is easy to do as long as you are consistent with your draft strategy.

I say this as the guy who wanted to draft Kahwi Leonard and Isaiah Thomas instead of Brandon Knight.

You dont even need to hit gold every year all you have to do is have a strategy and be a little smarter than all the dumb teams.

With Stefanski i feel like the Pistons are back in good hands. I REALLY like the way he drafts. He got a starter in the 2nd round for Memphis last year, and hes got some good guys for us this year. He drafts for defense, athleticism, length, and playmaking. If he sticks with that, this team will get solid players in the draft every year.

I read that his second round strategy is to identify players that do one thing at the NBA level already - with the idea that at worst they can be used as a deep bench tool for the coach and thus add value to the roster. Thomas and Brown defend at the NBA level.

I also think a lot of good teams get late first steals because they draft this way as well - find something that the player does at the NBA level that their team needs and plugs them in. This leads to them being used to their strength while their weaknesses are covered by the better players around them and they're only put in situations to succeed early while the develop off the bench otherwise.

ONe thing I've read is that offense is easier to develop than defense. It makes sense. ONce you go from part time basketball to full time basketball - your shot gets better, your handle gets better, etc. But defensive mentality, mindset, IQ, talent, athleticism, length - those things are internal/God given.

If you draft someone for their "shooting" "shooting form" and "scoring" skillset but they lack the other internal/God given things, your drafting will underperform. If you take someone with all the internal/God given things, and let them develop that offensive skill that they are missing, you will draft well and build good teams.

For instance: Bruce brown - defense, hi iq, length, strong, good handle, (can't shoot.)
Khyri - defense, hi iq, length, quick feet, can shoot, (can't dribble well)

Ed picked 2 players with complete games but only missing 1 offensive skill.

SVG would have picked the guy with the best shooting form and then yelled at him to play defense.

Kilo wrote:

bballnmike wrote:competent = literally drafting perfectly 5 straight years with the benefit of hindsight?

Hell just give me one of Booker, Mitchell or Giannis.

Yeah, I'd take any of them, but just one of any of them isn't getting you anywhere. Booker's been leading basically the worst team in the league for a few years. Giannis is an absolute monster and still can't make noise in the weak East because they don't have a *great* #2 guy, and they don't really have a way to add much talent at this point. Mitchell's squad has the most potential, but they risk treadmilling as well if they don't land another elite player in the draft at some point quick.

The only thing worse than missing a guy in the draft is taking them and then squandering it. Milwaukee is getting close to that already.

The key seems to be "hitting" on a few picks in quick succession, so you've got a talented core that are locked into cheap rookie deals for a while. Golden State with Curry, Klay, Draymond. Philly with Embiid, Simmons, (and solid role players). Boston with Brown & Tatum. A lot of this is luck as can be proven based on the fact that every single team has passed on many of these guys the OP listed.

vic wrote:
SVG would have picked the guy with the best shooting form and then yelled at him to play defense.

This was the most confusing part about Stan Van Gundy. His style of coaching lends itself toward relying on defense with a slow tempo offense, yet he drafted guys that would look far better on up-tempo ball-movement based teams.

Kennard would destroy on a team that passed the ball. Hell, even Ellenson probably could have turned into something if Stan weren't there trying to "break him down and build him back up". That's pretty obvious based on how much he has regressed since the last summer league.

bballnmike wrote:competent = literally drafting perfectly 5 straight years with the benefit of hindsight?

Im an idiot, and I called 3 of the picks.

1. when gianis’ 1st tape was released, watched it, immediately texted my friend —> looks like a 7ft magic johnson, id take him #1 overall, not kidding.

2. booker i knew (from his uofm recruitment) and wanted. knew svg would never be able to shoot.

3. mitchell, like most people, i wanted. knew kennard would never be able to guard.

didnt know jokic or brogdon. have never scouted 2nd rd picks.

vic wrote:

Kilo wrote:

vic wrote:It is easy to do as long as you are consistent with your draft strategy.

I say this as the guy who wanted to draft Kahwi Leonard and Isaiah Thomas instead of Brandon Knight.

You dont even need to hit gold every year all you have to do is have a strategy and be a little smarter than all the dumb teams.

With Stefanski i feel like the Pistons are back in good hands. I REALLY like the way he drafts. He got a starter in the 2nd round for Memphis last year, and hes got some good guys for us this year. He drafts for defense, athleticism, length, and playmaking. If he sticks with that, this team will get solid players in the draft every year.

I read that his second round strategy is to identify players that do one thing at the NBA level already - with the idea that at worst they can be used as a deep bench tool for the coach and thus add value to the roster. Thomas and Brown defend at the NBA level.

I also think a lot of good teams get late first steals because they draft this way as well - find something that the player does at the NBA level that their team needs and plugs them in. This leads to them being used to their strength while their weaknesses are covered by the better players around them and they're only put in situations to succeed early while the develop off the bench otherwise.

ONe thing I've read is that offense is easier to develop than defense. It makes sense. ONce you go from part time basketball to full time basketball - your shot gets better, your handle gets better, etc. But defensive mentality, mindset, IQ, talent, athleticism, length - those things are internal/God given.

If you draft someone for their "shooting" "shooting form" and "scoring" skillset but they lack the other internal/God given things, your drafting will underperform. If you take someone with all the internal/God given things, and let them develop that offensive skill that they are missing, you will draft well and build good teams.

For instance: Bruce brown - defense, hi iq, length, strong, good handle, (can't shoot.)
Khyri - defense, hi iq, length, quick feet, can shoot, (can't dribble well)

Ed picked 2 players with complete games but only missing 1 offensive skill.

SVG would have picked the guy with the best shooting form and then yelled at him to play defense.

Shooting or dribbling at an NBA level.. thats not like teaching someone how to speak Spanish. its a God given gift that cant be taught. Shooting especially. Ask Stanley.