2024 Draft Thread - Part II

[Frichuela]

Is anyone else just not impressed with sar.

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

I'm more comfortable taking him than Risacher. This entire process for me has been with the rationale that Sarr won't be there at 2. Now it seems like it's possible. I'm intrigued, is he Evan Mobley? Is he JJJ? Offense will hopefully come but he's got a good base to start off with.

And there are rumblings this could be the case..

Read on Twitter

[80sballboy]

KOC's The Ringer Big Board and Mock Draft updated today
https://nbadraft.theringer.com/

https://nbadraft.theringer.com/mock-draft

[payitforward]

LOL Just to irritate my guy PIF:

https://hoopshype.com/lists/nba-draft-history-how-likely-are-you-to-land-a-star-at-each-pick/?itm_source=parsely-api

This is awesome, though it's presented in a format that's difficult to read and compare. To summarize, here are the historical chances of each pick making an All-NBA team. (I picked that criteria because it's not tainted by the East/West disparity for All-Star voting, and it has a much larger sample size than All-NBA 1st team or MVP.)

Pick Odds
#1 - 38.67%
#2 - 20.00%
#3 - 26.67%
#4 - 14.47%
#5 - 22.37%
#6 - 6.49%
#7 - 9.86%
#8 - 12.16%
#9 - 12.00%
#10 - 12.33%
#11 - 8.96%
#12 - 5.71%
#13 - 6.94%
#14 - 5.71%
#15 - 5.88%
#16 - 4.29%
#17 - 5.88%
#18 - 1.47%
#19 - 4.48%
#20 - 1.56%
#21 - 1.61%
#22 - 4.92%
#23 - 3.39%
#24 - 3.03%
#25 - 1.61%
#26 - 0.00%
#27 - 6.56%
#28 - 3.39%
#29 - 3.57%
#30 - 6.90%

It's pretty fair to say there is a clear trendline as you fall from 1 through 15 or so, but the second half of the first round looks like a totally random crapshoot. lol that we are picking 26th, the one spot that has never produced an All-NBA player.

I wonder if there's any explanation for picks 27-30 looking so much better other than pure random chance? Could it have something to do with better prospects dropping out of team workouts after receiving a First Round promise (and the associated guaranteed contract)?

I also wonder if these stats count each season a player makes All-NBA, or only counts once for each unique player?

This is great -- by which I mean it's really fun .

Here's something really important, yet somehow obvious, that jumps out at me --

Using Pelton's pick-value chart, one should (in theory!) be able to trade the #1 pick in a given year for numbers 22, 27, 28, 29, 30 that year plus another 30 the following year. -- yielding a 41.1% chance of coming away with an all-NBA player.

Better yet, imagine being stuck with the unfortunate #12 pick! It has a lousy 5.71% chance of landing an all-NBA guy -- why you could triple your chances merely by exchanging the pick for 3 #30 picks!!

Plus, once you'd gotten your all-NBA guy... why you'd still have two other players you might be able to trade! If either is any good, he might bring a #30 pick in a subsequent year. Why now, wow!! You've turned that measly 5.71% into 27.6% at no cost!

But that's nothing -- suppose you have #26? Pelton suggests you can trade it for 30 plus... something! Now you've gone from zero percent chance to almost a seven percent chance -- wow!

(If doesn't convey how meaningless these numbers are -- in terms of their predictive value, that is -- then I guess it's a lost cause, & nothing will.)

[nate33]

LOL Just to irritate my guy PIF:

https://hoopshype.com/lists/nba-draft-history-how-likely-are-you-to-land-a-star-at-each-pick/?itm_source=parsely-api

This is awesome, though it's presented in a format that's difficult to read and compare. To summarize, here are the historical chances of each pick making an All-NBA team. (I picked that criteria because it's not tainted by the East/West disparity for All-Star voting, and it has a much larger sample size than All-NBA 1st team or MVP.)

Pick Odds
#1 - 38.67%
#2 - 20.00%
#3 - 26.67%
#4 - 14.47%
#5 - 22.37%
#6 - 6.49%
#7 - 9.86%
#8 - 12.16%
#9 - 12.00%
#10 - 12.33%
#11 - 8.96%
#12 - 5.71%
#13 - 6.94%
#14 - 5.71%
#15 - 5.88%
#16 - 4.29%
#17 - 5.88%
#18 - 1.47%
#19 - 4.48%
#20 - 1.56%
#21 - 1.61%
#22 - 4.92%
#23 - 3.39%
#24 - 3.03%
#25 - 1.61%
#26 - 0.00%
#27 - 6.56%
#28 - 3.39%
#29 - 3.57%
#30 - 6.90%

It's pretty fair to say there is a clear trendline as you fall from 1 through 15 or so, but the second half of the first round looks like a totally random crapshoot. lol that we are picking 26th, the one spot that has never produced an All-NBA player.

I wonder if there's any explanation for picks 27-30 looking so much better other than pure random chance? Could it have something to do with better prospects dropping out of team workouts after receiving a First Round promise (and the associated guaranteed contract)?

I also wonder if these stats count each season a player makes All-NBA, or only counts once for each unique player?

This is great -- by which I mean it's really fun .

Two things that jump out at me --

1. Using Pelton's pick-value chart, one should (in theory!) be able to trade the #1 pick in a given year for numbers 22, 27, 28, 29, 30 that year plus another 30 next year. -- yielding a 41.1% chance of coming away with an all-NBA player.

Better yet, imagine stuck with the #12 pick! It has a lousy 5.71% chance of landing an all-NBA guy -- why you could triple your chances merely by exchanging the pick for 3 #30 picks!!

Plus, once you'd gotten your all-NBA guy... why you'd still have two other players you might be able to trade! If either is any good, he might bring a #30 pick in a subsequent year. Why now, wow!! You've turned that measly 5.71% into 27.6% at no cost!

(If doesn't convey how meaningless these numbers are -- in terms of their predictive value, that is -- then I guess it's a lost cause, & nothing will.)

I'm honestly surprised at your inability to grasp a statistical trend.

[nate33]

Is anyone else just not impressed with sar.

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

I'm more comfortable taking him than Risacher. This entire process for me has been with the rationale that Sarr won't be there at 2. Now it seems like it's possible. I'm intrigued, is he Evan Mobley? Is he JJJ? Offense will hopefully come but he's got a good base to start off with.

And there are rumblings this could be the case..

Read on Twitter

I'm surprised there is this much interest in moving up. But if it is there, I surely hope we are trying hard to move down.

[payitforward]

Oh come on, nate.... I'm joking!

[nate33]

Oh come on, nate.... I'm joking!

I have to say:

(If doesn't convey how meaningless these numbers are -- in terms of their predictive value, that is -- then I guess it's a lost cause, & nothing will.)

doesn't sound like you are joking.

[80sballboy]

Read on Twitter

[TGW]

I'm not super-impressed with Sarr right now, but his measurements are off the freakin charts. 7'1 in shoes with 7'4 wingspan.



He's a project for sure. But the physical attributes are worthy of a top-5 pick in any draft.

[closg00]

Damn those Spurs and their good juju!!!! Draft night will be WILD!!

[Frichuela]

I'm not super-impressed with Sarr right now, but his measurements are off the freakin charts. 7'1 in shoes with 7'4 wingspan.



He's a project for sure. But the physical attributes are worthy of a top-5 pick in any draft.

This. If he drops to #2, it will all hinge on our front office's assessment of his work ethic and ability to develop and improve.

After all, we are clearly tanking in 2025 and 2026 and aiming to keep our 1st round pick (which is only top 8 protected in 2026).

[payitforward]

nate --
Unless the draft were purely random -- pin the tail on the donkey -- there would have to be a curve of declining return.

As to the irregularities in the curve -- e.g. 7 seeming better than 6 -- they're to be expected given a relatively small data set. One or two outliers will easily de-normalize the overall result. This would be better conveyed if the results were presented as raw numbers rather than as percentages. After all, there actually have not been 100 picks at each position (or anywhere near that).

As to what underlies my joking post, essentially it relies on the industry standard triad of data, which we hope yields information, which then (sometimes) allows one to gain knowledge. Neither the step from data to information nor the step from information to knowledge is in any sense "automatic." But, I'm sure you know all this....

Presenting a percentage-ranked data set, as in your source, is a start at moving from data to information. To improve the reliability of that first step, one would have to undertake a bunch of intellectual operations (an obvious one would be segment the data into sets of years & see what each sub-set looks like -- consistency? within what parameters? changes? of what nature? etc.).

Above all, we are a long way from arriving at knowledge! After all, no one who holds the #26 pick will look at this data & proceed to exchange 26 straight up for the #30 pick -- no matter what this data set shows! E.g. neither you nor I would do that. Which was more or less the point of my joke.

That said, my knowledge in this arena is not that of a professional. Rather I am an interested amateur who, for a long time, needed to understand a little bit of the field.

[dckingsfan]

I hope this chart puts a stop to the tedious discussion of the value of trading down. We have pretty clear data that high picks are a lot more valuable than low picks throughout the lottery range. There is data to support PIF's general theory that more late picks are better than few early picks, but only if we are talking about the second half of the first round.

But isn't that the interesting part of this year's draft? It looks deep but not top end loaded. if there was a year to trade down...

I don't disagree. You still have to assess each draft individually. But clearly, high picks are considerably more valuable than low picks historically. PIF's annual goal of turning one lotto pick in to 8 SRP's in the 50's isn't a good strategy.

Sorry, missed the context. I thought it was the trade he proposed with Portland.

He proposed 2 & 26 for 7, 14, 34 & 40. For this draft, I think that is a good idea. But there is a bit of bias there. I am hoping we would get Castle and Topic falls to 14 (a big risk). Then we could move 34, 40 & 51 for future draft capital or take the picks depending on what the FO sees.

But the FO probably has their own plans to that end and the guys they want. So, the trade would only make sense if their picks are available at 7 & 14.

One last thing. I think you are missing context with regards to your statistics (which I like and find very interesting). Example: In the year that Lebron was coming into the L, I think the #1 pick becoming an All-Star is 100%. This year?

Their needs to be a weighting system by year (if you will).

A draft where the consensus is top heavy would yield one set of numbers, deep another and overall weak yet another. That would give a FO a way to quantify the return they should receive when trading up or down.

Edit: would also like to see it broken down by HOF, Allstar, starter, etc.. I don't think I have the categories right.

[dckingsfan]

Read on Twitter

Do you think the Knicks would want Kuz? Not sure that is Thib's kind of player?

If so, what would that trade look like? I guess that would be the two FRP that the FO wanted?

[The Consiglieri]

LOL Just to irritate my guy PIF:

https://hoopshype.com/lists/nba-draft-history-how-likely-are-you-to-land-a-star-at-each-pick/?itm_source=parsely-api

Kinda funny to think of all those lottery picks we had over the years outside the big 3, and how we never picked an all star with pretty much any of them, decades of them, and they were all, Jared Jeffries, Gugs, Tom Hammons types, with the occasional Deni, or Rip Hamilton. Pretty wild considering the odds are about 1 in 5 to 1 in 10, and after nearly 40 years, who did we draft that ever became an All Star outside of the top 3? I can't even think of one, ever. I don't think Juwon ever made it, anybody else I'm forgetting?

[payitforward]

Oh come on, nate.... I'm joking!

I have to say:

(If doesn't convey how meaningless these numbers are -- in terms of their predictive value, that is -- then I guess it's a lost cause, & nothing will.)

doesn't sound like you are joking.

?? My joke was meant to convey that fact. But, on re-reading, I could have chosen a better word than "meaningless." Apologies.

That said, I did start by acknowledging the basic overall point -- this data makes you want a higher pick rather than a lower one.

Hence, my joke/point was simple: e.g. would you trade #26 for #30 straight up, b/c the numbers in nate's post indicate that 26 has zero chance of being all NBA while 30 has a 6.90% chance?

That was what I meant by the word "joke." & the answer is, "of course not!"

Obviously, that answer also tells you that it's hard to glean any knowledge from this data.

Nothing here worth having a dispute as far as I can tell.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I don’t think our FO does that deal if Sarr is available. They loved Bilal last year and Sarr has many of the same qualities

Think the big difference is Bilal flashed star potential that Sarr has not. At the junior level, Bilal put up: 24.5 points 7.3 rebounds 2.8 assists 2.9 steals 1.3 blocks on 63% TS in 16 games.

For reference, Risacher’s junior numbers: 16.5 points 7.4 rebounds 4.9 assists 2.1 steals 0.8 blocks 4.5 turnovers 52% TS in 11 games.

Sarr didn't even put up dominant stats in High School ball with Overtime Elite

https://basketball.realgm.com/player/Alex-Sarr/Summary/162806#HighSchool

9.6 points and 5.7 boards, shooting 45%. At 7'1" he couldn't crack double figures in scoring in high school ball. Had two double doubles the whole season. One block per game in high school does not impress me. I would definitely trade 2 for #7 and #14.

7 Castle or Ron Holland.
14 Devin Carter or Jared McCain.
26 DaRon Holmes.

This is exactly what I would hope for.

Trade 2 for 7 and 14.

Draft Holland, Carter, and Holmes

Go for athleticism, defense, and transition scoring.

Sent from my SM-A146U using RealGM mobile app

[payitforward]

This is awesome, though it's presented in a format that's difficult to read and compare. To summarize, here are the historical chances of each pick making an All-NBA team. (I picked that criteria because it's not tainted by the East/West disparity for All-Star voting, and it has a much larger sample size than All-NBA 1st team or MVP.)

Pick Odds
#1 - 38.67%
#2 - 20.00%
#3 - 26.67%
#4 - 14.47%
#5 - 22.37%
#6 - 6.49%
#7 - 9.86%
#8 - 12.16%
#9 - 12.00%
#10 - 12.33%
#11 - 8.96%
#12 - 5.71%
#13 - 6.94%
#14 - 5.71%
#15 - 5.88%
#16 - 4.29%
#17 - 5.88%
#18 - 1.47%
#19 - 4.48%
#20 - 1.56%
#21 - 1.61%
#22 - 4.92%
#23 - 3.39%
#24 - 3.03%
#25 - 1.61%
#26 - 0.00%
#27 - 6.56%
#28 - 3.39%
#29 - 3.57%
#30 - 6.90%

It's pretty fair to say there is a clear trendline as you fall from 1 through 15 or so, but the second half of the first round looks like a totally random crapshoot. lol that we are picking 26th, the one spot that has never produced an All-NBA player.

I wonder if there's any explanation for picks 27-30 looking so much better other than pure random chance? Could it have something to do with better prospects dropping out of team workouts after receiving a First Round promise (and the associated guaranteed contract)?

I also wonder if these stats count each season a player makes All-NBA, or only counts once for each unique player?

I've just noticed something else fascinating about these numbers.

Look at each even/odd pair (i.e. 2 & the next lower number, 3). You'll see a clear pattern of superiority in the one lower odd numbered pick. It's the next lower pick, but in a large number of cases it seems to be superior to the one above it.

Not universally, of course, yet in 10 of the 14 pairs of even-&-the-next-lower-odd, the lower pick of the 2 boasts the higher percentage. Thus:

3 is higher than 2
5 is higher than 4
7 is higher than 6
13 is higher than 12
15 is higher than 14
17 is higher than 16
19 is higher than 18
21 is higher than 20
27 is higher than 26
29 is higher than 28

The exceptions are that
8 is higher than 9
10 is higher than 11
22 is higher than 23
24 is higher than 25

Weird.

[dckingsfan]

Think the big difference is Bilal flashed star potential that Sarr has not. At the junior level, Bilal put up: 24.5 points 7.3 rebounds 2.8 assists 2.9 steals 1.3 blocks on 63% TS in 16 games.

For reference, Risacher’s junior numbers: 16.5 points 7.4 rebounds 4.9 assists 2.1 steals 0.8 blocks 4.5 turnovers 52% TS in 11 games.

Sarr didn't even put up dominant stats in High School ball with Overtime Elite

https://basketball.realgm.com/player/Alex-Sarr/Summary/162806#HighSchool

9.6 points and 5.7 boards, shooting 45%. At 7'1" he couldn't crack double figures in scoring in high school ball. Had two double doubles the whole season. One block per game in high school does not impress me. I would definitely trade 2 for #7 and #14.

7 Castle or Ron Holland.
14 Devin Carter or Jared McCain.
26 DaRon Holmes.

This is exactly what I would hope for.

Trade 2 for 7 and 14.

Draft Holland, Carter, and Holmes

Go for athleticism, defense, and transition scoring.

Hey CCJ & Doc, what are your arguments for taking Castle over Holland? Or, why do you think our FO might do that?

[gesa2]

Think the big difference is Bilal flashed star potential that Sarr has not. At the junior level, Bilal put up: 24.5 points 7.3 rebounds 2.8 assists 2.9 steals 1.3 blocks on 63% TS in 16 games.

For reference, Risacher’s junior numbers: 16.5 points 7.4 rebounds 4.9 assists 2.1 steals 0.8 blocks 4.5 turnovers 52% TS in 11 games.

Sarr didn't even put up dominant stats in High School ball with Overtime Elite

https://basketball.realgm.com/player/Alex-Sarr/Summary/162806#HighSchool

9.6 points and 5.7 boards, shooting 45%. At 7'1" he couldn't crack double figures in scoring in high school ball. Had two double doubles the whole season. One block per game in high school does not impress me. I would definitely trade 2 for #7 and #14.

7 Castle or Ron Holland.
14 Devin Carter or Jared McCain.
26 DaRon Holmes.

This is exactly what I would hope for.

Trade 2 for 7 and 14.

Draft Holland, Carter, and Holmes

Go for athleticism, defense, and transition scoring.

Sent from my SM-A146U using RealGM mobile app

That would be the start of a hard nosed fun to watch team