JMAC3 wrote:So for purposes of this exercise let’s assume they all have the same percentage to be a star/bust/be a starter. So if you told me all of them have a 20% chance to be a superstar. 60% chance to be starter and 20% chance to bust.
Then give me the guy who if he is a star he has the highest upside- which I believe we are all agreeing are wing players.
This is a pointless exercise. They don't all have the same percentage for each of these outcomes and using a fantasy scenario where they do to figure out what decision to make in actual reality is not something the front office should be doing.
Also, I don't necessarily agree that the wings in this draft have the highest upside. Just because there may be some truth to the idea that wings/guards in general, with no other context or information, have more upside than bigs (maybe not to the extent that some people think, though), that doesn't mean that the specific wings/guards at the top of this draft necessarily have more upside than the top bigs.
This is the exact sort of illogical thinking that my posts have been trying to push back on. Some people aren't looking at the individuals and are just assuming that the wings/guards have higher upside simply because they are wings/guards and also acting like they all have similar odds of panning out.
The front office should be evaluating the individual players for what they are on their own merit, figuring out what they think their different outcomes/roles are and the likelihood of each of those outcomes, and then making a decision on which player they think has the highest estimated value based on these conclusions. I'm guessing that this is, very generally speaking, the kind of process that most teams use for the draft (its just talent evaluation + basic game theory).
If the front office comes to the conclusion that Ball/Edwards are better than Wiseman/Okongwu, then they should take Ball/Edwards if they are available. My personal opinion as of right now, which is based on limited info/research, is that I like Wiseman and Okongwu better. It has just as much to do with me being down on Ball/Edwards as it does on me being high on Wiseman/Okongwu tbh. I actually think I like Haliburton more than Ball/Edwards tbh.
JMAC3 wrote:I would rather have Tatum and Doncic over Embiid and Towns. It’s not even close.
I would rather have Doncic over the other three, because hes literally the best prospect since Lebron and arguably ever, and is just simply the best talent of that group.
I'm not sure who I would rather have between Tatum or Embiid. I think its pretty close and a decision between those two for me might come down to something like injury history, or roster construction. I honestly think if right now you swapped Tatum and Embiid it would actually make the Celtics better, but that probably has more to do with the specific context of their roster than a talent difference and I also think the 76ers would be better with Tatum than Embiid because he fits better with Simmons.
I have KAT as the worst of the four, but we also have only seen him in a winning environment for a single season when he was super young, so its not impossible that in a better situation he might turn out to be on the level of Embiid/Tatum.
None of these guys are the players we are choosing from in this draft, though, and how they compare to each other should have no bearing on who we choose out of the actual players available to us.
