Chet Holmgren is the only top ten pick starting in the finals

[Laimbeer]

Chet Holmgren - 2
Jalen Williams - 12
Isaiah Hartenstein - 43
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander - 11
Luguentz Dort - U

Pascal Siakam - 27
Aaron Nesmith - 14
Myles Turner - 11
Andrew Nembhard - 31
Tyrese Haliburton - 12

[Kent]

And to extrapolate on that point, he's not even the best player on his respective team.

It is an interesting factoid and definitely an anomaly.

[ORLMagicGirl15]

Cool! Now let’s do last year’s Finals teams.

[Lalouie]

Chet Holmgren - 2
Jalen Williams - 12
Isaiah Hartenstein - 43
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander - 11
Luguentz Dort - U

Pascal Siakam - 27
Aaron Nesmith - 14
Myles Turner - 11
Andrew Nembhard - 31
Tyrese Haliburton - 12

amassing draft picks just tripled. hiring solid FO just quadrupled

nice catch

[dhsilv2]

Interest how this might make you think. Not worth being in the lottery. Then you realize the rosters are filled with the last few picks in the lottery. Guess it's been a good time to just miss the playoffs.

[ORLMagicGirl15]

Interest how this might make you think. Not worth being in the lottery. Then you realize the rosters are filled with the last few picks in the lottery. Guess it's been a good time to just miss the playoffs.

Yep! 6 of the 10 mentioned are lottery picks.

[bkkrh]

Definitely interesting and a clear proof on how much of an actual lottery the draft has become. To be fair, Haliburton was expected to be a top 10 pick.

It's also interesting when you look at how those players actually came in the league. On OKC everybody was one and done, or in case of Hartenstein playing abroad.

In case of Indiana's players you have Turner as one and done and it's pretty save to assume that for most of the other players their draft stock was lower for either staying in college longer (Nembhard), or being good 2 year players at less "sexy" schools.

[mg]

A bunch of bad drafting teams passed on SGA and Hali in the top 10 of the '18 and '20 drafts.

The Clips and Kings proceeded to trade away young franchise players for quick fixes.

Certainly unique circumstances for both those guys.

[djsunyc]

And to extrapolate on that point, he's not even the best player on his respective team.

It is an interesting factoid and definitely an anomaly.

i think it's going to be more and more the case as time goes on. 1 and done college folks make it really tough to gauge how good they will be years down the road.

[bkkrh]

Cool! Now let’s do last year’s Finals teams.

Even there, with Boston taking good picks you had: Jrue (17th overall), Derrick White (29th overall), P.J. Washington (12th overall), Derrick Jones (undrafted), Dereck Lively II (12th overall), so still 50% of the starters.

[Doctor MJ]

Chet Holmgren - 2
Jalen Williams - 12
Isaiah Hartenstein - 43
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander - 11
Luguentz Dort - U

Pascal Siakam - 27
Aaron Nesmith - 14
Myles Turner - 11
Andrew Nembhard - 31
Tyrese Haliburton - 12

Great observation and a further point about tanking being an outdated thing.

It's not just that the NBA has shifted the lottery odds to sour that milk, but that what we're finding is that other than a mega-prospect like Wemby, there's good reason to think that there are guys not drafted in the top 10 who are just as talented as the main guys the draftniks are talking about.

Frankly this was probably always true, but to the extent top teams are no longer being dominated by top draft picks - something I should look more into to make sure the pattern holds - it's telling us that top front offices and coaching staffs are succeeding by finding diamonds in the rough.

Also interesting: I'd say the biggest steals on each team in terms of how good they are relative to draft pick are Shai & Pascal respectively...but of course neither was drafted by the team in question. There's some luck involved with that of course, but it also goes to show that it's not just about finding a diamond in the rough in the draft, but in having the initiative to grab those diamonds if the original drafting team makes the mistake of making them available.

I don't really blame the Clippers for trading SGA, and I don't thin OKC knew what he'd become, but Presti certainly deserves credit for making SGA a priority in that trade.

I do blame the Raptors for how they played their talent in the Scottie Barnes years, but give all the more credit to Indiana for buying low on Pascal.

[HotelVitale]

This would be a perfect moment for basketball fans to lock in how much of the draft comes down to (educated) guesses about very unpredictable translation to the NBA + almost totally unpredictable development.

That won't really happen though. Sports fans just really really need to think some people have a magical eye for talent, and/or most FOs are kind of stupid and don't do obvious stuff.

[ORLMagicGirl15]

Cool! Now let’s do last year’s Finals teams.

Even there, with Boston taking good picks you had: Jrue (17th overall), Derrick White (29th overall), P.J. Washington (12th overall), Derrick Jones (undrafted), Dereck Lively II (12th overall), so still 50% of the starters.

And 4 top 3 picks.
Kyrie (1)
Brown, Tatum, Luka (all drafted at 3)

Along with Porzingis and Exum drafted 4 and 5 respectfully. Although I don’t remember if Exum was hurt and didn’t play in the series.

[HotelVitale]

Frankly this was probably always true, but to the extent top teams are no longer being dominated by top draft picks - something I should look more into to make sure the pattern holds - it's telling us that top front offices and coaching staffs are succeeding by finding diamonds in the rough.

Also interesting: I'd say the biggest steals on each team in terms of how good they are relative to draft pick are Shai & Pascal respectively...but of course neither was drafted by the team in question. There's some luck involved with that of course, but it also goes to show that it's not just about finding a diamond in the rough in the draft, but in having the initiative to grab those diamonds if the original drafting team makes the mistake of making them available.

I don't really blame the Clippers for trading SGA, and I don't thin OKC knew what he'd become, but Presti certainly deserves credit for making SGA a priority in that trade.

I do blame the Raptors for how they played their talent in the Scottie Barnes years, but give all the more credit to Indiana for buying low on Pascal.

I agree with all of this, but if you kidnapped Presti's kids and said they'd only come back if he accurately predicted right now where SGA would be at 3-4 years after the trade, he would've mumbled something like 'with his mentality and diversity, we think he'll be a nice jack-of-all-trades and maybe make an AS team one day.'

For Siakam after the draft the answer from Masai would've been impossible, probably just 'who knows, man, he's got a long ways to go but could really be something if he can put it all together.'

Guys like Presti and Ainge are great because they give their teams lots of chances to hit big on gambles, but they absolutely do not know that they're going to win these gambles at transaction/draft time. They just do their scouting like everyone else and then go after the guys they like most and cross their fingers.

Another way to put it--most 1st rounders and certainly the vast majority of lotto picks are potential 'diamonds' if they translate+develope well, and they're almost all some level of rough still. Sports fans tend to want to think that some GMs can just peer into the souls of prospects and see who really 'has it' and who doesn't, but GMs and scouts don't actually talk like that. They generally sort of know what players could become if X or Y happens in the translation+development, but none of them actually knows who's going to do that.

[ryan in Maine]

That's funny both teams have an 11 and 12.

[Wingy]

Interest how this might make you think. Not worth being in the lottery. Then you realize the rosters are filled with the last few picks in the lottery. Guess it's been a good time to just miss the playoffs.

Yep! 6 of the 10 mentioned are lottery picks.

There’s no scientific data, but I’m starting to feel more and more that it shakes out something like this…
- The top talents that go top 5, inc. some massive busts of course who were pure potential and an idea

- A next chunk of ‘group think’ guys where you just can’t see something special, but for some reason everyone still has em pegged in the 6-10ish range and teams go the safe route and follow consensus (I’m lookin at you Kon Kneuppel and Khaman Maluach!!!)
[a lot of really bad franchises that can’t get out of their own way in this range too]

- Then there’s the late lottery/ mid-first where a ton of super talented guys slip. Of course getting that one or two guys is really hard, but they seem to regularly be there.

I’ve been thinking about this idea more and more the past year-ish, and am starting to wonder if you’re not in the top 3-4, it might be better to be at say 10-14 where there’s much less pressure to go with chalk and you can find the gems.

[ORLMagicGirl15]

Interest how this might make you think. Not worth being in the lottery. Then you realize the rosters are filled with the last few picks in the lottery. Guess it's been a good time to just miss the playoffs.

Yep! 6 of the 10 mentioned are lottery picks.

There’s no scientific data, but I’m starting to feel more and more that it shakes out something like this…
- The top talents that go top 5, inc. some massive busts of course who were pure potential and an idea

- A next chunk of ‘group think’ guys where you just can’t see something special, but for some reason everyone still has em pegged in the 6-10ish range and teams go the safe route and follow consensus (I’m lookin at you Kon Kneuppel and Khaman Maluach!!!)
[a lot of really bad franchises that can’t get out of their own way in this range too]

- Then there’s the late lottery/ mid-first where a ton of super talented guys slip. Of course getting that one or two guys is really hard, but they seem to regularly be there.

I’ve been thinking about this idea more and more the past year-ish, and am starting to wonder if you’re not in the top 3-4, it might be better to be at say 10-14 where there’s much less pressure to go with chalk and you can find the gems.

Yeah, but you need to have some OKC goat level scouting though.

[Lalouie]

Chet Holmgren - 2
Jalen Williams - 12
Isaiah Hartenstein - 43
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander - 11
Luguentz Dort - U

Pascal Siakam - 27
Aaron Nesmith - 14
Myles Turner - 11
Andrew Nembhard - 31
Tyrese Haliburton - 12

Great observation and a further point about tanking being an outdated thing.

It's not just that the NBA has shifted the lottery odds to sour that milk, but that what we're finding is that other than a mega-prospect like Wemby, there's good reason to think that there are guys not drafted in the top 10 who are just as talented as the main guys the draftniks are talking about.

Frankly this was probably always true, but to the extent top teams are no longer being dominated by top draft picks - something I should look more into to make sure the pattern holds - it's telling us that top front offices and coaching staffs are succeeding by finding diamonds in the rough.

Also interesting: I'd say the biggest steals on each team in terms of how good they are relative to draft pick are Shai & Pascal respectively...but of course neither was drafted by the team in question. There's some luck involved with that of course, but it also goes to show that it's not just about finding a diamond in the rough in the draft, but in having the initiative to grab those diamonds if the original drafting team makes the mistake of making them available.

I don't really blame the Clippers for trading SGA, and I don't thin OKC knew what he'd become, but Presti certainly deserves credit for making SGA a priority in that trade.

I do blame the Raptors for how they played their talent in the Scottie Barnes years, but give all the more credit to Indiana for buying low on Pascal.

parity
depth
3pt
pacers

the headaches that have followed empowered superstars, and the positions teams are put in as a result

payroll belt tightening

this will affect how players get paid. mpj and players of his ilk will get traded without so much as a passing thought

of course winning is always the end goal,,,but i think there'll be at least a minor shift away from just numbers

picks over studs??? who knows

[dhsilv2]

Interest how this might make you think. Not worth being in the lottery. Then you realize the rosters are filled with the last few picks in the lottery. Guess it's been a good time to just miss the playoffs.

Yep! 6 of the 10 mentioned are lottery picks.

There’s no scientific data, but I’m starting to feel more and more that it shakes out something like this…
- The top talents that go top 5, inc. some massive busts of course who were pure potential and an idea

- A next chunk of ‘group think’ guys where you just can’t see something special, but for some reason everyone still has em pegged in the 6-10ish range and teams go the safe route and follow consensus (I’m lookin at you Kon Kneuppel and Khaman Maluach!!!)
[a lot of really bad franchises that can’t get out of their own way in this range too]

- Then there’s the late lottery/ mid-first where a ton of super talented guys slip. Of course getting that one or two guys is really hard, but they seem to regularly be there.

I’ve been thinking about this idea more and more the past year-ish, and am starting to wonder if you’re not in the top 3-4, it might be better to be at say 10-14 where there’s much less pressure to go with chalk and you can find the gems.

Still a LOT of height bias in the top 5 and that's always been suspect. And that causes a LOT of busts.

[Doctor MJ]

Frankly this was probably always true, but to the extent top teams are no longer being dominated by top draft picks - something I should look more into to make sure the pattern holds - it's telling us that top front offices and coaching staffs are succeeding by finding diamonds in the rough.

Also interesting: I'd say the biggest steals on each team in terms of how good they are relative to draft pick are Shai & Pascal respectively...but of course neither was drafted by the team in question. There's some luck involved with that of course, but it also goes to show that it's not just about finding a diamond in the rough in the draft, but in having the initiative to grab those diamonds if the original drafting team makes the mistake of making them available.

I don't really blame the Clippers for trading SGA, and I don't thin OKC knew what he'd become, but Presti certainly deserves credit for making SGA a priority in that trade.

I do blame the Raptors for how they played their talent in the Scottie Barnes years, but give all the more credit to Indiana for buying low on Pascal.

I agree with all of this, but if you kidnapped Presti's kids and said they'd only come back if he accurately predicted right now where SGA would be at 3-4 years after the trade, he would've mumbled something like 'with his mentality and diversity, we think he'll be a nice jack-of-all-trades and maybe make an AS team one day.'

For Siakam after the draft the answer from Masai would've been impossible, probably just 'who knows, man, he's got a long ways to go but could really be something if he can put it all together.'

Guys like Presti and Ainge are great because they give their teams lots of chances to hit big on gambles, but they absolutely do not know that they're going to win these gambles at transaction/draft time. They just do their scouting like everyone else and then go after the guys they like most and cross their fingers.

Another way to put it--most 1st rounders and certainly the vast majority of lotto picks are potential 'diamonds' if they translate+develope well, and they're almost all some level of rough still. Sports fans tend to want to think that some GMs can just peer into the souls of prospects and see who really 'has it' and who doesn't, but GMs and scouts don't actually talk like that. They generally sort of know what players could become if X or Y happens in the translation+development, but none of them actually knows who's going to do that.

All true, which is part of what makes continued success so interesting to me.

So if we were to ask who "won" a given draft based on who ended up being the best players relative to where they were drafted, and what team got the most benefit from that, I'd say that there's clearly a very strong case that OKC won 2007, 2008, 2009, 2018 & 2022 over the entire rest of the league, and that seems pretty insane to me. There's luck involved sure, but if I owned an NBA team, I'd feel very comfortable hiring Presti.

As I say all of that, the Thunder's highest draft pick since 2009 was Josh Giddey at #6, and while I love that they were able to get Caruso for him, clearly that draft pick didn't exactly work out on the Thunder team.