NBA Draft History: How likely are you to land a star at each pick?

[WuTang_CMB]

How do you explain since 2020 our organization losing the ability to land non-lottery talent through the draft and losing the culture and development program to make Flynn, Achiuwa, Banton develop?

mix of misfiring on picks (flynn) and nurse not playing. replicating 16' is not common at all
dont need to derail every thread del. I was pointing out how productive the 2016 draft was for us with players chosen all over board.

I don't see that he derail this thread. You pointed out that 2016 was an anomaly year in which we hit on a few picks. He pointed out that post-2020 years were not as good (Barnes notwithstanding & Dick TBD), a regression to the mean. This is within bounds of thread topic and consistent with the idea that drafting is as much (if not more) as having luck as having skill.

Not really. Same old stuff brought up every thread. Its derailing nonsense. I pointed out 2016. Wtf does the years after have to do with it when it comes to this thread? There’s enough correspondence on how Raps misfired post title. We are all well aware

[Merit]

mix of misfiring on picks (flynn) and nurse not playing. replicating 16' is not common at all
dont need to derail every thread del. I was pointing out how productive the 2016 draft was for us with players chosen all over board.

I don't see that he derail this thread. You pointed out that 2016 was an anomaly year in which we hit on a few picks. He pointed out that post-2020 years were not as good (Barnes notwithstanding & Dick TBD), a regression to the mean. This is within bounds of thread topic and consistent with the idea that drafting is as much (if not more) as having luck as having skill.

Not really. Same old stuff brought up every thread. Its derailing nonsense. I pointed out 2016. Wtf does the years after have to do with it when it comes to this thread? There’s enough correspondence on how Raps misfired post title. We are all well aware

And the question then becomes - how is the front office going to redeem itself now that it’s pivoted (somewhat) towards a rebuild?

Can we focus there instead of rehashing the same old stuff in every thread?

[Tha Cynic]

What we forget is that drafting is only the first step. Player development is also huge. Was it our drafting or the player development side that really crumbled post championship? We did have a lot of talent get poached and the Raptors were in win now mode.

What Quickley, Agbaji, Dick, Barrett and Barnes look like next season should tell us a lot about our player development

[WuTang_CMB]

And the question then becomes - how is the front office going to redeem itself now that it’s pivoted (somewhat) towards a rebuild?

Can we focus there instead of rehashing the same old stuff in every thread?

'Ya in the other 20 threads its being discussed

[ItsDanger]

Raps pick 19th in a weak draft (I assume these metrics are simple averages)

MVP: 0.00 percent
Finals MVP: 0.00 percent
All-NBA 1st Team: 1.49 percent
All-NBA Team: 4.48 percent
All-Star: 7.46 percent
All-Defensive: 1.49 percent
Defensive Player of the Year: 0.00 percent
NBA champion: 16.42 percent

[pbernardi]

Question is: how many of these players won awards/chips on the team he was drafted? I think this changed a lot in 2000 from here.

On one side we players like Lebron/KD/Wesbrook/Harden/Shaq which did not won a lot of awards/titles on the team they were drafted. On other side, there is players like Kobe/Duncan/Wade/Curry which spent the whole carreer in the same team.

So it is not only a question of draft well, but also keep the player (or adquire a star via FA/trade).

[ItsDanger]

What we forget is that drafting is only the first step. Player development is also huge. Was it our drafting or the player development side that really crumbled post championship? We did have a lot of talent get poached and the Raptors were in win now mode.

What Quickley, Agbaji, Dick, Barrett and Barnes look like next season should tell us a lot about our player development

I think for one and dones, improving all aspects is critical and takes time. For a 4 year college guy, they should be mentally and physically mature already while being able to easily fit into most styles demanded by coach immediately.

[ConSarnit]

The reality of the draft is much more dim than a lot want to admit. Obviously is the best place to find talent, but the odds are so significantly stacked against you.

The #1 pick give you about a 30% chance of finding a Pascal Siakam level player. AKA - there is a higher chance (35%) that you draft a player who does not even make an all-star game.

You can win the lottery for 3 straight years, and there is a decent chance you end up with only 1 of them being an all-star level player.

Seems to be that when you read this board however that tanking and bottoming out is a surefire recipe for success.

This is just part of the equation. These are the draft success rates of everyone. It doesn't factor in the success rates of someone like Sam Presti vs Rob Babcock. If you had the #3 pick three years in a row, who would you trust more to make the better selection? If you have Vlade Divac running your team you're in trouble. If you have Danny Ainge making the picks you're probably going to be alright.

Tanking as a viable strategy can't just exist in a vacuum. You need high drafts pick + someone capable of evaluating those picks. I am not opposed to going for a high pick this year because Masai & Co have a history of drafting well. It's a risk but it's also a risk to hope that another Kawhi-like deal will ever materialize. I would not take this "tanking" position if Rob Babcock or a new GM who hasn't proven their draft acumen were in charge.

I agree that there is no surefire recipe for success but that applies to every method of team building. I think you can improve the above odds by having good scouting in place and a investing in development.

[YogurtProducer]

The reality of the draft is much more dim than a lot want to admit. Obviously is the best place to find talent, but the odds are so significantly stacked against you.

The #1 pick give you about a 30% chance of finding a Pascal Siakam level player. AKA - there is a higher chance (35%) that you draft a player who does not even make an all-star game.

You can win the lottery for 3 straight years, and there is a decent chance you end up with only 1 of them being an all-star level player.

Seems to be that when you read this board however that tanking and bottoming out is a surefire recipe for success.

This is just part of the equation. These are the draft success rates of everyone. It doesn't factor in the success rates of someone like Sam Presti vs Rob Babcock. If you had the #3 pick three years in a row, who would you trust more to make the better selection? If you have Vlade Divac running your team you're in trouble. If you have Danny Ainge making the picks you're probably going to be alright.

Tanking as a viable strategy can't just exist in a vacuum. You need high drafts pick + someone capable of evaluating those picks. I am not opposed to going for a high pick this year because Masai & Co have a history of drafting well. It's a risk but it's also a risk to hope that another Kawhi-like deal will ever materialize. I would not take this "tanking" position if Rob Babcock or a new GM who hasn't proven their draft acumen were in charge.

I agree that there is no surefire recipe for success but that applies to every method of team building. I think you can improve the above odds by having good scouting in place and a investing in development.

IMO savvy drafting is more relevant later in the drafts. The top 5-10 picks seem to be pretty chalky with what even ESPN analysts fiure out.

[StopitLeo]

Seems like after the top 5 it really becomes a crapshoot.

The hand wringing of losing draft position between like 6-14 seems like wasted mental effort.

Pretty much. Historically the all-stars come from the top 5 but success as even a starter is hardly assured with high picks. After that you're basically looking at a combination of scouting and good player development to simply get a rotation player—anything more means you got lucky with the right player in the right situation.

Having success in the draft is the exception more than the rule. We were spoiled with the run of Delon, Poeltl, Pascal, and OG—not to mention Norm in the 2nd round and of course undrafted FVV. I mean, people gripe about Flynn not being a significant contributor when he was the 29th overall pick.

[ConSarnit]

The reality of the draft is much more dim than a lot want to admit. Obviously is the best place to find talent, but the odds are so significantly stacked against you.

The #1 pick give you about a 30% chance of finding a Pascal Siakam level player. AKA - there is a higher chance (35%) that you draft a player who does not even make an all-star game.

You can win the lottery for 3 straight years, and there is a decent chance you end up with only 1 of them being an all-star level player.

Seems to be that when you read this board however that tanking and bottoming out is a surefire recipe for success.

This is just part of the equation. These are the draft success rates of everyone. It doesn't factor in the success rates of someone like Sam Presti vs Rob Babcock. If you had the #3 pick three years in a row, who would you trust more to make the better selection? If you have Vlade Divac running your team you're in trouble. If you have Danny Ainge making the picks you're probably going to be alright.

Tanking as a viable strategy can't just exist in a vacuum. You need high drafts pick + someone capable of evaluating those picks. I am not opposed to going for a high pick this year because Masai & Co have a history of drafting well. It's a risk but it's also a risk to hope that another Kawhi-like deal will ever materialize. I would not take this "tanking" position if Rob Babcock or a new GM who hasn't proven their draft acumen were in charge.

I agree that there is no surefire recipe for success but that applies to every method of team building. I think you can improve the above odds by having good scouting in place and a investing in development.

IMO savvy drafting is more relevant later in the drafts. The top 5-10 picks seem to be pretty chalky with what even ESPN analysts fiure out.

Differentiating between those picks still has huge impact.

Green over Mobley and Barnes (over Suggs)
Wiseman over Ball
Ayton and Bagley over Luka
Fultz and Ball over Tatum

If you have a GM drafting aligned with ESPN rankings you're probably going to screw yourself outside of the clear cut #1 years (like 2023).

Slight sidenote: for whatever reason it seems like savvyness really comes into play between picks 10-15. I have no idea why.

[Fairview4Life]

I am not sure I really understand why this is useful. If you have the second pick, your odds of finding an x, y or z should be the sum (well, not sum, but you get what I mean) of everything after that pick too, no? It's not that the 15th pick is magic, it's that everyone picking 1->15 had the opportunity to pick Giannis or Kawhi or whoever. In theory it's more like if you're picking 1st, what are the odds someone in that draft will be a finals MVP. If you're picking second, what are the odds 2 players in that draft will be a finals MVP, etc etc etc.

[Scase]

Yeah but why bother, when you can toil away on a treadmill for years. Don't worry guys, we're gonna get the team to be better with all those FA signings that work out all the time, and the 2 trades we do every 6 years.

Posts like this is exactly what I mean.

The odds of selecting a player in the mid-lottery or as a low playoff team are very clearly low. The odds of getting a stud in FA or through trade are also low. Anyone who is on more of a "try and be competitive and see what happens" mind frame is capable of acknowledging and recognizing those facts.

So why do we mock that avenue while we can see the stats laid out by OP show that the odds of getting elite players through the draft are also low? Especially when the odds even plummet further when you recognize you still have to build up the rest of your team after tearing it down.

And to add, why are we forcing a tank when we’re closer to contention than to the extreme bottom with players who can grow with us.

This is why, despite my advocacy for a soft tank next season, I still push for established talent like Wiggins (and to a lesser extent Zach LaVine) while also looking to add complementary pieces such as a backup guard (THT) and a big wing (Derrick Jones Jr.).

I think you need to define "contention". Contention to me, means a contender, as in for the chip. If that's what you mean by contention, we are absolutely in no way, closer to contention than the bottom of the league.

If you meant playoff contention, I still don't think we are, but that makes more sense. We are likely going to be around 9-12th in the east next year, but more than half of the entire conference makes the playoffs, so it's not exactly a ringing endorsement.

But being "closer" doesn't matter IMO, our ceiling is what matters. And this team as currently constructed has a very low one without some massive developmental leaps, and/or us lucking into a very very good player exceeding expectations in the draft.

This team has had the most success with draft picks, not FA signings, not trades, not undrafted players, but draft picks. Yet everyone is always seemingly so adverse to playing to our strengths for a couple years. Everything that got us to our chip was built off the back of lotto talent and development. Not rolling into a season with 4 NBA calibre starters under contract, and hoping something magical happens in the next couple of years.

If we want to talk about the odds posted in the thread, how about we talk about the odds of the 19th and 31st picks panning out into actual NBA calibre players, instead of how going for a top 5 pick is stupid cause we can't guarantee an MVP level player. Yet all I hear is "if we do some smart drafting this year we'll be in a good spot" and so on, yeah lets forecast the future based on picks that routinely result in players out of the league after their first contracts instead.

No one is calling for 5-8 years of bottoming out, people are hoping to try and get lucky for a year or two, and then go for there. If we're going to be mediocre, we might as well be bad for less time, and have an actual chance to break into the good-great categories.

This is just part of the equation. These are the draft success rates of everyone. It doesn't factor in the success rates of someone like Sam Presti vs Rob Babcock. If you had the #3 pick three years in a row, who would you trust more to make the better selection? If you have Vlade Divac running your team you're in trouble. If you have Danny Ainge making the picks you're probably going to be alright.

Tanking as a viable strategy can't just exist in a vacuum. You need high drafts pick + someone capable of evaluating those picks. I am not opposed to going for a high pick this year because Masai & Co have a history of drafting well. It's a risk but it's also a risk to hope that another Kawhi-like deal will ever materialize. I would not take this "tanking" position if Rob Babcock or a new GM who hasn't proven their draft acumen were in charge.

I agree that there is no surefire recipe for success but that applies to every method of team building. I think you can improve the above odds by having good scouting in place and a investing in development.

IMO savvy drafting is more relevant later in the drafts. The top 5-10 picks seem to be pretty chalky with what even ESPN analysts fiure out.

Differentiating between those picks still has huge impact.

Green over Mobley and Barnes (over Suggs)
Wiseman over Ball
Ayton and Bagley over Luka
Fultz and Ball over Tatum

If you have a GM drafting aligned with ESPN rankings you're probably going to screw yourself outside of the clear cut #1 years (like 2023).

Slight sidenote: for whatever reason it seems like savvyness really comes into play between picks 10-15. I have no idea why.

Well yeah, that's where the goalpost shifting comes in. Masai & co. get all the flowers for picking Scottie over Suggs, but then savvy doesn't matter until the 5-10 range?

It matters from top to bottom, outside of years with players like Wemby. Otherwise why is Luka on Dallas, instead of Phoenix or Sactown? Savvy matters at every single pick, and if we want to keep trying to scream about how great we are at drafting, how about we load them up with the best picks possible and let them cook.

A Michelin star chef can be given basic ingredients from a loblaws and make a fantastic meal, but you give them world class ingredients, and they can make a world renown meal. Like you said, I'd rather Danny Ainge be picking with a top 3 pick repeatedly than Babcock 100 times out of 100.

[tdotrep2]

It's a good thing our front office knows how to draft.

[YogurtProducer]

This is just part of the equation. These are the draft success rates of everyone. It doesn't factor in the success rates of someone like Sam Presti vs Rob Babcock. If you had the #3 pick three years in a row, who would you trust more to make the better selection? If you have Vlade Divac running your team you're in trouble. If you have Danny Ainge making the picks you're probably going to be alright.

Tanking as a viable strategy can't just exist in a vacuum. You need high drafts pick + someone capable of evaluating those picks. I am not opposed to going for a high pick this year because Masai & Co have a history of drafting well. It's a risk but it's also a risk to hope that another Kawhi-like deal will ever materialize. I would not take this "tanking" position if Rob Babcock or a new GM who hasn't proven their draft acumen were in charge.

I agree that there is no surefire recipe for success but that applies to every method of team building. I think you can improve the above odds by having good scouting in place and a investing in development.

IMO savvy drafting is more relevant later in the drafts. The top 5-10 picks seem to be pretty chalky with what even ESPN analysts fiure out.

Differentiating between those picks still has huge impact.

Green over Mobley and Barnes (over Suggs)
Wiseman over Ball
Ayton and Bagley over Luka
Fultz and Ball over Tatum

If you have a GM drafting aligned with ESPN rankings you're probably going to screw yourself outside of the clear cut #1 years (like 2023).

Slight sidenote: for whatever reason it seems like savvyness really comes into play between picks 10-15. I have no idea why.

I mean you can do your exercise anywhere in draft - but i 100% guarantee there is more variance later in the draft than earlier.

Most "good drafting" teams are the ones who do things like get Siakam at 27, Giannis at 15, etc. Those are the picks no ESPN analyst even dreamed of. Whereas we had thousands of different articles about where Doncic should be picked and a lot of analysts said higher than what it ended up being.

[ATLTimekeeper]

Even 'drafting' an MVP 1st overall seems like a stretch when the modern game is dominated by LeBron and Duncan winning multiple times. DRose has one, too. And then that massive drop off from 1 to 2! This is why you don't throw a season just for this chance.

[Merit]

And the question then becomes - how is the front office going to redeem itself now that it’s pivoted (somewhat) towards a rebuild?

Can we focus there instead of rehashing the same old stuff in every thread?

'Ya in the other 20 threads its being discussed

Was trying to be on your team there lol. Fair point though!

[Pointgod]

If you have a top 3 pick in any given year, there’s a 25% chance one of those players turns into a MVP. This is it, shows the value of tanking in terms of securing high end talent. Overall you can draft starters from any position in the draft but allstar talent skews towards the lottery and high end. This is why it’s important to having multiple picks and make bets on the future of teams looking to win now. With the CBA being so restrictive building through the draft and hitting on picks is more important than ever.

[Los_29]

Really depends on the draft class. You can tank, do everything that some people wanted us to do and yet only end up with a core of;
- Green/Sengun/Smith
- Banchero/Franz/Suggs
- Cade/Ivey/Duren
- Lamelo/Miller

You get the picture. It ain’t pretty. Spurs treadmilled for 5 years, tanked one year and got lucky and I’d take their situation over all those teams. And they only tanked because they did such a bad job of building a team that they had no choice but to restart.

[Jcity08]

Drafting in the lottery has always been about giving yourself the best chance at acquiring talent and having first dibs at talented prospects instead of praying someone you want drops far enough down for you to acquire.

Its up to your scouting and player development/coaching to make the pick work out.