How Concerned — or Alarmed — Should We Be?

[payitforward]

Zonk -- 2011 produced a perennial all star at 1, an utter bust at 2, & a list of almost all mediocrities to fill out the first 10 picks.

But it also produced a multiple all star at 11, two HOFers at 15 & 30, plus a multiple year starter on title contending teams at 60, & a guy taken at 58 who was better than 3/4 of the first 57 picks.

There is not a single example of a draft whose lottery picks were taken in order of what they wound up doing in the league -- or anywhere close. Not one. Nor does that fact reflect bad GMs or preparation. It's simply not how to analyze the draft.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Ben Gordon - playoff team starter
Deron Williams - perennial all star? wikipedia says he went to 3 all star games. Maybe as a coach's pick though?
Adam Morrison (ouch) - bust
Al Horford - Perennial all star
O.J. Mayo - marginal quality starter
James Harden - HoF
Derrick Favors - playoff quality starter, looks like?
Enes Kanter- soso NBA career
Bradley Beal - perennial all star? kinda the same category as Deron Williams
Otto Porter - GOAT
Joel Embiid - HOF
Jahlil Okafor - bust
Jaylen Brown - perennial all star
Jayson Tatum - perennial all star, maybe HoF
Luka Doncic - HoF
RJ Barrett - playoff quality starter
LaMelo Ball - perennial all star?
Evan Mobley - playoff quality starter
Jabari Smith Jr - not a bust, not a playoff quality starter, looks like
Scoot Henderson - same

So I count three, maybe four hall of famers, 4-5 perennial all stars, 4-5 playoff team starters, 5 marginal players, 2 busts. Better than the #2 slot. Significantly. Actually looks about the same as the #1

Evan Mobley went 6-6 on 3PT shots the other night. Cleveland is 21-4. He should be an all-star, and he's just 23.

[DCZards]

Ben Gordon - playoff team starter
Deron Williams - perennial all star? wikipedia says he went to 3 all star games. Maybe as a coach's pick though?
Adam Morrison (ouch) - bust
Al Horford - Perennial all star
O.J. Mayo - marginal quality starter
James Harden - HoF
Derrick Favors - playoff quality starter, looks like?
Enes Kanter- soso NBA career
Bradley Beal - perennial all star? kinda the same category as Deron Williams
Otto Porter - GOAT
Joel Embiid - HOF
Jahlil Okafor - bust
Jaylen Brown - perennial all star
Jayson Tatum - perennial all star, maybe HoF
Luka Doncic - HoF
RJ Barrett - playoff quality starter
LaMelo Ball - perennial all star?
Evan Mobley - playoff quality starter
Jabari Smith Jr - not a bust, not a playoff quality starter, looks like
Scoot Henderson - same

So I count three, maybe four hall of famers, 4-5 perennial all stars, 4-5 playoff team starters, 5 marginal players, 2 busts. Better than the #2 slot. Significantly. Actually looks about the same as the #1

Ben Gordon wasn't as good as you suggest. Mayo was a terrible, awful player. Barrett isn't any good at all. Mobley, Smith, Henderson are all way too young to characterize with confidence. Okafor was undone by injury.

You’re right about Gordon. He had his moments but was very streaky.

Barrett is a much-improved player since being traded to Toronto. He’s a having very nice season so far.

I’m pretty confident that Mobley will turn out to be a quality playoff starter. He kinda proved that during last season’s playoffs.

[Zonkerbl]

Ben Gordon - playoff team starter
Deron Williams - perennial all star? wikipedia says he went to 3 all star games. Maybe as a coach's pick though?
Adam Morrison (ouch) - bust
Al Horford - Perennial all star
O.J. Mayo - marginal quality starter
James Harden - HoF
Derrick Favors - playoff quality starter, looks like?
Enes Kanter- soso NBA career
Bradley Beal - perennial all star? kinda the same category as Deron Williams
Otto Porter - GOAT
Joel Embiid - HOF
Jahlil Okafor - bust
Jaylen Brown - perennial all star
Jayson Tatum - perennial all star, maybe HoF
Luka Doncic - HoF
RJ Barrett - playoff quality starter
LaMelo Ball - perennial all star?
Evan Mobley - playoff quality starter
Jabari Smith Jr - not a bust, not a playoff quality starter, looks like
Scoot Henderson - same

So I count three, maybe four hall of famers, 4-5 perennial all stars, 4-5 playoff team starters, 5 marginal players, 2 busts. Better than the #2 slot. Significantly. Actually looks about the same as the #1

Ben Gordon wasn't as good as you suggest. Mayo was a terrible, awful player. Barrett isn't any good at all. Mobley, Smith, Henderson are all way too young to characterize with confidence. Okafor was undone by injury.

Mobley is starting on the team with the best record this year, fwiw

[Zonkerbl]

Zonk -- 2011 produced a perennial all star at 1, an utter bust at 2, & a list of almost all mediocrities to fill out the first 10 picks.

But it also produced a multiple all star at 11, two HOFers at 15 & 30, plus a multiple year starter on title contending teams at 60, & a guy taken at 58 who was better than 3/4 of the first 57 picks.

There is not a single example of a draft whose lottery picks were taken in order of what they wound up doing in the league -- or anywhere close. Not one. Nor does that fact reflect bad GMs or preparation. It's simply not how to analyze the draft.

You are 100% wrong, my analysis is exactly how you should approach it. There is variability, of course, duh, but the evidence shows that a top 3 pick has (depending on which round you're looking at) a 10-20% chance of producing a hall of famer, 20-25% chance of producing a perennial all star, 20-25% chance of a playoff team quality starter, 20-25% chance of being a mediocre bench player and about a 10% chance of being an utter bust. The expected value of a top 3 pick, therefore, is a playoff team quality starter like Evan Mobley. Anything worse than that puts you in the "did not meet expectations" category.

That's all I'm saying, this whole thread was an attempt to establish what the expectations for Sarr are, not to judge the ability of the GM who selected him. Yes it's a crap shoot, unfortunately, and all GMs have performed equally badly over the last 24 years, it is what it is.

Earlier I said our expectations should be that Sarr should be an all star but looking at the data I have to revise that statement downward. However, I stand by the spirit of it, that we shouldn't be snakebit by previous Wizards draft failures. Our expectations for Sarr should be high. If he meets expectations he will end up being at least a quality starting center for a playoff bound team.

[payitforward]

Ben Gordon wasn't as good as you suggest. Mayo was a terrible, awful player. Barrett isn't any good at all. Mobley, Smith, Henderson are all way too young to characterize with confidence. Okafor was undone by injury.

Barrett is a much-improved player since being traded to Toronto. He’s a having very nice season so far....

I’m pretty confident that Mobley will turn out to be a quality playoff starter. He kinda proved that during last season’s playoffs.

You're right about Mobley -- he does look like a major success.

But Barrett is another story: he was taken #3 in the '19 draft by the Knicks & provided very poor value to the team that used the pick on him. Thus, from the POV Zonk was discussing, it's a mistake to put him on the list of successes out of the draft.

[payitforward]

Zonk -- 2011 produced a perennial all star at 1, an utter bust at 2, & a list of almost all mediocrities to fill out the first 10 picks.

But it also produced a multiple all star at 11, two HOFers at 15 & 30, plus a multiple year starter on title contending teams at 60, & a guy taken at 58 who was better than 3/4 of the first 57 picks.

There is not a single example of a draft whose lottery picks were taken in order of what they wound up doing in the league -- or anywhere close. Not one. Nor does that fact reflect bad GMs or preparation. It's simply not how to analyze the draft.

You are 100% wrong...

... which is odd since I agree entirely with what you write below:

...my analysis is exactly how you should approach it. There is variability, of course, duh, but the evidence shows that a top 3 pick has (depending on which round you're looking at) a 10-20% chance of producing a hall of famer, 20-25% chance of producing a perennial all star, 20-25% chance of a playoff team quality starter, 20-25% chance of being a mediocre bench player and about a 10% chance of being an utter bust. The expected value of a top 3 pick, therefore, is a playoff team quality starter like Evan Mobley. Anything worse than that puts you in the "did not meet expectations" category.

That's all I'm saying, this whole thread was an attempt to establish what the expectations for Sarr are, not to judge the ability of the GM who selected him. Yes it's a crap shoot, unfortunately, and all GMs have performed equally badly over the last 24 years, it is what it is.

Earlier I said our expectations should be that Sarr should be an all star but looking at the data I have to revise that statement downward. However, I stand by the spirit of it, that we shouldn't be snakebit by previous Wizards draft failures. Our expectations for Sarr should be high. If he meets expectations he will end up being at least a quality starting center for a playoff bound team.

...& you end by admitting you have to "revise" your original conclusion. Usually, such a revision is viewed as an admission that one had been "wrong."

Above all, of course, I agree that "...Our expectations for Sarr should be high...."

Yet, "...a 10-20% chance of producing a hall of famer..." would lead us to expect 2-4 of them in the last 20 years. There's been 1.

But how about the previous 10 years? Here are the #2 picks from 1991 to 2000: Kenny Anderson, Alonzo Mourning, Shawn Bradley, Jason Kidd, Antony McDyess, Marcus Camby, Keith Van Horn, Mike Bibby, Steve Francis, Stromile Swift, Tyson Chandler.

Some good players there, to be sure! Would be sad if not, don't you agree? But, only Kidd seems a lock for the HOF.

Moreover, HOF is not really an independent variable, is it? The league will always put guys in the HOF. I.e. it's not a fixed metric of quality play.

[tontoz]

I didn't want to draft Sarr but judging him against other #2 picks isn't really fair. He wouldn't go at 2 in most drafts. If he was in this draft i doubt he would go top 5.

[Zonkerbl]

Zonk -- 2011 produced a perennial all star at 1, an utter bust at 2, & a list of almost all mediocrities to fill out the first 10 picks.

But it also produced a multiple all star at 11, two HOFers at 15 & 30, plus a multiple year starter on title contending teams at 60, & a guy taken at 58 who was better than 3/4 of the first 57 picks.

There is not a single example of a draft whose lottery picks were taken in order of what they wound up doing in the league -- or anywhere close. Not one. Nor does that fact reflect bad GMs or preparation. It's simply not how to analyze the draft.

You are 100% wrong...

... which is odd since I agree entirely with what you write below:

...my analysis is exactly how you should approach it. There is variability, of course, duh, but the evidence shows that a top 3 pick has (depending on which round you're looking at) a 10-20% chance of producing a hall of famer, 20-25% chance of producing a perennial all star, 20-25% chance of a playoff team quality starter, 20-25% chance of being a mediocre bench player and about a 10% chance of being an utter bust. The expected value of a top 3 pick, therefore, is a playoff team quality starter like Evan Mobley. Anything worse than that puts you in the "did not meet expectations" category.

That's all I'm saying, this whole thread was an attempt to establish what the expectations for Sarr are, not to judge the ability of the GM who selected him. Yes it's a crap shoot, unfortunately, and all GMs have performed equally badly over the last 24 years, it is what it is.

Earlier I said our expectations should be that Sarr should be an all star but looking at the data I have to revise that statement downward. However, I stand by the spirit of it, that we shouldn't be snakebit by previous Wizards draft failures. Our expectations for Sarr should be high. If he meets expectations he will end up being at least a quality starting center for a playoff bound team.

...& you end by admitting you have to "revise" your original conclusion. Usually, such a revision is viewed as an admission that one had been "wrong."

Above all, of course, I agree that "...Our expectations for Sarr should be high...."

Yet, "...a 10-20% chance of producing a hall of famer..." would lead us to expect 2-4 of them in the last 20 years. There's been 1.

But how about the previous 10 years? Here are the #2 picks from 1991 to 2000: Kenny Anderson, Alonzo Mourning, Shawn Bradley, Jason Kidd, Antony McDyess, Marcus Camby, Keith Van Horn, Mike Bibby, Steve Francis, Stromile Swift, Tyson Chandler.

Some good players there, to be sure! Would be sad if not, don't you agree? But, only Kidd seems a lock for the HOF.

Moreover, HOF is not really an independent variable, is it? The league will always put guys in the HOF. I.e. it's not a fixed metric of quality play.

Two people can be wrong pif. You propose that I analyze this pick entirely insanely, by analyzing a given draft - 2011 - which is comparing apples to oranges, instead of comparing the non crazy way, which is to compare all #2 picks together.

Because there's so much noise I ended up comparing #1, #2, and #3 picks. The results of my CORRECT analysis led me to revise the wild guess that I made earlier. But the analysis is correct and your proposed approach is nuts.

Or to be less of a jerk, your analysis is aimed at evaluating the GM - were there HoF picks later on in that draft that the GM selecting at #2 missed? But that's not what I was trying to do, I was trying to set expectations for what is the average amount of production to expect from a #2 pick.

[AFM]

You’re all wrong and I’m correct

[dckingsfan]

I didn't want to draft Sarr but judging him against other #2 picks isn't really fair. He wouldn't go at 2 in most drafts. If he was in this draft i doubt he would go top 5.

Yep. I think this is going to be an historically weak draft at the top of the draft board.

Castle looks to be doing fine. Clingan and Edney also. Risacher isn't horrible. Sarr, the same. But nothing special out of the top 10.

McCaine and Wells are the obvious steals thus far out of the top 10 and Bub is doing fine too.

But those who said the top end of this draft was weak seem to be right thus far. It probably wasn't available but trading down out of the #2 spot would have been prudent in hindsight (and kudos to the many who suggested this tactic).

[Zonkerbl]

That's why I'm saying this is an NIL impacted draft. That's why it's so weak.

[doclinkin]

That's why I'm saying this is an NIL impacted draft. That's why it's so weak.

How? What probable hall of famer or sure starter on a playoff team stayed in school to get paid rather than jump to the NBA?

The only player I think might have made a push for the lottery but stayed to season was Gamecock Collin Murray-Boyles. Okay JT Toppin looks to have made a smart choice too since he is having a breakout year. But based on their Freshman stats I don't think either would have displaced any of the top 5 selections. So unless you think Alex Karaban, Mark Sears, or Ryan Kalkbrenner have HOF status pencilled in for them, and think they were going in the top of the lottery, I'd like to see how the NIL has been hurting the draft.

If anything it means teams get better production from players who are not learning how to play while earning a paycheck. You get ROY candidates like Zach Edey staying in longer, and productive players like Trayce Jackson-Davis who can come in and instantly produce. I'm of a mind that the NIL has been a benefit to the NBA since teams have more games to evaluate players and need not reach for a talent that has not yet shown an ability to learn and grow. The top end talents will still be selected based on sky-high projections, but 2nd tier players will have opportunity to work on their shortfalls and come out with better seasoning. A guy like senior Johni Broome will land in the late 1st round and be snatched up by a veteran team with a winning record where he can instantly fill a role and earn his contract.

When we are that team of (young) veterans and can afford to select productive role-players I'd advocate for taking as many late first picks as we can get, so that we can fill the bench roles with guys who give good production for the dollar over the course of their rookie deal.

[payitforward]

You are 100% wrong...

... which is odd since I agree entirely with what you write below:

...my analysis is exactly how you should approach it. There is variability, of course, duh, but the evidence shows that a top 3 pick has (depending on which round you're looking at) a 10-20% chance of producing a hall of famer, 20-25% chance of producing a perennial all star, 20-25% chance of a playoff team quality starter, 20-25% chance of being a mediocre bench player and about a 10% chance of being an utter bust. The expected value of a top 3 pick, therefore, is a playoff team quality starter like Evan Mobley. Anything worse than that puts you in the "did not meet expectations" category.

That's all I'm saying, this whole thread was an attempt to establish what the expectations for Sarr are, not to judge the ability of the GM who selected him. Yes it's a crap shoot, unfortunately, and all GMs have performed equally badly over the last 24 years, it is what it is.

Earlier I said our expectations should be that Sarr should be an all star but looking at the data I have to revise that statement downward. However, I stand by the spirit of it, that we shouldn't be snakebit by previous Wizards draft failures. Our expectations for Sarr should be high. If he meets expectations he will end up being at least a quality starting center for a playoff bound team.

...& you end by admitting you have to "revise" your original conclusion. Usually, such a revision is viewed as an admission that one had been "wrong."

Above all, of course, I agree that "...Our expectations for Sarr should be high...."

Yet, "...a 10-20% chance of producing a hall of famer..." would lead us to expect 2-4 of them in the last 20 years. There's been 1.

But how about the previous 10 years? Here are the #2 picks from 1991 to 2000: Kenny Anderson, Alonzo Mourning, Shawn Bradley, Jason Kidd, Antony McDyess, Marcus Camby, Keith Van Horn, Mike Bibby, Steve Francis, Stromile Swift, Tyson Chandler.

Some good players there, to be sure! Would be sad if not, don't you agree? But, only Kidd seems a lock for the HOF.

Moreover, HOF is not really an independent variable, is it? The league will always put guys in the HOF. I.e. it's not a fixed metric of quality play.

Two people can be wrong pif....

To be sure!

You propose that I analyze this pick entirely insanely, by analyzing a given draft - 2011 - which is comparing apples to oranges, instead of comparing the non crazy way, which is to compare all #2 picks together....

But but but... that's exactly what I did, no? I looked at all the second picks from 1991 through 2021.

In any case, there's plenty of research on correlations of aspects of performance prior to the draft, draft position, & performance in the league. e.g. -- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11123-010-0187-x & much much more.

Because there's so much noise I ended up comparing #1, #2, and #3 picks. The results of my CORRECT analysis led me to revise the wild guess that I made earlier. But the analysis is correct and your proposed approach is nuts....

A common problem no doubt. But unlikely in this case, as I am using the same approach as you are.

I was trying to set expectations for what is the average amount of production to expect from a #2 pick.

Well... I think you mean "determine average production of a #2 pick," since that would set expectations for Sarr (i.e. prior to any data from his play), in which case (as i say) we agree.

The problem between us, if there must be one, have more to do with logic than statistics. Above all because, at the core, average production of, say, 30 prior #2 picks cannot have any effect on Alexander Sarr, only on the reasonableness of a set of expectations. These are, obviously, two very different phenomena.

Finally & above all -- I am delighted to find you participating in this basketball-related thread! You & I are of a mind politically & ethically (I subscribe entirely to your signature line...). Peace!

[LyricalRico]

The rookies looked a lot better before Kuzma came back. Whether that's just a coincidence or not, I'm not sure.

Might be onto something, let's see what happens at the trade deadline.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Zonk -- 2011 produced a perennial all star at 1, an utter bust at 2, & a list of almost all mediocrities to fill out the first 10 picks.

But it also produced a multiple all star at 11, two HOFers at 15 & 30, plus a multiple year starter on title contending teams at 60, & a guy taken at 58 who was better than 3/4 of the first 57 picks.

There is not a single example of a draft whose lottery picks were taken in order of what they wound up doing in the league -- or anywhere close. Not one. Nor does that fact reflect bad GMs or preparation. It's simply not how to analyze the draft.

You are 100% wrong...

... which is odd since I agree entirely with what you write below:

...my analysis is exactly how you should approach it. There is variability, of course, duh, but the evidence shows that a top 3 pick has (depending on which round you're looking at) a 10-20% chance of producing a hall of famer, 20-25% chance of producing a perennial all star, 20-25% chance of a playoff team quality starter, 20-25% chance of being a mediocre bench player and about a 10% chance of being an utter bust. The expected value of a top 3 pick, therefore, is a playoff team quality starter like Evan Mobley. Anything worse than that puts you in the "did not meet expectations" category.

That's all I'm saying, this whole thread was an attempt to establish what the expectations for Sarr are, not to judge the ability of the GM who selected him. Yes it's a crap shoot, unfortunately, and all GMs have performed equally badly over the last 24 years, it is what it is.

Earlier I said our expectations should be that Sarr should be an all star but looking at the data I have to revise that statement downward. However, I stand by the spirit of it, that we shouldn't be snakebit by previous Wizards draft failures. Our expectations for Sarr should be high. If he meets expectations he will end up being at least a quality starting center for a playoff bound team.

...& you end by admitting you have to "revise" your original conclusion. Usually, such a revision is viewed as an admission that one had been "wrong."

Above all, of course, I agree that "...Our expectations for Sarr should be high...."

Yet, "...a 10-20% chance of producing a hall of famer..." would lead us to expect 2-4 of them in the last 20 years. There's been 1.

But how about the previous 10 years? Here are the #2 picks from 1991 to 2000: Kenny Anderson, Alonzo Mourning, Shawn Bradley, Jason Kidd, Antony McDyess, Marcus Camby, Keith Van Horn, Mike Bibby, Steve Francis, Stromile Swift, Tyson Chandler.

Some good players there, to be sure! Would be sad if not, don't you agree? But, only Kidd seems a lock for the HOF.

Moreover, HOF is not really an independent variable, is it? The league will always put guys in the HOF. I.e. it's not a fixed metric of quality play.

Tyson Chandler was #2 to Kwame.

Zac Randolph was an all-star from that draft. He and Shane Battier were picks I liked. Troy Murphy , another who had a decent career, was also in that draft.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

That's why I'm saying this is an NIL impacted draft. That's why it's so weak.

How? What probable hall of famer or sure starter on a playoff team stayed in school to get paid rather than jump to the NBA?

The only player I think might have made a push for the lottery but stayed to season was Gamecock Collin Murray-Boyles. Okay JT Toppin looks to have made a smart choice too since he is having a breakout year. But based on their Freshman stats I don't think either would have displaced any of the top 5 selections. So unless you think Alex Karaban, Mark Sears, or Ryan Kalkbrenner have HOF status pencilled in for them, and think they were going in the top of the lottery, I'd like to see how the NIL has been hurting the draft.

If anything it means teams get better production from players who are not learning how to play while earning a paycheck. You get ROY candidates like Zach Edey staying in longer, and productive players like Trayce Jackson-Davis who can come in and instantly produce. I'm of a mind that the NIL has been a benefit to the NBA since teams have more games to evaluate players and need not reach for a talent that has not yet shown an ability to learn and grow. The top end talents will still be selected based on sky-high projections, but 2nd tier players will have opportunity to work on their shortfalls and come out with better seasoning. A guy like senior Johni Broome will land in the late 1st round and be snatched up by a veteran team with a winning record where he can instantly fill a role and earn his contract.

When we are that team of (young) veterans and can afford to select productive role-players I'd advocate for taking as many late first picks as we can get, so that we can fill the bench roles with guys who give good production for the dollar over the course of their rookie deal.

Agreed.

If you look around the 12/12 mock draft of nbadraft.net

https://www.nbadraft.net/nba-mock-drafts/

21 of their top 25 picks are freshmen
3 are international
1 is a sophomore

I think this is asinine, FWIW. However, doclinkin's point seems to align with how scouts view the talent of this year and last.

[Zonkerbl]

Zonk -- 2011 produced a perennial all star at 1, an utter bust at 2, & a list of almost all mediocrities to fill out the first 10 picks.

But it also produced a multiple all star at 11, two HOFers at 15 & 30, plus a multiple year starter on title contending teams at 60, & a guy taken at 58 who was better than 3/4 of the first 57 picks.

There is not a single example of a draft whose lottery picks were taken in order of what they wound up doing in the league -- or anywhere close. Not one. Nor does that fact reflect bad GMs or preparation. It's simply not how to analyze the draft.

Please reveal to me where in this post you say that your proposed method to analyze Sarr's performance is to compare all the #2 draft picks. I don't see it. You don't get to say "that's what I was proposing all along" when you didn't mention it until after I pointed out your mistake.

[closg00]

Houston is currently the 2nd seed in the West behind:

Sengun - 2021 16th pick
Jalen Green - 2021 2nd pick
Jabari Smith - 2022 2nd pick

Our young pups are just getting started, but Sarr is certainly not as-good as Segun was starting out, we don’t know yet if we have the beginnings of a young core yet, we still need a couple of more top-5 picks.

[payitforward]

Zonk -- 2011 produced a perennial all star at 1, an utter bust at 2, & a list of almost all mediocrities to fill out the first 10 picks.

But it also produced a multiple all star at 11, two HOFers at 15 & 30, plus a multiple year starter on title contending teams at 60, & a guy taken at 58 who was better than 3/4 of the first 57 picks.

There is not a single example of a draft whose lottery picks were taken in order of what they wound up doing in the league -- or anywhere close. Not one. Nor does that fact reflect bad GMs or preparation. It's simply not how to analyze the draft.

Please reveal to me where in this post you say that your proposed method to analyze Sarr's performance is to compare all the #2 draft picks. I don't see it. You don't get to say "that's what I was proposing all along" when you didn't mention it until after I pointed out your mistake.

Zonk --

...Yet, "...a 10-20% chance of producing a hall of famer..." would lead us to expect 2-4 of them in the last 20 years. There's been 1.

But how about the previous 10 years? Here are the #2 picks from 1991 to 2000: Kenny Anderson, Alonzo Mourning, Shawn Bradley, Jason Kidd, Antony McDyess, Marcus Camby, Keith Van Horn, Mike Bibby, Steve Francis, Stromile Swift, Tyson Chandler.

Some good players there, to be sure! Would be sad if not, don't you agree? But, only Kidd seems a lock for the HOF.

Moreover, HOF is not really an independent variable, is it? The league will always put guys in the HOF. I.e. it's not a fixed metric of quality play.

That was 30 years, mon ami, not a single year!

Note my last sentence above as well.

& in any case, even if the history of the #2 pick was as you claim, the statistic wouldn't allow us to "set expectations for Alexander Sarr." It would allow us to set an expectation that the pattern might well continue over the 20 years to come.

Finally, please do understand: I'm not looking to argue with you about something like this, which after all is of marginal impact on any particular situation, i.e. our team's situation.

To put it another way, like you I have high expectations of Alexander Sarr -- but not b/c of the history of the #2 pick!