greg4012 wrote:VaDe255 wrote:greg4012 wrote:So it's methodical in the sense of being an outlined method and calculated in the sense of being intentional. As to the actual success rate, we don't get to critical in looking into that.
Buzz words go bzzzzzz
We absolutely can look into the actual success rate. The idea that this strategy is just "luck" doesn’t hold when we analyze the data. Draft position is directly correlated with the likelihood of landing an all star level talent and teams that stockpile assets increase their chances of success.
Here are the rough success rates based on draft position:
No. 1 pick ~65% to become an all star
Top 2-5 picks ~40% chance
Picks 6-10 ~16% chance
Picks 11-20 ~9% chance
Picks 21-30 ~6% chance
There are always exceptions, but the general trend is absolutely clear, talent is heavily correlated with draft position. There isn't really luck here it's a numbers thing.
So yeah, buzzwords go bzzz, but they also describe a proven strategy. What’s not methodical is Miami’s current "hope a star falls into our lap" approach (sure they got Jimmy and landed an MVP level guy, but how likely is this to happen again?).
I know they won't do it and it's fine with me, just describing how teams successfully reset in the past and a lot of it is correlated to selling players at the right time.
So those numbers reflect guide posts that one can choose to navigate to understand odds to "get an All-Star". Now, what if the end game is not to "get an All-Star"? What if the end game is to build a contender (which naturally should consist of at least 2 all-star level players that fit together timeline wise and skillset wise) within the parameters of the Payroll restrictions?
No one is denying that drafting at the top of the draft affords one a better opportunity of having the pick of the litter in a given draft. I just reject the notion of making it out to be anything more than that.
There's also the multitude of years that a team is waiting for just the right pick and the lottery to unfold just the right way and for the draft class to have just the right talent pool and that draft pick to fit just right with the rest of the roster and for their to be just the right pool of interested free agents that will complement the developing core of players. [
Was there mention of "getting lucky" earlier on this thread??]
Ignoring how many NBA teams have been playing the pray-for-my-early-draft-picks-to-be-the-ones-to-change-everything-game is not calculated. It's just a variation of where hope is getting pumped.
The draft is just one piece of the puzzle, you'd layer other moves on top to maximize flexibility and create multiple ways to acquire elite talent:
- Trade all star level players for picks and young prospects (this is a big part of it, SGA turned into MVP level guy)
- Keep flexibility with cheap and tradable contracts to acquire fitting player
- Use cap space to absorb bad contracts in exchange for more draft capital if it fits the timeline
Even if SGA didn't turn into an MVP level player and OKC was only able to draft all star level talent, they'd be in position to trade for one with the massive value they did acquire.
Well, I was never in favor of trading Jimmy. Really unfortunate how this turned out, but we're here now and this team has no chance as currently constructed to win anything. They also don't have much flexibility in the offseason either, barely under tax cap.
