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

[youngcrev]

Teams suck at drafting

[Wingy]

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

That’s understandable and obviously depends on each individual case. That’s more, comparatively, a thing of the past.

I wrote a post in the Finals thread yesterday.

Compare how Aaron Nesmith has fared these playoffs -

A) vs Jalen Brunson
B) vs SGA / JDub

Height and size are always going to be a tie-breaker.

[Black Jack]

The real miracle? Chet is a #2 pick that didn't bust!

[dhsilv2]

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

That’s understandable and obviously depends on each individual case. That’s more, comparatively, a thing of the past.

I wrote a post in the Finals thread yesterday.

Compare how Aaron Nesmith has fared these playoffs -

A) vs Jalen Brunson
B) vs SGA / JDub

Height and size are always going to be a tie-breaker.

It matters but there's a huge skew in the top 5 that becomes a bit less as we move past it. And as such we see more guards/wings falling despite those being the guys driving the league these days.

[Doctor MJ]

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.

Excellent point. There's long been a recognition of high ceiling boom-bust bigs means that we shouldn't take a team busting on a big that seriously from a scouting perspective, because all the teams miss on those guys.

That said, I do think the whole "can't teach height" thing has taken a major hit in recent years. I remember back in 2005 where it felt like the feeling was "Well you can't draft Chris Paul #1 because there's going to be taller players who can just do more." Bogut getting drafted over Paul at #1 didn't bother me because he'd literally been winning college POY awards over Paul, but non-college starter Marvin Williams getting taken over him - by a team that needed a point guard - struck me at the time as the NBA having an irrational bias toward bigs.

While I'm on the 2005 draft I have to acknowledge that Paul wasn't the first point guard drafted, Deron Williams was. That'll forever be interesting in part because it sure seemed like Sloan & Utah were dead set on Deron over Paul despite the consensus going in the other direction. It worked out pretty well for them relative to what you'd typically expect from that spot in the draft, but clearly Paul was the far greater player, and yet the coach of John Stockton preferred Deron. What was he thinking?

Clearly part of the equation just keeps going back to size - Deron was a bigger point guard, and while he was clearly worse at everything we'd consider a "point guard skill", it's not crazy to favor the bigger guy if you think the smaller just won't be able to do his thing in the NBA. Of course, Paul adapted to the NBA with relative ease, and the rest is history.

[Effigy]

Interesting that Presti only drafted 2 of the starters.

[Wingy]

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

That’s understandable and obviously depends on each individual case. That’s more, comparatively, a thing of the past.

I wrote a post in the Finals thread yesterday.

Compare how Aaron Nesmith has fared these playoffs -

A) vs Jalen Brunson
B) vs SGA / JDub

Height and size are always going to be a tie-breaker.

It matters but there's a huge skew in the top 5 that becomes a bit less as we move past it. And as such we see more guards/wings falling despite those being the guys driving the league these days.

At least it’s understandable…to a point. Again, this is a conversation that’s tough in broad strokes since so much depends on each player.

Anyway, so much in terms of value is based on scarcity. There are literally fewer tall people around. If you don’t have a great feel for certainty on anyone, tall is always going to win out.

[Jadoogar]

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.

tbf last year's finals had 5 starters selected in the top 5 (not to mention Kristaps coming off the bench).
I don't think you should take any lessons for one single series.

[dhsilv2]

That’s understandable and obviously depends on each individual case. That’s more, comparatively, a thing of the past.

I wrote a post in the Finals thread yesterday.

Compare how Aaron Nesmith has fared these playoffs -

A) vs Jalen Brunson
B) vs SGA / JDub

Height and size are always going to be a tie-breaker.

It matters but there's a huge skew in the top 5 that becomes a bit less as we move past it. And as such we see more guards/wings falling despite those being the guys driving the league these days.

At least it’s understandable…to a point. Again, this is a conversation that’s tough in broad strokes since so much depends on each player.

Anyway, so much in terms of value is based on scarcity. There are literally fewer tall people around. If you don’t have a great feel for certainty on anyone, tall is always going to win out.

I get it, but it becomes a boom or bust deal. And I'm not sure it's worth it.

[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.

tbf last year's finals had 5 starters selected in the top 5 (not to mention Kristaps coming off the bench).
I don't think you should take any lessons for one single series.

Agree but what remains even with this "skew" is it's good to have lottery picks.

[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.

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.

Exum was hurt and Horford was starting instead of Porzingis, but Horford was also picked 3rd. Though interestingly, Brown, Tatum and Luka were all traded picks (either draft day or before) and Kyrie, Porzingis, Horford and Exum were all on a different team than the one that drafted them.

[Wingy]

I get it, but it becomes a boom or bust deal. And I'm not sure it's worth it.

Boom or bust sounds like an extreme though, and one of those player by player cases. Wouldn’t disagree though that teams risk that too often. Wiseman is a good example.

In many other cases, I think it’s more an example like this. Say a team has Ace Bailey and Jeremiah Fears as their top talents left on the board. Ace has slipped some vs mocks, but this team happened to evaluate him as such. They don’t want to swing for a safe player …they think they can get a cheap vet close enough to the safe choices. They want one of those two guys they think can potentially make a bigger splash.

But which one? Despite talent, they also have real doubts about both. They’re set on going for the home run, so unless there’s some positional duplication, just about everyone goes with the bigger Bailey in this scenario where they aren’t feeling a clear winner. I’d guess that’s how it often plays out.

[dhsilv2]

I get it, but it becomes a boom or bust deal. And I'm not sure it's worth it.

Boom or bust sounds like an extreme though, and one of those player by player cases. Wouldn’t disagree though that teams risk that too often. Wiseman is a good example.

In many other cases, I think it’s more an example like this. Say a team has Ace Bailey and Jeremiah Fears as their top talents left on the board. Ace has slipped some vs mocks, but this team happened to evaluate him as such. They don’t want to swing for a safe player …they think they can get a cheap vet close enough to the safe choices. They want one of those two guys they think can potentially make a bigger splash.

But which one? Despite talent, they also have real doubts about both. They’re set on going for the home run, so unless there’s some positional duplication, just about everyone goes with the bigger Bailey in this scenario where they aren’t feeling a clear winner. I’d guess that’s how it often plays out.

So I'll fully admit...I'm the worst guy maybe on this board with predicting how good a player will be. I'm right almost never. I get busts right a bit more than never but still.

My point is teams take risks on extreme upside when the downside is the guy doesn't develop and without that...they aren't good. And there's countless examples of this over the years. Generally I think to your point, the downside isn't SOO bad. But in the top 5 there's 'always been a willingness to take those extreme gambles. We see that less for the higher first round picks and see it ramp back up at the end of the first and especially in the second round.