ReasonablySober wrote:firshercob, I completely understand your perspective. If you're picking at the top of the draft, you want to hit a home run and land a franchise changing player. Getting a "very good" player as opposed to a potential seven time all-star isn't the most sexy thing on the planet.
But I don't think you can simply dismiss quality of the class. Not all #3 picks are going to be equal. One year you could be looking at Carmelo Anthony, the next you could be looking at Adam Morrison. I'm certainly no professional scout; I'm simply going by what I see and what professionals happen to think. The overwhelming consensus is this is a draft without franchise changing talent at the top, but solid contributors throughout the first round.
Now all things being equal you you'd rather be picking #3 than #8 or #15. Sure, there will be guys taken in the teens that end up having better careers than someone taken in the top five. But you at least would like to have a chance at taking the guy instead of being left with guys that were passed on. But again, we're talking about a group of players that few envision making All-Star games, and that's if they reach their absolute high-end projections.
I know you know all this.
But again, here's my perspective, both regarding player value and my interests as a Bucks fan:
For one, I'm always going to favor bigs and point guards over wings. In my opinion, a wing needs to be special to help his team win more than a good point guard or big. Point guards have the ball in their hands more often, bigs represent the last line of defense to the hoop and can present interesting matchup problems. If I'm gonna take a wing over a big, they need to be able to compensate for what they don't offer elsewhere on the court.
Unfortunately, I think this draft is lacking in high impact bigs at the top (though I think if reports of Zeller being a true stretch-four are legit he goes to the top of my ranking, and I think Len has some Bogut in him), and I think it'll be tough for any of the PGs to break into the top 15 in the NBA. I do think there are some nice wings. McLemore has got some VC in his game, and like Carter I think he's got a chance to be much better as a pro. But his inconsistency would scare me quite a bit. I also like to see more assertiveness as opposed to a guy who'll sit back and let others get theirs.
My other point is with regards to the Bucks: I want this team to lose. I have for the better part of a decade. There are some that believe that the Bucks could surround Henson, Sanders and Ilyasova with **** players and they'd still be able to tank. This is completely illogical because they had **** players around them this season and managed to back-door their way into the playoffs. They were winning games because of Sanders and Ilyasova, and at the expense of terrible guard play. It's difficult envisioning a scenario where those three players are retained and managing to be worse in '13-'14.
So from my perspective the Bucks could do one of three things:
1 - Keep the frontline, take a guy at #15 that probably doesn't contribute much, sign some B and C level free agents and make a push for .500.
2 - Dump Ilyasova (for the #3 in this example), draft a wing or PG, win fewer games but too many to bottom out.
3 - Go for an all-out tank. Trade the two most productive players, the ones responsible for the wins the last two years, and go young for a couple years. I don't see Noel ever having the impact of Sanders. I don't think a wing at #3 ever has the impact Ilyasova will provide during the duration of his contract. The Bucks would be bad.
Of those three choices, I easily come down on #3. The Bucks haven't been relevant in a decade as they've tried to accomplish option #1. They're long overdue for a change in strategy. But that means making sacrifices in talent and wins. I'm fine with it, despite being a clear admirer of what Ilyasova and Sanders do on the court.
Lastly, this gets back to numbers, but I'm a fan of WS/48. No catch all stat is perfect, but I do like it because it cuts through the typical box score bulls*** (PPGZ AND REBOUNDZZ!1!) and measures what might not be evident. Generally the best performers by this metric are the same ones who all would agree are the best in the NBA.
Over the last two seasons the top ten players in WS/48 are:
1 - LeBron
2 - Paul
3 - Durant
4 - Harden
5 - Chandler
The rest of the top twenty are littered with the usual names like Parker, Wade, Gasol, Duncan, Curry and Anthony. It's not a perfect stat, but I think it's a good one.
Of players that logged more than 27 minutes a game over the last two seasons, Ilyasova comes in at #20, right behind Chris Bosh. If you removed his disastrous start to this season when he was getting dicked around by Skiles, he'd be just outside of the top ten players in the league. He's been that kind of producer.
Now, do I think he's a top twenty player in the league? No. I do think you could come to understand why he's ranked that high on the list once you factor in all he does and the efficiency to which he performs. He's an incredibly unique player in the NBA right now, and he hasn't even peaked.
So, while some look at the basic box score stats and season averages and think he's an average role player (or worse,
a contract that should be unloaded. Christ.) a closer look reveals a guy that's going to help tremendously with wins.
Unfortunately for the Bucks, they need losses a lot more right now.
