Curns13 wrote:TheNetsFan wrote:You also have to look at the likelihood of star or solid player being available later. You can't say that just because there's been more success at 17 than 12, 17 is a better pick. Based on that chart if you look at the picks in the 15 range as compared to the 20s, you're talking roughly a 20% chance at a star versus a 5% chance, and roughly a 40% chance of landing a solid or star player verus a roughly 20% chance of landing a solid or star player. You're 4 times as likely to land a star around 15 and twice as likely to land a solid or better player. Why would you want two cracks at the much lower odds of success?vincecarter4pres wrote:Here's the thing though. The odds are reasonably close you'll land an actual rotation player from either the 15th or 27th pick specifically, but their have been 3 legitimate franchise level players in the past 21 years from the 15th pick, 2 of them in the last 6 years and an additional 2 All Star level players, an additional 6 starting level players and 2 young guys the jury is still out on. There was only 1 All Star level player in the last 20 years from the 27th pick, 3 starting level guys and a few young guys the jury is still out on.
So that's 11 out of a possible 21 players who are at least starting level good players from the 15th pick specifically, with 2 other recent young guys who could become that and 4 rotation players, with only 4 true busts. That's excellent odds.
At the 27th pick, you have 1 All Star level guy(Gobert, so room for growth still), an additional 3 other starting level players, 3 young guys who could become something still and 5 rotation players, with 9 legitimate confirmed busts. That's not great odds overall and terrible odds to find a diamond in the rough true star.
So actually, the odds aren't so reasonable and the difference between 15th and 27th is absolutely immense.
I think you have completely misread the data. Picks 15 - 20 give you somewhere between a 5 and 20% shot at a star but most likely a 5% shot. Picks 21 - 25 give you somewhere between a 0 and 15% shot but averaging it out probably a 5% shot. You then also have a 5% shot all the way to the 30th pick. You can't look at the 17th and 24th picks on their own. They are outliers, anomalies, like the number 7 coming up most in a lottery. Other than the occasional bump, you have a roughly 5% shot at getting a star all the way from 16 to 30.
For that reason, I would only want Marks to 2 for 1 the picks if it got us into the early teens (where there is a considerable bump in productivity) or if they truly believe an absolute cant miss talent has fallen but wont be available at 22.
The weird thing though is certain specific picks have produced a lot more real players, even in direct comparison to just the next literal pick before and after and I have my own theory to why that isn't just random superstitious luck that I'll get into later.
