Serious Question: Since 2010, how many top 3 picks became busts?

[Myth]

Few of the guys the OP listed I would call busts, but I do agree that they are not the types of players you hope for with a top 3 pick.

[RoyceDa59]

Dipo Lonzo and Zion are not busts, so it’s probably closer to 1 in 3 are busts.

[RoyceDa59]

Could you imagine a front court of Giannis and Embiid LOL

[Myth]

I think we should redefine bust here less as 'were they a decent player' and more as 'did they do anything meaningful for the team drafting them?'; we often use 'bust' as almost an insult to the player--this guy flat sucks, why the hell'd they take him--but I think it's better to measure a bust by what the team got back on the investment.

With that in mind, my list would be a little different:
2010: NOT D Favors, who was the biggest part of the trade for Deron Williams (didn't work out but a huge move for the Nets at the time)
2011: Kanter/Freedom is close, he was a meaningful contributor to the Jazz and then they flipped him for some decent assets; I'd still put him here though
2012: Porter Jr doesn't feel right; he was a very good starter for the Wiz for long enough that he contributed meaningfully; then was injured and became a bad contract, so he feels more like an bad mid-career injury story than a bust
2013: Oladipo's close, disappointing for sure but then was a key part of the Ibaka trade--which was a disaster in the end but VO still had value to make it happen
2014: hmm, how does Wiggins not make your list? He was not only bad on the Wolves but it actually cost them pretty big assets to get out from his extension contract
2015: D Russell probably doesn't belong here but the only thing he ended up doing for the Lakers was allowing them to dump Mozgov's contract--ended up being useful but easily could've been nothing at all
2017: Ball is also close, since he was a small but key part of the AD trade so still brought them some meaningful value
2018: Bagley definitely belongs here, did nothing for the Kings and got them nothing
2019: I'll get killed for this but it wouldn't surprise me if Barrett ends up something like either Kanter/Freedom or OPJ some day; won't go into it so as not to inflame NYK fans but he might well end up not doing anything positive for the Knicks overall

Based on your criteria of how it worked out for the team drafting them, Wiggins wouldn't make the list because he was traded for Kevin Love who contributed to a championship for the Cavs.

[UcanUwill]

Nope lol. MKG is no Zion, Oden or anyone you want to mention. MKG should belong is the "real busts"

Yeah, health is not the only or main reason MKG is bust, guy is just bad player. I remember that draft, and almost everyone saw this one coming, but it was weird situation, because somehow for some reason every mock projected MKG to go second, so no one had guts to call that king is nude. I remember reading Charlotte fan comments in youtube after the draft, and I swear everyone was - yeah, he is no star, but he is great team play - which is a nice way of saying guy sucks. No one had guts to ask why was this guy picked second, because for some reason, outsider concensous told us he should be second. Very weird situation, but everyone knew this guy sucks.

[UcanUwill]

Counting Zion and even Wiseman is a bit premature. Lonzo definitely not a bust. Oladipo had 2 great seasons and won MOY so it's difficult to call him a bust even if he didn't reach full potential.

Yeah but would you tank a whole year or pay top 3 pick price in a trade, to get a top 3 pick that becomes Lonzo or Oladipo?
No.

That's the meaningful question: how many of those top 3 picks was actually worth sacrificing for. I think in that sense the OP was spot on: About half of them.

Yeah, I have no problem saying Turner or Markelle Fultz are busts. I dont care they are NBA players, they were huge disappointments.

[Myth]

I was just trying to think of different ways of quantifying busts, and started thinking about it in terms of where they would land in a re-draft. Could be an interesting exercise to see which guys would land more than 10 picks behind their actual draft position if a re-draft was done just as an example.

[FNQ]

I'm really unclear on how players still on their rookie contracts are definitive busts but I think draft picks are where the most hyperbolic stances are. Calling Zion or Wiseman a bust because they've been injured for the past season seems foolhardy, especially because the board did the same thing to Embiid and had to take that on the chin. I dont think Wiseman will pan out all that well, but I dont think he'll be some Anthony Bennett type bust, or even a Jabari Parker type one where he's just hanging on in the league post-injury. And certainly dont think that about Zion, who's still very likely to be an impact player in the NBA

[Chuck Everett]

Kind of funny people consider Evan Turner a bust but not Derrick Favors or Lonzo. He was better than both guys.

[Myth]

I was just trying to think of different ways of quantifying busts, and started thinking about it in terms of where they would land in a re-draft. Could be an interesting exercise to see which guys would land more than 10 picks behind their actual draft position if a re-draft was done just as an example.

Expanding this idea to sample it with the 2010:

Redraft (Just borrowed for speed from here: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2885428-re-drafting-the-2010-nba-draft-class )

1. Paul George
2. John Wall
3. DeMarcus Cousins
4. Gordon Hayward
5. Eric Bledsoe
6. Derrick Favors
7. Greg Monroe
8. Jeremy Lin
9. Al-Farouq Aminu
10. Hassan Whiteside
11. Ed Davis
12. Evan Turner
13. Patrick Patterson
14. Lance Stephenson
15. Avery Bradley
16. Trevor Booker
17. Nemanja Bjelica
18. Ish Smith
19. Wesley Johnson
20. Boban Marjanovic
21. Greivis Vasquez
22. Ekpe Udoh
23. Larry Sanders
24. Landry Fields
25. Quincy Pondexter
26. Cole Aldrich
27. Jeremy Evans
28. Luke Babbitt
29. Jordan Crawford
30. Kevin Seraphin

So based on the actual draft (Just looking at top 20 since only 30 listed above):
1. John Wall (2)
2. Evan Turner (12) (Barely within 10)
3. Derrick Favors (6)
4. Wesley Johnson (19) - Bust
5. DeMarcus Cousins (3)
6. Ekpe Udoh (22) - Bust
7. Greg Monroe (7)
8. Al-Farouq Aminu (9)
9. Gordon Hayward (4)
10. Paul George (1)
11. Cole Aldich (Not in top 30) - Bust
12. Xavier Henry (Not in top 30) - Bust
13. Ed Davis (11)
14. Patrick Patterson (13)
15. Larry Sanders (23)
16. Luke Babbitt (28) - Bust
17. Kevin Seraphin (Not in top 30) - Bust
18. Eric Bledsoe (5)
19. Avery Bradley (15)
20. James Anderson (Not in top 30) - Bust

So 2010 summary based on this criteria:
- No busts in top 3, but Turner is on the border (not counting him in the follow ups)
- 2 busts in the top 10
- 4 busts in the lottery
- 7 busts total in the top 20

[cornchip]

I think you have to put top 3 picks in 4 categories: Franchise players, Major Contributors, Overdrafted/Disappointments, Total Busts.

For Franchise Players:
Wall
Irving
Davis
Beal
Embiid
KAT
Brown
Tatum
Doncic
Morant
Edwards
LaMelo

Major Contributors:
Oladipo
Wiggins
Russell
Simmons
Ingram
Lonzo
Ayton
Zion
Barrett

Overdrafted/Disappointments:
Turner
Favors
Kanter Freedom
MKG
Porter Jr.
Parker
Wiseman

Total Busts:
Williams
Bennett
Okafor
Fultz
Bagley

[hippesthippo]

To answer this question properly (and to create even more argument, since that is the purpose of RealGM after all...), you have to have quantified measurables. You can't just say "Zion is a bust" without any true determining factors.

So my proposal is to say: if anyone drafted after a player in the top 3 is better than that player, then those who aren't better than that lower pick are a bust.

So revising the list, it looks like this:

2010: no change (I give Wall the benefit of the doubt that George still hasn't proven himself better - but it's very subjective)
2011: add Irving, because Klay, Kawhi, & Jimmy all have proven to be better players on the whole (taking team play and overall reliability into account)
2012: add Beal because Dame is better.
2013: no change, because Giannis.
2014: add Wiggins, because of Embiid (I'm rating Embiid equal to Jokic in this case)
2015: definitely add Russell because of Booker at #13
2016: a tough one. I'd have to add Simmons, only because, even though he was ROY, made All-NBA teams etc., he never really seemed to improve in the areas that he could have. Until further evidence is presented to support him not being included, I'd have to say I'd currently rate Brown and Ingram above him, and possibly even Siakam at this point.
2017: no change, mainly because of Tatum, but you could also throw Mitchell and Bam into that comparison.
2018: sorry, you have to add Ayton because of Luka, it's just a fact. Can't start ignoring the parameters at this stage.
2019: have to also leave Zion on the list until it is proven that he isn't. He should still be better than Ja, but injuries have kept him from proving it.
2020: Wiseman because of Ball. Even though they are still young, Wiseman really would have to shine to take his name off this list.

So there you have it. The only thing is I still didn't quantify "better than".

That proposal is absolute **** garbage. Pardon my french, but it just is. Irving, Beal, Russell, Simmons, and Ayton are busts because there were [arguably] better players drafted after them? The draft is a crapshoot, we all know that; the only thing a higher pick guarantees is that you have a higher probability of finding a star caliber player.

Any proposal that suggests multiple time all-stars and all-nba level players are busts is absolute garbage.

A bust is someone who was drafted relatively high and is either: a) a terrible basketball player; b) a player that never gets significant playing time due to chronic injuries; or, c).. I'm not even sure there is a third qualifier, but if there is it certainly isn't what you're suggesting.

You gonna tell me Hakeem was a bust because Jordan was drafted after him? Seriously, what the ****.

[FNQ]

First step in analyzing busts is defining the term, and there's no shortage of varied opinions on that.. maybe that's because bust has been an exaggeration for so long that its lost its meaning

[FNQ]

To answer this question properly (and to create even more argument, since that is the purpose of RealGM after all...), you have to have quantified measurables. You can't just say "Zion is a bust" without any true determining factors.

So my proposal is to say: if anyone drafted after a player in the top 3 is better than that player, then those who aren't better than that lower pick are a bust.

So revising the list, it looks like this:

2010: no change (I give Wall the benefit of the doubt that George still hasn't proven himself better - but it's very subjective)
2011: add Irving, because Klay, Kawhi, & Jimmy all have proven to be better players on the whole (taking team play and overall reliability into account)
2012: add Beal because Dame is better.
2013: no change, because Giannis.
2014: add Wiggins, because of Embiid (I'm rating Embiid equal to Jokic in this case)
2015: definitely add Russell because of Booker at #13
2016: a tough one. I'd have to add Simmons, only because, even though he was ROY, made All-NBA teams etc., he never really seemed to improve in the areas that he could have. Until further evidence is presented to support him not being included, I'd have to say I'd currently rate Brown and Ingram above him, and possibly even Siakam at this point.
2017: no change, mainly because of Tatum, but you could also throw Mitchell and Bam into that comparison.
2018: sorry, you have to add Ayton because of Luka, it's just a fact. Can't start ignoring the parameters at this stage.
2019: have to also leave Zion on the list until it is proven that he isn't. He should still be better than Ja, but injuries have kept him from proving it.
2020: Wiseman because of Ball. Even though they are still young, Wiseman really would have to shine to take his name off this list.

So there you have it. The only thing is I still didn't quantify "better than".

That proposal is absolute **** garbage. Pardon my french, but it just is. Irving, Beal, Russell, Simmons, and Ayton are busts because there were [arguably] better players drafted after them? The draft is a crapshoot, we all know that; the only thing a higher pick guarantees is that you have a higher probability of finding a star caliber player.

Any proposal that suggests multiple time all-stars and all-nba level players are busts is absolute garbage.

A bust is someone who was drafted relatively high and is either: a) a terrible basketball player; b) a player that never gets significant playing time due to chronic injuries; or, c).. I'm not even sure there is a third qualifier, but if there is it certainly isn't what you're suggesting.

You gonna tell me Hakeem was a bust because Jordan was drafted after him? Seriously, what the ****.

I and-1d because yea, you're absolutely right but.. you've got game 7 intensity going with it

[jokeboy86]

First step in analyzing busts is defining the term, and there's no shortage of varied opinions on that.. maybe that's because bust has been an exaggeration for so long that its lost its meaning

My definition for a bust at least for top 3 picks are at no point in your career are you top 5 or at least top 10 at your position and for some of these guys its clear early on they wont ever be. I exclude players would devastating injuries immediately in their careers.

[Backcountry]

To answer this question properly (and to create even more argument, since that is the purpose of RealGM after all...), you have to have quantified measurables. You can't just say "Zion is a bust" without any true determining factors.

So my proposal is to say: if anyone drafted after a player in the top 3 is better than that player, then those who aren't better than that lower pick are a bust.

So revising the list, it looks like this:

2010: no change (I give Wall the benefit of the doubt that George still hasn't proven himself better - but it's very subjective)
2011: add Irving, because Klay, Kawhi, & Jimmy all have proven to be better players on the whole (taking team play and overall reliability into account)
2012: add Beal because Dame is better.
2013: no change, because Giannis.
2014: add Wiggins, because of Embiid (I'm rating Embiid equal to Jokic in this case)
2015: definitely add Russell because of Booker at #13
2016: a tough one. I'd have to add Simmons, only because, even though he was ROY, made All-NBA teams etc., he never really seemed to improve in the areas that he could have. Until further evidence is presented to support him not being included, I'd have to say I'd currently rate Brown and Ingram above him, and possibly even Siakam at this point.
2017: no change, mainly because of Tatum, but you could also throw Mitchell and Bam into that comparison.
2018: sorry, you have to add Ayton because of Luka, it's just a fact. Can't start ignoring the parameters at this stage.
2019: have to also leave Zion on the list until it is proven that he isn't. He should still be better than Ja, but injuries have kept him from proving it.
2020: Wiseman because of Ball. Even though they are still young, Wiseman really would have to shine to take his name off this list.

So there you have it. The only thing is I still didn't quantify "better than".

That proposal is absolute **** garbage. Pardon my french, but it just is. Irving, Beal, Russell, Simmons, and Ayton are busts because there were [arguably] better players drafted after them? The draft is a crapshoot, we all know that; the only thing a higher pick guarantees is that you have a higher probability of finding a star caliber player.

Any proposal that suggests multiple time all-stars and all-nba level players are busts is absolute garbage.

A bust is someone who was drafted relatively high and is either: a) a terrible basketball player; b) a player that never gets significant playing time due to chronic injuries; or, c).. I'm not even sure there is a third qualifier, but if there is it certainly isn't what you're suggesting.

You gonna tell me Hakeem was a bust because Jordan was drafted after him? Seriously, what the ****.

Jeez, tough crowd. And you're a Nuggets fan. You drafted Jokic, the antithesis of a bust. He's the measuring stick against which players are considered busts!

But good rant!

P.S. none of the players on this list are "terrible basketball players", except maybe Anthony Bennett, at least in NBA terms. I'd wager he'd still kick the butt of almost any RealGMer, even 9 years after the draft.

[hippesthippo]

To answer this question properly (and to create even more argument, since that is the purpose of RealGM after all...), you have to have quantified measurables. You can't just say "Zion is a bust" without any true determining factors.

So my proposal is to say: if anyone drafted after a player in the top 3 is better than that player, then those who aren't better than that lower pick are a bust.

So revising the list, it looks like this:

2010: no change (I give Wall the benefit of the doubt that George still hasn't proven himself better - but it's very subjective)
2011: add Irving, because Klay, Kawhi, & Jimmy all have proven to be better players on the whole (taking team play and overall reliability into account)
2012: add Beal because Dame is better.
2013: no change, because Giannis.
2014: add Wiggins, because of Embiid (I'm rating Embiid equal to Jokic in this case)
2015: definitely add Russell because of Booker at #13
2016: a tough one. I'd have to add Simmons, only because, even though he was ROY, made All-NBA teams etc., he never really seemed to improve in the areas that he could have. Until further evidence is presented to support him not being included, I'd have to say I'd currently rate Brown and Ingram above him, and possibly even Siakam at this point.
2017: no change, mainly because of Tatum, but you could also throw Mitchell and Bam into that comparison.
2018: sorry, you have to add Ayton because of Luka, it's just a fact. Can't start ignoring the parameters at this stage.
2019: have to also leave Zion on the list until it is proven that he isn't. He should still be better than Ja, but injuries have kept him from proving it.
2020: Wiseman because of Ball. Even though they are still young, Wiseman really would have to shine to take his name off this list.

So there you have it. The only thing is I still didn't quantify "better than".

That proposal is absolute **** garbage. Pardon my french, but it just is. Irving, Beal, Russell, Simmons, and Ayton are busts because there were [arguably] better players drafted after them? The draft is a crapshoot, we all know that; the only thing a higher pick guarantees is that you have a higher probability of finding a star caliber player.

Any proposal that suggests multiple time all-stars and all-nba level players are busts is absolute garbage.

A bust is someone who was drafted relatively high and is either: a) a terrible basketball player; b) a player that never gets significant playing time due to chronic injuries; or, c).. I'm not even sure there is a third qualifier, but if there is it certainly isn't what you're suggesting.

You gonna tell me Hakeem was a bust because Jordan was drafted after him? Seriously, what the ****.

I and-1d because yea, you're absolutely right but.. you've got game 7 intensity going with it

Haha you're right, I'll tone it down for a bit. Long day at work.

[hippesthippo]

To answer this question properly (and to create even more argument, since that is the purpose of RealGM after all...), you have to have quantified measurables. You can't just say "Zion is a bust" without any true determining factors.

So my proposal is to say: if anyone drafted after a player in the top 3 is better than that player, then those who aren't better than that lower pick are a bust.

So revising the list, it looks like this:

2010: no change (I give Wall the benefit of the doubt that George still hasn't proven himself better - but it's very subjective)
2011: add Irving, because Klay, Kawhi, & Jimmy all have proven to be better players on the whole (taking team play and overall reliability into account)
2012: add Beal because Dame is better.
2013: no change, because Giannis.
2014: add Wiggins, because of Embiid (I'm rating Embiid equal to Jokic in this case)
2015: definitely add Russell because of Booker at #13
2016: a tough one. I'd have to add Simmons, only because, even though he was ROY, made All-NBA teams etc., he never really seemed to improve in the areas that he could have. Until further evidence is presented to support him not being included, I'd have to say I'd currently rate Brown and Ingram above him, and possibly even Siakam at this point.
2017: no change, mainly because of Tatum, but you could also throw Mitchell and Bam into that comparison.
2018: sorry, you have to add Ayton because of Luka, it's just a fact. Can't start ignoring the parameters at this stage.
2019: have to also leave Zion on the list until it is proven that he isn't. He should still be better than Ja, but injuries have kept him from proving it.
2020: Wiseman because of Ball. Even though they are still young, Wiseman really would have to shine to take his name off this list.

So there you have it. The only thing is I still didn't quantify "better than".

That proposal is absolute **** garbage. Pardon my french, but it just is. Irving, Beal, Russell, Simmons, and Ayton are busts because there were [arguably] better players drafted after them? The draft is a crapshoot, we all know that; the only thing a higher pick guarantees is that you have a higher probability of finding a star caliber player.

Any proposal that suggests multiple time all-stars and all-nba level players are busts is absolute garbage.

A bust is someone who was drafted relatively high and is either: a) a terrible basketball player; b) a player that never gets significant playing time due to chronic injuries; or, c).. I'm not even sure there is a third qualifier, but if there is it certainly isn't what you're suggesting.

You gonna tell me Hakeem was a bust because Jordan was drafted after him? Seriously, what the ****.

Jeez, tough crowd. And you're a Nuggets fan. You drafted Jokic, the antithesis of a bust. He's the measuring stick against which players are considered busts!

But good rant!

P.S. none of the players on this list are "terrible basketball players", except maybe Anthony Bennett, at least in NBA terms. I'd wager he'd still kick the butt of almost any RealGMer, even 9 years after the draft.

I'm not a true Nuggets fans. Born and raised in metro Detroit. I simply refuse to support our owner, Tom Gores, with my hard earned money and our team has been directionless gutter trash for well over a decade now. Troy Weaver is close to getting me back on board; I've started watching the games on TV again now that we have Cade and what looks like a plan.

I like the Nuggets because they play like a disciplined, well coached team. They always nail the draft and have been stellar at player development. The complete opposite of my hometown Pistons. It doesn't hurt that Jokic is a magician.

I love the NBA, but I'm not the type to subject myself to continuous emotional turmoil over a game, so I decided to pick another team to support about 3 years ago. Denver checked a lot of boxes, they're a joy to watch, and I don't feel too bad about it because it's not like I'm bandwagoning the Lakers/Yankees/Patriots.

[tsherkin]

That proposal is absolute **** garbage. Pardon my french, but it just is. Irving, Beal, Russell, Simmons, and Ayton are busts because there were [arguably] better players drafted after them? The draft is a crapshoot, we all know that; the only thing a higher pick guarantees is that you have a higher probability of finding a star caliber player.

Any proposal that suggests multiple time all-stars and all-nba level players are busts is absolute garbage.

A bust is someone who was drafted relatively high and is either: a) a terrible basketball player; b) a player that never gets significant playing time due to chronic injuries; or, c).. I'm not even sure there is a third qualifier, but if there is it certainly isn't what you're suggesting.

You gonna tell me Hakeem was a bust because Jordan was drafted after him? Seriously, what the ****.

I and-1d because yea, you're absolutely right but.. you've got game 7 intensity going with it

Haha you're right, I'll tone it down for a bit. Long day at work.

We've all done it, man.

[FNQ]

First step in analyzing busts is defining the term, and there's no shortage of varied opinions on that.. maybe that's because bust has been an exaggeration for so long that its lost its meaning

My definition for a bust at least for top 3 picks are at no point in your career are you top 5 or at least top 10 at your position and for some of these guys its clear early on they wont ever be. I exclude players would devastating injuries immediately in their careers.

I think that's a high bar because some drafts just arent as strong as others, personally

I always go with value - if you lose considerable value on the pick, then the person is a bust. That way we aren't measuring #1s across drafts equally - a LeBron draft top 5 pick has a lot different value than a Bargnani draft top 5 picks. Bargs obviously was a huge disappointment as a player, but how much value did that #1 pick initially hold? People could argue bust on him or not, and I think there's a case for both. Guys like Bennett, Derrick Williams, Michael Kidd Gilchrist, Jabari, Jah, Bagley - all guys that I think not only didnt do well for their teams that drafted them, but returned next to no positive value for their high selections.

Or more plainly - I dont see the players as busts, I see the assets used to select them as busts, and how much value those assets returned. So I can't help but see it as subjective from person to person