As I first pointed out years ago, every Championship team over the last three decades, with one exception, has had a top five player, and almost all over them were top three picks, most of them went number one. I don't give two ##### about win/lose records, I only care about Championships. Look at the Rockets record the year they won their second Championship.
To support tanking doesn't mean get the number one pick in my mind. This draft has really good top talent that can be had by being one of the worst teams in the league.
I think it will take us at least 3 years to shape our roster and head into the right direction. We had our chance with our top 5 talent and Best Center in the league. It just didn't happen and we have to wait years again. This will the the case IF we didn't get Howard. The chances are low.
We were a 44 wins team last year. This stat shows we have 57% chance to in prove 6+ win in a 6 years project. Also even we were the worst team this year, we would only have 60% to get first pick...
With Gasol and Nene, I would say we had 80% chance to become a 50 win+ team under the salary cap, which meant we could probably to add a elite free agent in 2012 such as G. Wallace. And this was only a 2 years project... Therefore, I would rather sit back and see what Morey will bring us in the next couple of years, other than scamming tank and sux all day long.
That's extremely interesting. I suppose what I would like to know is how many non-championship teams over the last 3 decades had a top 5 first round pick on their roster. 8 x 5 = 40 top 5 players over 8 years. If 80% of the league had a top 5 drafted player on their roster then your analysis doesn't mean much. However, if only 30% of the teams had a top 5 pick on their roster, then your analysis does mean something. On the other hand, over 30 years, there were only 30 overall #1 picks. How many of those championship teams had a #1 overall pick on the roster? If above 80% of those teams had an overall #1 pick on them, then that is a very powerful indicator. If only 50% or less of the teams had an overall #1 pick on them, then the indicator doesn't mean much to me. We don't need data to prove that if you get in the top 5 of the draft that your chances are much better of obtaining a superstar player through the draft. But that's all it is, an increased chance. When you look at the top 5 picks of the draft over the last 30 years, I would venture a guess that well over 50% of them did not wind up superstars. Realistically, right now, there is about 6-8 true superstars that are on their own level in the NBA. Everybody else falls on different tiers below these: Lebron, Wade, Kobe, Dirk, Dwight, Paul, and DWill. You may add one or two to that list or take away one or two but that is roughly the upper echelon of players in the league right now. A number 1 pick, historically, isn't worth much if you are the Clippers organization. Look at their drafting history. It is worse than terrible. As luck would have it, their latest #1 (Blake) looks very good for the moment. But look how much futility they have had to suffer through to get him. And then there's no guarantees that he don't blow out a knee and become the next Antonio McDyess or Kenyon Martin. A number 1 pick isn't worth a lot in the hands of an organization that doesn't know how to scout and evaluate talent. A number 1 pick is worth a whole lot more to an organization that does know how to evaluate talent, grade it, and project development of talent accurately. But even then, there's still the luck factor of injury. Injuries can turn a superstar player into nothing (Roy, Yao).
Durv, Cool thread idea, but why did you start with Ewing and not Hakeem? I mean we are a Rockets board after all. DD
The Rockets went to the finals in Hakeems 2nd year I think with Ralph, they were a contender right away. Drugs took out Lew Lloyd, Mitch Wiggins and then John Lucas, which decimated them....and took them a while to recover from. DD
durvasa, take a lesson from the stat guru, Daryl Morey. You can't look at stats in a vacuum. The one thing you are missing in that analyis is the fact Daryl Morey would be the GM making the #1 pick. He wouldn't screw it up. We are talking about Morey with a #1 pick!!! I'd be curious to see your analysis redone to focus on the best player in the Top 5 picks. And besides, even if there wasn't a HOF type player at the #1, he'd trade down if not completely out of the draft,,,as he did with the #8 pick in 2006. For instance, I'm not so sure he uses the #1 pick in 2010 versus trading it. Tough call.
Clutchfans - thanks for the effort Durvasa, now do more work for each of us ! LOL - nice job Durv ! DD
It's worth a lot, even just to have the 1st, 2nd or 3rd pick is huge when you're trading to make a trade for a Dwight Howard, Deron Williams or whoever. Also in this particular draft, if we get a guy like Drummond, Lamb, Davis or Barnes + another in case Knicks do not get 1-5 pick that could make a big difference for years to come. With hopefully all of our 09 busts out next year, at least Martin traded for a pick that leaves us with: Lowry / Dragic Lee / pick ? pick ? / Parsons / Budinger pick ?/ Scola / Patterson pick ? / Dalembert If we continue with our current group nothing is going to happen in even 5 years, only if we are lucky Lowry turns into an all-star and we trade him for another star but what do you do at PG then. This is the best year to tank as we do not have many guys under contract in the upcoming off-season and it's our best chance at drafting a good PF / SF and a SG perhaps.
How Morey would draft if he had the top pick is an unknown. The criteria you're looking for with the very top pick changes. Is Morey better at identifying super-star talent than other GMs? I'd like to think so, but frankly I see no evidence of that.
But that is irrelevent if you are simply trying to ascertain the value of the number 1 pick because it is a difference of the teams that picked number 1, right? DD
Let's look at this another way. Look at the last 20+ years of the teams that won championships, the team's MVP for the series and when they were drafted. Because really, the goal isn't win the most games - it's win the championship. And to do that, you need a stud. 2010-11 Dallas, Dirk Nowitzki #9 2009-10 Los Angeles Lakers, Kobe Bryant #13 2008-09 Los Angeles Lakers, Kobe Bryant #13 2007-08 Boston Celtics, Paul Pierce #10 2006-07 San Antonio Spurs, Tony Parker #28 2005-06 Miami Heat, Dwyane Wade #5 2004-05 San Antonio Spurs, Tim Duncan #1 2003-04 Detroit Pistons, Chauncey Billups #3 2002-03 San Antonio Spurs, Tim Duncan #1 2001-02 Los Angeles Lakers, Shaquille O'Neal #1 2000-01 Los Angeles Lakers, Shaquille O'Neal #1 1999-00 Los Angeles Lakers, Shaquille O'Neal #1 1998-99 San Antonio Spurs, Tim Duncan, #1 1997-98 Chicago Bulls, Michael Jordan #3 1996-97 Chicago Bulls, Michael Jordan #3 1995-96 Chicago Bulls , Michael Jordan #3 1994-95 Houston Rockets, Hakeem Olajuwon #1 1993-94 Houston Rockets, Hakeem Olajuwon #1 1992-93 Chicago Bulls, Michael Jordan #3 1991-92 Chicago Bulls, Michael Jordan #3 1990-91 Chicago Bulls, Michael Jordan #3 So what does this mean? Does that mean that a #3 pick is better than an #1 pick? No you could pick that same player at #1. But you have to have a guy who's good at spotting talent. Morey is not always right, but he's better than most and I trust him in that area. Does it mean that you can win a championship with a #28 pick like Tony Parker? While Tony won the MVP, I don't think he'd would have made it that far without their #1 Tim Duncan. What about drafting a Kobe at #13? There was a small window of time where you could draft a player straight out of high school (Kobe and Garnett for example). Those type of players generally slipped lower because they were more of a gamble and weren't "NBA ready". That window has closed on taking players out of HS. Now they must have 1 year of college and you can see how they respond against a "semi-pro" level so you will not have a sleeper like that. The same could have been said for drafting foreign players like Parker or Dirk. There was a school that thought you were getting a lesser player if you drafted a Euro or they just didn't want to send their scouts over there. The Euro market is not so hidden or frowned upon anymore. I think this shows that you need a top pick to win the championship. The higher, the better. And it can't be someone like Thabeet, Flynn, Williams or Hill (traded busts). If you exclude those players, the highest player pick on the Rockets is #14. You will not find Finals MVPs at #14 anymore. That's the point of the "tankers". You must pick higher to get that superstar player. Our starting lineup is made up of 3 very late first round picks (26, 26, 27) and 2 second round picks. We have a team of over achievers and some late draft sleepers but do you really think we are heading to a championship with that team? So what about trading? Of the above players, Jordan, Duncan, Hakeem, Pierce, Parker and Wade were never traded before they won a championship. Kobe and Dirk were draft day trades. Bottom line...those that knew that they had a franchise player never traded them. So what about FA? Billups and Shaq were signed as FAs. But over the past few years FAs want to come to a city that has more than money and we haven't had that same success since we lost Yao. I think any "tanker" would tell you it would be nice to rebuild without losing and the draft can be a crap shoot but I think the "tankers" look at history and see losing as the way to get that high pick that can't be traded for or superstar FA that won't sign with us.
Just saying that looking only at the #1 pick is somewhat arbitrary and not really measuring the full value of owning the #1 pick. You can agree with that, right? I would consider Morey maximizing the full value of a #1 in a very creative way...(outright using it vs trading down vs trading out of the draft) We know that if we you look at the draft, there is usually 1 HOFer in every draft. Or more like 1.5/year. Of course, not every HOFer is created equally...that's where your stat table comes it....to measure the differences between draft years. If a GM with the #1 uses that asset to get the best player in each draft ... then how effective is it. I might try to redo the table based on best player in each draft. What's a fast way have tabulated the yearly win differential.
