This is a simple question for anyone who feels the lottery is for losers because "we're not guaranteed the top pick". Why does that automatically makes being in the lottery a horrible scenario? Is it really that bad to have a top 10 pick... if it's not the #1? I'm curious because the best players today aren't just made up of #1 picks. Even the list of stars in this league that didn't require ping-pong balls(only top 3 picks are determined by the lottery), CP3, Wade, Bosh, Roy, Garnett, Pierce, etc. is quite long. So what's with the fascination with the mythical #1 pick? It makes no sense to me, and I'd love to hear some explanations.
The mythical #1 pick gives you the ability to screw up to your heart's content instead of leaving that responsibility in the hands of others.
The lottery isn't for losers. Purposely blowing games and tanking the season for some ping pong balls is for losers.
http://82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm http://www.82games.com/nbadraft2.htm A couple articles that are worth reading on this point.
Basically summing up that you can be REALLY bad, get the worst luck in the lottery(not landing a top 3), and still manage to be in position to nab an impact player. Which is my point. There's "some" luck involved with being a lottery. But it's not like the odds are stacked against you or anything. And certainly beats the quagmire that you land in by being just competitive enough to not totally suck.
1. You can get a "impact player" outside of the top, say, 5 or 6 lotto spots, too. 2/3 of the Spurs top 3 players consist of a 25th pick and a 2nd rounder. Karl Malone was #13, Tim Hardaway was #14. 2. So the real question is the marginal utility of, say, having a #1 pick vs. having a #4 pick vs. having a #9 pick or #14 or 15 pick (and compare that with the marginal cost of having a, say, 15-20 win season vs. a 25 win season vs. a 30 win season or 40 or 45 win season). 3. The trend seems to indicate that a #1 overall pick gives you much better odds at getting an elite player even when compared to, say, a #2 or #3 pick. 4. Lets think about the term "impact player" for a second. I presume Jordan, Hakeem, Lebron, Kobe, Dwight Howard are impact players-- as are Yao Ming, Tracy McGrady, Dikembe Mutombo, Patrick Ewing, etc. But are Glen Rice, Shareef Abdur Rahim, Steve Smith, Mitch Richmond, or Rip Hamilton impact player enough for you? There are really degrees of them... so yes, you have a decent chance at getting an "impact player" at the top of the draft... but are the SARs and Mitch Richmonds and Glen Rices going get you the promised land when you tanked your season for them?
because anytime you draft a lottery player its always a gamble, especially if the draft class is really weak. outside a few sure rookie superstars like kevin durant, greg oden most likely the player youre drafting with a top 10 pick wont be a superstar.
tank for...... Cole Aldrich 6'11 Center out of Kansas http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Cole-Aldrich-1250/
The rockets are not going to tank this season even though they have no stars. They may not make the playoffs but they won't throw games Getting impact players depend on the strength of the draft.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/m_hY63vvGgI&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/m_hY63vvGgI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> That's him on a poster
Yes it is true that many top 10 picks or even top 5 picks are busts or good-not-great players. But to draft a Superstar player that can lead your team to the finals or a dare I say, championship, you almost have to get a top 5 pick. There are a few exceptions, but overwhelmingly that is the case. It is high risk, but it is also very high reward.
Admittedly, these are cherry-picked examples, but there are some amazing #1-#2 pick talent drop-offs in draft lottery history: 2003: #1 Pick: LeBron James #2 Pick: Darko Milicic 2002: #1 Pick: Yao Ming #2 Pick: Jay Williams 1997: #1 Pick: Tim Duncan #2 Pick: Keith Van Horn 1994: #1 Pick: Chris Webber #2 Pick: Shawn Bradley 1987: #1 Pick: David Robinson #2 Pick: Armon Gilliam 1984: #1 Pick: Hakeem Olajuwon #2 Pick: Sam Bowie
The point isn't about the marginal usefulness of a #1 vs a #4 or 5, but rather comparing a #1-5 vs #10-20. Being really bad gets you the former. Being mediocre gets you the latter. It's not about the possibility of drafting a bust in the top 5, but the lack of possibility of finding an impact player outside the top 5.
No, Carl Herrera's point is much more solid. Because a sane team cannot prepare to be really bad right at the beginning of the season and start to assemble a team that is horrible enough to win so few games. And this Houston Rockets team certainly is no where near as bad as that-- to be a bottom 5 team. Thus, it is much more useful to look at marginal differences between a range of picks, because it is ususally towards the latter part of the season when you make an exit strategy if you find out you have nothing to fight for(ie injuery to a star player, development of young players, no chance of playoffs). You also have to look at the cost of tanking vs the benefits of tanking. The benefits of tanking becomes the marginal difference between a range of picks, say #10 vs #14, a range where you can REALISTICALLY drop to when u decide to tank after taking into considerations of the odds of your opponent doing the same thing. The cost of tanking is of course your image in the league, which affects your desirability for free agents to come. There's also lost Revenue of course because fans won't come to the game.
It seems many people are misinterpreting this thread. This isn't about whether the Rockets should tank or not, but rather the idea that tanking is bad because of inherent probability of not winning the lottery. I can understand people who dislike tanking, I just don't see why they'd say the reason is because "the lottery is risky". As if somehow not winning the top pick somehow means we'll end up with crap.
